Daily Digest - November 26: What Are One-Day Strikes Achieving?

Nov 26, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

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

The Daily Digest is taking a short break for Thankgiving. It will return on Monday, December 1.

Why Wal-Mart Workers Keep Using One-Day Strikes (Bloomberg Businessweek)

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

The Daily Digest is taking a short break for Thankgiving. It will return on Monday, December 1.

Why Wal-Mart Workers Keep Using One-Day Strikes (Bloomberg Businessweek)

Josh Eidelson explains that one-day strikes are on the rise because, while they don't shut down workplaces, they embarrass employers and engage the public just like work-stopping strikes of the past.

Exclusive: Kmart Workers Say They Risk Being Fired If They Don’t Come In On Thanksgiving (ThinkProgress)

Bryce Covert reports on the scheduling practices of some major retailers that will open on Thanksgiving. One Kmart employee she spoke to is quitting rather than miss Thanksgiving with her husband, who has cancer.

The Rich Are Getting Richer, But It Has Nothing To Do With Their Paychecks (Vox)

Salaries and wages of the top 400 taxpayers have fallen in recent years, reports Danielle Kurtzleben, but their incomes continue to rise, and their tax rates drop, thanks to capital gains.

San Francisco Passes First-In-Nation Limits on Worker Schedules (Politico)

Marianne Levine writes about the city's new restrictions on how chain stores can alter their employees' schedules. Changes within two weeks will require additional "predictability pay."

Obama Threatens Veto of Emerging Tax-Break Agreement in Congress (Bloomberg)

Richard Rubin reports on the president's opposition to this deal, which extends a set of corporate tax cuts but doesn't extend lapsing expansions of the child tax credit and earned income tax credit.

Why Living-Wage Laws Are Not Enough—and Minimum-Wage Laws Aren’t Either (The Nation)

Jonathan Lange, who led the first living wage campaign in Baltimore, says that without building worker power more generally, these laws fall short.

Share This

Artisanal Millennials and the Resurrection of Free Labor Ideology

Nov 25, 2014Brit Byrd

Millennial's rising preferences for artisanal, local, and genuine products must not minimize the importance of wage labor in the economy.

In July, John Oliver’s Last Week Tonight summarized the state of the minimum wage debate in one grand old super-cut of sound bytes. To top off repeated invocations of “class war!” Senator Marco Rubio croons that “We have never been a nation of haves and have-nots. We are a nation of haves and soon-to-haves. Of people who have made it and people who will make it.”

Millennial's rising preferences for artisanal, local, and genuine products must not minimize the importance of wage labor in the economy.

In July, John Oliver’s Last Week Tonight summarized the state of the minimum wage debate in one grand old super-cut of sound bytes. To top off repeated invocations of “class war!” Senator Marco Rubio croons that “We have never been a nation of haves and have-nots. We are a nation of haves and soon-to-haves. Of people who have made it and people who will make it.”

Putting aside Oliver’s observation that this statement “makes no sense – economically, mathematically, or even grammatically,” it is nonetheless very informative of the ideology behind the resistance to raising the minimum wage.

Rubio’s rhetoric is an ideological descendent of “free labor ideology,” a defining tenet of the Republican Party before the Civil War. Made famous by historian Eric Foner in his seminal work, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men, free labor ideology stood vigorously against the economic dependence of one individual on another.

Although this ideology admirably stood in opposition to slavery, it predated the industrial revolution and thus developed a strange relationship with the rise of the non-propertied, yet emancipated, wage-earning class. When the wage earner was introduced to the dichotomy between the slave and the propertied man, the ideal citizen of free labor ideology remained “a farmer or independent mechanic,” with wage labor on the outside looking in.

In Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men, Foner observes that although the progenitor of capitalism, Adam Smith, had “seen intractable class divisions as an inevitable consequence of economic development,” across the ocean, thinkers and politicians held that “in America, wage labor was a temporary status, and 'laborers for hire do not exist as a class.'”

Eventually, after a grand period of nation building, the industrial revolution, and the progressive movement, wage labor was recognized beyond this transitory status.

