Daily Digest - December 19: It's a Whole New Economic Policy-Making World

Dec 18, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

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

Uncharted Interest Rate Territory (U.S. News & World Report)

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

Uncharted Interest Rate Territory (U.S. News & World Report)

Jason Gold points out that since interest rates have been declining for 33 years, none of today's lawmakers know quite what they're in for when the Fed begins to raise rates in 2015.

  • Roosevelt Take: Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal says that raising interest rates is not the way to fight "financial instability."

The Greatest Tax Story Ever Told (Bloomberg Businessweek)

Zachary R. Mider shares the story of the very first corporate tax inversion, in which a company incorporates abroad to avoid paying U.S. taxes. The idea was invented by a liberal tax lawyer in 1982.

A Big Safety Net and Strong Job Market Can Coexist. Just Ask Scandinavia. (NYT)

The strong safety net programs in Scandinavian countries, which include far more direct aid, might be more effective at getting people to work than the U.S. tax subsidy model, writes Neil Irwin.

How ALEC Helped Undermine Public Unions (WaPo)

Alex Hertel-Fernandez explains that ALEC's attacks on public sector unions aren't new: ALEC-backed anti-union laws were enacted in some states a decade before the Great Recession.

Pro-Warren Protesters Take Their Fight to Wall Street (MSNBC)

Zachary Roth reports on yesterday's protest at Citigroup's New York City headquarters, where protesters denounced the Citigroup-crafted measure weakening Dodd-Frank in the spending bill.

From the E.R. to the Courtroom: How Nonprofit Hospitals Are Seizing Patients’ Wages (ProPublica)

Paul Kiel and Chris Arnold profile the Missouri hospital that sues the most patients in the state. Nonprofit hospitals are required to offer low-cost charity care, but that isn't particularly regulated.

Share This

Daily Digest - December 17: Who Takes the Biggest Share of the Sharing Economy?

Dec 17, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

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

The Bloomberg Advantage: Konczal on Uber (Bloomberg)

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

The Bloomberg Advantage: Konczal on Uber (Bloomberg)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal says that since most of the capital in Uber is in the cars, it's hard to justify the software developers getting such a large chunk of profits.

Senate Democrats Tell the SEC to Get Moving on CEO Pay Rule (HuffPo)

The public comment period for the CEO pay ratio rule expired a year ago, and some Senate Democrats are tired of waiting for it to be implemented, reports Zach Carter.

  • Roosevelt Take: Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Holmberg explains the CEO pay debate in this recent primer.

Unions Sue to Stop Chicago Pension Overhaul (Chicago Sun-Times)

Fran Spielman explains why a dozen retirees and their four unions are suing the city: they say the changes are against the state constitution, which guarantees government pensions.

Some Investors Still Heart Big Banks, No Matter What Elizabeth Warren Says (The Guardian)

Suzanne McGee considers why some investors are putting their money with the big banks, despite the continued question of whether regulators will try to break them up.

Are the Democrats Allowing Social Security to Twist in the Wind? (LA Times)

Failing to vote on a Social Security commissioner is just another examples of Democrats' failure to provide this essential program with strong enough support, writes Michael Hiltzik.

The Great Budget Sellout of 2014: Do We Even Have a Second Party? (TAP)

Robert Kuttner characterizes the new spending bill as proof that our two major parties are fundamentally the same: willing to gut Dodd-Frank, defund the EPA, and cut Pell grants.

The U.S. Middle Class Has Faced a Huge “Inequality Tax” in Recent Decades (EPI)

Josh Bivens shows how U.S. middle-class income could have grown if it had matched the average growth rate over that time, as occurred following World War II.

Share This

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights at 66: How Do We Make the Promise a Reality?

Dec 10, 2014Ariel SmilowitzMonika Johnson

Full implementation of the UDHR isn't a pipe dream, but it will require us to look beyond governments and international institutions.

Sixty-six years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, who is responsible for upholding our most basic rights as humans? And are rights truly universal, or are they relative?

Full implementation of the UDHR isn't a pipe dream, but it will require us to look beyond governments and international institutions.

Sixty-six years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, who is responsible for upholding our most basic rights as humans? And are rights truly universal, or are they relative?

These questions are indelibly inked into the fabric of our economy, society, and political system. Following World War II and the creation of the United Nations, the UDHR represented “the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled.” Championed by Eleanor Roosevelt, the widely accepted manifesto built upon the work of her husband, who famously declared that worldwide democracy should be founded upon four essential freedoms.

