Daily Digest - March 18: Society Doesn't Work on a Volunteer Basis

Mar 18, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

The Voluntarism Fantasy (Democracy Journal)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal looks to the history of public and private social insurance in the U.S. to explain why the conservative belief that private charity could take the place of government is deeply misguided.

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

The Voluntarism Fantasy (Democracy Journal)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal looks to the history of public and private social insurance in the U.S. to explain why the conservative belief that private charity could take the place of government is deeply misguided.

In City's Job Growth, Faces of the Working Poor (WNYC)

New York City now has 237,000 more jobs than it did before the recession, reports Mirela Iverac, but too many of those jobs aren't paying enough to live on.

Hunger Crisis: Charities are Strained as Nearly 1 in 5 New Yorkers Depend on Aid for Food (NY Daily News)

Over five years, the number of people relying on food aid has increased by 200,000, and Barry Paddock and Ginger Adams Otis report that charities have seen even more need since November's food stamp cuts.

Low-Wage Workers Are Finding Poverty Harder to Escape (NYT)

Steven Greenhouse reports on the lives of the working poor in Chattanooga, Tennessee, where workers with many years of experience can still make only $9 per hour.

Inside Low-Wage Workers’ Plan to Sue McDonald’s — and Win (MSNBC)

Timothy Noah explains that these workers are targeting the franchise system, arguing that McDonald's as a corporation created the conditions that led to wage theft, not just the franchise owners.

New on Next New Deal

Florida Election Shows Danger and Promise in Obamacare Debate

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch says polling from the recent special election for Florida's 13th congressional district shows that standing up to "keep and fix" Obamacare is a path for Democratic success.

The Progressive Budget Reminds Us That Government Can Create Jobs

The Congressional Progressive Caucus's budget is a reminder that an aggressive approach is still needed to push job growth, writes Nell Abernathy, Program Manager for the Bernard L. Schwartz Rediscovering Government Initiative.

Share This

The Progressive Budget Reminds Us That Government Can Create Jobs

Mar 17, 2014Nell Abernathy

Unemployment is still a major problem in the U.S., and the best solutions involve a more aggressive government response.

Unemployment is still a major problem in the U.S., and the best solutions involve a more aggressive government response.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus budget, released last Wednesday, is forecast to create more than 8 million jobs by 2017 – a claim that is bound to stir up an argument about the government’s role in job creation. It’s not a new argument – progressives and conservatives have been having it explicitly since 2008 and more implicitly for years before that – but it is worth revisiting, because progressives are losing, and it’s a battle we cannot afford to surrender.

First, some might wonder if we even need to worry about jobs anymore. Unemployment is falling, GDP has expanded, and the stock market has rallied. The political debate has shifted away from a focus on growth and toward the consequences of our failure to stimulate growth: rising inequality and poverty. But in the face of federal paralysis, the labor participation rate remains down, wages remain stagnant, and productivity continues to decline. Now more than ever, the government must restore the dream of dignified work to all Americans.

Even if we agree that there is a problem, the skeptics will argue that the government is too inefficient and bureaucratic to effectively create middle class jobs and support economic growth. But the 2009 stimulus package provides a prime example of effective government intervention. Economists of all stripes, including Alan Blinder, former vice chair of the Federal Reserve, and Mark Zandi, Chief Economist at Moody’s and former Economic Advisor to John McCain, agree that the ARRA succeeded in creating the 2-3 million jobs it was designed to create. In their analysis, Zandi and Blinder found that without the stimulus, the economy would have contracted 6 percent and unemployment would have hit 11.6 percent. Instead, at its worst, GDP declined 2 percent and unemployment hit 10 percent.

The problem was that the ARRA could not protect the U.S. from a shock that cost the economy 12 million jobs, because the $825 billion package was too small and tapered too soon to plug the $1.2 trillion drop in private demand.

Acknowledging the success of the stimulus, some conservative analysts argue the challenges we now must tackle are not remnants of the recession, which would be amenable to government intervention, but rather are the product of insurmountable structural trends – automation, globalization, financialization. But even if that is true, it’s not an excuse for the U.S. government to abdicate its role as a driver of economic growth. Indeed, a changing economic landscape requires an adaptive government to ease the transition. Increased automation requires reformed and renewed investment in human capital to allow American workers to dominate the information age. Globalized supply chains demand new labor laws to recognize the rise of sub-contracted work. A growing financial sector requires an enhanced regulatory regime to ensure capital is allocated toward productive uses.

