Dirty Deals: How Wall Street's Predatory Deals Hurt Taxpayers and What We Can Do About It

Nov 18, 2014

Download the report by Saqib Bhatti.

Download the report by Saqib Bhatti.

The financialization of the United States economy has distorted our social, economic, and political priorities. Cities and states across the country are forced to cut essential community services because they are trapped in predatory municipal finance deals that cost them millions of dollars every year. Wall Street and other big corporations engaged in a systematic effort to suppress taxes, making it difficult for cities and states to advance progressive revenue solutions to properly fund public services. Banks take advantage of this crisis that they helped create by targeting state and local governments with predatory municipal finance deals, just like they targeted cash-strapped homeowners with predatory mortgages during the housing boom. Predatory financing deals prey upon the weaknesses of borrowers, are characterized by high costs and high risks, are typically overly complex, and are often designed to fail.

Predatory municipal finance has a real human cost. Every dollar that cities and states send to Wall Street does not go towards essential community services. Across the country, cuts to public services and other austerity measures have a disparate impact on the working class communities of color that were also targeted for predatory mortgages and payday loans, further exacerbating their suffering.

The primary goal of government is to provide residents with the services they need, not to provide bankers with the profits they seek. We need to renegotiate our communities’ relationship with Wall Street. We can do this by implementing common sense reforms to safeguard our public dollars, make our public finance system more efficient, and ensure that our money is used to provide fully-funded services to our communities. Taxpayers do trillions of dollars of business with Wall Street every year. It is time we start making our money work for us.

Key Recommendations
  • Transparency: Officials should disclose all payments for financial services and conduct an independent investigation of all financial deals to identify predatory features.
  • Accountability: Cities and states should take all steps to recover taxpayer dollars when bank deal unfairly with them, including taking legal action, renegotiating bad deals, and refusing future business.
  • Reducing Fees: Officials should identify financial fees that bear no reasonable relationship to the costs of providing the service and use their leverage as customers to negotiate better deals.
  • Collective Bargaining with Wall Street: Cities and states should agree to a common set of guidelines for an efficient municipal finance system and refuse business with any bank that does not abide by them, creating a new industry standard.
  • Creating Public Options for Financial Services: Cities and states should determine which services they could do themselves more cheaply if they hired the right staff, and make a plan to insource those functions.
  • Establishing Public Banks: Cities and states should establish public banks that are owned by taxpayers, can deliver a range of services, including municipal finance, and provide capital for local investment.

Read: "Dirty Deals: How Wall Street’s Predatory Deals Hurt Taxpayers and What We Can Do About It," by Saqib Bhatti.

Share This

Daily Digest - November 14: Strikes on Capitol Hill, the Post Office, and Walmart

Nov 13, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

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

Take 5: CTU's Fight Against Risky Financial Deals, Ed Policy Under Rauner (Catalyst Chicago)

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

Take 5: CTU's Fight Against Risky Financial Deals, Ed Policy Under Rauner (Catalyst Chicago)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Saqib Bhatti criticizes the Chicago Public Schools for diving deeper into overly risky financial deals, which he says were misrepresented by the banks.

Capitol Workers Ask Obama for Pay 'More Like Costco and Less Like Walmart' (The Guardian)

Workers who serve meals in the Capitol's dining facilities went on strike Wednesday to protest their poverty-level wages, writes Jana Kasperkevic. This is the first strike of federally contracted workers to include Capitol workers.

Postal Workers to Address Service Cuts at National Rallies (AJAM)

Ned Resnikoff reports on the demonstrations planned for Friday by the American Postal Workers Union, which is protesting cuts that would eliminate jobs and lead to slower delivery.

Walmart Workers Stage Sit-In At California Store Ahead Of Black Friday (Buzzfeed)

Yesterday's first-of-it's-kind protest involved about 25 Walmart workers in Southern California, reports Claudia Koemer, who draws parallels to retail strikes of the 1930s.

The Number of Unemployed Exceeds the Number of Available Jobs Across All Sectors (Working Economics)

Elise Gould says that since unemployed workers outnumber job openings across all sectors, the problem in the labor market must be a broad lack of demand, not a skills gap.

Great News: Lots of Americans Just Quit Their Jobs (Vox)

Danielle Kurtzleben says the sharp increase in the quits rate in September is a sign of economic health, since people don't leave jobs without expecting to find another.

