It is not that Trump’s economic policies improve upon his predecessors in the White House. Indeed there is every reason to believe that his tariffs and deep cuts to the federal workforce will dry up even more the buying power that is the lifeblood of a consumer economy. A second Great Depression is not out of the question. But our economic woes did not begin under Trump; the country was already on the wrong path. Trump merely hit the accelerator.
Said Desjon Yisrael, a 35-year-old African American who sells work boots and drives part-time for DoorDash to make ends meet near Greensboro, North Carolina:
“It’s the gig economy. It really baffles me that people think that the economy (was) doing really well (under Biden).”
Opposition MPs and unions are criticising a proposal by New Zealand’s Ministry of Pacific Peoples to cut staff by 40 percent.
The country’s largest trade union — The Public Service Association — says the ministry has informed staff that it is looking to shed 63 of 156 positions.
Opposition MPs have slammed the decision, which they say will undermine the delivery of services to Pasifika communities in New Zealand.
Labour MP and former deputy prime minister Carmel Sepuloni said it also reduced a Pasifika voice in the public sector.
“Our overriding concern is not only the impact on direct support from the delivery of services to communities, but also the equality of advice that would be offered across government agencies in areas such as health, housing or education,” Sepuloni said.
“We would have a thought that Pacific people should be a priority given the fact that many of the challenges in New Zealand at the moment disproportionately affect Pacific people.”
The slash is the latest proposal by government to cut staff across the public sector. Within the last week alone, the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Ministry of Health proposed cuts amounting to more than 400 positions.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said the cuts were needed to “right size” the public service.
Staff cuts had long been promoted by Luxon in order to fund a tax cut package.
“What’s happened here is that we’ve actually hired 14,000 more public servants and then on top of that, we’ve had a blowout of the consultants and contractor budget from $1.2 billion to $1.7 billion, and it’s gone up every year over the last five to six years,” Luxon said.
“And really what it speaks to is look, at the end we’re not getting good outcomes,” he added.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon . . . cuts needed to “right size” the public service. Image: RNZ/Angus Dreaver
But critics say the cuts will only cause mass unemployment and undermine services needed across New Zealand. Public Sector Association national secretary Duane Leo said the cuts would have far-reaching consequences for the health and well-being of Pasifika families in Aotearoa.
“We know that Pasifika families are more likely to be in overcrowded unhealthy housing situations and challenging environments, and they’re also suffering from the current cost of living,” Leo said.
“The ministry plays an active role in supporting housing development, the creation of employment opportunities, supporting Pasifika languages cultures and identities, developing social enterprises — this all going to suffer.
“The government is after these savings to finance $3 billion worth of tax cuts to support landlords … why are they prioritising that when they could be funding services that New Zealanders rely on.”
NZ’s Ministry of Pacific Peoples . . . the massive cut indicates a move to get rid of the ministry, something that has long been promoted by Coalition partner – the ACT Party. Image: Ministry of Pacific Peoples
The extent of staff cuts will be revealed next month when the New Zealand government is expected to announce its Budget on May 30.
Sepuloni said the massive cut indicated a move to get rid of the ministry, something that has long been promoted by Coalition partner — the ACT Party.
“We have to wonder if these are the first steps towards abolishing the Ministry,” Sepuloni said.
“It’s undermining the funding to an extent that it looks like they’re trying to make the ministry as ineffective as possible, and potentially justify what ACT has wanted from the beginning . . . which is to disestablish the ministry.”
In response to criticism about cuts to the Ministry of Pacific Peoples, Finance Minister Nicola Willis said all government agencies should be engaging with the Pacific community — not just the Ministry of Pacific Peoples.
Willis said the agency had grown significantly in recent years and a rethink was appropriate.
“It’s our expectation as a government that every agency engaged effectively with the Pacific community not just that ministry,” Willis said.
“We think the growth that has gone on in that ministry was excessive.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Academic Andrew Anton Mako says the Papua New Guinea’s systemic dysfunction was plain to see in the rioting and looting throughout the country’s main cities two weeks ago.
That rioting was sparked by a protest by police after unannounced deductions from their wages.
It led to a riot causing the deaths of more than 20 people, widespread looting and hundreds of millions of dollars damage to businesses.
Andrew Anton Mako of ANU . . . “the government and the policymakers really need to take a comprehensive approach.” Image: DevPolicy Blog
The government, which declared a two-week long state of emergency, put the wage deductions down to a glitch in the system.
Mako, who is a visiting lecturer and project coordinator for the ANU-UPNG Partnership with the Australian National University’s Development Policy Centre, said that the rioting would not have happened if the system was working properly.
“That information could have been transmitted through the system so that not only the police officers, but other public servants would have been assured that there was a glitch in the system, and then they would return the money in the next pay,” he said.
Symptom of major problems
“I think that information could have been made available to the officers quickly and the protests should not have happened.”
He said it was not an isolated event but a symptom of major problems facing the country.
“The government and the policymakers really need to take a comprehensive approach in addressing that,” Mako said.
He said that in the administration there were entire areas where little development or reform had happened in a generation.
The last attempt to look at the government machinery was more than 20 years, under Sir Mekere Morauta, but since then “there hasn’t been any sort of reforms to improve governance, improve public safety, efficiency, and all that.”
Mako believes if the work of Sir Mekere had been continued the country would not be facing the problems it is at the moment.
What reforms are needed Mako said the government needs to know it faces major issues that cannot be resolved quickly — they will need to think in terms of years before reforms can be bedded in.
“It’s not going to be easy, they have to really work on it for a number of years. They will have to come up with a reform agenda work on it for the next four or five years.”
Up to now, Mako said, politicians have just dealt with the symptoms, rather than addressing the underlying issues, such as unemployment.
He sees the high crime rate as being closely linked to the lack of work opportunities, along with high inflation and the failure of wages to keep pace.
“The focus has to be on the sectors that create jobs. So over the last few years, over the last decade or so, a lot of focus has really been on the resources sector, the mineral, petroleum and gas sector.
“Those sectors are really called enclave sectors and they have really limited linkage with the broader sectors of the economy,” Mako said.
“So the mineral sectors do not create a lot of jobs. A lot of the jobs [there] are done by either machines or highly skilled workers. So it is the sectors like agriculture, like fisheries, like tourism, forestry, those are the sectors really, really create jobs.”
Mako added the government should be focussing on investing in, and developing policies, in these traditional sectors, enabling many of the unemployed, especially the young, to find work.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.
Let us close this blog and this Primer with an examination of three propositions on the nature of money. This has been a long and difficult blog. You might need to read it twice. Or three times.
The main objections to MMT are the belief that adoption of a fiat money necessarily leads to high inflation and perceived government inefficiency. Let’s expose these boogeymen.
Once one understands that sovereign governments do not have to force millions to suffer involuntary unemployment, then the ethically defensible position of opposing a Job Guarantee is narrowed.
The August jobs numbers were mostly good with one big exception, a 0.3 percentage point rise in the unemployment rate to 3.8 percent. This is still a relatively low rate. Coming out of the Great Recession, many economists argued that the unemployment rate could not get below 5.0 percent without triggering spiraling inflation, so an unemployment rate below 4.0 percent looks pretty good by…
When the COVID-19 pandemic hit the labor market and women lost millions of jobs, the country plunged into the first women’s recession. It was the first time women had experienced more job losses than men in one catastrophic economic contraction. Economists feared it could take decades for women to recover. But just three years later, that recovery has already arrived. As a group, women are back to…
Parliament has ended for another term, shutting down ahead of the Aotearoa New Zealand election campaign with a debate where many focused on attacking their political opponents.
Labour Party leader and Prime Minister Chris Hipkins warned New Zealanders: “We can continue to move forward under Labour, or we can face a coalition of cuts, chaos, and fear: A National/ACT/New Zealand First government that would be one of the most inexperienced and untested in our history.”
Parliament typically rises at the end of a term with an adjournment debate, and Thursday’s seemed to confirm the coming election on October 14 would be full of negative campaigning.
Here is a brief summary of the political leaders’ speeches:
Chris Hipkins (Labour):
Labour Party leader and PM Chris Hipkins . . . “Ours is a government that has been forged through fire. Every challenge that has been thrown our way, we have risen to that.” Image: RNZ/Angus Dreaver
Labour’s leader and incumbent Prime Minister Chris Hipkins launched into the closing adjournment debate reflecting on the eventful past six years. He said his own tenure in the role had not broken that mould, with the Auckland floods sweeping in just two days after he was sworn in, followed by Cyclone Gabrielle.
“Ours is a government that has been forged through fire. Every challenge that has been thrown our way, we have risen to that,” he said.
He said Labour had achieved a lot, but there was more to do — and much at stake in the coming election.
“We can continue to move forward under Labour, or we can face a coalition of cuts, chaos, and fear: A National/ACT/New Zealand First government that would be one of the most inexperienced and untested in our history, a government who want to wind the clock back on all of the progress that we are making.”
He praised Finance Minister Grant Robertson’s handling of the economy, highlighting a 6 percent larger economy than before the covid-19 pandemic, record low unemployment, and wages “growing faster under our government than inflation”.
He soon returned to attacking political opponents, however.
“Now is not the time to turn back. Now is not the time to stoke the inflationary fires with unfunded tax cuts as the members opposite promised, and it is not a time to turn our backs on talent by introducing a talent tax,” he said, referring to National’s plan to increase levies on visas.
“National wants to turn the clock backwards; we want to keep moving forward.”