Then we have the deficit scolds, who are likely to claim that the CPC’s proposals are fiscally unfeasible. While hysteria about the government debt has prevented lawmakers from passing an additional large-scale stimulus package, new U.S. debt projections, and the clear failure of Europe’s austerity measures, prove these threats to be overblown. The danger associated with deficits, rising interest rates, and run-away inflation are far from a reality in the current climate of below-target inflation and non-existent interest rates.

In fact, the U.S. budget deficit fell to 4 percent of GDP in 2013, according to the CBI, and was projected to decline to 3 percent, the average for the last 40 years, in 2014. At about 73 percent of GDP, the federal debt remains high; however, the most effective way to reduce the debt to GDP ratio is to grow GDP, not shrink debt. National debt topped 118 percent of GDP immediately following World War II, and then the debt doubled over the next 30 years. But because the economy grew rapidly, debt fell to a healthy 30 percent of GDP by 1981. Europe’s experience with austerity reveals the danger of valuing debt-reduction above growth. As spending reductions slowed rising debt, they also cut GDP and increased the relative cost of debt payments.

The CPC’s budget will create new jobs, improve job quality, and invest in future job growth. The ideas are not new; many, like investment in infrastructure and workforce training, have been proposed in bills currently sitting in Congress. Nor are they necessarily bold; for example, funding R&D and using fiscal stimulus were considered common-sense government policies in previous generations. The problem up to this point has not been a lack of good ideas. It’s lack of political will. Let’s reopen this debate and use the vast number of policy tools we know to be effective.

Nell Abernathy is the Program Manager for the Roosevelt Institute's Bernard L. Schwartz Rediscovering Government Initiative.

Image via Thinkstock

Share This

Daily Digest - March 17: The Pacific Standard for Bad Deals

Mar 17, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

On the Wrong Side of Globalization (NYT)

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

On the Wrong Side of Globalization (NYT)

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow and Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz argues that trade deals like the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership create a race to the bottom for regulations, and exacerbate inequality.

The Great Corporate Cash-Hoarding Crisis (AJAM)

David Cay Johnston says that multinationals keeping their cash abroad instead of investing in their businesses or paying income taxes on it is what is keeping the U.S. from a real economic recovery.

10 Things Elizabeth Warren's Consumer Protection Agency Has Done for You (MoJo)

Erika Eichelberger lists the changes the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has already pushed through since its creation in 2011, which affect homeowners, student loan holders, and anyone with a credit card.

Capping Public Service Loan Forgiveness at $57.5K Defeats Its Purpose (HuffPo)

People who use the PSLF program are trying to do good for the country, and according to Tim Lowden, this proposed cap would create a disincentive to entering these absolutely vital careers.

Income Gap, Meet the Longevity Gap (NYT)

Two U.S. counties, separated by only 350 miles, have life expectancies that differ as much as Sweden and Iraq. Annie Lowrey reports on how inequality is affecting the length of people's lives.

Paul Ryan’s Worst Nightmare: Here’s the Real Way to Cut Poverty in America (Salon)

Michael Lind thinks planning to avert future poverty is great, but we could reduce poverty today with a simple solution: increased government spending in the form of generous welfare and social insurance programs.

The Cost of Kale: How Foodie Trends Can Hurt Low-Income Families (Bitch Magazine)

Flat wages and rising food costs are only exasperated by food gentrification and trends, says Soleil Ho. From 2007 to 2012, wages remained stagnant, while the cost of feeding a family increased 18 percent.

Share This

Daily Digest - March 14: The Golden Arches Get Served

Mar 14, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Breaking: McDonald’s Workers Mount Class Action Suits in Three States (Salon)

The workers are alleging different forms of wage theft, such as unpaid overtime, in California, Michigan, and New York, at both corporate locations and franchises, reports Josh Eidelson.

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Breaking: McDonald’s Workers Mount Class Action Suits in Three States (Salon)

The workers are alleging different forms of wage theft, such as unpaid overtime, in California, Michigan, and New York, at both corporate locations and franchises, reports Josh Eidelson.

