Category: unemployment

  • Companies see automation and other labor-saving steps as a way to emerge from the health crisis with a permanently smaller workforce. UBI is now an imperative.

    By Lauren Weber,

    Job openings are at a record high, leaving the impression that employers are hiring like never before. But many businesses that laid off workers during the pandemic are already predicting they will need fewer employees in the future.

    As with past economic shocks, the pandemic-induced recession was a catalyst for employers to invest in automation and implement other changes designed to curb hiring. In industries ranging from hotels to aerospace to restaurants, businesses have reviewed their operations and discovered ways to save on labor costs for the long term.

    Economic data show that companies have learned to do more with less over the last 16 months or so. Output nearly recovered to pre-pandemic levels in the first quarter of 2021—down just 0.5% from the end of 2019—even though U.S. workers put in 4.3% fewer hours than they did before the health crisis.

    “When demand falls, it’s a natural time to retool or invest because you won’t lose customers or sales while you tinker and shut things down,” said Brad Hershbein, senior economist at the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. “You don’t want to interrupt business when it’s at its peak.”

    The changes will require many workers to adapt. Though the job market is strong right now for highly paid professionals and low-wage service workers alike, not everyone can find a match for their skills, experience or location, creating a paradox of relatively high unemployment combined with record job openings. Economists said it can be a prolonged process for some laid-off workers to find jobs or acquire the skills needed for new careers.

    Raytheon Technologies Corp. , the biggest U.S. aerospace supplier by sales, laid off 21,000 employees and contractors in 2020 amid a drastic decline in air travel.

    Raytheon said in January that efforts to modernize its factories and back-office operations would boost profit margins and reduce the need to bring back all those jobs. The company said that most if not all of the 4,500 contract workers who were let go in 2020 wouldn’t be called back.

    The pandemic accelerated some of the company’s plans to automate factories and implement more digital technology, said Paolo Dal Cin, the executive vice president of operations and supply chain at Raytheon, which was formed last year through the merger of Raytheon Co. and United Technologies Corp.

    An insightful weekly view of how diversity is changing the landscape of business with new company policies, workplace trends and redefined missions.

    “We have over 500 equipment-automation and equipment-upgrade projects that we plan to deploy over the next three to five years,” he said in an interview. Among them, the company is connecting more than 20,000 pieces of equipment into its networks so that data is collected automatically and sent to engineers, quality inspectors and others. Some of those data-collection activities were previously handled by contract workers who in many cases will no longer be needed.

    Raytheon plans to add people back selectively while reassigning current employees whose jobs are automated. Mr. Dal Cin said some projects focus on quality as well as labor savings, for example, by automating the assembly or production of complex parts where precision and accuracy can be improved through technology.

    Low-wage work is in high demand, and employers are now competing for applicants, offering incentives ranging from sign-on bonuses to free food. But with many still unemployed, are these offers working?

    In low-wage sectors such as hospitality and leisure, the push to cut staffing costs is driven partly by short-term labor shortages and expectations that wages will continue rising due to a combination of market forces and possible changes to local and federal laws.

    In May 2020, as Covid-19 surged in the U.S. and the travel and hospitality industries cratered, the chief executive of Host Hotels & Resorts Inc., a large owner of Hyatt and Marriott hotels, described the pandemic “truly as an opportunity to redefine the hotel operating model.”

    CEO Jim Risoleo said the hotel chain planned to limit housekeeping at many of its properties and reconfigure its food and beverage operations. “It is really going to be opt in to housekeeping services as opposed to opt out going forward,” he said during a November call with analysts and investors. The company also reduced management staff by 30% in 2020 in its food and beverage department and said the changes would be permanent. The company didn’t respond to requests to comment.

    ‘If you’re a retailer, if you introduce 10 checkout kiosks, that’s not very expensive.’

    Other chains are moving in the same direction, partly to address current challenges in hiring staff. Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. said last week that most of its U.S. properties are adopting “a flexible housekeeping policy,” with daily service available upon request. “Full deep cleanings will be conducted prior to check-in and on every fifth day for extended stays,” it said.

    Daily housekeeping will still be free for those who request it. But Hilton businesses “will be higher-margin and require less labor than they did pre-Covid,” CEO Christopher Nassetta said on a conference call in February. The company declined to comment on how many fewer housekeepers it would employ once all the changes are implemented.

    How do you think the pandemic will shape the job market for the next year? Join the conversation below.

    Unite Here, a union that represents hotel workers, published a report in June estimating that the end of daily room cleaning could result in an industrywide loss of up to 180,000 jobs, based on pre-pandemic employment numbers, in a workforce that consists primarily of Black and Hispanic women, many of them immigrants. The union has negotiated agreements with some hotels and localities to require daily cleaning.

    Restaurants have become rapid adopters of technology during the pandemic as two forces—labor shortages that are pushing wages higher and a desire to reduce close contact between customers and employees—raise the return on such investments.

    At restaurant and entertainment chain Dave & Buster’s Entertainment Inc., customers now use digital tablets to order food and drink, allowing managers to schedule fewer servers, the company’s chief operating officer, Margo Manning, said on a call with investors in June.

    Applebee’s is now using tablets to allow customers to pay at their tables without summoning a waiter. The hand-held screens provide a hedge against labor inflation, said John Peyton, CEO of Applebee’s parent Dine Brands Global Inc.

    Restaurant and entertainment chain Dave & Buster’s is using technology to reduce its need for servers.

    The U.S. tax code encourages investments in automation, particularly after the Trump administration’s tax cuts, said Daron Acemoglu, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who studies the impact of automation on workers. Firms pay around 25 cents in taxes for every dollar they pay workers, compared with 5 cents for every dollar spent on machines because companies can write off capital investments, he said.

    Given the expense and complexity of large automation projects, they aren’t always the right solution for companies facing worker shortages or wanting to reduce costs, Mr. Acemoglu said. But there are a lot of piecemeal automation steps that companies can take that might be cost-effective, he added: “If you’re going to try to completely revamp your factory, that’s very expensive. But if you’re a retailer, if you introduce 10 checkout kiosks, that’s not very expensive.”

    The post Many Jobs Lost During the Coronavirus Pandemic Just Aren’t Coming Back appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • As rioters target supermarkets, activists call on the government to help those who cannot survive amid rising prices and mass unemployment.

    By: Anna Majavu

    The government must immediately institute a basic income grant as an emergency measure if it wants to stop food riots from taking hold permanently, say activists.

    With the expanded unemployment rate at 43.2%, its highest level ever, it would be foolish to label everyone who participated in the “Free Zuma” protests and took food from major supermarkets as “irrational and criminal”, says Mervyn Abrahams, programme director of the Pietermaritzburg Economic Justice and Dignity group.

    “These protests are driven by economic issues, not so much the political issue of freeing Jacob Zuma. What was required was a flame and the Free Zuma campaign was that. These protests are not even isolated to food but have provided a cover for people who feel excluded economically to just come and take over,” Abrahams says.

    “People cannot wait any longer. They are in the midst of absolute poverty. People are hungry and we have to meet the hunger needs now. It calls for an immediate emergency intervention and then long-term systemic change.”

    The government discussed a basic income grant in 2002 but put it on hold. It is seen by the unions, social movements and public-interest law centres in the #PayTheGrants coalition as one of the best available tools to reduce poverty quickly.

    The Pietermaritzburg Economic Justice and Dignity group said it could be fixed at the food poverty line of R585 an adult a month or at the upper-bound poverty line, which is currently R1 268 an adult a month.

    Devastating levels of hunger

    The group also predicted last month that high food prices and low levels of jobs could lead to social disorder with protesters losing restraint and potentially curbing the movement of goods and public services on highways.

    Ten days later, protesters set fire to dozens of trucks in KwaZulu-Natal and closed both the N2 and N3 highway in places.

    “In this situation, the right of a hungry child and her hungrier mother to exist, to survive and to eat will become far more important than any right to private property,” Abrahams says.

    Protests surged and took on the radically new dimension of riots, however, on July 11 and 12. The government announced on July 12 that it would deploy the army to stop the riots.

    With 11.4 million people of working age currently unemployed, the minimum wage rising by only 4.5% in April 2021, and food, transport and electricity prices increasing by between seven and 15%, millions of people can no longer survive, says Abrahams.

    He says containing dissent is not a long-term solution.

    To negotiate an end to the food riots, the government could also immediately reinstate and increase the Covid-19 social relief of distress (SRD) grant of R350 a month, which it terminated in April 2021, and top up the child support and old age grants as it did during the first wave, says Abrahams.

    “We must not do what we always do and that is go ‘back to normal’, because it is the abnormality of our situation that gave rise to this. After an emergency intervention, we need to set up an economy that will allow everyone to feel they are included, and a basic income guarantee would be one of the instruments of this.”

    Speaking at a “Pay the Grants” mass assembly held to call for a basic income grant on 11 July, Wanga Zembe-Mkabile, specialist scientist at the Medical Research Council, said the grant was urgently needed to minimise the high levels of poverty and inequality now causing devastating levels of “hunger, hopelessness, depression and despondency”.

    “Child hunger has remained high despite the child support grant and we know this is partly explained by the fact that the child support grant itself is not pegged to any objective measure of need, so the amount … is still small,” she said, adding that the child support grant is also diluted because it is often the only source of income in a home.

    “The SRD grant represented hope. It made people feel seen and recognised by the state, and addressed some of the psychological impacts that crop up when there is no provision for an entire segment of the population, such as the unemployed,” Zembe-Mkabile said. “The discontinuation of the grant, small and inadequate as it was, means a return to that hopelessness and invisibility. There’s a full expectation that if this continues, the levels of food insecurity and hunger we are seeing will only get much worse than they already are.”

    Pushed past their limits

    Socialist activist Alfred Moyo, the Gauteng coordinator for the Fight Inequality Alliance and a resident of Makause shack settlement in Primrose, says the latest lockdown pushed impoverished people past their limits.

    “Millions of poor communities cannot afford to be pushed back into further lockdowns, which are imposed by [those] above, without consideration of realities on the ground. We cannot eat any further lockdowns. People are hungry now. People are angry now,” Moyo says.

    Unemployed Peoples’ Movement spokesperson Ayanda Kota says his organisation also backs the basic income grant. But he points out that it is not feasible for social movements “who are struggling for emancipatory politics to support struggles that are organised on tribalist, male chauvinist and ethnic bases, everything that we are opposed to as people that are struggling for emancipatory politics”.

    “The reality of the matter is that people are hungry and are using this opportunity [the Free Zuma protests] to demonstrate the level of hunger in this country.

    Our call should be to intensify the demand for the government to implement the basic income grant because the Radical Economic Transformations, the Edward Zumas, don’t stand with the people on a principled basis. Their aim is only to dethrone the current regime so they can take over to do the same – loot,” Kota says.

    In the wake of the riots, affected provinces such as KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng could face a week-long bottleneck in which food will not be as readily available in supermarkets. But street traders have mainly not been harmed by protesters, who focused on major supermarkets, so they will likely see an increase in the number of customers coming to them to buy food, Abrahams says.

    The post South Africa: Food Riots Show the Need for a Basic Income appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Teacher Dorene Scala teaches third grade during summer school at Hooper Avenue School on June 23, 2021, in Los Angeles, California.

    The June employment report showed very strong employment growth in the establishment survey, while the household survey showed little improvement from May. The 850,000 gain was the largest since an increase of 1,583,000 last August. By contrast, the household survey showed no change in the employment-to-population ratio or labor force participation rate. The unemployment rate edged up slightly, as employment in the household survey slipped by 18,000.

    It is not unusual to see sharp monthly divergences between the two surveys. Over a longer period, they tend to show a similar picture of the labor market, but the household survey can have erratic movements that don’t seem to correspond to anything in the economy. For example, in October 2017, the household survey showed a drop in employment of 633,000, and then in August 2018 it showed a decline of 619,000. In both periods the economy was growing at a healthy pace and there was no evidence of weakness in other economic data. These drops were preceded and/or followed by months with large gains.

    Establishment Job Gains Driven by Growth in Hard Hit Sectors

    The biggest job gains were in state and local education (229,700), restaurants (194,300), and hotels (75,100). The gains in state and local education indicates schools returning to in-class teaching, although employment is still down by 583,000 from the pre-pandemic level. The arts and entertainment category also showed a large gain of 73,600, as many venues that had been closed due to the pandemic were able to reopen in June.

    The retail sector added 67,100 jobs as large gains in general merchandise stores and clothing stores more than offset losses in food stores. Manufacturing added 15,000 jobs, but is still down by 481,000 from the pre-pandemic levels. Growth in the sector was slowed by a loss of 12,300 jobs in the auto industry, the result of continuing shortages. Construction jobs fell by 7,000, the third consecutive decline. This likely also reflects shortages of materials.

    Airlines added 7,800 jobs, leaving employment 83,400 (16.1 percent) below the pre-pandemic level. The motion picture industry continues to be the hardest hit. While it added back 5,400 jobs in June, it is still down 149,400 jobs (33.8 percent) from the pre-pandemic level. Nursing homes lost another 3,600 jobs in June, continuing a pattern of job loss since the pandemic hit. Employment in nursing care facilities is now down 210,500 (13.3 percent) from February, 2020. This may reflect a drop in the number of residents due to the pandemic.

    Wage Growth at the Bottom Remains Strong

    The average hourly wage from production and nonsupervisory workers continued to rise rapidly, increasing at a 5.9 percent annual rate comparing the last three months (April, May, June) with prior three months (Jan, Feb, Mar), and 3.7 percent year-over-year. The lowest paying sectors had even more rapid increases, with wages in the retail sector rising at an 11.7 percent annual rate over the last three months, but just 2.5 percent year-over-year. For restaurants the annual rate is 25.1 percent, and 11.2 percent year-over-year. These sharp wage gains at the bottom are impressive, but not likely to be inflationary since they account for a relatively small share of the total wage bill. The average hourly wage overall is up 3.6 percent from its year-ago level.

    Hours Dip Slightly

    One item that doesn’t fit with the widespread labor shortage story is a small dip in the length of the average workweek from 34.8 hours to 34.7 hours, after a similar decline in May. If employers were really having trouble finding workers, we would expect to see them trying to work the employees they have more hours.

    The drop in hours is also encouraging from the standpoint of productivity. With GDP growth likely to exceed 8.0 percent and hours rising at a roughly 4.0 percent annual rate, it looks like we will see another quarter of very strong productivity growth.

    Self-Employment Still Strong

    The number of unincorporated self-employed was little changed from May, but leaving it almost 300,000 above the 2019 average. These data are erratic, but it could mean many workers are starting their own businesses rather than returning to their old jobs.

    Long-Term Unemployment Inches Up

    The share of long-term unemployed rose by 1.2 percentage points to 42.1 percent — just below the recession peak and a level only exceeded in a few months in the Great Recession. Since these workers historically have found it more difficult to find jobs, it may slow further declines in the unemployment rate. In the same vein, the share of unemployment due to temporary layoffs edged down to 19.0 percent, from 19.6 percent.

    The share of unemployment due to voluntary quits rose by 1.5 percentage points to 9.9 percent. This is still well below the 14.0–15.0 percent range we would expect in a strong labor market.

    The pool of easily hired unemployed workers has dwindled

    Asian American Unemployment Still Above Rate for Whites

    The Asian-American unemployment continues to run above white unemployment, 5.8 percent to 5.2 percent. Before the pandemic it was typically a small amount lower. With this pattern continuing, it is possible that racism may be a factor.

    Another Solid Jobs Report

    The job growth figure was somewhat better than most economists had predicted. A big factor is that schools are finally calling back many of the teachers laid off in the pandemic. The small rise in unemployment in the household survey is disappointing, but almost certainly an anomaly that will be reversed in future months. We will likely continue to see strong job growth, coupled with declines in unemployment.

    It is worth mentioning that the decision by most Republican governors to end the $300 weekly unemployment insurance supplements had almost no impact on this report. Only Mississippi, Missouri, Iowa, and Alaska had ended the supplements by the June 12th reference date for the survey.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • President Joe Biden speaks outside the White House with a bipartisan group of senators after meeting on an infrastructure deal June 24, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    The bipartisan infrastructure deal that President Joe Biden touted in front of the White House on Thursday contains a proposed funding mechanism that experts fear could unjustly strip unemployment benefits from jobless workers under the guise of combating fraud.