Why Women Should Get the Rest of the Year Off (The Nation)

Bryce Covert quips that since women make only 78 percent of what men make, it's time for women to take a vacation – not just from their jobs, but from the second shift at home as well.

New on Next New Deal

The UNC Coup and the Second Limit of Economic Liberalism

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal says the University of North Carolina's financial aid rules demonstrate how current liberal policy pits the middle class against the poor for access to goods and services.

Share This

In Blowout Aftermath, Remember GDP Growth Was Slower in 2013 Than in 2012

Nov 5, 2014Mike Konczal

In the aftermath of the electoral blowout, a reminder: the Great Recession isn't over. In fact, GDP growth was slower in 2013 than in 2012. Let's go to the FRED data:

There's dotted lines added at the end of 2012 to give you a sense that throughout 2013 the economy didn't speed up. Even though we were another year into the "recovery" GDP growth slowed down a bit.

There's a lot of reasons people haven't discussed it this way. I saw a lot of people using year-over-year GDP growth for 2013, proclaiming it a major success. A problem with using that method for a single point is that it's very sensitive to what is happening around the end points, and indeed the quarter before and after that data point featured negative or near zero growth. Averaging it out (or even doing year-over-year on a longer scale) shows a much worse story. Also much of the celebrated convergence between the two years was really the BEA finding more austerity in 2012. (I added a line going back to 2011 to show that the overall growth rate has been lower since then. According to David Beckworth, this is the point when fiscal tightening began.)

Other people were hoping that the Evans Rule and open-ended purchases could stabilize "expectations" of inflation regardless of underlying changes in economic activity (I was one of them), a process that didn't happen. And yet others knew the sequestration was put into place and was unlikely to be moved, so might as well make lemonade out of the austerity.

And that's overall growth. Wages are even uglier. (Note in an election meant to repudiate liberalism, minimum wage hikes passed with flying colors.) The Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances is not a bomb-throwing document, but it's hard not to read class war into their latest one. From 2010 to 2013, a year after the Recession ended until last year, median incomes fell:

When 45 percent of the electorate puts the economy as the top issue in exit polls, and the economy performs like it does here, it's no wonder we're having wave election after wave election of discontentment.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

 

In the aftermath of the electoral blowout, a reminder: the Great Recession isn't over. In fact, GDP growth was slower in 2013 than in 2012. Let's go to the FRED data:

There's dotted lines added at the end of 2012 to give you a sense that throughout 2013 the economy didn't speed up. Even though we were another year into the "recovery" GDP growth slowed down a bit.

There's a lot of reasons people haven't discussed it this way. I saw a lot of people using year-over-year GDP growth for 2013, proclaiming it a major success. A problem with using that method for a single point is that it's very sensitive to what is happening around the end points, and indeed the quarter before and after that data point featured negative or near zero growth. Averaging it out (or even doing year-over-year on a longer scale) shows a much worse story. Also much of the celebrated convergence between the two years was really the BEA finding more austerity in 2012. (I added a line going back to 2011 to show that the overall growth rate has been lower since then. According to David Beckworth, this is the point when fiscal tightening began.)

Other people were hoping that the Evans Rule and open-ended purchases could stabilize "expectations" of inflation regardless of underlying changes in economic activity (I was one of them), a process that didn't happen. And yet others knew the sequestration was put into place and was unlikely to be moved, so might as well make lemonade out of the austerity.

And that's overall growth. Wages are even uglier. (Note in an election meant to repudiate liberalism, minimum wage hikes passed with flying colors.) The Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances is not a bomb-throwing document, but it's hard not to read class war into their latest one. From 2010 to 2013, a year after the Recession ended until last year, median incomes fell:

When 45 percent of the electorate puts the economy as the top issue in exit polls, and the economy performs like it does here, it's no wonder we're having wave election after wave election of discontentment.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

 

Share This

Did the Federal Reserve Do QE Backwards?

Oct 30, 2014Mike Konczal

QE3 is over. Economists will debate the significance of it for some time to come. What sticks out to me now is that it might have been entirely backwards: what if the Fed had set the price instead of the quantity?