But even the most casual observer of American politics knows of the continued ubiquity of the “self-made man” in the political lexicon. Although less blatant, the specific image of the homestead also remains inappropriately fixed in our collective political imagination – and not just with Marco Rubio, but also amongst Millennials who may consider themselves committed progressives.

Weighing in on what is and isn’t “Millennial” has been the media’s fetish for quite awhile now, but earlier this year the Pew Research Center threw some fresh meat into the otherwise overcooked discussion. Their report, “Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology” identified a “next generation left” that was six times more likely than traditional liberals to agree with the statement “blacks who can’t get ahead are responsible for their own condition.”

The headlines wrote themselves: Millennials are libertarians, Millennials have abandoned the state, seven gifs that show how Millennials are racist, and so on. Amongst the dreck, an exceptional column in The New York Times by Anand Giridharadas distinguishes this anti-institutional vogue as a personal reaction against impersonal big-box capitalism, not a political reaction. In his most potent example, “the locally foraged mushrooms on menus in Brooklyn … are a small-scale elite secession from the ways of ruthless global trade, not a political resistance of it.“

Giridharadas contrasts this urban farm-to-table fascination with the more familiar, anti-state views we see from the right, which are “anchored in rural life.” Yet his local-mushrooms example is his most potent because it hints effectively at an actual connection between this millennial angst and the very old image of bucolic self-sufficiency. It is not just the newfangled app-tech craze of Uber and Venmo driving this reaction, but also a very organic, homestead aesthetic.

In fact, this visual connection has already been made explicit. Look no further than Portlandia’s revised anthem for the city that so infamously exaggerates our generation: the “dream of the 1890s is alive [in Portland].” As front man Fred Armisen notes, remember when “everyone was pickling their own vegetables and brewing their own beer?”

Now obviously, Portlandia is an exaggeration of a particular trend. But this compulsion towards the “genuine” and “artisanal” does permeate our current moment. Not every child of the late 60s was at Woodstock or burning draft cards, but it would be specious to suggest that such cultural touchstones did not and do not affect the generational perspective.

Ultimately, Portlandia’s invocation of the 1890s is cruelly apropos, given that we are now living in what many refer to casually as a “New Gilded Age.” Giridhadaras’ take that, “though some [millennials] may fight it, they cannot, in the main, escape Amazon and its cutthroat brand of capitalism,” is similar to the dominance of industrial tycoons in the late 19th century that overshadowed even the state.

Farm-to-table fascination represents a welcome political-cultural rebellion against the big box, but it shares an aesthetic with the free labor ideology that lifts Senator Rubio’s rhetoric and head into the clouds.

To finish Portlandia’s anthem, front woman Carrie Brownstein notes of 2014 Portland, “it’s like President McKinley was never assassinated.” As a nation, we were lucky enough to have none other than President Theodore Roosevelt fill McKinley’s shoes and plant the seeds of the Progressive Movement that his fifth cousin would later go on to solidify in the New Deal.

Millennials must be careful to not let fascination with the artisan keep them rooted in an era before Roosevelt. This reevaluation of authenticity is, on the whole, a welcome development . But now, just as in the 1890s, the frontier has closed and wage labor is a pressing political, economic, and quotidian reality.

Brit Byrd is the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network Senior Fellow for Economic Development and a senior at Columbia University.

Share This

Leadership Wanted: Governor Cuomo, Homeless Students Need College Support

Nov 20, 2014Kevin Stump

For homeless youth to make it through college, they need extra support, best provided through a government program of homeless liaisons.

For homeless youth to make it through college, they need extra support, best provided through a government program of homeless liaisons.

New York has been among the top 10 states with unaccompanied homeless youth (UHY) filing for federal financial aid for the last three years. In a private report to the National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth, the United States Department of Education, reports that there were 2,215 college students applying for financial aid in New York who indicated on their Free Application for Federal Student Aid that they were homeless last year. This number does not include undocumented youth who are not eligible to apply for federal or state aid.

