U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

95–821 2015

S. HRG. 114–106 

WHAT LOWER LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION 

RATES TELL US ABOUT WORK OPPORTUNITIES 

AND INCENTIVES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 15, 2015 

Printed for the use of the Joint Economic Committee 

( 
(II) 

JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE 

[Created pursuant to Sec. 5(a) of Public Law 304, 79th Congress] 

SENATE 

DANIEL COATS, Indiana, Chairman 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

BILL CASSIDY, M.D., Louisiana 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas, Vice Chairman 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Ranking 

JOHN DELANEY, Maryland 

ALMA S. ADAMS, PH.D., North Carolina 

DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

VIRAJ M. MIRANI, Executive Director 

HARRY GURAL, Democratic Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS

Hon. Daniel Coats, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from Indiana .............................. 1 

Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney, Ranking Member, a U.S. Representative from 

New York .............................................................................................................. 9 

Hon. Kevin Brady, Vice Chairman, a U.S. Representative from Texas .............. 10 

WITNESSES

Dr. Scott Winship, Manhattan Institute For Policy Research, New York, NY .. 3 

Dr. Aparna Mathur, Resident Scholar and Jacobs Associate, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC ......................................................................... 5 

Dr. Elisabeth Jacobs, Senior Director for Policy and Academic Programs, 

Washington Center for Equitable Growth, Washington, DC ........................... 7 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Prepared statement of Hon. Daniel Coats ............................................................. 32 

Prepared statement of Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney ................................................. 33 

Chart titled ‘‘Longest Streak of Private-Sector Job Growth Continues’’ ...... 36 

Chart titled ‘‘Unemployment and Underemployment Rates Have Declined 

Significantly from Recession Peak’’ ............................................................. 37 

Chart titled ‘‘Labor Force Participation Rates by Gender’’ ........................... 38 

Chart titled ‘‘Labor Force Participation Rate and Share of Adult Population in Prime Working Years (Ages 25-54)’’ ............................................. 39 

Chart titled ‘‘Share of Young People Going to College’’ ................................ 40 

Chart titled ‘‘Current Labor Force Participation Rates by Age’’ .................. 41 

Chart titled ‘‘Labor Force Participation Rates of Young People by Race’’ ... 42 

Chart titled ‘‘Aging Trends Explain Half of Decline in Labor Force Participation Rate’’ ............................................................................................. 43 

Dr. Scott Winship, Manhattan Institute For Policy Research, New York, NY .. 44 

Dr. Aparna Mathur, Resident Scholar and Jacobs Associate, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC ......................................................................... 55 

Dr. Elisabeth Jacobs, Senior Director for Policy and Academic Programs, 

Washington Center for Equitable Growth, Washington, DC ........................... 77 

Questions for the Record for Dr. Winship and Responses submitted by Representative Beyer ................................................................................................. 89 

Questions for the Record for Dr. Winship, Dr. Mathur, and Dr. Jacobs and 

Responses submitted by Representative Maloney ............................................. 92 

Questions for the Record for Dr. Mathur and Dr. Jacobs and Responses 

submitted by Senator Klobuchar ........................................................................ 106 

(1) 

WHAT LOWER LABOR FORCE 

PARTICIPATION RATES TELL US 

ABOUT WORK OPPORTUNITIES 

AND INCENTIVES 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 2015 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, 

JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:30 p.m. in Room 562 

of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, the Honorable Daniel Coats, 

Chairman, presiding. 

Representatives present: Brady, Paulsen, Hanna, Schweikert, 

Grothman, Maloney, Delaney, Adams. 

Senators present: Coats, Lee, Cassidy, Peters, Sasse. 

Staff present: Barry Dexter, Cary Elliott, Connie Foster, Harry 

Gural, Colleen Healy, Karin Hope, Jason Kanter, Christina King, 

Kristine Michalson, Viraj Mirani, Thomas Nicholas, Robert 

O’Quinn, Brian Phillips, Aaron Smith, Phoebe Wong. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL COATS, CHAIRMAN, A 

U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA 

Chairman Coats. I’ll call this hearing to order. Here we are in 

a somewhat unique situation. The Senate will be beginning a long 

series of votes at about 3:15, which means that close to 3:30 we will 

have to adjourn and not be able to come back because these votes 

will last for about a two-hour period of time. 

The House is in a very similar situation, different procedurally, 

but they only also have about an hour. So we are going to have to 

expedite the process here. 

We have three very good witnesses that we want to hear from. 

Our members may be in short supply, which will give each of us 

more time to interact with our witnesses. My pastor says that the 

more efficient and less time he puts into the sermon, the more people want to come to church. 

[Laughter.] 

And the more they leave with, rather than a long sermon. So let 

me welcome our witnesses and thank them for being here today to 

discuss the decline in the labor force participation rate, the underlying reasons for it, and for what it means for American workers. 

We have seen a steady decline in the labor force participation 

rate since the early 2000s. June’s employment numbers reveal another drop in labor force participation to 62.6 percent, a record low 
2 

for the post-recession period and the lowest we have seen since the 

late 1970s. 

Today’s hearing will explore the questions of why the proportion 

of Americans looking for work has fallen, what does this mean for 

our country and these Americans and their wellbeing, and how 

much of this is due to the economy, how much is due to demographics, social and cultural trends, and to policies that reduce the 

reward of working. 

The discussion will center on the notable decline in workforce 

participation, including how the long-term and short-term trends 

factor into the issue; who is working less; where workforce trends 

are expected to go from here; and what that means for Americans’ 

wellbeing and future growth. 

The combination of longer- and shorter-term trends in the midst 

of an uncharacteristically slow recovery has made it difficult to determine the expectations for future economic growth and workforce 

participation. 

And that is why we are spending time here today, asking these 

questions in hopes of shedding light on this topic. While many believe that America has entered a, quote, ‘‘new normal’’ characterized by lower economic growth and workforce participation, and 

subsequently require policies that lessen the negative consequences, is it too soon to claim that these trends are a permanent 

feature of the American economy? 

Our witnesses, we hope, will shed some light on all of this. As 

we know, we are not growing at a rate in terms of our GDP growth 

that is allowing Americans more opportunities to participate in a 

dynamic, growing economy. And so I think the wisdom that can be 

brought to us by our witnesses today in the questioning that will 

take place is appropriate. 

With that, I am going to turn to our witnesses. 

Dr. Scott Winship is the Walter B. Wriston Fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, previously a fellow at the 

Brookings Institution, a research manager of economic mobility 

projects of the Pew Charitable Trust, and a senior policy advisor 

at Third Way. 

Dr. Winship, thank you for joining us. 

Dr. Mathur is a Resident Scholar and Jacobs Associate in Economic Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute. She has 

been a consultant at the World Bank and an Adjunct Professor at 

Georgetown University School of Public Policy and Economics; a 

professor at the University of Maryland. Thank you, Doctor. 

And finally, Dr. Jacobs, Elisabeth Jacobs, Senior Director for Policy and Academic Programs at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. Before that, she was a Fellow in Governance Studies 

at the Brookings Institution. Dr. Jacobs has also previously served 

as Senior Policy Advisor here at the Joint Economic Committee— 

welcome back. And, as an Advisor to the Senate Committee on 

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

I welcome all three of you. And, Dr. Winship, we will start with 

your remarks. If you can condense those to about five minutes, that 

will leave us more time for questions. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Coats appears in the Submissions for the Record on page 32.] 
3 

STATEMENT OF DR. SCOTT WINSHIP, WALTER B. WRISTON 

FELLOW, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE FOR POLICY RESEARCH, 

NEW YORK, NY 

Dr. Winship. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Coats, Ranking Member Maloney, and Members of the 

Committee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Joint Economic Committee today. Policy cannot succeed but accidentally if 

we do not have a clear understanding of the problems that face us. 

It is my belief that much of what we think we know about labor 

force participation and the state of the job market is incorrect, 

based on a mistaken read of the available data. 

In my past research I have examined trends in the labor force 

participation of men between the ages of 25 and 54. A strong majority of men in this age range who are out of the labor force, 

roughly 70 percent on the eve of the Great Recession, tell government surveyors when asked outright that they do not want a job. 

The increase in their numbers between 1979 and 2006 explains 

nearly the entire decline in their labor force participation over that 

period. 

Furthermore, roughly half of men in this age range and out of 

the labor force cite a disability when asked the reason for not working or looking for work. 

The increase in their ranks explains about one-third of the decline of labor force participation. Most data on health indicators 

offer little reason to think that disabilities are becoming more common. But receipt of federal disability benefits has increased significantly since the 1980s. 

Federal disability benefits increasingly serve as a shadow longterm unemployment program for able-bodied men who struggle to 

find work. 

Today I will focus my remarks on the labor force participation of 

black and white men and women under age 25. 

Figure 1 displays trends for these groups over the past 52 years. 

A number of apparently worrisome features are evident. 

The labor force participation of all four groups has been declining 

for 16 years or more, much more for men, and much, much more 

for black men in particular. 

The participation rate of young black men has fallen fairly consistently since at least 1962, while the rate for non-Hispanic white 

men has ‘‘only’’ fallen for the past 33 years. Sizeable participation 

gaps between blacks and whites remain. 

As I discuss in my written testimony, labor force participation 

can decline for good reasons, and increase for bad ones. 

In particular, taking into account rising school enrollment among 

young adults goes some ways toward explaining the ‘‘problems’’ 

shown in Figure 1. African American enrollment rates have risen 

steadily over these 52 years, while white rates began rising in the 

mid-1980s. 

All four groups are equally likely today to be out of the labor 

force but in school. The labor force participation rate for white men 

in the 1960s was artificially low due to the inflated school enrollment inspired by the Vietnam draft, and to a lesser extent benefits 

from the GI bill. 
4 

With the end of the draft, many fewer white men enrolled in 

school. As a result, their labor force participation rose, opening up 

a gap compared with black men among whom school enrollment 

continued to increase. 

To illustrate the impact of taking school enrollment patterns into 

account, the next chart shows the percent of young adults in the 

labor force or in school. The number of young adults we might 

worry are idle shrinks considerably versus in Figure 1. 

For instance, 43 percent of young black men were out of the 

labor force last year, but just 15 percent were out of the labor force 

and not in school. The declines in male labor force participation are 

much smaller after taking school enrollment into account, and the 

female declines disappear altogether. 

The American jobs machine is not fundamentally broken. A war 

on robots is premature, and always will be. The remaining features 

of this chart to be explained also illustrate the importance of opportunity and work incentives. 

The chart shows a dramatic increase in labor force participation 

among black women between 1993 and 1997, a period during which 

unprecedented state and federal welfare reforms were implemented. 