A Business Upside to Obama’s Overtime Move (WaPo)

Jena McGregor writes that since productivity starts to drop as workers put in more than 40 hours a week, employers who hire more staff instead of paying overtime should see productivity increase.

The Secret Benefits Of Paid Sick Days For All (ThinkProgress)

Bryce Covert looks at some of the less obvious changes that come with paid sick leave, such as increased employer trust in employees, employee retention, and morale and productivity boosts.

How We Built the Ghettos (The Daily Beast)

In response to Paul Ryan's recent comments on inner city poverty, Jamelle Bouie explains how housing policies in the mid-20th century, which excluded black homebuyers, created today's racial wealth gap.

UAW Appeals to NLRB Board to Keep 'Outside Groups' out of Decision on New Union Vote (Chattanooga Times Free Press)

Dave Flessner reports that United Auto Workers is pressing to keep the National Right to Work Legal Foundation and Southern Momentum out of upcoming arguments, and Volkswagen agrees.

  • Roosevelt Take: Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch looks at why UAW's efforts in Chattanooga failed despite VW's support, and what that says about U.S. labor law.

The Battle for Chattanooga: Southern Masculinity and the Anti-Union Campaign at Volkswagen (In These Times)

Some of the union supporters at the VW plant in Chattanooga hoped a union would change the culture of self-reliance and working through pain that led to injuries on the job, says Mike Elk.

Some Jobless Facing Eviction After Loss Of Benefits (HuffPo)

Andrew Perez and Arthur Delaney report that organizations tracking stories from the unemployed have seen an increase in evictions since Congress failed to extend long-term unemployment benefits.

Share This

Daily Digest - March 13: What Sets Liberals Apart?

Mar 13, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

An Incoherent Harper's Essay Suggests There's No Difference Between Obama and Republicans (TNR)

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

An Incoherent Harper's Essay Suggests There's No Difference Between Obama and Republicans (TNR)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal responds to Adolph Reed's piece on the exhaustion of liberals, arguing that the issues that drive liberals and the outcomes they seek easily distinguish them from conservatives.

The Inequality Puzzle (TAP)

Robert Kuttner asks how it's possible that intergenerational economic mobility has remained flat over the past 30 years rather than declining, and whether that fact is really worth celebrating.

What Talent Shortage? The Great American Brain Waste of Our Captive Labor Market (Pacific Standard)

Jim Russell sees an easy solution to any lack of skilled labor: policies, at work and in politics, that are more supportive of the groups whose talents are being wasted, namely women and immigrants.

My Life as a Retail Worker: Nasty, Brutish, and Poor (The Atlantic)

Joseph Williams writes about his experiences working at a sporting goods store after losing his job in journalism. He got first-hand experience in retail's wage theft and surveillance practices.

New on Next New Deal

The Progressive Caucus Budget Makes the Right Decisions

The budget shows that the country can afford to properly invest in job creation and achieve faster growth, says Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Jeff Madrick, Director of the Bernard L. Schwartz Rediscovering Government Initiative.

Quits Won't Tell Us Anything About the True Unemployment Rate (Vacancy Chains 1/2)

Mike Konczal argues that the interesting data from the quits rate is already represented in wage growth and the number of job openings relative to unemployment. We should be watching that data anyway.

Share This

Quits Won't Tell Us Anything About the True Unemployment Rate (Vacancy Chains 1/2)

Mar 12, 2014Mike Konczal

(Wonkish. Part One of Two. This part covers theory, part two some data.)

Can the number of people quitting their jobs tell us anything useful about slack in the labor market? No. At most, it tells us to focus even more on the stuff we already knew to be watching.

Evan Soltas has argued that the rate at which people quit their job tells us all we need to know about the unemployment rate, in particular how likely it is that the long-term unemployed and people who have left the labor force could be brought back into the labor force. There were several responses from Dean Baker, Jared Bernstein, and Cardiff Garcia.

As a reminder, there are currently 2.5 million Americans who want a job but aren’t looking, and as such are counted as “marginally attached to the labor force” instead of unemployed. There’s a major debate about how much of the collapse in the labor force participation rate is due to de facto unemployment, or people who will come back into the labor force if it gets better (with much of the research pointing to about half).