This primordial soup of rights-based ideology and dialogue resulted in the birth of the United Nations, and subsequently a handful of substantial treaties, frameworks, and guiding principles for our quest to define and maintain human rights globally.  

However, after decades of debate, we have yet to answer the ultimate question: who is responsible for ensuring this productive discourse is transformed into tangible action? Earlier this year, political scientist Stephen Hopgood proclaimed that we have reached “the end of human rights.” Hopgood argued that despite successful recognition of all human beings’ moral equivalence (no minor feat), little has been done to meld regional differences in interpretation and practice. In other words, our attempts to answer the critical question of implementation -- whether through international declarations like the UDHR, conventions like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, or the creation of the UN Human Rights Council -- have fallen short.

As we reflect on the anniversary of the UDHR, perhaps it is time for us to reconsider and expand our approach toward human rights. Leaders of the classical human rights movement envisioned a world in which governments agreed on and multilaterally implemented a set of principles. Since that time, we have witnessed immense globalization, putting civil and political rights at odds with economic and social ones while introducing a set of new players, including multinational enterprise.

Consequently, these conventions, declarations, and institutions are not fully equipped to enforce human rights at every level of society. It is necessary for us to be inclusive of all influencers, including the private sector, non-state actors, and other organizations and groups, in order to truly realize a society in which every person can fulfill his or her full potential -- the dream of FDR’s progressivism and Eleanor’s Declaration of Human Rights.

Beyond Institutions: Global Enterprise and Human Rights

If governments and international institutions are unable to police human rights at every level, non-state actors must accept responsibility for integrating dignity into their practices. While vast ground remains to be covered, many companies are taking the lead on assessing their spheres of influence and ensuring their profits do not come at the expense of the choices and livelihoods of others.

One such company is Carlson, a corporation in the hotel and travel industries that works to stop human trafficking crimes. According to the International Labor Organization, 14.2 million people are victims of forced labor exploitation in economic activities worldwide. Despite 90 percent of countries enacting legislation criminalizing human trafficking under the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, it persists as tragic but preventable collateral damage of everyday economic and social activity.

Upon realizing that traffickers regularly use the hospitality industry to transport victims, Carlson used the valuable information provided by UNODC to be part of a solution. Now, they train their employees to recognize and report trafficking and have partnered with the State Department to educate travelers on the sexual exploitation of children.

For Ford Motor Company, being a more responsible business wasn’t as simple. Forced labor was buried deep in its supply chain, far from Detroit in Brazil’s charcoal mines, which provide an ingredient in steel production. When slave labor was exposed there in 2006, Ford was purchasing pig iron made from refined charcoal and using it in Cleveland to manufacture cars sold nationwide. The company took action to halt the use of pig iron and ensure its supply chain procured materials responsibly. Today, it collaborates with the State Department, the ILO, and the Brazilian National Pact to eradicate forced labor and improve transparency in manufacturing.

Like Ford’s model, supply chain innovation offers an opportunity for rising leaders to use the economic influence of private business to impact human rights. Both of these companies leveraged their own success to help solve a global problem. They confronted their spheres of influence and were willing to work with partners to develop solutions.

Similarly, Unilever, the maker of products including Dove soap and Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream, partnered with Oxfam in 2013 on a supply chain analysis of its operations in Vietnam. The partners sought to better understand the implications of the UN Framework for Business and Human Rights and Global Compact Principles on global companies, and to improve conditions for thousands of workers along their manufacturing chain. Oxfam discovered that while Unilever was committed to high labor standards, policies ran only skin deep; Vietnamese managers were not equipped to implement them and lacked internal reporting mechanisms for violations.

Oxfam dissected Unilever’s business practices and concluded that while Unilever still had a long way to go, its positive corporate culture and long-term relationships with suppliers make it well positioned to confront the root causes of labor problems and authentically attempt to solve them.

Unilever, Ford, and Carlson did not sacrifice profits or shareholder obligations. Instead, they participated in a global conversation on human rights -- one aggregated by the UN Global Compact -- and underscored the importance of effective, cross-sector collaboration to reform their own practices.

A New Legacy for Our Generation

Each of these entities demonstrates the many spheres of influence at play in the pursuit of full human rights and dignity for all. What if every company took the same initiative to understand the social repercussions of its actions?

