Connecting Pediatricians to Local Anti-Poverty Resources Can Improve Child Health

Jun 10, 2015Missy BrownEmily Cerciello

Childhood poverty is growing in North Carolina. As of 2012, more than half a million children in the state are living in poverty, and of these, more than half are in extreme poverty.

Childhood poverty is growing in North Carolina. As of 2012, more than half a million children in the state are living in poverty, and of these, more than half are in extreme poverty. The health implications for these children are profound; research shows children born into poor families have higher hospital readmission rates, sick days, rates of chronic illness, and death rates compared to children in non-poor families.

As most pediatricians have patients who fall below the poverty line, they are seeing the negative health consequences of poverty. Pediatricians are looking for ways to address these issues, which are affecting an increasing number of their patients. Unfortunately, conditions of poverty—inadequate housing, lack of access to healthy foods, lack of transportation for appointments—are not easily remedied.

Pediatricians cannot tackle these issues themselves, nor do they have to. Across the state, organizations and agencies across the states are working to address these issues on at the grassroots level. After speaking to North Carolina pediatricians, however, we found that most were unaware of these local resources and the services they provide.

Our team of students at UNC set out to fix this by assembling a community health toolkit—a concise, informative database of local resources, the services they provide, and their contact information. With this toolkit, pediatricians can begin to address these larger issues. For example, if patients come in with asthma symptoms exacerbated by their family’s housing situation, instead of merely addressing the symptoms, the doctor can make referrals to an organization that works to get families better housing. This way, pediatricians can provide more than Band-Aid solutions to the problems they’re seeing. In addition, the toolkit benefits community organizations by helping them reach their target populations.

The idea of connecting pediatricians to these resources is coming at a critical time. The Affordable Care Act aims to shift the health care system to a system of value-based reimbursement instead of volume-based reimbursement. Under a value-based system, pediatricians are paid based on the health of their patients, not the number of medical services they provide. Therefore, pediatricians now have even more reason to look at the health of their patients more holistically and address the larger health factors at play.

What we have done by creating this community health toolkit is only the first step in what we see as a necessary change in how we approach health care. Research shows that the causes of poor health are multifaceted, so our solutions should be, too. We hope to see this toolkit model expanded so pediatricians across the nation can bring in local groups to help address the systemic poverty affecting millions of children.

Missy Brown and Emily Cerciello are recent graduates of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Emily is the Campus Network's Senior Fellow for Health Care.

Share This

Protecting the One in Five: A Call to Action on Campus Sexual Assault

Jun 8, 2015Courtney Liss

Media coverage of Emma Sulkowicz’s performance art is drawing attention to a very serious and widespread issue: today, one out of every five women on a college campus has been sexually assaulted. President Obama himself spoke about it just last year.

Media coverage of Emma Sulkowicz’s performance art is drawing attention to a very serious and widespread issue: today, one out of every five women on a college campus has been sexually assaulted. President Obama himself spoke about it just last year. Worse, it is estimated that only 12 percent of sexual assaults are reported, meaning that far more college women have been forced to endure sexual assault while pursuing higher education than the official statistics suggest. Women do not and cannot have safe and equal access to education while facing this kind of threat—an injustice compounded by the fact that many schools discourage victims from coming forward, fail to disclose the scope of the problem on their campuses, and leave students to discuss their assaults with untrained employees.

By giving colleges and universities complete freedom in dealing with sexual assault cases, we allow them to make decisions in their own interests at the cost of the safety of their students. Often, this means discouraging victims from coming forward in order to lower the official count of sexual assaults on their campus (which have to be reported annually due to the Jeanne Clery Act). We need federal action to ensure that colleges and universities treat victims properly, report accurate statistics to the federal government and guarantee that on a local, campus level, women are able to pursue a quality education without fear of sexual assault.

After hearing from women on my campus, I realized that the issue of sexual assault goes beyond its frequency. Instead, a combination of factors—negative administrative responses to reporting, retaliation against victims from social groups, and the incessant questioning of victims (What were they wearing? Were they drunk?)—have coalesced into a far broader problem. In our current system, women are often left wondering whether it is worth the effort to go through their school’s disciplinary process at all. I knew I needed to do something about this—both on my campus and nationally. The one in five women on your campus need you, too.

How can you address sexual assault on your campus? The first priority has to be making survivors feel safe. On my campus at Tulane University, I painted the windows of our student center with survivor-friendly messaging: “You are not alone,” “We believe you,” and “This is not your fault.” Not only does this help demonstrate appropriate responses to sexual assault incidents, it also expresses support to survivors on campus. By painting the windows of your campus, you can display your #clearsupport for sexual assault victims.

