Daily Digest - May 31: Everyone Hates ISPs

May 31, 2013Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Americans are not happy with their Internet service providers (Marketplace)

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Americans are not happy with their Internet service providers (Marketplace)

Ben Johnson talks to Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Crawford about the latest American Consumer Satisfaction Index, which shows ISPs are dead last in keeping customers happy. With little to no competition, they'd rather put profits into dividends for shareholders.

From the Mouths of Babes (NYT)

Paul Krugman feels that the Republican Party's war against SNAP is worth getting angry about, because SNAP encourages economic growth by giving families more to spend. And since the program feeds hungry people, more cuts mean more empty stomachs.

The Real Numbers: Half of America in Poverty -- and It's Creeping Upward (AlterNet)

Paul Buchheit argues that while the Census Bureau reports 15 percent of Americans are living in poverty, with alternate measures it's more like 50 percent -- a number that should raise some eyebrows, especially as Congress allows cuts to poverty programs.

Man of the (rich) people (Salon)

Joan Walsh agrees with rising Republican star Sen. Ted Cruz: Mitt Romney lost the presidency with the words "47 percent." But she sees a disconnect between Cruz's words and the pro-1 percent policies he and other Republican "reformers" are endorsing.

After Running The Numbers Carefully There's No Evidence That High Debt Levels Cause Slow Growth (Slate)

Matt Yglesias explains why it's problematic that Reinhart and Rogoff took their research straight to the op-ed pages: the data shows it’s likely they were aware that they were jumping from correlation to policy suggestions without the necessary stop at causation.

Washington 'Spends' More on Tax Breaks Than on Medicare, Defense, or Social Security (The Atlantic)

Derek Thompson shows that tax expenditures designed to promote mortgages, employer-sponsored health care, investment, and various other consumer behaviors cost American taxpayers more than many programs that are frequent targets for budget cuts.

Losing Hope in Detroit (Bill Moyers)

Greg Kaufmann examines the kinds of programs affected by sequestration, with Focus: HOPE in Detroit as his example. Their job-training program is going to lose between 250 and 350 spots this year, which will hurt 250 to 350 people still seeking good jobs.

Fast Food Workers Striking in Seattle (The Nation)

Josh Eidelson looks at the fast food strikes that shut down three fast food restaurants in Seattle yesterday. These one-day strikes are an organizing tactic for a world that is increasingly hostile to organized labor, and they're looking more and more effective.

Share This

Daily Digest - May 30: Your Cable Package is Free Speech

May 30, 2013Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Comcast and Verizon’s Phony Free-Speech Claim (Bloomberg)

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Comcast and Verizon’s Phony Free-Speech Claim (Bloomberg)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Crawford knows that it's the cable and internet providers who are trying to limit speech through their control of what's available over their wires. Business decisions aren't free speech- especially when they limit fair competition.

Why the Shareholder Rescue Never Comes (ProPublica)

Jesse Eisinger explains why shareholders aren't going to solve Too Big to Fail. Shareholders want to see big risks and big returns- and as long as they can count on federal bailouts, that means they don't mind seeing big banks, either.

People Over Politicians: Spending Less on Elections Could Strengthen Unions (The Century Foundation)

Douglas Williams argues that unions are wasting money when they donate to campaigns, because even politicians who claim to be pro-labor work against them. Instead, they could invest in local organizing and actually achieve some change.

No cause for relief—austerity will indeed drag hard on the economy in 2013 and 2014 (Working Economics)

Josh Bivens thinks that other writers are too quick to assume that rising stock and housing prices and falling gas prices mean that austerity hasn't slowed our economy. With the job market remaining "dismal," he thinks the recovery hasn't even arrived.

More and more Americans are feeling the effects of the sequester (WaPo)

Brad Plumer looks at the results of a May ABC News/Washington Post poll, which shows that 37 percent of Americans say they've been impacted negatively by the sequester. That number can only grow as spending on vital services continues to shrink.

Children of the Great Collapse (TAP)

Jared Bernstein lays out how the stimulus helped bring children out of poverty, and how the end of the Recovery Act along with sequestration will put them right back in it. Nothing helps the country's long-term economic growth quite like cutting 50,000 spots in Head Start.

Why Can’t America Be Sweden? (NYT)

Tom Edsall examines the claim that Sweden's "cuddly capitalism" would not work in the United States, where our role as supposed innovation entrepreneurs requires a more cutthroat system. This sounds like an awfully convenient excuse to abandon those in need.

