Daily Digest - April 25: Legal Challenges Are Changing the Intern Economy

Apr 24, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Colleges, Employers Rethink Internship Policies (WSJ)

Rachel Feintzeig and Melissa Korn report that while unpaid internship lawsuits work through the courts, many companies are changing their programs by adding pay or eliminating internships altogether.

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Colleges, Employers Rethink Internship Policies (WSJ)

Rachel Feintzeig and Melissa Korn report that while unpaid internship lawsuits work through the courts, many companies are changing their programs by adding pay or eliminating internships altogether.

Losing Their Unemployment Benefits Didn't Help These People Find Work (HuffPo)

Sam Stein and Arthur Delaney find that without long-term unemployment insurance, which Congress failed to extend in December, workers' job searches didn't change, but their ability to pay the bills did.

Your Government Owes You a Job (The Nation)

Raúl Carrillo calls for a job guarantee as a matter of justice and economic security for all. He says such a program would have similar costs to current anti-poverty programs, but provide more opportunities.

Here’s Why This City’s Businesses Love Its Paid Sick Days Law (ThinkProgress)

Bryce Covert looks at a new audit of Seattle's paid sick leave law, which went into effect in September 2012. People are happy: costs were lower than expected, and business, wage, and job growth were all up.

The Rich Live Longer: So How Much Money 'Buys' 1 More Year of Life? (The Atlantic)

Derek Thompson uses data on life expectancy and income to determine the cost of an extra year of life. He says the actual numbers here are less important than the fact that inequality has life-and-death costs.

Politicians from the Hungriest Counties Voted to Cut Food Stamps (MSNBC)

The congressmen, both Democrats, claim to have voted for the recent Farm Bill that cut food stamps in some states as a compromise on larger cuts, says Ned Resnikoff, but the GOP strategy will keep chipping away at the program.

F.C.C., in a Shift, Backs Fast Lanes for Web Traffic (NYT)

The Federal Communications Commission announced new proposed rules that allow companies to pay Internet service providers for faster access to their content, reports Edward Wyatt. Some call this the end of net neutrality.

Share This

Daily Digest - April 23: Repealing Health Care Reform Gets Harder Every Day

Apr 23, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Ted Cruz's Worst Nightmare Is Coming True (Politico)

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Ted Cruz's Worst Nightmare Is Coming True (Politico)

As Americans get used to having access to affordable health care, repeal will become less and less likely, writes Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch. That's just as Senator Cruz predicted last summer.

AT&T Tries to Bully the Government (Bloomberg View)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Crawford says the Federal Communications Commission should stand strong and limit how many spectrum licenses any one wireless carrier can buy at its upcoming auction.

Elizabeth Warren is the Teacher (Esquire)

Charles P. Pierce profiles Senator Warren's work in academia and politics, framing her as an eternal educator. Today, she continues to educate on critical issues like financial reform - but also makes that reform happen.

Elizabeth Warren’s Needed Call for Student Loan Reform (WaPo)

With graduation season upon us, Katrina vanden Heuvel, a member of the Roosevelt Institute's Board of Directors, praises Senator Warren's work on student debt, which she says is holding back the economy.

The American Middle Class Is No Longer the World’s Richest (NYT)

Data shows that middle-income people around the world have experienced greater gains over the past three decades than Americans, write David Leonhardt and Kevin Quealy. They tie this to rising income inequality.

Waiter, Am I Subsidizing Your Pay? (Other Words)

Marjorie Elizabeth Wood argues that taxpayers are heavily subsidizing the restaurant industry, which takes advantage of tax loopholes for high CEO pay and doesn't pay its workers a living wage.

  • Roosevelt Take: Roosevelt Institute Fellow and Director of Research Susan Holmberg and Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network alumna Lydia Austin discuss the performance pay loophole in their white paper.

The Revolt of the Cities (TAP)

Harold Meyerson looks at the new wave of progressive mayors and city councils, elected primarily with labor community coalitions. He says this new city leadership is reshaping American liberalism.

Share This

Daily Digest - April 22: Tax Reform Can Close the Gulf Between CEOs and Workers

Apr 22, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Raising Taxes on Corporations that Pay Their CEOs Royally and Treat Their Workers Like Serfs (Robert Reich)

Robert Reich explains a proposed bill in California that would incentivize lower executive pay by tying corporate tax rates to the ratio of CEO pay to typical workers' pay.