Unfortunately, these students are often left behind. It wasn’t until last year that New York changed an extremely outdated component of its $1 billion Tuition Assistance Program (TAP) that updated this 40-year-old in-state need-based financial aid program. The change made it so UHY are now eligible for the maximum TAP award of $5,165 that Dependent students are eligible for, versus the maximum TAP award of $3,025 available to Independent students.

In addition to outdated laws that limit the amount of aid they can receive, UHY face a number of other challenges including food insecurity, a lack of adult guidance and support, failure to access available support systems, lack of access to parental financial information, limited housing options, and a lack of financial means to live independently and safely.

New York should create a policy that models the federal McKinney-Vento Act on a college level. This landmark piece of legislation successfully creates safety nets and institutional support structures for K-12 students. By law, every school district in the country, and every school building in New York City, is required to have a liaison who is responsible for coordinating support and resources for homeless and unaccompanied youth. Every year, liaisons are required to undergo training to stay current on best practices to support and assist homeless students. Furthermore, their work has given lawmakers data and information on the best ways to support these communities.

There are more than 130,000 K-12 homeless students in New York. Among those students, nearly 11,000 11th and 12th graders approaching the end of their high school careers. These are only the numbers that are reported and do not account for the possibility of additional students who are in need.

Given the number of colleges and universities, the number of community based organizations and support networks that exist, and the high-level of poverty in New York, the state has the potential to become a leader in creating a framework of how states should build support systems for unaccompanied homeless youth to access and succeed in college.

Governor Cuomo should initiate the policy process to develop a law requiring a homeless liaison at every brick-and-mortar college and university in the state, to ensure that all former McKinney-Vento students are supported during their transition into college and throughout their tenure until graduation. The homeless liaison would be the first point of contact for professionals working with these young people and for the students who experience, or who are at risk of experiencing, homelessness while at college. The liaison would also be charged with coordinating all needed services. In addition, the liaison would be responsible for tracking and reporting all relevant data to help inform future policy regarding homeless college students and develop greater support services.

This kind of support and data-gathering could potentially exist without legislation. However, this issue is a prime example of where the state could do it better and more comprehensibly. With legislative protections and teeth to ensure sustainable and uniformed support is given, as well as appropriate resources for service delivery, training, technology, data collection, and future statewide policy initiatives, the liaisons will be able to provide better support to UHY in college. A statewide policy setting up liaisons would establish an infrastructure that can be used to easily implement future policy.

As economic inequality and homelessness rates remain high, and college attainment continues to be so crucial, it’s critical that New York take action to protect our most at-need college students to ensure that those who are pursuing their dreams don’t slip through the cracks.

Kevin Stump is the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network Leadership Director.

 

Share This

A Dem Who Can Explain that Fairness is Prosperity Will Sweep in 2016

Nov 19, 2014Richard Kirsch

The policies that will deliver economic growth also center fairness, and that's what Democrats need to emphasize to keep the presidency in 2016.

The policies that will deliver economic growth also center fairness, and that's what Democrats need to emphasize to keep the presidency in 2016.

The familiar debate within the Democratic Party – move left or right – is on. In a memo to a “limited number of Democratic leaders,” Third Way, the leading organization for corporate Democrats, lays down the gauntlet: “Democrats are offering economic fairness, but voters want economic growth and prosperity.” And for good measure, Third Way declares, “And it has to be meaningful; Democrats can’t simply stick a 'growth' label on the old bottle of 'fairness' policies.”

The folks at Third Way are right about one thing; voters do want economic growth and prosperity. Where they are wrong is in their assumption that fairness can't be a part of that growth. The policies that do the most to bolster fairness are in fact the most powerful policies to move the economy forward and create broadly shared prosperity.

Progressives and Democrats don’t always make that clear. Most of the time they talk about fairness as separate from broadly-shared prosperity. The Democrat who bases his or her campaign on that crucial link will sweep into the presidency in 2016.

Policies that increase fairness are key to driving the economy forward.

Raising the minimum wage is not just about basic fairness for low-wage workers. Raising wages is about creating economy boosting jobs, not economy busting jobs. When wages are raised, workers have more money to spend, essential when 70 percent of the economy is made up of consumer spending.

