Natalie Foster: Reimagine the Safety Net for the New Economy

May 21, 2015Laurie Ignacio

In the final installment of our "Good Economy of 2040" video series, we hear from Natalie Foster, co-founder of Peers.org and Rebuild the Dream.

In the final installment of our "Good Economy of 2040" video series, we hear from Natalie Foster, co-founder of Peers.org and Rebuild the Dream.

In order to ensure a good economy in 25 years, Foster would reimagine the safety net for the 21st century. “It’s important that we stop thinking about jobs and start talking about livelihoods as people will derive their income from a variety of different sources,” says Foster. She adds that we need a safety net that is designed not for the “old industrial economy where everyone had 9-to-5 jobs," but "for people who live much more fluid and free lives but who also have a greater level of economic instability."

To learn more about the future of the safety net, check out the links below

“Two Leaders in Labor Rethink The Safety Net For A Freelance Economy” (NationSwell)

“Safety Nets for Freelancers” (NY Times)

“George Takei and Michael Buckley on the Sharing Economy” (YouTube/AARP)

Natalie Foster has spent the last 15 years at the crossroads of social movements and technology. She’s transformed and run some of the largest digital teams in the country, including President Obama’s successful effort to pass health reform, and built two organizations from scratch. Most recently, Foster co-founded Peers.org, the world’s largest independent sharing economy community. Prior to Peers, she was the CEO and co-founder of Rebuild the Dream, a platform for people–driven economic change, with Van Jones. 

 

Share This

Make the Stop Overdose Stat Act a Priority for 2015

Feb 26, 2015Emily Cerciello

It’s time for Congress to take an evidence-based and public health focused approach to the epidemic of opioid overdoses.

It’s time for Congress to take an evidence-based and public health focused approach to the epidemic of opioid overdoses.

Opioid overdose is an epidemic in the United States. Drug overdose death rates have more than tripled since 1990, with the vast majority of these deaths attributable to an increase in the prescription and sale of opioid medications. The death rate from heroin overdose doubled between 2010 and 2012, and young people are now more likely to die from drug overdose than from motor vehicle crashes.

These statistics may be surprising, but their causes are familiar – commonly abused prescription opioid medications include names such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet, or codeine, as well as the illicit drug heroin, which creates similar pain-relieving effects. Prescription drugs are often considered a “gateway” to heroin use as heroin addiction often begins as a cheaper alternative to prescription painkillers.

In March 2014, Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) introduced the Stop Overdose Stat (SOS) Act to create a federal plan for preventing fatal drug overdoses and prioritizing community- and state-based efforts for the development of best practices. The SOS Act would provide federal support for overdose prevention programs, which can include training bystanders, law enforcement, and first responders in recognizing signs of overdose, seeking medical assistance, or administering naloxone. Naloxone is a life-saving medication that reverses the effects of heroin or opioid prescription overdose. As of December 2014, twenty-six states and the District of Columbia have removed legal barriers to provider prescription and layperson administration of naloxone. Additionally, 20 states and the District of Columbia have established Good Samaritan protection, which grants immunity from arrest for calling 911 to seek medical assistance in the event of overdose.

The SOS Act, cosponsored by 39 legislators, approaches opioid prevention and treatment through a public health and health equity lens. While no socioeconomic or demographic group is immune to the abuse of prescription drugs or heroin (the most dramatic increases have occurred among white, middle-aged women in rural areas), urban areas with large African American populations are still where the majority of overdoses are happening. The SOS Act would create a grant program administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that gives priority to community organizations working to prevent overdose in high-risk populations.

The SOS Act would also create a mechanism for detailed reporting of overdose data for the development of best practices for preventing overdose deaths. It would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop a national plan to be submitted to Congress within 180 days of enactment that incudes a public health campaign, recommendations for expanding overdose prevention programming, and recommendations for legislative action.