Because the African American poverty rate and rate of single 

parenthood are significantly higher than the rates for whites, reforms to the safety net disproportionately affect them. 

Once receipt of federal means-tested cash assistance is taken into 

account, the historic and recent labor force participation gaps between black and white women disappear entirely. The implication 

is that work promoting safety net reforms can successfully increase 

labor force participation and consequently as other research on the 

1990s reforms has shown reduce poverty. 

As for young men among those out of the labor force, the share 

indicating to federal surveyors that they want a job has declined 

since the early 1980s. 

Taking that into account, the share of young men out of the labor 

force not in school and who would like to work has been low and 

stable since at least the mid-1970s. 

Because the decline in wanting a job was larger among black 

men, the black/white labor force participation gap largely vanishes 

after we account for this factor. Whether or not it is a problem that 

a rising share of men do not want a job depends on the reasons 

for this increase. 

Certainly the increasing number of men receiving federal disability benefits bears scrutiny and offers another way for policy to 

encourage opportunity-promoting initiatives. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Winship appears in the Submissions for the Record on page 44.] 

Chairman Coats. Thank you. 

Dr. Mathur. 
5 

STATEMENT OF DR. APARNA MATHUR, RESIDENT SCHOLAR 

AND JACOBS ASSOCIATE, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Dr. Mathur. Chairman Coats, Ranking Member Maloney, and 

Members of the Committee: 

It is an honor to testify before the Committee on the important 

topic of labor force participation, work incentives, and opportunity. 

The Great Recession has been severe on many measures, but 

particularly in its impact on the labor market. The most recent jobs 

report showed healthy job gains and an unemployment rate of 5.3 

percent. 

However, there are many worrying indicators. Today there are 

nearly 6.5 million persons employed part-time involuntarily because they could not find a full-time job. 

Another 1.9 million individuals want a job but have not searched 

for work in the previous few months, perhaps because they are too 

discouraged to look. Over 2 million workers have been jobless for 

27 weeks or more. 

The labor force participation rate in the U.S. is at historic lows. 

In June 2015, nearly 6 years after the official end of the Great Recession, the labor force participation rate is at 62.6 percent, a rate 

not seen since 1978. 

This is troubling particularly because participation is declining 

not just among retiring baby boomers but also among people at 

prime working ages and youth. 

Some studies suggest that falling labor force participation rates 

among prime age males can be explained by a lack of demand for 

middle-skill workers, perhaps because these jobs are more susceptible to automation and to offshoring. 

Data show that over the recession middle-skill jobs experienced 

a sharper and more long-lasting employment decline than high- or 

low-skill jobs. Moreover, middle-skill workers with low levels of 

education typically leave unemployment to exit the labor market 

rather than to find low-skill or high-skill jobs. 

Job mobility also declined significantly during the Great Recession. Workers were unable to move from poor-quality jobs to goodquality jobs as easily during the Recession as they would have been 

able to do during normal times. 

On average, job quality and job finding rates went down significantly over the Recession. Due to the slack in the labor market, average wage growth has been very weak, putting additional strain 

on low- to middle-income households. 

How do we address these challenges? 

First out, it is important to remember that outcomes are highly 

influenced by early investments in human capital and skill development. 

For instance, as per a recent study, moving to better neighborhoods at young ages could improve college attendance rates and 

lifetime earnings. Experimenting with solutions that allow low-income families to move from high poverty to low poverty areas could 

help improve long-term economic mobility. 

Differences in family structure also influence early investments 

in human capital. Families headed by single mothers are more likely to live in poverty than married parent households. 
6 

As a result, children in these families have access to far fewer 

opportunities and are disadvantaged when it comes to school readiness. To improve outcomes for these families, we should consider 

expanding the earned income tax credit. 

This helps to encourage labor force participation for single mothers and boosts family incomes, which is helpful for children as well. 

For youth graduating into a bad labor market with little prospects of finding a job and burdened with high levels of student 

debt, I propose expanding the system of paid apprenticeship programs that would be available to them before they graduate so that 

they can build up a set of skills that they would in fact need on 

the job. 

Funds could be provided in incentives such as tax credits to 

make them participate in these programs which are clearly beneficial to both sides of the market. To improve labor force participation for women, we need to consider ways to provide paid maternity 

leave so that women retain the attachment to the work force even 

after giving birth to a child. 

I have proposed using the existing system of child-related tax 

credits to fund maternity leave. This involves allowing for advance 

payments on the EITC, the Child Tax Credit, and the Dependent 

Care Credit, and making the Dependent Care Credit refundable. 

Differences in state occupational licensing requirements can 

make it difficult for entrepreneurs and workers to find opportunities and jobs. The fraction of workers required to hold a government-issued license rose from less than 5 percent in the 1950s to 

38 percent in 2008. 

This in turn has led to higher training costs which has affected 

the mobility of workers across jobs. Mutual recognition of other 

states’ licenses would improve worker mobility. 

We can also reform the use of Unemployment Insurance funds, 

particularly the self-employment assistance program, to help 

startups by the unemployed. 

A program in France that allowed unemployed individuals who 

started their own businesses to keep access to unemployment insurance for three years in case the business venture failed was a 

success. 

There are some policies that should be beneficial to workers in 

principle but which research shows often have unintended negative 

effects on workers. 

For instance, work by Casey Mulligan finds that subsidies provided to workers under the Affordable Care Act in households with 

incomes near 100 to 400 percent of poverty create work disincentives. 

Recent increases in minimum wages and the proposal to change 

overtime rules can also hurt employment and hours worked for 

low-skilled workers. 

According to a recent Pew Report, many American families are 

feeling financial strain and are still pessimistic about future earnings. In order to improve opportunity and mobility, we need to address the labor market challenges facing the U.S. economy today, 

perhaps through some combination of policies discussed in my 

longer testimony. Thank you. 
7 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Mathur appears in the Submissions for the Record on page 55.] 

Chairman Coats. Dr. Mathur, thank you very much. 

And now, Dr. Jacobs. Thank you, Dr. Jacobs. 

STATEMENT OF DR. ELISABETH JACOBS, SENIOR DIRECTOR 

FOR POLICY AND ACADEMIC PROGRAMS, WASHINGTON CENTER FOR EQUITABLE GROWTH, WASHINGTON, DC 

Dr. Jacobs. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Coats, Ranking 

Member Maloney, and the rest of the Committee for inviting me to 

testify today. 

My name is Elisabeth Jacobs. I am Senior Director for Policy and 

Academic Programs at the Washington Center for Equitable 

Growth. The Center is focused on understanding what grows our 

economy, with an emphasis on whether and how high and rising 

levels of economic inequality impact growth. 

It is an honor to be here today to discuss the health of the labor 

market. My testimony highlights the importance of looking not only 

at the short-term but also at long-run trends. Doing so is critical 

for diagnosing the problem and for identifying the most appropriate 

policy solutions. 

There are five main conclusions from my testimony that I want 

to leave you with today. 

First, the labor market is recovering. 

Second, looking solely to the unemployment rate overstates that 

recovery. 

Third, the decline in the labor force participation rate predates 

the Recession and is primarily the result of demographic factors. 

Fourth, the share of the recent decrease in labor force participation that is not explained by demographics is mainly due to continued slack demand. 

Fifth, policy can play an important role, drawing workers into 

the labor force and therefore boosting labor force participation. But 

it is important to pull the right policy levers. 

The labor market is in the midst of the longest streak of privatesector job creation on record and has added 12.8 million privatesector jobs over the last 64 months. 

Unemployment stands at 5.3 percent, the lowest rate in 7 years. 

Despite this considerable progress, however, the labor market remains troubled. Relying solely on the unemployment rate as a sign 

of labor market health masks underlying problems, many of which 

have persisted for decades. Five years into the recovery from the 

most severe recession in recent history, demand remains slack. The 

employment-to-population ratio has fallen significantly during the 

recovery and stood at 59.3 percent in June, but it remains 3.4 

points below its pre-recession peak. 

The difference between the trends in unemployment and employment is explained by the falling labor force participation rate. This 

decline predates the recession. The overall labor force participation 

rate has been declining since 2000, and stood at 62.6 percent in 

June. 

The long-term trend is mainly the result of several structural 

changes, including the aging of the workforce. As older members of 
8 

the baby boom generation retired, the labor force participation rate 

ticked down. We should expect this downward pressure to continue. 

At the same time, a growing number of young workers temporarily left the labor force to pursue education. Retirement and increased educational attainment are generally positive reasons for a 

drop in labor force participation. 

While participation was trending downward long before the 

Great Recession, the economic crisis accelerated that decline. Exactly how much of a decrease since December 2007 is due to these 

long-term structural changes and how much is due to the exceptionally deep Recession is still up for debate, but the accelerated 

fall in labor force participation is certainly due to some combination of these factors. 

Policy can play an important role in boosting labor force participation by focusing on the correct levers. Persistent slack demand 

suggests that fiscal and monetary policies are important first steps. 

On the supply side, the failure to adapt policy to meet the demands 

of modern American families means that women’s labor force participation has stalled. 

In 1990, the United States was a global leader in women’s labor 

force participation, ranking sixth out of 22 high-income countries. 

By 2010, we had fallen to 17th. Research suggests that nearly onethird of that decline is explained by the absence of family-friendly 

policies. Paid leave, flexible scheduling, affordable high-quality 

child care, and universal pre-K are all policies that could play a 

major role in jump-starting the engine of women’s labor force participation. 

A second policy option to improve participation is a criminal justice reform agenda that includes a reduction in the incarceration 

rate, and policies to curb discriminatory employment practices 

against those with criminal records. 

Research shows that criminal backgrounds can be significant 

barriers to employment. Removing some of this stigma could have 

beneficial impacts for many who are currently discouraged from 

work. To conclude, long-run trends will continue to push the labor 

force participation rate downward, but smart policy can provide 

counter-pressure. As long as policy makers are aware of the demographic headwinds and pursue policy options that fit the problem, 

they can take steps to move our economy toward full employment. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Jacobs appears in the Submissions for the Record on page 77.] 

Chairman Coats. Well thank you, Doctor, and thank the witnesses for your testimony. 

To my colleagues who have just joined us here, I announced early 

on the reason we started right at 2:30 is that both the House and 

the Senate has kind of a drop-dead time here of around 3:15 or 

3:30. So we are trying to shoehorn in a very substantive range of 

issues into a small amount of time. So we are trying to abbreviate 

and move forward as quickly as possible. 