An economy boosting job pays enough to cover the basics, which is why the fight for a $15 per hour minimum wage mobilizes people to action. It is about working at that wage for enough hours, with predictable schedules, so that the wages add up to a decent paycheck. It is about getting paid when you are out sick and having paid family leave, so you can care for and support your family. It is about women getting paid as much as men. It is about being able to afford your health care, so you have money to spend on other essentials and don’t end up bankrupt because of a high-cost illness. It is about increasing Social Security benefits and bolstering retirement savings, so you can keep supporting yourself and keep the economy moving well into your retirement.

These measures reward people fairly for work and are essential to rebuilding the middle class engine of the economy, as shown by the evidence collected in the Center for American Progress’s middle-out economics project.

The flip side of creating economy boosting jobs is reversing the soaring concentration of wealth. It’s not just unfair that the rich are grabbing more and more of the wealth we all create, it’s a big reason that the economy remains sluggish. When the top 1 percent capture virtually all of the economic progress, it's impossible for them to spend much of it. When corporations sit on trillions of dollars of cash because there aren’t markets for their goods, that money doesn’t go to higher wages or investment in creating jobs or other things that would boost productivity throughout the economy.

Even Wall Street is beginning to get it. In a report that is stunning only for its source, Standard & Poor's found this summer that “Our review of the data, as well as a wealth of research on this matter, leads us to conclude that the current level of income inequality in the U.S. is dampening GDP growth, at a time when the world's biggest economy is struggling to recover from the Great Recession and the government is in need of funds to support an aging population.”

A big goal of Third Way’s memo is to justify policies that they admit “may not be the most politically popular.” While some of the Third Way proposals are worthwhile, like millions of teachers for pre-K, much of their agenda is that of corporate America and in some cases would actually be bad for the economic growth they claim to seek.

Using coded language in an attempt to dilute the political poison, Third Way pushes for cutting Social Security benefits, lowering corporate tax rates rather than stopping corporate tax evasion, and agreeing to new trade deals which would drive the race to the bottom and allow corporations to challenge environmental and health and safety laws, instead of bolstering American workers' already hard-pressed incomes.

Instead, what the country needs and what Democrats should push are bold policies which drive the economy forward and create broadly shared prosperity: fairness.

We can start by putting Americans to work with a massive investment in core productive infrastructure in three areas: transportation, from roads and bridges to high speed rail; clean, renewable energy, which will simultaneously tackle climate disruption; and high-speed Internet for every home and business in America. Everyone who does this work should be paid enough, with good benefits, to support and care for their families, and be given the flexibility needed to care for those families.  In doing so, we doubly boost the economy: through the investment in infrastructure and through the good jobs.

It is both fair and essential for our economic future to ensure that every child has a quality education and the opportunity to succeed in school, career, and life. We need to modernize and replace dilapidated schools and assure that every child has a well-prepared and supported teacher in a small enough class to learn. We need to transform schools, particularly those that teach children in low-income neighborhoods, into community centers. We should make high-quality child care and pre-K universal, employing millions more providers and teachers.

We need to provide career training for the high-skilled jobs that don’t require traditional college. We need to make college affordable, by dramatically lowering the cost of public colleges and universities, providing much more tuition assistance, and tying the payment of student loans to earnings.

And as in infrastructure, all these jobs – from day-care providers to teachers to college professors (no more adjuncts) – should be good jobs, with good pay, benefits, and the flexibility to care and support families.

The only reason that Democrats would consider an agenda that Third Way admits is politically unpopular is to please corporate campaign donors and elites. But with President Obama pushing for new trade deals, advocating revenue-neutral corporate tax reform and having supported cuts in Social Security benefits, that agenda is as alive as the billions in campaign contributions that pour into both political parties.

Americans are right about two things. One, the system is rigged to favor the wealthy and powerful. Two, unless we change course, the future will not be better for our children. Those are the core reasons we saw historically low voter turn out this month and why minimum wage hikes passed at the same time voters decided to give Republicans their turn in the continuing roller-coaster of Congressional control over the past decade.