The bill was closed out of the 113th Congress, but should be reconsidered in the current session as the issue builds momentum in both Democratic- and Republican-led states. The re-introduction of the SOS Act is an opportunity for Congress to take immediate action in responding to a significant public health issue with a bipartisan solution. States are implementing evidence-based laws to address the worsening overdose epidemic. It is time for the federal government to follow suit.

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

Share This

Daily Digest - February 24: How to Recreate a Strong Middle Class

Feb 24, 2015Rachel Goldfarb

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

Free the Middle Class (USA Today)

Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Elijah Cummings argue that bringing back a strong middle class requires government intervention.

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

Free the Middle Class (USA Today)

Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Elijah Cummings argue that bringing back a strong middle class requires government intervention.

Even Better Than a Tax Cut (NYT)

Continually cutting taxes won't be possible if the government is going to function, argues Lawrence Mishel, which makes policies that push wage growth far more important right now.

NJ Judge Overturns Christie's Pension Cuts (AJAM)

Yesterday's ruling says that Christie could not choose to shortchange pensions in his 2014 budget, and he is now expected to make up the pension deficit by the end of the fiscal year in June.

A Student-Debt Revolt Begins (New Yorker)

Vauhini Vara speaks to one of 15 students from a now-closed for-profit college who are going on a "debt strike" because they argue the school's false promises make their loans invalid.

Retail Workers Are Quitting Their Jobs Like It’s 2007 (Buzzfeed)

Sapna Maheshwari ties the retail quits rate to recent moves by large retail employers to raise their wages. If workers are quitting because they can get better jobs, employers have to catch up.

Why Reform Conservatives Should Join the Democratic Party (The Week)

Jeff Spross argues that so-called reformicons would have much better luck with their policy priorities if they worked with Democrats, who actually support programs that help the poor.

Obama's Newest Plan Might Drive Investment Advisers Out of Business. Good. (Vox)

Matt Yglesias argues that it's for the best if financial advisors for the middle class are driven out of business, because they are only pushing products that make them money.

Share This

Daily Digest - February 18: Comcast Doesn't Want You to Know What You're Missing

Feb 18, 2015Rachel Goldfarb

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

The Big Lock-In (Medium)

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

The Big Lock-In (Medium)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Crawford explains how Comcast is trying to dominate online video to the point where consumers wouldn't even see that other alternatives exist.

Aid to Needy Often Excludes the Poorest in America (NYT)

Patricia Cohen says that in recent decades, assistance to the poorest – generally, those who are not working – has decreased, while government aid for those near the poverty line has increased.

Rep. Paul Ryan’s Double Standard: Only the Working Poor Must Comply With the Tax Code (WaPo)

Jared Bernstein calls out Rep. Ryan for allowing business tax breaks without compensating for the cost or strengthening enforcement, while any break for poor families must be offset elsewhere.

Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner: Organized Labor's Public Enemy No 1? (The Guardian)

The ferocity of Governor Rauner's attacks on labor, particularly public-sector unions, has surprised many, writes Steven Greenhouse, including labor leaders who need to negotiate new contracts.

Is Welfare Reform Causing Earlier Deaths? (The Nation)

Michelle Chen looks at a new study that shows how the shift from open-ended aid to our current welfare system, tied to employment, shortened lives and harmed children's cognitive growth.

American Companies Are Getting Older, Not Better (AJAM)

Aging businesses are creating fewer jobs than new companies, writes David Cay Johnston, and they also pay workers less and push for policies that slow economic growth as a whole.

Share This

Daily Digest - February 13: Campus Network Award Has Local Benefits

Feb 12, 2015Rachel Goldfarb

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

Cornell Roosevelt Institute to Benefit From Grant (Cornell Daily Sun)

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

Cornell Roosevelt Institute to Benefit From Grant (Cornell Daily Sun)

Stephanie Yan reports on how the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network's MacArthur Award will impact the Cornell chapter, which will benefit from new national training programs.

