• Creating Good Jobs is the Defining Issue of Our Time

    May 21, 2013Richard Kirsch

    On June 4th, the Roosevelt Institute will bring together leading thinkers, activists, and policymakers for A Bold Approach to the Jobs Emergency: Setting the Political Agenda for 2014 and 2016, a daylong conference in Washington, D.C. that will focus on America's desperate need for more and better jobs. Today, Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch, who will take part in a panel on "Creating Momentum for More Good Jobs," explains why job quality is as important as job quantity.

    On June 4th, the Roosevelt Institute will bring together leading thinkers, activists, and policymakers for A Bold Approach to the Jobs Emergency: Setting the Political Agenda for 2014 and 2016, a daylong conference in Washington, D.C. that will focus on America's desperate need for more and better jobs. Today, Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch, who will take part in a panel on "Creating Momentum for More Good Jobs," explains why job quality is as important as job quantity.

    What is the single biggest economic problem facing people early in this century? It is not the budget deficit or national debt. It is the eroding and disappearing of good jobs. People with good jobs – jobs that provide decent pay and benefits and the flexibility to be able to take care of one’s family – are the fuel of the economy and the basis for broadly shared prosperity. Good jobs, and the things that go with them – a good education, affordable health care, and a secure retirement – are the very definition of a successful economy.

    The public gets it. When asked to identify “the single biggest problem facing this country today,” 40 percent answered “jobs and the economy.” Number two was “budget deficit/national debt,” at 6 percent.

    Four years after the official end of the Great Recession, the real economy – not corporate profits or the stock market – remains stalled. The proportion of Americans working is the lowest in 30 years, or basically since women started entering the work force in large numbers. Most of the jobs that have been created since the recession pay low wages. Long-term unemployment also is at levels well above anything since the Great Depression. And income for all but the richest has gone down.

    So why does Washington and elite discussion remain focused on the debt and deficit? And what will it take to move the politics of the nation to take on what the public correctly understands is the central economic issue?

    The fundamental reason that good jobs is not the defining issue is that an economy in which some people have a lot while more and more scrape buy is working just fine for the wealthy and huge corporations that control our politics and media. Personally, the rich are doing better than ever, as their inflated pay and corporate profits are supported by the financialization of the U.S. economy, low-wage service sector jobs here. and low-wage manufacturing and importable services abroad. The middle class in the U.S. may be getting squeezed and shrinking, but it’s still broad and big enough to fuel demand for U.S. goods and services. The disasters to come from the lack of retirement savings, high student loan debt, and long-term wage stagnation are not stopping the rich from getting richer today.

    The interest of the ruling elites has been powerfully popularized by the right’s highly disciplined, focused narrative on the national debt and budget deficits. While the motivation here is ideological – to shrink those government services and activities that improve social welfare or regulate the markets – the weapon has been convincing Americans that the national debt is an unconscionable burden on our children, that government deficits are as unsustainable as household deficits, and that taxes are paid to a wasteful, corrupt government. Instead, the right insists that businesses are the “job creators” and that any effort to interfere with what business thinks is best will put people out of work.

    As a result, the great public concern about the lack of good jobs doesn’t translate into support for government action – or any action, other than to do your personal best and pray that things get better. People don’t believe that there are solutions for good jobs in a global economy. They certainly don’t see that government has a role in creating jobs or that tax dollars could be spent on effective job creation. And while they support regulations to improve job quality, they are very susceptible to pro-business arguments.

    What do we do about it? Here’s an overview of a strategy. One, we need to make good jobs the central, driving focus of progressive discourse, just as the right has put deficits/debt/limited government at the center of their policy, politics, and communication. That requires clearly linking every issue to the need to create good jobs that will enable working- and middle-class families to have opportunity and security. In doing that, we need to be talking about good jobs in a multi-dimensional way. Good jobs are about having enough pay to support your family, flexibility to allow you to care for your family – from children to elders – and access to good, affordable education, affordable health care, and a secure retirement.

    Two, we need to center our discourse on good jobs in a powerful, values-based story about how we create an America that works for all of us. This story starts with a vision of an America that provides liberty, justice, and prosperity for all. It reinforces the notion that people believe but rarely hear: working families and the middle class are the real engines of the economy. It provides examples from American history of how decisions we have made together built the great American middle class. And it follows those with a vision and example of how we can make decisions together in the 21st century to create good jobs for everyone in America. It clearly identifies who is responsible for the mess we’re in – the super-rich and corporations who game the system at our expense and buy off our government. And finally, the story empowers people as the heroes who can take action for change.