We should distinguish between what quit rates can tell us about the employed and what they can tell us about the status of the unemployed. What’s the theory of quits in which they tell us what the “true” unemployment rate is? Soltas: “Think about the decision to quit. It's a function of your confidence that you'll find a better job quickly -- which embodies some unobserved but holistic measure of labor-market tightness.” If quits go up, then the long-term unemployed, in this view, “no longer [have] the power to restrain wage growth or discourage the employed from quitting and switching jobs.”

If I understand this correctly, this assumes that quits are a measure of people first becoming unemployed and then looking for a new job (trying to “find a better job quickly”).[i] But I don’t think this is right. A very large percentage, perhaps half, of quits are people moving job-to-job rather than becoming unemployed.[ii]

Under Soltas' view, quits make it more difficult for the existing unemployed to find jobs by increasing unemployment. But doesn’t a quit create a job opening? As such, doesn’t it create an opportunity for an unemployed person, rather than a limitation? Also, even if the employed became unemployed, would that mean that the long-term unemployed couldn’t find work, or just that they are at the end of a very long line?

Vacancy Chains

Let’s try to develop a more firmly grounded theory of quits. What can quits tell us about unemployment as a matter of economic logic? Well, first off, every person who quits his or her job creates a job opening. Someone has to do the work that person was doing. So we should think of “vacancy chains” -- a term made famous by George Akerlof, Andrew Rose, and Janet Yellen (!) back in 1988 -- and their characteristics.

Suppose Amy works at Acorp, and she leaves her job to take a new one. Acorp now has a job opening. They hire Bill away from Bcorp. Now Bcorp has a job opening. So they hire Charlotte from Ccorp. Now Ccorp has a job opening. They hire Dan from Dcorp. Now Dcorp has a job opening.

Note: Amy, Bill, Charlotte and Dan are all counted as “quits,” though they wouldn’t count as having been unemployed.

So Dcorp hangs a sign that says “help wanted.” They can do one of three mutually exclusive things. They can (1) hire an employed person, which will create another quit, which will create another vacancy, which Erin from Ecorp will fill. Thus the vacancy chain is extended one more step. They’ll likely have to pay the employed person a higher wage than that person currently makes to change jobs (or at least in aggregate this will happen). Or they can (2) hire an unemployed person, which will not create another job opening, but instead just close the vacancy chain.[iii] Or, if they can’t fill the job with an employed person or an unemployed person, they (3) leave the job opening unfilled.

So let’s rephrase that. The only thing interesting about the quits rate in this context is what it is implying about the length and conclusion of vacancy chains. If the length of the vacancy chain is infinitely increasing, then wage growth must be skyrocketing. And if the unemployed aren’t capable of taking jobs and closing the vacancy chain, then the number of job openings must rise relative to the unemployment rate.

Which means the interesting things the quits rate tells us about unemployment are entirely captured in wage growth or the number of job openings relative to unemployment (i.e. the Beveridge Curve).

So where are we? Wage growth is still weak, and nowhere near what it was in the late 1990s. Meanwhile, the Beveridge Curve shifted at the height of the crash, but has been remarkably consistent since. The shifting of the Beveridge Curve has been thoroughly debated, with the complicating issues of circularity and endogenous firm search at the forefront. What stands out for me is that the Beveridge Curve hasn’t deteriorated in the past several years, which implies that the increasing duration and prominence of the long-term unemployed in the labor market isn’t showing up in increased job openings.

The quits rate is important. It hints at the lived experience of working throughout the Great Recession and points to the stagnating wages workers face. But from the point of view of the status of the unemployed, it doesn’t tell us the “true” unemployment rate. Rather, it is important because it flags the things we should be watching -- things that are slowly improving, as long as the Fed doesn’t put a stop to it.

[i] Soltas also has a statistical relationship between the two based over the past two business cycles, but if we can’t think of a good theory of what quits tell us about unemployment I’m not sure what weight we should put on this relationship.

[ii] The Census will start releasing job-to-job transition data in late 2014. Hurry Census! We need this data to be publicly digestible.

[iii] This is why Akerlof, Rose, and Yellen believe quits to be counter-cyclical to unemployment, as opposed to the pro-cyclicality predicted by search models. There are more unemployed hanging around to close chains earlier in a recession, reducing the number of quits necessary to close a vacancy chain.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  

(Wonkish. Part One of Two. This part covers theory, part two some data.)