Philadelphia Joins the Growing Ranks of Cities Requiring Paid Sick Days (ThinkProgress)

Bryce Covert reports on Philadelphia's new paid sick leave law, which makes it the 17th U.S. city with such a law. Paid sick leave is expected to save businesses money due to reduced turnover.

These Motel Rooms Are the Last Resort for Families Without Homes (The Nation)

Leighton Akio Woodhouse profiles two families who are living in motels long-term because they cannot afford the upfront costs of an apartment, accompanied by photos by Elizabeth Lloyd Fladung.

At My Oil Refinery, My Life is Worth the Price of a Pie (The Guardian)

Butch Cleve, an oil refinery worker, explains why 5,000 oil and chemical workers have gone on strike for safer labor conditions. He shares stories of terrible – and preventable – accidents.

GOP Governors Want Higher Education Cuts to Recoup Budget Shortfalls (MSNBC)

Suzy Khimm points out four Republican governors whose states are still experiencing budget shortfalls, at least in part due to recent tax cuts, and are cutting education funding to close to the gap.

Jails Have Become Warehouses for the Poor, Ill and Addicted, a Report Says (NYT)

Timothy Williams reports on a new study from the Vera Institute of Justice, which shows how local jails imprison people for extended periods when they are unable to pay their relatively minor fines.

Obama Blasts Staples, and Reveals Larger Partisan Divide Over Workplace (WaPo)

Paul Waldman analyzes the president's statements about Staples limiting part-time workers' hours, noting that Democrats don't just aim to create jobs, but also try to improve workplaces.

Share This

The Obama Budget: Weak on Reproductive Health

Feb 9, 2015Andrea Flynn

Family planning is both vital for econoimc stability and a solid investment with strong returns, so why wasn't it better funded in the President's budget?

Family planning is both vital for econoimc stability and a solid investment with strong returns, so why wasn't it better funded in the President's budget?

Last week President Obama unveiled a 10-year budget that reflects the ambitious and progressive agenda he laid out in his State of the Union address. With investments in infrastructure, education, and economic supports for the middle class, the President’s funding plan aims to lift up low-income families and address the growing and historic U.S. class divide. But Obama has fallen short on one area that is critical to women and families: reproductive health.

There were hopes that the president would request a significant increase for Title X – the nation’s only program dedicated to providing quality, affordable reproductive health services – and also the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, a 1976 law that prohibits women from using federal health benefits such as Medicaid to pay for abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment. But Obama did neither.

Given conservative control of Congress, President Obama’s budget has little chance of being passed as is. But as John Cassidy pointed out in the New Yorker this week, the budget is as much a political document as it is an economic one. “The White House is using it to frame the political debate for this year and for the run-up to the 2016 Presidential election – an effort that began with the State of the Union address,” Cassidy wrote. Obama had an opportunity to show that reproductive health is a critical component of any agenda meant to lift up low-income families, and one the federal government must invest in if their other efforts are to bear fruit. But he missed that opportunity.

The president’s $300 million request was a modest increase from last year’s budget of $286.5 million – Title X’s first increase since 2010 – but still leaves the program woefully underfunded. Title X has still not recovered from the drastic cuts it endured between 2010 and 2013, when lawmakers cut the budget from $317 to $278 million, and as a result prevented 667,000 patients from receiving care. Family planning experts estimate that in order to completely fulfill the nation’s unmet need for reproductive health care, Title X would require somewhere in the ballpark of $800 million, a far cry from today’s budget.

Title X is like the little engine that could of public programs. It prevents more than one million unintended pregnancies annually, and thereby avoids nearly 600,000 unplanned births and more than 400,000 abortions. Without Title X, the U.S. unintended pregnancy and abortion rate would be 35 percent higher among adult women and 42 percent higher among teens. Not to mention that in 2010 every dollar invested in Title X saved $5.68. How’s that for a return on investment?

Not only is the program underfunded, but in states across the country conservative lawmakers have implemented restrictions that have prevented Title X funds from actually going to family providers, effectively chipping away at what was once a robust health safety net and exacerbating a pre-existing shortage of reproductive health providers. It is largely low-income women, women of color, immigrant women, and young women who are left without anywhere to turn for preventative care.