But painting on windows alone will not create the lasting change we need to end campus sexual assault. We need federal and state-sponsored policy legislation. Along with other advocates on my campus, I tabled directly outside the painted windows to get student signatures on letters supporting the Bipartisan Campus Accountability and Safety Act, a U.S. Senate bill that would establish confidential advisors at universities, ensure training of on-campus security officials, force colleges to report sexual assaults by raising Title IX and Clery Act reporting fines, and have colleges utilize “one uniform process for campus disciplinary proceedings.” I encourage you to look up the Campus Accountability and Safety Act, or a piece of local or state legislation that addresses this issue, and work to gather support on your campus as well.

One in five is an unacceptably high number of women who have already been sexually assaulted. To protect college women from becoming a victim, we as college students need to speak up and out and demand that colleges make the changes we need now.

Courtney Liss is a member of the Roosevelt Institute Campus Network and a rising senior at Tulane University.

Share This

New Polling on Inequality: What We've Learned (or, What We Knew All Along)

Jun 4, 2015Eric Harris Bernstein

New polling confirms what many of us long believed: The majority of Americans—rich and poor, men and women, Republicans and Democrats—agree that income, opportunity, and influence are unfairly concentrated at the top and that these disparities are growing. Further, Americans support government action to address this structural inequality and rewrite the rules of our economy.

New polling confirms what many of us long believed: The majority of Americans—rich and poor, men and women, Republicans and Democrats—agree that income, opportunity, and influence are unfairly concentrated at the top and that these disparities are growing. Further, Americans support government action to address this structural inequality and rewrite the rules of our economy.

Contrary to the popular narrative that concern over inequality divides along partisan lines, the latest CBS/New York Times poll finds bipartisan agreement about numerous dimensions of the problem. 61 percent of respondents feel money and wealth should be more evenly distributed, while 66 percent believe that only the wealthy can get ahead in today's economy. In addition, 57 percent believe the government should do more to reduce the gap between the rich and poor. Perhaps most surprisingly, 74 percent of Americans—the third-largest cohort of the entire poll—agree that corporations have too much influence on American life and politics. That number includes 62 percent of Republicans.

Given the economic reality, these results are unsurprising. Years after the financial crisis, American families are still scraping by. Americans now understand that the fundamentals of our economy are not working to produce shared prosperity. There is popular and bipartisan support, it seems, for policies that will help rebalance our economy so everyone can participate and benefit.

Though the economic reality is grave, the broad consensus is encouraging. It implies the collective will to act and shows that the left–right gap in political ideology is not as large as some in Washington and in the media have suggested.

It also reaffirms what we at Roosevelt have long been sensing: across gender, political ideology, and all income distributions, not a single group feels that most Americans have a fair chance to get ahead and not a single group feels that the situation is improving. A mere 5 percent of those surveyed agree that the gap between rich and poor is shrinking, while a 10-point majority of Republicans agree that opportunity is skewed unequally toward a small minority at the top. 

Some groups are wary of the vague prospect of the government “doing more,” but when it comes to specific initiatives, the numbers shift back in favor of policies that will boost equality. On raising the minimum wage and taxes on earners making over $1 million per year, 71 and 68 percent are in favor, including 50 and 53 percent of Republicans, respectively. 

Issues like these, in addition to fair labor practices like paid sick and family leave, are no-brainers for Washington. At Roosevelt, we believe that reforms need to go deeper and wider, to strike a new balance between shared opportunity and the power that currently dominates our political economy.

At its core, this poll illustrates public desire for comprehensive reform, along the lines of the Rewriting the Rules agenda released by Roosevelt Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz last month. This includes reforms to monetary policy, trade policy, labor law, and checks on the dominance and dysfunction of the financial sector. Admittedly, some of our proposed reforms, like stronger union rights and a financial transactions tax, underperformed in this poll, but it is our honest assessment that with open dialogue and more public education, these issues would find widespread support. Structural reforms like these will not only shift the balance of power away from the top and toward all Americans, but will spur growth as well.

This is just the latest of indicators that inequality of wealth and opportunity are the defining issues of our time. Candidates from both sides of the aisle must respond to popular demand by delivering policies that will rewrite the rules of the economy for the benefit of all.

Eric Harris Bernstein is a Program Associate at the Roosevelt Institute.

Share This

Nothing Will Replace Public Higher-Education

May 29, 2015Mike Konczal

I have a piece at Rolling Stone, about how Yale's giant donation and the collapse of for-profit colleges under fraud charges both tell the same story: as we defund and privatize state public colleges there no set of good institutions which will fill the void left behind.