    A White House fact sheet on the new agreement lists “unemployment insurance program integrity” as one of the $579 billion plan’s pay-fors, alongside other funding sources that critics say amount to an infrastructure privatization scheme. The bipartisan group of senators that struck the deal with Biden reportedly believes $80 billion in revenue can be derived from a crackdown on unemployment fraud.

    “It’s the fraud. It’s the fraud from UI,” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), a member of the bipartisan group, said in an interview with Business Insider. “Apparently, there are several reports that talk about significant fraud in the UI.”

    Shaheen may have been referring to a recent Axios story suggesting that “unemployment fraud during the pandemic could easily reach $400 billion.” But analysts panned that reporting as “unbelievably shoddy” and likely a major overestimate, noting that the only source Axios cites for the figure is the CEO of an anti-fraud company.

    In a series of tweets on Thursday, Andrew Stettner of the Century Foundation cautioned that past attempts to root out supposed unemployment fraud “have led to terrible fiascoes and wrongful accusations.”

    Stettner pointed to a 2017 investigation in Michigan showing that the state’s Unemployment Insurance Agency falsely accused tens of thousands of people of committing fraud — a 70% error rate — and hit them with draconian penalties, including wage garnishment and seizure of income tax refunds.

    Experts say the major issue is that people frequently make honest errors as they attempt to navigate byzantine application processes, resulting in unjustified claims of conscious fraud and abuse. In Indiana and other states across the U.S., those who made mistakes on their applications are being forced to pay back benefits plus a hefty fine.

    “Remember, the only way to save money is to stop fraud or recoup benefits, and without protections a lot of workers who made mistakes or were confused by ever changing rules could be forced to pay back thousands of dollars,” Stettner warned. “Congress needs to focus on fixing the UI system not obsessing about fraud.”

    With no legislative text written, it’s unclear how the bipartisan group’s proposed UI “integrity” program will operate. But Nathan Tankus, research director of the Modern Money Network, said the proposal effectively amounts to “cutting unemployment insurance for infrastructure.”

    The bipartisan infrastructure framework — which doesn’t include any taxes on wealthy individuals or large corporations — comes as 25 Republican-led states and Louisiana are prematurely cutting off pandemic-related federal unemployment benefits, including a $300 weekly boost aimed at helping jobless workers weather the economic crisis.

    The Biden administration has thus far refused to intervene, despite being required under federal law to continue providing certain emergency benefits regardless of states’ actions.

    Now, in addition to the proposed UI “integrity” effort, senators and the White House are aiming to use the unspent unemployment benefits to help fund infrastructure projects.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • New data on consumer spending in the retail sector dipped in May after peaking in March with the passage of the third round of stimulus checks. Will another check be sent?

    By: Maite Knorr-Evans

    According to data from the Department of Commerce, consumer spending in retail increased almost ten percent in March after the third round of stimulus checks were sent. However, spending levels declined in April, increasing .09%, and continued their downward trend even further in May to -1.3%

    The data from federal agencies shows that after the third direct payment was distributed, people spent more. These increases were thought to be a cause of virtuous cycles wherein businesses taking in more revenue, would be more likely to staff up. With increases in the workforce, more money begins to circulate throughout the economy as workers begin spending their paychecks. But, this is only partly shown in the data, with unemployment continuing to decline, but spending also facing a downward trajectory. 

    Could declines in retail spending mean another stimulus check is on the horizon?

    Some policymakers looking at consumer spending data and the beneficial impacts direct payments have had on families in the US, support passing an additional stimulus check. However, momentum seems to be waning on Capitol Hill as the legislatures try and work out a deal over infrastructure, and other priorities, before heading home for summer recess.

    While the May numbers did not surpass the levels seen in April, some economists are not concerned as they are still above pre-pandemic spending levels. What would begin to concern lawmakers and experts is if the decline continues to levels seen in the early stages of the pandemic or even before. For context, in February 2020, consumer retail spending totaled 525 billion dollars. Last month that figure was 620 billion.

    The New York Times reported on their discussions with experts who believe the data shows that “consumers have most likely spent all they need to furnish their homes or upgrade their phones during the homebound months of the pandemic.” Rather than spending in the retail market, they are shifting to others, including travel and dining.

    An entire picture of spending in the economy will be available later this month when the Bureau of Economic Analysis releases data on consumer spending across markets and sectors. Throughout 2021, retail spending and the broader indicator have moved in unison, meaning that households may be holding onto their money or do not have the disposable income needed to spend at the levels they did in March.

    If spending levels continue to drop, it may be a sign to lawmakers that more direct payments are needed. June, July, and August spending data will be critical to understanding the current trends for two main reasons.

    The first factor is the impact vaccination will have on spending as summer in the US begins. With more Americans reporting that they feel comfortable traveling, dining, going to the movies, concerts, and sporting events, there is sure to be an impact on household spending.

    However, the second factor could lead to a decrease in spending. A student released by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that almost seventy percent of unemployment claimants have seen incomes that surpass the levels from when they were working. As dozens of states cut federal pandemic-related unemployment benefits and workers reenter the labor market to jobs that pay them less than what they were making on unemployment, spending could decrease.

    In September, when federal unemployment benefits end across the US, lawmakers will have a multitude of indicators and data to evaluate whether the economy would benefit from another round of stimulus checks.

    The post Fourth stimulus check: can the decrease in consumer spending impact its approval? appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • If the Biden administration were serious about helping workers to build power, it would push back against the Republican governors who are ending pandemic unemployment programs early.

    This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.

  • Help Wanted sign

    Earlier this month, Tennessee’s Republican Gov. Bill Lee announced that he, like many other Republican governors across the country, would be ending extra unemployment benefits for workers as provided by the federal government. The spurious justification given by Lee and other GOP governors was that people were making too much money off unemployment to want to return to work.

    But new findings from Tennessee Senate Democrats shows that the real reason for people not being able to or wanting to return to work may be because the available jobs pay far too little.

    Lee, the Democrats point out, often points to the 250,000 jobs that are listed on Tennessee’s job portal as reasoning for ending the extra unemployment benefits. “When we have 250,000 job openings in the state and we are paying people to stay home, that needs to change,” he said earlier in June.

    Of those jobs, however, only about 8,500 list paying a salary of over $20,000 — which amounts to only about 3 percent of the available jobs that Lee so likes to tout.

    It’s possible that many of these job listings simply don’t publicize the salary in the post. However, the Democrats also point out that a majority of the jobs are older than a month, meaning some of them may no longer be available. Meanwhile, the number of new job postings are far less than the number of people unemployed.

    Meanwhile, as the Tennessee Democrats and many Democrats and progressives across the country have pointed out, ending unemployment benefits does more to hurt workers than it does to help the economy. The U.S. Congressional Joint Economic Committee found early in June that Republican governors ending extra unemployment benefits could cause their states to lose out on $12 billion in revenue.

    Workers are not only hurt in the short term by this decision, but potentially also the long term. “Cutting benefits early in order to push people into jobs that don’t work for them (e.g. pay too little, endanger their health, are not geographically proximate, etc.) risks reducing demand in local economies, foregoing [sic] the potential for future better earnings, and ultimately constricting the economic recovery from the coronavirus recession,” the report found.

    Indeed, as employers complain about a supposed worker shortage, reports and some businesses have found that the real issue is the unreasonable wages being offered by employers. A May report on the food industry found that the most common reason for restaurant employees to quit or leave the industry altogether is low wages.

    Some business owners have even found that when they offer starting wages of $15 an hour or higher, they have more applicants than they can hire.

    Still, Republicans have stuck with the now disproven talking point that unemployment benefits stop people from seeking work, much to the detriment of workers across the country.

    Nationwide, food banks are reportedly bracing for a surge in demand as the GOP governors end extra unemployment benefits, the Guardian reports. The Census Bureau reported in May that 19.3 million Americans haven’t felt they’ve had enough to eat at some point in the past week, which is about 2.5 times the number of Americans who felt the same in 2019.

    That number could increase when nearly 4 million people lose their unemployment benefits as states with Republican governors follow through on their threat to end the benefits early.

    “We are still distributing about a million to a million and a half more meals each month than we did pre Covid,” Teresa Schryver, advocacy manager for a St. Louis food bank, told the Guardian. “We might see a spike again in July and August as we’re losing the unemployment benefits here in Missouri, so we might be doing 2m meals again for a couple of months.” Schryver added that it took food insecurity rates 10 years to bounce back from the 2008 recession and that the fallout from the pandemic will likely follow the same path.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Cutting off unemployment insurance early is all politics, not economics. This is why UBI is so critical.

    By: Emily Stewart 

    Karen just needs a few more months to finally get her massage business back off the ground. Business was booming before the pandemic, and relying on unemployment insurance hasn’t been easy. “I’ve been saving every penny,” she tells me, describing, with what sounds like a hint of shame, how she’s “learned to live without lights” to try to keep her electricity bill low and has started to shower less to cut down on the water. “I made a lot more money when I was working,” she says.

    It’s taking her some time to get clients to return, and she expected to be back to work and off unemployment insurance by August. But the rug is being pulled out from under her: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) has decided to opt his state out of expanded unemployment benefits early. And he’s hardly alone in that choice.

    Federal unemployment programs that added extra weekly money and extended benefits to those who wouldn’t normally receive them, such as freelancers and people who have been unemployed long-term, were put in place in response to the pandemic. They were supposed to end on Labor Day. Now 25 states — all Republican-led — are cutting them off as early as this week, arguing that the extra support is no longer needed.

    They say that generous benefits are keeping people out of work and causing a labor shortage, even though it’s far from clear that’s what’s going on.

    States are about to undertake a reckless and unnecessary experiment in cutting off expanded unemployment in the midst of a rocky recovery, with the lives and livelihoods of an estimated 4 million workers in the balance.

    “We’ve had this message throughout the pandemic that we’re going to make sure that people who were disadvantaged by it would have the support they needed until things recover,” said Andrew Stettner, senior fellow at the Century Foundation. But from some corners, that message has gone away. “Sympathy for the unemployed disappeared the minute some people got two vaccine doses.”

    Many workers, including Karen (whose last name is being withheld to protect her privacy), have been caught by surprise and are scrambling to figure out what’s next. “I don’t know how I’m going to be able to make my rent,” Karen says. “I’m going to have to start begging clients to come in.”

    Cutting off unemployment early is a political decision, not an economic one

    When the Covid-19 pandemic took hold in 2020, millions of people lost their jobs seemingly overnight, and Congress took sweeping measures to try to provide them with extra support. The federal government added an extra $600 in weekly federal benefits through July 2020. (Those dollars expired for a while but were then reinstated as $300 in extra benefits.) It also enacted programs that would support people who don’t normally qualify for unemployment, such as freelancers, independent contractors, and gig workers, and for people who are long-term unemployed. They also lengthened the number of weeks an unemployed worker could receive benefits once they exhausted their state benefits in an effort to help the long-term unemployed.

    That decision — namely, the extra dollars in federal benefits — was politicized from the start. Many Republicans and even some Democrats argued that $600 was just too much, noting that some people would make more on unemployment than they would at work.

    They also fretted that overly generous unemployment would keep people from returning to work, a perennial talking point among businesses and conservatives. “The extra money was very politicized, even more politicized than other unemployment insurance issues in the past,” Stettner said.

    As vaccines have become more widespread and the economy has started to recover, the fretting around unemployment insurance has reached a fever pitch amid chatter that there’s a labor shortage and speculation about what’s causing it. There’s a simple, capitalistic answer if companies are struggling to find workers willing to work at the wages and conditions they’re offering: raise those wages, and make the conditions more attractive to workers. But the chatter continued, and the April jobs report, which showed far fewer jobs were added to the economy than expected, became the tipping point. Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, upped calls for states to end unemployment.

    Montana and South Carolina said they were going to opt out of enhanced unemployment programs, and now half of all states, all Republican-run, have followed suit. All are axing the extra $300, and most are getting rid of the other expanded programs. May’s jobs report didn’t provide much clarity on the situation: The US economy added 559,000 jobs last month, a number that was neither terrible nor stellar.

    “Sympathy for the unemployed disappeared the minute some people got two vaccine doses.”

    Those in support of cutting off jobless benefits early say that it’s an economic decision. But it’s hard not to see it as one largely driven by politics.

    About 8 million fewer people are currently employed than prior to the pandemic, and people ages 20 to 24 continue to see double-digit unemployment rates. While vaccine rates are rising and businesses are reopening, the economy is going through many fits and starts, and the recovery is going to take time. Nearly 16 million people are still receiving benefits under all unemployment programs, which, as the Associated Press points out, is about eight times as many people as were getting benefits in August 2014, when the unemployment rate was about what it is now. Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA), chair of the US Congress Joint Economic Committee, released a report that found cutting off unemployment early could cost local economies over $12 billion, and just ending the $300 will cost would-be beneficiaries $775 million each week.

    JPMorgan’s economic research team wrote in a note in late May that opting out of UI before the timeline set by Congress appears to be “tied to politics, not economics.” They noted that indicators of economic health didn’t really coincide with unemployment-related decisions. “While some of these states have tight labor markets and strong earnings growth, many of them do not,” they wrote.

    The unemployment rate in Texas, for example, is still above the national unemployment rate. And many people looking for work there know just how hard it can be. Lynn, who lost her job as an office manager near Houston in March, has sent out over 100 résumés but so far has only gotten two callbacks.

    “There isn’t anything I haven’t tried to get a job over the last two months,” says Lynn, whose last name is being withheld to protect her privacy. “Do you think I like sitting on my tookie all day?”

    At her age — she’s 59 — she worries a lot of companies just aren’t interested. But she’s really not in a position where she can take just anything: She needs to make enough money to pay for her mortgage so she can keep her home. Her partner uses a motorized wheelchair, and they can’t easily pick up and move. She’s already strategizing how she can make extra money while she continues to look for steady work, by mowing lawns and cleaning houses. “We’re going to be so screwed,” she says. “There’s going to be a lot of sleepless nights here.”

    Karen told a similar story of anxiety over Abbott’s decision. “I’ve had nightmares for two weeks since this has been announced,” she said. Her dog is on anti-anxiety medication, and she said she’s snuck one sometimes just to sleep.

    It’s not clear what this will prove, or whether proving anything is worth it

    There’s been quite a fierce debate about what is contributing to some workers feeling hesitant to go back to work and how quick or slow the labor market recovery will be. While some business groups and economists point to unemployment insurance as the culprit, there are also plenty of other explanations — continued concerns about the pandemic, a lack of access to child care, people rethinking their career paths or holding out for better jobs. It’s difficult, if not impossible, to figure out exactly what is motivating who, and many people could be motivated by multiple factors.

    working paper out of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco estimated that the $300 weekly unemployment supplement has been making a “small but likely noticeable contribution to job-finding rates and employers’ perceptions of worker availability.” How small: They estimate that if seven of 28 workers receive job offers they would normally accept in the early months of this year, just one would say no in order to hold on to the $300.

    The question then becomes: Does the choice made by that one worker to stay unemployed a little longer really need to outweigh the lifeline that many workers desperately need?

    “If you’re saying I’m just going to shut off your benefits, but I still don’t have child care, and I still don’t have a way to ensure my child is attending their digital school, how is that going to force me into the labor market?” said Rebecca Dixon, executive director of the National Employment Law Project (NELP). “It may force me into homelessness. It may force me to be hungry. There’s an enormous amount of workers that are still behind on rent. This whole narrative is just completely wrong, and it’s incomplete.”

    She also nodded to the racial undertones of what’s happening with unemployment: Many of the states cutting off pandemic programs early are those with many Black workers, and they’re also often the states with the stingiest and hardest-to-navigate unemployment systems. “At the root of all this is this narrative that Americans have to be forced to go to work, and it is completely and totally rooted in structural racism,” Dixon said. “Because who was being forced to work in the 1800s? Black people.”

