Sam Thorpe
@samthorpe.bsky.social
Researching the economics of inequality, tax, capital flows, and industrial policy. Formerly federal fiscal policy @ Brookings; research + organizing @ UChicago.
It turns out that once you correct for this error, unemployment is actually rising faster for NON-degree workers - meaning that explanations in terms of AI replacing the college-educated workforce don't make much sense, and this looks a lot more like an across-the-board labor market slowdown.
October 10, 2025 at 2:47 PM
It turns out that once you correct for this error, unemployment is actually rising faster for NON-degree workers - meaning that explanations in terms of AI replacing the college-educated workforce don't make much sense, and this looks a lot more like an across-the-board labor market slowdown.
This is fascinating. Who in the admin is pushing to end corporate short-termism? Is this just intended to hide reporting on the current economic slowdown, or will it mark a genuine shift in policy?
www.ft.com/content/d5d4...
www.ft.com/content/d5d4...
September 15, 2025 at 12:40 PM
This is fascinating. Who in the admin is pushing to end corporate short-termism? Is this just intended to hide reporting on the current economic slowdown, or will it mark a genuine shift in policy?
www.ft.com/content/d5d4...
www.ft.com/content/d5d4...
Today in 'stylized facts I'd never really internalized': the drop in the US employment + LFP rates during and after 2008 was so severe that we went from among the highest employment rate in the G7 to one of the lowest; just two points above France. (Chart is G7 ex Italy, with US series highlighted.)
September 14, 2025 at 1:42 PM
Today in 'stylized facts I'd never really internalized': the drop in the US employment + LFP rates during and after 2008 was so severe that we went from among the highest employment rate in the G7 to one of the lowest; just two points above France. (Chart is G7 ex Italy, with US series highlighted.)
Yep, that's exactly right. The Yale Budget Lab ran this analysis a few weeks ago and found that when you include tariffs as well, the full package would lower the incomes of all but the richest 20% of Americans, but give a tax cut of more than $10,000 to the top 10%. Completely insane stuff.
July 2, 2025 at 1:32 PM
Yep, that's exactly right. The Yale Budget Lab ran this analysis a few weeks ago and found that when you include tariffs as well, the full package would lower the incomes of all but the richest 20% of Americans, but give a tax cut of more than $10,000 to the top 10%. Completely insane stuff.
The Republican budget bill that just passed the senate would cut health care and food assistance for working-class Americans to give tax cuts to the rich. More than anything else, that is the point of this bill. If House Republicans cave and pass it, that will be their legacy.
July 1, 2025 at 5:12 PM
The Republican budget bill that just passed the senate would cut health care and food assistance for working-class Americans to give tax cuts to the rich. More than anything else, that is the point of this bill. If House Republicans cave and pass it, that will be their legacy.
The Senate just passed their version of the "Big, Beautiful Bill." If it passes the House, it will take health care and food away from millions of Americans, gut green energy production, and increase ICE deportation funding by more than 250%. Meanwhile, millionaires would get a tax cut of >$60,000.
July 1, 2025 at 4:09 PM
The Senate just passed their version of the "Big, Beautiful Bill." If it passes the House, it will take health care and food away from millions of Americans, gut green energy production, and increase ICE deportation funding by more than 250%. Meanwhile, millionaires would get a tax cut of >$60,000.
Per draft text, these are the big changes that Senate Rs made to secure Murkowski's vote. (Most of these are good changes, but they're not nearly sufficient to offset all of the terrible things this plan will do to cut health care, food assistance, and green energy production in America.)
July 1, 2025 at 3:54 PM
Per draft text, these are the big changes that Senate Rs made to secure Murkowski's vote. (Most of these are good changes, but they're not nearly sufficient to offset all of the terrible things this plan will do to cut health care, food assistance, and green energy production in America.)
Norm, I really appreciate all of your work on this, but doesn't the Alito concurrence specifically claim that class action will not be a new vehicle for nationwide orders, given the challenges of adhering to Rule 23 for the larger classes often covered by nationwide injunctions?