The Very Low Threshold For What Conservatives Consider “Reform” (Washington Monthly)

Ed Kilgore doesn't think that policy priorities are enough to differentiate conservative reformers. When the plan for "reform" is to cut taxes and reduce the social safety net, it's hard to see how conservative reformers can claim to support the poor -- or new ideas.

Share This

Daily Digest - May 29: No CFPB Director For You

May 29, 2013Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email

The GOP doesn’t oppose Richard Cordray. It opposes his whole agency. (WaPo)

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email

The GOP doesn’t oppose Richard Cordray. It opposes his whole agency. (WaPo)

Roosevelt Fellow Mike Konczal explains why Republican opposition to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is based on falsehoods. Unfortunately, filibusters mean that Republican temper tantrums about the power of the CFPB translate to blocking any director.

Did I get the money-and-politics debate all wrong? (WaPo)

Ezra Klein responds to critiques of his own pieces on money and politics, including Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Mark Schmitt's take, which he mostly agrees with. Unsurprisingly, spending lots of time fundraising doesn't make for better legislators.

Walmart Workers Launch First-Ever 'Prolonged Strikes' Today (The Nation)

Josh Eidelson reports on the strikes in Miami, Massachusetts, and the Bay Area, which are the first multi-day strikes again Walmart. Worker-activist Dominic Ware's biggest fear? That his son will have to work for Walmart too.

Beware Capitalist Tools (Robert Reich)

Robert Reich doesn't understand why Forbes writers would argue that it's a bad thing for government to condition market access on the social benefits we receive from corporations. Why wouldn't we want to tell corporations to put jobs here?

Central Banks Act With a New Boldness to Revitalize Economies (NYT)

Binyamin Appelbaum, Jack Ewing, Hiroko Tabuchi, and Landon Thomas Jr. note that once-cautious central banks have become more aggressive in recent years, taking action to get their countries' economies moving while their governments are stuck on austerity.

When Sequestration Becomes Devastation (Bloomberg)

Evan Soltas wants us to look ahead to sequestration’s effect on the 2014 budget, because if we think things are bad today then we haven't seen anything yet. Next year’s cuts aren’t automatic -- the House gets to decide where to cut deeper.

Like a Bad Cough: Why Austerity Economics Lingers (HuffPo)

Steven Conn thinks the reason we can't get past austerity economics is that we're treating a set of moral propositions about wealth, self-denial, and work as hard science. But when something doesn't work in chemistry, the chemists start a new experiment.

Share This

Daily Digest - May 28: Global Economy, Global Loopholes

May 28, 2013Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Globalisation isn't just about profits. It's about taxes too (The Guardian)

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Globalisation isn't just about profits. It's about taxes too (The Guardian)

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Joseph Stiglitz argues that in today's global economy, all countries suffer when major corporations take advantage of tax loopholes, and that reform is needed so that corporations pay a fair income tax rate internationally.

The Facts (Captive Audience)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Crawford corrects what Comcast's Executive Vice President told the U.S. Conference of Mayors about how great high-speed Internet access is in the U.S. If the mayors believed him, they must not look at what household Internet costs in their cities.

See How Citigroup Wrote a Bill So It Could Get a Bailout (MoJo)

Erika Eichelberger spoke to Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal about Citigroup's attempt to gut the "push-out rule," which would forbid banks from trading certain derivatives. This prevents banks from protecting risky trades with FDIC insurance, and Konczal says we need it "more than ever."

This Week in Poverty: Homeowners Take the Foreclosure Fight to the DOJ (The Nation)

Greg Kaufmann spoke to activists involved in protests last week to fight illegal foreclosures and push for principal reductions for homeowners at risk of foreclosure. These newly minted reformers first fought to keep their own homes; now they’re fighting for others.

  • Roosevelt Take: The jobs crisis hasn't helped people struggling to keep their homes. Roosevelt Fellows and other distinguished guests will discuss A Bold Approach to the Jobs Emergency on June 4th.

America is the only rich country that doesn’t guarantee paid vacation or holidays (WaPo)

In honor of Memorial Day, Ezra Klein reminds us that in the U.S., poorer workers are less likely to have any paid time off, and if they do, they get less. Compared to European countries' paid time off guarantees, yesterday's barbeques seem a little less exciting.

Let Them Make Their Own Jobs (NYT)

Nancy Folbre considers that statement to be the new "let them eat cake," because entrepreneurs and start-ups struggle as much as established businesses with the lack of demand. Creating your own job doesn’t guarantee you've created any income for yourself.

