Daily Digest - October 14: Americans Are Too Vulnerable to Downward Mobility

Oct 14, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

The Age of Vulnerability (Project Syndicate)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

The Age of Vulnerability (Project Syndicate)

Roosevelt Institute Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz points out that inequality isn't just about lack of upward mobility, but also risk of downward mobility, and the U.S. economy has made people particularly vulnerable.

The Score: Does the Minimum Wage Kill Jobs? (The Nation)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal and Bryce Covert say the answer is probably no; for one, the states that have raised their minimum wage this year are experiencing higher employment growth.

In Texas and Across the Nation, Abortion Access is a Sign of Women's Well-Being (The Hill)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Andrea Flynn and Shulie Eisen connect access to abortion with the larger picture of women's health and economics. States that limit abortion don't do well on related issues either.

Youth Convention Gathers Crowds, Pols Over Brutality, Employment, Immigration, Ed and Transport (The Youth Project)

Jason Mast reports on the NextGen Illinois conference, profiling a few of the student organizers who are pursuing political change in their state now instead of waiting until they're older.

Revenge of the Unforgiven (NYT)

Paul Krugman says an excess of virtue surrounding debt is killing economic growth. Forgiving more debt would increase the other spending needed to kick-start the economy.

Them That's Got Shall Get (TAP)

Nathalie Baptiste follows up on the impact of the foreclosure crisis on black family wealth, focusing on the wealthiest black community in the country: Prince George's County, Maryland.

‘Citizens United’ is Turning More Americans into Bystanders (WaPo)

E.J. Dionne argues that massive independent political spending is turning voters off, as it deepens our divisions and the sense that no one will work together after the election.

New on Next New Deal

Does the USA Really Soak the Rich?

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal says that recent arguments against more progressive taxation use a nonsensical definition in which inequality drives up tax progressivity.

Share This

Does the USA Really Soak the Rich?

Oct 10, 2014Mike Konczal

There's a new argument about taxes: the United States is already far too progressive with taxation, it says, and if we want to build a better, eglitarian future we can't do it through a "soak the rich" agenda. It's the argument of this recent New York Times editorial by Edward D. Kleinbard, and a longer piece by political scientists Cathie Jo Martin and Alexander Hertel-Fernandez at Vox. I'm going to focus on the Vox piece because it is clearer on what they are arguing.

There, the researchers note that the countries “that have made the biggest strides in reducing economic inequality do not fund their governments through soak-the-rich, steeply progressive taxes.” They put up this graphic, based on OECD data, to make this point:

You can quickly see that the concept of "progressivity" is doing all the work here, and I believe the way they are going to use that word will be problematic. What does it mean for Sweden to be one of the least progressive tax state, and the United States the most?

Let’s graph out two ways of soaking the rich. Here’s Rich Uncle Pennybags in America, and Rik Farbror Påse av Mynt in Sweden, as well as their respective tax bureaus:

When average people usually talk about soaking the rich, they are talking about the marginal tax rates the highest income earners pay. But as we can see, in Sweden the rich pay a much higher marginal tax rate. As Matt Bruenig at Demos notes, Sweden definitely taxes its rich much more (he also notes that what they do with those taxes is different than what Vox argues).

At this point many people would argue that our taxes are more progressive because the middle-class in the United States is taxed less than the middle-class in Sweden. But that is not what Jo Martin and Hertel-Fernandez are arguing.

They are instead looking at the right-side of the above graphic. They are measuring how much of tax revenue comes from the top decile (or, alternatively, the concentration coefficient of tax revenue), and calling that the progressivity of taxation ("how much more (or less) of the tax burden falls on the wealthiest households"). The fact that the United States gets so much more of its tax revenue from the rich when compared to Sweden means we have a much more progressive tax policy, one of the most progressive in the world. Congratulations?