And what happens when those women find themselves needing to terminate a pregnancy? Between the restrictions set forth under the Hyde Amendment and the rapidly shrinking network of abortion providers, they have few options. In 1976 – just three years after the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion – Congress passed the Hyde Amendment and made abortion the only medical procedure ever banned from Medicaid. Ironically, Medicaid covers all the costs related to family planning and pregnancy.

By this point, you might be thinking this is all irrelevant, thanks to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). If only. While the ACA has extended care to scores of women who were previously uninsured, conservative opposition has diluted its potential impact and many people will remain without health coverage. Indeed, nearly four million women will be left without coverage this year thanks to conservative opposition to expanding Medicaid. In addition, federal restrictions ban many immigrants from Medicaid, the contraceptive mandate has been compromised and contraception is now your boss’s business, and this term the Supreme Court may very well take federal subsidies away from millions who need them in order to afford health insurance.

We need an increased investment in reproductive health now more than ever. If we are serious about improving the circumstances of low- and middle-income U.S. families, we must extend critical care and services to all of those who need and want them, and also shape the political debate in a way that will give all women and families all of the tools – not just a select few – that they need to thrive.

When the president, who espoused his support for reproductive rights in his State of the Union address, doesn’t push for a significant expansion of reproductive health care while he is putting his political capital behind broader education, income, and work-family supports, it signals that reproductive health, perhaps, is not as critical as these other issues. It suggests that with other supports women can lead economically secure lives, even if they cannot control their fertility and determine the timing and size of their families. That is simply not the case.

An agenda without bold investments in reproductive health is not a comprehensive agenda for women and families. And if women cannot access quality and affordable health care, they will not be able to make the most of the other important initiatives the president has proposed.

Andrea Flynn is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. Follow her on Twitter @dreaflynn.

Share This

Daily Digest - January 29: Without Food Stamps, How Many Kids Would Go Hungry?

Jan 29, 2015Rachel Goldfarb

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

Census Says 16m U.S. Children are Living on Food Stamps, Double the Number in 2007 (The Guardian)

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

Census Says 16m U.S. Children are Living on Food Stamps, Double the Number in 2007 (The Guardian)

One in five American children would go hungry without food stamps, writes Jana Kasperkevic, which makes continued Republican efforts to cut the program especially worrying.

The Tax Loophole (Almost) Everyone Should Want to Close (Medium)

James Kwak breaks down the step-up in basis for capital gains loophole and why he thinks it ought to be eliminated: because it's strange that our system rewards dying with unsold assets.

  • Roosevelt Take: In his white paper on tax reform, Roosevelt Institute Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz also argues against this loophole.

Fed Says It Will Be Patient in Raising Interest Rates, Citing ‘Solid’ Growth (NYT)

Binyamin Appelbaum reports on the Federal Reserve's latest statement and what it will mean for raising interest rates. At this point, rates won't be raised until at least June.

Don’t Mess With Government Giveaways to the Well-Off (WaPo)

Paul Waldman says the uproar over a suggested change to 529 college savings plans shows which welfare programs are safest: those that are open to all, but give most of their financial benefits to the upper-middle class.

Subprime Bonds Are Back With Different Name Seven Years After U.S. Crisis (Bloomberg Business)

Now called "nonprime" mortgage bonds, Jody Shenn says that this time the investment firms that originate the deals plan to retain the bulk of the risk instead of shifting it to other parties.

Obama Is Finally Getting Credit for the Recovery (TNR)

Danny Vinik says that the Republican arguments claiming the recovery happened in spite of the president's policies are falling apart, leaving no other option but to give him credit.

'Housing First' Policy for Addressing Homelessness Hamstrung By Funding Issues (TAP)

Rachel M. Cohen says that "housing first" policies are pretty clearly a more effective way to fight homelessness, but without sufficient funding and housing stock, can't be fully put into action.

