dr."Ñáss wolfers? talked about the importance of the increase in size of paychecks.bout getting people back to work.1ozp@@r(t&háhp &hc% you get a second in a family, that will double theird income. whereas if we<0raise wage growth a little, so anything that keeps of thev3yíwu┘9=5e moving and gets the employee back to work. about the 1970s, it used to be an economy where a rising tide would lift all boats. that appearsá]ñ to be broken today. so we need to not just raiseid size of the pie but make sure some of it gets out there. that's where i think the important work of the tax system is most critical. you asked for a very specific suggestion, what would put more money in people's p1dcvt-m9ñ iÑ ÷ think the earned income tax credit sgrat way of ensuring that those who work get the rewards thattñk"Ñ deserve. at the moment, we mostly reserve that for parents. why not nonparents. and actually toañwx be %oná the childless tic they would be noncustodial there are broad sways to the population that i think would have a huge effect in increasingoç6ñ take-home pay. >> dr.r)gh

dr. wolfers, i know my time is limited. i would appreciate your thoughts thoughts. >> senator, first of all i strongly share your concerns about the balance between revenue and spending. i ran a spreadsheet that looks 100 years into the future. obviously, not accurately, but still worth doing. one of the assumptions and cbo that does the same thing on a shorter time span has, factors in the growth of interest rates and that, of course, feeds back into further requirement for revenue to pay that. it's scary. the trend is adverse to the trend is for revenues is a fraction of gdp to rise substantially more slowly than spending. that's a long-term, and it hasn't changed the it's remarkably stable your according to this spreadsheet than, say by the end of this century we would be just immersed in debt. we would have way more debt that we could possibly pay. something has to give. it's got to get in the sense of even more revenue or less spending. i think our democratic system sitting here needs to take these very seriously be co

dr. wolfers i know my time is limited.7,@r& i appre+#"noiÑ@ your thoughts. >> sure.well, senator, first of all, i strongly share"&wçñ youra% concern about the balance between revenue and spending.açé i run a spread sheet that looks 100 years into the future. obviously not accurately. one of the assumptie cbo that does the same thing on a shorter%3: factored in the growth of interest rates. and that, of course, feeds back into furthercú requirement for revenue to pay that. and it's scary.qg q6"hm the trend is)slíç adverse. the trend is for revenues of the fraction of gdp to rise substantially more slowly than spendin(@ &háhp &hc% and that's a long-term, and it it's just remarkably stable. according to thislç spread sheet, say, by b$the end of this8jy century we would be just immersed in we'd have wayu"z ñ more4÷ debt than we possibly could pay. something has to,[frgive.aqñ it has to give in the senseai+hÑ of more revenue or less spending. i think our democratic system sitting here needs to take very seriously concerned about that. i share your concerns. >> if the chai

dr. wolfers. but again if you have an idea, just one because time is short, to try to deal with this huge gap between recovery in urban areas and recovery in rural areas, i would be interested in an idea from each of you. dr. wolfers. >> i would rather reject the question rather than answer. >> fair enough. >> there is an enormous amount of dimps adifference across the country, between rural and urban. we should handle these with dignity and that doesn't mean favoring one over the other. the economic recovery has a lot further to run, and with that i completely agree. if we can push down to a 4.-something employment rate rather than a 5.-something unemployment rate, it's going to help both groups. >> dr. hall? >> the trend toward urbanization has been going on throughout the history of the u.s. exactly what comfort should be given to the people who are still in rural areas, but it's very important to understand that especially certain big urban areas that have -- that are at the other extreme, for

dr. justin>7w wolfers.cro economics, political economy, economics of the stamly, social policy, lawk economics and behaviorals+[ty economics. he is a research associate with the national bureau for economiclx research, a research9;1 affiliate in london and an international research fellow at the keough institute. we want to thank youav for being here in attendance todayvhr and please procnj q with your opening statement asp >> thank you (zchairman hatch and ranking member widen and member the of the committee senator and my brother in orange paisley. the good news is we are very much in aniqy improving economy right0%;4 now. last year we@ jobs per month on average, which is the fastest rate of job creation since 1999. the unemployment rate now is down to 5.6%. and importantly through this falling at a pull percentage point per year.rg it's down from 10.dbww÷%age points. the economy will finally be back to normal. but i should urge, as much asl@dç that's the natural projectionzh0e that we should got declare

dr. wolfers. >> i would say three things. >> are you from australia? >> i'm a dual citizen.d raise the gas tax and i think you'll find. >> would you say that again? >> raise the gas tax and i think you could take almost any economist in the united states and they would say the same thing. i can think of two reasons. one at the moment we are effectively subsidizing the dirtiest forms of transport rather than the cleaner ones and there are environmental consequences. there are better things we could do but in the world we live in this is the simplest interest -- instrument we can use. i used to run to work. when i run to work i have to join a gym just a shower. on the days i drive to work i can use tax-exempt money to pay for a parking spot so we are actually subsidizing one form of transportation rather than another and i would argue probably not the right form. my fellow michiganders might disagree. the second is how to get more bang for your buck from the transportation fund. one is to think about spending more when stuff is the cheapest. we have a lot of instruction worker

dr. justin>7w wolfers. economics. his researchx> thank you (zchairman hatch and ranking member widen and member the of the committee senator and my brother in orange paisley. the good news is we are very much in aniqy improving economy right0%;4 now. last year we@ jobs per month on average, which is the fastest rate of job creation since 1999. the unemployment rate now is down to 5.6%. and importantly through this falling at a pull percentage point per year.rg it's down from 10.dbww÷%age points. the economy will finally be back to normal. but i should urge, as much asl@dç that's the na

dr. wolfers. >> three things first. >> are you from australia quite >> i am, in the. i am a citizen. first rated gas tax. >> would you say that again. >> brays the gas tax. i think you could take almost an economist in the united states in may with exactly the same thing. i can think of two reasons. one of them all we are effectively subsidizing the dirtiest forms of =tranfour rather than the enormous environmental consequences. professor hall is right. there's bigger things we could do. second, i actually like to run to work. when i went to work i join a gym just to shower. on the days i drive to work i can use tax-exempt money to pay for parking spot. so we are actually subsidizing one form of transportation rather than another and i would argue probably not the right forum. the site and is how to get more bang for your buck in the transportation fund. one is to think about spending more when staff is cheapest. so we have a lot of construction workers out of work right now. we have low interest rates. now is a great time to spend at the boom keeps going five years time will hopeful