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Raising Taxes on Corporations that Pay Their CEOs Royally and Treat Their Workers Like Serfs (Robert Reich)

Robert Reich explains a proposed bill in California that would incentivize lower executive pay by tying corporate tax rates to the ratio of CEO pay to typical workers' pay.

Justice Stevens Suggests Solution for ‘Giant Step in the Wrong Direction’ (NYT)

Adam Liptak speaks with retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who is calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and allow reasonable limits on campaign finance.

  • Roosevelt Take: Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network Student Board of Advisors Chair Jeff Raines explains why McCutcheon v. FEC makes big money's power over politics even worse.

A Chance to Remake the Fed (TAP)

With two open slots on the Federal Reserve, David Dayen suggests that progressives should support regulators who will serve as Main Street's voice on monetary policy.

Union Will Keep Fighting To Organize Volkswagen Workers (ThinkProgress)

While the United Auto Workers have dropped their appeal of the recent failed union election in Chattanooga, TN, Bryce Covert reports that the union plans to continue organizing at that Volkswagen plant.

UConn Graduate Assistants First To Unionize In State (Hartford Courant)

Kathleen Megan reports that the graduate assistants will be represented by the Graduate Employee Union/United Auto Workers. Graduate assistants have organized on over 60 campuses across the country.

‘Jobs vs. the Environment’: How to Counter This Divisive Big Lie (The Nation)

Jeremy Brecher argues that a "Green New Deal" could put people to work rebuilding the country's infrastructure to protect the environment, ending the supposed conflict between environmental movements and labor.

Not Born Rich? Out of Luck (MSNBC)

Chris Hayes interviews Thomas Piketty about his new book, Capital in the 21st Century, and the trends that have led to rising concentration of wealth in the United States and around the world.

Share This

JW Mason on Disgorge the Cash

Apr 21, 2014Mike Konczal

 

I'm happy to have been part of the editing team on this piece by JW Mason for The New Inquiry's money and finance issue, Disgorge the Cash. It summarizes some of the issues he's been developing at his blog slackwire on the relationship between the financial sector and the real economy. As both an economic matter, with the relationship between corporate borrowing, investments and dividends before and after the early 1980s, as well as a socio-cultural matter of managers and their relationships to the firms they manage, it's fascinating stuff. It also points to a question, one Piketty doesn't touch in his new Capital book, of whether supermanagers who are creating the runaway 1% labor incomes gain should really be thought of more as part of capital income.

Much of the rest of the finance and money issue is now online, though you should still subscribe.

From the piece:

In 1960, there was a strong link between borrowing and investment. A firm that was borrowing $1 million more than a typical firm of that size would usually be investing $750,000 more. [...] Before 1980, there was no statistical relationship between borrowing and payouts in the form of dividends and share repurchases at the firm level. But since then, a clear positive relationship emerged, especially at business-cycle peaks. Firms that borrow more have significantly higher payouts to shareholders. [...] It was a common trope in accounts of the housing bubble that greedy or shortsighted homeowners were extracting equity from their houses with second mortgages or cash-out refinancing to pay for extra consumption. What nobody mentioned was that the rentier class had been playing a similar game longer and on a much larger scale.

[...]

At the moment, finance seems to be doing its job well. The idea that corporations will spontaneously socialize themselves looks utopian and naïve. The evolution described by Keynes, Berle and Means, Galbraith, and other theorists of managerialism early in the 20th century had been halted or reversed by its end.
 
But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t real. Just look at the scale of the financial apparatus required to keep productive enterprises focused on profit maximization, and the fear capitalists have of allowing managers discretion over corporate resources, even when their incentives have been arduously “aligned.” Isn’t it testimony to how tenuous and unnatural production for profit is? In these far from revolutionary times, radicals often fret about the difficulty of transforming the existing organization of production into socialism. But this project is nothing compared with the Sisyphean task faced by the other side, of constantly transforming the existing organization of production into capitalism.

 

I'm happy to have been part of the editing team on this piece by JW Mason for The New Inquiry's money and finance issue, Disgorge the Cash. It summarizes some of the issues he's been developing at his blog slackwire on the relationship between the financial sector and the real economy. As both an economic matter, with the relationship between corporate borrowing, investments and dividends before and after the early 1980s, as well as a socio-cultural matter of managers and their relationships to the firms they manage, it's fascinating stuff. It also points to a question, one Piketty doesn't touch in his new Capital book, of whether supermanagers who are creating the runaway 1% labor incomes gain should really be thought of more as part of capital income.