Share This

Did Ending Unemployment Insurance Extensions Really Create 1.8 Million Jobs?

Jan 27, 2015Mike Konczal

According to a new study by Marcus Hagedorn, Iourii Manovskii and Kurt Mitman (HMM), Congress failing to reauthorized the extension of unemployment insurance (UI) resulted in 1.8 million additional people getting jobs. But wait, how does that happen when only 1.3 million people had their benefits expire?

The answer is by going off the normal path of these arguments in models, techniques and data. The paper has a nice write-up by Patrick Brennan here, but it’s one that doesn’t convey how different this paper is compared to the vast majority of the research. The authors made a well-criticized splash in 2013 by arguing that most of the rise in unemployment in the Great Recession was UI-driven; this new paper is a continuation of that approach.

Gold Standard Model. Before we go further, let’s understand what the general standard in UI research looks like. The model here is that UI makes it easier for workers to pass up job offers. As a result they’ll take a longer time to find a job, which creates a larger pool of unemployed people, raising unemployment. In order to test this, researchers use longitudinal data for individuals to compare the length of job searches for individuals who receive UI with those who do not.

This is the standard in the two biggest UI studies from the Great Recession. Both essentially use individuals not receiving UI as a control group to see what getting UI does for people’s job searches over time. Jesse Rothstein (2011) found that UI raised unemployment “by only about 0.1 to 0.5 percentage point.” Using a similar approach, Farber and Valletta (2013) later found “UI increased the overall unemployment rate by only about 0.4 percentage points.” These are generally accepted estimated.

And though small, they are real numbers. The question then becomes an analysis of the trade-offs between this higher unemployment and the positive effects of unemployment insurance, including income support, increased aggregate demand and the increased efficiency of people taking enough time to get the best job for them.

This is not what HMM do in their research. Either in terms of their data, which doesn’t look at any individuals, or their model, which tells a much different story than what we traditionally understand, or their techniques, which add additional problems. Let’s start with the model.

Model Problems. The results HMM get are radically higher than these other studies. They argue that this is because they look at the “macro” effects of unemployment insurance. Instead of just people searching for a job, they argue that labor-search models show that employers must boost the wages of workers and create fewer job openings as a result of unemployment insurance tightening the labor market.

But in their study HMM only look at aggregate employment. If these labor search dynamics were the mechanism, there should be something in the paper about actual wage data or job openings moving in response to this change. There is not. Indeed, their argument hinges entirely on the idea that the labor market was too tight, with workers having too much bargaining power, in 2010-2013. The end of UI finally relaxed this. If that’s the case, then where are the wage declines and corporate profit gains in 2014?

This isn’t an esoteric discussion. They are, in effect, taking a residual and calling it the “macro” effect of UI. But we shouldn’t take it for granted that search models can confirm these predictions without a lot of different types of evidence; as Marshall Steinbaum wrote in his appreciation of these models, when it comes to business cycles and wages predictions they are “an empirical disaster.”

Technique Problems. The model’s vagueness is amplified by the control issue. One of the nice things about the standard model is that people without UI make a nice control group for contrast. Here, HMM simply compare high-UI and low-UI duration states and then counties, without looking at individuals. They argue that since the expiration was done by Congress, it is essentially a random change.

But a quick glance shows their high benefits states group had an unemployment rate of 8.4 percent in 2012, while their low benefits states had an unemployment rate of 6.5 percent. Not random. As the economy recovers, we’d naturally expect to see the states with a higher initial unemployment rate recover faster. But that would just be “recovery”, not an argument about UI, much less workers' bargaining power.

Data Problems. Their county-by-county analysis is meant to cover for this, but this data is problematic here. As Dean Baker notes in an excellent post, the local area data they use is noisy, confusing based on whether the state is where one works versus lives, and is largely model driven. The fact that much of it is model-driven is problematic for their cross-state county comparisons.