The Falling-Bridge Lesson: The U.S. Infrastructure Failure Is Still Totally Inexcusable (The Atlantic)

Matt Thompson thinks the bridge that collapsed near Seattle last week needs to be a wake-up call to increase spending on infrastructure. Maybe some members of Congress will take family road trips this summer and notice how the roads just end at that big blue space on their map now.

Share This

Daily Digest - May 24: The Real (Student) Debt Crisis

May 23, 2013Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Nobel winner: Cut student loan rates (USA Today)

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Nobel winner: Cut student loan rates (USA Today)

Roosevelt Institute Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz says he backs Elizabeth Warren's plan to let students borrow at the same discount rate as banks because student debt is holding back our economy, especially compared to countries that are actually doing something about it.

  • Roosevelt Take: The Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network's policy report "A New Deal For Students" lays out concrete and innovative policy solutions from students to solve the student debt crisis.

Donors Urge Cuomo to Press for Public Financing of State Campaigns (NYT)

Thomas Kaplan talks to Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Ellen Chesler and others who feel public campaign financing is necessary to combat an unusual form of peer pressure -- the kind the wealthy exert on politicians. According to Chesler, it's a moral issue.

In one chart: we have a demand problem, not a skills problem (Working Economics)

Heidi Shierholz looks at the unemployment and underemployment rates of college graduates under 25, and concludes that when even the young and highly educated have trouble finding jobs, the problem is pretty simple: no one is hiring.

America's Scandalous Underfunding of Community Colleges (Slate)

Matt Yglesias uses data on school spending changes to illustrate just how bad things have gotten at community colleges. Even with tuition hikes, they haven't been able to increase spending, which means they're forced to reduce services to our neediest students.

Black Unemployment Is Still Shamefully High (The Atlantic)

Jordan Weissmann knows the jobs crisis isn't close to over in the black community, where unemployment is both high and long-term. But Congress sees a string of decent jobs reports and a booming stock market and convinces itself the recovery is color-blind.

Food Stamp Cuts Backed By Farm Subsidy Beneficiaries (HuffPo)

Arthur Delaney points out the hypocrisy of lawmakers who receive significant subsidies for their family farms but feel the government doesn't have an obligation to feed the poor through SNAP. Anti-poverty programs: too costly. Photo op on a tractor: priceless.

Japan the Model (NYT)

Paul Krugman makes the case for Japan's current intense political efforts to turn around its economy, noting that no one else in the developed world is attempting stimulus on this level, and while it's too early to be certain, the signs look good that it's working.

New on Next New Deal

Michael Kinsley Gets It Wrong On "Austerians"

According to Mike Konzcal, austerians are setting eliminating the deficit as the only priority, while the rest of us see a bigger picture. Kinsley and other austerians are in a fantasy world where everyone saves, no one spends, and the economy improves without stimulus.

Share This

Michael Kinsley Gets It Wrong On "Austerians"

May 23, 2013Mike Konczal

While I was on vacation, the Internet exploded over a column by Michael Kinsley beefing with Paul Krugman and his follow-up response. The biggest problem with his attempt to reclaim the word “austerians” from its detractors is that he doesn’t provide a working definition, an argument, or even specific people or proposals for what he has in mind. He apparently takes “austerian” to mean “anti-Krugman,” and since Kinsley and others feels that they don’t line up with Krugman, they must all be austerians.

This leads into the second biggest problem with Kinsley’s posts: he concludes that everyone is basically on the same page. It’s just a matter of how you weigh your priorities and concerns. Kinsley writes that “Krugman now says that what he is against is ‘premature’ fiscal austerity. So is everybody. They just disagree on what is ‘premature.’” Also that “[y]ou can be a right-wing Austerian, a left-wing Austerian, a right-wing Keynesian, or a left-wing Keynesian. And (as I also noted last week) the differences are not so great.” (My underlines.)

This is wrong. I’ll quickly summarize three different approaches to the deficit, trying hard to not make straw men of them. There’s (1) Team Keynesian, which thinks that the government should increase the short-term deficit, full-stop. Extend the payroll tax cut for two years. Invest in an infrastructure bank. Mail people checks. Get to the point where the Federal Reserve has traction again on the economy before worrying about the debt.

People in this category are all for ways to deal with the long-term deficit. But they realize that: (a) Medicare is the major driver of those costs, Obamacare needs a chance to deal with this, and it may even be working already; (b) reducing the long-term deficit should require a combination of taxes and spending, and the GOP will refuse any and all tax increases, making a deal impossible; and (c) the GOP wants to privatize Social Security and Medicare rather than bring them into a healthy long-term financial situation, so not everyone is even on the same page.