I do want to recognize the Ranking Member, Congresswoman 

Maloney, and our Vice Chairman, Mr. Brady, for our hopefully 

truncated opening statements. And then we will try to move 

through the Members as quickly as we can. 
9 

I will shorten my question time down to one question, but if we 

could get to essential question or issue for each member hopefully 

we can give everybody an opportunity to raise a point or to raise 

a question for our witnesses to respond to. 

So we will do the best that we can. We have a series of votes that 

is going to take up to two hours, and so there is no way we can 

get back on the Senate side, and I think the House has the same 

kind of dilemma. 

So with that, let me recognize the Ranking Member for her opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CAROLYN B. MALONEY, 

RANKING MEMBER, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK 

Representative Maloney. Okay, thank you very much, Chairman Coats, for calling the hearing. There seems to be a broad consensus these days that the economy is stronger than it has been 

in years. The evidence is undeniable that the labor market is on 

a much stronger footing. 

As you can see in this chart, we have had a record 64 straight 

months of private-sector job growth with businesses creating 12.8 

million jobs during this time, and under the leadership of President 

Obama the unemployment rate is 5.3 percent, close to current estimates of what economists call its ‘‘natural rate.’’ 

There has also been substantial improvement in the broadest 

measure of unemployment, the U–6 rate, which includes discouraged workers not in the labor force, as well as those working part 

time who would like full-time work. 

And as you can see in this chart, the economy has come a long 

way. Just remember how far we have come. When President 

Obama took office, our economy was in a dire situation. We were 

shedding roughly 800,000 jobs a month. But bold action by the 

President helped put our Nation back on track. 

And I would like to say that many Republicans are acting as if 

the declining rate of labor force participation is some kind of new 

phenomenon. I note that many of them opposed the measures that 

have helped reverse the economic free fall. They predicted dire consequences, but these predictions have been proven wrong. 

Now they are left with the weak claim that good job numbers are 

not really good job numbers. And that brings us to today’s hearing. 

While it is true that economists are concerned about the declining 

labor force participation rate, much of this decline is structural and 

it long predates the Obama Administration. 

Some of my colleagues act like this is a new phenomenon. They 

gloss over the fact that the labor force participation rate fell over 

the course of George Bush’s Administration, and they ignore that 

the labor force participation rate for men has been falling since the 

early 1950s, as you can see in this particular chart. 

Economists have long anticipated the recent decline in the labor 

force participation rate, and they predict that it will continue over 

at least the next 10 years. This chart shows the rise and fall in the 

percentage of Americans in their prime working years. And I have 

just a brilliant statement but I am going to put the rest of it in 

the record in the interest of time. 

So thank you. 
10 

[The prepared statement of Representative Maloney appears in 

the Submissions for the Record on page 33.] 

Chairman Coats. Thank you, Congresswoman Maloney. 

Congressman Brady. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KEVIN BRADY, VICE 

CHAIRMAN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS 

Vice Chairman Brady. Well in the interest of time, I will submit my record as well. Just to make one 30-second point. You 

know, if 5.3 percent was a true indicator of the economy, we would 

not be holding this hearing. 

The fact of the matter is, the number of adults in the workforce 

right now compared to the population has been stalled out about 

the same as it was nearly six, seven years ago. The labor participation rate, people coming back to the workforce, is growing if you 

are over 60, shrinking if you are under 60. Not a healthy sign. 

This recovery is the most disappointing recovery in half a century. We are missing 5 million jobs, more than that, in the economy. We are missing GDP about the size of Canada that ought to 

be back in the U.S. GDP today. And so, no, we are not holding a 

parade for the economy because it has a long way to go. 

We have been stuck in second gear for way too long. We think 

we can do better. And the purpose of this hearing, Mr. Chairman, 

I appreciate you holding it, is we think we can do much better for 

the people still looking for full-time work in America. So, thank 

you. 

Chairman Coats. Thank you. I am going to ask just one question, too, and ask for hopefully a brief response from our three witnesses here, and then move down the line here in terms of participation of our members. 

The question is this: Are we facing the remaining temporary effects of this painfully slow recovery? 

You know, a study was done that is very, very accurate of the 

recoveries from recessions all the way back to World War II. We 

are half the rate of the recovery of every other recession that this 

country has had for the last 50 years. 

And so that really raises the question that a lot of people have 

said, well, this is the new normal. I mean, technology changes, robotics, aging workforce and so forth, that’s the reason for this. Others are saying, no, it is policy-induced. We have not put the policies 

in place to have dynamic growth within the economy and the GDP. 

And if we do not get that, we are going to continue to suffer 

through this. 

And now we are into seven years of this. So regardless of how 

many people have come back to work, the precipitous loss of jobs 

following 2008–2009, the collapse here, and the continued slow recovery has put a lot of people out of work. 

So just your thoughts on that and response to that. Is this something we are just going to have to accept going forward because of 

all the changes that have been mentioned? Or is it more policy 

driven and Congress, working together with the Administration, 

adapting new policies can put us back on a fast track? 

Let’s go down the line, Dr. Winship, starting with you, and then 

the three of you respond briefly to that. 
11 

Dr. Winship. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that is an important question, and I do think the research is pretty clear that 

the last three recoveries we have had have been, I think jobless recovery is too strong a word, but certainly the pace of recovery has 

been a lot slower than it used to be. 

I think the latest research that I find the most persuasive on this 

point actually points to decreased dynamism in the United States 

economy—fewer startups, less entrepreneurship—as being a real 

correlate of the worrisome trends in jobless recoveries. 

So in that sense, I think there are things that policy could do and 

the policy has contributed in some sense to the slowdown. I worry 

in particular about tax and regulatory policy that has the effect of 

protecting incumbent firms and making it more difficult for competitors to enter into markets. 

I think if we could remove some of those barriers, we could increase the number of startups and that that would actually have 

an impact on recoveries moving forward. 

Chairman Coats. Thank you. 

Dr. Mathur. 

Dr. Mathur. Yes. I do think that this recession has been different from other recessions. We have seen a much more significant 

increase in the share of workers who have taken part-time jobs involuntarily because they have lost hope of finding a full-time job 

and they are making do as well as possible. 

There has been a tremendous increase in the long-term unemployed and the prospects for them getting back into the labor market are, you know, dim, given the research that shows that employers are more reluctant to hire people who have been out of the 

workforce for that long. 

I do think a lot of it can be—the fact that people are taking these 

part-time jobs I think suggests that people are waiting for the recovery to happen, and they haven’t just given up. And this is not 

a long-term structural thing in the sense that they do wish that 

there were policies for growth that would get them those full-time 

jobs. So I haven’t given up on those people. And I think if we had 

the right policies, as I talk about in my testimony, you know, some 

of the regulations that we’re seeing now with the Affordable Care 

Act, the work disincentives that exist in there, the minimum wage 

rules that are being adopted across different states, the new overtime rule provisions, I think all of them are pushing us more towards an economy where maybe employers are more reluctant to 

hire workers full-time. 

And so I think if we saw changes on those policies, and particularly with occupational licensing, if we saw changes in policies, I 

think we can see the economic growth and the labor market recovery that we would like to see. 

Chairman Coats. Thank you. 

And, Dr. Jacobs. 

Dr. Jacobs. Thank you. I think this is a critically important 

question, and I will give you two parts to my answer. 

On the one hand, we know that this recession is not like any 

other recession. The crisis was unlike any crisis that we have seen 

in the last 50 years. 
12 

Ben Bernanke called the financial crisis worse than the crisis 

that preceded the Great Depression. And so I think comparing the 

speed of this recovery to recoveries over the last half century is actually a little bit of an apples to oranges comparison. 

That being said, I think it is unsurprising that we still do see 

evidence of slack demand. We do still see evidence that there is 

work left to be done. 

The vast majority of the growth in this recovery has been in fulltime jobs, just as a side point to Dr. Mathur’s point, but we know 

there has been slow employment growth across industries, and we 

know that there are things that we could do to actually speed up 

the recovery if we wanted to. 

For example, there are fiscal policies, including infrastructure 

spending, that we know would boost growth by about 1.5 percent. 

In the short term it would stimulate demand, and in turn over time 

you could really see that move the needle on labor force participation. 

So that is the short-term answer in terms of what we see in this 

recovery. 

At the same time, I think that it makes good sense to think 

about the longer term trends. Over the period that you framed in 

your question, over the last half century, we have seen economic 

inequality rise substantially. And that rise in inequality has been 

correlated to slower labor market recoveries than we would like to 

have seen. So I think we need to think about policy solutions that 

make sense in this context, and we need to also think about where 

the gains from growth are going in good times—largely to those at 

the very top. We need to really think critically about the policies 

that we could put in place that would do something about that. 

Chairman Coats. Thank you. 

Congresswoman Maloney. 

Representative Maloney. Thank you so much. I would just like 

to point out that by virtually every measure of labor market health, 

the economy is better off now than when President Obama took office. We were shedding 800,000 jobs a month. We have had 64 

months of job growth, with 12.8 million new jobs, private-sector 

jobs. And the unemployment rate is at 5.3 percent, down from the 

peak of 10 percent. 

So I would like to ask Dr. Winship, you mentioned in the first 

paragraph of your written testimony, and I quote, ‘‘Our misinterpretation of the data more often than not, translates into an exaggeration of the economic challenges we face.’’ End quote. And I 

agree with you. 

And in order to make good economic policy decisions, we need to 

be sure we have good and accurate data, and we need to be sure 

we are interpreting this data correctly. And we are here to talk 

about labor force participation rates. 

So first let’s talk about demographics and the impact that it has 

on labor force participation. Approximately how much of the decline in the overall labor force participation rate over the past several years is due to demographics and the fact that the baby 

boomers are retiring, that they are leaving the workforce? What is 

the percentage that you believe is due to retirement and movement 

out of the workforce by the baby boomers? 
13 

Dr. Winship. Thank you, Chairwoman. I would hesitate to put 

a percentage on it, but I think it is—— 

Representative Maloney. So would you say ‘‘a lot’’ or ‘‘a little’’? 

Dr. Winship. I would say ‘‘a lot.’’ 

Representative Maloney. A lot. 

Dr. Winship. And I think over the course of the recovery, and 

even before the recovery, I definitely have been on the record trying to convince more people that month after month when the new 

employment figures come out, and labor force participation is 

down, that we need to relax a little bit. And it is going to continue 

to decline just because the baby boomers are retiring. 

Representative Maloney. And let’s talk about a positive factor 

that is in our economy now, and that is education. So many young 

people are pursuing higher education, and that is a good thing. It 

is good for them. It is good for our economy. And it builds their 

skills and they are doing it more than previous generations. 

And so how much of an effect do you think that that is having 

on the labor participation rate, would you say? 