We need to rethink human rights by recognizing the power of our own choices upon others. Everyone is responsible for upholding human rights, whether as a part of your day job or as a member of a community. Seemingly benign actions -- how much you pay your employees or which charities you support -- are manifestations of your own unique interpretation of what dignity and rights mean.  

The UN, NGOs, and other global institutions have provided a priceless platform for dialogue on human rights. Without the consensus-building mechanisms they provide, there would be no Universal Declaration of Human Rights, no “naming and shaming” of human rights abusers, and no coordinated effort to stop the world’s cruelest atrocities.

And yet, as we continue our efforts to avert the "end of human rights," what will our own generation's legacy of implementation be? As this generation rises to power in public and private leadership roles, those at decision-making tables across the spectrum will have an opportunity to think critically about their own actions. The foundation and forums, from the UDHR to the UN Global Compact, certainly exist. Now, it’s up to us to ensure a future in which human rights are celebrated not only at the institutional level, but at a more personal, human level as well.

Ariel Smilowitz is a senior at Cornell University majoring in Government and the Northeast Regional Policy Coordinator for the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network.

Monika Johnson is a member of the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network's Alumni Advisory Committee.

Share This

Universities Can Prevent the Race to the Bottom for Labor Standards

Dec 1, 2014Alan SmithJulius Goldberg-Lewis

Some of the negative changes in the workplace brought on by new technologies can be countered by institutions like universities setting higher standards.

Some of the negative changes in the workplace brought on by new technologies can be countered by institutions like universities setting higher standards.

The past 30 years have seen a revolution in communication and analytic technology, one that has begun to shape the nature of firms and the types of work that exist in the labor market. Internet communication technology (ICT) allows firms to share information across the world at speeds that are nearly instantaneous and practically for free. With this explosion of information has been a concerted effort on the parts of firms, governments, and individuals to capture and analyze the torrent of information being produced every second.

ICT is driving transaction costs to zero, and with it comes a hollowing out of traditional corporate infrastructure. Tasks that were once cheaper to do in-house can now be outsourced to private contractors in the U.S. or around the world. The firms that are most heralded as ‘the next big thing’ are no longer producers of widgets, but platforms that connect individuals. Facebook and Twitter do not provide content, but provide access; Uber and Lyft are not taxi companies, but rather platforms that connect individual demanders and suppliers. On the other side, incumbent firms are using ICT to develop to-the-minute data on sales patterns, allowing them to track exactly when and where their workers are needed. Whether it’s in the form of surge pricing‘just-in-time’ scheduling, or contracting out nearly every function of a company, the use of ICT has profound and evolving implications for consumers and workers.

With the explosion of technology has come a scramble to achieve maximum efficiency and minimal cost. As production expands horizontally, as opposed to vertically, Millennials are discovering that a life-long career simply can’t exist in a market that’s trending towards more and more freelance and contract work. One result of all this is that Millennials have begun to look to the stories of retirement parties and 30-year Rolexes as anachronistic Mad Men-style stories of an age long gone. We don't think of ourselves as working for the same place for long periods of time, and any notion of a pension or a retirement plan is hard to imagine. 

The second troubling effect of this is a lack of accountability of the largest and most powerful corporations. The old economic model of in-house labor allowed labor disputes, liability, and accountability to be tracked to a single corporate entity. As firms increasingly turn to specialized contractors to build their websites, staff their calling centers and warehouses, drive their taxis, and run their cafeterias, corporate responsibility becomes similarly defuse. When workers lose overtime pay at an Amazon fulfillment center, should the contractor or the parent company be at fault? Should the private contractor hold all the accountability, or should Amazon accept some responsibility? There is no sense that this new wave of "sharing economy" businesses is doing anything other then creating structured marketplaces, and skimming money off the top. This leaves the people doing the work – as Uber drivers and Airbnb hosts – without anything to hold on to. As firms continue to contract, and subcontract, the economic befits to workers shrink dramatically, and there is an increased incentive to cut costs and corners. These cases are just coming to the surface, and no doubt will shape the labor landscape immensely.

It is precisely because of this complex and rapidly changing social situation that anchor institutions like colleges and universities need to take the lead in providing wages and careers that make sense. Anchor institutions, which are generating more attention in the post-recession economy, are those mission-driven institutions that are large sources of capital, purchasing, and employment, and which are tied to their communities. Unlike traditional firms, an anchor cannot move to another country for lower taxes, and they are often public or receive large amounts of public investment. Anchors hold a special place in our society: they are not corporations governed by a single-bottom line reality, and their missions are often directed toward and even mandate the promotion of the social good.