The Democrat who champions bold policies to build an America that works for all of us, not just the wealthy, and policies that create broadly shared, sustainable prosperity, will triumph in 2016.

The key, as Franklin Delano Roosevelt did (and as great organizers do), is to tap into anger and lift up hope. FDR railed against the “economic royalists” and experimented with bold policies that reigned in financial speculation and put Americans to work building the foundations for the 20th Century economy. 

The next FDR will name the villains who are rigging the system: Wall Street speculators and corporations that cut wages and benefits and ship jobs overseas. The next FDR will reveal the truth that “we all do better when we all do better.” That when we all earn enough to care and support our families, when we can shop in our neighborhoods, give our kids a great education, afford our health care, retire with security, we drive the economy forward.

Mamby-pamby won’t cut it. Americans are crying for bold leadership, a way out of a narrowing world towards a better world for our children.

The Democrat who leads a political party that stands up against the rich and powerful and stands up for working families and the middle class, who declares that Americans have done this before and that together we can do it again, will triumph in 2016. A Democratic party that relentlessly presses that agenda into action will meet the great challenge of our time. 

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

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 17: Getting Married Won't Solve Inequality

Nov 17, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

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

Why You Shouldn’t Marry for Money (The Nation)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal and Bryce Covert explain why the conservative idea of reducing poverty and inequality by promoting marriage won't actually work.

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

Why You Shouldn’t Marry for Money (The Nation)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal and Bryce Covert explain why the conservative idea of reducing poverty and inequality by promoting marriage won't actually work.

Nobel Prize-Winning Economist Reveals Why Robots Really Are Coming For Your Job (Business Insider)

Tomas Hirst reports on a new paper by Roosevelt Institute Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz, which argues that left unchecked, innovation can create market failures that increase inequality.

Why Screwing Unions Screws the Entire Middle Class (MoJo)

Kevin Drum argues that the Democrats' split from organized labor in the 1960s and labor's subsequent loss of power helped to create the pro-business political climate we have today.

Kansas Revenues Will Fall $1 Billion Short of 2015 and 2016 Expenses, Fiscal Experts Say (Kansas City Star)

Following massive income tax cuts, Kansas faces severe shortages, and critics of the tax cuts worry the results will be cuts for schools, roads, and social services, writes Brad Cooper.

Inequality, Unbelievably, Gets Worse (NYT)

Steven Rattner points to new data from the Federal Reserve showing increased inequality. He emphasizes government transfer programs as a way to ease the problem.

Arkansas’s Blue Collar Social Conservatives Don’t Know What’s Coming (Daily Beast)

200,000 Akansans gained health insurance through a hybrid "private option," but Monica Potts writes that with newly elected officials focused on money over people, that could disappear.

The Real Winner of the Midterms: Wall Street (In These Times)

David Sirota ties Wall Street's funding of gubernatorial campaigns to its profits: many of these candidates support "pension reform" that will increase Wall Street's fees.

Share This

Daily Digest - November 7: Big Money Sets the Agenda for Both Parties

Nov 7, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

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

Most Expensive Off Year Election in History (Real News Network)

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

Most Expensive Off Year Election in History (Real News Network)

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Thomas Ferguson says that the huge sums spent on this election created races in which the Democrat sounded as corporate as the Republican.

What Democrats Get Wrong About Inequality (The Week)

Ryan Cooper cites Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal's work on financialization to explain why economic inequality must be discussed as an issue of growth and fairness.

  • Roosevelt Take: Cooper links to Konczal's new article on this topic in Washington Monthly, as well as a piece by Roosevelt Institute Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz.

The $9 Billion Witness: Meet JPMorgan Chase's Worst Nightmare (Rolling Stone)

Matt Taibbi reports on Alayne Fleischmann, the whistleblower who initiated one of the largest white-collar crime cases in American history, and how JPMorgan has tried to keep her story quiet.

A Bright Spot in Tuesday’s Bloodbath: Massachusetts Voters Passed a Strong Paid Sick Leave Bill (In These Times)

Massachusetts's new paid sick leave program is the most comprehensive and ambitious in the nation, writes Michael Arria, with full-time workers earning 40 hours of paid sick leave per year.