However, people in (2) Team Barbell think that stimulus must be paired with long-term deficit reduction at the same time. For an example, there’s the original Domenici-Rivlin Restoring America's Future plan: "First, we must recover from the deep recession that has thrown millions out of work... Second, we must take immediate steps to reduce the unsustainable debt... These two challenges must be addressed at the same time, not sequentially."

I assume when Kinsley references needing to eat spinach along with dessert as macroeconomic policy he’s referring to a need for both stimulus and deficit reduction to complement each other. Sadly for him, there’s never been a clear economic case for why these should be addressed together, and plenty of evidence that addressing the second will do little for the first.

(Noah Smith started a conversation recently about whether elites want a slower recovery in order to do structural reform. The original Domenici-Rivlin reform quoted above basically said, “We know unemployment is devastating, and we know more upfront stimulus will help. However, we are going to need you to turn Medicare into a giant Groupon system in order to get it.”)

These two approaches are very different than the arguments for (3) Team Austerity. The argument here is that, if done right, austerity will have a negligible effect on the economy and could even increase prosperity by restoring confidence to private capital. This is not a strawman; it’s the economic plan the GOP put forward when they took the House in 2011, which they got from AEI, which they got from Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna of Harvard.

The 2011 GOP plan also noted, “Analyzing 20 developed countries between 1946 and 2009, Reinhart and Rogoff found a distinct threshold for gross government debt equal to 90 percent of GDP.” They believed action was needed to avoid crossing this threshold, even if it might be painful. (Thankfully, it wouldn’t be according this argument.)

No Pain, No Gain?

Kinsley’s misdiagnosis that the policy disagreements are all a matter of relative priorities then leads him to believe that more weight on short-term pain will lead to better long-term conclusions: “I don’t think suffering is good, but I do believe that we have to pay a price for past sins, and the longer we put it off, the higher the price will be...The problem is the great, deluded middle class—subsidized by government and coddled by politicians.”

This set the Internet on fire. I’m genuinely not sure what he’s referencing here when he mentions the middle-class. Is Kinsley at the point where he doesn’t get editors? I’m going to rewrite this for him: “During the 2000s, the middle class borrowed way too much, speculating on housing and using fake home equity to go on a spending spree. Now that this bubble has burst, the middle class needs to spend less and save more. There will be, yes, suffering, but they should have been saving more all along. Americans didn’t save enough, and now they have to save more and work off all the bad debts.”

And here’s how I would have responded to that better argument: “Yes, but two things. The first is that everyone can’t all save at the same time. If everyone is saving, nobody is spending, and we start to hit some major problems. Second, the bad debts to be worked off aren’t set in stone. If unemployment is higher, or wage growth slower, or inflation is under-target, that means the pile of bad debts is even greater. Since they are greater, people save more, and then there are even more problems. So even if you have a strongly moralistic tone about what needs to be done, or read this as a pox on our middle class, stimulus in the short term is crucial.”

Because austerity won’t even do the job Kinsley is proposing it will do. In 1933, John Maynard Keynes said, “You will never balance the Budget through measures which reduce the national income.” He argued this because he was a childless gay hedonist saw that austerity won’t even function to reduce the debt load, because a weaker GDP will eliminate any debt savings. This is precisely what is happening in Europe, and it could happen here if we suffocate the recovery too early.

 

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  

 

While I was on vacation, the Internet exploded over a column by Michael Kinsley beefing with Paul Krugman and his follow-up response. The biggest problem with his attempt to reclaim the word “austerians” from its detractors is that he doesn’t provide a working definition, an argument, or even specific people or proposals for what he has in mind. He apparently takes “austerian” to mean “anti-Krugman,” and since Kinsley and others feels that they don’t line up with Krugman, they must all be austerians.

This leads into the second biggest problem with Kinsley’s posts: he concludes that everyone is basically on the same page. It’s just a matter of how you weigh your priorities and concerns. Kinsley writes that “Krugman now says that what he is against is ‘premature’ fiscal austerity. So is everybody. They just disagree on what is ‘premature.’” Also that “[y]ou can be a right-wing Austerian, a left-wing Austerian, a right-wing Keynesian, or a left-wing Keynesian. And (as I also noted last week) the differences are not so great.” (My underlines.)