They also have real economic clout: One classic anchor type, universities, account for approximately 3 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, and they employ more than 3 million people. The hospital industry has an even larger impact with some 5 million employees. And these anchor institutions, tied as they are to location, are perfectly positioned to end the race to the bottom that is happening in other sectors. They will be able to reap the benefits from more money being injected in a local community, and they will grow as the social safety net continues to grow around them.

Anchors, working together, can do more than create a few hundred jobs at good wages with a real retirement plan. Anchors working together can set strong city-wide baselines for wages, and serve as a driving factor for economic development, public safety, local purchasing, and quality-of-life initiatives. Further, anchors actually have a values-based, mission-driven call to this work. As Millennials become a greater share of the workforce, it is on us to ensure that the economy of the future is one that promotes responsibility, accountability, growth, and equality. The technological strides of the past few decades have been enormous, and while they have allowed businesses to continue on a race to the bottom, they have also connected and mobilized a generation. In order to shift the national dialogue, the Campus Network has always believed that one must start at the local level. In order to ensure that the businesses of the future work for everyone, it must be shown that they can. The global brand of anchor institutions, from top tier universities to pioneering hospitals, have the soapbox, the moral imperative, and the means to drive this change, and a more democratic economy can begin to grow based on the successes of anchor reinvestment.

Alan Smith is the Associate Director of Networked Initiatives at the Roosevelt Institute.

Julius Goldberg-Lewis is the Midwestern Regional Coordinator for the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network and a senior at the University of Michigan.

Share This

Bigger Health Care Providers Mean Bigger Profits, But Not Always Better Care

Nov 24, 2014Emily Cerciello

Hospitals are buying private physician practices left and right, and state attorneys general should consider whether such mega-providers violate anti-trust laws.

Hospitals are buying private physician practices left and right, and state attorneys general should consider whether such mega-providers violate anti-trust laws.

In 2002, only 22 percent of private physician practices were owned by hospitals. Today, this number has climbed to more than 50 percent, and 75 percent of newly hired physicians are entering the workforce as hospital employees. As the physician population ages, the behaviors of young physicians will have long-term impact on the organization and norms of care delivery.

Amid declining reimbursements and a shift toward value-based payment models in which physicians are reimbursed for quality rather than quantity of services, health care providers are facing pressure to reduce costs and improve outcomes. An increasing number of physicians are selling their practices to hospitals, and hospitals are aggressively buying to remain competitive.

Two chief catalysts that are driving hospitals to purchase physician practices include the recent economic downturn and passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).

In this economic environment, hospital survival is a matter of cost cutting and care organization. The ACA requires compliance with new quality regulations, including curbed readmission rates and a reduction in hospital-acquired infections, and facilities are compelled to spend money in efforts to meet those requirements. Hospitals are acquiring physician practices to increase scale for better negotiating positions with insurers, further penetration of local markets, the ability to integrate IT systems, and the improvement of purchasing power with suppliers.

Physicians are selling their practices to hospitals for greater access to capital and fewer administrative responsibilities amid reform, an improved work-life balance, and recruiting incentives by hospitals.

But when hospitals purchase physician practices instead of contracting with physicians, the results can be costly. A recent Health Affairs study gives authority to the issue: hospital ownership of physician practices increases hospitals’ pricing power, and prices rise for privately insured patients. A one-standard-deviation increase in market share can increase prices by 3 percent, and a one-standard deviation increase in hospital Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (a statistical measure of market concentration), can increase prices by 6 percent.

In central North Carolina, Duke University Health System has been aggressively converting nearby clinics into Duke-affiliated outpatient centers. State Attorney General Roy Cooper is examining whether antitrust laws or new legislation can be used to reduce growing hospital prices.

In January, a federal judge blocked a major purchase of Idaho’s largest physician practice by the state’s largest hospital system. In light of that case, the FTC has suggested it will show greater scrutiny of healthcare provider consolidations.

In theory, true integration of physician practices into hospital systems can provide substantial gains for both parties. By reducing barriers to patient information and care coordination, facilities can improve quality and generate cost-savings in the long-term. Truly integrated practices employ a well-managed infrastructure, aligned incentives, coordinated IT tools, and a culture of partnership and collaboration. But there is a great possibility that hospitals are primarily motivated by the prospect of greater bargaining power with insurers, and are not truly integrating.