Much of the rest of the finance and money issue is now online, though you should still subscribe.

From the piece:

In 1960, there was a strong link between borrowing and investment. A firm that was borrowing $1 million more than a typical firm of that size would usually be investing $750,000 more. [...] Before 1980, there was no statistical relationship between borrowing and payouts in the form of dividends and share repurchases at the firm level. But since then, a clear positive relationship emerged, especially at business-cycle peaks. Firms that borrow more have significantly higher payouts to shareholders. [...] It was a common trope in accounts of the housing bubble that greedy or shortsighted homeowners were extracting equity from their houses with second mortgages or cash-out refinancing to pay for extra consumption. What nobody mentioned was that the rentier class had been playing a similar game longer and on a much larger scale.

[...]

At the moment, finance seems to be doing its job well. The idea that corporations will spontaneously socialize themselves looks utopian and naïve. The evolution described by Keynes, Berle and Means, Galbraith, and other theorists of managerialism early in the 20th century had been halted or reversed by its end.
 
But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t real. Just look at the scale of the financial apparatus required to keep productive enterprises focused on profit maximization, and the fear capitalists have of allowing managers discretion over corporate resources, even when their incentives have been arduously “aligned.” Isn’t it testimony to how tenuous and unnatural production for profit is? In these far from revolutionary times, radicals often fret about the difficulty of transforming the existing organization of production into socialism. But this project is nothing compared with the Sisyphean task faced by the other side, of constantly transforming the existing organization of production into capitalism.

Share This

Daily Digest - April 21: In Minimum Wage Fight, Localities May Have Maximum Impact

Apr 21, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Minimum Wage Debate Goes Local (San Francisco Chronicle)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Annette Bernhardt and Ken Jacobs consider why the minimum wage debate has such momentum at a local level. They see this as a return to states and cities being laboratories of policy innovation.

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Minimum Wage Debate Goes Local (San Francisco Chronicle)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Annette Bernhardt and Ken Jacobs consider why the minimum wage debate has such momentum at a local level. They see this as a return to states and cities being laboratories of policy innovation.

The Link Between One Website and Hate Crimes (Melissa Harris Perry)

In a discussion on domestic terror and hate, Roosevelt Institute Fellow Dorian Warren suggests that the way we live, segregated by race and class, makes it even harder for Americans to embrace difference.

The Biggest Predictor of How Long You’ll Be Unemployed Is When You Lose Your Job (Five Thirty Eight)

Ben Casselman finds that the unemployment rate at the time when a worker loses her job is the strongest indicator of whether she will end up among the long-term unemployed.

  • Roosevelt Take: Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal builds on this data to explain why the long-term unemployed aren't necessarily weak employees.

Student Debt Holds Back Many Would-Be Home Buyers (LA Times)

The share of first-time home buyers has dropped. Tim Logan ties that to the vast increase in student loans over the past decade, which hinders would-be buyers from getting mortgages.

How Payday Lenders Prey Upon the Poor — and the Courts Don’t Help (NYT)

Since AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, which limited class action lawsuits, people trapped in cycles of predatory payday lending have even fewer routes out, writes Emily Bazelon.

Beyond the Laffer Curve — The Case for Confiscatory Taxation (Vox)

Matt Yglesias notes that many of our taxes aim at changing behavior, not increasing revenue. Perhaps higher taxes on inheritances or very big salaries could discourage the economic activity that promotes inequality.

Share This

How Can We Grade Universities on Their Local Economic Impact?

Apr 18, 2014

Roosevelt Institute Associate Director of Networked Initiatives Alan Smith and NYU student Eugenia Kim explain the Campus Network's Rethinking Communities Initiative and how universities can promote local development. 

Roosevelt Institute Associate Director of Networked Initiatives Alan Smith and NYU student Eugenia Kim explain the Campus Network's Rethinking Communities Initiative and how universities can promote local development. 

Click here to read more about Rethinking Communities.

Share This

The Unluckiness of the Long-Term Unemployed

Apr 18, 2014Mike Konczal
Ben Casselman has a fascinating dive into the long-term unemployment data at the new 538 site. He finds that the long-term unemployed are driven in large part by luck. An unemployed person is more likely to be unemployed for a long period of time when they happen to lose their job at a time of high unemployment. Here's their core chart:

He also finds that this effect is stronger for those who are unlikely to receive unemployment insurance.