    Third, we need to champion a program of policies that will work to create good jobs. We have policies and innovative ideas that will work today, many of which will be discussed on June 4th in Washington when the Roosevelt Institute holds a daylong conference on A Bold Approach to the Jobs Emergency. Certainly, we will need to continue to develop policy solutions that address major challenges like globalization and technology. But we should be clear that it is in our power now to redirect economic policy to dramatically improve the quality of the jobs Americans now hold and to create millions of new good jobs for people who are out of work.

    Fourth, we need to organize campaigns for good jobs, starting with a focus at the local and state level. Even though municipalities and states don’t have as many resources as the federal government, there are policies that can be taken locally to create a new economic paradigm. The success of those policies will be more immediately visible to people. The lessons learned in building popular support for these policies will be transferable to other places and to the federal level.

    Finally, we need to make good jobs a defining issue of the 2016 election. To reach that goal, we will need to do all of the above, with a strategy that brings the work together for the 2016 election. In 2014, we should focus on a few U.S. Senate and congressional elections to experiment with the best approaches. We can take a page from specific strategies used from 2007-2008, which made health care the central issue of the 2008 election.

    American’s historical optimism is being deeply challenged by the squeezing, and indeed crushing, of the middle class. Our job is to rekindle that optimism and make it a powerful force for change. We can build an America that works for all of us by building a movement to demand good jobs for everyone. 

    Richard Kirsch is a Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, a Senior Adviser to USAction, and the author of Fighting for Our Health. He was National Campaign Manager of Health Care for America Now during the legislative battle to pass reform.

    Share This

  • Daily Digest - May 21: Fixing the Economy First, but not Yet

    May 21, 2013Rachel Goldfarb

    Click here to receive the Daily Digest via e-mail.

    What's the best way to pass a climate bill? Fix the economy first. (WaPo)

    Click here to receive the Daily Digest via e-mail.

    What's the best way to pass a climate bill? Fix the economy first. (WaPo)

    According to Brad Plumer, if we’re serious about climate change, we need to solve the jobs crisis first: there’s a connection between a Senator’s “green score” from the League of Conservation Voters and the unemployment rate in his or her state.

    As rich gain optimism, lawmakers lose economic urgency (WaPo)

    Jim Tankersley reminds us that while the economy and jobs remain a top priority for most Americans, the House has only approved three bills that could be considered economic policy this year- and one of those was the 37th attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act. 

    Camping Out for Five Days, in Hopes of a Union Job (NYT)

    Most jobs created since the recession are low-wage, but Jessica Glazer’s story about more than 800 people camping out to apply for the training program at Local 3 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers shows how far people will go to escape that rut.

    Sequestration Nation: Budget Cuts Endanger Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Victims (CAP)

    Kwame Boadi lays out the effect of sequestration on one of our most vulnerable populations: domestic violence and sexual assault victims, who are losing services, beds in shelters, and more. These cuts could kill, but Congress has prioritized keeping flights on schedule.

    Poverty Flees to the Suburbs (MoJo)

    Josh Harkinson breaks down yesterday’s report from the Brookings Institution, showing that the suburban poor now outnumber the urban and rural poor. With most federal anti-poverty spending targeting urban communities, there’s a serious mismatch.

    Senator Introduces Bill To Allow Holders Of Student Debt To Refinance (Think Progress)

    Bryce Covert reports on Senator Gillibrand’s proposal to force the Department of Education to automatically refinance federal student loans with interest rates above 4 percent to fixed 4 percent loans, which would save nearly 37 million borrowers billions in interest payments.

    Ready to Testify on Financial Stability, Lew Is Likely To Be Grilled on IRS Scandal (National Journal)

    Catherine Hollander notes that Treasury Secretary Jack Lew is scheduled to deliver the Financial Stability Oversight Council’s annual report this week, but Congress is less interested in the global financial system than it is in what’s going on at the local IRS office in Cincinnati.

    The Unemployed Need Bold, Creative Moves from the Fed (The Fiscal Times)

    Mark Thoma remembers when the Fed took risks and pushed the rules to their limits in orchestrating the bailout for big financial institutions. Why, he asks, aren’t they maintaining such boldness for the sake of the unemployed?

     

    Share This

  • Daily Digest - May 20: Why the Internet Moves at the Speed of Indifference

    May 20, 2013Tim Price

    Click here to receive the Daily Digest via e-mail.

    Telecom's Big Players Hold Back the Future (NYT)

    Click here to receive the Daily Digest via e-mail.

    Telecom's Big Players Hold Back the Future (NYT)

    David Carr profiles Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Crawford and explores her crusade against the telecom monopolies that offer high fees instead of high speeds. Every time you wait for a video to buffer, you're experiencing the magic of the market at work.

    Sheila Bair: Dodd-Frank really did end taxpayer bailouts (WaPo)

    Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal talks to the former director of the FDIC about why skeptics are wrong to doubt the agency's commitment to winding down failed banks and why it's important to raise leverage requirements so it doesn't have to prove it.