Can the number of people quitting their jobs tell us anything useful about slack in the labor market? No. At most, it tells us to focus even more on the stuff we already knew to be watching.

Evan Soltas has argued that the rate at which people quit their job tells us all we need to know about the unemployment rate, in particular how likely it is that the long-term unemployed and people who have left the labor force could be brought back into the labor force. There were several responses from Dean Baker, Jared Bernstein, and Cardiff Garcia.

As a reminder, there are currently 2.5 million Americans who want a job but aren’t looking, and as such are counted as “marginally attached to the labor force” instead of unemployed. There’s a major debate about how much of the collapse in the labor force participation rate is due to de facto unemployment, or people who will come back into the labor force if it gets better (with much of the research pointing to about half).

We should distinguish between what quit rates can tell us about the employed and what they can tell us about the status of the unemployed. What’s the theory of quits in which they tell us what the “true” unemployment rate is? Soltas: “Think about the decision to quit. It's a function of your confidence that you'll find a better job quickly -- which embodies some unobserved but holistic measure of labor-market tightness.” If quits go up, then the long-term unemployed, in this view, “no longer [have] the power to restrain wage growth or discourage the employed from quitting and switching jobs.”

If I understand this correctly, this assumes that quits are a measure of people first becoming unemployed and then looking for a new job (trying to “find a better job quickly”).[i] But I don’t think this is right. A very large percentage, perhaps half, of quits are people moving job-to-job rather than becoming unemployed.[ii]

Under Soltas' view, quits make it more difficult for the existing unemployed to find jobs by increasing unemployment. But doesn’t a quit create a job opening? As such, doesn’t it create an opportunity for an unemployed person, rather than a limitation? Also, even if the employed became unemployed, would that mean that the long-term unemployed couldn’t find work, or just that they are at the end of a very long line?

Vacancy Chains

Let’s try to develop a more firmly grounded theory of quits. What can quits tell us about unemployment as a matter of economic logic? Well, first off, every person who quits his or her job creates a job opening. Someone has to do the work that person was doing. So we should think of “vacancy chains” -- a term made famous by George Akerlof, Andrew Rose, and Janet Yellen (!) back in 1988 -- and their characteristics.

Suppose Amy works at Acorp, and she leaves her job to take a new one. Acorp now has a job opening. They hire Bill away from Bcorp. Now Bcorp has a job opening. So they hire Charlotte from Ccorp. Now Ccorp has a job opening. They hire Dan from Dcorp. Now Dcorp has a job opening.

Note: Amy, Bill, Charlotte and Dan are all counted as “quits,” though they wouldn’t count as having been unemployed.

So Dcorp hangs a sign that says “help wanted.” They can do one of three mutually exclusive things. They can (1) hire an employed person, which will create another quit, which will create another vacancy, which Erin from Ecorp will fill. Thus the vacancy chain is extended one more step. They’ll likely have to pay the employed person a higher wage than that person currently makes to change jobs (or at least in aggregate this will happen). Or they can (2) hire an unemployed person, which will not create another job opening, but instead just close the vacancy chain.[iii] Or, if they can’t fill the job with an employed person or an unemployed person, they (3) leave the job opening unfilled.

So let’s rephrase that. The only thing interesting about the quits rate in this context is what it is implying about the length and conclusion of vacancy chains. If the length of the vacancy chain is infinitely increasing, then wage growth must be skyrocketing. And if the unemployed aren’t capable of taking jobs and closing the vacancy chain, then the number of job openings must rise relative to the unemployment rate.

Which means the interesting things the quits rate tells us about unemployment are entirely captured in wage growth or the number of job openings relative to unemployment (i.e. the Beveridge Curve).

So where are we? Wage growth is still weak, and nowhere near what it was in the late 1990s. Meanwhile, the Beveridge Curve shifted at the height of the crash, but has been remarkably consistent since. The shifting of the Beveridge Curve has been thoroughly debated, with the complicating issues of circularity and endogenous firm search at the forefront. What stands out for me is that the Beveridge Curve hasn’t deteriorated in the past several years, which implies that the increasing duration and prominence of the long-term unemployed in the labor market isn’t showing up in increased job openings.