He finished by saying Labour had a positive vision for New Zealand, before his final parting words: “and I wave goodbye to Michael Woodhouse, too, because he’s guaranteed not to be here after the election”.
Christopher Luxon (National):
National Party leader Christopher Luxon . . . “[The Labour government] turned out it was all words and no action, because, as we expected, [Hipkins] just carried on doing more of the same: Excessive, addicted government spending.” Image: RNZ/Angus Dreaver
The National leader said Hipkins’ speech should be one of apology, “to the parents and the kids who actually have been let down by an education system …to all the people who have waited for endless times and hours in hospital emergency departments … to all the victims of ram raids in dairies and superettes … to all the people that are lying awake at night worried about how they’re going to make their payments and keep their house.”
He continued with the requisite thanks such speeches so often sprinkle on officials, staff, supporters and workers before thanking the man he had been criticising.
“I do want to thank, in particular, the Prime Minister Chris Hipkins for his services to the National Party, because he rode in very triumphantly in February, and he announced that he was sweeping away everything that Jacinda Ardern stood for-especially kindness. But I have to say it turned out it was all words and no action, because, as we expected, he just carried on doing more of the same: Excessive, addicted government spending.
He turned to the slew of Labour personnel problems of the past year and more, likening the government to a car with the wheels falling off; the Greens were “in this rally too, they’re on their e-bikes, and they’re pedalling along the Wellington cycle lanes,” while Te Pāti Māori were “in their waka, but, sadly, they’re not the party of collaboration that they once were”.
“Then there are the ACT folk. They’re off in their pink van, and it’s been wonderful. They’re travelling the countryside, and David’s reading Mandela’s Long Walk to Freedom, which is a good read, as you well know, Mr Speaker.”
He lavished praise on his own team, singling out deputy Nicola Willis, then closed by promising National was “ready to govern, we are sorted, we are united, we have the talent, we have the energy, we have the ideas, we have the diversity to take this country forward”.
David Seymour (ACT):
ACT party leader David Seymour . . . “Half the people who voted for Labour at the last election have abandoned voting for Labour in three years. The question that they must be asking themselves is why that is.” Image: RNZ/Angus Dreaver
ACT’s leader also honed in on his political opponents, targeting Labour’s polling.
“It’s been a long three years in this Chamber and it has been characterised by one fact that lays bare what has happened, and that is the fact that the Labour Party, in Roy Morgan, polled 26 percent. That means that half the people who voted for Labour at the last election have abandoned voting for Labour in three years. The question that they must be asking themselves is why that is.”
“I think the reason that we have so much change and support-Labour have lost half of their supporters in the last three years because, frankly, never has so much been promised to so many and yet so little actually delivered … New Zealanders overwhelmingly say this country is going in the wrong direction, and they also will tell you that their number one concern is the cost of living. That is Grant Robertson’s epitaph.”
He targeted housing, debt, inflation, victimisation, and child poverty before targeting the government for taking “a divisive approach to almost every single issue”.
“If you take the example of vaccination. Now, I’m a person who says that vaccination was safe and effective, yet by using ostracism as a tool to try and increase vaccination levels this government has eroded social cohesion and divided New Zealanders when they didn’t need to,” he said.
“New Zealand have had enough of that style of politics. They’ve had enough of Chris Hipkins going negative. They’ve had enough of the misinformation.”
He finished by saying the choice for New Zealanders now was not between swapping “Chris for Chris and red for blue”, but “we’ll actually deliver what we promise, we’ll cut waste, we’ll end racial division, and we’ll get the politics out of the classroom. Those aren’t just policies, those are values that we all share.”
James Shaw (Greens):
Green Party co-leader James Shaw . . . “Our greenhouse gas emissions in Aotearoa are falling, and that is because — and it is only because — with the Green Party in government with Labour, we have prioritised that work every single day.” Image: RNZ/Angus Dreaver
The Green co-leader took his own opening shot at Seymour, as “the leader of ‘New New Zealand First’”.
“Mr Seymour must be feeling quite grumpy right now, because last term he worked so hard to get rid of Winston Peters so that this term he could become Winston Peters, and now Winston Peters is calling and he wants his Horcrux back because that blackened shard of a soul can only animate the body of one populist authoritarian at once.”
He turned the hose on both major parties in one statement, saying it was odd National was proposing more new taxes than Labour while the Greens were promising bigger tax cuts than National. He criticised National over its plan to spend the funds from the Emissions Trading Scheme, before turning to climate change overall as — unusually — a source of positivity.
“Our greenhouse gas emissions in Aotearoa are falling, and that is because — and it is only because — with the Green Party in government with Labour, we have prioritised that work every single day.”
But positivity did not last long.
“Under the last National government, one in 100 new cars sold in this country was an electric vehicle. Last June, it was one in two … and National want to cancel all of that so that they can have an election year bribe.”
Rawiri Waititi (Te Pāti Māori):
Te Pati Māori MPs Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi (speaking) . . . “Te Pāti Māori is a movement that leaves no one behind, whether you are tangata whenua or a tangata Tiriti, tangata hauā, takatāpui, wāhine, tāne, rangatahi, mokopuna — you are whānau.” Image: Johnny Blades
The Pāti Māori leader Rawiri Waititi began with a fairy tale.
“It seems like this side of the House can find a grain of salt in a sugar factory. I just wanted to say, as I heard the story about Goldilocks — Mama Bear, Papa Bear, Baby Bear — I tell you, it’s been very difficult to sit next to a polar bear and a gummy bear, and it’s been quite hard to contain the grizzly bear in me.”
He spoke in te reo Māori before giving a speech which — unlike the other leaders — focused exclusively on his own party’s promises.
“We are the only movement that will fight for our people,” he said.
“What does an Aotearoa hou look like? It looks like how we would treat you on the marae. We will welcome you. We will feed you. We will house you. We will protect you. We will educate you. We will care you. We will love you.”
“Te Pāti Māori is a movement that leaves no one behind, whether you are tangata whenua or a tangata Tiriti, tangata hauā, takatāpui, wāhine, tāne, rangatahi, mokopuna — you are whānau.”
He spoke of the need to reduce poverty and homelessness, before making the second of two references to his suspension from Parliament this week, then said it was time to “believe in ourselves to be proud, to be magic, and to believe in your mana”.
“I am proud of you all, I am proud of our movement, and I’m proud to head into this campaign, doing what we said we would do.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
The establishment and household surveys told two different stories in May. The jobs numbers for the month were surprisingly high, with the survey showing a gain of 339,000 jobs. In addition, the numbers for the prior two months were revised up, so that the three-month average now stands at 283,000 jobs. At the same time, the household survey showed a drop in employment of 310,000…
For Disney workers, the “Magic Kingdom” is quickly losing its magic. The company recently announced that it was laying off 7,000 workers to cut operating costs, pulling the rug out from under thousands of employees who had dedicated themselves to their work at Disney. The layoffs were praised by the business community, including the billionaire hedge fund investor Nelson Peltz…
Surprising most analysts and forecasters, employers added a whopping 517,000 jobs in January, according to Friday morning’s monthly labor report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This was almost twice the growth from December’s 260,000 jobs. The unemployment rate fell to 3.4 percent, the lowest since 1969.
What does this mean?
It may mean very little. The Bureau of Labor Statistics’s monthly report can bounce around a lot, depending on seasonal weights and samples. Next month’s job number could be far lower.
Also, keep your eye on wage growth. Average hourly earnings climbed in January at a slower pace than in December — by an annualized 4.4 percent, down from 4.8 percent in December. With prices still rising faster than wages, most workers continue to suffer declining real wage – that is, declining purchasing power.
But the strength of the labor market is likely to worry the Fed, which last Wednesday raised interest rates for the eighth time in a year – although only by a quarter of a percentage point this time.
“The labor market continues to be out of balance,” Jerome Powell, the Fed chair, said earlier this week. He stressed that we won’t have a return to his target 2 percent inflation in the service sector “without a better balance in the labor market,” adding “I don’t know what that will require in terms of increased unemployment.”
As I’ve said many times over the past year, this worry is misplaced. Most of the upward pressure on prices domestically is coming from big corporations with the market power to raise prices faster than their costs are rising. Much of the rest is coming from continuing supply shocks abroad, including Putin’s war’s effects on global energy and food prices, and China’s lockdowns followed by COVID.
And, as Friday’s report shows, wage gains are slowing and they lag behind price increases.
The basic reality is American workers don’t have the power to raise their wages. Big American corporations have the power to raise their prices. The Fed should not be aiming to increase unemployment as a means of slowing prices.
This post was originally published on Common Dreams.
The January jobs report was far stronger than had been predicted, with the economy adding 517,000 jobs. There was also a big increase in the length of the average workweek from 34.4 hours to 34.7 hours, which led to an extraordinary 1.2 percent rise in the index of aggregate hours. The average hourly wage increased by 10 cents, bringing the annual increase over the last three months to 4.6 percent.
The December employment report showed a very strong labor market but much less evidence of inflationary pressures than in prior months. The unemployment rate fell back to 3.5 percent, its half-century low. The U-6 measure of labor market slack fell to 6.5 percent, its lowest level on record. At the same time, wage growth moderated. There was a sharp downward revision to the November data. With 0.3…
The economy added 263,000 jobs in November, again coming in ahead of expectations. Perhaps more importantly, wages continue to grow at a rapid pace, as the October average hourly wage was revised up by 6 cents. The annual rate of wage growth over the last three months was 5.1 percent, the same as the rate over the last year. The rapid pace of wage growth paints a very different picture than we…
Skidrow in Los Angeles, California (Photo: Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)
The agenda was set with the Lewis Powell Memorandum in 1971. Written at the request of the United States Chamber of Commerce, probably the most influential structure of capitalist rule at the time, the concern for the Chamber was the need to find a more coherent counter-offensive to the attacks against the system over the previous years. At the center of the anti-system attacks during the 1960s was, of course, the Black Liberation Movement and the Anti-War movement.