Dr. Winship. I think it is significant, especially for the 18- to 24- 

year-olds that I am talking about. You know, there is a concern 

that if the economy is bad then people decide to go back to school, 

or to stay in school because the jobs are not out there, I think there 

is some legitimacy to that. Except that these trends of greater 

school enrollment really go back a long way. They predate the recession by quite a lot. 

Representative Maloney. And now I would like to read you a 

statement, if you could please evaluate this for us, and I quote, ‘‘I 

think we are facing enormous economic challenges in this country. 

The Obama economy has led to the lowest labor force participation 

since 1978.’’ End quote. 

And given the significant impact of demographics and choosing 

to continue education, as well as other longer-run factors that predate the Great Recession and the Obama Administration, do you 

think it is a misrepresentation of the data to say that the Obama 

economy led to the lowest labor force participation since 1978? 

Dr. Winship. I think it was a contributor to the decline. I do not 

think it is fair to say that it was the most important factor, by any 

means. But a lot of the expansions of our safety net programs that 

occurred during the first two years of the President’s first term I 

think now need to be wound back a little bit. Because I do think 

the evidence from welfare reform in the 1990s really does show 

that the work disincentive there can be a real problem. 

Representative Maloney. Well, Dr. Jacobs, could you comment? Do you believe the previous statement I read in fact is a 

misrepresentation of the data? 

Dr. Jacobs. I think to say there is a causal relationship between 

the Obama economy and the labor force participation rate is a serious overstretch. 

We know that at least half of the decline over time has been due 

to demographic factors. We know another approximately sixth of it 

is due to cyclical effects that we could have expected from any economy. And then we have got a residual, the leftover bit, that could 

be explained by a lot of different things, including the fact that this 

recession was unlike any recession we have seen ever before. 
14 

So I think it would be a serious overstretch to claim that there 

was a causal relationship between the two. I would also note that 

many of the expansions to the safety net put in place in the first 

two years of the Administration in response to the crisis did little 

to alter existing work requirements. 

Representative Maloney. So would you agree, Dr. Winship, 

that the ‘‘92 million Americans who aren’t working’’ are either retired or, as she says, half of it was due to these other factors that 

we mentioned—retirement, and getting an education, and other 

factors? 

Dr. Winship. It is as good a guess as any. I mean, I think they 

were important. I don’t think that much of the expansion of the 

safety net was—involved work requirements, unfortunately. I disagree with that point. 

Representative Maloney. Well my time has expired. 

Chairman Coats. Congressman Brady. 

Representative Brady. Thank you. And even in this Administration, you can’t claim jobs, you created it, and then ignore those 

who can’t find a job. They are related to the fiscal policies of this 

Administration. This was a serious recession, no question. Financial crises are difficult. Absolutely. No question. 

It is certainly not the greatest recession, or anywhere close to the 

Great Depression. In fact, in modern times President Reagan’s recession he had to deal with had a higher unemployment rate, 10.8 

percent. 

The question here today is how do we bounce back faster? This 

has been a terrifically disappointing recovery. Every month we add 

new jobs is a good month, by the way. But we know we can do better. And in fact the Reagan recovery was almost three times faster 

economic growth. 

So the question is how do we get people back in the work force? 

So I agree with Dr. Winship. I think there is—some of the obstacles 

are the need to rebalance our regulatory process. We need a much 

better tax code, to be competitive. We need a sound dollar going 

forward. That’s the foundation for growth. And we need more freedom to trade around the world. No question. 

But, and to Dr. Mathur, to your testimony, you talk about two 

things. Could you expand on them? One is, government tends to 

stick with the stale old 20th Century responses in our assistance 

programs, while states are looking at more 21st Century smarter 

work incentives. 

Can you talk a little about the difference between the poor work 

incentives that were expanded to a big degree in response in this 

recovery? I think Dr. Casey Mulligan who you cited in your testimony, and then you also mentioned the Wisconsin FastForward 

initiative as a way, as a modern way to actually tackle the labor 

participation issue. 

Can you expand on sort of that dichotomy between the stale old 

ideas we have been implementing and the things states have been 

doing? 

Dr. Mathur. Absolutely. Thank you for the question. 

As I mentioned in my testimony, there is a lot of research out 

there by Dr. Casey Mulligan which cites the Affordable Care Act 

and also the extension of Unemployment Benefits, and other wel-
15 

fare programs which were definitely needed at the time, but which 

also create work disincentives. 

So if we talk about the Affordable Care Act, the subsidies that 

were provided to people at 100 to 400 percent of poverty had— 

could create the incentive to avoid, to stop work, or to not take up 

full-time jobs. And the reason for that is that the size of the subsidy, or the value of the subsidy, was a lot higher if you took up 

a part-time job, if you worked fewer hours in a year, or if you spent 

fewer weeks working. 

And at the same time, if you had a full-time job with health insurance you were not given the full value of the subsidy, whereas 

if you had a part-time job where you were not offered insurance, 

the value of the subsidy was a lot higher. 

As economists, you know, we believe that these incentives matter 

at the margin. You know, we will see how this plays out in the future and whether this actually does result in a lot of people sort 

of choosing not to work, but these incentives absolutely do exist in 

the current system under the Affordable Care Act. 

I also mentioned the minimum wage increases and why I think 

having sort of wage subsidy programs like the EITC is a better alternative to minimum wage increases. We agree that there is a 

large literature on whether minimum wages have disemployment 

effects, or they don’t have employment effects. I don’t think anybody is arguing that it would actually increase employment. 

And to my mind, the risk-free strategy then is to expand the 

EITC. We know that the EITC is a hugely successful program at 

getting single mothers into the labor market. It is hugely successful 

at helping families with children, helping low- and middle-income 

families, without the negative employment effects that we see— 

that are possible with minimum wage hikes. 

So I have always talked about if we want to help low- and middle-income people, even people on minimum wages, I think a better 

idea is to expand the EITC. 

Now to your point about what is happening in the Wisconsin 

FastForward initiative program, there the funds through the—my 

idea is to create the right incentives for employers to hire people 

out of the pool of long-term unemployed, or hire people out of the 

pool of unemployed; provide tax credits to employers, which are 

used to provide job training, skills training to workers who would 

ordinarily not be hired by employers because they are looked upon 

as long-term unemployed. We don’t know what their experience 

level is. 

But through these programs, you can provide them jobs training. 

The employer shares some cost of that training, but in the long run 

the worker is matched to a job. And I think that is a far more effective strategy at getting these people back into the labor market 

than just, you know, doing it either through minimum wage increases or through welfare programs. 

Representative Brady. Thank you, Doctor. 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Coats. Senator Cassidy. 

Senator Cassidy. Well let me start off by saying this. 

Would you agree that it is not—the people who are having the 

hardest time are the fellow or gal who has a high school education, 
16 

maybe a year or two more, but not a college education? Semiskilled, if you will, a crafts person, blue collar? Everybody agrees 

with that? 

(Nods in the affirmative.) 

Now I have been struck, and we have a slide but I do not think 

we have time to put it up, about how the part-time and voluntary 

labor force has gone up. 

And, Dr. Mathur, you quoted Dr. Mulligan’s information that 

this quite likely could be due to the Affordable Care Act. I think 

there is good academic data from the Federal Reserve in San Francisco and elsewhere that if you tax full-time employment for the 

low-wage worker they tend to be made part-time. Fair statement? 

I also notice that there are some states doing really well in creating those blue collar jobs, and those are typically the oil patch 

from North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana. Is that a fair 

statement? 

And so that goes along with the idea that blue collar workers 

have traditionally been employed in mining, manufacturing, and 

construction. And an energy-based economy creates mining, obviously, which in turn manufacturing in terms of construction. Fair 

statement? 

Now the structural changes that you speak of, are you speaking, 

as you mention structurally, of the increased regulation of our jobs 

market? Because you point out that there’s academic literature 

that shows with increased regulation, you have fewer jobs. 

Is it the fact that we are moving away from mining, manufacturing, and construction, turning our back, for example, on things 

like Keystone-XL, which would have created 40,000 construction 

jobs? Or otherwise doing our best to inhibit natural gas and oil production and coal production? Is that what you mean by a structural 

change? That we are just turning our back on those mining jobs 

that would otherwise create prosperity, as they are in North Dakota, Texas, and Louisiana, et cetera? 

Dr. Winship. 

Dr. Winship. Thank you, Senator. 

So when I think about structural issues, I do tend to think about 

diminishing dynamism. And as I said, part of that is business dynamism, but I think a second part of it I did mention that does relate to your invoking the strong economies of the oil states is, we 

may have less dynamism as Americans, as well. 

In the past, probably the most important way that people found 

opportunity was to move to it. So you have the Westward migration. You have the great migration of African Americans from the 

South, the migration of poor whites from Appalachia, to where the 

jobs are. 

Senator Cassidy. May I interrupt, because we have limited 

time. Dr. Mathur points out, though, and maybe your assessment, 

I don’t think yours Dr. Jacobs, that if you give long-term unemployment people have less incentive to move. I think you quoted that. 

I have read similar articles like that from The New York Times. 

If you are doing relatively well, why would you move to North Dakota? Because you live in Ohio, and all your friends are in Ohio. 

Are you with me? 
17 

Dr. Winship. I think that is right, yes. And I think that we 

ought to make our unemployment insurance system—it is a great 

example. To the extent we can incentivize people to where the jobs 

are when that makes sense for them, that is the sort of safety net 

reform I think that would be helpful for expanding—— 

Senator Cassidy. And structural also includes, from what you 

just said, how we structure unemployment insurance and whether 

or not we are disincentivizing people from moving from where 

there are no jobs to where there might be jobs. Fair statement? 

Dr. Winship. Absolutely. 

Senator Cassidy. Now in terms of the mining, manufacturing, 

and construction, I always considered mining as an important part 

of that. And if we do not have the energy, inexpensive energy for 

energy-intensive enterprises, are we really going to return to the 

kind of manufacturing that created those strong blue collar jobs 

with good benefits? That may be beyond your expertise, but I ask 

that question for an opinion. 

Dr. Winship. You know, I think we are probably never going to 

return to the kind of robust manufacturing-based economy that we 

had in the 1950s. That said, I think it is important that we do as 

much as we can to expand manufacturing in the United States. 

I think that other jobs outside of manufacturing can and are 

good jobs in many cases. And so—— 

Senator Cassidy. Yes, but I do not see those blue collar workers’ service-related jobs typically bring the same sort of wages with 

better benefits. You put somebody on an oil rig—I am from Louisiana—and with overtime he can make upwards of $100,000 a 

year. I mean, that is great. A fellow who has two years of training 

after high school sort of thing. 