The quits rate is important. It hints at the lived experience of working throughout the Great Recession and points to the stagnating wages workers face. But from the point of view of the status of the unemployed, it doesn’t tell us the “true” unemployment rate. Rather, it is important because it flags the things we should be watching -- things that are slowly improving, as long as the Fed doesn’t put a stop to it.

[i] Soltas also has a statistical relationship between the two based over the past two business cycles, but if we can’t think of a good theory of what quits tell us about unemployment I’m not sure what weight we should put on this relationship.

[ii] The Census will start releasing job-to-job transition data in late 2014. Hurry Census! We need this data to be publicly digestible.

[iii] This is why Akerlof, Rose, and Yellen believe quits to be counter-cyclical to unemployment, as opposed to the pro-cyclicality predicted by search models. There are more unemployed hanging around to close chains earlier in a recession, reducing the number of quits necessary to close a vacancy chain.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:

  

Share This

Daily Digest - March 12: Political Influence Carries a Price Tag

Mar 12, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Ready for a Surprise? Money DOES Equal Access in Washington (WaPo)

Matea Gold reports on a randomized field study that proves the long-held belief that campaign donations buy attention from legislators and their staff.

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Ready for a Surprise? Money DOES Equal Access in Washington (WaPo)

Matea Gold reports on a randomized field study that proves the long-held belief that campaign donations buy attention from legislators and their staff.

Obama Will Seek Broad Expansion of Overtime Pay (NYT)

Michael D. Shear and Steven Greenhouse report that the president plans to use his executive authority to alter who is eligible for overtime according to their job classification, as well as the salary threshold.

A Modern Day ‘Harvest of Shame’ (ProPublica)

The 1960 CBS documentary showed the plight of migrant farm workers. Michael Grabell says that today, blue collar temp laborers are facing many of the same terrible working conditions.

Nowhere Close: The Long March from Here to Full Employment (EPI)

Josh Bivens explains how low demand is keeping the U.S. economy away from full employment. He also has suggestions for how to boost demand, including increased public spending and net exports.

Plan for Mortgage Giants Takes Shape (WSJ)

Nick Timiraos reports on a bipartisan plan to replace Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with a system of federally insured mortgage securities. The Senate Banking Committee's liberal Democrats hold the power to move this forward or stop it.

A Conservative Meme On School Lunches: Work For It, Kids! (TPM)

What's wrong with free school lunches? Sahil Kapur says that the opposition combines the idea that people are mooching off the government with the claim that liberals don't value the dignity of work.

New on Next New Deal

The Story of Atalissa Highlights America's Long-Term Care Problem

Sarah Galli responds to The New York Times’s story about the abuse of Iowan men with intellectual disabilities by considering the nation's lack of options for long-term care for adults with disabilities.

Share This

Daily Digest - March 11: What is the GDP of the Internet?

Mar 11, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

The Benefits of Internet Innovation are Hard to Spot in GDP Statistics (The Guardian)

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

The Benefits of Internet Innovation are Hard to Spot in GDP Statistics (The Guardian)

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow and Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz explains why technological innovation has little effect on measurements of economic success, even though most agree that it improves quality of life.

This is What a Job in the U.S.’s New Manufacturing Industry Looks Like (WaPo)

Lydia DePillis profiles one of the rising number of temp workers at factories in Tennessee, for whom the return of manufacturing hasn't meant the return of solid middle-class jobs.

Finding Home: Voices of the Baltimore Housing Mobility Program (The Century Foundation)

Stefanie DeLuca and Jessi Stafford examine the program's successes in moving families from low- to high-opportunity neighborhoods through two families' stories. They suggest this could break the cycle of poverty.

Let Them Eat Dignity (TAP)

Republicans think that accepting government handouts harms the soul, says Paul Waldman – but only if you're poor. No one talks about the lack of dignity in the mortgage interest deduction.

More Evidence That SNAP Caseloads Have Started Falling (Off The Charts)

For the fourth straight month, Dottie Rosenbaum reports, food stamps have dropped compared to the previous year. Critics can stop worrying about out-of-control safety net spending.

Schools Across the Country Offering Universal Free Lunch (MSNBC)

Ned Resnikoff reports on districts adopting community eligibility for school lunch: if over 40 percent of students qualify, then the entire district can get rid of the paperwork and give every student free lunch.