Powell made the argument that the capitalist class had to recognize that their very survival was at stake and that meant capitalists had to understand that as a class their interests transcended their individual enterprises.
And while the tone of Powell’s memo was “professional” and lacked rhetorical excesses, the need for a more intentional and strategic class war was the call that leaped out from the Powell memo.
The day is long past when the chief executive officer of a major corporation discharges his responsibility by maintaining a satisfactory growth of profits, with due regard to the corporation’s public and social responsibilities. If our system is to survive, top management must be equally concerned with protecting and preserving the system itself.
The policy implications were obvious. The U.S. ruling class concluded that it could no longer afford the “excesses” of the liberal welfare state and reform liberalism that as far as it was concerned had produced a failed war strategy, cultural decadence, rampant inflation, urban riots and demands for rights from groups representing every sector of U.S. society.
This was the beginning of the right-wing neoliberal turn. A societal-wide counterrevolutionary policy that also required a domestic counterinsurgency strategy that would have a military, but more importantly, an ideological/cultural component. Domestically the main target of the counterinsurgency would be the revolutionary nationalist and socialist forces of the Black liberation movement and “new communist” formations.
Internationally, the turn to neoliberalism translated into a brutal intensification of colonial/capitalist (imperialist) value extraction from nations in the global South buttressed by weak, corrupt, repressive neocolonial states politically and militarily propped-up by the U.S.
The neoliberal counterrevolution produced irreconcilable contradictions that we are living through today. The gap between rich and poor nations and between workers and capitalists had never been more pronounced and immiseration so cruel.
For the Black working class, the neoliberal turn was a catastrophe. The off-shoring of the U.S. industrial base with its relatively high paying jobs along with the reorganization of the economy to a service economy and the privatization wave that devastated social services and public employment where black workers were disproportionately located created structural precarity that only needed one incident to push tens of thousands into desperation. In the 2000s there were two. Hurricane Katrina and the economic collapse of 2008 that saw the greatest loss of Black wealth and income since the end of the reconstruction period between 1877 and 1896.
Compounding this devastation, the crimes against humanity represented by the 2020 covid pandemic in which literally tens of thousands of Black people, mainly poor, unnecessarily died because the state failed to protect their fundamental human rights to health and social security.
While Katrina exposed the fragility of Black life in the Gulf Coast, the economic crisis of 2008 just a few years later plugged millions of African workers into a desperate, depression era scramble for survival in conditions where Black labor was superfluous, and the very existence of Black life was seen as a social problem. The mass slaughter of the covid pandemic closed out the first two decades of a century that was supposed to exemplify “American” greatness with a demoralized and confused electorate turning to a washed-up hack politician named Joe Biden.
Midterm Elections: If Stopping Fascism is on the Ballot, what was it the Africans Experienced all These Years?
Neoliberalism was a rightist capitalist reform project. Today it informs the context for the midterms elections for African/Black workers. The objective material needs of Black workers and our desire for self-determination, independent development and peace were not on the ballot.
And while the duopoly represents the primary political contradiction obscuring the reality of the dictatorship of capital, the most aggressive neoliberal actors now operate in and through the democratic party. Consequently, the unspoken character of the competition between the two parties is that elections have now shaped up since 2016 as a contest between the far-right elements represented today by Trump forces and the neoliberal right represented by corporate democrats tied to finance capital and transnational corporations.
This is the undemocratic choice. The republicans represent the disaffected white nationalist petit-bourgeoisie settlers who think they are indigenous to this land. The ruling corporate capitalist elements of that party are for the most part nationalist oriented, dependent for their profits on the domestic economy. Some elements produce for the global markets, but they are in constant struggle with big capital as the capitalist economy “naturally” concentrates into its monopoly stage.
Democrats who historically had been associated with labor and the common man even during the period when it was the party of racist segregation under the apartheid system in the South, is today the party controlled by U.S. based monopoly capital. For workers, this form of bourgeois democracy has no space or structure representing the interests of workers, the poor and structurally oppressed. The working class and poor are slowly beginning to understand that.
That is why early evidence suggests that African/Black workers did not participate in numbers that were necessary for the democrats to have prevailed in some of those key races. The democrats have nothing to offer, no policies, no hope, and no vision.
Some of the cowardice phony “progressives” in that party suggest that the national democrats did not push an economic message even though it was clear that the economic crisis was their most pressing concern.
But what economic message? The democrats long ago abandoned their base and they continue to desperately find ways to dilute the influence of their most loyal base – African Americans – by seeking out that elusive white, primarily women, suburban vote.
What the midterms reaffirmed is that the class war that Powell advocated for in the 70s as a primary strategic objective of the ruling class continues and is intensifying, even as the ruling class is in crisis and cannot rule in the same way. This means that the people must disabuse themselves of all illusions and sentimental ideas around common national interests with this reckless and increasingly irrational bourgeoisie.
We cannot allow ourselves to fall prey to the slick propaganda that diverts attention away from the failures of the capitalist system. January 6th and Trump, evil Putin, the calculating Chinese, the exaggerated crime issue, and immigration issue, are all meant to divert us away from the fact that our lives are empty, that we have no time for friends and family, mindless soul crushing work characterizes our existence, if we have it, and the fear and anxiety that comes from a precarious existence saps our spirits and turns our confusion and anger inward.
Ideological clarity that stems from a liberated consciousness directs us to the conclusion that it is the system that is the enemy. Not our neighbor, or the undocumented gardener or food delivery person, not the peoples of Nicaragua, Haiti, Venezuela and Cuba who just want to live in their own way and in peace.
The democrat party is a morally bankrupt shell, hollowed out by years of lies and corruption. Many do not want to accept the bitter reality that we (Africans and colonized peoples) must objectively acknowledge that nothing will substantially change by this election or any other bourgeois election. We can and must contest in those spaces but we are clear – as long as power is retained by the Pan European colonial/capitalist dictatorship Black people will continue to suffer and collective humanity will face an existential threat.
The economy added 261,000 jobs in October, somewhat faster than most analysts had expected. Despite the rapid job growth, unemployment edged up slightly to 3.7 percent. Perhaps most importantly, it seems wage growth is settling down to a level consistent with the Fed’s 2.0 percent inflation target. Over the last three months, it has increased at a 3.9 percent annual rate. That compares to a 3.4 percent rate in 2019, when inflation was comfortably below the Fed’s target.
Job Growth Led by Health Care and Manufacturing
Job growth was strong across sectors, but it was especially strong in health care and manufacturing. Health care added 52,600 workers in October, and it has added 298,800 workers since May. This is largely catch-up since the sector’s employment had lagged earlier in the recovery. It is now 0.5 percent above the pre-pandemic level.
Manufacturing added 32,000 jobs in October, and employment in the sector is now 1.1 percent above the pre-pandemic level. Manufacturing is usually hit hard in a recession, but to date does not seem to have been much affected by the Fed’s rate hikes.
Construction Employment Edges Up, Jobs Related to Mortgage Financing Fall
Higher interest rates have certainly taken a toll on construction, as is most evident in the plunge in housing starts. Nonetheless, employment in the sector increased by 1,000 in October, with residential construction showing a small gain. Employment is now 1.3 percent above pre-pandemic levels. Workers are still needed to finish the many homes that are still under construction.
The impact on the credit intermediation sectors that are involved in mortgage issuance is easier to see. The number of people working in these sectors fell by 4,400 in October and is now down 36,600 from its April peak.
Airlines Add Jobs, Internet Retailers Lose Jobs
The airline industry added 4,200 jobs in October. Employment is now 10.6 percent above its pre-pandemic level, even though air travel is still below pre-pandemic levels. Employment at Internet retailers fell by 300 in October, as people are switching back to in-store shopping and also buying fewer goods. It is now down 0.6 percent from its peak last November, but still 10.6 percent above the pre-pandemic level.
Sectors Having Trouble Hiring Are Now Adding Jobs
Nursing homes added 4,100 jobs in October, while childcare centers added 4,900. Employment in the sectors is still down by 13.7 percent and 8.4 percent, respectively. The low pay in these sectors have made it difficult to get workers.
Local governments added 29,000 jobs in October, while state governments lost 7,000. They are now 3.3 percent and 1.1 percent below pre-pandemic employment levels, respectively.
Restaurants added just 6,000 jobs in October, but this followed an increase of 69,000 in September. This is likely just an error in the data rather than a sharp plunge in job growth. Employment is still 4.6 percent below the pre-pandemic level. Hotels added 19,900 jobs in October, but employment is still 17.1 percent below its pre-pandemic level.
Women Accounted for 66.1 Percent of Payroll Employment Growth in October
Women again accounted for the bulk of payroll job growth in October. They have accounted for 59.3 percent of job growth since May. They now are 49.91 percent of payroll employment. There were some months before the pandemic when women held more than 50.0 percent of payroll jobs.
Weekly Hours Stable in October
Average weekly hours were stable at 34.5 in October. This is down from a peak of 35.0 earlier in the recovery. This is another sign of the labor market normalizing. It suggests employers are not making workers put in more hours due to an inability to hire new workers.