Now I will finish by saying I think there are examples—Texas, 

Louisiana, North Dakota—where blue collar workers are doing 

pretty well. Houma, Louisiana, had the lowest unemployment rate 

in the Nation, or second lowest, for several years running, creating 

those blue collar jobs. 

On the other hand, if you regulate the economy or disincentivize 

otherwise, or discourage the use of our natural resources to create 

jobs, we are consigning them to a tougher life. 

I thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman Coats. Congressman Delaney. 

Representative Delaney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for assembling a group of experts that really bring a tremendous amount 

of intelligence on this topic. So it has been a great conversation. 

I was inspired by my friend from Texas who was quoting Ronald 

Reagan, and it made me think. President Reagan had a good quote, 

where he said there are no easy answers, but there may be simple 

solutions. 

And, Dr. Jacobs, you said something earlier that I think really 

could be the simple solution to this very complex question, which 

is infrastructure. Because when you think about what we have and 

the facts that you have described, while it is interesting to look at 

prior recessions, it is intellectually interesting, it is informative to 

some extent, it is not really dispositive. And in fact, if you want 

to look back to prior events, we should look back at the industrial 
18 

revolution and what happened there, and the disruptive effect that 

had on the workforce. 

And there was a public policy response, which was to educate 

people so that they could be better equipped in the new world. And 

there is a little bit of that going on today. So we have demographics 

which are changed, and clearly affect the outcomes here. So to compare it to prior recessions, again, is not all that relevant. 

We have this tremendous kind of steep trajectory of technological 

innovation, which I tend to think is a much bigger contributor to 

this problem than people give it credit for. It is also a contributor 

to a decline in the standard of living because it leads us really to 

creating two types of jobs: high-skilled, high-paid jobs which are 

growing quite rapidly; and low-skilled, low-paid jobs which are generally people who are serving the high-skilled, high-paid people, 

right? And there is this huge lack of middle-skill jobs. 

And I am very optimistic and confident that the U.S. free market 

system will solve this problem over time. Because again if you go 

back to other periods of disruption like the industrial revolution, 

you had lots of disruption and you had these similar kinds of pressures. But ultimately there was the creative side of creative disruption that kicked in, and you got a lot of new jobs, and I think that 

will happen here. 

But it seems to me we need a bridged demand program that will 

put demand in the labor market for middle-skill jobs, and solve a 

lot of these problems. And so the simple answer, going back to 

President Reagan’s kind of framing, would be infrastructure. 

Right? It’s good for the country. It’s good for our citizens. It’s good 

for businesses. It’s been proven, if we dynamically scored it, to be 

a good investment, and it creates jobs. 

So I am just interested, Dr. Jacobs, I think I know your view on 

it because you mentioned it and it inspired my question, so thank 

you for that because it gave me something to say. But Dr. Winship 

and Dr. Mathur, what do you think of that? How do you think a 

big national infrastructure program would affect the outcomes on 

some of these disturbing statistics? 

Dr. Mathur. I mean I do think there is a potential for a big infrastructure program, or funding highways to—— 

Representative Delaney. Assuming we paid for it in a smart 

way, right? 

Dr. Mathur. Yes. 

Representative Delaney. Obviously you want to premise it 

with that. 

Dr. Mathur. If it was efficiently done—— 

Representative Delaney. Like fixing the international tax system and generating revenues and building infrastructure, for example. But, I’m sorry. 

Dr. Mathur. Yes, I think there is the potential. I also think 

there are other ways—if you mentioned that it is the lack of skills 

that, the middle-skill jobs that are being lost, I think there are also 

other ways to do it, which is skills training, or training our youth 

to get into the labor market through paid apprenticeship programs. 

But I do think that the multiplier on sort of highway infrastructure spending is large, and there could be economic benefits in the 

long run. 
19 

Representative Delaney. Dr. Winship. 

Dr. Winship. I’m not opposed philosophically to more infrastructure spending. I think in practice it probably would not be paid for, 

and so I think that would be a mistake to do that. I think the infrastructure problem has been a little overstated. There is a nice 

paper by Evan Soltas at Columbia University, I think, who makes 

a pretty strong case I think that our concerns about infrastructure 

have been a little bit overblown. 

And I also think that framing—talking about infrastructure in 

the context of labor force participation also frames the problem as 

being primarily a demand side problem. And as my testimony probably makes clear, I am a little bit skeptical of the extent to which 

the problem is on the demand side versus some supply side issues 

we have. 

Representative Delaney. Dr. Jacobs, I will give you an opportunity because I sense I know your answer but—— 

Dr. Jacobs. I think you are probably right. I mean, as I said 

earlier, according to analysis by the International Monetary Fund, 

increased infrastructure spending can boost short-term economic 

growth by 1.5 percent in the short run. This seems like something 

we could use. It would create jobs in the construction industry, 

which was one of the hardest hit by the Recession and, like many 

industries, has recovered more slowly than we might like. 

So it seems kind of like a win/win. I feel like every day that there 

is a news story about a train derailing, or a highway that is far 

bumpier than I would like to see and feel safe on, so it is clearly 

a problem that is worth solving for other reasons as well. We know 

investing in infrastructure yields long-run rewards across a variety 

of outcomes. 

Representative Delaney. Thank you. 

Chairman Coats. Congressman Paulsen. 

Representative Paulsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the testimony we have had here today, as well. I know some 

believe that it is okay to accept slower economic growth and a 

lower workforce participation rate, and accept this as sort of new 

normal, and it is okay for wages to be flat for such a long period 

of time, or it is okay for record numbers of people that are working 

part-time that would like to work full-time, and it’s okay for millions unfortunately to be in this chronically unemployed category, 

but I want to ask this question. 

The focus of the hearing here is the participation rate, what the 

work opportunities are, what the incentives are, and how do we improve the situation. It seems we are looking at two sides of the 

labor coin here. 

On the employer side, you have got the fact that many businesses are unable to fill the positions that they have available, because they cannot find eligible candidates to fill the jobs and the 

requirements. 

Then you have got the employee side of the equation where you 

have got involuntary part-time workers, six-and-a-half million, as 

you mentioned, Dr. Mathur, that cannot seem to find the additional 

hours that they want to work, either because they cannot find the 

job with more hours, or possibly because there are policies that 
20 

have left their employer in a position with the undesirable option 

of cutting hours to avoid regulatory penalties. 

So, Dr. Mathur, if I can ask you this: In your estimation, what 

can be done on the employer side to help find qualified applicants? 

And what kinds of programs, perhaps apprenticeships, can employers embrace to hire workers that might also then reduce the concern that workers may transfer to a different employer after 

they’ve invested so much time in getting the training/and getting 

the expertise? 

Dr. Mathur. So I have talked a lot about for youth who are 

graduating, I think we do need paid apprenticeship programs. 

What we are seeing is that a lot of them are reaching the labor 

market with high levels of student debt but unable to find jobs, and 

therefore being sort of permanently scarred, or scarred for long periods of time because they do not have the incomes to pay off the 

debt and they are not getting the right jobs. 

So I think we are seeing experiments around the country where 

I was reading yesterday about an apprenticeship school where, you 

know, if you’re in high school, or if you decide not to go to college, 

you can go into these schools and basically get training. Or even 

in school go and work at an employer and be trained for exactly 

the job that you might be required to do after you graduate. 

So I think those kinds of programs are extremely important currently, given that youth unemployment has doubled, the official unemployment rate. Those kinds of programs would really help our 

youth to get the jobs that they need. 

On the other side of the pool of unemployed who are not finding 

jobs and the employers who are willing—who are not willing to 

hire them because they are afraid of what their skills are, or how 

much experience they have lost, I think experiments like we just 

mentioned, the Wisconsin FastForward initiative where employers 

are actually being provided tax credits to hire exactly out of this 

pool and provide these workers the training that is needed on the 

jobs, that they can perform these jobs more efficiently, be more productive, get the skills that they need, I think those programs 

around the country would be successful at solving the problem of 

unemployment and getting the employees the skills that they are 

looking for in these employees. 

Representative Paulsen. You mentioned this apprenticeship 

school you saw recently. Was that in a certain state? Or is that 

something we could look at? 

Dr. Mathur. I think it was in Virginia. I just read the news yesterday, I think, in Newport News, Virginia. 

Representative Paulsen. Dr. Winship, do you have an opinion 

in terms of what can be done to remove regulatory barriers and 

better enable workers to contract more freely with their employers 

on the type of hours, pay, and benefits that they would like to receive? 

Dr. Winship. Sure. You know, I think the best proposal that I 

have heard for regulatory reform would set up a commission that 

would essentially enumerate the worst regulations out there. And 

you could certainly enumerate the worst ones for job growth, or for 

wage growth. 
21 

And then the commission would present the whole menu, and 

there would be an up or down vote on whether to rescind them or 

not. 

I do think occupational licensing is another, is another really important issue that Dr. Mathur mentioned. And this goes back to 

the dynamism question. There are a lot of people who are protected 

from competition which props up their wages. So if I am a florist 

in a state that has undue regulations on who can become a florist, 

that’s great for me but it is not very good for all of the people who 

might be unemployed, might be long-term unemployed who would 

do a whole lot better if they could become florists. 

So I think occupational licensing is really important. Figuring 

out what the federal hook is there I think is a tough question. 

Representative Paulsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Coats. Senator Lee. 

And, excuse me, I might just note that the Senate votes have already been called. There is enough time for Senator Lee to do his. 

The House has not been called yet. I just talked to Congresswoman 

Maloney. I am going to turn this over to her. That is where we are. 

Congressman Schweikert, I think you are next on the list, and Dr. 

Adams. Is that correct? Adams is first on the list, and then Congressman Schweikert. 

And so as long as the House can stay, I am happy to put the 

gavel in the hands of our Ranking Member here but, Senator Lee, 

you are on. 

Senator Lee. Thank you. Thanks to our panelists for coming 

here today. We appreciate your insights, as always. 

Dr. Winship, let’s start with you. As you are aware, policy decisions and policy changes affect decisions at the margin. The individuals who are on the edge of perhaps dropping out of the labor 

force are in many instances facing a difficult set of questions, questions involving whether or not to work one more day, or to spend 

one more day looking for work, based on a determination as to 

whether these kinds of efforts are worth it relative to retirement, 

considering ways possibly to justify an SSDI claim. 

You have written before that, on the subject of SSDI, and the 

sometimes perverse incentives that workers on the margins may 

face when presented with an opportunity to make a claim on SSDI. 