Three quick follow-up points. First, a technical one responding to something several people have brought up. I argue: "how much will Yale increase its enrollment numbers as a result of this [Schwarzman $150 million donation]? We can make a good guess: zero. Yale's freshman enrollment this past year [is] virtually the same as in 2003."

Yale's enrollment has not only been flat since 2003 but since around the 1970s, even though the number of students being educated overall has doubled over those 40 years. Some people have noted that there are plans by fall 2017 to increase Yale's enrollment 15 percent. It's true, though those plans have been in the works since before the financial crisis and have been significantly delayed, and are unrelated to the Schwarzman donation. The point very much stands.

Some thought this point was a cheap shot, but I think it is crucial to get out there in the debate. Private non-profits pick and choose strategically how to expand enrollment to fufill their private goals, and that's great. But their goals do not line up with the public one of ensuring that all who qualify has access to quality, affordable higher education, and they certainly won't step up as that system is pulled back.

Second, the for-profit stories are crazy. I need to be writing more about them, but keep an eye on their implosion, and what it means for privatization and running all government services through for-profit actors. The Corinthian debt-strikers are worth watching as well - here's Annie Lowrey writing about them and Astra Taylor.

Third, two recommendations. Michelle Goldberg's long Nation piece on the inequality amplifying consequences of public disinvestment at the University of Arizona, which I link to, is fantastic, and very much worth your time. I also tried to get in this great column by Andrew Hartman on how conservatives used to value mass higher education as a basis of Western Civilization during the Culture Wars - Alan Bloom describing it as "a space between the intellectual wasteland he has left behind and the inevitable dreary professional training that awaits him after the baccalaureate" - but now have traded that battle for one of defunding and privatization, but it didn't make it. But check out my piece anyway!

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

 

I have a piece at Rolling Stone, about how Yale's giant donation and the collapse of for-profit colleges under fraud charges both tell the same story: as we defund and privatize state public colleges there no set of good institutions which will fill the void left behind.

Three quick follow-up points. First, a technical one responding to something several people have brought up. I argue: "how much will Yale increase its enrollment numbers as a result of this [Schwarzman $150 million donation]? We can make a good guess: zero. Yale's freshman enrollment this past year [is] virtually the same as in 2003."

Yale's enrollment has not only been flat since 2003 but since around the 1970s, even though the number of students being educated overall has doubled over those 40 years. Some people have noted that there are plans by fall 2017 to increase Yale's enrollment 15 percent. It's true, though those plans have been in the works since before the financial crisis and have been significantly delayed, and are unrelated to the Schwarzman donation. The point very much stands.

Some thought this point was a cheap shot, but I think it is crucial to get out there in the debate. Private non-profits pick and choose strategically how to expand enrollment to fufill their private goals, and that's great. But their goals do not line up with the public one of ensuring that all who qualify has access to quality, affordable higher education, and they certainly won't step up as that system is pulled back.

Second, the for-profit stories are crazy. I need to be writing more about them, but keep an eye on their implosion, and what it means for privatization and running all government services through for-profit actors. The Corinthian debt-strikers are worth watching as well - here's Annie Lowrey writing about them and Astra Taylor.

Third, two recommendations. Michelle Goldberg's long Nation piece on the inequality amplifying consequences of public disinvestment at the University of Arizona, which I link to, is fantastic, and very much worth your time. I also tried to get in this great column by Andrew Hartman on how conservatives used to value mass higher education as a basis of Western Civilization during the Culture Wars - Alan Bloom describing it as "a space between the intellectual wasteland he has left behind and the inevitable dreary professional training that awaits him after the baccalaureate" - but now have traded that battle for one of defunding and privatization, but it didn't make it. But check out my piece anyway!

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

 

Share This

Remember When Everyone Was Terrified About the Carry Trade? New Score.

May 27, 2015Mike Konczal

I have a piece in The Nation discussing the Death of Centrism. A lot of people are discussing why the economic discussion has shifted to the left in liberal circles, and one of the big reasons is that the specific predictions centrists (as a movement, not a temperament) made about the economy didn't pan out.

It's very difficult to convey how different the conversation was back then. Here's a 2010 op-ed by Peter Orszag arguing that "much more deficit reduction, enacted now, to take effect in two to three years" as well as "an improvement in the relationship between business and government" are both necessary to boost the short-term economy. (He also argues against QE2 because monetary expansion might help prevent a Grand Bargain on the budget.) When researching this piece, Josh Bivens reminded me the administration was freaking out in 2009 about how the "carry trade" could cause interest rates to spike at a moment's notice, an argument that seems ridiculous with rates so low six years later.

All the centrists got was a counterproductive spending cut, one the GOP immediately reneged, and none of their actual goals. And now their arguments are completely absent from the debate right now. I hope you check it out!