Wage Growth Nears Noninflationary Pace
The annual rate of wage growth over the last three months is just 3.9 percent. This rate is very close to being consistent with the Fed’s 2.0 inflation target. (It is somewhat higher at 4.4 percent, using my preferred measure of taking the average wage for the last three months, compared to the average of the prior three months.)
Hourly wage growth was 3.4 percent in 2019, when inflation was comfortably below the Fed’s 2.0 percent target. By this measure, the Fed’s work is largely done.
Labor Force Participation Edges Down, Prime Age Participation Drops 0.2 Percentage Points
The overall labor force participation rate edged down 0.1 percent to 62.2. The participation rate for prime age workers fell 0.2 percentage points to 82.5 percent. This is 0.6 percentage points below the pre-pandemic peak, but equal to the average for 2019.
Share of Unemployment Due to Voluntary Quits Falls
The percentage of unemployment due to voluntary quits fell sharply in October to 14.6 percent. This number is erratic, but the October figure is consistent with a strong, but normal labor market.
Employment Rate for Workers with Disabilities Hits a New Record High
The employment rate for people with disabilities rose to 22.0 percent in October. This is a new record high. This is likely due to a combination of a strong labor market and a huge expansion in opportunities for work from home.
Average Duration of Unemployment Spells Rises
For the first time since April, both the average duration of unemployment spells and the share of long-term unemployed (more than 26 weeks) rose. The average duration rose from 20.2 weeks to 20.8 weeks, while the share of long-term unemployed rose from 18.5 percent to 19.5 percent. This is consistent with the modest rise in recent weeks in the number of people receiving unemployment benefits.
Strong Jobs Report With Inflationary Pressures Waning
On the whole, this is a very positive report. The job growth is somewhat higher than can be sustained over the long term, but not hugely so. Most importantly from an inflation perspective, wage growth is now very close to being at a noninflationary pace. Other items in this report, such as the drop in the share of unemployment due to voluntary quits and the stabilization of average weekly hours at pre-pandemic levels, are also consistent with a strong, but normal labor market.
We should never make too much of a single month’s data, but as the rate of wage growth falls back near a noninflationary pace, there is a reasonable case for the Fed pausing rate hikes to get a better picture of their impact to date.
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell fielded questions for around 40 minutes on Wednesday following the central bank’s decision to impose another large interest rate hike, but not a single reporter asked about the extent to which record-high corporate profits are fueling inflation even as companies openly boast about their pricing power.
Progressive economists have estimated that corporate profits are to blame for at least 40% of price increases during the recovery from the pandemic-induced downturn, a disproportionate contribution to the stubbornly high inflation that is eating away at workers’ wages. Some have put the number at over 50%.
The notion that corporate price hikes are putting upward pressure on inflation — which has myriad causes — is hardly fringe. Lael Brainard, the Fed’s vice chair, acknowledged in a speech last month that “since the pandemic, significant supply and demand imbalances have coincided with large increases in retail trade margins in several sectors.”
“In some sectors, the increase in the retail trade margin exceeds the contemporaneous increase in wages paid to the workers engaged in retail trade, although this is not true in food and apparel,” Brainard said. “The return of retail margins to more normal levels could meaningfully help reduce inflationary pressures in some consumer goods, considering that gross retail margins are about 30 percent of total sales dollars overall.”
Instead, the Fed chair and reporters from corporate outlets such as The Wall Street Journal,Fox Business, The Washington Post, and The New York Times focused on workers’ wages and the labor market, which Powell is explicitly trying to weaken. Reporters also pushed Powell on the risks of recession, which he admitted are growing, and the stock market’s reaction to the Fed’s latest announcement.
“Despite the slowdown in growth, the labor market remains extremely tight, with the unemployment rate at a 50-year low, job vacancies still very high, and wage growth elevated,” the Fed chair said during his opening statement. “Although job vacancies have moved below their highs and the pace of job gains has slowed from earlier in the year, the labor market continues to be out of balance, with demand substantially exceeding the supply of available workers.”
While Powell — who has previously said one of his objectives is to “get wages down” — conceded Wednesday that he doesn’t see recent wage growth as the “principal story of why prices are going up,” he and other Fed officials continue to enact aggressive rate hikes that will ultimately have the effect of cutting wages and potentially throwing millions out of work.
During his remarks Wednesday, Powell made clear that the Fed intends to raise interest rates further in the coming months and keep them elevated for the foreseeable future. Any talk of pausing the rate hikes to assess their impact on the economy, Powell said, would be “very premature.”
The Fed raised interest rates today by 75 BPS for the fourth straight meeting.
On future rate hikes Chair Jerome Powell said: “It is very premature, in my view, to think about or be talking about pausing our rate hikes. We have a ways to go.” pic.twitter.com/9ZFCgMCdPH
The Fed’s sixth interest rate increase of the year — the fastest pace of hikes since the Volcker era — heightened already widespread concerns that the central bank is pushing the U.S. and potentially the global economy into a terrible downturn.
“The Federal Reserve’s decision today to raise interest rates by 0.75% will have a direct and harmful impact on working people and our families,” said Liz Shuler, the president of the AFL-CIO. “The Fed’s actions will not address the underlying causes of inflation — the war in Ukraine, climate change’s effect on harvests, and corporate profits.”
“Working people should not be the target of lowering inflation — it should be corporations that are earning record profits,” Shuler added.
In recent weeks, despite the lack of attention to corporate profits during Powell’s Wednesday press conference and his previous appearances, mainstream media outlets and newspapers have increasingly highlighted the link between company price hikes and inflation that progressive publications and lawmakers have been emphasizing for months.
Bigger corporate profits account for *over half* of the higher prices people are paying. pic.twitter.com/RZr5O0X4oJ
Earlier this week, The New York Timesran a story noting that major food companies and restaurants “have continued to raise prices on consumers even after their own inflation-related costs have been covered.”
“Although food companies are prominent examples of how rapid inflation is being passed from producers to consumers, the trend is evident across a wide variety of industries,” the Times observed. “Executives from banks, airlines, hotels, consumer goods companies, and other firms have said they are finding that customers have money to spend and can tolerate higher prices.”
Previously, when it wasn’t being ignored or waved away, the connection between high corporate profits and inflation was mocked as a fantasy. In the op-ed pages of the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post, columnist Catherine Rampell called the idea that corporate greed is pushing up prices a “conspiracy theory.”
But as the Economic Policy Institute’s Josh Bivens argued in response to Rampell’s May column, “Ignoring the role of profits makes inflation analyses a lot weaker.”
“As a simple matter of fact,” Bivens wrote, “the rise in profits has been historic and has explained far, far more of the rise in prices over the past year than labor costs or import tariffs, and this makes it odd indeed to label calls to address this as ‘conspiracy theories.’”
The September employment report showed the labor market remains strong, however, wage growth appears to be moderating. The report showed a gain of 263,000 jobs, which is in line with most predictions. The unemployment rate edged back down to 3.5 percent, its lowest level in the last half-century.
Despite this strength, wage growth was just 0.3 percent in September, the same as in August. This is a pace that would be consistent with the Fed’s 2.0 percent inflation target.
The rate over a longer period is higher. Comparing the average for the last three months (July, August, September) with the prior three months (April, May, June), wages have been growing at a 4.8 percent annual rate.
However, this is down from a 6.1 percent pace at the start of the year. Wage growth is clearly slowing rather than increasing as Beveridge Curve models would predict given vacancy rates.
Black Unemployment Ties for Recovery Low, Hispanic Unemployment Hits Record Low
The Black unemployment rate fell to 5.8 percent in September, reversing recent rises and tying for the low point in the recovery. The unemployment rate for Black teens fell to 12.7 percent, the second lowest ever, and lower than any pre-pandemic level. The unemployment rate for Hispanics fell to 3.8 percent, the lowest rate on record.
Most of the data in the household survey were very positive. The unemployment rate for foreign-born workers fell by 1.0 percentage point to 2.9 percent. The U-6 measure of labor market slack fell to 6.7 percent, tying the record lows hit this summer.
Jobs Gains Widespread Across Sectors
Most sectors showed healthy job gains in September, with state and local governments being a notable exception. State and local government employment fell by 27,000 in September, partly reversing gains reported in August. This is likely largely a seasonal adjustment issue associated with changes in the timing of school openings. Still, state and local government employment is more than 600,000 below the pre-pandemic level. It is down 700,000 when adding the preliminary benchmark revision.
The flip side is that private sector growth has been more rapid. The private sector added 288,000 jobs in September. Employment is now 1.1 million above its pre-pandemic level, and more than 1.6 million higher, including the benchmark revision.
Construction Continues to Add Jobs, Manufacturing Jobs Nearly 100,000 Above Pre-Pandemic Levels
Construction added 19,000 in September, with even residential construction continuing to add jobs despite the plunge in housing starts. There is a huge backlog of unfinished homes due to supply chain problems, and workers are needed to complete them.
Manufacturing added 22,000 jobs in September. Employment is now almost 100,000 above the pre-pandemic level. It would be almost 120,000 higher with the benchmark revisions.
Airlines added 2,800 jobs in September, employment is now more than 50,000 (almost 10.0 percent) above the pre-pandemic level. Restaurants were again a big job gainer, adding 60,000 jobs. Employment in the industry is still 560,000 below the pre-pandemic level.