    Obama Urged to Make Economy a Bigger, Bolder Topic (AP)

    Jim Kuhnhenn reports that with the CBO projecting a lower deficit and the GOP scrounging for scandals in the couch cushions, Obama advisers and critics are asking the president to change the conversation by laying out a real second-term economic agenda.

    The 1 Percent Are Only Half the Problem (NYT)

    Timothy Noah argues that while runaway wealth at the top contributes to rising inequality in the U.S., there's also the growing educational divide and resulting skills-based gap. But if the left and right discuss both problems, they risk an agreement breaking out.

    Boom or Bubble? (New Yorker)

    James Surowiecki has good news (1) and bad news (2) for analysts who think stock prices are overinflated because GDP isn't keeping up with corporate profits: (1) corporate profits are only barely connected to the real American economy these days, and (2) see (1).

    Global Capital and the Nation State (Robert Reich)

    Reich notes that big corporations are hiding their money from tax collectors while extorting sweetheart deals from national and local governments, but right-wing nationalist parties are convincing more and more voters that cooperation is the new exploitation.

    Food Stamps Get Licked by Cuts (Prospect)

    Monica Potts writes that the House and Senate farm bills would make food stamp funding less generous and kick millions off the rolls even as more Americans are going hungry. In other words, let them eat cake, just as long as they're paying for it out of pocket.

    This Week in Poverty: Fighting Poverty Through Wall Street Accountability (The Nation)

    Organizer and activist Stephen Lerner tells Greg Kaufmann that one of the challenges in fighting poverty is that there are so many different root causes, but one advantage of focusing on Wall Street is that behind most of these big problems there's a big bank.

    Note: After three years writing the Daily Digest, I'll be handing the reins to Rachel Goldfarb, a talented new addition to the Roosevelt Institute communications team, starting tomorrow. While I will continue to provide editorial oversight and support, I'm confident Rachel will make the Digest her own and ensure that it remains a fresh and engaging resource for progressive economics news and analysis over the next three years and beyond. Thanks for reading!

    Share This

  • How Can We Solve the Jobs Emergency? A Q&A with Jeff Madrick

    May 17, 2013Cathy Harding

    On June 4th, the Roosevelt Institute will bring together leading thinkers, activists, and policymakers for A Bold Approach to the Jobs Emergency: Setting the Political Agenda for 2014 and 2016, a daylong conference in Washington, D.C. that will focus on America's desperate need for more and better jobs. Recently, Cathy Harding, Roosevelt's VP of Operations and Communications, sat down with Jeff Madrick, Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow and Director of the Rediscovering Government initiative, to discuss his goals for the conference and his thoughts on what we can and must do to address the ongoing jobs crisis.

    On June 4th, the Roosevelt Institute will bring together leading thinkers, activists, and policymakers for A Bold Approach to the Jobs Emergency: Setting the Political Agenda for 2014 and 2016, a daylong conference in Washington, D.C. that will focus on America's desperate need for more and better jobs. Recently, Cathy Harding, Roosevelt's VP of Operations and Communications, sat down with Jeff Madrick, Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow and Director of the Rediscovering Government initiative, to discuss his goals for the conference and his thoughts on what we can and must do to address the ongoing jobs crisis.

    Cathy Harding: At the upcoming Rediscovering Government conference titled “A Bold Approach to the Jobs Emergency,” you’re going to make the case that solving the jobs emergency requires a comprehensive approach. Is that a new perspective on job creation? In other words, what needs to be included as part of a meaningful response that has not be included before?

    Jeff Madrick: I think it basically is a new approach. I think people have their one or two favorites. Mainstream economists almost solely talk about education; in fact, there is a quote from Claudia Goldin and Larry Katz of Harvard in a Mike Milken Institute publication that says, yes things like minimum wage and unionization may matter, but they really don’t matter very much. It’s almost all education, or Raghuram Rajan, who is a well-known Chicago economist, says the big problem is education. I think even left-wing economists will say the big problem is education. In my view it is one of many problems.

    There are bills out there that are moderately comprehensive, like Tom Harkin’s bill, and he’s going talk about that.

    Minimum wage contributes too, and de-unionization contributes to it. I think the lack of enforcement of the employment laws contributes to it, which has been serious.

    We don’t pay any attention to job training programs in a serious way, aside from college education.

    I think there are issues about health insurance that have to be talked about; there are issues about Wall Street, in particular, that are almost totally ignored by Washington, D.C. Wall Street’s impact on suppressing good jobs has been very serious, and it’s not part of any of these bills. So I think all of these matter.

    And finally, government investment in infrastructure and new technologies are job creators.