June 27, 2025 at 4:12 PM
Norm, I really appreciate all of your work on this, but doesn't the Alito concurrence specifically claim that class action will not be a new vehicle for nationwide orders, given the challenges of adhering to Rule 23 for the larger classes often covered by nationwide injunctions?
Again, Justice Jackson's dissent: anyone who is unable to go to court or sign onto a class-action suit may still be subject to facially illegal executive orders. And this disproportionately hurts poor and working-class Americans, not corporations or rich people with lawyers on speed dial.
June 27, 2025 at 3:48 PM
Again, Justice Jackson's dissent: anyone who is unable to go to court or sign onto a class-action suit may still be subject to facially illegal executive orders. And this disproportionately hurts poor and working-class Americans, not corporations or rich people with lawyers on speed dial.
The majority opinion, written by Justice Barrett, tests universal injunctions against whether they are "sufficiently analogous" to relief "available in the court of equity of England at the time of the founding," with no reference to its substantive legal and practical implications. (2/3)
June 27, 2025 at 3:36 PM
The majority opinion, written by Justice Barrett, tests universal injunctions against whether they are "sufficiently analogous" to relief "available in the court of equity of England at the time of the founding," with no reference to its substantive legal and practical implications. (2/3)
The Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. CASA is the greatest threat to the rule of law since the end of Jim Crow. As Sotomayor and Jackson's dissents (excerpted below) highlight, it prevents federal courts from issuing nationwide injunctions against essentially any illegal executive action. (1/3)
June 27, 2025 at 3:33 PM
The Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. CASA is the greatest threat to the rule of law since the end of Jim Crow. As Sotomayor and Jackson's dissents (excerpted below) highlight, it prevents federal courts from issuing nationwide injunctions against essentially any illegal executive action. (1/3)
Yep, exactly. The effects actually get more regressive as time goes on, since the working-class-friendly provisions mostly expire in 2029. By 2034, the bottom 50% lose out, while >80% of the benefits go to the top decile! (You can play around with effects by year at www.cbo.gov/publication/...).
June 12, 2025 at 3:42 PM
Yep, exactly. The effects actually get more regressive as time goes on, since the working-class-friendly provisions mostly expire in 2029. By 2034, the bottom 50% lose out, while >80% of the benefits go to the top decile! (You can play around with effects by year at www.cbo.gov/publication/...).
Here are the dollar effects of the bill by income decile. The lowest-income families will lose thousands of dollars on average, while the richest get tens of thousands in tax cuts.
June 12, 2025 at 3:36 PM
Here are the dollar effects of the bill by income decile. The lowest-income families will lose thousands of dollars on average, while the richest get tens of thousands in tax cuts.
CBO estimates for the 'Big Beautiful Bill' are out. This headline graph shows the distributional effects: the bottom 30% of Americans will get poorer, while the top 10% will get more than $10,000 a year in tax cuts on average. So much for Republicans becoming the party of the working class.
June 12, 2025 at 3:34 PM
CBO estimates for the 'Big Beautiful Bill' are out. This headline graph shows the distributional effects: the bottom 30% of Americans will get poorer, while the top 10% will get more than $10,000 a year in tax cuts on average. So much for Republicans becoming the party of the working class.
In the middle of the night, House Republicans added a new provision to their 'Big, Beautiful Bill' that would defund any ACA plans that cover nonemergency abortions. This is in addition to existing language that blocks abortion providers from receiving any Medicaid funds.
May 22, 2025 at 12:25 PM
In the middle of the night, House Republicans added a new provision to their 'Big, Beautiful Bill' that would defund any ACA plans that cover nonemergency abortions. This is in addition to existing language that blocks abortion providers from receiving any Medicaid funds.
Second, it would be regressive. The largest share of business income tends to flow to already-wealthy Americans (see chart below). And indeed, the JCT found in 2018 that more than 40% of the tax benefits of the change would go to taxpayers with incomes above $1 million.
May 21, 2025 at 1:30 PM
Second, it would be regressive. The largest share of business income tends to flow to already-wealthy Americans (see chart below). And indeed, the JCT found in 2018 that more than 40% of the tax benefits of the change would go to taxpayers with incomes above $1 million.