    The point of unemployment isn’t to make workers take just any job. It’s designed to give workers the time to match with a job that’s at least on par with the job they had before, which is what many of them are doing.

    Justin, who runs an electric taxi operation in downtown Austin, didn’t want or need to find another line of work during the pandemic. He took out two Paycheck Protection Program loans for small businesses and took advantage of unemployment. Now that nightlife is picking back up and people are out and about, he’s headed back to work and off of jobless benefits. For him, the system worked. “Not having a job wasn’t my issue; it was not being able to work,” he said.

    “If you’re saying I’m just going to shut off your benefits, but i still don’t have child care, and I still don’t have a way to ensure my child is attending their digital school, how is that going to force me into the labor market?”

    The hope that governors and businesses have in cutting off unemployment is that it will force people back into the workforce and make it so that they have basically no option but to accept any job, no matter the pay or benefits or hours. It’s not clear how their experiment will work: Indeed found that job search activity rose modestly — and temporarily — when states announced they were opting out early.

    Telling people they would have support through the summer and then unexpectedly taking it away doesn’t solve the problems that might be keeping them out of work; it just turns those problems into an emergency.

    Unemployment insurance needs an overhaul

    Once governors began announcing they were cutting off unemployment insurance, many people were shocked. Congress had said unemployment would go through Labor Day, and workers were caught off guard that this could even happen. After all, the programs being cut off are funded by federal money, not the states.

    “These are temporary programs, and the way that these temporary programs are administered is an agreement between the secretary of labor and the governor of the states, and that agreement gives either side — the Labor Department or the state — 30 days to terminate it,” Stettner said. “That’s what’s happening. They’re exercising this termination clause in the agreement.”

    Some experts, politicians, and advocacy groups have argued that the Labor Department should step in to try to stop states from ending benefits. NELP put out a memo laying out the case that the labor secretary has to figure out a way to keep Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA), which covers self-employed people, part-time workers, and people who wouldn’t otherwise qualify for regular unemployment compensation, going. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) sent a letter to Labor Secretary Marty Walsh reiterating NELP’s case.

    Thus far, the administration insists that its hands are tied on keeping unemployment going in states that are trying to shut it off. A Labor official told Vox that they believe their authority is nil on the matter, and that because states administer unemployment insurance, it’s next to impossible to find workarounds where the federal government or other states would pay benefits. The official said they are still open to ideas.

    Some advocates and workers have expressed doubts that there’s really nothing the federal government can do, as well as frustration that many Democrats aren’t speaking out more about the matter. “I have been extremely disappointed by the silence from President Biden and from the secretary [of labor] to not sort of more publicly call out [what’s happening],” said Rachel Deutsch, who heads the Unemployed Action movement at the Center for Popular Democracy.

    The White House hasn’t exactly offered a full-throated defense of expanded unemployment.

    At a briefing on Friday, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said governors “have every right” to opt out of unemployment benefits and emphasized that no one in the administration “has ever proposed making these permanent or doing it over the long term.” She said that deciphering the extent to which expanded unemployment is keeping people out of work is “difficult to analyze.”

    Telling people they would have support through the summer and then unexpectedly taking it away doesn’t solve the problems that might be keeping them out of work; it just turns those problems into an emergency.

    Some unemployed workers are organizing to try to protest and keep their promised benefits, and advocates insist there are ways to help. But the current situation points to the broader problem of how deeply flawed America’s unemployment insurance system is. If it were more robust, we wouldn’t be here. “This is actually a microcosm of the full dysfunctionality of the unemployment insurance system as a whole,” Deutsch said.

    This has been painfully evident for a long time, and particularly acute during the pandemic. Unemployment insurance is run as a state-federal partnership that gives states a lot of leeway in how they administer the program. That has translated to low benefits in many states and impossible-to-navigate bureaucracy. Even more than a year after the pandemic hit, workers still describe spending hours on the phone and on websites trying to figure out how to apply for unemployment. Ken, a Texas teacher who is trying to figure out what to do without unemployment for the last two months before he goes back to school in the fall, said Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) office finally helped him get through to the state agency to at least collect what he’s owed before he’s cut off. “If I send a message to Ted Cruz’s office, they get me on a call list, and I get a call back,” said Ken, whose last name is being withheld to protect his privacy. (Anecdotal evidence from a Facebook group of unemployed people from Texas suggests Cruz’s office is highly effective in helping people navigate the system.)

    What happens consistently in downturns is that federal lawmakers need to step in to decide whether to help unemployed people instead of putting in some sort of automatic triggers, which would mean help is dictated by economic conditions and not political whims. Maybe some of the states cutting off benefits right now do have economies that merit it, but not all of them do.

    “We have to have standards for the benefits at all times so we don’t have to so drastically increase them,” Stettner said. “And if we’re going to have federally supported programs, we may need to have some provision in law that allows the federal government to directly pay them if the state refuses.”

    We don’t know when the next recession will come, but we know that it will. And the country and workers will be stuck in this doom loop unless there is real change or, perhaps, the entire system is overhauled.

    “Fundamentally, if we are really serious about having an income support program that is countercyclical, that actually puts money into the economy when we’re heading into a downturn and provides people with money to meet their basic needs, we actually need to create that program,” Dixon said, “because what we have now is not adequate.”

    Karen, whose husband died in 2017, is currently collecting about $418 a week in unemployment. It’s enough to pay the rent for her house and for the shared office she’ll soon be working out of yet again, but not much more. “It’s just enough to make it by,” she said, “and live in the dark.”

    Later this month, she thinks it will be cut to $0.

    _________________________________________

    Original article appeared in Vox: https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2021/6/3/22465160/states-ending-unemployment-labor-shortage-texas

    The post America’s cruel unemployment experiment appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • A "Help Wanted" sign is posted beside Coronavirus safety guidelines in front of a restaurant in Los Angeles, California, on May 28, 2021.

    The May employment report was somewhat weaker than had generally been expected, with the economy adding 559,000 jobs. On the household side, the unemployment rate fell by 0.3 percentage points to 5.8 percent. While this is still high by any reasonable measure, it is worth noting that the unemployment rate did not get this low following the Great Recession until October of 2014.

    The employment-to-population ratio (EPOP) edged up to 58.0 percent, which is 3.1 percentage points below the pre-pandemic level. By this measure, the gender differences in the hit from the pandemic have largely disappeared, the women’s EPOP for May was 53.1 percent, down 2.3 percentage points from its average in 2019. For men the May EPOP was 63.4 percent, down 3.2 percentage points from its year-round average of 66.6 percent in 2019. However, in payroll employment, women’s share was 49.8 percent in May, compared with 50.0 percent before the pandemic.

    (It is important to note that states that ended unemployment insurance supplements would not likely affect the May data. The termination did not take effect until June, the reference point for the survey is May 12th.)

    Private Sector Performance Was Strong, as Governments Lag in Rehiring Workers

    The private sector accounted for 492,000 of the May job growth, as state and local governments added back just 78,000 workers in the month (the federal government lost 11,000 jobs). State and local employment is still 1,191,000 below its pre-pandemic level, with the vast majority of this gap in education. With the end of the regular school year this month, pandemic closings will be less of an issue in June, but presumably all schools will be open again for in-class instruction in the fall.

    The private sector is down 6,462,000 jobs since February 2020. At the May rate of job growth, it will take just over 13 months to make up the gap.

    Restaurants Biggest Source of Job Gap

    In absolute numbers, restaurants make up the largest chunk of this shortfall, with employment still down 1,480,000 from the pre-pandemic level, after adding 186,000 jobs in May. While many employers claim that they aren’t hiring because they can’t find workers, it’s not clear how much impact this shortage is having. Wages have been rising rapidly for nonsupervisory workers in the industry, a 22.2 percent annual rate comparing the average of the last three months (March, April, and May) with the prior three months (December, January, and February), but the average workweek actually fell slightly in May, from 25.3 hours to 25.1 hours.

    On the plus side, the index of aggregate hours in the industry is still 12.4 percent below its pre-recession level. With restaurant sales likely passing their pre-pandemic level in May, this implies a huge gain in productivity. This is true more generally, as the overall index of aggregate hours for May stood 3.6 percent below the February level, even as output is virtually certain to pass pre-pandemic levels in the quarter.

    Big Job Gains in Most Troubled Sectors

    The health care sector, which is down 508,000 jobs from before the pandemic, added 22,500 jobs in May. Nursing care facilities, which are down 202,000 jobs, added back just 1,000 jobs in May, after losing 17,700 in April. This is a sector where low and poor working conditions may make it difficult to attract workers.

    Hotels, which are down 526,000 jobs, added 34,600 jobs in May. The other services category, which includes sectors such as hair salons and dry cleaners and is down 353,000 jobs, added 10,000 jobs in May. The retail sector, which is down 411,000 jobs, actually lost 5,800 jobs in May. This is another sector where it seems there have been strong productivity gains. The motion picture sector, which is among the worst hit in percentage terms, down 157,000 jobs or 35.6 percent, added 13,900 jobs in May.

    Construction and Manufacturing Coping With Shortages

    Construction lost 20,000 jobs in May after losing 5,000 in April. This is likely due to temporary shortages of building material, most importantly lumber. Manufacturing added 23,000 jobs, reversing most of the job loss in April, as it seems auto manufacturers are finding ways to deal with the semiconductor shortage.

    Recovery Continues to Benefit More Educated Workers

    The unemployment rate for college grads fell 0.3 percentage points to 3.2 percent in May. It is down 0.8 percentage points from the start of the year. By contrast, the unemployment rate for high school grads dropped just 0.1 percentage points to 6.8 percent. It has fallen 0.3 percentage points since January.

    Black Teen Unemployment Hits a Record Low

    The unemployment rate for Black teens fell to 12.1 percent in May, by far the lowest level on record. These data are highly erratic, so we may see a big jump in future months, but it does seem to indicate they are doing relatively well in the current labor market.

    The overall Black and Hispanic unemployment both dropped 0.6 percentage points in May, to 9.1 percent and 7.3 percent, respectively. The unemployment rate for Asian Americans is still somewhat higher than for whites, 5.5 percent compared to 5.1 percent for whites. It was slightly lower pre-recession.

    Long-Term Unemployment Falls and Quit Rate Rises Modestly

    The share of long-term unemployed (more than 26 weeks) fell back from 43.0 percent to 40.9 percent in May. This is still very high; a more normal rate would be in the teens. The percent of unemployment due to voluntary quits edges up to just 8.4 percent. It was over 14.0 percent pre-pandemic, indicating workers still don’t feel great about their labor market prospects.

    Jump in Self-Employed

    There has been a big jump in the number of self-employed workers in the last three months, with the three-month average of 9,843,000 more than 300,000 above the year-round average for 2019. These data are erratic, but it is possible that many people are finding ways to work from home for themselves instead of returning to the workplace.

    Generally Solid Report

    The jobs numbers were somewhat weaker than expected again in May, but much of this continues to be due to schools not reopening. In terms of employers having trouble hiring workers, there is some evidence, most notably the relatively rapid wage growth for production workers, (i.e., 4.5 percent annual rate, comparing the last three months with the prior three months.) On the other hand, the small drop in hours in average weekly hours is not consistent with a shortage.

    The plus side of weaker-than-expected job growth is that it means productivity growth is very strong. With output now passing pre-pandemic levels, but employment still far lower, this means we are getting much more output per hour. Strong productivity growth should eliminate any fears of inflation.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Protesters join together asking senators to support the continuation of unemployment benefits on July 16, 2020, in Miami Springs, Florida.

    Florida’s Republican-led government announced Monday that it will soon cut off a $300-per-week federal boost to unemployment benefits, the 23rd GOP state to take such a step in recent weeks as the Biden Labor Department faces pressure to ensure the lifeline continues reaching jobless workers.

    The Century Foundation, a progressive think tank, estimates that four million people across the nation will be harmed by the Republican benefit cuts, which GOP leaders have falsely claimed are necessary to push people back into the labor force.

    But economists and Democratic lawmakers have argued there is no good evidence behind the narrative that enhanced jobless aid — which, in states such as Florida, is notoriously difficult to obtain — is dissuading people from seeking or accepting work. Progressive analysts and members of Congress have pointed to the myriad other factors at play, such as lack of child care, low wages, and pandemic-related health fears.

    “There’s no worker shortage — just an excess of corporate greed,” tweeted Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. “Florida is the 23rd state to cut the unemployment lifeline, forcing people to go without or go back to minimum wage jobs without child care. This callousness is why we need an urgent investment in the care economy.”

    While Florida — unlike 19 other Republican states — is not ending its participation in two federal programs that provide unemployment aid to jobless gig workers and those who have exhausted their eligibility for state-level benefits, critics warned that halting the $300 weekly plus-up alone will have a major impact on Floridians struggling to cover basic expenses amid the ongoing economic downturn.

    Observers have also stressed the damage that slashing unemployment benefits will do to the still-ailing U.S. economy. According to The Century Foundation, cutting off the aid will deprive the economy of $23.3 billion.

    “Florida is the latest state to pull the rug out from under jobless workers as Republican governors nationwide sabotage the economic recovery,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), chair of the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement Monday. “By design, Florida has one of the stingiest unemployment insurance systems in the country. Jobless workers will receive just $235 per week on average, and it’s impossible to make ends meet with $235 per week.”

    “No one should face financial ruin for living in states run by Republicans,” added Wyden, who has called on the Biden administration to “explore all options” to prevent workers from losing the key benefits.

    The Labor Department, however, has insisted it is powerless to stop the GOP cuts, claiming there is no legal way to compel states to keep distributing the benefits or to send the assistance itself.

    “There is nothing we can do,” one anonymous administration official told CNN last week.

    But the National Employment Law Project — a worker advocacy group — and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have argued that under the terms of a coronavirus relief law enacted last March, the Biden administration has a legal obligation to continue providing the unemployment aid regardless of GOP governors’ actions.

    “Workers who lack access to childcare, have lost employer-sponsored health insurance, and fear for their health and safety as we work to get every American vaccinated are entitled to these benefits,” Sanders wrote in a letter (pdf) to Labor Secretary Marty Walsh earlier this month.

    In recent interviews with media outlets, jobless workers who have relied on the emergency unemployment aid to weather the nationwide economic crisis have voiced fear that they soon won’t be able to afford adequate food, medication, rent, and other needs. The benefit cuts are set to begin taking effect next month.

    “I’m definitely getting less on unemployment compared to when I was working. I’ve had to cut back a lot and just make do with what we got,” Gabrielle Mcginnis, a San Antonio resident, told the Texas Tribune last week. “We’re not starving, but our quality of life has gone down for sure. Next month, it’s gonna be really bad because my partner just got laid off from his job, too. I’m not really sure what we’re gonna do.”

    As HuffPost’s Arthur Delaney reported Monday, “Florida, Ohio, Alaska, and Arizona are only dropping the $300 benefit, while the other states taking action are also canceling federal benefits for gig workers and the long-term jobless.”

    “About half of the four million workers will continue receiving state benefits, which average less than $400 per week,” Delaney noted. “The other half will be left with nothing.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Three workers watch Joe Biden from behind a closed door

    Black workers have been hit hardest by the pandemic. We are more likely to lose income because of Covid-related layoffs and shutdowns, and by last August — five months into the pandemic — Black unemployment was nearly double that of white unemployment.

    But the impact is not just economic. We are three times more likely to be exposed to Covid-19 on the job and twice as likely to die from the virus. To recover from the devastating effects that Covid-19 has had on all communities, we must center the concerns and needs of Black workers in the economic recovery to come. It’s a moral imperative, but it also makes good fiscal and political sense, too.

    We already know what policies work: when we need to get help to American families, we rely on cash assistance, focus on eliminating barriers to employment and advancement, and build in legal protections against discrimination. It’s time to put them to work in this economic recovery.

    The National Black Worker Center has published a new report, outlining how federal, state, and local governments can finally place Black workers at the center of an economic recovery that works for everyone. Our recommendations include:

    1. Invest in immediate relief and job creation in the Black community.
    2. Protect workers and eliminate discrimination in the workplace.
    3. Promote equal pay.
    4. Establish and strengthen offices that protect workers.