Baker replaces their employment data with the more reliable CES employment data (the headline job creation number you hear every month) and finds the opposite headline result:

It's not encouraging that you can get the opposite result by changing from one data source to another. Baker isn’t the first to question the robustness of these results to even minor changes in the data. The Cleveland Fed, on an earlier version of their argument, found their results collapsed with a longer timeframe and excluding outliers. The fact that the paper doesn’t have robustness tests to a variety of data sources and measures also isn’t encouraging.

So data problems, control problems, and the vague sense that this is just them finding a residual and attribute all of it to their “macro” element without enough supporting evidence. Rather than turning over the vast research already done, I think it’s best to conclude as Robert Hall of Stanford and the Hoover Institute did for their earlier paper with a similar argument: “This paper has attracted a huge amount of attention, much of it skeptical. I think it is an imaginative and potentially important contribution, but needs a lot of work to convince a fair-minded skeptic (like me).” This newest version is no different.

 
Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

 

According to a new study by Marcus Hagedorn, Iourii Manovskii and Kurt Mitman (HMM), Congress failing to reauthorized the extension of unemployment insurance (UI) resulted in 1.8 million additional people getting jobs. But wait, how does that happen when only 1.3 million people had their benefits expire?

The answer is by going off the normal path of these arguments in models, techniques and data. The paper has a nice write-up by Patrick Brennan here, but it’s one that doesn’t convey how different this paper is compared to the vast majority of the research. The authors made a well-criticized splash in 2013 by arguing that most of the rise in unemployment in the Great Recession was UI-driven; this new paper is a continuation of that approach.

Gold Standard Model. Before we go further, let’s understand what the general standard in UI research looks like. The model here is that UI makes it easier for workers to pass up job offers. As a result they’ll take a longer time to find a job, which creates a larger pool of unemployed people, raising unemployment. In order to test this, researchers use longitudinal data for individuals to compare the length of job searches for individuals who receive UI with those who do not.

This is the standard in the two biggest UI studies from the Great Recession. Both essentially use individuals not receiving UI as a control group to see what getting UI does for people’s job searches over time. Jesse Rothstein (2011) found that UI raised unemployment “by only about 0.1 to 0.5 percentage point.” Using a similar approach, Farber and Valletta (2013) later found “UI increased the overall unemployment rate by only about 0.4 percentage points.” These are generally accepted estimated.

And though small, they are real numbers. The question then becomes an analysis of the trade-offs between this higher unemployment and the positive effects of unemployment insurance, including income support, increased aggregate demand and the increased efficiency of people taking enough time to get the best job for them.

This is not what HMM do in their research. Either in terms of their data, which doesn’t look at any individuals, or their model, which tells a much different story than what we traditionally understand, or their techniques, which add additional problems. Let’s start with the model.

Model Problems. The results HMM get are radically higher than these other studies. They argue that this is because they look at the “macro” effects of unemployment insurance. Instead of just people searching for a job, they argue that labor-search models show that employers must boost the wages of workers and create fewer job openings as a result of unemployment insurance tightening the labor market.

But in their study HMM only look at aggregate employment. If these labor search dynamics were the mechanism, there should be something in the paper about actual wage data or job openings moving in response to this change. There is not. Indeed, their argument hinges entirely on the idea that the labor market was too tight, with workers having too much bargaining power, in 2010-2013. The end of UI finally relaxed this. If that’s the case, then where are the wage declines and corporate profit gains in 2014?

This isn’t an esoteric discussion. They are, in effect, taking a residual and calling it the “macro” effect of UI. But we shouldn’t take it for granted that search models can confirm these predictions without a lot of different types of evidence; as Marshall Steinbaum wrote in his appreciation of these models, when it comes to business cycles and wages predictions they are “an empirical disaster.”

Technique Problems. The model’s vagueness is amplified by the control issue. One of the nice things about the standard model is that people without UI make a nice control group for contrast. Here, HMM simply compare high-UI and low-UI duration states and then counties, without looking at individuals. They argue that since the expiration was done by Congress, it is essentially a random change.