With the SSDI Trust Fund set to run out of money next year, what 

if any policy reforms might you suggest that could improve workforce participation, particularly at the margins? 

Dr. Winship. Thank you, Senator. I think it is a really important question. The reforms that I propose in the article that I have 

written for National Affairs on this range from, you know, you 

could create markets for private long-term unemployment insurance. I think SSDI has become really a long-term unemployment 

program for folks who, depending on economic circumstances, 

would be employable. They are not actually disabled in that sense. 

I think we could do things like experiment with experience rating 

of payroll taxes for employers. That is to say, if a lot of your employers go on to receive SSDI, then your share of the payroll tax 

would actually be higher. Now if you do that, you have to allow employers to also be able to get involved in the determination of eligibility for their former employees. So it is sort of a big step. 
22 

You can toughen eligibility requirements for people who are applying. You can make it easier for people who are actually disabled 

and on SSDI to work while at the same time making it more difficult for people who are not disabled in the sense of not being able 

to work by having more reviews of eligibility. 

So I think there is a range of things you could do. You could update the listing of occupations, which the Social Security Administration uses to determine whether there are jobs out there that 

people could do. 

So I lay out a dozen or so different proposals in this piece I have 

written. 

Senator Lee. Thank you. 

Employers are facing a slew of new regulatory challenges from 

the NLRB’s Joint Employer Rules, the Department of Labor’s proposed rule, proposed overtime standards that came out at the end 

of the month last month. How do you think these rules will ultimately impact the job market in general for the burdens they add 

to the employers, taking into account that employers are half of the 

equation here? 

Dr. Winship. Yes. I think just like the minimum wage debate 

that is happening right now, I think any time that you increase the 

costs that employers have to pay for their workers you face a real 

risk of helping some people who benefit from it. But at the same 

time, hurting a lot of people who do not get the benefits of dynamic 

job growth in the future. 

I think we have to be really careful. And this is a case too where 

I think a lot of the statistics about stagnating wages have been 

overstated, and we actually treat the problem as in some ways different than what it actually is. 

Senator Lee. Dr. Mathur, I saw you nodding. Do you have anything to add to that? 

Dr. Mathur. On the overtime rules, we actually have good research looking at the impact of proposed overtime regulations, or 

changes in overtime regulations and the effect on worker hours and 

worker wages. And there are two good studies out there that I 

found that basically said that when you have overtime—when you 

are required to pay workers time-and-a-half for every hour that 

they work over 40 hours a week, the employer either cuts down the 

base wage, or if they are already at minimum wage they cut down 

their hours. 

So even though we know that these rules are out there to help 

workers, I think that in the long run there could be potential negative unintended consequences for the workers that they are trying 

to help. 

Senator Lee. For a minute there I thought you might be making 

a plug for the Working Families Liability Act, to which I would 

make a plug for but for the fact that I am out of time. So since 

I am out of time I am not going to make a plug for the Working 

Families Flexibility Act, which would help this all. 

[Laughter.] 

Thank you very much for your answers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Coats. Dr. Adams, and now I am turning the gavel 

over to Congresswoman Maloney. 
23 

Dr. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Madam Ranking Member, 

thank you, as well. I thank you all for your testimony. 

Dr. Winship, let me return to your statement about misinterpreting data more often than not could be an exaggeration of economic challenges. 

Some have stated that the labor force participation rate is at its 

lowest level in nearly 40 years, and they use this narrow fact to 

imply that the Obama Administration is the cause of slipping labor 

force participation rates, but those same people often make no 

mention whatsoever of demographic trends like the retirement of 

baby boomers. I am a baby boomer. I retired just a year-and-a-half 

ago. Or of large numbers of young people who are going back to 

pursue a college education. 

So do you think that this narrow presentation provided, without 

mention of those factors, exaggerates the economic challenges that 

we face? 

Dr. Winship. I do. And I think, just to be clear, I think we do 

have to distinguish between the demographic and structural 

changes that in some ways are beyond what policy can affect. But 

I think that’s not to say that there are not better or worse policies 

that can also affect labor force participation rates. 

So I do not want to leave the Administration completely off the 

hook. I do think that some of the expansions in the safety net, I 

think the things, the regulations in the ACA and this overtime rule 

do affect labor force participation at the margin. 

Dr. Adams. So would you say that Senator Lindsey Graham was 

exaggerating the economic challenges when he said the labor force 

participation rate is at an all-time low? 

Dr. Winship. I am not familiar with the quote so I cannot really 

answer that. 

Dr. Adams. Okay. Let me move on and ask you about the unemployment rate as it relates to African Americans. It stands at over 

9 percent, about 9.5 percent, compared to 4.6 percent for Caucasians. 

So, Dr. Winship and Dr. Jacobs, if you would respond, could you 

explain why the unemployment rate is so high for African American workers relative to other workers? And what policies might we 

consider to specifically help increase the African American participation in the labor market and lower the unemployment rate 

there? 

Dr. Jacobs. You are exactly right that the unemployment rate 

amongst African Americans is higher, particularly for young African American men. And I will return to one of the points that I 

touched on earlier in terms of criminal justice reform. 

The incarceration rate in the United States is the second highest 

in the world, second only to the Seychelles. Research suggests that 

incarceration rates and crime rates have been pretty much entirely 

unrelated since the 1990s. So there’s plenty of room for reform 

without a spike in crime. And we know that the African American 

population is much more impacted by our criminal justice policies. 

So there is good reason to believe that what is going on in the 

criminal justice system and what is going on in the labor market 

are interacting in a way that is really pretty harmful for African 

Americans, particularly young African American men. 
24 

We know that 9 in 10 employers say they conduct criminal background checks, which in turn impact the ability of those with a 

criminal record to get a job. No matter how severe the crime, no 

matter how old they are, no matter how old that crime may be and 

how far in their past history it might be. 

So there is a lot of potential I think for reforming the way that 

we deal with incarceration in this country, and also in terms of 

thinking about how employers may be discriminating against those 

with a criminal record and how that might be holding back labor 

force participation and pushing up the unemployment rate amongst 

African Americans. 

So that is just one area that I think could have a major impact 

on a particularly troubling issue. 

Dr. Adams. Dr. Winship. 

Dr. Winship. I think criminal justice reform is important, but 

I do think that it would be wrong to focus on that as the ultimate 

source of these different employment outcomes. 

You know, the gaps between African Americans and whites open 

up very early by the time kids start kindergarten, for instance. 

There are vast test score gaps. So I look at the issue as chronic 

childhood poverty. And it is very clear from research by Patrick 

Sharkey that African Americans are much more likely to grow up 

in concentrated poverty. So I think we need to experiment with a 

number of interventions at the state and local level. 

There’s a program I will plug called ‘‘Ready For K’’ in San Francisco where they are giving parents text messages about how to 

read to their kid and help their kids develop intellectually. And I 

think the research by Raj Chetty about concentrated poverty and 

segregation really points towards trying to help more people move 

to opportunity, as I said before, and move out of poor neighborhoods to areas that are going to support their intellectual development more. 

Dr. Adams. Thank you very much. I think I am just about out 

of time. You know, I look at North Carolina. We do not have adequate jobs and certainly jobs that do not pay us enough, and so I 

think we are going to have to think more about living wages as we 

talk about people taking on work, and if that work does not help 

them sustain their families. And there is an issue with that, too. 

But thank you. I yield back, Madam Chair. 

Representative Maloney [presiding]. Thank you. 

Congressman Schweikert. 

Representative Schweikert. I never thought I would be saying 

this—thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

[Laughter.] 

Representative Maloney. Wow. 

Representative Schweikert. Dr. Mathur, give me the best pronunciation, because I have heard two. Math-thur? 

Dr. Mathur. Ma-tur, yes. 

Representative Schweikert. Mathur, okay. So there are a couple of variations here. You have written about barriers to entry and 

the change in the last couple of decades of the ability to have certain types of employment because of the regulatory state. And I 

have seen some other data that actually said that also for particu-
25 

larly minority populations it is an even greater effect on their ability to become a barber, to become some sort of licensed profession. 

How much are you seeing that movement of barriers to entry? 

And I accept that may be more of a state and local, but also with 

the new economy? If I am going to become a Uber driver, or somehow participate in the new hyper efficient economy we are now seeing a movement of barriers to entry to stop that one thing that 

really does seem to be producing entrepreneur job growth. 

Dr. Mathur. Right. I absolutely agree with you. So when you 

look at the data on occupational licensing, as I said, there has been 

a tremendous increase in the percentage of jobs that are now required—which require people to hold the job, and the costs have 

gone up, and the time investment has gone up in these jobs and 

that is clearly a barrier to entry, and that is affecting entrepreneurship and just regular job growth. 

But you also look at—you see that we talked about how the economy finds ways to sort of overcome some of these barriers, and I 

think we are seeing that with the new sharing economy, with the 

new gig economy, and how people are just using the assets and 

skills that they have already to generate income for themselves. 

And I think the more we try to regulate that, I think these avenues 

are going to be closed to us. 

Representative Schweikert. Doctor, if I wanted to actually get 

better educated on that subject, if anyone is actually doing some 

quality academic research on both the barriers to entry and also 

the effects on sort of the new economic growth, and also what I see 

happening at many of our state, local, and even some of the federal, of trying to protect incumbency—— 

Dr. Mathur. Right. 

Representative Schweikert [continuing]. In businesses and 

tax systems, what would I go out and read? 

Dr. Mathur. Alan Krueger actually has a study, Krueger and 

Kleiner have a study on Occupational Licensing that shows the 

changes over time and the regulations over time that are causing 

the barrier to entry. But Alan Krueger has also actually done a 

study with Uber driver partners showing the economic impacts and 

saying so many people are benefitting from being driver partners 

at Uber. 

Representative Schweikert. And actually it’s much, much bigger than just Uber. That’s just the easiest one that’s touched so 

many lives, and my understanding is there’s a disproportionate 

pushback on those who are poor and minority and the regulatory 

state is actually starting to step into these. 

Dr. Winship, you touched on it but I would like to—because I 

think actually you have written on this—in the last quarter century, the greatest demographic movement from poverty into middle 

class, that movement velocity that used to be the hallmark of 

American society, wasn’t it after the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, and 

now that all those reforms are gone, we have lost that velocity? 

Do I state it correctly? And how do I understand this better? 

Dr. Winship. So I think that it is probably too early to be able 

to say that the welfare reforms of the 1990s did improve child opportunity, for instance, because the kids that experienced it—— 
26 

Representative Schweikert. But we do see the datasets of 

those who were recipients and five years later that their IRS income has dramatically changed. 

Dr. Winship. That’s right. 