Nursing homes added 1,400 jobs, while childcare centers lost 2,000. Employment in the two sectors is now down from pre-pandemic levels by 14.1 percent and 9.7 percent, respectively.
Mixed Picture on Labor Force Participation Rate
After rising 0.3 percentage points in August, the labor force participation rate (LFPR) edged down by 0.1 percentage points in September. The LFPR edged up by 0.2 percentage points for prime-age (ages 25–54) men to 88.8 percent. This is 0.8 percentage points below pre-pandemic peak. For prime-age women, the LFPR fell 0.6 percentage points to 76.6 percent, 0.3 percentage points below pre-pandemic peak. These monthly changes are primarily noise, and it is likely that we will see rises through the fall bringing employment in the household survey more in line with job growth in the establishment survey.
Length of Average Workweek Unchanged
The average workweek was unchanged at 34.5 hours in September. This is slightly above the 34.4 average for 2019, but a level often seen before the pandemic. This is noteworthy because the workweek peaked at 35.0 hours in January of 2021 as employers, unable to hire more employees, worked their existing workers more hours. This is further evidence of a return to normal in the labor market.
Self-Employment Remains High
There was a big increase in self-employment in the pandemic, which is persisting even as the labor market returns to normal. The number of incorporated self-employed rose by 38,000 in September and is now more than 500,000 above the 2019 average. The number of unincorporated self-employed is more than 300,000 higher than the 2019 average.
Share of Unemployment Due to Voluntary Quits Hits Record Highs
The share of unemployment due to people voluntarily quitting their jobs rose to 15.9 percent. This is a clear measure of labor market strength, indicating that people are still optimistic about their job prospects.
In the same vein, all the duration measures of unemployment fell. The average duration of employment spells fell to 20.2 weeks, while the median duration fell to 8.3 weeks. The share of long-term unemployed (more than 26 weeks) fell to 18.5 percent. However, these figures are mostly a story of getting back to normal after seeing very long spells of unemployment earlier in the recovery.
Mostly Positive Report
The picture of the labor market in this report is mostly very good. The overall unemployment rate is again at a half-century low, with the unemployment rate for Hispanics hitting its lowest level on record. The unemployment rate for Black workers is near its lowest level on record and for Black teens at its second lowest level, exceeding only a rate for a single month hit earlier in the pandemic.
For the second month in a row wages grew at a 0.3 percent rate, a pace consistent with the Fed’s 2.0 percent inflation target. Wage growth has been higher when compared on average to previous months, but it is clear that the pace is slowing rather than accelerating as many models would predict given the tightness of the labor market.
The Fed will not be prepared to declare victory over inflation with this report, but it does show that things are going in the right direction, with jobs growing at a strong but close to a sustainable pace.
The political and media representatives of the rich continue to promote maximum confusion on the economy. No coherent perspective on the economy is permitted under the existing political order. Everyone is expected to go along with what the rich and their allies repeat about the economy. Everyone has to use the same terms, the same framework, and the same outdated outlook when approaching the economy. Alternative vantage points are not tolerated.
False choices, bad options, and mixed messages abound. Week after week, one news source claims that everything is great while another says that the economic forecast looks gloomy for the next decade. Economic concepts like inflation, interest rates, costs, prices, and unemployment are rendered in the most tortured manner over and over again, with different representatives of the rich constantly making unscientific and confusing claims about what is “the real problem” and how to “get us back on track.”
Anticonsciousness has produced a stubborn refusal on the part of the superfluous political and economic elite to provide a concrete and lucid description, explanation, and evaluation of what is actually unfolding, leaving people disinformed and marginalized. This tiny ruling elite is plagued with old ideas and concepts about the economy. It has no interest in consciously investigating phenomena and reaching warranted conclusions.
This August 21, 2022 headline from The Register-Herald from West Virginia is one of endless examples of the mainstream media failing to empower people: “U.S. economy flashes signals of hope and concern in mixed data.” Like so many news items, this article leaves people riding the fence and unable to decipher real developments in the economy and society. This is usually done in the name of “balance,” which is really an attempt to conceal a multifaceted reality that can be grasped only when investigated consciously and objectively. One is left as powerless at the end of the article as when they started the article. Half-truths, incorrect information, hedging and waffling here and there—such common tactics leave people with no bearings or direction. It is not a serious approach.
Another confused source, The Nation, carries this headline: “Looming recession in 2023” (September 7, 2022). The article relies on capital-centered discourse with all its limitations. It provides no integrated coherent view on what is happening in the economy or why. It ignores the fact that the long depression started 12 years ago and that most economies have been running on gas fumes since then, if not before then. The “economic slowdown” started many years ago and will continue for years to come. Years later there is still no meaningful recovery and resilience in most countries, just worse living and working conditions for the majority year after year. Living and working standards are not rising in the U.S. and elsewhere. Endless chatter by the elite and their representatives about “recession” serves mainly to confuse and distract people. It seeks to embroil them in debates that do not serve their interests.
Conflating different concepts and trends, this September 1, 2022 headline from Bloomberg News, “Strong Economy Is Bad News for Fed’s Inflation Fight,” also leaves readers with no coherence about the economy. What “strong economy”? Why is a so-called “strong economy” a bad thing? And what about the fact that the Fed ran out of ammunition long ago and is only exacerbating things?
Other bizarre news headlines look like this one from the New York Times: “America’s Dueling Realities on a Key Question: Is the Economy Good or Bad?” (September 13, 2022). The presentation of the economy to the public in this irrational manner can be found everywhere today. Objectivity of consideration is absent and everything is reduced to what a handful of “registered voters” think. Everything is reduced to subjective interpretations, as if the economy does not exist independent of the will of individuals. On top of all this, the article openly admits that economists and journalists are bad at predicting economic phenomena. In other words, they are not scientific.
Many other examples of media disinformation on the economy can be given. Desperate attempts to find something positive in a dying and decaying economy are not going anywhere any time soon. Such efforts continue because the ruling elite are terrified of more people recognizing the illegitimacy, bankruptcy, and dysfunction of current arrangements and uniting with others to usher in a fresh new alternative.
Research and experience show that most Americans are very worried about the state of the economy. 1 Millions feel insecure. Everyone knows we have a bad economy, whether you call it a recession or not. High prices are everywhere and interest rate increases by the Federal Reserve and other central banks around the world are only creating more problems. Today many people have to work two full-time jobs just to survive. Millions live pay-check to pay-check, including many who make six figures. On top of all this, price-gouging, bankruptcies, evictions, hunger, homelessness, inequality, debt, anxiety, and crime are increasing. The fact is that “Rising costs force millions of Americans to choose between paying health care and utility bills” (August 31, 2022).
Yet Jerome Powell, head of the U.S. Federal Reserve, recently promised “more pain” for millions. More agony and unemployment, we are told, is the way forward.
Why? How is this a responsible and acceptable approach in 2022? Why should there be more suffering for everyone centuries after the scientific and technical revolution made it possible to meet the needs of all several times over? Why more pain for everyone when objectively there is an overabundance of wealth in society produced by workers? Is the public to believe that the approach embraced by economic “leaders” is the only viable approach to the problems confronting the economy, society, and humanity? And whose economy are we talking about? There is nothing bright or human-centered about the approach, outlook, and agenda of the rich and their representatives, which is why they have not solved any major problems in decades.
It is clear that what the rich mean by “economy” bears no resemblance to what an economy actually is: the relations people enter into with each other in the course of reproducing themselves and society. For the rich, the economy is anything that makes rich people richer, including war, price-gouging, wage cuts, stock buy-backs, aggressive advertising, and wild speculation on the stock market. These are not things the producers of wealth in society support. Working people are interested in using socially-produced wealth to advance society, not narrow private interests.
The ruling elite and their representatives view the economy in the most narrow and distorted way. They do not see the economy as an integrated whole whose many parts are run by millions of working people that produce all the wealth of society. Major owners of capital look at the world from their own narrow private interests and protect their “own turf” as they compete intensely with other owners of capital to maximize their profit, regardless of how damaging this might be to the natural and social environment. They do not care about how the economy as a whole operates. They do not look at the parts in relation to the whole or strive to ensure the proper extended reproduction of society. Chaos, anarchy, and violence prevail in this outdated set-up in which greed is cynically normalized as a virtue.
From a capital-centered perspective, workers are not seen as the source of value. Their labor-time is not recognized as the source of new value. Workers are viewed instead as a derogatory cost of production, a liability, a loss, a burden, a nuisance, a negative consequence; something to be suffered or grudgingly tolerated. In reality, though, it is owners of capital, those who “legally” seize the surplus value produced by workers, that are a burden and liability to society. They are a historically-exhausted force that drags society backward. They are a block to progress.
In this fractured context it is also troubling that humans and citizens are constantly reduced to consumers, and consumerism is given as that which defines the modern human personality. Buying and subordinating oneself to objects, things, and commodities is given as the core of the modern individual—a phenomenon further exacerbated by social media.
Capitalist ideology turns reality upside down. It mixes up who exploits who. It conceals the irreconcilable antagonistic interests between workers and the financial oligarchy. It hides the fact that wage-slavery is the main mode of profit maximization for owners of capital. It obscures severe contradictions between workers and the rich.
People can expect no clarity or guidance from the rich and their media, which is why they must rely on their own conscious acts of finding out and undertake their own efforts to disseminate information, analysis, and perspective.
There is no reason for today’s economies to be as chaotic, anarchic, and fragmented as they are. They must be brought under conscious human control and organized to advance the general interests of society, not a tiny ruling elite that uses its power to get richer while disinforming and marginalizing people.