The problem is, of course, that we get so much of our tax revenue from the rich because we have one of the highest rates of inequality across peer nations. How unequal a country is will be just as much of a driver of the progressivity of taxation as the actual tax polices. In order to understand how absurd this is, even flat taxes on a very unequal income distribution will mean that taxes are “progressive” as more income will come from the top of the income distribution, just because that’s where all the money is. Yet how would that be progressive taxation?

We can confirm this. Let’s take the OECD data that is likely where their metric of tax progressivity comes from, and plot it against the market distribution. This is the share of taxes that come from the top decile, versus how much market income the top decile takes home:

As you can see, they are related. (The same goes if you use gini coefficients.)

Beyond the obvious one, there's a much deeper and more important relationship here. As Saez, Piketty and Stantcheva find, the fall in top tax rates over the past 30 years are a major driver of the explosion of income inequality during that same exact period. Among other ways, lower marginal tax rates give high-end mangagement a greater incentive to bargain for higher wages, and for corporate structures to pay them out. This is an important element for the creation of our recent inequality, and it shouldn't get lost among odd definitions of the word "progressive," a word that always seems to create confusion.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

 

There's a new argument about taxes: the United States is already far too progressive with taxation, it says, and if we want to build a better, eglitarian future we can't do it through a "soak the rich" agenda. It's the argument of this recent New York Times editorial by Edward D. Kleinbard, and a longer piece by political scientists Cathie Jo Martin and Alexander Hertel-Fernandez at Vox. I'm going to focus on the Vox piece because it is clearer on what they are arguing.

There, the researchers note that the countries “that have made the biggest strides in reducing economic inequality do not fund their governments through soak-the-rich, steeply progressive taxes.” They put up this graphic, based on OECD data, to make this point:

You can quickly see that the concept of "progressivity" is doing all the work here, and I believe the way they are going to use that word will be problematic. What does it mean for Sweden to be one of the least progressive tax state, and the United States the most?

Let’s graph out two ways of soaking the rich. Here’s Rich Uncle Pennybags in America, and Rik Farbror Påse av Mynt in Sweden, as well as their respective tax bureaus:

When average people usually talk about soaking the rich, they are talking about the marginal tax rates the highest income earners pay. But as we can see, in Sweden the rich pay a much higher marginal tax rate. As Matt Bruenig at Demos notes, Sweden definitely taxes its rich much more (he also notes that what they do with those taxes is different than what Vox argues).

At this point many people would argue that our taxes are more progressive because the middle-class in the United States is taxed less than the middle-class in Sweden. But that is not what Jo Martin and Hertel-Fernandez are arguing.

They are instead looking at the right-side of the above graphic. They are measuring how much of tax revenue comes from the top decile (or, alternatively, the concentration coefficient of tax revenue), and calling that the progressivity of taxation ("how much more (or less) of the tax burden falls on the wealthiest households"). The fact that the United States gets so much more of its tax revenue from the rich when compared to Sweden means we have a much more progressive tax policy, one of the most progressive in the world. Congratulations?

The problem is, of course, that we get so much of our tax revenue from the rich because we have one of the highest rates of inequality across peer nations. How unequal a country is will be just as much of a driver of the progressivity of taxation as the actual tax polices. In order to understand how absurd this is, even flat taxes on a very unequal income distribution will mean that taxes are “progressive” as more income will come from the top of the income distribution, just because that’s where all the money is. Yet how would that be progressive taxation?

We can confirm this. Let’s take the OECD data that is likely where their metric of tax progressivity comes from, and plot it against the market distribution. This is the share of taxes that come from the top decile, versus how much market income the top decile takes home:

As you can see, they are related. (The same goes if you use gini coefficients.)