This is wrong. I’ll quickly summarize three different approaches to the deficit, trying hard to not make straw men of them. There’s (1) Team Keynesian, which thinks that the government should increase the short-term deficit, full-stop. Extend the payroll tax cut for two years. Invest in an infrastructure bank. Mail people checks. Get to the point where the Federal Reserve has traction again on the economy before worrying about the debt.

People in this category are all for ways to deal with the long-term deficit. But they realize that: (a) Medicare is the major driver of those costs, Obamacare needs a chance to deal with this, and it may even be working already; (b) reducing the long-term deficit should require a combination of taxes and spending, and the GOP will refuse any and all tax increases, making a deal impossible; and (c) the GOP wants to privatize Social Security and Medicare rather than bring them into a healthy long-term financial situation, so not everyone is even on the same page.

However, people in (2) Team Barbell think that stimulus must be paired with long-term deficit reduction at the same time. For an example, there’s the original Domenici-Rivlin Restoring America's Future plan: "First, we must recover from the deep recession that has thrown millions out of work... Second, we must take immediate steps to reduce the unsustainable debt... These two challenges must be addressed at the same time, not sequentially."

I assume when Kinsley references needing to eat spinach along with dessert as macroeconomic policy he’s referring to a need for both stimulus and deficit reduction to complement each other. Sadly for him, there’s never been a clear economic case for why these should be addressed together, and plenty of evidence that addressing the second will do little for the first.

(Noah Smith started a conversation recently about whether elites want a slower recovery in order to do structural reform. The original Domenici-Rivlin reform quoted above basically said, “We know unemployment is devastating, and we know more upfront stimulus will help. However, we are going to need you to turn Medicare into a giant Groupon system in order to get it.”)

These two approaches are very different than the arguments for (3) Team Austerity. The argument here is that, if done right, austerity will have a negligible effect on the economy and could even increase prosperity by restoring confidence to private capital. This is not a strawman; it’s the economic plan the GOP put forward when they took the House in 2011, which they got from AEI, which they got from Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna of Harvard.

The 2011 GOP plan also noted, “Analyzing 20 developed countries between 1946 and 2009, Reinhart and Rogoff found a distinct threshold for gross government debt equal to 90 percent of GDP.” They believed action was needed to avoid crossing this threshold, even if it might be painful. (Thankfully, it wouldn’t be according this argument.)

No Pain, No Gain?

Kinsley’s misdiagnosis that the policy disagreements are all a matter of relative priorities then leads him to believe that more weight on short-term pain will lead to better long-term conclusions: “I don’t think suffering is good, but I do believe that we have to pay a price for past sins, and the longer we put it off, the higher the price will be...The problem is the great, deluded middle class—subsidized by government and coddled by politicians.”

This set the Internet on fire. I’m genuinely not sure what he’s referencing here when he mentions the middle-class. Is Kinsley at the point where he doesn’t get editors? I’m going to rewrite this for him: “During the 2000s, the middle class borrowed way too much, speculating on housing and using fake home equity to go on a spending spree. Now that this bubble has burst, the middle class needs to spend less and save more. There will be, yes, suffering, but they should have been saving more all along. Americans didn’t save enough, and now they have to save more and work off all the bad debts.”

And here’s how I would have responded to that better argument: “Yes, but two things. The first is that everyone can’t all save at the same time. If everyone is saving, nobody is spending, and we start to hit some major problems. Second, the bad debts to be worked off aren’t set in stone. If unemployment is higher, or wage growth slower, or inflation is under-target, that means the pile of bad debts is even greater. Since they are greater, people save more, and then there are even more problems. So even if you have a strongly moralistic tone about what needs to be done, or read this as a pox on our middle class, stimulus in the short term is crucial.”

Because austerity won’t even do the job Kinsley is proposing it will do. In 1933, John Maynard Keynes said, “You will never balance the Budget through measures which reduce the national income.” He argued this because he was a childless gay hedonist saw that austerity won’t even function to reduce the debt load, because a weaker GDP will eliminate any debt savings. This is precisely what is happening in Europe, and it could happen here if we suffocate the recovery too early.

 

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  

 

Share This

Daily Digest - May 23: Fearing the Future

May 23, 2013Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

What’s in millennials’ wallets? Fewer credit cards (LA Times)

Emily Alpert talks to Pipeline Fellow Nona Willis Aronowitz about why young households are carrying less and less credit card debt. According to Aronowitz, it’s all about fear of an uncertain future.