To put this in context for those who don’t know the background, let’s talk about carbon cooking the planet. Going back to Weitzman in the 1970s (nice summary by E. Glen Weyl), economists have focused on the relative tradeoff of price versus quantity regulations. We could regulate carbon by changing the price, say through carbon taxes. We could also regulate it by changing the quantity, say by capping the amount of carbon in the air. In theory, these two choices have identical outcomes. But, of course, they don't. It depends on the risk involved in slight deviations from the goal. If carbon above a certain level is very costly to society, then it’s better to target the quantity rather than the price, hence setting a cap on carbon (and trading it) rather than just taxing it.

This same debate on the tradeoff between price and quantity intervention is relevant for monetary policy, too. And here, I fear the Federal Reserve targeted the wrong one.

Starting in December 2012, the Federal Reserve started buying $45 billion a month of long-term Treasuries. Part of the reason was to push down the interest rates on those Treasuries and boost the economy.

But what if the Fed had done that backwards? What if it had picked a price for long-term securities, and then figured out how much it would have to buy to get there? Then it would have said, “we aim to set the 10-year Treasury rate at 1.5 percent for the rest of the year” instead of “we will buy $45 billion a month of long-term Treasuries.”

This is what the Fed does with short-term interest rates. Taking a random example from 2006, it doesn’t say, “we’ll sell an extra amount in order to raise the interest rate.” Instead, it just declares, “the Board of Governors unanimously approved a 25-basis-point increase in the discount rate to 5-1/2 percent.” It announces the price.

Remember, the Federal Reserve also did QE with mortgage-backed securities, buying $40 billion a month in order to bring down the mortgage rate. But what if it just set the mortgage rate? That’s what Joseph Gagnon of the Peterson Institute (who also helped execute the first QE), argued for in September 2012, when he wrote, “the Fed should promise to hold the prime mortgage rate below 3 percent for at least 12 months. It can do this by unlimited purchases of agency mortgage-backed securities.” (He reiterated that argument to me in 2013.) Set the price, and then commit to unlimited purchases. That’s good advice, and we could have done it with Treasuries as well.

What difference would this have made? The first is that it would be far easier to understand what the Federal Reserve was trying to do over time. What was the deal with the tapering? I’ve read a lot of commentary about it, but I still don’t really know. Do stocks matter, or flows? I’m reading a lot of guesswork. But if the Federal Reserve were to target specific long-term interest rates, it would be absolutely clear what they were communicating at each moment.

The second is that it might have been easier. People hear “trillions of dollars” and think of deficits instead of asset swaps; focusing on rates might have made it possible for people to be less worried about QE. The actual volume of purchases might also have been lower, because the markets are unlikely to go against the Fed on these issues.

And the third is that if low interest rates are the new normal, through secular stagnation or otherwise, these tools will need to be formalized. We should look to avoid the herky-jerky nature of Federal Reserve policy in the past several years, and we can do this by looking to the past.

Policy used to be conducted this way. Providing evidence that there’s been a great loss of knowledge in macroeconomics, JW Mason recently wrote up this great 1955 article by Alvin Hansen (of secular stagnation fame), in which Hansen takes it for granted that economists believe intervention along the entirety of the rate structure is appropriate action.

He even finds Keynes arguing along these lines in The General Theory: “Perhaps a complex offer by the central bank to buy and sell at stated prices gilt-edged bonds of all maturities, in place of the single bank rate for short-term bills, is the most important practical improvement which can be made in the technique of monetary management.”

The normal economic argument against this is that all the action can be done with the short-rate. But, of course, that is precisely the problem at the zero lower bound and in a period of persistent low interest rates.

Sadly for everyone who imagines a non-political Federal Reserve, the real argument is political. And it’s political in two ways. The first is that the Federal Reserve would be accused of planning the economy by setting long-term interest rates. So it essentially has to sneak around this argument by adjusting quantities. But, in a technical sense, they are the same policy. One is just opaque, which gives political cover but is harder for the market to understand.

And the second political dimension is that if the Federal Reserve acknowledges the power it has over interest rates, it also owns the recession in a very obvious way.

This has always been a tension. As Greta R. Krippner found in her excellent Capitalizing on Crisis, in 1982 Frank Morris of the Boston Fed argued against ending their disaster tour with monetarism by saying, "I think it would be a big mistake to acknowledge that we were willing to peg interest rates again. The presence of an [M1] target has sheltered the central bank from a direct sense of responsibility for interest rates." His view was that the Fed could avoid ownership of the economy if it only just adjusted quantities.