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

 

I have a piece in The Nation discussing the Death of Centrism. A lot of people are discussing why the economic discussion has shifted to the left in liberal circles, and one of the big reasons is that the specific predictions centrists (as a movement, not a temperament) made about the economy didn't pan out.

It's very difficult to convey how different the conversation was back then. Here's a 2010 op-ed by Peter Orszag arguing that "much more deficit reduction, enacted now, to take effect in two to three years" as well as "an improvement in the relationship between business and government" are both necessary to boost the short-term economy. (He also argues against QE2 because monetary expansion might help prevent a Grand Bargain on the budget.) When researching this piece, Josh Bivens reminded me the administration was freaking out in 2009 about how the "carry trade" could cause interest rates to spike at a moment's notice, an argument that seems ridiculous with rates so low six years later.

All the centrists got was a counterproductive spending cut, one the GOP immediately reneged, and none of their actual goals. And now their arguments are completely absent from the debate right now. I hope you check it out!

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

 

Share This

Natalie Foster: Reimagine the Safety Net for the New Economy

May 21, 2015Laurie Ignacio

In the final installment of our "Good Economy of 2040" video series, we hear from Natalie Foster, co-founder of Peers.org and Rebuild the Dream.

In the final installment of our "Good Economy of 2040" video series, we hear from Natalie Foster, co-founder of Peers.org and Rebuild the Dream.

In order to ensure a good economy in 25 years, Foster would reimagine the safety net for the 21st century. “It’s important that we stop thinking about jobs and start talking about livelihoods as people will derive their income from a variety of different sources,” says Foster. She adds that we need a safety net that is designed not for the “old industrial economy where everyone had 9-to-5 jobs," but "for people who live much more fluid and free lives but who also have a greater level of economic instability."

To learn more about the future of the safety net, check out the links below

“Two Leaders in Labor Rethink The Safety Net For A Freelance Economy” (NationSwell)

“Safety Nets for Freelancers” (NY Times)

“George Takei and Michael Buckley on the Sharing Economy” (YouTube/AARP)

Natalie Foster has spent the last 15 years at the crossroads of social movements and technology. She’s transformed and run some of the largest digital teams in the country, including President Obama’s successful effort to pass health reform, and built two organizations from scratch. Most recently, Foster co-founded Peers.org, the world’s largest independent sharing economy community. Prior to Peers, she was the CEO and co-founder of Rebuild the Dream, a platform for people–driven economic change, with Van Jones. 

 

Share This

After Divestment, What Comes Next for College Campuses?

May 20, 2015Torre Lavelle

From championing civil rights through Freedom Summer to fighting sexual assault, college students have long made a name for themselves as leaders of ideas, activism, and innovation.

From championing civil rights through Freedom Summer to fighting sexual assault, college students have long made a name for themselves as leaders of ideas, activism, and innovation. It should therefore come as no surprise that the fossil-fuel divestment movement—the campaign to get institutions to pull their financial investments from fossil fuels and redirect that money to clean, renewable energy as a way of tackling climate change—has its roots in U.S. college campuses. With a total of $50 billion from 837 institutions and individuals divested so far, the campaign has succeeded at an unprecedented rate, growing faster than the divestment movements against both South African apartheid and tobacco.

Last fall’s stunning news that the heirs to the Rockefeller fortune were pulling their philanthropic funds out of fossil fuel officially confirmed divestment’s transition from campus movement to the financial mainstream. Combined with the commitment of more than 25 universities to move beyond coal, with more to follow in the upcoming year, student leaders and activists should carefully consider their role in deciding where climate change policy goes from here. After successfully pressuring the administration of my own school, the University of Georgia, to shut down its coal-fired boiler, the campus Beyond Coal group effectively called it quits and disbanded. But as pipelines for progressive environmental solutions, campus groups should just be getting started.

The Hoover Institution published The State Clean Energy Cookbook in 2014, which includes a dozen “recipes” for cost-effective and easily supportable policies that have already been implemented in both blue and red states with strong overall results. Now we need a new wave of student activism focused on building media strategy, coalitions, and administrative and legislative relationships to take this natural next step and enter a larger policy arena.

On the heels of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell urging governors and state officials to “think twice” before submitting plans for state compliance with the EPA Clean Power Plan, college students should examine the role of states and regional networks in advancing clean energy policy. The work of UGA’s Beyond Coal group and others must extend beyond individual campuses, and should strongly oppose any calls to ignore federal deadlines for state carbon plans.