But a quick glance shows their high benefits states group had an unemployment rate of 8.4 percent in 2012, while their low benefits states had an unemployment rate of 6.5 percent. Not random. As the economy recovers, we’d naturally expect to see the states with a higher initial unemployment rate recover faster. But that would just be “recovery”, not an argument about UI, much less workers' bargaining power.

Data Problems. Their county-by-county analysis is meant to cover for this, but this data is problematic here. As Dean Baker notes in an excellent post, the local area data they use is noisy, confusing based on whether the state is where one works versus lives, and is largely model driven. The fact that much of it is model-driven is problematic for their cross-state county comparisons.

Baker replaces their employment data with the more reliable CES employment data (the headline job creation number you hear every month) and finds the opposite headline result:

It's not encouraging that you can get the opposite result by changing from one data source to another. Baker isn’t the first to question the robustness of these results to even minor changes in the data. The Cleveland Fed, on an earlier version of their argument, found their results collapsed with a longer timeframe and excluding outliers. The fact that the paper doesn’t have robustness tests to a variety of data sources and measures also isn’t encouraging.

So data problems, control problems, and the vague sense that this is just them finding a residual and attribute all of it to their “macro” element without enough supporting evidence. Rather than turning over the vast research already done, I think it’s best to conclude as Robert Hall of Stanford and the Hoover Institute did for their earlier paper with a similar argument: “This paper has attracted a huge amount of attention, much of it skeptical. I think it is an imaginative and potentially important contribution, but needs a lot of work to convince a fair-minded skeptic (like me).” This newest version is no different.

 
Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

 

Share This

After Four Decades with Roe, U.S. Women Still Need Abortion Access, and So Much More

Jan 23, 2015Andrea FlynnShulie Eisen

As economic inequality takes center stage in politics, it's important to remember that reproductive justice and bodily autonomy are just as essential for secure lives.

As economic inequality takes center stage in politics, it's important to remember that reproductive justice and bodily autonomy are just as essential for secure lives.

Yesterday’s 42nd anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision prompted a week of stark contradictions. Thousands of anti-choice protesters descended on Washington yesterday while the House of Representatives passed HR7, a bill limiting insurance coverage for abortions (after a broader abortion ban was – for the time – abandoned). Yesterday, Congressional Democrats re-introduced the Women’s Health Protection Act, a bill meant to protect abortion access from the medically unnecessary restrictions that have already made the landmark decision meaningless in many parts of the country. And in his State of the Union address on Tuesday night, President Obama professed his support for abortion rights, along with equal pay, paid sick and family leave, a minimum wage hike, and expanded health coverage. It’s all been a reminder of what has been won and just how much there is left to fight for – from abortion rights to economic security.

Over the past four years we’ve seen an unprecedented number of attacks on reproductive health – more than 200 between 2011 and 2013 – leaving many states with a scant number of abortion providers. Scores of women are now required to travel long distances, at great cost, to access not just abortion, but a wide range of comprehensive health services.

While reproductive health has certainly been the obsession of choice of conservative lawmakers in recent years, it hasn’t been the only issue in their crosshairs. In many ways, the increasing hostility to abortion and family planning is reflective of a broader war against the poor that is sure to persist under the new Congress. It turns out the same lawmakers who have championed abortion restrictions in the name of protecting women’s health have done very little to actually help women and families. Indeed, a recent report from the Center for Reproductive Rights and Ibis Reproductive Health shows that states with the most abortion restrictions also have some of the worst indicators for women’s health and wellbeing. So lawmakers are restricting access to health services at the same time they are dismantling the social safety net on which so many women and families rely. The overall impact has been devastating.

