Bryce Covert

Editor

Recent Posts by Bryce Covert

  • Our Brave New Service Economy

    Apr 23, 2012Bryce Covert

    More low-wage, dead-end jobs might sound good to business owners, but is that what we want for our country?

    More low-wage, dead-end jobs might sound good to business owners, but is that what we want for our country?

    One of Romney’s big selling points is that he knows the “real economy” (much like some conservatives know “real America,” I guess) because he has experience as a businessman. Conservatives have started substituting business acumen for political acumen, making the mistake of comparing what’s required to run a country to what’s required to run a company. At first blush it almost makes sense: both oversee groups of people, both deal with budgets, both make decisions. But not only does that experience not necessarily translate to the White House, it also belies a deeper problem about the kind of economy we’re trying to recreate in the aftermath of the Great Recession. Viewing the country, and its economy, as a private business isn’t likely to create solid middle-class jobs.

    “This American Life” had a recent episode called “What Kind of Country” that explored what kind of country Americans want this to be, but parts of it had more to do with what kind of economy we want. Take the example they give in act three: Colorado Springs. With a stretched city budget, local businessman Steve Bartolin, CEO of the Broadmoor Hotel, decided to look and compare it to running his hotel. After all, he tells the reporter on the story, “We have the same number of employees as the city… I look at us as a service delivery organization,” just like the city, apparently. They are both concerned with “how do you deliver the highest quality of service in the most efficient, cost effective manner.”

    His main focus became how much both entities spend on their employees. “They’re running a 70 percent labor cost and we’ll run a 35 percent labor cost,” he says. “Any business person can look at that and say, ‘Jesus, we’re going to be out of business by 2014 at this pace.’” He writes a manifesto to the city council that ends up being circulated all over town: the city should lower starting wages for its employees, require them to pay more for their health insurance, and start contracting out anything it can to private businesses.

    A city councilwoman explains that payrolls for the city government are higher than the hotel’s because it doesn’t control its own pension costs, which are mandated by the state. But she also makes a very important point: it has to hire people with more training and experience. City engineers and police officers can’t be hired on the cheap like the service industry workers at the Broadmoor.

    And herein lies a big problem. What Bartolin proposed, basically, is to make government employees more like service employees. This is highly problematic, particularly for the black Americans and women who have long relied on public employment because it paid decently, offered good benefits and stability, and enabled them to move up the economic ladder. Public employment has been credited with helping to create the black middle class. If we make these jobs as unstable and low-benefit as service jobs, we’ll be taking away a huge boon from groups who have historically benefitted from it.

    But we’re not just dragging public employees down to the level of service workers. In fact, the jobs our economy is best at producing these days are service jobs. As Harper’s recently tweeted, the chances that an employed American works in the service industry are six in seven. Those jobs have been growing very quickly: from 2010 to 2011, occupations like salespersons, cashiers, and food preparation workers grew by 3.2 percent. As Nona Willis Aronowitz recently reported, one in 10 employed Americans works in food service, making up 9.6 million people. And young people are taking a lot of those jobs: a quarter of people ages 16 to 29 who have a job work in hospitality, meaning travel, leisure, and food service. “A study of 4 million Facebook profiles found that, after the military, the top four employers listed by twentysomethings were Walmart, Starbucks, Target, and Best Buy,” she writes.

    These are low-wage, low-benefit jobs that rarely pay much more than minimum wage (if even that) and offer schedules that can change on a whim. A report from the Retail Action Project in New York found that over half of retail workers made under $10 an hour – and 12 percent earn the minimum wage. Less than a third get health benefits through their employer. The Restaurant Opportunity Centers United reported that the average yearly income for restaurant workers in 2009 was $15,092, and less than a third make a livable wage. And what about those hotel workers who might be under the employ of Batolin? Non-managers make less than $12 an hour on average.

    And unlike government work, these jobs offer little training and room for advancement. The sector relies on employee churn to keep labor costs lower. (Just ask Barbara Ehrenreich.) Service careers aren’t designed to advance much farther than flipping burgers.