But the Federal Reserve did have ownership then, as it does now. It has tools it can use, and will need to use again. It’s important for it to use the right tools going forward.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

 

QE3 is over. Economists will debate the significance of it for some time to come. What sticks out to me now is that it might have been entirely backwards: what if the Fed had set the price instead of the quantity?

To put this in context for those who don’t know the background, let’s talk about carbon cooking the planet. Going back to Weitzman in the 1970s (nice summary by E. Glen Weyl), economists have focused on the relative tradeoff of price versus quantity regulations. We could regulate carbon by changing the price, say through carbon taxes. We could also regulate it by changing the quantity, say by capping the amount of carbon in the air. In theory, these two choices have identical outcomes. But, of course, they don't. It depends on the risk involved in slight deviations from the goal. If carbon above a certain level is very costly to society, then it’s better to target the quantity rather than the price, hence setting a cap on carbon (and trading it) rather than just taxing it.

This same debate on the tradeoff between price and quantity intervention is relevant for monetary policy, too. And here, I fear the Federal Reserve targeted the wrong one.

Starting in December 2012, the Federal Reserve started buying $45 billion a month of long-term Treasuries. Part of the reason was to push down the interest rates on those Treasuries and boost the economy.

But what if the Fed had done that backwards? What if it had picked a price for long-term securities, and then figured out how much it would have to buy to get there? Then it would have said, “we aim to set the 10-year Treasury rate at 1.5 percent for the rest of the year” instead of “we will buy $45 billion a month of long-term Treasuries.”

This is what the Fed does with short-term interest rates. Taking a random example from 2006, it doesn’t say, “we’ll sell an extra amount in order to raise the interest rate.” Instead, it just declares, “the Board of Governors unanimously approved a 25-basis-point increase in the discount rate to 5-1/2 percent.” It announces the price.

Remember, the Federal Reserve also did QE with mortgage-backed securities, buying $40 billion a month in order to bring down the mortgage rate. But what if it just set the mortgage rate? That’s what Joseph Gagnon of the Peterson Institute (who also helped execute the first QE), argued for in September 2012, when he wrote, “the Fed should promise to hold the prime mortgage rate below 3 percent for at least 12 months. It can do this by unlimited purchases of agency mortgage-backed securities.” (He reiterated that argument to me in 2013.) Set the price, and then commit to unlimited purchases. That’s good advice, and we could have done it with Treasuries as well.

What difference would this have made? The first is that it would be far easier to understand what the Federal Reserve was trying to do over time. What was the deal with the tapering? I’ve read a lot of commentary about it, but I still don’t really know. Do stocks matter, or flows? I’m reading a lot of guesswork. But if the Federal Reserve were to target specific long-term interest rates, it would be absolutely clear what they were communicating at each moment.

The second is that it might have been easier. People hear “trillions of dollars” and think of deficits instead of asset swaps; focusing on rates might have made it possible for people to be less worried about QE. The actual volume of purchases might also have been lower, because the markets are unlikely to go against the Fed on these issues.

And the third is that if low interest rates are the new normal, through secular stagnation or otherwise, these tools will need to be formalized. We should look to avoid the herky-jerky nature of Federal Reserve policy in the past several years, and we can do this by looking to the past.

Policy used to be conducted this way. Providing evidence that there’s been a great loss of knowledge in macroeconomics, JW Mason recently wrote up this great 1955 article by Alvin Hansen (of secular stagnation fame), in which Hansen takes it for granted that economists believe intervention along the entirety of the rate structure is appropriate action.

He even finds Keynes arguing along these lines in The General Theory: “Perhaps a complex offer by the central bank to buy and sell at stated prices gilt-edged bonds of all maturities, in place of the single bank rate for short-term bills, is the most important practical improvement which can be made in the technique of monetary management.”

The normal economic argument against this is that all the action can be done with the short-rate. But, of course, that is precisely the problem at the zero lower bound and in a period of persistent low interest rates.

Sadly for everyone who imagines a non-political Federal Reserve, the real argument is political. And it’s political in two ways. The first is that the Federal Reserve would be accused of planning the economy by setting long-term interest rates. So it essentially has to sneak around this argument by adjusting quantities. But, in a technical sense, they are the same policy. One is just opaque, which gives political cover but is harder for the market to understand.