    The nation’s job growth is sluggish not because workers are counting on government checks, but because our political leaders have yet to address the root causes of work shortages during this pandemic, including a childcare crisis and workplaces that are especially unsafe for Black workers and other workers of color. Until Congress and state leaders take these challenges on, we will continue to need direct payments, which, for many working families, can be the difference between having essentials or being forced to decide between food, utilities, or transportation.

    If we as a country are serious about criminal justice reform, we must also reckon with a specifically vulnerable population of Black workers: those who are or were previously incarcerated. Even before the pandemic, returning to a community after incarceration was challenging because of policies that block people with arrest or conviction records from securing housing, employment, and government assistance. Securing these necessities became even more difficult last year amid uncoordinated releases from jails and prison to ease over-crowding, resulting in even less time for formerly incarcerated people to make Covid-safe living arrangements or enroll for the public benefits they qualify for.

    Even Black workers who do not have these lived experiences are vulnerable to workplace discrimination in the best circumstances and became even more vulnerable during COVID. Earlier this year, One Fair Wage released a groundbreaking report on the subminimum tipped wage that revealed how the pandemic was making untenable work conditions even worse for Black service workers.

    According to their report, Black workers were more likely to be retaliated against with lower tips due to enforcing Covid safety measures; 76 percent of Black workers report that their tips have decreased due to enforcing Covid-19 safety measures, whereas 62 percent of workers report this on average.

    To help combat this treatment, we need Congress to not only revisit and finally pass legislation for a $15/hour minimum wage, but to adequately fund the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to investigate instances of harassment and empower businesses to protect their workers.

    These policies are just the beginning. To meet this moment of urgency, we need policymakers at every level of government to act, but especially federal government to bring their resources to bear on fighting another lost decade for Black workers.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Brian Kemp

    Earlier this month, the Department of Labor released a less-than-stellar jobs report that sent politicians, economists and leaders in corporate America scrambling for answers. That report details an approximate 71% drop in job growth paired with a slight hike in unemployment, falling far below analyst expectations of a month-over-month boom. This prompted many “mainstream” or conservative pundits, along with Republican elected officials, to point toward a prime suspect: unemployment insurance.

    Their logic is simple: if people are getting paid to do nothing, they have no incentive to do anything. But Democrats have argued that the reality is far too complicated to chalk up to one factor. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen attributed the disappointing jobs report to a lack of proper child care and lingering fears about the pandemic. Others have pinned the blame on employers, citing low wages and poor working conditions as reasons why Americans might be more hesitant to rejoin the workforce.

    Nevertheless, over the past two weeks week, a narrative about “labor shortages” and the allegedly corrosive effects of overly generous unemployment benefits, has been force-fed to the American public. Within a matter of days, at least 16 state governors — including such nationally prominent Republicans as Kristi Noem of South Dakota, Doug Ducey of Arizona and Brian Kemp of Georgia — seized the opportunity to slash or eliminate aid to the jobless, even as the U.S. struggles to recover from the effects of a global pandemic.

    Given how effective this “labor shortage” narrative was in driving reactionary GOP policy, it seems worth unpacking exactly where and how it arose. Several observers on the left have argued that it emerged from “explicitly ideological think tanks and explicitly ideological right-wing projects,” as Henry Williams, co-founder of the Gravel Institute, put it in an interview with Salon. It then “trickled outward” through mainstream media sources, effectively cleansed of its right-wing roots.

    Conservative think tanks and other institutions, Williams said, “will facilitate studies, analyses and articles that can then be laundered through various communications arms through their press releases.” That material then appears in local media or the seemingly neutral business press, he said, and is then widely perceived as apolitical conventional wisdom.

    The recent “labor shortage” narrative appeared to arise right after the recent jobs report from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a massively influential pro-business lobby with one of the widest reaches of any political organization in the country. Within hours of the report’s release, the Chamber released a statement arguing that “paying people not to work is dampening what should be a stronger jobs market” and announced a broad lobbying effort aimed at pressuring both the White House and Capitol Hill to kill jobless benefits.

    Republican lawmakers then jumped onto the bandwagon to trash unemployment insurance. “Systematically paying unemployment benefits that are more than a person makes working doesn’t create an environment that’s particularly conducive to going back to work,” Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania — a distinctly moderate Republican by current standards — told Fox News in a Friday interview. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., also railed against the benefits, calling them a “special bonus for unemployed people to stay home.”

    But in fact this campaign against unemployment benefits can be traced at least as far back as last July, when the Chamber wrote a letter to then-President Trump urging what it called a “middle-ground approach” to federal assistance — which effectively amounted to a drastic reduction in benefits. “The additional $600 [in weekly benefits] is also causing significant distortions in the labor market and hurting the economic recovery,” the group wrote at the time. “We routinely hear from our employer members who report that individuals are declining to return to work because they can take home more money on unemployment.”

    Other conservative or pro-business organizations were also trying to build public sympathy for the struggles of employers. Mere months after the pandemic had forced millions of Americans out of work, groups like the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute and the Hoover Institute lamented that overly generous unemployment insurance was wreaking havoc on the labor market. As Rachel Greszler, a Heritage research fellow, put it: “Instead of bridging the gap, excessive unemployment payments will only increase the breadth and depth of the economic downturn.”

    This analysis then bled into the business press, with publications like Forbes and Business Observer publishing seemingly non-ideological stories about a scarcity of labor. Then it reached mainstream news, with a series of anecdotally-driven reports from the perspectives of disgruntled business owners in industries hit hard by the pandemic, including hospitality, construction, manufacturing, nursing, food service and more.

    Potential labor shortages, as Williams told Salon, have been a concern for the business community since the pandemic began, with employers “wondering how they’re going to bring people back in these conditions.” He continued, “The business community was already fighting this proxy battle months ago. The difference was, when these jobs numbers came out, they saw a perfect opportunity … to connect them to this broader lobbying effort and create an economic narrative that they know has a unique power in shaping policy.”

    Indeed, immediately after April’s jobs numbers were released on May 7, business leaders vociferously hammered home this narrative. The National Owners Association, a group of McDonald’s franchisees, wrote on May 10 about the “perverse effects of the current unemployment benefits” on hiring. Goldman Sachs chief economist Jan Hatzius echoed this theory the day, arguing that “labor supply appears to be tighter than the unemployment rate suggests, likely reflecting the impact of unusually generous unemployment benefits and lingering virus-related impediments to working,” as Yahoo Finance reported. On the very day the numbers were released, the New York Post published an article featuring testimonials from New York City restaurateurs who blamed jobless benefits for their hiring challenges.

    The response of the business class was like a “lightning-flash reaction,” said Joseph A. McCartin, executive director of the Kalmanovitz Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor at Georgetown University, in an interview with Salon.

    “Employers’ associations and conservative groups have been seizing on the jobs numbers to campaign for the rollback of benefits in order to force workers back to work,” he said, in hopes of regaining control over the labor supply and controlling wages. “There was a well-organized operation that’s been in place for several months by groups who were preparing for the pushback. They knew they couldn’t do it two months ago. They were ready for these numbers.”

    Williams told Salon that the speedy response from Republican governors was best understood as a genuflection to their business constituencies. “Many of these Republican governors genuinely see themselves as serving the business community, above and beyond their constituents more broadly,” he said. “They are willing to go out ahead of the evidence, and ahead of the political consensus, in order to demonstrate their fealty to the business community.”

    Unsurprisingly, many of the GOP governors who were quick to eliminate federal payments also have ties to pro-business organizations like the Chamber of Commerce. Just last year, the Chamber’s chief public affairs officer sent several private emails to Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp and his aides, asking Kemp “to prioritize legal protections for businesses if workers or customers were to contract the coronavirus,” as The Washington Post reported.

    In April, the Cobb Chamber of Commerce, one the Chamber’s local Georgia chapters, hosted an annual luncheon featuring Kemp, where he spoke about what he described as the misguided backlash surrounding Major League Baseball’s decision to pull its All-Star Game from the state after the Republican-dominated Georgia legislature passed a now-notorious package of voting restrictions. He promised economic benefits “far beyond the value of any All-Star Game,” stressing, “I will always fight for the business community.”

    Missouri Gov. Mike Parson has also been a loyal ally of his corporate constituencies. During the pandemic last year, Parson worked to advance legislation that would shield businesses against damages related to the spread of COVID-19. In May of last year, the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry delivered “an urgent letter” to Parson asking him to “address the growing problem of opportunistic COVID-19 lawsuits.” In July, Parson delivered a speech to the Springfield Area Chamber of Commerce touting the state’s economic health prior to the outbreak. “Incomes have gone up. Taxes have gone down. We had at many times more jobs than we had people to fill them,” he told the Chamber.

    South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, also a Republican gave several speeches to the state’s Chamber of Congress and the Myrtle Beach Area Chamber of Congress, and received support from South Carolina’s Small Business Chamber in September, when he recommended that the state use $30 million of coronavirus relief aid to provide grants to businesses that didn’t qualify for PPP loans.

    Notably, the effort to eliminate federal benefits is being led out in the open for the public to see, instead of being astroturfed through pseudo-grassroots organizations. It’s a lot like a “culture war,” William Spriggs, a professor of economics at Howard University, told Salon in an interview.

    “It is a purely ideological move” because “this is federal money,” Spriggs explained, stressing that in the terms of pure economic self-interest, Republican politicians’ decisions appear nonsensical. The federal money for jobless benefits “is not coming out of the state trust funds,” he said. “From the local politicians, it’s dumbfounding. The state of South Carolina is going to send half a billion dollars back to the United States Treasury” that would otherwise be spent in the state on rent, mortgages, groceries, gasoline and a host of other goods and services. “Don’t they understand that?” he asked rhetorically. “You’re going to take half a billion dollars of sales away from your companies?”

    “In a case like this,” Williams explained, “you’re talking about a program that touches so many people that you need to change the public opinion first to win on it.” Republicans and the business lobby, in other words, “want to change the prevailing political winds.”

    The “prevailing winds” at this point appear largely in favor of unemployment insurance, despite Republican protestations that, somehow or other, they’re bad for the average worker. According to a poll from March, three-quarters of all Iowa residents — in a state dominated by Republicans — oppose cutting unemployment benefits. A Politico/Morning Consult similarly found in March that 72% of Americans supported President Biden’s latest COVID relief bill, with a broad majority specifically supporting the latest batch of unemployment checks.

    In other words, it would require a truly impressive propaganda triumph for the GOP to change the minds of American workers, at least one-fourth of whom relied on unemployment insurance to survive throughout the pandemic. In seeking to accomplish that, Republicans are trying to link the unemployment issue “to the politics of reopening,” Williams explained. “The goal is to use the media to try and create a national narrative that Biden is holding back the recovery.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A man exits a store with a "NOW HIRING" sign in front of it

    As the pandemic raged in 2020, tens of millions of U.S. families were kept economically afloat by expanded unemployment benefits — which lasted longer, were of higher value, and were accessible by more categories of workers (in particular freelancers or independent contractors) than was the case in non-pandemic moments.

    In the first terrifying days of the pandemic and the accompanying public health-informed shutdowns, the economy nose-dived, seemingly with no bottom in sight. Within a month of the initial shut-down orders, unemployment had increased to roughly 15 percent. In states like California, with particularly strict shutdowns, that number was far higher still. Moreover, millions more were likely jobless but statistically invisible, as unemployment offices around the country struggled to keep up with the surge of applicants.

    Going into the summer of 2020, even as some parts of the economy began to cautiously reopen, and even as new business models — such as DoorDash and other delivery services — started to pick up some of the employment slack, unemployment remained at over 11 percent, three times what it had been before COVID.

    Now, however, as we head into another summer, with the pandemic in the U.S. receding in the face of the country’s largely successful vaccination rollout, and with the economy growing again, the GOP has come out swinging against keeping those expanded benefits in place.

    The economy is still 2.8 million jobs south of where it was prior to COVID, the official unemployment rate is still 6.1 percent, and the tepid April jobs report showed the economy only added 266,000 jobs. But Republicans are now arguing those numbers are mediocre because generous benefits are providing a disincentive for people to work. Conservative economists and politicians on the right argue that sufficient quantities of jobs aren’t being generated, and a portion of those that are being generated aren’t being filled, largely because many of the out-of-work are perfectly happy sitting at home and living high off the hog on government assistance. It’s an updated but equally unpleasant version of the 1980s “welfare queens” cliché.

    Even as President Joe Biden’s administration seeks to dramatically expand the federal social safety net, and even as many Democratic-run states have embarked on largescale expansions and reimagining of their own programs, nine GOP-led states, starting with Montana, Arkansas and South Carolina, and followed in quick succession by Iowa, Missouri, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama and North Dakota, have recently rejected federal funds for $300 per week supplemental benefits. In this, they join South Dakota, which as early as last summer rejected the expanded benefits for unemployed workers and instead opted to fully open its economy in the face of escalating COVID numbers. (By November of last year, South Dakota had one of the highest rates of infection in the world.)

    The GOP’s alleged rationale, building on anti-benefits arguments that go back as far as President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, is that high-value government benefits lead to sloth and thus artificially keep a lid on economic expansion. As state-level political leaders fall into line with this ideological policy stance, it looks increasingly likely that in the coming weeks many more GOP states will also opt to reject billions of dollars in unemployment assistance from the federal government. In doing so, they will essentially be signing off on the consolidation of two entirely different employment social safety nets in the country, one a minimalist red state version based around low wages and deeply inadequate safety net protections; the other an expansionist blue state model.

    Last year, anti-immigrant voices in the GOP, such as Senators Tom Cotton and Josh Hawley, urged ever more restrictions on the numbers of immigrants legally admitted into the U.S., arguing that the labor market was so weak that all available jobs should be kept for red-blooded Americans. Now, just months later, they are arguing, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, that the labor market is currently so strong that benefits should be slashed for those same red-blooded Americans.

    Each argument is disingenuous. Admitting large numbers of immigrants has always helped rather than hindered U.S. job creation. Restricting benefits doesn’t turbo-charge the labor market; rather it immiserates those already struggling to find a place within that market, and creates a huge incentive for unscrupulous employers to pay bargain-basement wages, knowing that workers don’t have any safety-net alternatives to fall back on.

    If the GOP were serious about drawing people back into the workforce, the party would support living wage legislation. But instead, it has consistently opposed raising the minimum wage, including most recently when Biden made his rather half-hearted, and rapidly abandoned, effort to include the $15 per hour minimum wage in the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan.

    The Republican position on all of this is quintessentially Victorian: Keep wages low at the bottom of the economy, but keep benefits even lower. Force people into the workforce, even if wages are no better than subsistence, and make the process of accessing benefits as humiliating as possible (think of the 19th-century Work House).

    For the GOP base, this might make for good “red-meat politics,” pandering to the views and the biases of dyed-in-the-wool Republican voters. But red-meat politics doesn’t often make for good public policy making. Before limiting benefits to people who are out of work, the GOP should think carefully about the ongoing economic misery unleashed by the public health calamity.

    The peculiarities of the pandemic, and the scale of the economic dislocation it resulted in, have made it particularly difficult to get a comprehensive read on the scale of joblessness and unemployment in the United States; but estimates in recent months have ranged from a low of just over 10 million to a high of about 18 million.

    That’s an awful lot of workers — and their families — still reliant on government assistance to keep above water. And, in consequence, notwithstanding self-serving rhetoric about how tight the labor market is, that’s an awful lot of stacked-up pain waiting to be unleashed on those workers as the GOP uses its state-level power to curtail unemployment benefits over the coming weeks and months.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A mother and son walk through one of the neighborhoods of Stockton where participants in the city's universal basic income program live in Stockton, California, on February 7, 2020.

    It’s probably safe to say that a few years ago, most Americans weren’t familiar with the term universal basic income, commonly abbreviated as UBI. But more recently, as the idea has grown in popularity among the tech community, and with Andrew Yang’s presidential run putting it into the political spotlight, the idea of everybody in the country receiving a monthly check just for existing has begun to capture the public’s imagination and has become a more normalized part of the political lexicon.