One comment I had. There's an argument that the long-term unemployed are the weakest employees, those who were fired during the first wave of layoffs that started in 2008. These workers were going to have a hard time finding jobs not based on the labor market but because, to be blunt, they weren't good workers. (One manifestation: Tyler Cowen did a lot with this idea of zero marginal product workers, ignoring that the marginal product of labor is impacted by demand, back in 2011.) Since long-term unemployed workers look a lot like the general unemployment pool, this is thought to be driven by softer, not-quantifiable, worker characteristics.

If that was the case, then the job losers on the upswing of unemployment, during the first wave of layoffs in 2008 when unemployment was in the 5-8% range, should be more likely to have become a member of the long-term unemployed. They should even be worse than those leaving their job when unemployment was 10% in fall 2009 (which was technically 3 months after the recession ended). But we see a pretty consistent pattern in that chart, which tentatively give evidence that it's not just the initial skill level of the workers driving the level of long-term unemployment.

 

Ben Casselman has a fascinating dive into the long-term unemployment data at the new 538 site. He finds that the long-term unemployed are driven in large part by luck. An unemployed person is more likely to be unemployed for a long period of time when they happen to lose their job at a time of high unemployment. Here's their core chart:

He also finds that this effect is stronger for those who are unlikely to receive unemployment insurance.

One comment I had. There's an argument that the long-term unemployed are the weakest employees, those who were fired during the first wave of layoffs that started in 2008. These workers were going to have a hard time finding jobs not based on the labor market but because, to be blunt, they weren't good workers. (One manifestation: Tyler Cowen did a lot with this idea of zero marginal product workers, ignoring that the marginal product of labor is impacted by demand, back in 2011.) Since long-term unemployed workers look a lot like the general unemployment pool, this is thought to be driven by softer, not-quantifiable, worker characteristics.

If that was the case, then the job losers on the upswing of unemployment, during the first wave of layoffs in 2008 when unemployment was in the 5-8% range, should be more likely to have become a member of the long-term unemployed. They should even be worse than those leaving their job when unemployment was 10% in fall 2009 (which was technically 3 months after the recession ended). But we see a pretty consistent pattern in that chart, which tentatively give evidence that it's not just the initial skill level of the workers driving the level of long-term unemployment.

 

Share This

Daily Digest - April 18: Inequality Was Not an Accident

Apr 18, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

We Built This Country on Inequality (The Nation)

Mychal Denzel Smith writes that the U.S. economy was built on a foundation of inequality for women and racial minorities, and that we must fight racism and sexism if we hope to close the wealth gap.

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

We Built This Country on Inequality (The Nation)

Mychal Denzel Smith writes that the U.S. economy was built on a foundation of inequality for women and racial minorities, and that we must fight racism and sexism if we hope to close the wealth gap.

Oklahoma Governor Signs Law Barring Cities From Raising Minimum Wage (AJAM)

The Oklahoma law also bars cities from requiring paid sick leave or vacation time, reports Amel Ahmed. This seems intended to preempt a push for a state-level minimum wage increase, as in California and Maryland.

Treat Wage Theft as a Criminal Offense (WaPo)

Catherine Rampell asks why the consequences for stealing thousands from workers' paychecks are so much less severe than the consequences of stealing from someone's home.

Obamacare Succeeded for One Simple Reason: It's Horrible to be Uninsured (Vox)

Sarah Kliff says the eight million sign-ups are proof that insured pundits didn't understand how desperate the uninsured and underinsured were to get health insurance.

Antitrust in the New Gilded Age (Robert Reich)

Robert Reich suggests that today's concentrated wealth resembles the Gilded Age, right down to the need to break up too-large corporations. He cites the pending Comcast-Time Warner merger as a troubling example.

New on Next New Deal

Not Just the Long-Term Unemployed: Those Unemployed Zero Weeks Are Struggling to Find Jobs

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal looks at the data on those who move from one employer directly to another, without any unemployment. When even those workers struggle on the job market, wage growth slows.

Share This

Not Just the Long-Term Unemployed: Those Unemployed Zero Weeks Are Struggling to Find Jobs

Apr 17, 2014Mike Konczal

Leave aside for a moment the difficulty that the long-term unemployed, those who were unlucky and have been looking for a job for more than 52 weeks, have in finding a job. Even those who have been unemployed zero weeks are having trouble finding jobs in this economy. And this is important evidence against the idea that the labor market is doing better than people realize if you just ignore the long-term unemployed.