After 12 bleak years of various Conservative governments, led by inadequate Prime Ministers, the UK is on its knees. Democracy is under attack like never before; the disaster of Brexit, which has resulted in a catalogue of negatives including social polarization, isolationism and rabid tribalism.
Years of grinding austerity, underinvestment in public services, frozen wages and staggering levels of incompetence have culminated in the unmitigated mess we see before us: A country in terminal decline, poverty growing, inequality entrenched, and to cap it all The Wicked Witch of the raving Right, Liz Truss, has now been elected leader of the Conservatives, and, as they are in office, the new Prime Minister. A totally undemocratic electoral process, but hey, ‘that’s the way it’s always been’.
She was voted in, in a country of around 69 million people, by 81,326 (57.4% of the total gaggle) Conservative members. A tiny group, overwhelmingly old, posh, white, male, anti-Europe, anti-immigrant, anti-environment – pro-fossil fuels, backward-looking nationalists. A crazy bunch operating within a dysfunctional system that, like much of the UK parliamentary structure and the primordial electoral model, desperately needs reforming.
The revolting campaign rhetoric spouted by Truss, was we hoped, just that, ranting rhetoric aimed solely at the conservative golf club nobs. Alas, in her first pronouncements as PM, surrounded by baying Tory sycophants, it was clear that Truss lives not in the real world at all, but in a crumbling castle for one, built on a foundation of Neo-Liberal doctrine, situated further to the right than any UK Prime-Minister in recent years.
Despite decades of disappointment, whenever a new PM/government takes office, naivety gives rise to a prickle of optimism: surely now things will improve, surely social justice will be prioritized, peace and environmental action imperatives. Well, PM Truss swiftly crushed any such childish hopes with her first speech in parliament and her wooden responses during Prime Minister’s Questions. Arrogance masquerading as certainty imbued every cruel statement of policy intent, and, as opposition parties shook their heads in disbelief, people around the country, millions of whom are struggling to pay rising energy bills and increased food prices, were again crushed.
Truss, her cabinet, and thanks to a purge of moderate voices undertaken by Boris Johnson to quieten dissent, most, if not all of the parliamentary party, is now firmly wedded to an extreme version of Neo-Liberalism and the failed doctrine of Trickle Down economics. After forty years of most boats being sunk by the rising tide, the Ideology of Injustice has been shown to deepen inequality, intensify poverty and further concentrate wealth in the pockets of The Already Wealthy.
In addition to economic plans designed to benefit corporations and, by her own admission, intensify inequality (‘I’m not interested in re-distribution’ she told the BBC), she plans to increase military spending, allow global energy companies to restart gas extraction in the North Sea, end the moratorium on fracking and abolish green levies, which are used to fund energy efficiency and renewable electricity. She despises labor rights and the Trades Union movement, peaceful public protest and immigrants, all of which she is threatening to criminalize or clutter with so much bureaucracy as to make such human rights unenforceable.
Her policies, dogmatism and the doctrine that underpin them are, in many ways, terrifying. And with the suspension of parliament and consequently, any form of scrutiny, resulting from the death of The Queen, there is a danger, or for her, an opportunity, that she attempts to introduce legislation under cover of national mourning. If Truss and her gang get their way, the limited form of democracy that exists in the UK will become a distant memory, rather as ethics and honesty in public office, compassion and honoring international commitments have in recent years.
Rising misery
The list of national crises that the Truss government inherits, most if not all of which she had a grubby hand in causing, is long, and growing. As is public anger. It is a list resulting from ideological obsession, gross incompetence and absenteeism.
The National Health Service (NHS) is in crisis – years of underfunding, lack of training and Brexit, which saw thousands of NHS workers from Europe leave the UK, have led to around 135,000 vacancies, including 40,000 nurses and over 8,000 doctors in England alone. The service has the longest waiting lists for routine treatments on record; if you dial 999 for an ambulance, it could be hours, or in extreme cases, days before it arrives. Social care is dysfunctional; there is a housing crisis, property prices are sky high, rents are unaffordable, tenancies offer no security, homelessness is increasing – according to Government figures, “between January to March 2022, 74,230 households were assessed as homeless or threatened with homelessness,”up 5.4% in the same period in 2021, a further 38,000 were regarded as at “risk of homelessness”.
Inflation is at 10.1% and rising, recession predicted, poverty booming. Thousands of people/families (many of whom are in full-time employment) rely on food banks for basic supplies – over two million people visited a food bank last year, and this doesn’t include independent providers – local charities, churches etc. Ten years ago food banks barely existed in the UK, now there are estimated to be 2,572, and constitute a growth area.
The privatization of utility companies including water in 1989 under Thatcher, has led to energy and water companies making huge profits for shareholders (£72bn in dividends), but neglecting consumers and failing to invest. Since water was privatized no new reservoirs have been commissioned (in 33 years), and, The Guardianreports,“2.4bn liters [of water] a day on current estimates have been allowed to leak away.” Airports including Heathrow, have had to limit the number of flights due to lack of staff; the airport authorities and airlines use the ‘It’s not us, it’s Covid’ excuse, so loved by companies and government agencies who laid off too many employees during the pandemic and either haven’t re-hired enough, or employees refused to return unless wages and conditions improved.
The judiciary is in crisis, as is the prison system and the police, particularly in London; childcare and nursery education is shambolic, unaffordable for most, hard to find, limited places, particularly for those on average incomes; again due in part to lack of properly trained staff. It is, it seems, an endless list, shameful and intensely depressing, There may, however, be a glimmer of light within the storm; a positive effect of this cacophony of chaos is a growing movement of resistance to economic injustice, and Trades Union industrial action.
Enough is Enough
Wages for most people in the UK have been effectively frozen for years; and now, with rising inflation income is reducing in value, economic hardship intensifying, fury rising. Unions, which have been greatly weakened in the last thirty years through restrictive legislation, have rediscovered their courage and purpose, and in response to members’ demands have organised strikes in a number of areas. Most notably, railway and Transport for London workers have withdrawn their labor on a number of occasions in disputes over pay and conditions; refuse workers in Scotland have been on strike over pay; postal workers have also been striking; junior barristers are on indefinite strike over pay; workers at the UK’s largest container port, Felixstowe, recently withdrew their labour for eight days in another dispute about pay. Nurses and doctors working in the NHS are threatening industrial action, as are teachers.
The leader of the RMT union, Mick Lynch, who has emerged as a leading voice for the people, has suggested that, “unions are on the brink of calling for ‘synchronized’ strikes over widespread anger at how much soaring inflation is outpacing wages.” If such a positive step were taken, it would be a powerful act of resistance against years of exploitation and injustice, and may further empower working people, who for years have been silenced.
In parallel with the workers revolt is a social movement of defiance. Initially triggered by high energy bills, rising costs and low wages, the scope of disquiet is expanding to include outrage at huge profits for energy companies and other corporations, increasing payments to shareholders whilst the majority struggle to feed themselves and their families; i.e., it’s about social injustice, exploitation and greed. Two movements of resistance and change have emerged from the widespread disquiet – ‘Don’t Pay’, which aims to empower people to not pay increased energy bills, and ‘Enough is Enough’, which is a broader social movement founded by union leaders and MPs.
The appearance of these groups is deeply encouraging and could prove to be a pivotal moment. Many people, the majority perhaps, are worn down, ashamed of where the country finds itself, and have had enough. Enough of being ignored and manipulated; of being told to ‘tighten their belts’ and ‘carry on’, whilst corporations, public/private companies including energy firms, pay out huge dividends and government ministers, spineless, unprincipled puppets, who live in the silk-lined pockets of big business, including most notably the media barons, lie and lie and lie again.
In the face of increasing levels of social injustice, government duplicity and economic hardship, eventually the people must unite and revolt. If, after the endless pantomime of the Queen’s funeral, people do come together, refuse to pay rising energy costs; refuse to work, refuse to be exploited and marginalized; refuse to stand by while the natural world is vandalised; if the unions do take coordinated action, and many of us would support such a progressive act, there is a chance, slim, but real, that years of frustration and anger, can be turned into empowerment and hope.
Card machines might be an alternative for Australians who rely on spare change from strangers to stay afloat in today’s increasingly cashless economy, but is this the best way to get ahead?
This post was originally published on Michael West.
A great deal of attention has been paid to the problems of carceral injustice and the increasing use of AI for things such as predictive policing. Much of this research has revealed that these digital technologies serve to recreate economic disparities, racism, and other forms of social discrimination while removing the stain of human agency toward a flawed ideal of objectivity. Less attention has been paid to the use of these digital technologies in pre-employment background checks. This essay examines the use of AI and algorithmic data analysis and the ways these technologies and procedures create a caste of humans who are barred from employment and rendered economically invalid. In the final analysis, AI and algorithmic data analysis in the service of pre-employment background checks reproduces Foucault’s human monster in a contemporary form, a human monster that bears the stigmata of digital unpredictability.