State Attorneys General should renew a focus on anti-trust legislation to protect the strained wallets of healthcare consumers in states where transactions are occurring. In a time of seismic shifts in care delivery and payment mechanisms, we need to keep the patient at the center of health activity and ensure that transactions do not further burden consumers in an already expensive system.

Emily Cerciello is the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network Senior Fellow for Health Care, and a senior at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

 

Share This

Daily Digest - November 24: How to Win Minimum Wage Fights

Nov 23, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

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

The Fight for $15.37 an Hour (NYT)

Steven Greenhouse explains how the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy won its campaign to get hotel workers in L.A. a significantly higher minimum wage.

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

The Fight for $15.37 an Hour (NYT)

Steven Greenhouse explains how the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy won its campaign to get hotel workers in L.A. a significantly higher minimum wage.

Elizabeth Warren Tells NY Fed President: Fix Your Problems, Or We’ll Find Someone Who Will (Buzzfeed)

At the Senate Banking Committee on Friday, the four senators in attendance – all Democrats – pushed back hard on William Dudley's framing of his work as a "fire warden," reports Matthew Zeitlin.

What’s a CEO Really Worth? Too Many Companies Simply Don’t Know (WSJ)

Paul Vigna writes about a new report examining how executive compensation lines up with company performance. It turns out that most companies don't measure success very accurately.

  • Roosevelt Take: In her primer on the CEO pay debate, Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Holmberg lays out the main theories for the skyrocketing in executive pay and potential policy solutions.

Obama's Executive Action Is About Labor Policy, Not Just Immigration (AJAM)

E. Tammy Kim explains how work authorization will transform opportunities for many undocumented workers, who will have new opportunities to organize or fight wage theft without fear.

The Antitax Push Has Done Harm to State and Local Government (WaPo)

Catherine Rampell says the piecemeal way that state and local governments create new revenue sources are far worse for the economy and inequality than raising taxes would be.

  • Roosevelt Take: Roosevelt Institute Fellow Saqib Bhatti explains the impact of predatory financial deals taken on by state and local governments struggling to fund public services.

The GOP Controls Congress So Now It Can Change How Math Works (MoJo)

The Republicans' preferred method of calculating budget projections uses impossible predictions about economic growth, writes Erika Eichelberger, making tax cuts appear less costly.

New on Next New Deal

Bigger Health Care Providers Mean Bigger Profits, But Not Always Better Care

Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network Senior Fellow for Health Care Emily Cerciello calls on state attorneys general to consider whether hospitals that buy up physicians' practices are violating anti-trust laws.

Share This

Daily Digest - October 24: Redefining Corporate Goals Could Rein in CEO Pay

Oct 24, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

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

Understanding the CEO Pay Debate: A Primer on America's Ongoing C-Suite Conversation (Roosevelt Institute)

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

Understanding the CEO Pay Debate: A Primer on America's Ongoing C-Suite Conversation (Roosevelt Institute)

In their primer, Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Holmberg and Campus Network member Michael Umbrecht suggest a shift away from shareholder primacy to reduce incentives for high CEO pay. 

One-Third of Top Websites Restrict Customers’ Right to Sue (NYT)

Jeremy B. Merrill reports on major consumer websites that restrict customers' ability to take legal action, even when the companies engage in harmful activity like conspiring to fix hotel room prices.

Majority of Bank Risk Managers Are Worried About the Wealth Gap (WSJ)

Nick Timiraos looks at a new study on bank risk managers' concerns regarding the health of our financial system. Only 14 percent think inequality doesn't pose any threat at all.

This City Came Up With a Simple Solution to Homelessness: Housing (The Nation)

Kara Dansky profiles Salt Lake City's shift to a Housing First model, which recognizes that long-term housing for the homeless is cheaper than standard interventions like shelters and emergency services.

The Terrifying Idea That the Economy Might Stay Stuck Forever Just Got More Terrifying (WaPo)

Matt O'Brien lays out a new study's model for secular stagnation -- i.e., a potentially never-ending economic slump -- in the U.S., and explains what will be needed to break the cycle.