Here’s a data point that I’m particularly interested in: how often are employed people going straight to another job, rather than leaving their job and enduring a period of unemployment before finding new work?

Though most people think of the employed spending some time in unemployment before starting a new job (an idea that was central to the recent theory that quit rates predicted a healthy job market), a substantial number of people move directly from one job to another without ever counting as unemployed. Since our statistics (and most of the economic models) are set up to observe people who are looking for work but are unable or unwilling to accept a job, these steadily employed workers can go missing in the discussion. That’s a shame, because historically they comprise almost half of all those who accept a new job.

The Rortybomb blog has long been a fan of the job flows data, or the statistics that show who is moving between employment and unemployment and in and out of the labor force. However, the easiest way to access this data didn’t distinguish between those who stayed employed with a single employer and those who stayed employed but moved between different employers.

Luckily, someone pointed me in the direction of the Employer-to-Employer Flows in the U.S. Labor Market [1], compiled by the Federal Reserve, which breaks out those who move from one employer to another without being unemployed (described as “EE transitions” for the rest of this post). This data is current through the end of 2013.

If the economy is heating up significantly and the long-term unemployed aren’t capable of taking jobs, then the EE transition rate should be increasing. So how is it doing?

This is the percentage of the employed who are in EE transition (the results are the same for EE transition as a percentage of the labor force). As we can see, it declined during the crisis and hasn’t recovered even as of 2013.

Let’s also look at this from a different point of view: what percentage of those taking jobs are currently employed? If the economy was heating up and the unemployed or those out of the labor force couldn't take jobs, we would expect this to increase. Taking EE transitions as a percentage of all those who are transitioning into new jobs, we see the following:

New hires are increasingly coming from the ranks of the unemployed and those not in the labor force rather than the currently employed. Where the employed were 40 percent in the 1990s, and 35 percent in the pre-crisis 2000s, it's down to 30 percent now.

Why does this matter? First off, these quits also create a new job opening, which the unemployed can take. There’s a significant labor economics literature that argues that job-to-job transitions are a major driver of wage growth for workers (starting here and continuing to this day, h/t Arin Dube). If the number of people moving directly from one job to another is in decline, that’s a bad sign for wage growth, as well as inflation and monetary policy. This appears to be undertheorized and not discussed enough in academic or policy discussions.

But why is this happening? The American Time Use Survey hasn’t been able to tell me whether the employed are spending more or less time searching for other jobs since the recession started; the sample size is too small to make conclusive predictions about changes. If potential wage gains are a primary motivation of job-to-job transitions, then lack of wage growth or even inflation could be contributing to less churn in the economy.

When it comes down to it, the problems of those who aren’t working and want a job are similar to the problems of those who are working but want a new job. As Alan Krueger found in this chart in his recent paper (also see Ben Casselman's chart here), the rate of successful job searches is down not just for the long-term unemployed, but also for the short-term unemployed, when compared to 2007. It appears the same holds true for those with an unemployment duration of zero.

[1] The page indicates that it was last updated in 2004, or perhaps 2011. But the excel document has data through the end of 2013. Sneaky.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  

Leave aside for a moment the difficulty that the long-term unemployed, those who were unlucky and have been looking for a job for more than 52 weeks, have in finding a job. Even those who have been unemployed zero weeks are having trouble finding jobs in this economy. And this is important evidence against the idea that the labor market is doing better than people realize if you just ignore the long-term unemployed.

Here’s a data point that I’m particularly interested in: how often are employed people going straight to another job, rather than leaving their job and enduring a period of unemployment before finding new work?

Though most people think of the employed spending some time in unemployment before starting a new job (an idea that was central to the recent theory that quit rates predicted a healthy job market), a substantial number of people move directly from one job to another without ever counting as unemployed. Since our statistics (and most of the economic models) are set up to observe people who are looking for work but are unable or unwilling to accept a job, these steadily employed workers can go missing in the discussion. That’s a shame, because historically they comprise almost half of all those who accept a new job.

The Rortybomb blog has long been a fan of the job flows data, or the statistics that show who is moving between employment and unemployment and in and out of the labor force. However, the easiest way to access this data didn’t distinguish between those who stayed employed with a single employer and those who stayed employed but moved between different employers.