Beyond the obvious one, there's a much deeper and more important relationship here. As Saez, Piketty and Stantcheva find, the fall in top tax rates over the past 30 years are a major driver of the explosion of income inequality during that same exact period. Among other ways, lower marginal tax rates give high-end mangagement a greater incentive to bargain for higher wages, and for corporate structures to pay them out. This is an important element for the creation of our recent inequality, and it shouldn't get lost among odd definitions of the word "progressive," a word that always seems to create confusion.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

 

Share This

Daily Digest - October 10: Feminists Leading the Charge in Global Development

Oct 10, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Please note: There will not be a new Daily Digest on Monday, October 13, in observance of Indigenous People's Day. The Daily Digest will return on Tuesday, October 14.

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Please note: There will not be a new Daily Digest on Monday, October 13, in observance of Indigenous People's Day. The Daily Digest will return on Tuesday, October 14.

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Connected Feminism Shows A Muscular Commitment To Change - And Civil Rights (Forbes)

Tom Watson reflects on the Women and Girls Rising conference, praising it for demonstrating the power of feminism in the development world today.

Change in Derivatives Doesn’t Resolve Question of Safe Harbors (NYT)

Stephen J. Lubben says that a change in bankruptcy laws so that other investors can be pulled into proceedings when one goes bankrupt doesn't go far enough.

  • Roosevelt Take: Lubben wrote a chapter in An Unfinished Mission, the Roosevelt Institute and Americans for Financial Reform's report on the questions that remain in financial reform post-Dodd-Frank.

After Huge Tax Incentive Package, Boeing Still Ships Jobs out of Washington (WaPo)

Boeing's tax incentive package was the largest any state had ever offered any one company, writes Reid Wilson, but that has not prevented Boeing from relocating a few thousand jobs.

  • Roosevelt Take: Washington's Boeing workers are largely unionized, and Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch praised them for rejecting a contract that harmed newer and younger workers last year.

From Lagging 'Job Creation' to Lower Charity Giving, the Wealthy Give Less Back to Society (The Guardian)

Suzanne McGee questions why the wealthiest Americans give the lowest percentage of their income to charity, when presumably they have enough funds to do more.

Voter ID Laws Cut Turnout By Blacks, Young (HuffPo)

Alan Fram reports on a new study by the Government Accountability Office, which shows steep drops in turnout in states with new voter ID laws.

Supreme Court Blocks Wisconsin's Voter ID Law (USA Today)

With this emergency stay and a related decision by a district court judge in Texas, some of the most restrictive voter ID laws will not be in effect this November, says Richard Wolf.

Share This

Obama Administration Defends Amazon’s Low Pay – Again

Oct 9, 2014Richard Kirsch

It's hard for workers to trust the President's support for policies that help them when the administration sides with Amazon at the Supreme Court.

Amazon’s business model is based on quick easy buying and low prices. One way it does that is to force its warehouse workers to wait a long time to leave work, without getting paid. And that’s just fine with the Obama administration, which continues to have a blind spot when it comes to decent pay and working conditions at Amazon.

It's hard for workers to trust the President's support for policies that help them when the administration sides with Amazon at the Supreme Court.

Amazon’s business model is based on quick easy buying and low prices. One way it does that is to force its warehouse workers to wait a long time to leave work, without getting paid. And that’s just fine with the Obama administration, which continues to have a blind spot when it comes to decent pay and working conditions at Amazon.

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard a case (Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk) in which workers are suing the temp firm that staff’s Amazon warehouses. The workers are in court because they don’t get paid for the time they are forced to stand on line for a security check when they leave work to be sure they haven’t stolen anything. The security screening itself reveals the poor working conditions and lack of respect that Amazon has for its workers. Workers who are well paid and have job security will not take the risk of stealing. The lack of pay adds costly insult to their injury.

The legal issues revolve around whether the security screenings, which can take 20 minutes or more, are “integral and indispensable” to the job, which would trigger pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Amazon certainly thinks so; the screenings aren’t optional. Still the firm, which pays warehouse workers around $11 or $12 an hour, cheaps out by denying the workers pay when they are waiting on line to leave.