No, Americans Are Not All To Blame for the Financial Crisis (TNR)

Subprime mortgage holders shouldn't be blamed for today's economy, writes Dean Starkman. He places all the fault with Wall Street and the culture of profit above all.

When the 1 Percent Opposes Long-Term Economic Growth (The Week)

Ryan Cooper suggests that the wealthy care about long-term growth only as far as it helps them. When pro-growth policies would probably mean higher inflation, they don't see an urgent need for growth.

Share This

Daily Digest - March 10: Main Street Pays Rent to Wall Street

Mar 10, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Could a Wall Street Firm be Your Landlord? (Melissa Harris-Perry)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Dorian Warren points out the possibility that new rental-backed securities from Wall Street could pose a civil rights problem if they capitalize on communities of color.

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Could a Wall Street Firm be Your Landlord? (Melissa Harris-Perry)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Dorian Warren points out the possibility that new rental-backed securities from Wall Street could pose a civil rights problem if they capitalize on communities of color.

US Postal Service Inspector General Proposes Launching Low-Fee Public Bank (Real News Network)

Postal banking would aim to help low-income Americans who are currently unbanked, says Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal, without the predatory fees they would face at traditional banks.

The Real Story Behind the Detroit Pension Fight and What it Means to America's Future (Alternet)

Lynn Stuart Parramore speaks to Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Rob Johnson about the so-called pensions crisis. The key takeaway: cutting pensions is a choice, one that will cause harm for generations.

More on CBO and the Limits of Economic Analysis (On The Economy)

Jared Bernstein responds to a critique from Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Jeff Madrick, arguing that what needs to change isn't the Congressional Budget Office's analyses, but our lack of skepticism.

Unemployment in February Remains Elevated Across the Board (Working Economics)

Heidi Shierholz compares February's jobs report to pre-recession numbers, and argues that the sustained high unemployment across the board is proof that the jobs crisis comes from a lack of demand.

Why Americans Should Take August Off (The Nation)

Vacationing isn't a sign of laziness, writes Bryce Covert; it boosts spending and productivity, both of which would be great for the U.S. economy.

New on Next New Deal

What Les Misérables Can Teach Us About Paul Ryan's Poverty Plan

"Honest work, just reward" is a central conceit in GOP anti-poverty plans, but Nell Abernathy, Program Manager for the Roosevelt Institute's Bernard L. Schwartz Rediscovering Government Initiative, says this ignores the realities of low-income work.

Share This

Daily Digest - March 7: Holding Banks to a Higher Standard

Mar 7, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

What's the Deal: How to Make the Financial System Safer for Everyone with Mike Konczal (YouTube)

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

What's the Deal: How to Make the Financial System Safer for Everyone with Mike Konczal (YouTube)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal explains why banks need higher capital standards to prevent another collapse and discusses the economic reform issues that the Roosevelt Institute will be working on throughout 2014.

Obama's Budget and the Politics of Poverty (To The Point)

Mike Konczal speaks with Warren Olney about how the parties aim to split the budget for anti-poverty programs. The GOP would increase funding for some programs, but at the cost of others.

Paul Ryan Accidentally Makes the Case Against Means-Testing (MSNBC)

When Paul Ryan brings up a child who feels unloved because he gets free lunch instead of a brown-bag lunch, Ned Resnikoff sees an opening for giving all students free lunch.

Together, New Haven Activists and Leaders Strike Back Against Wage Theft (In These Times)

For the first time, local police brought larceny charges against an employer who shortchanged his workers. Melinda Tuhus says these steps will help to protect low-wage workers, including undocumented workers.

Unions and Job Security (PolicyShop)

Matt Bruenig counters a recent argument that unions can't provide real job security anymore. He says the point isn't absolute job security anyway, but safety from firing without cause.

The Foreclosure Nightmare Isn’t Over Yet (MSNBC)

Suzy Khimm reports on one family's five-year fight against foreclosure in Maryland. Policies requiring mediation have kept them in limbo, as have the mortgage servicer's repeated runarounds.

Democrat Says CFTC's Low Budget 'Sucks' (The Hill)

Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) says that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's lack of sufficient funding could be very dangerous if it handicaps enforcement, reports Tim Devaney.

Share This

Pages