Representative Schweikert. So I was using IRS data. 

Dr. Winship. So for single parents as a whole, for children as 

a whole if you look at child poverty, if you look at the poverty rate 

for female head of families, all improved a lot after welfare reform 

was passed. Employment increased a lot after welfare reform was 

passed. 

Then you had a recession in the early 2000s. You had the Great 

Recession obviously. But poverty stayed down. Most people are not 

aware that if you include a measure of poverty that counts as income, things like food stamps, and the Earned Income Tax Credit, 

and things like that, poverty increased less in the recession of the 

early 2000s, and even in the Great Recession, than it did in the recessions of the early 1990s and the early 1980s. And that was because the safety net did step in. So I think it is a system of making 

it harder to not work and remain poor, but easier to work and escape poverty through things like the Earned Income Tax Credit. 

Representative Schweikert. So sort of the cyclical balance 

that we seem to have lost. 

Dr. Winship. Right. So the fear is that as you reform welfare, 

then you are going to help people in good times, but in bad times 

it was going to be really bad. And it looks like that did not actually 

happen. 

Representative Schweikert. I yield back, Madam Chairwoman. 

Representative Maloney. Congressman Hanna from the Great 

State of New York. 

Representative Hanna. Ms. Jacobs, you talked about levers 

people can pull, the government can pull, to improve people’s circumstances. Ms. Mathur pretty much talked about levers that the 

government has pulled that can cause people to be more or less a 

part. You talk about inequality. 

It is interesting to me that the dynamics of helping people and 

wanting to do right by people can actually cause in some ways a 

permanent situation of inequality by giving them certain disincentives, and we all talked about them. 

I want to shift. Universal pre-K. You have all mentioned that to 

some degree or another. I think it is critical that we support that 

as a government, writ large. But—I think it is pretty clear that the 

labor participation rate is trending downward, and we have talked 

about the causes. But would anybody like to just venture into it? 

You, Ms. Mathur, have done a pretty good job of telling us why certain things have disincentivized people to participate. And I think 

that causes inequality that is unintentional. But universal pre-K. 

And you talked about prisons and incarceration rates. There is 

a Strong Start for Children Act that Arnie Duncan’s got out there 

that I frankly like very much. Would anybody like to talk about 

that subject matter? I know it’s a little bit off, but I think it directly relates to breaking the back of intergenerational poverty, 

particularly with minorities. 
27 

Dr. Jacobs. I love talking about universal pre-K. As a resident 

of the District of Columbia and someone who benefits directly from 

the fact that D.C. has near-universal pre-K, I’ve seen it for my own 

family. But more importantly, there is great research suggesting 

that even directly on the topic of labor force participation, which 

is not necessarily what we automatically think about when we talk 

about—— 

Representative Hanna. But it does, doesn’t it? It really does. 

Dr. Jacobs. It does. It does. It definitely does. I mean, we know 

that for every 10 percent reduction in the cost of child care, the employment rate of women increases by about a half percent, according to a range of studies. Which a half a percent does not sound 

like a huge number, but it actually is a really big move of the needle on something like labor force participation. 

There are a host of studies on the long-term impacts of universal 

pre-K and high-quality early education for kids. I think there are 

reasons to think that it will improve long-term labor force participation and the quality of our workforce for kids, but there are also 

reasons to think that it would have a real bang for our buck—— 

Representative Hanna. All of this happens on the margin. 

That is the one thing we have all established, that so much of all 

of this is, integral changes in how we, in the decision process people go through and how they support themselves and their family 

and their decisions. 

And there is an old thing you may remember from the 1950s of 

the negative income tax. One of the problems with welfare is that 

it essentially taxes you, in some cases 100 percent of your income, 

so your marginal willingness to shift is—it is not an unthoughtful 

thing to do. It is in many ways reasonable but unfortunate. 

Mr. Winship, what would you like to say about that, if anything? 

Dr. Winship. Sure. Well I guess I would say a couple of things. 

The first I think is that we ought to distinguish between something 

like universal pre-K for its childcare benefits versus for its benefits 

on kids. And I think on the latter the evidence is not especially 

strong that we are able to scale up programs in ways that actually 

will improve kids’ outcomes in the long run. 

The second thing I will say is that the universal aspect of it I 

think is an inefficient way to go about this. You end up subsidizing 

a lot of—— 

Representative Hanna. Well actually the bill is 200 percent 

and below. We could argue about the margin, but—— 

Dr. Winship. Sure. Well I think that makes a lot more—— 

Representative Hanna. That is what it is. Thank you very 

much. Do you generally agree, though, Ms. Mathur, that we have 

created a society out of our good nature and willingness to help one 

another that unintentionally not just disincentivizes work but actually incentivizes and causes inequality, the one thing we are trying 

to avoid, or one of the things we are trying to avoid? 

Dr. Mathur. Yes. Some of the policies that we have good data 

on of what the likely effects are likely to be, I think we try to help 

but I think we—— 

Representative Hanna. Forty to thirty hours guarantee—— 

Dr. Mathur. Yes. 

Representative Hanna. Would that be one of the things? 
28 

Dr. Mathur. It is absolutely one of those things where you could 

see a greater shift towards part-time. 

Representative Hanna. And you can see that, and there are 

numbers to support that? 

Dr. Mathur. Yes. There is some anecdotal evidence right now to 

support that. 

Representative Hanna. Thank you very much. My time has expired. 

Representative Maloney. Thank you so much. And we have 

been called to vote, so I am going to call on Congressman 

Grothman and have him assume the leadership of the committee 

so I can run over there and make sure I don’t lose a vote. 

Representative Grothman. Good. And you tell them not to 

close that rule. 

Representative Maloney. I will try to keep it open for you. 

Representative Grothman. Okay. I would like to thank you for 

being here today. I can’t help but notice in my District, and my 

District has more manufacturing jobs than any other district in the 

country, one of the major problems my employers are having is 

they cannot find people to work. And beyond manufacturing, but 

retail outlets, everybody, you know, is looking for more jobs—more 

employees. Truck driver, a job that I don’t think I could do, it’s a 

tough job, but a lot of people could do it, but, man, they can’t find 

anybody to drive a truck today. 

But I thought I would use my little time here to clean up some 

misconceptions that some have put forth. 

First of all, as a follow up from Congressman Hanna, at least 

from what I have read, when you look at a program like Head 

Start, you know, would you, just because you are the doctors in the 

room, would either of you like to tee that one up and give a shot 

as to whether everybody agrees that pre-K, if we say Head Start 

as pre-K, is successful? Do you think it is a successful thing? 

Dr. Mathur. 

Dr. Mathur. I think from my review of the literature there is 

a mixed—you know, there’s a mixed set of results. Some people 

find that, you know, it is beneficial; some people find that it is not. 

Representative Grothman. I guess the American Enterprise 

Institute is a little bit to the left of the Brookings Institution. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. Winship, do you want to tell us what the Brookings Institution says about that, Head Start? 

Dr. Winship. I think the Brookings Institution basically has I 

think Dr. Mathur’s line on it, I think, which is it’s a mixed bag but 

I think there’s reason to be skeptical. I think Rus Whitehurst I 

think has a lot of really important points about the case that Head 

Start ought to be expanded, where he has talked about the different randomized experiments that have happened, and how disappointing some of those have been. 

So I do think expanding Head Start is putting a little bit of faith 

where the evidence really is not there to support it. 

Representative Grothman. Right. Now I want to do a follow 

up on you, Dr. Mathur. Earlier you said positive things about the 

Earned Income Tax Credit. When I talk to my employers, their employees are fairly sophisticated and they know that the amount you 
29 

get in the Earned Income Tax Credit maybe peaks out between 

that $10- to $15,000 range, and they find some of their employees 

don’t want to work the extra hours because of the Earned Income 

Tax Credit. In other words, it encourages you to take a part-time 

job. It discourages you from working full-time. 

Given that, do you think one of the reasons for income inequality 

here, one of the reasons for people working part-time, is the 

Earned Income Tax Credit the way it is currently structured that 

it discourages people from say getting, you know, $20, $25, $30,000 

a year? 

Dr. Mathur. No. Absolutely not. I think all of the evidence that 

we have suggests that the EITC is actually encouraging labor force 

participation and has actually gotten people into the labor market. 

Now you can argue that the structure of the EITC is such that 

at some point in the phase-out region of the EITC there might be 

a disincentive effect, but there is actually no good research that 

finds that disincentive effect to actually show up in the data. 

So we know that it is structured in a way where you start losing, 

or the value of the benefit goes down after a certain point, but we 

do not really see that on the—— 

Representative Grothman. You mean when I talk to my employers and they tell me that their employees are very sophisticated and know that they should not make more money because 

they are losing the EITC, together with their food stamps and everything else, you think those employers are an aberration and 

that they are not typical? 

Dr. Mathur. I am not sure of what your sample is. 

Representative Grothman. Okay. I have one more question 

here and then I have got to go and vote. 

Dr. Winship, you talked about poverty and its effect. And I always think there is—they are related, but poverty and marital 

structure both have an impact on children. It seems to me in the 

not-too-distant past in this country we had families of, you know, 

seven, eight, nine kids in households of, you know, two or three 

bedrooms, and they all did very well because those parents provided a very good example. And right now we sometimes have families in very, you know, sizeable low-income apartments but the 

family structure is not there. 

Could you distinguish between poverty and family structure in 

the differences we see that were mentioned by Ms. Maloney a second ago? I mean, what do you think is more important? Poverty, 

or family structure? Because they are related, but they are kind of 

different. 

Dr. Winship. Sure. They are related, but I think they are different. So it is very clearly the case that poverty rates of singleparent families are much, much higher than for two-parent families. And I think we do need to do a lot better at encouraging more 

people to delay child bearing until they have planned for it, until 

it is intentional. More often than not, the ones that are not involved in single parenthood, I’m a half-time single parent myself so 

this is not to badmouth single parents, but when the rates of outof-wedlock childbearing have reached as high as they have in the 

United States, I think it will be hard to do much at all about the 

poverty rate without doing much about single parenthood. 
30 

Representative Grothman. Okay. Dr. Mathur, do you—I know 

you have written on that topic. Would you care to distinguish at 

all between poverty rates and family structure? 

Dr. Mathur. I agree with you that they are highly correlated 

and, as Dr. Winship said, we do see much higher rates of poverty 

among single mothers. We see much higher child poverty rates in 

families headed by single mothers as compared to families headed 

by married parents. 

So I think to address the problem of poverty we do need to talk 

about family structure. 