As Jesse Busk, the lead plaintiff in the case, told The Huffington Post, "You're just standing there, and everyone wants to get home. It was not comfortable. There could be hundreds of people waiting at the end of the shift."

While President Obama has made numerous passionate speeches about giving Americans a raise, his administration is taking Amazon’s side at the Supreme Court, filing an amicus brief, alongside the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business lobbies.

Unfortunately, there’s nothing new about this from the administration. Last August, as I wrote at the time, “President Obama gave a great speech on why good jobs are the foundation for his middle-out economic strategy... from a huge Amazon warehouse where the workers do not have good jobs.”

The President told the Amazon warehouse workers who were in the audience, “we should be doing everything we can as a country to create more good jobs that pay good wages.”

Everything, it turns out, except being sure they get paid for all the time they are required to be at work.

The Obama administration may wonder why the President does not get more credit for the economic progress the nation has made coming out of the Great Recession or more recognition for his calls for raising the minimum wage. The core reason is that for too many Americans too low wages, too few hours at work, and job insecurity or no job at all remain their reality.

The President’s defense of Amazon reveals another reason. Americans see that he is unwilling to take on the powerful forces that are driving down the living standards and hopes of American workers. They see his embrace of Amazon and Wal-Mart, where he gave a speech on energy earlier this year. And too many come to the conclusion that it is only campaign contributors that matter, despairing of finding leaders who understand what really is going on in their lives – and who are willing to take their side against the powerful.

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

The Federal Reserve Won't Save the Economy for All

Oct 9, 2014Joelle Gamble

Deepening political participation in and beyond voting is key to achieving policies that raise outcomes for the working class.

Deepening political participation in and beyond voting is key to achieving policies that raise outcomes for the working class.

Inflation hawks have been the talk of the town in elite economic circles in recent weeks. More liberal-leaning minds critique their (frankly) unsubstantiated concerns that the Federal Reserve is driving the U.S. economy toward high levels of inflation. Hawks are concerned that high levels of inflation due to expansionary monetary policy will lead to negative economic outcomes for major firms and, in turn, the rest of the American public.

Instead of worrying about inflation, which has remained at or below 1.5 percent for a year and a half, many prominent economists argue that we should focus on wage growth and jobs. We have seen profits for corporations rise to nearly pre-recession rates, while the poverty rate is not declining as fast as it should be. It’s clear there are some big policies that need changing: the minimum wage, the corporate tax structure, federal budget priorities, and regulations ranging across industries. So why is there so much focus on the Fed and the inflation hawks that circle it? Is there some policy lever we can pull here that would raise outcomes for the working class?

Let’s lay it out on the table: Current economic debates have focused on U.S. and global monetary policy because our fiscal policy problems appear to be inoperable. A Congressional stagnation, of sorts, has led to a fixation on a different institution, the Federal Reserve. But, overall, can this fixation actually translate into outcomes for the middle class?

With a gridlocked federal system, where can we push for substantial changes in wages and investment infrastructure that support the working class? Executive orders have their limits, of course. Advancements in cities like Seattle and New York City or states like Maryland have started to take effect. But at some point, a deeper, sustainable change must take place. This is a change in who leads in governance and who leads on policy change.

Elections are our general go-to on these matters. If political representation fails, we can just vote them out! Elections matter, but, there are some facts to consider. Currently, the average U.S. voter has an income higher than the median. This is due to lack of access, as well as the privilege of being able to make time to vote. Thus, we should open up opportunities, such as early voting, to more people. But even still, with faith in government falling, access reforms only go so far.

Beyond the act of voting itself, we have to question the responsiveness of the federal government, in particular, to voters. The growing influence of interest groups and coalitions of the wealthy make the ability to change political outcomes from the ballot box less and less secure.