Regional cap and trade systems are another critical area for post-divestment work. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) among nine Northeast and mid-Atlantic states became the first market-based approach to reducing pollution by selling carbon credits and reinvesting the revenue into clean energy technology and consumer benefits. With a goal of reducing 10 percent of power plants’ greenhouse gas emissions across the northeastern U.S. by 2020, the RGGI instead caused emissions to drop more than 40 percent from 2005 to 2012 and generated $102.5 million in revenue. An estimated $1.4 billion in lifetime energy bill savings are coupled with bill credits to low-income families and clean energy job training for workers. RGGI also served as the baseline policy model for California’s cap and trade system, the first state with a program of this kind.

State adoption of these programs has so far been lacking in leadership and provides an excellent road map for student involvement. I’m not calling on students alone to make this happen, though; I’m also calling on the Sierra Club, 350.org, and other environmental organizations with strong student involvement to step up to the next challenge. Let’s celebrate our victories while capturing the momentum focused on divestment and recognize that it’s time we expanded our reach.

Torre Lavelle is the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment. She is majoring in ecology and environmental economics at the University of Georgia.

Share This

Better Community Investment Will Pay Dividends for Colleges

May 19, 2015Emma Copeland

We need to start holding colleges accountable as anchor institutions that provide economic growth and stability to their communities.

We need to start holding colleges accountable as anchor institutions that provide economic growth and stability to their communities.

In recent weeks, the debate about holding colleges accountable has focused on schools’ responsibilities toward failing students, continuously rising tuition, and increasing student debt. What’s been overlooked is the role of colleges as a potential force for good within their more immediate communities. Indeed, one of the most profound ways a university can improve the holistic experience of its students is to invest more in the surrounding community.

Presently, many four-year institutions entrust the bulk of their money to low-risk funds or national banks like Bank of America. The money that flows into a school never directly returns to the community, and it is often the case that low-income residents near a college must battle gentrification, stagnation, or both. For example, New York University’s $3.5 billion endowment is currently invested in national banks such as Bank of America, Chase, and Citibank, none of which are directly involved in developing the community around NYU.

Outside of investment, universities and colleges spend a huge amount of money that has the potential to directly affect the communities around them. Big schools like Michigan State University, which purchases nearly $87 million worth of goods and services annually, could spend mere fractions of this number on local small businesses, causing them to flourish like never before.

As a student at a four-year public university in Northern Virginia, I know a few things about debt and personal economic stagnation. To say “the United States can’t afford the status quo in higher education” might be the understatement of the decade. So how can we shake up the status quo?

We need to start holding colleges accountable not just to the government but to their communities. As anchor institutions, they have the power to provide economic growth and stability and serve as cornerstones of their communities due to their role as large permanent employers with significant investment capabilities. They are also permanent physical landmarks that serve as points of pride for their members as well as nearby residents.

Colleges and universities tend to be huge anchor institutions due to their extensive reach in a variety of commercial activities, immense diversity of employment throughout their numerous departments, and the vital exchange of wealth between students, alumni, trustees, fans, and neighbors to the school. It is time for these institutions to begin making a concerted effort to develop and invest locally for the long term.

The first way we can hold colleges accountable as anchor institutions is by encouraging and facilitating responsible purchasing from locally owned and operated businesses for anything from food to office supplies. This would allow small businesses to leap into the big leagues, and colleges have a responsibility to support the entrepreneurial efforts of graduates who choose to settle nearby as well as the local business owners who employ their students and alumni. Even 10 percent of the funds earmarked for paper products for a large public institution such as the University of Michigan would be the number one account for a local business struggling to compete with national suppliers. Working with these businesses to help increase their production capacity and streamline various processes would ultimately result in a symbiotic exchange of tailored quality for vital business development. Colleges have too long relied on one-size-fits-all corporations to supply their food, office supplies, cleaning services, and more. In the long-run, establishing relationships with local providers enables both the institution and the businesses to thrive as each respects and relies on the other.

Second, universities should be responsible for investing locally. Universities often have access to far more capital than the cities and towns that surround them, but they invest in distant fossil fuel companies, huge national banks, or even Israeli military efforts.  As anchor institutions, colleges should invest in their communities through community development financial institutions (CDFIs). By promising to invest a majority of its cash-on-hand in the surrounding community, a CDFI is able to safely give loans to small businesses, prospective college students and families, and new homeowners. These kinds of investments improve the lives and livelihoods of community members not directly affiliated with the anchor institutions. This is particularly vital because non-anchor institutions like large-scale banks are often unwilling to invest in these low-income communities because of the economic risk.

Colleges are institutions that can help a struggling or non-competitive community find its feet. If we hold them accountable in the right way, as institutions of economic growth for the long-term, colleges can begin to boast many more achievements and far fewer failures.

Emma Copeland is a junior at George Mason University, a 10 Ideas author, and a member of the Campus Network's Braintrust.