Representative Grothman. Okay, now I’ve got to take off. The 

record will be open for five business days for any member that 

would like to submit questions for the record. So be ready for those 

questions. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

(Whereupon, at 3:53 p.m., Wednesday, July 15, 2015, the hearing 

was adjourned.) 
(31) 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 
32 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DAN COATS, CHAIRMAN, JOINT ECONOMIC

COMMITTEE

The committee will come to order. 

I would like to welcome our witnesses and thank them for being here today to 

discuss the decline in the labor force participation rate, the underlying reasons for 

it, and what it means for Americans’ well-being, job opportunities and the reward 

of work. 

We have witnessed the steady decline of the overall labor force participation rate 

since the early 2000s, and June’s employment numbers revealed a 0.3 percentage 

point drop in labor force participation over the month to 62.6 percent. That’s certainly a record low for this post-recession period, and it is the lowest we have seen 

since the late 1970s. 

I’d like to take a moment and point out that we have known for quite some time 

that Baby Boomers would lead to a reduction in the labor force participation rate. 

It’s something that the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Congressional Budget Office and 

the Social Security Administration have been predicting for years. That’s not really 

the concern here—in fact, Baby Boomers are retiring at a slower rate than previous 

generations. Americans age 60 and older are the only age group that has actually 

seen their labor force participation rate rise over the course of this recovery. 

And we’ve also known about the trend among younger Americans, age 16 to 24, 

bypassing the labor force to focus solely on their education and stay in school longer. 

That’s something that’s happening in developed countries across the globe. 

What I think has been really concerning us here is the effects that the recession 

had on the labor force participation rate trends, especially for people in their prime 

working years, and I think Americans will continue to feel those effects for some 

time. CBO estimated in its January 2015 Budget and Economic Outlook that if the 

unemployment rate returned to its December 2007 level and the labor force participation rate equaled its potential, there would have been 2.75 million more workers 

in the fourth quarter of 2014. 

While many believe that America has entered a ‘‘new normal’’ characterized by 

lower economic growth and workforce participation, and subsequently require policies that lessen the negative consequences, it is perhaps too soon to claim that these 

trends are a permanent feature of the American economy. 

We’re still facing an economy in which many people would like to work more 

hours, spells of unemployment have lengthened over time, and wage growth remains tepid. Job openings, which have been at record highs for the past two months, 

are staying open longer as businesses take more time to deliberate on potential employees, and many are finding themselves unable to get the right candidates for the 

jobs on hand. 

From manufacturers to grocery stores, I’ve heard from many Hoosier businesses 

that they have been unable to find workers to fill job openings—good-paying jobs 

with health insurance. 

I believe it is not just that Americans are having trouble finding work, but that 

there is a non-working component here as well. The number of people in their prime 

working years that say they do not want a job has swelled over time. And I think 
33 

that would be just fine if they were financially secure enough to not need a regular 

paycheck, but I’m not so sure that that’s true of all cases. 

We all know here that work is a sacrifice, and for many Americans it takes a lot 

of hard work to make ends meet. Yet many of the programs intended to help people 

get back on their feet have inadvertently, by way of their design, reduced the reward to working—making work more costly as Americans strive for betterment for 

themselves and their families. 

As economist Casey Mulligan testified in our previous hearing on the employment 

effects of the Affordable Care Act, ‘‘When social programs pay more to people not 

working, the sacrifices that jobs require do not disappear. The commuting hassle is 

still there, the possibility for injury on the job is still there, and jobs still take time 

away from family, schooling, hobbies, and sleep. But the reward to working declines, 

because some of the money earned on the job is now available even when not working.’’ 

Raising taxes, increasing regulatory compliance, and other policy barriers also 

prove unsurprisingly effective at reducing the reward of work. CBO’s Budget and 

Economic Outlook noted that increasing marginal personal tax rates, particularly on 

labor income, would ‘‘reduce people’s incentive to work.’’ And as we know, CBO also 

noted that the new taxes and other incentives in the Affordable Care Act would reduce hours worked, equal to as many as two and a half million full-time-equivalent 

workers. 

In a similar way, providing increasingly more subsidies that don’t require workforce attachment to an increasingly broader share of eligible individuals encourages 

non-work. In some cases, the penalty of losing benefits upon employment are so 

great, that combined with the taxes expected to be paid on earnings in addition to 

transportation, child care, and other costs, they exceed more than 100 percent as 

an implicit marginal tax rate on work. 

In 1996, my colleagues and I worked with President Clinton to reform welfare, 

which included the requirement that able-bodied adults register for work and accept 

a job or go to a training program in order to qualify for food stamps, as they were 

known at the time. The 2009 stimulus law has since modified the work requirement 

and eased eligibility rules, thereby expanding the number of new recipients. I believe that work requirement should be reinstated to this temporary lifeline. 

For Americans still in their prime-earning years, periods out of the labor force, 

underemployed, and jobless can have far-reaching implications for their well-being, 

including lower income, lower lifetime earnings, and less time to accumulate assets 

and financial security. It is important to ensure that government policies do not continue to foster economic malaise and do not discourage Americans from working and 

improving their earnings. 

Economist and former Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Glenn Hubbard 

cites a number of reasons as factoring into lower labor force participation, including 

‘‘simple discouragement, poor work incentives created by public policies, inadequate 

schooling and training, and a greater propensity to seek disability insurance.’’ All 

of these can be improved with regulatory reform, welfare reform that encourages 

work and advancement, education reform and job training that includes emphasis 

on learning non-routine skills, and fundamental tax reform can increase incentives 

for work as well as drive investment and productivity. These are all important elements in reinvigorating the reward of work and renewing the American Dream. 

A dynamic labor force with the ability to adapt to the skills demanded in the labor 

market will continue to be an imperative for a strong economy. What remains to 

be seen, given these trends and lower labor force participation, is whether Americans can remain as economically mobile as they have in the past, or even improve 

their upward mobility. 

With that, I look forward to discussing these issues in more depth with our witnesses today. 

I now recognize Ranking Member Maloney for her opening statement. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CAROLYN B. MALONEY, RANKING MEMBER, JOINT

ECONOMIC COMMITTEE

Thank you Chairman Coats for calling today’s hearing. 

There seems to be a broad consensus these days that the economy is stronger 

than it has been in years. 

The evidence is undeniable that the labor market is on a much stronger footing. 

As you can see in this chart, we’ve had a record 64 straight months of private-sector 

job growth—with businesses creating 12.8 million jobs during this time. 
34 

Under the leadership of President Barack Obama, the unemployment rate is 5.3 

percent, close to current estimates of what economists call its ‘‘natural rate.’’ 

There has also been substantial improvement in the broadest measure of unemployment—the U–6 rate—which includes discouraged workers not in the labor force 

as well as those working part time who would like full-time work. 

Let’s remember how far we’ve come. When President Obama took over for George 

W. Bush, our economy was in a dire situation. By some measures, the Bush-era 

Great Recession was worse than the Great Depression. 

We were losing around 800,000 jobs a month. In the final quarter of 2008, GDP 

had shrunk by a staggering 8.2 percent. During the toughest days, there were nearly seven job seekers for every one job. U.S. household wealth fell by about $13 trillion from its peak. Housing prices were collapsing. 

But bold action by President Obama and Democrats in Congress, as well as by 

the Federal Reserve, helped put our nation back on track. 

My Republican colleagues opposed many of the measures that helped reverse the 

economic freefall. They predicted dire consequences. But those predictions have been 

proven wrong. Now they are left with the weak claim that good job numbers aren’t 

really good news. 

And that brings us to today’s hearing. While it is true that economists are concerned about the declining labor force participation rate, much of this decline is 

structural and it long pre-dates the Obama administration. 

My Republican colleagues act like this is a new phenomenon. They gloss over the 

fact that the labor force participation rate fell over the course of the George W. Bush 

administration. 

And they ignore that the labor force participation rate for men has been falling 

since the early 1950s . . . as you can see in this chart . . . 

. . . including through the Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II administrations. 

Economists have long anticipated the recent decline in the labor force participation rate—and they predict that it will continue over at least the next 10 years. 

In 2006, economists at the Federal Reserve predicted that participation rate 

would fall to 63.3 percent in 2013—and that’s exactly what happened. 

The decline in labor force participation is largely driven by demographics—principally, the retirement of the baby boomer generation. 

The first baby boomers began to retire in 2008, when they turned 62 and became 

eligible for Social Security early retirement benefits. And they continue to retire at 

a rate of about 4 million a year—or more than 10,000 every day. 

In fact, the working lives of the baby boomers roughly track the rise and fall of 

the labor force participation rate. 

This chart shows the rise and fall in the percentage of Americans in their prime 

working years (25–54). 

The Council of Economic Advisers estimated that HALF of the 3.1 percentage 

point decline in labor force participation from fourth quarter of 2007 to second quarter of 2014 was due to the population aging. Other economists have reached similar 

conclusions. 

Let’s be clear—the fact that older Americans are able to retire is a good thing. 

But it also lowers the labor force participation rate. This is not the fault of Barack 

Obama or any other president. 

There is a second important factor that helps to explain the decline in the overall 

labor force participation rate—the declining number of young people in the work 

force. 

But young people are working somewhat less for a perfectly good reason—they are 

going to college! 

In 1970, less than a quarter of 20 to 24 year olds went to college. By 2013, that 

number had climbed to nearly half (46.4 percent) as you can see in this chart. 

When young people choose to get an education instead of going directly to work, 

it reduces the labor force participation rate in the short term. However, in the future they likely will make more money, contribute more to the economy and have 

higher labor force participation rates. 

Let me say something that we should all agree on . . . 

. . . we need to build an economy that creates enough good-paying jobs to keep 

more men and women in the labor force. 

There are five things we can do right now toward that end. 

First, we should invest in infrastructure to rebuild our roads and bridges, create 

good-paying jobs and improve U.S. competitiveness. 

Second, we need family-friendly workplace policies that will boost employee retention, lift worker morale and can increase participation in the workforce. When policymakers make it easier to balance work and family, more people will be able to 

enter and remain in the labor force, especially women. 
35 

Third, we should expand the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), an initiative that 

has proven to boost labor force participation among low-income workers. 

Fourth, we should pass a second-earner tax credit, like the one President Obama 

has proposed. This would help 24 million families where both spouses work to offset 

the costs of commuting and child care, making it more financially attractive for the 

second earner to remain in the labor force. 

Fifth, we should pass immigration reform. According to CBO, the bipartisan immigration bill passed by the Senate in 2013 would have increased the labor force 

by about 6 million workers in 2023. 

I hope that today we can have an even-handed discussion of labor force participation and related issues. I look forward to our witnesses’ testimony. 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 

Æ