    It’s important to note that there are multiple versions of universal basic income, from libertarian or right-wing iterations which see the UBI as a replacement for public benefits, to more progressive versions, such as those discussed in this article, which are intended as a supplement to already existing social safety net programs and which do not use means-testing (such as requiring employment) as a qualifying factor.

    In fact, just in the last few years, several cities and nonprofits, and even tech companies across the United States have begun launching guaranteed income pilot programs intended to study the practical effects that no-strings-attached cash payments may have on a wide variety of communities, spanning from immigrants of varied legal status, to formerly incarcerated people, to women of color who are raising children, and more. Although a number of these programs are not technically universal, instead targeting specific communities, a significant number of them are truly universal.

    Perhaps the most well-known universal basic income pilot program took place in the city of Stockton, California. The Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration, or SEED program, was launched in February 2019 and lasted 24 months. Led by former Stockton Mayor Michael D. Tubbs, the SEED initiative was the country’s first mayor-led guaranteed income program, giving $500 a month to 125 Stocktonians.

    The program, which concluded this February, was a randomized control trial, and has been evaluated by a team of independent researchers who just published a report sharing the study’s key findings.

    “The Stockton results were really powerful,” said Natalie Foster, co-founder of the Economic Security Project, a network that supports exploration and experimentation of a guaranteed income, and the first organization to put money into the SEED demonstration. “People reported much lower stress, less anxiety attacks, people went off meds — just a much lower load of stress in general, which is good for society.”

    Pam and Jim — one couple in their late 20s/early 30s who live in Stockton with their three school-age children and were recipients of the SEED funding — described how they used to regularly have panic attacks as a result of financial stress, but since receiving the monthly basic income, they’ve reported that their anxiety has greatly decreased.

    “I had panic attacks and anxiety,” Pam told researchers in Stockton. “I had to take a pill for it. And I haven’t even touched them in a while. I used to carry them on me all the time.”

    The report also showed that a guaranteed income reduced economic volatility. For example, researchers found that households receiving the intervention were better positioned over time to cover a $400 unexpected expense with cash or a credit card paid in full than the control group.

    At the start of the program, only 25 percent of recipients could pay for an unexpected expense with cash or a cash equivalent, rather than racking up debt. One year in, 52 percent of those in the treatment group could pay for an unexpected expense with cash or a cash equivalent.

    The research also showed that the intervention created new opportunities for self-determination, choice, goal-setting and risk-taking; and enabled recipients to find full-time employment. For example, in February of 2019, 28 percent of recipients had full-time employment, contrasted with 40 percent one year later.

    “When given a baseline of income security, people found full-time work at twice the rate as the control group because they had to invest in the risky endeavor of applying for a job,” Foster said. “By having a little bit more economic security, they were able to spend more time on their own employment and with their own families.”

    These findings are consistent with other universal basic income pilots, which show that, counter to what certain right-wing taking points against UBI might suggest, unconditional cash has actually been shown to increase participation in the labor force, rather than disincentivize it.

    The report also outlined how people spent the money, which was largely on goods and services and things like groceries and utilities. The monthly payments also provided recipients with something less tangible: time.

    “There is a story that has always stuck with me where one of the participants talked about going to the swimming pool with his children one Saturday morning after he started getting the monthly checks,” Foster said. “He realized that his kid knew how to swim, which is something he didn’t know because he’d never had the luxury of a Saturday morning with his children where he didn’t have to work.”

    The key findings from the SEED program reflect those of other pilot studies as well, which show that when given financial opportunities, people generally utilize them in important and productive ways. For example, the “Mincome” experiment, which provided a guaranteed income to the entire town of Dauphin, Canada, in the 1970s, resulted in fewer teenage boys dropping out of school to enter the work force and more people taking job training courses at the local community college.

    The promising data coming out of pilots and demonstrations like those in Dauphin and Stockton have helped to spur a national movement. In fact, Mayor Tubbs’s SEED demonstration inspired him to launch Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, a coalition which consists of more than 40 mayors across the country, from large metropolises like Los Angeles, California, to smaller cities such as Santa Fe, New Mexico, and Montpelier, Vermont.

    “Those mayors are saying they support a federal guaranteed income, and that it would make the local economies and the households in their cities much better off if there were income security provided,” Foster said. “So, many of these mayors are going to demonstrate what a guaranteed income looks like in their city.”

    One of these cities is Patterson, New Jersey, where Mayor Andre Sayegh announced the launch of a pilot program called Guaranteed Income in March 2021. The program will give $400 per month to 110 people, regardless of employment status, for a one year.

    But not all cities are waiting for their mayors and policy makers to make the first move. In 2018, a group of mothers in the city of Jackson, Mississippi, launched the Magnolia Mother’s Trust, the first pilot in the U.S. to offer monthly payments specifically to low-income African American mothers.

    “It currently is the longest-running guaranteed income project in the country, and it was the first guaranteed income project to take a gender and racial justice approach,” Aisha Nyandoro, the program’s founder, told Truthout. “We can’t talk about economic inequalities or economic justice or a guaranteed income without talking about race and gender and the role that those two realities are playing in the significant inequalities and inequities that we see around wealth.”

    The Magnolia Mother’s program provides Black mothers in Jackson $1,000 per month for 12 months, and has supported 230 mothers since its inception. There is also a multi-generational component to the project which invests a one-time deposit of $1,000 into a savings account for the children of the mothers in the program.

    “Our moms always talk about how it gives them breathing room, it provides the space so they can zoom out and reflect and think and plan,” Nyandoro said. “People pay off debt, explore home ownership, get cars, go on vacation for the first time. One of our moms in our first year went to visit her father — she hadn’t seen her father in over 20 years because neither one of them had ever had the disposable cash necessary to go visit each other.”

    The guaranteed income provided by the Magnolia Mother’s program is not technically a universal basic income because it’s targeted to a specific, marginalized demographic, a relatively recent trend in the movement for a basic income.

    “I do believe that targeted programs like ours can have a universal impact,” Nyandoro said. “The work that we have done and that SEED has done and all of the other advocates who have been working for this for the last few years, all of that research and all of our advocacy has really helped to lead the charge for cash disbursements, or stimulus checks, or the child tax credit that we’re seeing now. And that is all universal.”

    Although not officially partnered with the city, Jackson’s mayor, Chokwe Lumumba, is a member of the Mayors for a Guaranteed Income coalition, so the potential for a municipal guaranteed income program is not off the table.

    “The demonstrations of basic income are replicating in cities across the United States at incredible speed and have spurred a federal conversation,” Economic Security Project’s Foster told Truthout. “We live in an era of pandemics. There will be more and more income instability and income insecurity, and guaranteed income is something that should be part of our 21st century social contract to help families weather coming pandemics, whether they be disruptions to the labor market, climate-induced disasters or future viruses.”

    Although still somewhat siloed in specific localities, the pilot studies and guaranteed income programs emerging across the country are all providing useful and important data on the positive outcomes of providing individuals and communities with unconditional cash. This data is important to starting a national conversation about basic income and is also useful for policy makers when considering the potential for municipal, state or even federal programs.

    “What’s important is that these demonstrations show what’s possible — but they are never a substitute for public policy.” Foster said. “I think we’re at a moment, as a society, where we’re inspired by these pilots and are moving to make them policy — we’re going from pilots to policy.”

    There are currently around 30 guaranteed income pilots either taking place or being planned all across the country, mostly having taken place or having been announced in the last two or three years. With mayors in cities like Oakland, California, and Hartford, Connecticut, unveiling new basic income pilots in just the last few months, it’s clear that more and more municipalities are interested in reimagining how to ensure economic security and stability for their residents.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A view of a child as she stands in line with her family as Food Bank for New York City distributes turkeys and Thanksgiving fixings on November 16, 2020, in New York City.

    The United States is slowly emerging from the COVID-19 economic recession. The unemployment rate has dropped by more than half. People are spending more money now than they did before the pandemic began. Families are paying off their credit card debt again.

    Yet these milestones mask an uncomfortable truth: The economic recovery is mostly benefitting white families. New data released by the Census Bureau shows that nearly four in 10 Latino and Black households are having a hard time paying their bills more than a year into the pandemic — double the share of white households, according to the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis of the latest Household Pulse Survey, which covers the last two weeks of April.

    About 36% of Latino families said they had a very difficult or somewhat difficult time paying their bills in the previous week, compared with 35% of Black families, 20% of Asian families and 18% of white families.

    While these numbers reflect an improvement from previous months, the persistent racial gaps highlight the limits of government aid programs, said Carmen Sanchez Cumming, a research assistant at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. For one, they don’t address job segregation.

    “An important driver of these disparities is that Black and Latinx workers are more likely to be in occupations that have been especially hard hit,” said Sanchez Cumming, whose research has focused on racial inequality in the pandemic economy.

    A large number of Black and Latino workers make a living in the leisure and hospitality industry, which has shed nearly 3 million jobs since the pandemic started. Those who didn’t lose their restaurant and hotel jobs often experienced steep pay cuts or saw their work hours reduced. The lost income is one reason so many people of color are struggling to pay their bills, said Sanchez Cumming. Her own research shows that Black women have faced the most challenges.

    Congress has spent trillions of dollars to boost the safety net during the slowdown. Lawmakers increased spending on unemployment assistance, handed out stimulus payments and expanded child tax credits. But these policies weren’t designed to reverse decades of structural inequality.

    For example, Black and Latino workers were more likely to lose their jobs during the pandemic, but they were also less likely to qualify for unemployment aid because many live in states that have made it harder to access the benefit. Even so, Sanchez Cumming said the economic relief programs have helped and the new survey data shows they’re still needed.

    Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI) made a similar argument during a March hearing before the House Budget Committee.

    “Those who were behind before this pandemic have suffered disproportionately,” Moore told her colleagues. She pointed out that the Child Tax Credit lifted 4.3 million people out of poverty in 2018. In March, Congress passed the American Rescue Plan Act, which temporarily doubled the amount of money low-income families can claim per child. Economists say the temporary changes will help reduce poverty among Black families by 42%.

    Moore urged her colleagues to make these changes permanent and to target the families that need the most support.

    “We should keep doing what is working and build on the [American Rescue Plan] to begin a new conversation about how we help people truly escape poverty,” she said.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A protester holds a sign reading "WAGE THEFT IS A CRIME"

    Republicans never need a good excuse, or even a bad one, to stiff working people and the poor. Doing so has been their calling card for generations, their reason to get up in the morning. Less money for workers equals more profits for bosses: So simple that even Louie Gohmert could understand it, and piffle to mucky old morals. As Bob Dylan once said, money doesn’t talk, it swears.

    The latest jobs report landed with an unimpressive thud last Friday, and the phenomenon reared its gilded head once again. The report, which detailed a modest hiring boost of 266,000 new jobs, was a surprising disappointment after so much money had been supercharged into the economy by way of stimulus checks and other vital benefits. “However,” reported CNBC, “markets had only a mild reaction to the bad news, a sign that investors expect the Federal Reserve to keep its ultra-easy policies in place and believe that the big miss likely was a short-term phenomenon.”

    Republicans who had been giving the big old hairy eyeball to all that stimulus cash flowing to the people, on the other hand, suddenly had new reason to live. Benefit money makes people not want to work! It is stripping the populace of the drive that beats in the heart of all true Americans! This is an enduring racist and classist trope, one that never seems to be applied to the idle children of the ultra-wealthy, but I digress.

    By last weekend, the stampede was on. “An unexpected slowdown in hiring nationwide has prompted some Republican governors to start slashing jobless benefits in their states, hoping that the loss of generous federal aid might force more people to try to return to work,” reported The Washington Post. “The new GOP cuts chiefly target the extra $300 in weekly payments that millions of Americans have received for months in addition to their usual unemployment checks…. Republican policymakers have long opposed these heightened unemployment payments and unanimously voted against extending them earlier this year.”

    Many Democrats and economists believe this latest jobs report is an aberration, an anomaly that does not represent the economic growth to come. People are still spooked by COVID and not quite ready to charge back to waiting tables at the crowded restaurant or driving a register at a packed retail store. Only half the country has been vaccinated, and a significant portion of the other half is going to need convincing before accepting the spike. That vaccination gap is also feeding the employment hesitance of millions.

    Lots of folks who have spent the last year in a defensive crouch have also been reconsidering their options over that time. “There is also growing evidence — both anecdotal and in surveys — that a lot of people want to do something different with their lives than they did before the pandemic,” reports the Post. “The coronavirus outbreak has had a dramatic psychological effect on workers, and people are reassessing what they want to do and how they want to work, whether in an office, at home or some hybrid combination.”

    Unfortunately, one of those who appears to be listening to hollow Republican economic platitudes in this matter is the president himself, who is no stranger to the lure of right-leaning neoliberal thinking when it comes to financial matters. “We’re going to make it clear that anyone collecting unemployment, who was offered a suitable job, must take the job or lose their unemployment benefits,” Biden said on Monday. “We don’t see much evidence of that.”

    Mitch McConnell may as well have said this. Imagine for a moment you’re a 22-year-old restaurant worker who has been unemployed and homebound since March 2020. All that has kept you afloat have been those stimulus checks and the enhanced unemployment benefits that are now under attack. Now that things are opening up, the only job you can get at the moment is at your old place, where the owner can fire you if you looked at them wrong, where the manager and customers sexually harassed you as part “restaurant culture,” and where COVID precautions barely exist.

    You’d rather drink paint that go back to that job, where conditions started out bad and deteriorated over the past year. However, if you don’t, no lesser light than the president says you could lose half your absolutely needed unemployment benefits, just because you think you deserve better. After all, that old job is perfectly “suitable.” Biden has shown that he is able to be moved on policy. In this, one hopes a trusted adviser gets in his ear with a megaphone and a tall glass of basic humanity.

    This tension between bosses and workers, between capitalism and sustainable existence, put many COVID victims in the ground over the last year. This permanent push to “open up” and “get back to normal” was, and remains, nothing less than capitalism demanding that the workers be stuffed back into their roles regardless of the peril. This venomous profit motive stands above all other priorities, and it got a lot of people killed by way of hasty anti-science “re-openings” that rang a dinner bell for the virus.

    Now, however, we appear to stand upon a moment when workers may well have the upper hand. Multiple industries, most notably restaurant and retail, are involved in the Chamber of Commerce’s stampede to cut unemployment benefits and speed workers back into the workplace.

    What if those workers didn’t go?

    What if those millions of workers who have had a year to think about it believe they deserve better?

    What would the average retail or restaurant worker like to see change? Nothing that would crack the mantle of the Earth, to be sure. Hannah B. from New Mexico, a retail and restaurant worker for going on two decades, compiled for me a short list of expectations:

    Pay workers properly. No more restaurant jobs paying $2 an hour plus tips or retail jobs that pay nowhere near a living wage.

    – Provide paid sick time. (Workers often have to come to work with the flu, bronchitis, colds or strep, or risk losing their job.)

    – Provide a set schedule with two days off in a row…. Retail and restaurant worker schedules change radically from week to week, making it virtually impossible to plan a coherent family existence.

    – Make it possible to get a raise. There’s no incentive to work somewhere if this isn’t on the table.

    – Follow the OSHA requirements for safety for COVID. Follow OSHA guidelines, period.

    – Protect employees from mistreatment by customers and other staff.

    Check those boxes, and there will be a stampede of workers flooding the current job openings. Most everyone wants to work, despite the belittling racist philosophy of Republican corporatism. After this past year, many people want that work to be more than a dreary ordeal of basic survival at an utterly unsustainable wage. We can do that.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A man wearing a face mask stands next to a "Now Hiring" sign in front of a store on December 18, 2020, in Arlington, Virginia.

    The April employment report was considerably weaker than had generally been expected, with the economy adding just 266,000 jobs. Furthermore, the prior two months numbers were revised down by 78,000. The unemployment rate edged up to 6.1 percent, but this was entirely due to more people entering the labor force. The employment-to-population ratio (EPOP) also edged up by 0.1 percentage point to 57.9 percent. That is still 2.9 percentage points below its average for 2019.