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

What’s in millennials’ wallets? Fewer credit cards (LA Times)

Emily Alpert talks to Pipeline Fellow Nona Willis Aronowitz about why young households are carrying less and less credit card debt. According to Aronowitz, it’s all about fear of an uncertain future.

Why Suburban Poverty Is Less Visible and More Insidious (The Atlantic)

According to Emily Badger, suburban poverty is an incredibly isolating phenomenon. In areas where children play in back yards, not public playgrounds, and commuters drive instead of taking the subway, communal support for the poor all but disappears.

Elizabeth Warren Grills Treasury Secretary on Too Big to Fail (MoJo)

Erika Eichelberger characterizes Jack Lew’s response to Senator Warren’s questioning on breaking up the biggest banks as nothing but avoidance. In the linked video, Lew sticks to name, rank, and serial number while Warren pushes for a direct answer on capping bank size.

How Budget Cuts Could Lead To Higher Costs From Tornadoes (Think Progress)

Bryce Covert reminds us that sequestration is still happening and is causing furloughs at the National Weather Service. The NWS warned residents of Moore, OK about the tornado 16 minutes before it touched down, and we can’t afford to cut it much closer.

Fed Endorses Stimulus, but the Message Is Garbled (NYT)

Nelson D. Schwartz explains that it doesn’t look like the Fed will be cutting back its bond-buying program just yet. Bernanke’s testimony yesterday showed a sense of caution, despite the apparent signs of improvement in the job market.

Robert Kaiser on Dodd-Frank: ‘This example of Congress working also illuminated why it works so rarely.’ (WaPo)

Neil Irwin and Robert Kaiser discuss why no one would want to emulate the process required to pass Dodd-Frank, with months of negotiations for bipartisan support collapsing and the bill barely scraping by. Instead, we get no negotiation and no legislation, saving everyone time.

Why Obama’s Scandals Won’t Lead to Reform (Bloomberg View)

Ezra Klein points out the disconnect between who is upset about the policy problems raised by the IRS and AP scandals, and who wants to make a fuss about them. With those categories split, he doesn’t think we will see any changes in anonymous political spending through 501(c)(4)s or legislation to protect journalists and their sources.

U.S. Retailers See Big Risk in Safety Plan for Factories in Bangladesh (NYT)

Steven Greenhouse says major U.S. retailers are worried the accord that many European retailers have embraced will open them up to legal liability. Apparently the real risk isn’t sending workers into a death trap; it’s all the paperwork and billable hours that could result.

Share This

Daily Digest - May 22: Where Have All the Good Jobs Gone?

May 22, 2013Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

The Case for Raising the Minimum Wage (U.S. News and World Report)

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

The Case for Raising the Minimum Wage (U.S. News and World Report)

David Cooper makes the case that raising the minimum wage is not only advisable but necessary: with full-time minimum wage workers living below the poverty line, every taxpayer is subsidizing low wage employers. Not the most uplifting way to see your tax dollars at work.

Workers Strike Over Federal Contracts and Low Wage Jobs In D.C.(HuffPo)

Arthur Delaney and Dave Jamieson spoke to workers striking yesterday to protest low wages at workplaces funded by federal contracts. If taxpayers subsidize low-wage workers, this piece of the puzzle is even more frustrating, because federal contracts could set a higher wage floor.

SNAP Rolls: They’re Elevated for a Reason (On The Economy)

Jared Bernstein explains why SNAP enrollment isn’t dropping right alongside unemployment, even though that’s a pretty logical idea. Unemployment may be down, he says, but that doesn’t mean people have actually gone back to work, and in the meantime, they still need to eat.

Keynes Skeptics Find New Economic Poster Boy (NY Mag)

Jonathan Chait has discovered the new face of austerity, following the collapse of Reinhart-Rogoff: James Buchanan (the economist, not the unloved U.S. president). Buchanan argued “temporary” stimulus would create permanent long-term deficits, but Chait isn’t buying it.

Naming Names in the Dodd Frank Mess (TAP)

David Dayen wants us to stop blaming generic “Wall Street lobbyists” for gutting Dodd-Frank when they have name-brand help. Regulators like Mark Wetjen, one of the Democratic commissioners on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, are also responsible for weaker rules.

The IRS controversy isn’t about taxes. It’s about disclosure. (WaPo)

Dylan Matthews thinks that the IRS controversy is really about the distinction between 501(c)(4)s and 527s: the former can keep donors a secret, but 527s must disclose. Apparently Tea Party organizations are worried that no one would donate to them if they had to own up to it.