Share This

Beyond Divestment: How NYU Can Still Invest in the Public Good

May 12, 2015Eugenia Kim

The fossil fuel divestment movement on college campuses highlights two distinct aspects of the problem of climate change. The first and most obvious is that climate change and environmental issues are drastically changing our planet and require immediate action. The second is the responsibility of our colleges and universities to be stewards of responsible social change.

The fossil fuel divestment movement on college campuses highlights two distinct aspects of the problem of climate change. The first and most obvious is that climate change and environmental issues are drastically changing our planet and require immediate action. The second is the responsibility of our colleges and universities to be stewards of responsible social change. While climate change appears to have caught the public eye in recent weeks, this question of responsibility continues to be overlooked. Both of these issues are now coming to a head at New York University (NYU).

On March 26, a working group of NYU’s University Senate voted to recommend not divesting from fossil fuels. On April 30, the larger University Senate, which encompasses both student representatives and faculty, will also vote on divestment.

The stated argument against divestment is twofold: political and fiduciary. The report released by NYU’s working group is emblematic of the faulty assumptions school administrations across the country have about divestment. The report claims that it is not in the nature of a university to take a stand on a political issue such as climate change, and that NYU would be better suited to combat climate change through increased research investments. Further, the report states that it would be financially irresponsible for the university to divest.

However, the working group’s argument is self-contradictory. The university cannot simultaneously claim to have no position on climate change and actively fund research that works to combat it. Further, the sheer existence of climate change is no longer a debate; broad consensus has been reached among independent agencies and scientists that climate change is real. The political question that does arise is what the institution is going to do about it. The working group also fails to recognize that divesting from fossil fuels and investing in research are not mutually exclusive. The administration has the power to do both while maintaining its fiduciary responsibilities.

NYU’s arguments against divestment are in no way unique; they exemplify the fundamental assumption of college administrations that an institution must choose between the social good and economic profitability. This is not the case, but the divestment movement has failed to demonstrate that university investments can be both profitable and environmentally friendly. Advocates committed to the divestment movement must provide more guidance as to how administrators can better spend their money.

While divestment is an important symbolic gesture toward a university’s commitment to sustainability, meaningful investments in green energy businesses are a more tangible request, if perhaps less likely to inspire rallies. Investment alternatives offer practical solutions that enable activists to work with, rather than against, administrations. For example, Ohio’s Case Western Reserve University has not divested from fossil fuels, but it has invested in the Evergreen Cooperatives, thereby promoting economic growth in the Cleveland community, and still maintains a commitment to tackling larger questions around sustainability and climate change.

While these investment campaigns are harder to organize around, there are students who are interested in analyzing the economic responsibility of their universities, and student involvement in this process is vital. The Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network’s Rethinking Communities initiative is geared toward identifying and developing smarter economic decision-making practices for colleges and universities. The project is led by students who support divestment but offer smart and socially responsible local investment solutions.

NYU, for example, could stand to gain higher returns on its investments if it would simply move some of its funds from large banks like Chase into community development banks. By divesting just $500,000 (0.014 percent of NYU’s $3.5 billion endowment) from fossil fuels and moving it to community development banks, NYU could increase its returns while helping middle- and low-income residents get loans, promoting financial literacy, and providing secure financial services. This idea that investments can be both socially responsible and profitable holds true for universities across the nation.  

Students are important but overlooked stakeholders in university policy. They are the ones doing the research and asking the important questions about their schools’ social responsibility. Sit-ins, protests, and rallies across the country are the product of a large number of young people feeling left out of the decision-making process at institutions designed to serve them. These students want to participate and engage with their school administrations in making financial decisions and developing viable solutions, In short, these students want to be part of universities that embody the values they teach.

Eugenia Kim is student at New York University and a member of the Rethinking Communities Brain Trust.

Share This

The Rules are What Matter for Inequality: Our New Report

May 12, 2015Mike Konczal

I’m very excited to announce the release of “Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy” (pdf report), Roosevelt Institute’s new inequality agenda report by Joe Stiglitz. I’m thrilled to be one of the co-authors, as I think this report really tells a compelling story about inequality and the challenges the economy faces.

Recently there’s been a lot of discussion about a “new” conventional wisdom (“a force to be reckoned with” according to one observer), one in which choices about the rules of the economy are a major driver of the outcomes we see. This is in contrast to the normal narrative about inequality we hear, one in which globalization, technology, or individual choices are the only important parts. I like to think this report is a major advancement in this discussion, bringing together the best recent research on this topic.