We need to grow the bench. Deepening political participation in and beyond voting is key to achieving policies that raise outcomes for the working class. It is not enough to vote; government must be responsive. As Roosevelt Institute Fellow Sabeel Rahman notes, historic movements of substantial political reform have popular sovereignty and grassroots movements at their core.

Sabeel's words ring especially true in our current political climate. With congressional ineptitude and an unwillingness of the elites to take responsibility for the current state of our democracy, we must return to local movements and communities to build the foundations needed to create tangible economic change. That’s why members of the Campus Network are piloting the Rethinking Communities initiative. We recognize that democracy starts not in Washington but at home, in our own classrooms, our own cities, and our own communities.

There is no silver bullet or hero in this fight for economic justice. Not one public official, nor one economist, nor one President will solve our mess. A return to democratic principles and a deepening of participatory process is what it will take to uplift the working class.

Joelle Gamble is the National Director of the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network.

Share This

Daily Digest - October 9: Extreme Wealth Disparities Will Lead to Social Dysfunction

Oct 9, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Top 400 U.S. Billionaires' Wealth Equals Brazil's GDP (Real News Network)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Top 400 U.S. Billionaires' Wealth Equals Brazil's GDP (Real News Network)

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Rob Johnson comments on this data point from Forbes, noting that the social dysfunction caused by this kind of inequality isn't hitting the wealthy yet.

Pulling the Plug on Comcast's Merger (Bloomberg View)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Crawford explains why the Federal Communications Commission should block Comcast's proposed merger with Time Warner Cable.

Debt Scolds: Pay No Attention to the Falling Deficit! (NY Mag)

Jonathan Chait scolds those who treated the deficit like the end of the world; now, the deficit is falling, but their outlook took needed stimulus off the table back in 2009.

Fed Officials to Be Flexible on How They Raise Rates (WSJ)

Reporting on the Federal Reserve meeting notes from September, Jon Hilsenrath explains the Fed's decision to try new experimental tools when it's time to raise interest rates.

Obama Had Security Fears on JPMorgan Data Breach (NYT)

Michael Corkery, Jessica Silver-Greenberg, and David E. Sanger report on the administration's knowledge of a summer-long cyberattack on JPMorgan and other banks.

Post-recession Decline in Black Women’s Wages is Consistent with Occupational Downgrading (Working Economics)

Valerie Wilson says that unlike other groups, black women lost both mid-wage and high-wage jobs in the recession, which explains their decreased earnings.

New on Next New Deal

Obama Administration Defends Amazon’s Low Pay – Again

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch says the support of Amazon in Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk illustrates the continued influence of the donor class over workers.

The Federal Reserve Won't Save the Economy for All

Deepening participatory democracy will improve outcomes for the working class, writes Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network National Director Joelle Gamble.

Share This

Daily Digest - October 8: Government Should Push Back on Bad Financial Deals

Oct 8, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

City Hall’s Inaction on Interest-Rate Swaps Is Indefensible (Chicago Sun-Times)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

City Hall’s Inaction on Interest-Rate Swaps Is Indefensible (Chicago Sun-Times)

In a letter to the editor, Roosevelt Institute Fellow Saqib Bhatti points out what the Sun-Times missed in defending Mayor Emanuel's inaction to recover funds from these toxic deals.

Changing the Future of Sexual and Reproductive Rights (HuffPo)

In light of the Women and Girls Rising conference, Roosevelt Institute Fellow Andrea Flynn and Campus Network Lower Northeast Policy Coordinator Ariel Smilowitz examine the policy shifts needed in the U.S.

Eric Schneiderman is Still Seeking Justice for the Financial Crisis (WaPo)

Katrina vanden Heuvel, a member of the Roosevelt Institute's Board of Directors, praises New York's Attorney General for almost single-handedly keeping up the fight to hold Wall Street accountable.

Amazon Warehouse Workers Head To Supreme Court Over Unpaid Theft Screenings (HuffPo)

Dave Jamieson lays out the arguments in Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk, which broadly looks at whether employers can require nonessential tasks – like security screenings – off the clock.