A Keynesian Victory, but Austerity Stands Firm (NYT)

Eduardo Porter examines why Keynesian economists are running victory laps around austerians, yet austerity politics are still reigning across the globe. The intellectual battle may be won, but politicians are resisting.

New on Next New Deal

Creating Good Jobs is the Defining Issue of Our Time (Next New Deal)

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch knows that our biggest economic problem isn’t the deficit or national debt: it’s jobs. Good jobs, the ones that provide decent pay and benefits, are disappearing, and the economy can’t recover without them.

Share This

Creating Good Jobs is the Defining Issue of Our Time

May 21, 2013Richard Kirsch

On June 4th, the Roosevelt Institute will bring together leading thinkers, activists, and policymakers for A Bold Approach to the Jobs Emergency: Setting the Political Agenda for 2014 and 2016, a daylong conference in Washington, D.C. that will focus on America's desperate need for more and better jobs. Today, Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch, who will take part in a panel on "Creating Momentum for More Good Jobs," explains why job quality is as important as job quantity.

On June 4th, the Roosevelt Institute will bring together leading thinkers, activists, and policymakers for A Bold Approach to the Jobs Emergency: Setting the Political Agenda for 2014 and 2016, a daylong conference in Washington, D.C. that will focus on America's desperate need for more and better jobs. Today, Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch, who will take part in a panel on "Creating Momentum for More Good Jobs," explains why job quality is as important as job quantity.

What is the single biggest economic problem facing people early in this century? It is not the budget deficit or national debt. It is the eroding and disappearing of good jobs. People with good jobs – jobs that provide decent pay and benefits and the flexibility to be able to take care of one’s family – are the fuel of the economy and the basis for broadly shared prosperity. Good jobs, and the things that go with them – a good education, affordable health care, and a secure retirement – are the very definition of a successful economy.

The public gets it. When asked to identify “the single biggest problem facing this country today,” 40 percent answered “jobs and the economy.” Number two was “budget deficit/national debt,” at 6 percent.

Four years after the official end of the Great Recession, the real economy – not corporate profits or the stock market – remains stalled. The proportion of Americans working is the lowest in 30 years, or basically since women started entering the work force in large numbers. Most of the jobs that have been created since the recession pay low wages. Long-term unemployment also is at levels well above anything since the Great Depression. And income for all but the richest has gone down.

So why does Washington and elite discussion remain focused on the debt and deficit? And what will it take to move the politics of the nation to take on what the public correctly understands is the central economic issue?

The fundamental reason that good jobs is not the defining issue is that an economy in which some people have a lot while more and more scrape buy is working just fine for the wealthy and huge corporations that control our politics and media. Personally, the rich are doing better than ever, as their inflated pay and corporate profits are supported by the financialization of the U.S. economy, low-wage service sector jobs here. and low-wage manufacturing and importable services abroad. The middle class in the U.S. may be getting squeezed and shrinking, but it’s still broad and big enough to fuel demand for U.S. goods and services. The disasters to come from the lack of retirement savings, high student loan debt, and long-term wage stagnation are not stopping the rich from getting richer today.

The interest of the ruling elites has been powerfully popularized by the right’s highly disciplined, focused narrative on the national debt and budget deficits. While the motivation here is ideological – to shrink those government services and activities that improve social welfare or regulate the markets – the weapon has been convincing Americans that the national debt is an unconscionable burden on our children, that government deficits are as unsustainable as household deficits, and that taxes are paid to a wasteful, corrupt government. Instead, the right insists that businesses are the “job creators” and that any effort to interfere with what business thinks is best will put people out of work.

As a result, the great public concern about the lack of good jobs doesn’t translate into support for government action – or any action, other than to do your personal best and pray that things get better. People don’t believe that there are solutions for good jobs in a global economy. They certainly don’t see that government has a role in creating jobs or that tax dollars could be spent on effective job creation. And while they support regulations to improve job quality, they are very susceptible to pro-business arguments.

What do we do about it? Here’s an overview of a strategy. One, we need to make good jobs the central, driving focus of progressive discourse, just as the right has put deficits/debt/limited government at the center of their policy, politics, and communication. That requires clearly linking every issue to the need to create good jobs that will enable working- and middle-class families to have opportunity and security. In doing that, we need to be talking about good jobs in a multi-dimensional way. Good jobs are about having enough pay to support your family, flexibility to allow you to care for your family – from children to elders – and access to good, affordable education, affordable health care, and a secure retirement.