As we argue, inequality is not inevitable: it is a choice that we’ve made with the rules that structure our economy. Over the past 35 years, the rules, or the regulatory, legal and institutional frameworks, that make up the economy and condition the market have changed. These rules are a major driver of the income distribution we see, including runaway top incomes and weak or precarious income growth for most others. Crucially, however, these changes in the rules have not made our economy better off than we would be otherwise; in many cases we are weaker for these changes. We also now know that “deregulation” is, in fact, “reregulation”—that is, a new set of rules for governing the economy that favor a specific set of actors, and that there's no way out of these difficult choices. But what were these changes?

Financial deregulation exploded both the size of finance and its incomes, roughly doubling the share of finance in the top 1 percent. However, finance grew as a result of intermediating credit in a “shadow banking” sector, which led to disastrous results. It also grew from asset management, a field in which pay is often determined by luck and by fees driven by the increasing prevalence of opaque alternative investment vehicles like hedge funds. For all the resources it uses, finance is no more efficient than it was a century ago.

Corporate governance also radically changed during this period, led by public policy decisions. CEO pay fundamentally shifted toward a high pay model in the 1980s. The shareholder revolution also changed the nature of investment. We now see finance acting as a mechanism for getting money out of firms rather than into them; similarly, private firms are investing more than public firms. CEOs regularly use buybacks to hit earnings targets and say they’d rather hit accounting goals than invest long-term, indicating that short-termism is now a serious problem for investment and its positive spillovers.

High marginal tax rates were cut, but there’s no evidence that the high-end marginal tax rate has any effect on growth; cutting it does, however, raise the share of income the top 1 percent takes home. Low taxes don’t just make the equalizing effects of taxes weaker; they also mean that CEOs and other executives in the top 1 percent have more of an incentive to bargain aggressively with boards or seek opportunities for extracting rents, all zero-sum games for the economy. Lowering capital taxes showed no impact on higher investment, but a positive effect on increased capital payouts; capital income growth is one of the main drivers of inequality during this time period.

During this time, the Federal Reserve’s focus moved toward low and stable inflation at the cost of higher unemployment. Unemployment from weak Federal Reserve action rises the most for low-skilled and minority workers. Inequality generally doesn’t come down unless unemployment is below 6 percent, and this has become less of a priority.

The rules changed, or were not updated, for the labor market as well. Decreasing unionization has taken a toll on workers’ wages. Men’s inequality, in particular, has risen due to collapsing unionization rates. Women’s inequality has suffered due to a falling minimum wage, which went from 54 percent of the average hourly wage in the late 1960s to just 35 percent now. Labor market protections and institutions that give workers voice and power, in general, have not been updated for a new world of service and care work.

Though not an effective driver of lower crime rates, a dramatic turn toward mass and punitive incarceration has reduced the employment prospects for millions of Americans, especially people of color. In particular, there’s a dense web of discriminatory codes for those with a record, which pushes them toward second-class citizenship. One estimate finds 38,000 such punitive statutes, with most of them related to employment and having no end date.

Our institutions and rules haven’t been updated to fully facilitate women’s ability to participate in the labor force. As a result of gender discrimination in the workplace, lack of paid sick and family leave, and the unavailability of affordable child care, women’s participation in the U.S. labor force has declined over the past 15 years, while it increased in most other OECD countries.

Many people agree inequality is a challenge, but would say that this is all driven by technology and globalization. We discuss this at length in the report, but we don’t find these traditional stories either convincing, in the case of technology, or sufficient, in the case of globalization. Both of these forces are playing out, in quite similar ways, in other advanced countries, whose growth of inequality nowhere mirrors our own. Technology and globalization don’t fall from the sky, but instead are determined in important ways by rules and institutions. This is especially important in the era of free trade agreements, which are really managed trade agreements. These agreements are less about trade and more about the regulatory environment corporations face.

But rules matter even in these straightforward stories about supply and demand for labor. Advancements in search theory tell us that supply and demand, rather than strictly determining wages, instead place boundaries or endzones on where wages can go. What determines where wages fall within those boundaries is a whole host of economic rules, including bargaining power, institutions, and social conventions. Even in the strong version of these arguments, the rules matter.

This report describes what has happened, going far deeper than this summary here. It also has a policy agenda focused on both taming the top and growing the rest of the economy. Some may emphasize some pieces more than others; but no matter what this argument about the rules is what is missing in the current debates over the economy. I hope you get a chance to check out the report!

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

 

I’m very excited to announce the release of “Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy” (pdf report), Roosevelt Institute’s new inequality agenda report by Joe Stiglitz. I’m thrilled to be one of the co-authors, as I think this report really tells a compelling story about inequality and the challenges the economy faces.