Luckily, someone pointed me in the direction of the Employer-to-Employer Flows in the U.S. Labor Market [1], compiled by the Federal Reserve, which breaks out those who move from one employer to another without being unemployed (described as “EE transitions” for the rest of this post). This data is current through the end of 2013.

If the economy is heating up significantly and the long-term unemployed aren’t capable of taking jobs, then the EE transition rate should be increasing. So how is it doing?

This is the percentage of the employed who are in EE transition (the results are the same for EE transition as a percentage of the labor force). As we can see, it declined during the crisis and hasn’t recovered even as of 2013.

Let’s also look at this from a different point of view: what percentage of those taking jobs are currently employed? If the economy was heating up and the unemployed or those out of the labor force couldn't take jobs, we would expect this to increase. Taking EE transitions as a percentage of all those who are transitioning into new jobs, we see the following:

New hires are increasingly coming from the ranks of the unemployed and those not in the labor force rather than the currently employed. Where the employed were 40 percent in the 1990s, and 35 percent in the pre-crisis 2000s, it's down to 30 percent now.

Why does this matter? First off, these quits also create a new job opening, which the unemployed can take. There’s a significant labor economics literature that argues that job-to-job transitions are a major driver of wage growth for workers (starting here and continuing to this day, h/t Arin Dube). If the number of people moving directly from one job to another is in decline, that’s a bad sign for wage growth, as well as inflation and monetary policy. This appears to be undertheorized and not discussed enough in academic or policy discussions.

But why is this happening? The American Time Use Survey hasn’t been able to tell me whether the employed are spending more or less time searching for other jobs since the recession started; the sample size is too small to make conclusive predictions about changes. If potential wage gains are a primary motivation of job-to-job transitions, then lack of wage growth or even inflation could be contributing to less churn in the economy.

When it comes down to it, the problems of those who aren’t working and want a job are similar to the problems of those who are working but want a new job. As Alan Krueger found in this chart in his recent paper (also see Ben Casselman's chart here), the rate of successful job searches is down not just for the long-term unemployed, but also for the short-term unemployed, when compared to 2007. It appears the same holds true for those with an unemployment duration of zero.

[1] The page indicates that it was last updated in 2004, or perhaps 2011. But the excel document has data through the end of 2013. Sneaky.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  

Share This

Daily Digest - April 17: How Democracy Became a Luxury Good

Apr 17, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Government by the Few (All In with Chris Hayes)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Dorian Warren notes that we now have social science data that proves Occupy was right: our democracy is dominated by the wealthiest Americans.

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Government by the Few (All In with Chris Hayes)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Dorian Warren notes that we now have social science data that proves Occupy was right: our democracy is dominated by the wealthiest Americans.

Happy Tax Day (The New Yorker)

Benjamin Soskis examines America's esteem for charitable donors over taxpayers, drawing on Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal's piece on the "voluntarism fantasy."

Millennial Perspective: Title X is Vital, Efficient, and Largely Unknown (National Priorities Project)

Tarsi Dunlop argues that Millennials should advocate for Title X, the nation's only federally funded family planning program, because of its massive impact on the lives of low-income women.

  • Roosevelt Take: Tarsi uses data from Roosevelt Institute Fellow Andrea Flynn's white paper, "The Title X Factor: Why the Health of America's Women Depends on More Funding for Family Planning."

Bill de Blasio’s Great Experiment (The Nation)

Jarrett Murphy looks at the New York City mayor's first 100 days, and finds that de Blasio is sticking to the progressive policies he proposed on the campaign. Unfortunately, the forces against him are strong.

Obama's Job-Training Unicorn: It's Time for Some New Ideas Already (The Guardian)

Pushing the same kind of job training programs isn't making any dent in the unemployment crisis, says Heidi Moore. She wants Congress to try something new, whether that's infrastructure fixes or direct hiring.

  • Roosevelt Take: A Roosevelt Institute report released last week, "A Bold Approach to the Jobs Emergency: 15 Ways We Can Create Good Jobs in America Today," provides more suggestions for government solutions.

New York Lawmakers Push to Raise Wages at Biggest Chains (NYT)

Kate Taylor reports that a group of New York City-based Democrats has proposed a bill to mandate a $15-an-hour minimum wage for employees of businesses with $50 million or more in annual sales.

The Toughest Cop on Wall Street You've Never Heard Of (TNR)

Benjamin Lawsky at the New York Department of Financial Services is pushing stricter penalties on banks, and David Dayen says that could push federal regulators to toughen up.

Share This

Pages