More than 90 percent of all new hires are subjected to some type of background check prior to employment. These background checks search criminal history and records, including non-convictions, debt history, credit ratings, and other data that can offer a picture of the financial health of a potential new hire.1 The idea behind background checks is to ensure the safety of employees and, in the case of schools and hospitals, students and patients. While many states have laws that limit both the reach and use of background checks, the practice of investigating a potential employee’s background is now standard and widespread. In a short piece in the journal Academe, Ann D. Springer explains that universities might be looking for information that would indicate a potential hire’s “character, general reputation, personal characteristics or mode of living.”2 A university may deem it important to determine exactly what kind of person they are considering, and this may include that person’s “character.”3 While the point of Springer’s article is to reveal the potential dangers of background checks, she also pins down one of the main issues in performing such checks: “What if an employee commits a crime or breaks the law? An employer who knew of such past bad acts may be held responsible for failing to act on that knowledge, even if future actions were and are difficult to predict.” Liability can consist of many things like the risk of theft in the case of people with a criminal history of crimes against property or people who are so financially unstable they pose a theft risk. Liability could also be physical danger from people who have a history of violent offenses. In terms of how to predict potential danger and liability, this has been elusive, and companies have generally decided to err on the side of caution and refuse to hire anyone whose background check reveals something that could be seen as dangerous. But prediction is the key to understanding how background checks function in contemporary culture.
In a sociological study on criminality and recidivism, Devah Pager explains that “there are currently over 12 million ex-felons in the United States, representing roughly 8 percent of the working-age population.”4 If we add the number of people convicted of violent misdemeanors, crimes that are specifically flagged in background check, the number of potentially unemployable people is staggering. Putting this into context with the ever-increasing use of background checks to screen potential hires, this population of ex-felons constitutes a caste of humans who are likely to be deemed unacceptable for hire by most employers. The background check presumably combs criminal histories and assembles this information in a report so employers can evaluate the risks of a potential new hire. Those deemed unacceptable are not considered beyond the initial screening.
Algorithmic data analysis and background checks are becoming more common. Uber now uses the background checking company Checkr to perform their checks. Checkr uses an algorithmic system to search and process information on potential drivers. They claim the use of algorithms and AI in background checks is to increase efficiency, reduce “friction,” which is to say the degree of work and difficulty, on obtaining information, and to remove the problem of human error in evaluating background check information. Checkr offers a guide to how information can legally be used in any given state. They also do international searches of things like global watchlists and criminal history abroad. Checkr provides a full screening of criminal history, education and employment verification, civil search, drug and health, and motor vehicle reports.5 According to Backgroundchecks.com, “Checkr’s system uses AI to perform more than a million background checks per month, including checks for new Uber drivers and annual repeat checks for existing drivers. The checks incorporate multiple searches, including county and national criminal history searches, sex offender registry checks, terrorist watchlist checks, driving record checks, and Social Security Number verifications.”6
An article in Qrius, formerly The Indian Economist, offers a glowing portrait of the potential for using AI algorithmic data analysis in pre-employment background checks. While the article ostensibly touts the efficiency of AI and algorithms, it nevertheless alludes to the predictive capacities of these systems by explaining how AI and algorithmic data analysis make it possible for recruiters and employers “to improve their understanding of the risk of negative behavior patterns.”7 These systems can not only reveal potential risks, but also calculate the level of risk: “AI can help recruiters make more informed decisions by telling them what a candidate’s risk level is.” Algorithmic data analysis offers a way of employers to utilize the same technology that is used for algorithmic policing and the forms of risk analysis utilized by national security agencies. Louise Amoore and Rita Raley point out that it sophisticated forms of algorithmic data analysis that guide military strategies regarding things like lethal drone strikes.8 Even as trade journals and sympathetic news media portray the use of algorithmic data analysis as a welcome and efficient technological improvement to pre-employment screening, a pre-employment background check service such as Checkr seems to take on darker implications.
With the use of algorithmic data analysis, Checkr can scour a person’s life for anything that could flag them as a potential danger or liability. What is more, algorithmic analysis eliminates the problem cited by Springer of the difficulty in predicting potential danger. In fact, algorithmic data analysis is designed to render everything predictable. The purpose of algorithmic data analysis is of course to make it possible to search and make sense of vast amounts of data that are beyond human comprehension, but the goal of this data analysis is to determine patterns and tendencies that can be harnessed and used. This is to say that the algorithm makes it possible to predict behavior based on previous behavior. Algorithms create what Tarleton Gillespie calls cycles of anticipation” in which the vast data collection from sites like Google and Facebook make it possible for businesses (and others) to “thoroughly know and predict their users.”9 It is the predictive capacity of algorithms that is important, and when the algorithmic data analysis is brought to things like employment background checks, the process takes on a new dimension. The background check does not simply offer an account of past crimes, financial problems, and potential character defects that could be problematic, it makes it possible for employers to predict future problems in a potential employee. Algorithms and “information systems produce “shadow bodies” by emphasizing some aspects of their subjects and overlooking others.9 These shadow bodies persist and proliferate through information systems.” The potential hire is both the person who currently exists and the shadow body who the algorithm creates who may exist in the future, which is to say the sum total of who this person is can never be much more than who they have been in the past. What we are, and what we will be, is only ever what we were.
Jackie Wang explores the problem of predicting criminal activity in the digital age to demonstrate that algorithmic and cyber technology has succeeded in re-framing the racism inherent in legal apparatuses and disperse this racist violence so as to obfuscate both its presence and its agents. Wang explains that practices like predictive analysis made possible by advanced forms of data mining and algorithmic analysis are being used to predict crimes before they happen. But Wang points out that these practices “are much more about constructing the future through the present management of subjects categorized as threat risks.”10 In constructing the future, AI and algorithmic analysis reconstructs the inherent inequities and racist tendencies that presently exist. Far from objective and disinterest computerized tools, these tools re-inscribe forms of racial and economic exclusions as they exist in the present into a form of the future that is nothing more than a projection of the past. What is more, “as these technologies of control are perfected, carcerality will bleed into society. In this case the distinction between inside and outside the prison will become blurrier.”11 The pre-employment background check that utilizes AI data analysis exists within this blurry region in which carcerality has begun to diffuse across society. AI and algorithms make it possible to search vast amounts of data for anything that could potentially serve as a red flag for liability and danger. The predictive capabilities believed to inhere in algorithms and data analysis all rely on the capacity for these systems to use relevant data to make these connections and predictions.
There is a vast and infinite sea of data available for AI and algorithms to make use of, but the data that matters for predictive policing and the data that matter for background checks are all of the specific order. The data that these data processing systems flag, process, and order are those bits of information that would indicate some type of danger, whether it be danger in the form of financial liability or danger in the form of a potential threat to life and body. Checkr, and virtually all background services, search specific records like court records. But with algorithmic analysis, they are able to comb anything on the web that might indicate the potential for danger. These processes are in excess of any individual agent since they operate in the realm of digital analysis and numbers. Once programmed and set in motion, it is the algorithm that determines threats and risks, not individuals or living human beings. As Manuel Abreu says, “algorithms escape the laws of cause and effect and operate in a fluid state of exception, encompassing the financial sector, the military-security nexus, and the entertainment industry.”12 Still, following Abreu’s analysis, the state of exception of the algorithm works with forms of data that are rigorously defined. While it is true that the algorithms generate profiles of people that present “reasonable suspicion,” the data that signal reasonable suspicion are of a specific kind. As Wang shows us, this specific kind of data may have more to do with the racisms engrained in society than with any kind of “objective” symptom of threat. This same data also operates as symptoms of other kinds of threats that are not dangerous or even criminal. In the case of background checks, the data that is flagged as symptomatic may be behavioral patterns that demonstrate a bad financial risk. Someone with bad credit history, for example, could potentially be a liability to an employer. In all, the data seized upon by algorithms in the service of background checks and policing are all symptomatic of a potential problem that is increasingly being understood as a present problem. There can be no future problem since the future is decided ahead of time as a mathematical probability based on the past.
All of these techniques amount to Deleuze’s technologies of the society of control in which algorithmic analysis and prediction which “substitutes for the individual or numerical body the code of a ‘dividual’ material to be controlled.”13 The dividual is the atomized and coded image of the individual who no longer matters as algorithmic analysis steps in to provide something more valid than the word of a human. The algorithmic rendering of who one is can be made more predictable based on specific data points that mark the dividual as a liability or a threat. One’s suitability for employment is determined by how one has adjusted one’s life to a societal system that demands that we “behave” according to economic and social standards that are determined by the financial sector more than any older system of morality and ethics.
This morality and ethics, and the endless reconstitution of the past as a mathematically rendered present lacking a future, is bound up with the technologies of control that come out of the debt relation that is threaded through contemporary life. Maurizio Lazzarato makes it clear that the debt relation underpins contemporary life since to engage the world means to engage economically, and to engage economically means to enter into the debt relation. As Lazzarato explains “(d)ebt… is the economic and subjective engine of the modern-day economy,” and this means we are all captured in this system as soon as we enter into the world of money and employment. (Lazzarrato. The Making of Indebted Man. p. 25.)) However, entering into the debt relation is not simply a matter of economics separate from domains like character, liability, and criminality. Debt is a technology of control specific to societies of control. The debt relation makes possible “specific relations of power that entail specific forms of production and control of subjectivity.”14 The purpose of the employment background check is to assess and evaluate precisely this “subjectivity,” a subjectivity that must adhere to standards of behavior and productivity that do not emit signs of risk and liability. Within this system, there is no central agency of discipline or control. Rather, the debt relation initiates a technology of control in which the “debtor is ‘free,’ but his actions, his behavior are confined to the limits defined by the debt he has entered into.”15 In technologies of control, “you are free insofar as you assume the way of life (consumption, work, public spending, taxes, etc.) compatible with reimbursement.”15 The practices of daily life like consumption, work, public spending, taxes, etc. are precisely the forms of data that are analyzed and assessed by algorithms and background checks, these and of course criminal history. What the background checks analyze and assess are the measure of one’s validity and to not measure up as valid necessarily renders one invalid.