Recently there’s been a lot of discussion about a “new” conventional wisdom (“a force to be reckoned with” according to one observer), one in which choices about the rules of the economy are a major driver of the outcomes we see. This is in contrast to the normal narrative about inequality we hear, one in which globalization, technology, or individual choices are the only important parts. I like to think this report is a major advancement in this discussion, bringing together the best recent research on this topic.

As we argue, inequality is not inevitable: it is a choice that we’ve made with the rules that structure our economy. Over the past 35 years, the rules, or the regulatory, legal and institutional frameworks, that make up the economy and condition the market have changed. These rules are a major driver of the income distribution we see, including runaway top incomes and weak or precarious income growth for most others. Crucially, however, these changes in the rules have not made our economy better off than we would be otherwise; in many cases we are weaker for these changes. We also now know that “deregulation” is, in fact, “reregulation”—that is, a new set of rules for governing the economy that favor a specific set of actors, and that there's no way out of these difficult choices. But what were these changes?

Financial deregulation exploded both the size of finance and its incomes, roughly doubling the share of finance in the top 1 percent. However, finance grew as a result of intermediating credit in a “shadow banking” sector, which led to disastrous results. It also grew from asset management, a field in which pay is often determined by luck and by fees driven by the increasing prevalence of opaque alternative investment vehicles like hedge funds. For all the resources it uses, finance is no more efficient than it was a century ago.

Corporate governance also radically changed during this period, led by public policy decisions. CEO pay fundamentally shifted toward a high pay model in the 1980s. The shareholder revolution also changed the nature of investment. We now see finance acting as a mechanism for getting money out of firms rather than into them; similarly, private firms are investing more than public firms. CEOs regularly use buybacks to hit earnings targets and say they’d rather hit accounting goals than invest long-term, indicating that short-termism is now a serious problem for investment and its positive spillovers.

High marginal tax rates were cut, but there’s no evidence that the high-end marginal tax rate has any effect on growth; cutting it does, however, raise the share of income the top 1 percent takes home. Low taxes don’t just make the equalizing effects of taxes weaker; they also mean that CEOs and other executives in the top 1 percent have more of an incentive to bargain aggressively with boards or seek opportunities for extracting rents, all zero-sum games for the economy. Lowering capital taxes showed no impact on higher investment, but a positive effect on increased capital payouts; capital income growth is one of the main drivers of inequality during this time period.

During this time, the Federal Reserve’s focus moved toward low and stable inflation at the cost of higher unemployment. Unemployment from weak Federal Reserve action rises the most for low-skilled and minority workers. Inequality generally doesn’t come down unless unemployment is below 6 percent, and this has become less of a priority.

The rules changed, or were not updated, for the labor market as well. Decreasing unionization has taken a toll on workers’ wages. Men’s inequality, in particular, has risen due to collapsing unionization rates. Women’s inequality has suffered due to a falling minimum wage, which went from 54 percent of the average hourly wage in the late 1960s to just 35 percent now. Labor market protections and institutions that give workers voice and power, in general, have not been updated for a new world of service and care work.

Though not an effective driver of lower crime rates, a dramatic turn toward mass and punitive incarceration has reduced the employment prospects for millions of Americans, especially people of color. In particular, there’s a dense web of discriminatory codes for those with a record, which pushes them toward second-class citizenship. One estimate finds 38,000 such punitive statutes, with most of them related to employment and having no end date.

Our institutions and rules haven’t been updated to fully facilitate women’s ability to participate in the labor force. As a result of gender discrimination in the workplace, lack of paid sick and family leave, and the unavailability of affordable child care, women’s participation in the U.S. labor force has declined over the past 15 years, while it increased in most other OECD countries.

Many people agree inequality is a challenge, but would say that this is all driven by technology and globalization. We discuss this at length in the report, but we don’t find these traditional stories either convincing, in the case of technology, or sufficient, in the case of globalization. Both of these forces are playing out, in quite similar ways, in other advanced countries, whose growth of inequality nowhere mirrors our own. Technology and globalization don’t fall from the sky, but instead are determined in important ways by rules and institutions. This is especially important in the era of free trade agreements, which are really managed trade agreements. These agreements are less about trade and more about the regulatory environment corporations face.

But rules matter even in these straightforward stories about supply and demand for labor. Advancements in search theory tell us that supply and demand, rather than strictly determining wages, instead place boundaries or endzones on where wages can go. What determines where wages fall within those boundaries is a whole host of economic rules, including bargaining power, institutions, and social conventions. Even in the strong version of these arguments, the rules matter.

This report describes what has happened, going far deeper than this summary here. It also has a policy agenda focused on both taming the top and growing the rest of the economy. Some may emphasize some pieces more than others; but no matter what this argument about the rules is what is missing in the current debates over the economy. I hope you get a chance to check out the report!

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

 

Share This

Pages