And the second political dimension is that if the Federal Reserve acknowledges the power it has over interest rates, it also owns the recession in a very obvious way.

This has always been a tension. As Greta R. Krippner found in her excellent Capitalizing on Crisis, in 1982 Frank Morris of the Boston Fed argued against ending their disaster tour with monetarism by saying, "I think it would be a big mistake to acknowledge that we were willing to peg interest rates again. The presence of an [M1] target has sheltered the central bank from a direct sense of responsibility for interest rates." His view was that the Fed could avoid ownership of the economy if it only just adjusted quantities.

But the Federal Reserve did have ownership then, as it does now. It has tools it can use, and will need to use again. It’s important for it to use the right tools going forward.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

 

Share This

Daily Digest - October 23: A Complex Financial System Begets Complex Regulations

Oct 23, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

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

Dodd-Frank Spawns Software to Comprehend Dodd-Frank (Marketplace)

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

Dodd-Frank Spawns Software to Comprehend Dodd-Frank (Marketplace)

Sabri Ben-Achour speaks to Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal and others about the complexity of the Volcker Rule. Mike says the scrutiny of the courts has made some rules clunkier than necessary.

Unions Keep Pushing Emanuel to Challenge Interest Rate Hedges (Crain's Chicago Business)

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Brad Miller has joined the push to convince the Chicago Board of Education to seek legal remedies for some bad financial transactions, writes Greg Hinz.

The Big Bank Backlash Begins (ProPublica)

Jesse Eisinger reports on the banks' take on current regulatory practices, after attending a conference where their lawyers discussed strategies for dealing with tough regulators.

Should the Poor Be Allowed to Vote? (The Atlantic)

Peter Beinart says voter ID laws are part of a long and unfortunate American tradition of distrusting poor people's ability to make reasoned political choices.

America's Middle Class Knows It Faces a Grim Retirement (LA Times)

Michael Hiltzik looks at a scary set of survey results from Wells Fargo, and says that expanding Social Security is the best option to ensure that retirement is possible for the middle class.

The Sharing Economy’s ‘First Strike’: Uber Drivers Turn Off the App (In These Times)

In what some are calling the first labor strike in the sharing economy, Uber drivers in five cities stopped picking up rides yesterday, reports Rebecca Burns.

Can Student Credit Unions Solve the College Affordability Problem? (The Nation)

Helene Barthelemy reports on a Columbia University group's attempt to open a fully student-run credit union on campus, with broad goals that include offering lower rate student loans.

Share This

Daily Digest - October 20: Charity Never Helped Every Person in Need

Oct 20, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

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

Iowa’s Tea Party Disaster: Joni Ernst’s Shocking Ideas About the Welfare State (Salon)

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

Iowa’s Tea Party Disaster: Joni Ernst’s Shocking Ideas About the Welfare State (Salon)

Elias Isquith references Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal's Democracy Journal article on voluntarism to explain why Ernst is so wrong about the place of charity in the social safety net.

Policymakers Slowly Acknowledge What Marketers Have Known for Years: Millennials Exist (Fusion)

Emily DeRuy reports on Millennials Rising, quoting Roosevelt Institute Vice President of Networks Taylor Jo Isenberg on why Millennials feel disconnected from policymaking.

Amity Shlaes: If Being Wrong About the Economy Is Wrong, I Don’t Wanna Be Right (NY Mag)

Jonathan Chait responds to Amity Shlaes's defense of a 2010 letter warning the Fed about inflation that never came. He points out the need to balance that risk with the reality of unemployment.

Rising Inequality: Janet Yellen Tells It Like It Is (New Yorker)

John Cassidy discusses the importance of the Federal Reserve Chair's Friday speech, which questioned whether rising inequality threatens American values of opportunity.

Amazon’s Monopsony Is Not O.K. (NYT)

The current fight between Amazon and Hachette proves that Amazon is abusing its power, writes Paul Krugman, who compares Amazon's business practices to Standard Oil.

The Epic Struggle Over Retirement (AJAM)

Susan Greenbaum says that allowing Wall Street to attempt to fix pensions by turning them into defined contribution plans managed by Wall Street would be disastrous.

Workers Bring $15 Hourly Wage Challenge to Walmart (The Nation)

Michelle Chen reports on recent demonstrations by Walmart workers fighting for a better workplace. Walmart's willingness to "end minimum-wage pay" isn't enough to bring workers out of poverty.