    Is this what we want our economy to look like? Do we want most jobs to offer wages that don’t cover basic expenses and to deny workers the benefits they need to stay healthy? Businesspeople would call this cost effective. I call this unsustainable.

    Bryce Covert is Editor of Next New Deal.

     

    http://www.shutterstock.com/Image courtesy of Shutterstock.com.

    Share This

  • Why Would Anyone Choose to Teach?

    Mar 13, 2012Bryce Covert

    With layoffs, budget cuts, and a soaring unemployment rate for education grads, we're giving college students few incentives to go into the field.

    This country is in desperate need of more teachers. The U.S. ranks a pathetic 24th in reading, 30th in science, and 32nd in math when our students are compared to those in other countries.

    With layoffs, budget cuts, and a soaring unemployment rate for education grads, we're giving college students few incentives to go into the field.

    This country is in desperate need of more teachers. The U.S. ranks a pathetic 24th in reading, 30th in science, and 32nd in math when our students are compared to those in other countries.

    But we seem to be hell-bent on keeping college graduates from going into the profession. From the debt they take on before school, to the job prospects they face when they graduate, to the way we treat teachers if they actually do sign up, any sane person would steer clear.

    Total student debt now stands at $870 billion, more than total credit card debt. That's a big number, and it's important to keep in mind that it has some concrete real life consequences for the people carrying it. A study in 2007 found that "an extra $10,000 in student debt reduces the likelihood that an individual will take a job in nonprofits, government, or education by about 5 to 6 percentage points." That's not too hard to grasp: if you have thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of dollars in outstanding debt to pay off after graduating, a job that pays more than a measly $40,000 a year will look that much more temping. And in fact the data bears that out. The study found that the same $10,000 in additional student debt will reduce the likelihood that graduates take a job that pays less than $41,000 by six percentage points. Elementary and secondary school teachers make under $48,000 at the median -- starting pay is usually a good deal lower.

    Vote for Roosevelt Institute | Pipeline to win a free both at Netroots Nation!

    The job prospects for grads trying to enter education are just as bleak. The economy has shed 584,000 public sector jobs since the recovery began in 2009, and 236,500, or about 40 percent, were in local education -- in other words, public school teachers. Even worse, the unemployment rate for education grads is extremely high. Mike Konczal recently pointed out, "Education and social work graduates have a huge, statistically significant, 13.5% unemployment rate." Compare that to an 8.3 percent rate for the general population. Even if you felt okay paying through the nose for college tuition just to scrape by on low pay, you'd be at risk for even finding a job in the first place.

    But those who do have a job aren't so lucky these days either. After a huge public debate, controversial value-added scores for teachers were recently released, dubbing teachers "good" and "bad." And they're already damaging teachers' morale. A recent survey showed that it's at its lowest point in more than 20 years. One in three teachers say they're likely to find a different job in the next five years, up from one in four just three years ago. Their concerns? Job security, increased class sizes, and budget cuts. Little wonder: more than three quarters said their schools had undergone budget cuts, including layoffs.

    I went into teaching directly out of college, and even then I felt like I was making a foolish choice. Now with student debt burdens skyrocketing, budgets shrinking, and unemployment ballooning, I can't imagine I'd make the same choice.

    Bryce Covert is Editor of New Deal 2.0.

    Share This

  • Olympia Snowe: Political Polarization Will Turn Women Off

    Feb 29, 2012Bryce Covert

    Snowe's reasons for leaving are an increasingly divided and uncivil Congress. That will make many women think twice about running in the first place.

    Snowe's reasons for leaving are an increasingly divided and uncivil Congress. That will make many women think twice about running in the first place.

    Maine Senator Olympia Snowe announced late yesterday that she won't be seeking reelection for her seat. This came as a surprise to a lot of people. As Steve Kornacki says, "This is not a Joe Lieberman situation; Snowe was not out of options." She had a good chance of winning the election and had a viable option to run as an independent. However, "evidently she was out of patience with what her political life had become," he notes.

    That's gleaned from her statement, in which she explains:

    I do find it frustrating that an atmosphere of polarization and 'my way or the highway' ideologies has become pervasive in campaigns and in our governing institutions.