    Performance Across Sectors Was Very Mixed

    The leisure and hospitality sector accounted for more than all the gains in April, adding 331,000 jobs. Restaurants added 187,000; arts and entertainment added 89,600; and hotels added 54,400. State and local government added a surprisingly low 39,000 jobs, almost all in education. Employment in state and local governments is still 1,278,000 below the pre-pandemic level. There should be large employment increases here as more schools reopen in May.

    Several sectors were big job losers. Manufacturing lost 18,000 jobs, which was entirely attributable to a loss of 27,000 jobs in the car industry. This was due to shutdowns caused by a shortage of semiconductors.

    There was a loss of 77,400 jobs in the courier industry and 111,400 in the temp sector. It’s not clear whether these declines reflect demand or supply conditions. These tend to be lower paying jobs, so workers may have better alternatives. On the other hand, as people feel more comfortable going out after being vaccinated there may be less demand for couriers.

    There was also a loss of 49,400 jobs in food stores, which could reflect reduced demand as people increasingly are going to restaurants. Employment in the sector is still almost 40,000 higher than the pre-pandemic level. Nursing care facilities lost 18,800 jobs (1.3 percent of employment). These also tend to be low-paying jobs, so this could reflect supply conditions.

    Construction showed no change in employment in April. This could just be a timing fluke, the sector was reported as adding 97,000 jobs in March, and there is plenty of evidence that the sector is booming.

    Some Evidence of Labor Shortages in Low-Paying Sectors

    If employers are having trouble finding workers, as many claim, then we should expect to see more rapid wage growth and an increase in the length of the workweek, as employers try to work their existing workforce more hours. We do see some evidence of both.

    The annual rate of wage growth comparing the last three months (February, March, and April) with the prior three months, was 3.7 percent for production and nonsupervisory workers overall, 4.1 percent for retail, and 17.6 percent for leisure and hospitality. These data are erratic, but they do indicate some acceleration in wage growth, especially for hotels and restaurants.

    There is also some evidence for an increasing length of the workweek, which is consistent with employers having trouble getting workers. For production and nonsupervisory workers overall, weekly hours are up 0.8 hours from the 2019 average. It is the same for retail, and 0.6 hours for leisure and hospitality.

    Recovery Is Benefiting More Educated Workers

    Less-educated workers were hardest hit in the recession, but many of us hoped that the situation would even out as the recovery progressed. This has not yet happened.

    The unemployment rate for college grads fell to 3.5 percent in April, compared with 4.0 percent in January. For high school grads, the drop over this period was from 7.1 percent to 6.9 percent. The EPOP for high school grads is now 4.3 percentage points below its 2019 average, for college grads the EPOP is down by just 2.6 percentage points.

    Involuntary Part-Time Work Falls Sharply

    There was a sharp fall in involuntary part-time work of 583,000. The current level is roughly equal to 2017 levels. By contrast, voluntary part-time is still 2,400,000 below its 2019 average, a drop of almost 12 percent. This reflects the loss of jobs in restaurants and hotels, many of which are part-time.

    Unemployment Due to Voluntary Quits Remains Low

    The share of unemployment due to voluntary quits edges up only slightly to 8.3 percent, still lower than at any point in the last quarter century, excepting the Great Recession. This measure is usually seen as a sign of workers confidence in their labor market prospects.

    The quit rate remains far below normal levels

    It is also worth noting that the share of long-term unemployment remains extraordinarily high, although it did edge down slightly from 43.4 percent to 43.0 percent. The all-time high for this measure was 45.2 percent in the Great Recession.

    Mixed Report — Economy Is Moving in the Right Direction, but Slowly

    In more normal times job growth of 266,000 would be seen as very strong, but not when the economy is down more than 8 million jobs. The job loss in some sectors may prove to be anomalies, and some of the slow growth is almost certainly just a question of timing, as with state and local government employment. It is possible that the unemployment insurance supplements are having some disincentive effect, but if so, that will quickly dwindle as they end in September.

    Even with the weak job growth reported for April, the average growth for the last three months is still 524,000. If we can maintain that pace, the labor market will be looking pretty good by the end of the year.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Man laying on sidewalk (Image Source: Pexels)

    As we face the stark reality that one in seven Americans are projected to have resources below the poverty level in 2021, the world demands systemic solutions. No problem as widespread as poverty in America and across the world can be blamed entirely on the individuals and families that poverty affects — though some would certainly argue this point.

    Approaching poverty systemically may be the only way we can make progress at any significant rate. From minimum wage to criminal justice reform, systemic changes have the potential to make a real impact on poverty at a national level. Adopted at scale, systemic solutions can help end the global travesty that is poverty.

    But understanding potential fixes requires first assessing the causes of poverty. With a systemic approach, we can broaden the picture and give context to the millions of families struggling with a lack of resources. In turn, working solutions can become much clearer.

    Assessing the Causes of Poverty

    A host of factors contribute to the problem of poverty. From geographical locations where access to jobs and opportunities is scarce to faulty education systems that add to the problem of generation poverty, the causes of inequality on a massive scale are far-ranging and nebulous. While a world without any poverty may be difficult to imagine, addressing the root causes behind the millions without access to resources — even in countries as wealthy as America — can help give us the tools to make systemic changes.

    Here are three of the most prominent causes of widespread poverty:

    Wage Inequality

    Often, the poverty problem goes hand-in-hand with a lack of access to jobs that pay a living wage. Either these are leaving cities in the post-industrial economic shift, or the jobs that remain simply do not pay enough. In fact, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) found that as many as 11.4% of full-time, year-round American workers were not being paid enough to break past poverty thresholds. For CEOs, however, the situation is much different. From 1978 to 2019, CEO pay increased by 1,167%. For typical workers, wages grew only 13.7% in the same period.

    Social Injustice

    The problem of wage inequality is only compounded by the social injustice still commonly experienced by women and minorities in the sectors of the economy they more often occupy. The EPI found that female workers were paid poverty wages at a greater rate than men (13.5% compared to 9.6% of men). Meanwhile, destructive austerity policies like those employed in the UK disproportionately impact women, children, and minorities, pushing vulnerable families into greater levels of poverty. Social injustice keeps certain groups from getting ahead, a problem caused by poor governmental representation, underpayment in sectors of the economy like service, and limited access to other necessary resources like childcare.

    Lack of Resources

    Finally, the limits of resources and their even geographical spread equate to greater levels of poverty. For example, UNESCO has found that if all students in low-income countries were given the education to acquire elementary reading skills, as many as 171 million people could be lifted out of poverty. Limited access to education, clean water, food, and healthcare all contribute to poverty around the world. Now, climate change threatens access to food and water in various regions, meaning the problem will only get worse without systemic solutions.

    Applying Systemic Changes

    Applying solutions on a scale large enough to make a real difference requires understanding the causes of poverty and combating them at their source. With that achieved, we can propose informed solutions at a systemic level that may play a role in elevating families out of poverty and establishing greater levels of equality throughout the world. From federal minimum wages to education systems, this is much more possible than you might imagine.

    Addressing Pay Disparities and Social Injustice

    First, we can address the problem of wage inequality. This can start with a minimum wage increase, which has the power to impact the lives of 32 million workers. The Raise the Wage Act of 2021, for example, is projected to make a huge difference in the lives of workers relegated to low-wage work, which are disproportionately people of color. In fact, by lifting the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025, the 23% of the workforce made up of Black women and Latinas would experience an annual income boost between $3,500 and $3,700 per individual.

    Additionally, we can create legislation that ties CEO pay to that of their workforce. There is no conscionable reason that CEOs should be making hundreds of times more a year than their employees. Shareholders often do not even understand the pay packages they offer CEOs, and higher rates of pay have been associated with poorer market performance. With tax incentives for more equitable pay ratios, we can better combat inequality on a systemic level.

    Building Better Resources

    Then, we can better address the resource discrepancies on a global scale. From education to criminal justice systems, resources are needed to mitigate the damages of poverty and curb the cycles of poverty born by system problems. Social workers are needed to empower and advocate for communities all over the world, educating them about the resources available to them and providing even more. Schools must support their students with programs designed to elevate them based on specific needs, while criminal justice reform must support re-entry.

    All these resources can help a family survive unexpected financial hardships, especially after COVID. In the era of mass global financial instability, giving communities across the world the means to succeed will help eradicate poverty. Through education, opportunity, and equity, we can ensure that talent and ability aren’t lost to the shackles of social injustice that hold too many individuals back. But we must ensure that systemic solutions are built with and for the families they target.

    By advocating for systemic change, you can support a richer, better world. Start now by exploring the needs of your community and supporting legislation that improves pay and resource accessibility.

    Beau Peters is a freelance writer based out of Portland, OR. He has a particular interest in covering workers’ rights, social justice, and workplace issues and solutions. Read other articles by Beau.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Man laying on sidewalk (Image Source: Pexels)

    As we face the stark reality that one in seven Americans are projected to have resources below the poverty level in 2021, the world demands systemic solutions. No problem as widespread as poverty in America and across the world can be blamed entirely on the individuals and families that poverty affects — though some would certainly argue this point.

    Approaching poverty systemically may be the only way we can make progress at any significant rate. From minimum wage to criminal justice reform, systemic changes have the potential to make a real impact on poverty at a national level. Adopted at scale, systemic solutions can help end the global travesty that is poverty.

    But understanding potential fixes requires first assessing the causes of poverty. With a systemic approach, we can broaden the picture and give context to the millions of families struggling with a lack of resources. In turn, working solutions can become much clearer.

    Assessing the Causes of Poverty

    A host of factors contribute to the problem of poverty. From geographical locations where access to jobs and opportunities is scarce to faulty education systems that add to the problem of generation poverty, the causes of inequality on a massive scale are far-ranging and nebulous. While a world without any poverty may be difficult to imagine, addressing the root causes behind the millions without access to resources — even in countries as wealthy as America — can help give us the tools to make systemic changes.

    Here are three of the most prominent causes of widespread poverty:

    Wage Inequality

    Often, the poverty problem goes hand-in-hand with a lack of access to jobs that pay a living wage. Either these are leaving cities in the post-industrial economic shift, or the jobs that remain simply do not pay enough. In fact, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) found that as many as 11.4% of full-time, year-round American workers were not being paid enough to break past poverty thresholds. For CEOs, however, the situation is much different. From 1978 to 2019, CEO pay increased by 1,167%. For typical workers, wages grew only 13.7% in the same period.

    Social Injustice

    The problem of wage inequality is only compounded by the social injustice still commonly experienced by women and minorities in the sectors of the economy they more often occupy. The EPI found that female workers were paid poverty wages at a greater rate than men (13.5% compared to 9.6% of men). Meanwhile, destructive austerity policies like those employed in the UK disproportionately impact women, children, and minorities, pushing vulnerable families into greater levels of poverty. Social injustice keeps certain groups from getting ahead, a problem caused by poor governmental representation, underpayment in sectors of the economy like service, and limited access to other necessary resources like childcare.

    Lack of Resources

    Finally, the limits of resources and their even geographical spread equate to greater levels of poverty. For example, UNESCO has found that if all students in low-income countries were given the education to acquire elementary reading skills, as many as 171 million people could be lifted out of poverty. Limited access to education, clean water, food, and healthcare all contribute to poverty around the world. Now, climate change threatens access to food and water in various regions, meaning the problem will only get worse without systemic solutions.

    Applying Systemic Changes

    Applying solutions on a scale large enough to make a real difference requires understanding the causes of poverty and combating them at their source. With that achieved, we can propose informed solutions at a systemic level that may play a role in elevating families out of poverty and establishing greater levels of equality throughout the world. From federal minimum wages to education systems, this is much more possible than you might imagine.

    Addressing Pay Disparities and Social Injustice

    First, we can address the problem of wage inequality. This can start with a minimum wage increase, which has the power to impact the lives of 32 million workers. The Raise the Wage Act of 2021, for example, is projected to make a huge difference in the lives of workers relegated to low-wage work, which are disproportionately people of color. In fact, by lifting the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025, the 23% of the workforce made up of Black women and Latinas would experience an annual income boost between $3,500 and $3,700 per individual.

    Additionally, we can create legislation that ties CEO pay to that of their workforce. There is no conscionable reason that CEOs should be making hundreds of times more a year than their employees. Shareholders often do not even understand the pay packages they offer CEOs, and higher rates of pay have been associated with poorer market performance. With tax incentives for more equitable pay ratios, we can better combat inequality on a systemic level.

    Building Better Resources

    Then, we can better address the resource discrepancies on a global scale. From education to criminal justice systems, resources are needed to mitigate the damages of poverty and curb the cycles of poverty born by system problems. Social workers are needed to empower and advocate for communities all over the world, educating them about the resources available to them and providing even more. Schools must support their students with programs designed to elevate them based on specific needs, while criminal justice reform must support re-entry.

    All these resources can help a family survive unexpected financial hardships, especially after COVID. In the era of mass global financial instability, giving communities across the world the means to succeed will help eradicate poverty. Through education, opportunity, and equity, we can ensure that talent and ability aren’t lost to the shackles of social injustice that hold too many individuals back. But we must ensure that systemic solutions are built with and for the families they target.

    By advocating for systemic change, you can support a richer, better world. Start now by exploring the needs of your community and supporting legislation that improves pay and resource accessibility.

    Beau Peters is a freelance writer based out of Portland, OR. He has a particular interest in covering workers’ rights, social justice, and workplace issues and solutions. Read other articles by Beau.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Man laying on sidewalk (Image Source: Pexels)

    As we face the stark reality that one in seven Americans are projected to have resources below the poverty level in 2021, the world demands systemic solutions. No problem as widespread as poverty in America and across the world can be blamed entirely on the individuals and families that poverty affects — though some would certainly argue this point.

    Approaching poverty systemically may be the only way we can make progress at any significant rate. From minimum wage to criminal justice reform, systemic changes have the potential to make a real impact on poverty at a national level. Adopted at scale, systemic solutions can help end the global travesty that is poverty.

    But understanding potential fixes requires first assessing the causes of poverty. With a systemic approach, we can broaden the picture and give context to the millions of families struggling with a lack of resources. In turn, working solutions can become much clearer.

    Assessing the Causes of Poverty

    A host of factors contribute to the problem of poverty. From geographical locations where access to jobs and opportunities is scarce to faulty education systems that add to the problem of generation poverty, the causes of inequality on a massive scale are far-ranging and nebulous. While a world without any poverty may be difficult to imagine, addressing the root causes behind the millions without access to resources — even in countries as wealthy as America — can help give us the tools to make systemic changes.

    Here are three of the most prominent causes of widespread poverty:

    Wage Inequality

    Often, the poverty problem goes hand-in-hand with a lack of access to jobs that pay a living wage. Either these are leaving cities in the post-industrial economic shift, or the jobs that remain simply do not pay enough. In fact, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) found that as many as 11.4% of full-time, year-round American workers were not being paid enough to break past poverty thresholds. For CEOs, however, the situation is much different. From 1978 to 2019, CEO pay increased by 1,167%. For typical workers, wages grew only 13.7% in the same period.

    Social Injustice

    The problem of wage inequality is only compounded by the social injustice still commonly experienced by women and minorities in the sectors of the economy they more often occupy. The EPI found that female workers were paid poverty wages at a greater rate than men (13.5% compared to 9.6% of men). Meanwhile, destructive austerity policies like those employed in the UK disproportionately impact women, children, and minorities, pushing vulnerable families into greater levels of poverty. Social injustice keeps certain groups from getting ahead, a problem caused by poor governmental representation, underpayment in sectors of the economy like service, and limited access to other necessary resources like childcare.

    Lack of Resources

    Finally, the limits of resources and their even geographical spread equate to greater levels of poverty. For example, UNESCO has found that if all students in low-income countries were given the education to acquire elementary reading skills, as many as 171 million people could be lifted out of poverty. Limited access to education, clean water, food, and healthcare all contribute to poverty around the world. Now, climate change threatens access to food and water in various regions, meaning the problem will only get worse without systemic solutions.

    Applying Systemic Changes

    Applying solutions on a scale large enough to make a real difference requires understanding the causes of poverty and combating them at their source. With that achieved, we can propose informed solutions at a systemic level that may play a role in elevating families out of poverty and establishing greater levels of equality throughout the world. From federal minimum wages to education systems, this is much more possible than you might imagine.