Two, we need to center our discourse on good jobs in a powerful, values-based story about how we create an America that works for all of us. This story starts with a vision of an America that provides liberty, justice, and prosperity for all. It reinforces the notion that people believe but rarely hear: working families and the middle class are the real engines of the economy. It provides examples from American history of how decisions we have made together built the great American middle class. And it follows those with a vision and example of how we can make decisions together in the 21st century to create good jobs for everyone in America. It clearly identifies who is responsible for the mess we’re in – the super-rich and corporations who game the system at our expense and buy off our government. And finally, the story empowers people as the heroes who can take action for change.

Third, we need to champion a program of policies that will work to create good jobs. We have policies and innovative ideas that will work today, many of which will be discussed on June 4th in Washington when the Roosevelt Institute holds a daylong conference on A Bold Approach to the Jobs Emergency. Certainly, we will need to continue to develop policy solutions that address major challenges like globalization and technology. But we should be clear that it is in our power now to redirect economic policy to dramatically improve the quality of the jobs Americans now hold and to create millions of new good jobs for people who are out of work.

Fourth, we need to organize campaigns for good jobs, starting with a focus at the local and state level. Even though municipalities and states don’t have as many resources as the federal government, there are policies that can be taken locally to create a new economic paradigm. The success of those policies will be more immediately visible to people. The lessons learned in building popular support for these policies will be transferable to other places and to the federal level.

Finally, we need to make good jobs a defining issue of the 2016 election. To reach that goal, we will need to do all of the above, with a strategy that brings the work together for the 2016 election. In 2014, we should focus on a few U.S. Senate and congressional elections to experiment with the best approaches. We can take a page from specific strategies used from 2007-2008, which made health care the central issue of the 2008 election.

American’s historical optimism is being deeply challenged by the squeezing, and indeed crushing, of the middle class. Our job is to rekindle that optimism and make it a powerful force for change. We can build an America that works for all of us by building a movement to demand good jobs for everyone. 

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.

 

Lab workers image via Shutterstock.com

Share This

Daily Digest - May 21: Fixing the Economy First, but not Yet

May 21, 2013Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via e-mail.

What's the best way to pass a climate bill? Fix the economy first. (WaPo)

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via e-mail.

What's the best way to pass a climate bill? Fix the economy first. (WaPo)

According to Brad Plumer, if we’re serious about climate change, we need to solve the jobs crisis first: there’s a connection between a Senator’s “green score” from the League of Conservation Voters and the unemployment rate in his or her state.

As rich gain optimism, lawmakers lose economic urgency (WaPo)

Jim Tankersley reminds us that while the economy and jobs remain a top priority for most Americans, the House has only approved three bills that could be considered economic policy this year- and one of those was the 37th attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act. 

Camping Out for Five Days, in Hopes of a Union Job (NYT)

Most jobs created since the recession are low-wage, but Jessica Glazer’s story about more than 800 people camping out to apply for the training program at Local 3 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers shows how far people will go to escape that rut.

Sequestration Nation: Budget Cuts Endanger Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Victims (CAP)

Kwame Boadi lays out the effect of sequestration on one of our most vulnerable populations: domestic violence and sexual assault victims, who are losing services, beds in shelters, and more. These cuts could kill, but Congress has prioritized keeping flights on schedule.

Poverty Flees to the Suburbs (MoJo)

Josh Harkinson breaks down yesterday’s report from the Brookings Institution, showing that the suburban poor now outnumber the urban and rural poor. With most federal anti-poverty spending targeting urban communities, there’s a serious mismatch.

Senator Introduces Bill To Allow Holders Of Student Debt To Refinance (Think Progress)

Bryce Covert reports on Senator Gillibrand’s proposal to force the Department of Education to automatically refinance federal student loans with interest rates above 4 percent to fixed 4 percent loans, which would save nearly 37 million borrowers billions in interest payments.

Ready to Testify on Financial Stability, Lew Is Likely To Be Grilled on IRS Scandal (National Journal)

Catherine Hollander notes that Treasury Secretary Jack Lew is scheduled to deliver the Financial Stability Oversight Council’s annual report this week, but Congress is less interested in the global financial system than it is in what’s going on at the local IRS office in Cincinnati.

The Unemployed Need Bold, Creative Moves from the Fed (The Fiscal Times)

Mark Thoma remembers when the Fed took risks and pushed the rules to their limits in orchestrating the bailout for big financial institutions. Why, he asks, aren’t they maintaining such boldness for the sake of the unemployed?

 

Share This

Pages