Share This

Daily Digest - October 17: The False Prophets of the Invisible Hand

Oct 17, 2014Tim Price

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

What Markets Will (NYT)

Many economic analysts talk about the market as a kind of divine force, writes Paul Krugman, but they're only using it as an excuse to justify their own desire for more human sacrifice.

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

What Markets Will (NYT)

Many economic analysts talk about the market as a kind of divine force, writes Paul Krugman, but they're only using it as an excuse to justify their own desire for more human sacrifice.

AbbVie Board Ditches Planned $55 Billion Shire Acquisition (Reuters)

The pharmaceutical company has abandoned plans to shift its tax base to the U.K., reports Ben Hirschler, because new rules make it harder to dodge U.S. taxes through such inversion schemes.

How the Fed Is Trying to Fill in the Gaps of Monetary Policy (WaPo)

Janet Yellen met with nonprofits and community developers in Chelsea, MA yesterday to discuss how Federal Reserve policy can better support working-class cities, reports Ylan Q. Mui.

Even Red-State Voters Want to Raise the Minimum Wage (The Nation)

Minimum wage increases will be on the ballot this fall in some states that lean heavily Republican, writes John Nichols, despite opposition from the top leadership of the party.

$10.10 Minimum Wage Would Save The U.S. Government $7.6 Billion A Year (HuffPost)

A new study from the Economic Policy Institute shows that a higher minimum wage would allow 1.7 million workers to stop relying on public assistance programs, reports Kevin Short.

Companies Warn That Income Inequality Is Hurting Their Business (ThinkProgress)

An analysis of corporate filings finds that many of the largest U.S. retail companies are concerned that their customers are not earning enough money to support sales, writes Alan Pyke.

The Volcker Rule: How a Simple Idea to Rein In Banks Got Supersized (Bloomberg View)

A straightforward proposal to ban proprietary trading has ballooned to hundreds of pages, leading some to call for the return of Glass-Steagall as an alternative, writes Yalman Onaran.

Share This

Daily Digest - October 15: "Fifteen and a Union" Goes Beyond Fast Food

Oct 15, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

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

America’s Fastest-Growing Profession is Joining a Very Public Fight for Higher Wages (WaPo)

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

America’s Fastest-Growing Profession is Joining a Very Public Fight for Higher Wages (WaPo)

Lydia DePillis looks at the differences in home health aides' fight for "15 and a union" when compared to fast food workers. For one, most home health aides are paid by Medicaid.

Gov. Scott Walker on the Minimum Wage: "I Don't Think It Serves a Purpose" (MoJo)

Andy Kroll places the Wisconsin governor's comments in context with his other remarks opposing the minimum wage, and his state's strong support for an increase.

Can Rehabilitating Prisoners Repair Wall Street’s Broken Reputation? (Buzzfeed)

Matthew Zeitlin questions whether financial products that fund social services are more than just a charm offensive meant to make Wall Street look nicer to the public.

Americans Face Post-Foreclosure Hell as Wages Garnished, Assets Seized (Reuters)

An uptick in "deficiency judgements," in which banks go after debt that wasn't covered by a foreclosure sale, is preventing people from moving forward after the Recession, writes Michelle Conlin.

When the Guy Making Your Sandwich Has a Noncompete Clause (NYT)

Neil Irwin says the noncompete clauses for "sandwich artists" at Jimmy John's typify the trend toward practices and procedures that leave low-wage workers even worse off.

Walmart’s Cuts to Worker Compensation Are Self-Defeating (AJAM)

By raising workers' share of insurance premiums, David Cay Johnston says that Walmart and other companies are only ensuring their own customers have less to spend.

The Real World of Reality TV: Worker Exploitation (In These Times)

David Dayen explains the difficult working conditions of the writers and editors who create "unscripted" reality television in light of one staff's recent push for unionization.

Share This

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

Oct 14, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

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

The Age of Vulnerability (Project Syndicate)

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

The Age of Vulnerability (Project Syndicate)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revenge of the Unforgiven (NYT)

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

Them That's Got Shall Get (TAP)

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

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

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

New on Next New Deal

Does the USA Really Soak the Rich?

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

Share This

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

Oct 8, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

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

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

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

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

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

Changing the Future of Sexual and Reproductive Rights (HuffPo)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share This

Pages