    Addressing Pay Disparities and Social Injustice

    First, we can address the problem of wage inequality. This can start with a minimum wage increase, which has the power to impact the lives of 32 million workers. The Raise the Wage Act of 2021, for example, is projected to make a huge difference in the lives of workers relegated to low-wage work, which are disproportionately people of color. In fact, by lifting the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025, the 23% of the workforce made up of Black women and Latinas would experience an annual income boost between $3,500 and $3,700 per individual.

    Additionally, we can create legislation that ties CEO pay to that of their workforce. There is no conscionable reason that CEOs should be making hundreds of times more a year than their employees. Shareholders often do not even understand the pay packages they offer CEOs, and higher rates of pay have been associated with poorer market performance. With tax incentives for more equitable pay ratios, we can better combat inequality on a systemic level.

    Building Better Resources

    Then, we can better address the resource discrepancies on a global scale. From education to criminal justice systems, resources are needed to mitigate the damages of poverty and curb the cycles of poverty born by system problems. Social workers are needed to empower and advocate for communities all over the world, educating them about the resources available to them and providing even more. Schools must support their students with programs designed to elevate them based on specific needs, while criminal justice reform must support re-entry.

    All these resources can help a family survive unexpected financial hardships, especially after COVID. In the era of mass global financial instability, giving communities across the world the means to succeed will help eradicate poverty. Through education, opportunity, and equity, we can ensure that talent and ability aren’t lost to the shackles of social injustice that hold too many individuals back. But we must ensure that systemic solutions are built with and for the families they target.

    By advocating for systemic change, you can support a richer, better world. Start now by exploring the needs of your community and supporting legislation that improves pay and resource accessibility.

    Beau Peters is a freelance writer based out of Portland, OR. He has a particular interest in covering workers’ rights, social justice, and workplace issues and solutions. Read other articles by Beau.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Man laying on sidewalk (Image Source: Pexels)

    As we face the stark reality that one in seven Americans are projected to have resources below the poverty level in 2021, the world demands systemic solutions. No problem as widespread as poverty in America and across the world can be blamed entirely on the individuals and families that poverty affects — though some would certainly argue this point.

    Approaching poverty systemically may be the only way we can make progress at any significant rate. From minimum wage to criminal justice reform, systemic changes have the potential to make a real impact on poverty at a national level. Adopted at scale, systemic solutions can help end the global travesty that is poverty.

    But understanding potential fixes requires first assessing the causes of poverty. With a systemic approach, we can broaden the picture and give context to the millions of families struggling with a lack of resources. In turn, working solutions can become much clearer.

    Assessing the Causes of Poverty

    A host of factors contribute to the problem of poverty. From geographical locations where access to jobs and opportunities is scarce to faulty education systems that add to the problem of generation poverty, the causes of inequality on a massive scale are far-ranging and nebulous. While a world without any poverty may be difficult to imagine, addressing the root causes behind the millions without access to resources — even in countries as wealthy as America — can help give us the tools to make systemic changes.

    Here are three of the most prominent causes of widespread poverty:

    Wage Inequality

    Often, the poverty problem goes hand-in-hand with a lack of access to jobs that pay a living wage. Either these are leaving cities in the post-industrial economic shift, or the jobs that remain simply do not pay enough. In fact, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) found that as many as 11.4% of full-time, year-round American workers were not being paid enough to break past poverty thresholds. For CEOs, however, the situation is much different. From 1978 to 2019, CEO pay increased by 1,167%. For typical workers, wages grew only 13.7% in the same period.

    Social Injustice

    The problem of wage inequality is only compounded by the social injustice still commonly experienced by women and minorities in the sectors of the economy they more often occupy. The EPI found that female workers were paid poverty wages at a greater rate than men (13.5% compared to 9.6% of men). Meanwhile, destructive austerity policies like those employed in the UK disproportionately impact women, children, and minorities, pushing vulnerable families into greater levels of poverty. Social injustice keeps certain groups from getting ahead, a problem caused by poor governmental representation, underpayment in sectors of the economy like service, and limited access to other necessary resources like childcare.

    Lack of Resources

    Finally, the limits of resources and their even geographical spread equate to greater levels of poverty. For example, UNESCO has found that if all students in low-income countries were given the education to acquire elementary reading skills, as many as 171 million people could be lifted out of poverty. Limited access to education, clean water, food, and healthcare all contribute to poverty around the world. Now, climate change threatens access to food and water in various regions, meaning the problem will only get worse without systemic solutions.

    Applying Systemic Changes

    Applying solutions on a scale large enough to make a real difference requires understanding the causes of poverty and combating them at their source. With that achieved, we can propose informed solutions at a systemic level that may play a role in elevating families out of poverty and establishing greater levels of equality throughout the world. From federal minimum wages to education systems, this is much more possible than you might imagine.

    Addressing Pay Disparities and Social Injustice

    First, we can address the problem of wage inequality. This can start with a minimum wage increase, which has the power to impact the lives of 32 million workers. The Raise the Wage Act of 2021, for example, is projected to make a huge difference in the lives of workers relegated to low-wage work, which are disproportionately people of color. In fact, by lifting the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025, the 23% of the workforce made up of Black women and Latinas would experience an annual income boost between $3,500 and $3,700 per individual.

    Additionally, we can create legislation that ties CEO pay to that of their workforce. There is no conscionable reason that CEOs should be making hundreds of times more a year than their employees. Shareholders often do not even understand the pay packages they offer CEOs, and higher rates of pay have been associated with poorer market performance. With tax incentives for more equitable pay ratios, we can better combat inequality on a systemic level.

    Building Better Resources

    Then, we can better address the resource discrepancies on a global scale. From education to criminal justice systems, resources are needed to mitigate the damages of poverty and curb the cycles of poverty born by system problems. Social workers are needed to empower and advocate for communities all over the world, educating them about the resources available to them and providing even more. Schools must support their students with programs designed to elevate them based on specific needs, while criminal justice reform must support re-entry.

    All these resources can help a family survive unexpected financial hardships, especially after COVID. In the era of mass global financial instability, giving communities across the world the means to succeed will help eradicate poverty. Through education, opportunity, and equity, we can ensure that talent and ability aren’t lost to the shackles of social injustice that hold too many individuals back. But we must ensure that systemic solutions are built with and for the families they target.

    By advocating for systemic change, you can support a richer, better world. Start now by exploring the needs of your community and supporting legislation that improves pay and resource accessibility.

    The post Approaching Poverty Systemically first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Unemployment insurance as a share of personal income spiked during the pandemic more than in other recessions. Time for UBI?

    By: Juliana Kaplan,Madison Hoff

    During the pandemic, the amount of income from unemployment benefits began to spike, making up a greater percentage of personal income than in the past 50 years.

    Highlights:

    • Unemployment insurance as a share of personal income spiked during the pandemic more than in other recessions.
    • It shows the impact of expanded federal benefits and increased unemployment eligibility.
    • But permanent reforms may be needed to ensure states’ UI systems work as they should.

    hhh

    The unemployment insurance as a share of personal income peaked at 7.0% in June 2020. Before the pandemic, the highest percentage was in 1975 at 1.5%. Unemployment insurance as a share of personal income declined in the months after June 2020 but has since risen again slightly in recent months.

    The peak came right before an additional $600 in federal weekly benefits expired at the end of July. Those additional benefits helped prop up the economy as it was hit by the pandemic, as savings increased in April and spending spiked in May. The economic boost from stimulus checks and those enhanced UI benefits may have kept 12 million people out of poverty.

    new report from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a left-leaning think tank, looks at the share of unemployment benefits as part of wage and salary income. They found that, prior to 2020, benefits from UI had never gone above 6% of a state’s salary and wage income; in 2020’s second quarter, it was above 20% in four states.

    EPI’s calculations used wage and salary data while Insider looked at unemployment insurance as a percentage of total personal income.

    What the unemployment spike could mean for future reform

    Importantly, according to the EPI report, the influx of federal UI benefits – both in the form of the additional $600 and the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA), which made more workers eligible for employment benefits – helped fill the holes in states’ unemployment benefits.

    “In particular, states with a higher share of Black residents were more reliant on federal assistance to provide UI benefits,” the EPI report says. “But if the pandemic programs fade with no structural reforms, the UI system will revert to being one that sees stingier benefits precisely in those states with higher Black population shares.”

    The fact that those holes needed to be filled, and the amount of income that unemployment made up during the pandemic, shows the need for unemployment reform, according to EPI.

    They argue that reforms could help codify some of the expanded eligibility and equity from beefed-up pandemic-era benefits, and help shore up the system ahead of future downturns.

    EPI found that, by the end of 2020, benefits that came from PUA – the program that opened unemployment eligibility to workers who normally wouldn’t be able to access benefits – became the greatest share of federal UI. David Cooper, a senior economic analyst at EPI, said that there were nine states where the money from PUA made up over half of all UI going to workers there.

    “I mean, that’s remarkable, that that more than half the assistance provided is going to folks who would not normally qualify for traditional funding,” Cooper said. “That just shows me that our existing eligibility requirements are way out of whack.

    The amount of federal money pouring into unemployment – and going to Americans who were out of work during an unprecedented pandemic – helped close gaps in state UI programs and provide direct relief. It also helped to address racial inequities, since, according to EPI, Black workers were more likely to live in states that had weaker UI; on the whole, workers of color, particularly Black workers, were disproportionately impacted by pandemic unemployment.

    Even with those expanded benefits, states still struggled to dole out unemployment benefits. Many had to rely on underresourced and neglected unemployment disbursement programs.

    “That meant that unemployed workers really had totally different qualities of life, totally different standards of support based solely on where they live,” Cooper said, noting that some states, like Florida, cut back on their UI systems after the Great Recession.

    “The federal unemployment insurance programs created by the CARES Act were a lifeline for millions of workers and families across the U.S,” the EPI report said. “However, the unprecedented magnitude of the federal response is indicative of the woefully inadequate benefits and gaping eligibility holes in existing state UI programs.”

    Currently, an additional $300 in weekly unemployment benefits is set to last through September. Some Democrats are pushing to make permanent expanded benefits and eligibility.

    “The biggest takeaway for me is that states were not there, that all states had not made the necessary investments to be prepared for another downturn, even one that wasn’t as extreme as the one we’ve just gone through,” Cooper said.

    He added: “We have to make those investments now. That is abundantly clear from what folks have experienced over the last year.”

    The post Unemployment benefits made up a record-high share of Americans’ incomes during the pandemic, and it shows a need for a better system appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • To conceal the economic and social decline that continues to unfold at home and abroad, major newspapers are working overtime to promote happy economic news. Many headlines are irrational and out of touch. They make no sense. Desperation to convince everyone that all is well or all will soon be great is very high. The assault on economic science and coherence is intense. Working in concert, and contrary to the lived experience of millions of people, many newspapers are declaring miraculous “economic growth rates” for country after country. According to the rich and their media, numerous countries are experiencing or are on the cusp of experiencing very strong “come-backs” or “complete recoveries.” Very high rates of annual economic growth, generally not found in any prior period, are being floated regularly. The numbers defy common sense.

    In reality, economic and social problems are getting worse nationally and internationally.

    “Getting back to the pre-Covid standard will take time,” said Carmen Reinhart, the World Bank’s chief economist. “The aftermath of Covid isn’t going to reverse for a lot of countries. Far from it.” Even this recent statement is misleading because it implies that pre-Covid economic conditions were somehow good or acceptable when things have actually been going downhill for decades. Most economies never really “recovered” from the economic collapse of 2008. Most countries are still running on gas fumes while poverty, unemployment, under-employment, inequality, debt, food insecurity, generalized anxiety, and other problems keep worsening. And today, with millions of people fully vaccinated and trillions of phantom dollars, euros, and yen printed by the world’s central banks, there is still no real and sustained stability, prosperity, security, or harmony. People everywhere are still anxious about the future. Pious statements from world leaders about “fixing” capitalism have done nothing to reverse the global economic decline that started years ago and was intensified by the “COVID Pandemic.”

    In the U.S. alone, in real numbers, about 3-4 million people a month have been laid off for 13 consecutive months. At no other time in U.S. history has such a calamity on this scale happened. This has “improved” slightly recently but the number of people being laid off every month remains extremely high and troubling. In New York State, for example:

    the statewide [official] unemployment rate remains the second highest in the country at just under 9%. One year after the start of the pandemic and the recession it caused, most of the jobs New York lost still have not come back. (emphasis added, April 2021).

    In addition, nationally the number of long-term unemployed remains high and the labor force participation rate remains low. And most new jobs that are “created” are not high-paying jobs with good benefits and security. The so-called “Gig Economy” has beleaguered millions.

    Some groups have been more adversely affected than others. In April 2021, U.S. News & World Report conveyed that:

    In February 2020, right before the coronavirus was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization, Black women had an employment to population ratio of 60.8%; that now stands at 54.8%, a drop of 6 percentage points.

    The obsolete U.S. economic system has discarded more than half a million black women from the labor force in the past year.

    In December 2019, around the time the “COVID Pandemic” began to emerge, Brookings reported that:

    An estimated 53 million people—44 percent of all U.S. workers ages 18–64—are low-wage workers. That’s more than twice the number of people in the 10 most populous U.S. cities combined. Their median hourly wage is $10.22, and their median annual earnings are $17,950.

    The Federal Reserve reports that 37 percent of Americans in 2019 did not have $400 to cover an unanticipated emergency. In Louisiana alone, 1 out of 5 families today are living at the poverty level.  Sadly, “60% of Americans will live below the official poverty line for at least one year of their lives.” While American billionaires became $1.3 trillion richer, about 8 million Americans joined the ranks of the poor during the “COVID Pandemic.”

    And more inflation will make things worse for more people. A March 2021 headline from NBC News reads: “The price of food and gas is creeping higher — and will stay that way for a while.”  ABC News goes further in April 2021 and says that “the post-pandemic economy will include higher prices, worse service, longer delays.”

    Homelessness in the U.S. is also increasing:

    COVID-driven loss of jobs and employment income will cause the number of homeless workers to increase each year through 2023. Without large-scale, government employment programs the Pandemic Recession is projected to cause twice as much homelessness as the 2008 Great Recession. Over the next four years the current Pandemic Recession is projected to cause chronic homelessness to increase 49 percent in the United States, 68 percent in California and 86 percent in Los Angeles County. [The homeless include the] homeless on the streets, shelter residents and couch surfers. (emphasis added, January 11, 2021)

    Perhaps ironically, just “Two blocks from the Federal Reserve, a growing encampment of the homeless grips the economy’s most powerful person [Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell].”

    Officially, about four million businesses, including more than 110,000 restaurants, have permanently closed in the U.S. over the past 14 months.  In April 2021 Business Insider stated that, “roughly 80,000 stores are doomed to close in the next 5 years as the retail apocalypse continues to rip through America.”  The real figure is likely higher.

    Bankruptcies have also risen in some sectors. For example, bankruptcies by North American oil producers “rose to the highest first-quarter level since 2016.”

    In March 2021 the Economic Policy Institute reported that “more than 25 million workers are directly harmed by the COVID labor market.” Anecdotal evidence suggests that there are more than 100 applicants for each job opening in some sectors.

    Given the depth and breadth of the economic collapse in the U.S., it is no surprise that “1 in 6 Americans went into therapy for the first time in 2020.” The number of people affected by depression, anxiety, addiction, and suicide worldwide as a direct result of the long depression is very high. These harsh facts and realities are also linked to more violence, killings, protests, demonstrations, social unrest, and riots worldwide.

    In terms of physical health, “Sixty-one percent of U.S. adults report undesired weight changes since the COVID-19 pandemic began.” This will only exacerbate the diabetes pandemic that has been ravaging more countries every year.

    On another front, the Pew Research Center informs us that, as a result of the economic collapse that has unfolded over the past year, “A majority of young adults in the U.S. live with their parents for the first time since the Great Depression.”   And it does not help that student debt now exceeds $1.7 trillion and is still climbing rapidly.