My Fearless Predictions for the Next 18 Months (MoJo)

Kevin Drum predicts that very little will actually happen in Congress following this election, limiting possible accomplishments to trade agreements and tweaks to Obamacare.

It’s Opposite Day for the Hawks and Doves at the Federal Reserve (WaPo)

Ylan Q. Mui explains that the hawks are now asking whether unemployment will fall too low, while the doves worry about whether inflation is rising according to plan.

New on Next New Deal

With This Political Scene, Millennial Turnout Isn't a Surprise

Roosevelt Institute Associate Director of Networked Initiatives Alan Smith argues that low Millennial turnout should be blamed on the dysfunctional system – and suggests some improvements.

Share This

Leadership Wanted: Pushing for More College Attainment? Start in Public Housing.

Nov 6, 2014Kevin Stump

Public housing creates an opportunity to bring together resources to increase college attainment and success for some of New York City's neediest students.

“We are called to put an end to economic and social inequalities that threaten to unravel the city we love. And so today, we commit to a new progressive direction in New York,” Mayor de Blasio stated during his Inauguration Speech on January 1, 2014.

Public housing creates an opportunity to bring together resources to increase college attainment and success for some of New York City's neediest students.

“We are called to put an end to economic and social inequalities that threaten to unravel the city we love. And so today, we commit to a new progressive direction in New York,” Mayor de Blasio stated during his Inauguration Speech on January 1, 2014.

As I discussed in “The College Access Crisis Needs You, Mayor de Blasio,” part of the “new progressive direction” Mayor de Blasio envisions must include a radical transformation of how we prioritize and invest in college access pipeline opportunities to combat economic and social inequalities.

The City should bring together all of the housing-related agencies to develop a strategy that will initiate an aggressive plan to further integrate and leverage community partners and key stakeholders to close the college readiness gap among students living in NYC public housing. The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), whose mission is to “increase opportunities for low- and moderate-income New Yorkers by providing safe, affordable housing and facilitating access to social and community services,” is an ideal place to start.

There are well over 600,000 New Yorkers served by conventional public housing with an average family income of under $25,000 and nearly 250,000 families on a waiting list. As alarming as this reality is, it very clearly identifies hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers who would greatly benefit from a strategic shockwave of investments – both political and financial – to radically open up the opportunities pipeline, focusing on increasing college attainment.

Public housing developments are almost always located in communities that are low-income and high poverty, with a disproportionate concentration of minorities. They were intentionally built in these communities as a response of America’s Great Migration from 1915 to the 1970s, in which blacks migrated from the segregated south to the northern cities. Consequently, these cities never fully integrated and still remain economically and geographically segregated today. About 75 percent of public students who live in NYCHA housing are eligible for a free school lunch (an indicator to identify poverty) and more than 75 percent of these students are Black or Hispanic.

It’s no secret. A kid living in public housing performs worse than a kid who doesn’t. By a lot. Only 38 percent of NYCHA students passed their reading exams and just 41 percent passed their math exams. Among non-NYCHA students, nearly 50 percent of students passed their reading exams while nearly 52 percent of students passed their math exams. What’s more is that only about 55 percent of NYCHA students graduate from high school versus 61 percent of their non-NYCHA peers. This might help to explain why only 3 percent of CUNY freshman come from public housing and why those freshmen require more remedial course work than their non-public housing counterparts.

It is important to note that there is some work being done already. NYCHA offers a few scholarships for public housing students to pursue higher learning. NYCHA also partners with groups like the Educational Alliance. Unfortunately, these efforts are not only underfunded but often focus only on admissions related topics rather than actually preparing for and succeeding at college.

In addition to leveraging NYCHA and other housing-related agencies to reach New Yorkers in public housing, New York City has about forty other agencies serving more than eight million residents and employing about 300,000 public employees.