In states across the country, women are struggling under the burden of intersecting health and economic injustices. Let’s look, for example, at Kansas, where conservative Governor Brownback slashed business regulations, cut taxes for the wealthy, nearly eliminated income taxes, and privatized Medicaid delivery, all with the goal of making the state a conservative utopia. In the meantime, Kansas women continue to struggle with high rates of poverty, a lack of health insurance, un- and underemployment, and a persistent wage gap. Kansas is one of the sixteen states that refuse to participate in Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, leaving nearly 80,000 adults (half of whom are women) uninsured. It is the only state in the country that actually experienced an increase in its uninsured rate last year.

To make matters worse for women in Kansas, lawmakers eliminated abortion access from 98 percent of the state’s counties – in which 74 percent of the state’s women live – and passed House Bill 2253, a 47-page law comprised of countless and senseless abortion restrictions. It included a 24-hour waiting period; medically inaccurate pre-abortion counseling; prohibiting abortion providers from working or volunteering in public schools; banning University of Kansas Medical School faculty members from teaching students and residents how to perform abortions; and eliminating public health insurance coverage of all abortion services. And the list goes on. Sadly these laws are not unique to Kansas and they have significantly diluted the initial promise Roe held four decades ago.

The economic injustices described above, and those being felt by low-income families throughout the country, are starting to get the attention they deserve, and the policy solutions to address them are gaining traction (see the recent support for raising the minimum wage and instituting paid sick and family leave). But while economists and policymakers are increasingly focused on the pernicious impacts of inequality and economic insecurity, they rarely acknowledge how these issues intersect with reproductive health and rights.

Let us use the anniversary of Roe to remember there can be no economic justice without reproductive justice. We can’t win on one front while losing on the other. Reproductive health – a cornerstone of which is family planning and abortion – is not a frill. It is a core component of comprehensive health care, which is a basic pillar of every individual’s personal, social, and economic wellbeing.

What good is better and more equal pay if we can’t plan the timing and size of our families? What good is paid sick and family leave if there are no quality, affordable, and accessible providers to give us the care we need when we need it? We need all of it. Now. That’s just demanding a basic – very basic – floor of wellbeing. And that shouldn’t be too much to ask. Roe has served as part of that foundation for the last 42 years. But conservatives have successfully chipped away at it and will continue to do so until there’s nothing left to stand on. Perhaps we can seize upon the new energy around closing the inequality gap to remind our leaders that without bodily autonomy, we will never be secure.  

Andrea Flynn is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. Follow her on Twitter @dreaflynn.

Shulie Eisen is an independent reproductive health care consultant. Follow her on Twitter @shulieeisen.

Share This

Daily Digest - January 22: Going Beyond the State of the Union

Jan 22, 2015Rachel Goldfarb

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

Obama’s Proposal On Inequality: Is It Enough? (Here & Now)

Roosevelt Institute Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz speaks to Jeremy Hobson about the State of the Union, emphasizing that the president's proposals don't go far enough.

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

Obama’s Proposal On Inequality: Is It Enough? (Here & Now)

Roosevelt Institute Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz speaks to Jeremy Hobson about the State of the Union, emphasizing that the president's proposals don't go far enough.

Is Net Neutrality the Real Issue? (Marketplace)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Crawford believes that monopoly control of Internet service providers, and the payments they extract from content providers, could be a larger concern.

Obama Says Family Leave Is an Economic Necessity, Not Just a Women’s Issue (NYT)

Claire Cain Miller praises the president for recognizing that child care and paid family leave should be treated as national economic priorities.

The Grand Old Party … for the Poor? (MSNBC)

Suzy Khimm points out how Republican responses to the State of the Union tried to tie the party to anti-poverty efforts, despite continued support for policies that cut the safety net.

First Thing We Do, Tax All the Banks: Why Obama's Middle-Class Economics Plan Makes Good Sense (The Guardian)

David Dayen says that the president's proposal to tax banks on their liabilities, or what they owe, is a potential first step toward additional financial reform needed post-Dodd-Frank.

New on Next New Deal

Obama’s Middle Class Economics Has to be About Fairness and Prosperity

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch says the president's speech left out an important story about middle-class economics: these policies are better for the economy than Republican austerity.

Share This

Pages