    With my Spartan ancestry I am a fighter at heart; and I am well prepared for the electoral battle, so that is not the issue. However, what I have had to consider is how productive an additional term would be. Unfortunately, I do not realistically expect the partisanship of recent years in the Senate to change over the short term...

    I intend to help give voice to my fellow citizens who believe, as I do, that we must return to an era of civility in government driven by a common purpose to fulfill the promise that is unique to America.

    Jonathan Chait sees some evidence in her remarks that she's headed for a third party candidacy. But for now, let's take her at her word: she's leaving her office because of increased polarization.

    As Ezra Klein points out, increased polarization doesn't have to go hand in hand with increased rancor, but it sure has in our current system. The increasing ideological divide has left us more and more gridlocked. Invective is thrown by both sides. Snowe points to "an atmosphere of polarization and 'my way or the highway' ideologies." This is a huge problem for getting things done politically, but it also represents a large hurdle for getting more women into office.

    Check out “The 99 Percent Plan,” a new Roosevelt Institute/Salon essay series on the progressive vision for the economy.

    A study that I've written about before took a deep look at the reasons that women don't run for office. They came up with seven key reasons, but three of those relate to an increasingly acrimonious and divided political body.

    Women react more negatively than men to many aspects of modern campaigns.

    Modern campaigns are shaped by the polarization that goes on in Congress -- Snowe makes reference to this problem both on the Hill and on the trail. In the study, women showed an aversion to many of the less glamorous activities of campaigning, but the biggest differential was for "potentially having to engage in a negative campaign." Sixteen percent of men were deterred by that idea; that number jumps to 28 percent for women. If translated to the actual political arena once they're in, women are going to be less interested in the bile tossed from one side of the aisle to the other. That's Snowe's main complaint: she doesn't want to operate in a body that yells at itself without moving anything forward.

    Female potential candidates are less competitive, less confident, and more risk averse than their male counterparts.

    Snowe says she's a fighter. But a more polarized and gridlocked Congress will mean a more combative -- and thus competitive -- environment that will turn women off. They are at least 25 percent less likely than men to report being competitive, having a thick skin, and willing to take risks. Why would they sign themselves up to enter Congress at a time that, as Snowe says, we've drifted away from an "era of civility"?

    Women are substantially more likely than men to perceive the electoral environment as highly competitive and biased against female candidates.

    Based purely on perception, women were much more likely to view their local campaigns as competitive. This also translates into the actual machinations of Congress. Women consider the current environment, deduce that the competition is fierce, and decide to stay out. Snowe feels she'll make a bigger difference on the outside, and many women may feel the same way.

    There are other reasons women don't run, such as perceived gender bias, the need to care for children, and few of them being approached to run. But as Congress becomes more and more polarized, we run a higher risk of women sitting it out.

    Bryce Covert is Editor of New Deal 2.0.

    Share This

  • What the U.S. Economy Owes to Contraception

    Feb 28, 2012Bryce Covert

    This isn't about "moral" objections. Women's access to contraception has been a huge driver of America's economic dominance.

    This isn't about "moral" objections. Women's access to contraception has been a huge driver of America's economic dominance.

    It's no secret that women's reproductive rights have become a big news item lately, from this to this to this. Contraception in particular is now a campaign issue. George Stephanopoulos was heckled for bringing it up in the New Hampshire Republican debate (to which Romney said we should leave it alone), yet it's since become clear that Rick Santorum, if not the others, has some very... interesting views. In his mind, contraception is "not okay," and he warns of "the dangers of contraception in this country." Meanwhile, a vote is likely this week on an amendment that would allow all employers -- religiously affiliated or otherwise -- to object to insurance coverage of health care services that they feel are out of line with their moral beliefs, targeted at undoing a requirement that contraception be covered for free.

    Santorum may see birth control as somehow inflicting harm on the United States, but that papers over the benefits we've all experienced from women's access to contraception. Far from being a simple issue of morality, I've previously argued that it's an economic issue, particularly for low-income women. Yet there's another big reason this is an economic argument. Contraception has had an enormous positive impact on our economy. By freeing women up from unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, women are able to complete education and stay in the workforce -- plus they usually have less work waiting for them at home.