The Great Wage Slowdown of the 21st Century (NYT)

David Leonhardt examines President Obama's optimistic take on why wage growth will finally start to pick up in the next few years. Leonhardt isn't quite sold.

John Boehner Just Admitted on Twitter That Republicans Have No Jobs Plan (TNR)

Danny Vinik says that while it's fun to joke about Boehner's empty tweet, the truth is that without a real jobs plan, Republicans have caused significant damage to the economy.

Tens of Thousands of Walmart Workers Are About to Lose Their Health Insurance — and It's Good News! (Vox)

Sarah Kliff explains that while Walmart's decision was almost certainly based on saving money, this gives part-time workers access to subsidies on the exchanges and cheap insurance.

Share This

Daily Digest - October 7: How Wall Street Wins When Cities Are in Debt

Oct 7, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Is Wall Street Making a Killing Off Cities’ Debt? (Next City)

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Is Wall Street Making a Killing Off Cities’ Debt? (Next City)

In an illustrated essay, Susie Cagle shows how Wall Street profits off swap deals tied to cities' municipal bonds. Roosevelt Institute Fellow Saqib Bhatti explains pension obligation bonds.

Will the UN’s New Development Goals Downplay the Need for Gender Equality? (The Nation)

Barbara Crossette questions if reproductive rights will be given sufficient emphasis, drawing on the Roosevelt Institute's Women and Girls Rising Conference for female leaders' opinions.

Tax Cuts Uber Alles (Slate)

Jamelle Bouie explains why Paul Ryan needs a pretty unreliable mathematical model, known as dynamic scoring, to sell his proposed tax cuts as good for the economy.

Embrace the Irony (New Yorker)

Lawrence Lessig is attempting to destroy big money's influence in politics. All he needs, writes Evans Osnos, is for 50 billionaires to fund his SuperPAC.

Wages Should be Growing Faster, But They’re Not. Here’s Why. (WaPo)

Jared Bernstein suggests that raising wages is no longer part of American employers' model, and that wages won't increase until the labor market is much tighter.

SRC Cancels Teachers' Contract (Philadelphia Inquirer)

Kristen Graham and Martha Woodall report on the Philadelphia School Reform Commission's unexpected decision to unilaterally cancel the teachers' union contract.

New on Next New Deal

At NextGen IL Conference, Young People Set the Agenda for Their State

As attendees of the conference, the Campus Network's Midwestern Regional Team found themselves in a policy space where the goals and agenda were shaped entirely by their peers.

Share This

At NextGen IL Conference, Young People Set the Agenda for Their State

Oct 7, 2014Julius Goldberg-LewisDominic RusselRachel Riemenschneider

At the NextGen Illinois conference, Campus Network leaders found a policy space shaped entirely by young people.

At the NextGen Illinois conference, Campus Network leaders found a policy space shaped entirely by young people.

Last Saturday, the Midwest Regional Team of the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network met in Chicago to attend the NextGen Illinois conference, the culmination of months of discussion, caucuses, and ideas from around Illinois. NextGen IL, an initiative led by the Campus Network and Young Invicibles, is working to bring young adults in Illinois together to shape a youth policy agenda for Illinois. What set NextGen apart from so many other conferences was that its content, agenda, and execution were a direct outcome of power and coalition building among Millennials. NextGen’s attendees included high school students, college students, and graduates; they were organizers, activists, and policy wonks of every kind. Throughout the day, attendees were able to vote on a slate of statewide policy proposals that were the product of the dozens of caucuses that took place over the previous few months. Young people had the opportunity to shape the outcome of the conference and take ownership of their ideas.