We've already seen key Rs come out against the current bill for not making enough cuts (!!) to Medicaid, food stamps, and green energy programs, and this gives them more ammunition within the caucus. The question is whether moderates will be able to credibly push back on those demands.
May 17, 2025 at 11:42 AM
We've already seen key Rs come out against the current bill for not making enough cuts (!!) to Medicaid, food stamps, and green energy programs, and this gives them more ammunition within the caucus. The question is whether moderates will be able to credibly push back on those demands.
A noteworthy stand from the editorial board of the FT, even if it comes too late. I hope that more major outlets find the courage to speak out against Netanyahu’s increasingly blatant campaign of ethnic cleansing and occupation in Gaza.
May 6, 2025 at 10:46 PM
A noteworthy stand from the editorial board of the FT, even if it comes too late. I hope that more major outlets find the courage to speak out against Netanyahu’s increasingly blatant campaign of ethnic cleansing and occupation in Gaza.
Two scary pieces of the Oversight reconciliation package just released an hour ago: Rs are trying to make Federal employment less secure (through an at-will employment structure), and force unlawfully fired employees to *pay* to challenge their firings.
April 26, 2025 at 6:12 PM
Two scary pieces of the Oversight reconciliation package just released an hour ago: Rs are trying to make Federal employment less secure (through an at-will employment structure), and force unlawfully fired employees to *pay* to challenge their firings.
Tons to be said about this. First, genuinely unclear how important flows away from $ are so far - that figure cherry-picks the post-Covid increase in 30-year yields, but it looks much less compelling in the longer run. (Nathan Tankus wrote on this today as well - www.crisesnotes.com/is-the-trump...)
April 13, 2025 at 11:57 PM
Tons to be said about this. First, genuinely unclear how important flows away from $ are so far - that figure cherry-picks the post-Covid increase in 30-year yields, but it looks much less compelling in the longer run. (Nathan Tankus wrote on this today as well - www.crisesnotes.com/is-the-trump...)
Yes, definitely. I found the recent conversation between Scheppele and Krugman helpful in thinking through some of this, although it's a bit more surface-level: paulkrugman.substack.com/p/from-orban.... They discuss this question midway through; both see it as an flaw that can be taken advantage of.
March 18, 2025 at 10:47 PM
Yes, definitely. I found the recent conversation between Scheppele and Krugman helpful in thinking through some of this, although it's a bit more surface-level: paulkrugman.substack.com/p/from-orban.... They discuss this question midway through; both see it as an flaw that can be taken advantage of.
Seems to be off by a factor of 10 for some reason, but trend is broadly the same. Not sure what's going on with the original graph - perhaps using a different variable?
March 12, 2025 at 2:48 PM
Seems to be off by a factor of 10 for some reason, but trend is broadly the same. Not sure what's going on with the original graph - perhaps using a different variable?
Here's a quick and dirty look at the numbers in real terms in case it's useful for anyone. Converted 2024 numbers to 2025 $ using CPI. All decreasing except for DHS and Interior, and >3% declines in VA, Labor/HHS/Ed, Commerce/Justice/Science, and Transportation/HUD.
March 11, 2025 at 11:37 PM
Here's a quick and dirty look at the numbers in real terms in case it's useful for anyone. Converted 2024 numbers to 2025 $ using CPI. All decreasing except for DHS and Interior, and >3% declines in VA, Labor/HHS/Ed, Commerce/Justice/Science, and Transportation/HUD.
Yeah, my read on this is that it's not merits at all; just about the stay.
March 5, 2025 at 3:02 PM
Yeah, my read on this is that it's not merits at all; just about the stay.
Germany, of all places, should know where this leads. If politicians want to end the rise of AfD and the far right, they need to learn from past mistakes, get rid of the debt brake, and start addressing unemployment and regional inequality throughout the country.
March 4, 2025 at 10:22 AM
Germany, of all places, should know where this leads. If politicians want to end the rise of AfD and the far right, they need to learn from past mistakes, get rid of the debt brake, and start addressing unemployment and regional inequality throughout the country.