    The pill was first cleared for contraceptive purposes in the 1960s. Just five years later, 6.5 million women were taking it. By 1973, that number hit 10 million. Unsurprisingly, birth rates fell significantly during the same time period. The birth rate in the 1950s and early 1960s was 118 births per 1,000 women aged 15-44. By 1980, that rate had fallen by almost 75 percent, to 68 births per 1,000 women. With a safe, legal, and accessible drug that helped women plan and space out their pregnancies, births dropped dramatically.

    Check out “The 99 Percent Plan,” a new Roosevelt Institute/Salon essay series on the progressive vision for the economy.

    Research consistently demonstrates a link between decreased fertility thanks to contraception and increased female employment. And right on cue, women, freed up from unwanted child bearing and child rearing, consequently flooded the workforce after the pill became widely accessible. In 1950, 18 million women were in the workforce. By the 1980s, the pill's impact had had such an effect that 60 percent of women of reproductive age were employed. By 2000, the ranks of women in the workforce had more than tripled since the '50s, rising to 66 million. Overall, from 1970 to 2009 women went from holding 37 percent of all jobs to almost half of them.

    This change has had a significant impact on women's lives and families, the fallout of which is still reverberating throughout the culture wars. But the impact on our economy is easy to quantify. The private sector has long recognized this fact: consulting giant McKinsey explains that without the huge increase in women's workforce participation since the 1970s, "our economy would be 25% smaller today -- an amount equal to the combined GDP of Illinois, California and New York." As The Economist reports, "In developed economies, women produce just under 40% of official GDP," but if unpaid child rearing work is taken into account, it estimates they account for about half. In fact, its rough estimates suggest that women's entry into the labor market has added more to our GDP growth over recent decades than creating new jobs for men, capital investment, or increased productivity (the other typical drivers).

    Contraception also means that women have control over their own reproductive capacities, paving the way for more equal footing with men. And the economic benefits of women's equality have recently been a big topic of conversation from the United Nations to Goldman Sachs.

    Conservatives of Santorum and Roy Blunt's ilk may be trying to paint this over as purely about religion and moral objections. But this is a much larger economic issue. Even if women's sexual autonomy makes you queasy, their economic autonomy has impacted everyone. Santorum included. The birth control pill irreversibly revolutionized the American economy.

    Bryce Covert is Editor of New Deal 2.0.

    Share This

  • Chart of the Day: We Haven't Really Had a Year of the Woman Yet

    Feb 24, 2012Bryce Covert

    Women have yet to get even a quarter of the seats in Congress, but we make up over half the population.

    The first Year of the Woman was 1992, when a number of women were elected to the Senate. A lot of elections since then have been dubbed that as well, and the 2010 midterms were supposed to be another female sweep, yet their numbers actually declined slightly in that election.

    Women have yet to get even a quarter of the seats in Congress, but we make up over half the population.

    The first Year of the Woman was 1992, when a number of women were elected to the Senate. A lot of elections since then have been dubbed that as well, and the 2010 midterms were supposed to be another female sweep, yet their numbers actually declined slightly in that election.

    But taking a step back for a bit, this chart makes it seem a little silly to say that any year has truly been a Year of the Woman for the United States Congress (h/t Andrew Sullivan):

    women-in-congress

    Check out “The 99 Percent Plan,” a new Roosevelt Institute/Salon essay series on the progressive vision for the economy.

    The chart comes from a new report by the Congressional Research Service on the demographics of Congress. Note the highest value in the vertical axis of the first chart is just 18 percent. We haven't broken that mark in either the Senate or the House yet, even though women are over half the American population. It's been almost 100 years since the first woman was elected to Congress (not to mention that we've had the vote since 1920), yet we haven't even taken a quarter of the seats yet.

    I've discussed the many reasons women don't run for office before. A lot of them are hardwired through socialization into women's heads at a young age. This is a systemic problem that doesn't have many quick fixes. But it's clear that we're doing a pitiful job of making our political representation look like an actual representation of our people.

    Bryce Covert is Editor of New Deal 2.0.

    Share This

Pages