In addition to the 12 million ex-felons in the United States, we can add the vast number of people who are increasingly determined to be invalid for failing to measure up to the standards of behavior inscribed by an economic system that prescribes our behavior. The background check and the algorithms that are increasingly a part of the process of background checks are not evaluating just any data points. These systems are written and programmed to hit upon and process very specific bits of information. These are signs that can be interpreted as symptoms. To be rendered invalid, to be assessed and determined to be a criminal or financial threat, demands that the digital systems know which signs to read as symptoms and which to reject. Wang harkens to the older paradigm of discipline in relation to digital technologies of control as she points out that, “(i)f Jeremy Bentham’s eighteenth-century design of the ‘panopticon’ is the architectural embodiment of Michel Foucault’s conception of disciplinary power, then algorithmic policing represents the inscription of disciplinary power across the entire terrain that is being policed.”16 This apparent return to Foucault raises the specter of other features of older paradigms which are buried in the contemporary societies of control. What are these data points, these signs that serve as symptoms if not the same forms of symptomatology of monstrosity that once gave rise to Foucault’s ideas of the abnormal? While algorithmic policing obfuscates rather than supplants the old mechanisms of discipline, the background check and the ways algorithmic analysis have come to influence the background check re-orients the old ideas of the abnormal and the human monster.
Foucault explains that the medicalization—the psychiatrization—of crime as it is expressed through mental illness demanded a sign that marked the criminal, the abnormal, as legible. The emergent discourse of psychiatry, criminology, and social hygiene demanded some kind of visible sign that could be read and understood as the mark of an abnormal, criminal type who is disposed to commit crimes. What was required was something that made it possible for psychiatrists to identify and properly isolate the abnormal and the criminal that stands out over and above the process of abnormal behavior: “What psychiatrists look for in order to demonstrate that they are dealing with someone who can be psychiatrized,… what they need, is not a process, but a permanent stigmata that brand the individual structurally.”17 The practitioners of social hygiene demanded a stigmata, or brand of criminality, of monstrosity, of abnormality that will always render visible and legible not just the criminal potential of the abnormal, but the physical sign of this criminal potential. These lines of thought led, of course, to nonsense like phrenology and criminality, but it also led to an entire scientific taxonomy of criminality that sought to determine features of criminal behavior in the criminal themselves that could allow scientists and law enforcement to predict criminal behavior before it occurs, and it is precisely these processes of prediction which has been thought to be made possible with background checks and algorithmic analysis. The problem of social hygiene is recast as behavioral determinations which adhere to the demands of the debt relation as a measure of one’s validity as a subject and a viable agent in modern life. The data points registered and flagged by the algorithm and the background check operate as the stigmata of abnormality far more efficiently and permanently than the old psychiatric methods. What is more, we have dispensed with the psychiatrist, or any other authority, as the digital mechanisms remove all human agency from the process of invalidating.
Algorithmic analysis and background checks operate as forms of social antiseptic that maintains the purity of the closed system of organizational integrity. Businesses can dispense with liability, both economic and criminal, by utilizing a digital system that reads the stigmata of danger before it can enter into the digital system that stands in for the organizational structure inhabited by living bodies. And they can do this without ever having to dirty themselves by examining pieces of information in criminal records, credit checks, and personality indexes. The algorithm performs these functions, and it is the algorithm that makes the determination of invalidity based on the assigned stigmata. The uncertainty that the criminal and economic invalid could introduce into the sterile integrity of the organization is neutralized. A criminal infraction, a default on a credit card or medical bill, an eviction—all these transgressions become stigmata of invalidity. There can be no risk of future liability or unpredictability since these stigmata render the invalid the present “being” of the past, and this stops the possibility of a future in its tracks. By reading the stigmata of past behavior the algorithm makes it possible to create an image of a present that forecloses the possibility of a future. These systems provide “the mastery of uncertainty” that “proceeds by way of the representation and memory storage of the past,” as Tiqqun explains.18 The algorithmically enhanced background check “aims at making living beings into mechanics, at mastering, programming, determining humans and their life, society and its “future.”19 These processes form part of the cybernetic hypothesis in which the problem is “no longer forecasting the future but reproducing the present.”20 The use of algorithms and background checks ferret out the “risky dividual” toward a “balanced society.”21 The algorithms and background checks, the cybernetic mechanisms, read the stigmata of risk and allow the neutral system to operate as the firewall against risk. Those humans, those living bodies who are now digital renderings in the forms of data points that signal the stigmata of invalidity, remain locked—captured– forever as invalid. Perhaps it makes more sense to use the old terms. These living human bodies that must nevertheless live, as the abnormals– these are the same human monsters. They are the same forms of madness and degeneration that operate as the “bearer of a number of dangers.” They are the same degenerates that operate as the “bearer of risks.”22 They are the same monsters who, since they pose the threats of uncertainty to a cybernetic system of absolute balance, emerge from nature but against nature. Only now they are the isolated dividuals captured within societies of control for whom the algorithm has determined as unpredictable invalids who resist predictability. Bearing the digital stigmata of monstrosity that signals their impending disturbance, these monsters can be safely monitored, tracked, and returned to disciplinary restraint as is economically expedient.
It is the digital realm that finds the invalid intolerable because the invalid present the type of unpredictability that is intolerable to digital systems. While companies, organizations, and universities advertise the justification that the background check is in the interest of safety, it is in fact the intolerable danger of the unpredictable that must be ferreted out by the background check. The primary reason for adding algorithmic technology to background checks can only be toward the elimination of unpredictability, otherwise a simple rap sheet would suffice. The reason a simple rap sheet is insufficient is that a human being must look a list of past offences and make a judgment call as to the likelihood of future danger, and this would only compound the levels of unpredictability with the addition of a secondary human consciousness. Above all else, the system must control, neutralize, and lockout any threats to absolute predictability. Thus, we have a caste of people who are determined to be invalid by a system that is no longer bound by human consciousness. Since no human makes this determination, the status of invalidity is the fault of the invalid who have only themselves to blame for their behavior, be it bad credit or a felony conviction. In the final analysis, we are left with a caste of untouchables who will forever remain both economically externalized, in that they are forbidden entry into economic viability, yet completely captured and internalized since they are digitally quantified and categorized. Their status as invalid is dependent on a detailed record of their failures and transgressions. It is the invalid who have taken over as the abnormal, the moral degenerates, and the human monsters.
Just as the process of abnormalizing individuals who resist the discipline of the factory so as to eliminate what cannot be disciplined, so the process of invalidating the contemporary abnormal serves to isolate and remove individuals who represent forms of unpredictability within the totalizing techniques of societies of control. There is no need to place these kinds of individuals in spaces of discipline and confinement since the mechanisms that isolate them are the very same mechanisms of current financial valorization. The forms of “biocapitalism”described by Marazzi which capture value in social processes themselves are themselves the mechanisms of capture which remove the invalid from the closed cybernetic system of financialization and the creation of indebted man.23 The technology that creates algorithms that drive financial surplus value in the form of the debt relation are also the technology that creates algorithms to remove threats to absolute predictability within global capital where there is no room for forms of flawed human judgment that may allow contagions that produce risk. The system works because it has removes all risk, and the population of invalids, abnormals, and monsters demonstrates that the system works. It is flawless, antiseptic, objective, and removed from the stain of human unpredictability from start to finish. Above all, AI and algorithmic data analysis provide absolute visibility and predictability for digital systems that cannot tolerate the unpredictable. Just as, during the Seventeenth Century and the time of “The Great Confinement,” “madness threatens modern man… with the return of the bleak world of beasts and things, to their unfettered freedom,” the contemporary technologies of control isolate and capture the bleak world of human fallibility and neutralizes the threat of its return to errable weakness.24
“Background Checks and AI.” It is useful to examine industry generated sources on background checks since these are the precise sources used as companies and other organizations design and implement background check processes and policies.
Springer, Ann D. “Legal Watch: Background Checks: When the Past Isn’t Past.” Academe, vol. 89, no. 2, 2003, p. 110–110.
In 2009, The University of Akron implemented a policy that would require potential new hires to submit to a DNA screening as a condition of employment. This came just before passage of the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). In an essay in The Hastings Center Report details the ethical and legal ramifications of such a policy. While analysis of DNA screening begs obvious questions about the ethics of these kinds of privacy intrusions, the use of AI and algorithms can be performed using information outside the control and even knowledge of those being screened. See Callier, Shawneequa L., John Huss, and Eric T. Juengst. “GINA and Preemployment Criminal Background Checks.” The Hastings Center Report 40, no. 1 (2010): 15–19.
“The Mark of a Criminal Record.” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 108, no. 5, 2003, p. 937–75.
Luamanuvao said that over the past two years families had lost loved ones, businesses suffered, unemployment rates increased, and freedom of movement was restricted.
She said there had also been a grave impact on children’s right to education, and the right to health continues to be challenged with resources stretched to the maximum.
But she said human rights principles continued to play an important role in addressing discrimination and inequality and providing inclusion of everyone in the prevention of, and recovery from covid-19.
The report provided an analysis of the impact of the pandemic and government measures on the rights and freedoms of Samoans, especially on the most vulnerable groups.
The report also included recommendations for the government to ensure its covid-19 measures were consistent with the constitution, domestic laws, and policies safeguarding human rights, as well as Samoa’s international human rights obligations.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