One common theme that resounded through the day at the NextGen IL conference was that young people are capable of making a difference in their communities. We all have the knowledge, ability, and passion to make real change. This was thoroughly underscored by the number of young people and students that were panelists throughout the day. Each breakout session featured professionals working in the field, as well as Millennials already working to change the landscape. Whether discussing environmental policy or restorative justice, the young panelists were just as able to engage their audience in a variety of statewide policy issues.

The breakout sessions gave the audience a picture of the issues being addressed on the front lines of the progressive political fight, but the plenary sessions gave us a chance to hear from the elected officials who have the power to turn our ideas into action. Will Guzzardi, a 27-year-old candidate for the Illinois House of Representatives, and Amara Enyia, a 31-year-old running for Mayor of Chicago, both spoke about how young people need to step up to make a difference. They both referenced a common realization many young adults have about growing up. When you’re young, you are told to defer to those in charge, trust your elders, and wait your turn. These candidates stressed that in order to be taken seriously and have our issues adequately addressed, our generation must step up and realize that while our parents and grandparents have a lot to teach us, they don’t have all the solutions. This realization may be scary, but it is also empowering: if no one actually has all the answers, young people have the opportunity to create just as much of an impact as older generations. We have the opportunity to think creatively, and see our age as a benefit, and not a burden to creating and realizing innovative policies that better our communities.

If there was one message that we as participants and attendees took away from the NextGen IL conference, it was an echo of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 1936 address to the Democratic National Convention: “There is a mysterious cycle in human events. To some generations much is given. Of other generations much is expected. This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny.” Our generation faces seemingly insurmountable problems, but if the NextGen space was any indication, we can expect bold solutions.

Julius Goldberg-Lewis is the Midwestern Regional Coordinator for the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network and a senior at the University of Michigan. Dominic Russel is the Midwestern Policy Coordinator and a sophomore at the University of Michigan. Rachel Riemenschneider is the Midwestern New Chapters Coordinator and a junior at Northwestern University.

Share This

Daily Digest - October 6: Despite New Rules, Corporations Still Seek Tax Loopholes

Oct 6, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Are Obama's New Corporate Tax Rules Working? (Melissa Harris-Perry)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Are Obama's New Corporate Tax Rules Working? (Melissa Harris-Perry)

As guest host, Roosevelt Institute Fellow Dorian Warren moderates a discussion of corporations' attempts to dodge paying taxes through loopholes like inversion.

Unemployment is Finally Under 6 Percent, But Don’t Expect a Raise Anytime Soon (WaPo)

Matt O'Brien says that while the September jobs report was solid, continued "shadow unemployment" and low wage growth will keep the Fed from increasing interest rates just yet.

Facebook’s Bus Drivers Seek Union (NYT)

The drivers who shuttle Facebook employees to their Silicon Valley offices, unhappy with their low pay and difficult split shift schedule, are seeking to unionize through the Teamsters, writes Steven Greenhouse.

The U.S. Has a Jobs Crisis. Here's How to Fix It (The Guardian)

Heidi Moore speaks to four experts – two politicians and two economists – about the best ways to solve the jobs crisis. Common themes include immigration reform and a minimum wage hike.

Huh? Walmart Foundation Battles Hunger As Walmart Workers Turn to Food Stamps (Inside Philanthropy)

David Callahan critiques Walmart for its big charitable push to solve hunger when it has been widely documented that its own workers are relying on the social safety net to eat.

U.S. Restaurant Patrons Support Minimum Wage Hike (Reuters)

Lisa Baertlein contrasts the restaurant industry's lobbying against raising the minimum wage with a new survey that shows broad support for a higher wage among its customers.

New on Next New Deal

A Crisis Turned Catastrophe in Texas

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Andrea Flynn explains how the latest court decision on Texas's anti-abortion laws will bring Texas women's access to reproductive health care to the brink of disaster.

The Big Mistake in President Obama’s Economic Pivot: Overlooking the Grassroots

Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network National Director Joelle Gamble says the President would be better served by focusing on local rather than federal initiatives to improve the economy.

Share This

Pages