The city needs to use the public housing infrastructure to develop comprehensive college access centers that utilize and leverage existing projects, organizations, and networks such as the College Access Consortium of New York, GraduateNYC!, Bloomberg Philanthropies new initiative, the Partnership for Afterschool Education, and many others. This includes more than just test prep and admissions advising. A comprehensive college access center would provide full academic, financial, and social support preparing students and their family communities from 9th grade, supporting them while they earn their college degree, and coaching them through the beginning of their career. Integrated into NYCHA space, these centers would build a partnership made up of only the most proven and effective models that currently exist allowing us to see where innovation may be required for this much needed policy experiment to increase college attainment and fight inequality.

Similar to Naomi Klein’s “The Shock Doctrine,” which argues that leaders use crisis to push through policies, Mayor de Blasio should use the crisis of great economic disparity to fundamentally reimagine how New York City is tackling economic inequality through college access pipeline opportunities by using all of government and its tools, starting with public housing.

Kevin Stump is the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network Leadership Director.

Photo via Flickr.

Share This

Daily Digest - November 5: Can a Minimum Wage Hike Still Happen in a Republican Congress?

Nov 5, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

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

Will the GOP Make a Move on Minimum Wage? (MSNBC)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Dorian Warren suggests that the business wing of the Republican Party could push for a higher minimum wage because of stagnant demand.

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

Will the GOP Make a Move on Minimum Wage? (MSNBC)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Dorian Warren suggests that the business wing of the Republican Party could push for a higher minimum wage because of stagnant demand.

GOP: From Shutdown Villains to Kings of Congress? (AJAM)

Alvaro Guzman Bastida looks at how the GOP swung back from its lowest approval ratings in history. Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal says that while the shutdown is no longer hurting the economy, austerity is.

Obama Just Lost the Battle for the Senate. It's Time He Waged War for Real. (TNR)

The only real play the President and the Democrats have now is to push hard for progressive policies that energize Obama voters in preparation for 2016, writes Brian Beutler.

The Wealth Gap Preoccupies Wall Street (Newsweek)

Lynnley Browning says that even big financial institutions, from Credit Suisse to the World Bank, are worried about the impact of extreme economic inequality on the economy as a whole.

Higher Minimum Wages Prove Popular; Marijuana Is Less So in Florida (NYT)

Shaila Dewan reports on winning minimum wage measures in solidly Republican states, among other ballot measures. Support for a higher minimum wage significantly cut across party lines.

New on Next New Deal

Finance 101 Problems in National Affairs' Case For Fair-Value Accounting

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal digs into a new conservative defense of fair-value accounting for student loans, and finds that its authors are fundamentally mistaken about what FVA is and does.

Share This

Daily Digest - November 4: How the Growth of Finance Shrank the American Dream

Nov 4, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

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

Frenzied Financialization (Washington Monthly)

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

Frenzied Financialization (Washington Monthly)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal introduces the concept of financialization as a source of inequality, and lays out steps to reduce the financial sector's size and power.

Slow Growth and Inequality Are Political Choices. We Can Choose Otherwise. (Washington Monthly)

In the concluding article for Washington Monthly's special issue on inequality, Roosevelt Institute Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz presents a policy path to reduce inequality.

  • Roosevelt Take: In his article, Stiglitz references his 2014 white paper, "Reforming Taxation to Promote Growth and Equity," available here.

Why the GOP Won't Touch Obamacare (Politico)

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch says that it's too late for anything but minor changes to the Affordable Care Act, because people like having health insurance.

The Midterm Minimum-Wage Mandate (WaPo)

Minimum wage ballot measures will be progressives' big win today, predicts Katrina vanden Heuvel, a member of the Roosevelt Institute's Board of Directors. The direct impact on workers matters.

Obamacare Could Have Turned Millions of Uninsured Americans Into Voters (MoJo)

Erika Eichelberger points out that the navigators who help people sign up for insurance on the ACA's exchanges could have been required to train to register voters as well.

New on Next New Deal

Election 2014: Women's Rights in the Balance

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Andrea Flynn's series on the close-call races that will impact women's health and economic security concludes with the Kansas Senate and gubernatorial races.

Guest Post: A Review of Fragile By Design

David Fiderer argues that the book distorts the realities of the financial crisis in a manner that could be dangerous, should it become conservative's central text on the topic.

Share This

Pages