Upjohn Research
Not a member yet
3819 research outputs found
Sort by
Federal and State Governments Can Help Solve the Employment Problems of People in Distressed Places to Spur Equitable Growth
Full text linkPlaces in the United States differ greatly in their residents’ access to jobs, especially good jobs. Although the federal and state governments provide about $80 billion annually to create jobs through multiple programs, these job-creation initiatives are rarely targeted to economically distressed places, where the job-creation benefits for local residents are greatest. Moreover, many of these programs take the form of business tax incentives, which are less effective at job creation than customized services for businesses and workers. I argue that the prime-age employment rate of places should be used to target job-creation programs and review which such programs are most successful in terms of having low expenditures per created job. I also discuss how these programs can be scaled and adapted to each place’s needs
The Effects of Tulsa Remote on Inducing Moves to Tulsa: Estimates and Implications
Full text linkTulsa Remote is one of the largest of over 100 remote worker attraction programs in the United States. Since its beginning in 2018, the program has provided generous incentives ($10,000 for moving to Tulsa and staying one year), along with accompanying networking services and incentives to encourage entrepreneurship, to over 3,000 Tulsa Remote member households, selected out of tens of thousands of applicants. Tulsa Remote’s purpose is to promote economic development in Tulsa. Tulsa Remote members spend more locally and generate fiscal benefits, as well as start up businesses and help make Tulsa more attractive for high-tech job growth. These benefits depend on the degree to which Tulsa Remote actually induces Tulsa moves. What percentage of approved Tulsa Remote applicants would not have moved to Tulsa “but for” the incentive offer? Using data on applicant households, including both approved and not approved by Tulsa Remote, this report estimates Tulsa Remote’s “but for” rate. Using a variety of models, this report estimates a “but for” rate of 58–70 percent, averaged across all member households. The report then enters these “but for” estimates into a regional econometric model that simulates the effects of Tulsa Remote on the per capita incomes of the original Tulsa residents. In the baseline estimates, the benefits to original Tulsa residents, in higher incomes, are over four times the program’s financial costs. Simulations also show that benefits go up with the following: a higher “but for” rate, a higher retention rate, higher wages of Tulsa Remote members, higher entrepreneurship effects among Tulsa Remote members, and increased housing supply to accommodate the induced population growth. The program’s support activities and other policies accompanying the program (e.g., housing supply policies) are at least as important as the incentive payments and the selection process for membership in Tulsa Remote
How Much Can Families Afford to Pay for College?
Full text linkThis paper studies families’ capacity to pay for college in the United States, focusing on changes over time and differences by race and socioeconomic status. I use data from the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) to document changes over time in the Expected Family Contribution (EFC) from the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). The results suggest that the EFC has been rising over time, and that this has been driven primarily by families in the upper quartile of the income distribution. I then use data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) to calculate alternative measures of the ability to pay for college. I find that it is possible to alter the distribution of who pays what amount by changing details of the EFC calculation, but the extent of this depends on details of the implementation