    CH: What happens if you don’t approach the jobs crisis across many planes?

    JM: We are going to continue to generate fewer jobs than we should, and we won’t generate enough jobs that pay well. That’s a big deal. We are already in a very serious hole merely on the number of jobs, but the quality of jobs, in terms of wages they pay, and in terms of benefits like retirement and health insurance, is stunningly bad.

    CH: So you are saying that without a multi-pronged approach to the jobs issue, it is just going to get worse?

    JM: I think, yeah. I think if we listen to what most economists tell us to do, we would be a very sad country.

    CH: So, Jeff, when we read reports that say unemployment is going down, and that jobs are being created, what questions should people be asking about those numbers?

    JM: Long-term unemployment, that is, people who can’t get jobs for 6 months or more, is very high. It has been setting records for a long time now. So yes, there is a slight improvement in the unemployment rate, but it is not nearly enough. What are the reasons for that? Part of it is slow economic growth in itself. Why do we have slow economic growth? Probably the single most important reason, but not only reason, is high levels of debt that are held over from the mortgage boom. So slow growth contributes to that lack of rapid job creation, but so do these other factors, including Wall Street and pressure on wages by business. Some of it generated by Wall Street needs and stock market needs, some of it generated by globalization and the ability to go somewhere else.

    CH: So you are not cheered when you see a report that says the unemployment rate is down to 7.5 percent?

    JM: All of it has to be in context. I think it suggests, given that the government is taking money out of the economy through this now famous sequestration process, that the economy is stronger than we thought it might be. If only they would get out of the way, we would probably be creating a lot more jobs, but they are not getting out of the way. So that is another issue we have to deal with. So I am cheered that the job situation in the latest reporting month was better than most people thought, given that the government is stepping on the breaks and we are still moving.

    CH: You talked about it not just being a matter of jobs, but the question of good jobs. The students involved in Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network through their Government By and For Millennial America report have identified that quality of jobs as being a very important issue for the country as a whole, and their generation. Can you specify what a bold approach might look like, specifically for the generation just coming onto the job market?

    JM: Young people are getting the tail end of what is a pretty crummy job market for almost everybody. So to tailor a jobs program for the very young probably requires a variety of different types of policies. Still, going to college enables you to at least get a job, even if it is not a good job. A lot of people who go to college have to take jobs where you don’t really need a college education. So is there a simple answer – go get a college education? It is a negative answer. Don’t not get a college education.

    We may have to tailor jobs programs run by the government to hire young people. It may come to that. We might need job-hiring programs by the government in the end. And we can’t neglect that idea, or keep it out of sight because we haven’t done for so long, or because “it is not the private market.” The big crisis is for the young people.

    If you get a bad- or lower-paying job at 25, it probably affects your earning power for the rest of your life. So it is a pretty serious issue.

    CH: You have written a lot about what you call “the age of greed.” Is there is a cultural aspect to this current jobs crisis?

    JM: I haven’t thought about that sufficiently. I think there is now too easy an acceptance that people won’t get good jobs and that the future may not be very good. That’s rather a new thing in America. One of my favorite stories is from Fernand Braudel, the historian, who says, way back who knows when, a Frenchman wrote a letter from Wyoming or somewhere like that. He said, “You can’t believe what they are doing in this town. They are building City Hall a mile from where we all live, and where the town center now is. Why? Because they’re so optimistic the town is going to grow so much that will be the new center.” I don’t think we have much of that kind of optimism. Ironically, the great so-called optimistic president, Ronald Reagan, in my view, was the guy who made us all pessimists -- that we can’t rely on government to make things better and that all we have to do is have good thoughts and things will get better on their own. So now that I think about it and you brought it up, I think there is a pessimism that’s taking root in our society that is very dangerous. I don’t think if you talk to people who are 35 now and have children that they are extremely optimistic about prospects for their children. 

    CH: The closing panel at the jobs conference will address momentum building. What can people expect to take away from that?

    JM: I think that most of us don’t think that a jobs conference or a well-written jobs proposal is immediately going to result in action. I think we have to win people over with argument, and persuasion, and facts, and a sense of what is really at stake here. And I think that’s what building momentum is about. One can say, “Win over one person at a time, and then eventually you get a movement.” It is something like that. And I think that is what Rediscovering Government is going have to be dedicated to. We are not going go down there and change the world on June 4th, but we want to lay the groundwork for fighting the ongoing battle. And indeed, laying the groundwork and setting the political agenda for the elections of 2014, and especially 2016. We want to influence elections. We want a job-creating President and a job-creating Congress.

    The full agenda for the June 4th conference is now available online. Click here to learn more about the speakers and RSVP today.

     

    Job search image via Shutterstock.com

    Share This