Fed’s Loan Scrutiny Leaves Banks Passing on Buyout Deals (Bloomberg News)

Christine Idzelis and Alex Sherman report that the big banks' decision to pass on high-scrutiny deals is opening up opportunities for their smaller competitors.

New on Next New Deal

The Phenomenology of Google's Self-Driving Cars

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal says that driving requires some unconscious and reflexive learning that artificial intelligence just can't duplicate, and that will create an obstacle for driverless cars.

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

Daily Digest - October 2: Democracy Has Become a Luxury Purchase

Oct 2, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

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

This Edition: K. Sabeel Rahman, Four Freedoms Center (Eldridge & Co.)

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

This Edition: K. Sabeel Rahman, Four Freedoms Center (Eldridge & Co.)

Ronnie Eldridge speaks with Roosevelt Institute Fellow Sabeel Rahman about why democracy isn't working right now. He says public policy is mostly responding to the needs of the wealthy.

Not Enough Taxation and Too Much Representation (AJAM)

Amy B. Dean says the trend of companies moving abroad is just the latest strategy in tax avoidance. She argues that as companies further disconnect from American life, their influence on politics should be limited.

  • Roosevelt Take: On Next City, Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network National Director Joelle Gamble argued for a stakeholder model of corporate governance to force companies to pay more attention to local communities.

“Payment on an Unpaid Basis” (The Baffler)

Charles Davis looks at the entertainment industry's reliance on unpaid work. Many companies he called for comment responded by taking down unpaid listings, but that's not an efficient way to fight back.

Lies, Fear and Tragedy: Maria Fernandes and the Crisis of Part-Time Work (The Guardian)

The death of Maria Fernandes, a part-time employee at three different Dunkin' Donuts stores, highlights the crisis created by low-paying employers, writes Jana Kasperkevic.

Loan Fraud Inquiry Said to Focus on Used-Car Dealers (NYT)

Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Michael Corkery report on new investigations into fraudulent subprime auto loans. The loans are smaller, but could create the same problems as mortgages in 2008.

Make No Mistake: Eric Holder Chose Not to Jail the Bankers (Medium)

The Department of Justice had the power to send bank executives to jail, writes Alexis Goldstein, but chose a more passive approach instead of pushing through real change in the industry.

Voter Suppression: How Bad? (Pretty Bad) (TAP)

Wendy R. Weiser highlights the variety of new voting laws which will serve to suppress the vote in 2014, pointing at North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin as the most important states to watch.

Share This

Daily Digest - September 16: It's Time to Rethink the Purpose of Corporations

Sep 16, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

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

The Overpaid CEO (Democracy)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Holmberg and Mark Schmitt argue that exorbitant executive pay cannot be addressed without reconceptualizing a corporation as more than just an agent of its shareholders.

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

The Overpaid CEO (Democracy)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Holmberg and Mark Schmitt argue that exorbitant executive pay cannot be addressed without reconceptualizing a corporation as more than just an agent of its shareholders.

Independence Has Costs and Benefits (The Scotsman)

Roosevelt Institute Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz argues that Scotland should base its decision about independence on values rather than short-run economic gains or losses.

The Myth That Sold the Financial Bailout (AJAM)

Letting the investment banks collapse wouldn't have caused a second Great Depression, says Dean Baker. Between the FDIC and stimulus deals, the economy would still have recovered.

Why Pensions Went Away: A Theory (WSJ)

Lauren Weber looks at a new study on pensions, which suggests that the increase in influential investors who buy large blocks of stocks is tied to dropped pension plans.

Income Inequality is Hurting State Tax Revenue, Report Says (WaPo)

A new study from Standard & Poors shows the impact of inequality on state budgets, writes Josh Boak. S&P says that changing state tax codes won't be enough to solve this problem.

What the Poverty Rate Tells Us About the Overall Economy (NYT)

Jared Bernstein expects that the 2013 data will show that the poverty rate has continued to hold steady around 15 percent, because the recovery hasn't reached low-income households.

Scott Walker Wants To Fight Feds Over Welfare Drug Tests (HuffPo)

Federal law does not allow drug testing for food stamps or unemployment insurance, but Arthur Delaney reports that the Wisconsin governor wants to push back on that rule.

Unseen Toll: Wages of Millions Seized to Pay Past Debts (ProPublica)

Paul Kiel looks at the rise of wage garnishment for consumer debts, a system that has few protections for debtors and causes great financial hardship, since up to 25 percent of a paycheck can be taken.

Share This

Pages