    Millions of college faculty have also suffered greatly over the past year. A recent survey by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) found that:

    real wages for full-time faculty decreased for the first time since the Great Recession[in 2008], and average wage growth for all ranks of full-time faculty was the lowest since the AAUP began tracking annual wage growth in 1972. After adjusting for inflation, real wages decreased at over two-thirds of colleges and universities. The number of full-time faculty decreased at over half of institutions.

    This does not account for the thousands of higher education adjuncts (part-time faculty) and staff that lost their jobs permanently.

    In April 2021, the Center on Budget & Policy Priorities stated that, “millions of people are still without their pre-pandemic income sources and are borrowing to get by.” Specifically:

    • 54 million adults said they didn’t use regular income sources like those received before the pandemic to meet their spending needs in the last seven days.
    • 50 million used credit cards or loans to meet spending needs.
    • 20 million borrowed from friends or family. (These three groups overlap.)

    Also in April 2021, the Washington Post wrote:

    The pandemic’s disruption has created inescapable financial strain for many Americans. Nearly 2 of 5 of adults have postponed major financial decisions, from buying cars or houses to getting married or having children, due to the coronavirus crisis, according to a survey last week from Bankrate.com. Among younger adults, ages 18 to 34, some 59 percent said they had delayed a financial milestone. (emphasis added)

    According to Monthly Review:

    The U.S. economy has seen a long-term decline in capacity utilization in manufacturing, which has averaged 78 percent from 1972 to 2019—well below levels that stimulate net investment. (emphasis added, January 1, 2021).

    Capitalist firms will not invest in new ventures or projects when there is little or no profit to be made, which is why major owners of capital are engaged in even more stock market manipulation than ever before. “Casino capitalism” is intensifying. This, in turn, is giving rise to even larger stock market bubbles that will eventually burst and wreak even more havoc than previous stock market crashes. The inability to make profit through normal investment channels is also why major owners of capital are imposing more public-private “partnerships” (PPPs) on people and society through neoliberal state restructuring. Such pay-the-rich schemes further marginalize workers and exacerbate inequality, debt, and poverty. PPPs solve no problems and must be replaced by human-centered economic arrangements.

    The International Labor Organization estimates that the equivalent of 255 million full-time jobs have been lost globally as a result of government actions over the past 13-14 months.

    In March of this year, the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations reported that, “Acute hunger is set to soar in over 20 countries in the coming months without urgent and scaled-up assistance.” The FAO says, “”The magnitude of suffering is alarming.”

    And according to Reuters, “Overall, global FDI [Foreign Direct Investment] had collapsed in 2020, falling by 42% to an estimated $859 billion, from $1.5 trillion in 2019, according to the UNCTAD report.” UNCTAD stands for United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

    The international organization Oxfam tells us that:

    The coronavirus pandemic has the potential to lead to an increase in inequality in almost every country at once, the first time this has happened since records began…. Billionaire fortunes returned to their pre-pandemic highs in just nine months, while recovery for the world’s poorest people could take over a decade. (emphasis added, January 25, 2021)

    According to the World Bank, “The COVID-19 pandemic has pushed about 120 million people into extreme poverty over the last year in mostly low- and middle-income countries.”  And despite the roll-out of vaccines in various countries:

    the economic implications of the pandemic are deep and far-reaching. It is ushering in a “new poor” profile that is more urban, better educated, and reliant on informal sector work such as construction, relative to the existing global poor (those living on less than $1.90/day) who are more rural and heavily reliant on agriculture. (emphasis added)

    Another source notes that:

    Pew Research Center, using World Bank data, has estimated that the number of poor in India (with income of $2 per day or less in purchasing power parity) has more than doubled from 60 million to 134 million in just a year due to the pandemic-induced recession. This means, India is back in a situation to be called a “country of mass poverty” after 45 years. (emphasis added)

    In Europe, there is no end in sight to the economic decline that keeps unfolding. The United Kingdom, for example, experienced its worst economy in literally 300 years:

    The economy in the U.K. contracted 9.9 percent in 2020, the worst year on record since 1709, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said in a report on Friday (Feb. 12). The overall economic drop in 2020 was more than double in 2009, when U.K. GDP declined 4.1 percent due to the worldwide financial crisis. Britain experienced the biggest annual decline among the G7 economies — France saw its economy decline 8.3 percent, Italy dropped 8.8 percent, Germany declined 5 percent and the U.S. contracted 3.5 percent. (emphasis added)

    Another source also notes that, “The Eurozone is being haunted by ‘ghost bankruptcies,’ with more than 200,000 firms across the European Union’s four biggest nations under threat when Covid financial lifelines stop.” In another sign of economic decline, this time in Asia, Argus Media reported in April 2021 that Japan’s 2020-21 crude steel output fell to a 52-year low.

    Taken alone, on a country-by-country basis, these are not minor economic downturns, but when viewed as a collective cumulative global phenomenon, the consequences are more serious. It is a big problem when numerous economies decline simultaneously. The world is more interdependent and interconnected than ever. What happens in one region necessarily affects other regions.

    One could easily go country by country and region by region and document many tragic economic developments that are still unfolding and worsening. Argentina, Lebanon, Colombia, Turkey, Brazil, Mexico, Jordan, South Africa, Nigeria, and dozens of other countries are all experiencing major economic setbacks and hardships that will take years to overcome and will negatively affect the economies of other countries in an increasingly interdependent world. And privatization schemes around the world are just making conditions worse for the majority of people. Far from solving any problems, neoliberalism has made everything worse for working people and society.

    It is too soon for capitalist ideologues to be euphoric about “miraculous economic growth and success.” There is no meaningful evidence to show that there is deep, significant, sustained economic growth on a broad scale. There is tremendous economic carnage and pain out there, and the scarring and consequences are going to linger for some time. No one believes that a big surge of well-paying jobs is right around the corner. Nor does anyone believe that more schemes to pay the rich under the banner of high ideals will improve things either.

    Relentless disinformation about the economy won’t solve any problems or convince people that they are not experiencing what they are experiencing. Growing poverty, hunger, homelessness, unemployment, under-employment, debt, inequality, anxiety, and insecurity are real and painful. They require real solutions put forward by working people, not major owners of capital concerned only with maximizing private profit as fast as possible.

    The economy cannot improve and serve a pro-social aim and direction so long as those who produce society’s wealth, workers, are disempowered and denied any control of the economy they run. Allowing major decisions to be made by a historically superfluous financial oligarchy is not the way forward. The rich and their representatives are unfit to rule and have no real solutions for the recurring crises caused by their outmoded system. They are focused mainly on depriving people of an outlook that opens the path of progress to society.

    There is no way for the massive wealth of society to be used to serve the general interests of society so long as the contradiction between the socialized nature of the economy and its continued domination by competing private interests remain unresolved. All we are left with are recurring economic crises that take a bigger and bigger toll on humanity. To add insult to injury, we are told that there is no alternative to this outdated system, and that the goal is to strive for “inclusive capitalism,” “ethical capitalism,” “responsible capitalism,” or some other oxymoron.

    But there is an alternative. Existing conditions do not have to be eternal or tolerated. History shows that conditions that favor the people can be established. The rich must be deprived of their ability to deprive the people of their rights, including the right to govern their own affairs and control the economy. The economy, government, nation-building, and society must be controlled and directed by the people themselves, free of the influence of narrow private interests determined to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone and everything else.

    The rich and their political and media representatives are under great pressure to distort social consciousness, undermine the human factor, and block progress. The necessity for change is for humanity to rise up and usher in a modern society that ensures prosperity, stability, and peace for all. It can be done and must be done.

    The post Economic Collapse Continues Uninterrupted first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • To conceal the economic and social decline that continues to unfold at home and abroad, major newspapers are working overtime to promote happy economic news. Many headlines are irrational and out of touch. They make no sense. Desperation to convince everyone that all is well or all will soon be great is very high. The assault on economic science and coherence is intense. Working in concert, and contrary to the lived experience of millions of people, many newspapers are declaring miraculous “economic growth rates” for country after country. According to the rich and their media, numerous countries are experiencing or are on the cusp of experiencing very strong “come-backs” or “complete recoveries.” Very high rates of annual economic growth, generally not found in any prior period, are being floated regularly. The numbers defy common sense.

    In reality, economic and social problems are getting worse nationally and internationally.

    “Getting back to the pre-Covid standard will take time,” said Carmen Reinhart, the World Bank’s chief economist. “The aftermath of Covid isn’t going to reverse for a lot of countries. Far from it.” Even this recent statement is misleading because it implies that pre-Covid economic conditions were somehow good or acceptable when things have actually been going downhill for decades. Most economies never really “recovered” from the economic collapse of 2008. Most countries are still running on gas fumes while poverty, unemployment, under-employment, inequality, debt, food insecurity, generalized anxiety, and other problems keep worsening. And today, with millions of people fully vaccinated and trillions of phantom dollars, euros, and yen printed by the world’s central banks, there is still no real and sustained stability, prosperity, security, or harmony. People everywhere are still anxious about the future. Pious statements from world leaders about “fixing” capitalism have done nothing to reverse the global economic decline that started years ago and was intensified by the “COVID Pandemic.”

    In the U.S. alone, in real numbers, about 3-4 million people a month have been laid off for 13 consecutive months. At no other time in U.S. history has such a calamity on this scale happened. This has “improved” slightly recently but the number of people being laid off every month remains extremely high and troubling. In New York State, for example:

    the statewide [official] unemployment rate remains the second highest in the country at just under 9%. One year after the start of the pandemic and the recession it caused, most of the jobs New York lost still have not come back. (emphasis added, April 2021).

    In addition, nationally the number of long-term unemployed remains high and the labor force participation rate remains low. And most new jobs that are “created” are not high-paying jobs with good benefits and security. The so-called “Gig Economy” has beleaguered millions.

    Some groups have been more adversely affected than others. In April 2021, U.S. News & World Report conveyed that:

    In February 2020, right before the coronavirus was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization, Black women had an employment to population ratio of 60.8%; that now stands at 54.8%, a drop of 6 percentage points.

    The obsolete U.S. economic system has discarded more than half a million black women from the labor force in the past year.

    In December 2019, around the time the “COVID Pandemic” began to emerge, Brookings reported that:

    An estimated 53 million people—44 percent of all U.S. workers ages 18–64—are low-wage workers. That’s more than twice the number of people in the 10 most populous U.S. cities combined. Their median hourly wage is $10.22, and their median annual earnings are $17,950.

    The Federal Reserve reports that 37 percent of Americans in 2019 did not have $400 to cover an unanticipated emergency. In Louisiana alone, 1 out of 5 families today are living at the poverty level.  Sadly, “60% of Americans will live below the official poverty line for at least one year of their lives.” While American billionaires became $1.3 trillion richer, about 8 million Americans joined the ranks of the poor during the “COVID Pandemic.”

    And more inflation will make things worse for more people. A March 2021 headline from NBC News reads: “The price of food and gas is creeping higher — and will stay that way for a while.”  ABC News goes further in April 2021 and says that “the post-pandemic economy will include higher prices, worse service, longer delays.”

    Homelessness in the U.S. is also increasing:

    COVID-driven loss of jobs and employment income will cause the number of homeless workers to increase each year through 2023. Without large-scale, government employment programs the Pandemic Recession is projected to cause twice as much homelessness as the 2008 Great Recession. Over the next four years the current Pandemic Recession is projected to cause chronic homelessness to increase 49 percent in the United States, 68 percent in California and 86 percent in Los Angeles County. [The homeless include the] homeless on the streets, shelter residents and couch surfers. (emphasis added, January 11, 2021)

    Perhaps ironically, just “Two blocks from the Federal Reserve, a growing encampment of the homeless grips the economy’s most powerful person [Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell].”

    Officially, about four million businesses, including more than 110,000 restaurants, have permanently closed in the U.S. over the past 14 months.  In April 2021 Business Insider stated that, “roughly 80,000 stores are doomed to close in the next 5 years as the retail apocalypse continues to rip through America.”  The real figure is likely higher.

    Bankruptcies have also risen in some sectors. For example, bankruptcies by North American oil producers “rose to the highest first-quarter level since 2016.”

    In March 2021 the Economic Policy Institute reported that “more than 25 million workers are directly harmed by the COVID labor market.” Anecdotal evidence suggests that there are more than 100 applicants for each job opening in some sectors.

    Given the depth and breadth of the economic collapse in the U.S., it is no surprise that “1 in 6 Americans went into therapy for the first time in 2020.” The number of people affected by depression, anxiety, addiction, and suicide worldwide as a direct result of the long depression is very high. These harsh facts and realities are also linked to more violence, killings, protests, demonstrations, social unrest, and riots worldwide.

    In terms of physical health, “Sixty-one percent of U.S. adults report undesired weight changes since the COVID-19 pandemic began.” This will only exacerbate the diabetes pandemic that has been ravaging more countries every year.

    On another front, the Pew Research Center informs us that, as a result of the economic collapse that has unfolded over the past year, “A majority of young adults in the U.S. live with their parents for the first time since the Great Depression.”   And it does not help that student debt now exceeds $1.7 trillion and is still climbing rapidly.

    Millions of college faculty have also suffered greatly over the past year. A recent survey by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) found that:

    real wages for full-time faculty decreased for the first time since the Great Recession[in 2008], and average wage growth for all ranks of full-time faculty was the lowest since the AAUP began tracking annual wage growth in 1972. After adjusting for inflation, real wages decreased at over two-thirds of colleges and universities. The number of full-time faculty decreased at over half of institutions.

    This does not account for the thousands of higher education adjuncts (part-time faculty) and staff that lost their jobs permanently.

    In April 2021, the Center on Budget & Policy Priorities stated that, “millions of people are still without their pre-pandemic income sources and are borrowing to get by.” Specifically:

    • 54 million adults said they didn’t use regular income sources like those received before the pandemic to meet their spending needs in the last seven days.
    • 50 million used credit cards or loans to meet spending needs.
    • 20 million borrowed from friends or family. (These three groups overlap.)

    Also in April 2021, the Washington Post wrote:

    The pandemic’s disruption has created inescapable financial strain for many Americans. Nearly 2 of 5 of adults have postponed major financial decisions, from buying cars or houses to getting married or having children, due to the coronavirus crisis, according to a survey last week from Bankrate.com. Among younger adults, ages 18 to 34, some 59 percent said they had delayed a financial milestone. (emphasis added)

    According to Monthly Review:

    The U.S. economy has seen a long-term decline in capacity utilization in manufacturing, which has averaged 78 percent from 1972 to 2019—well below levels that stimulate net investment. (emphasis added, January 1, 2021).

    Capitalist firms will not invest in new ventures or projects when there is little or no profit to be made, which is why major owners of capital are engaged in even more stock market manipulation than ever before. “Casino capitalism” is intensifying. This, in turn, is giving rise to even larger stock market bubbles that will eventually burst and wreak even more havoc than previous stock market crashes. The inability to make profit through normal investment channels is also why major owners of capital are imposing more public-private “partnerships” (PPPs) on people and society through neoliberal state restructuring. Such pay-the-rich schemes further marginalize workers and exacerbate inequality, debt, and poverty. PPPs solve no problems and must be replaced by human-centered economic arrangements.

    The International Labor Organization estimates that the equivalent of 255 million full-time jobs have been lost globally as a result of government actions over the past 13-14 months.

    In March of this year, the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations reported that, “Acute hunger is set to soar in over 20 countries in the coming months without urgent and scaled-up assistance.” The FAO says, “”The magnitude of suffering is alarming.”

    And according to Reuters, “Overall, global FDI [Foreign Direct Investment] had collapsed in 2020, falling by 42% to an estimated $859 billion, from $1.5 trillion in 2019, according to the UNCTAD report.” UNCTAD stands for United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

    The international organization Oxfam tells us that:

    The coronavirus pandemic has the potential to lead to an increase in inequality in almost every country at once, the first time this has happened since records began…. Billionaire fortunes returned to their pre-pandemic highs in just nine months, while recovery for the world’s poorest people could take over a decade. (emphasis added, January 25, 2021)

    According to the World Bank, “The COVID-19 pandemic has pushed about 120 million people into extreme poverty over the last year in mostly low- and middle-income countries.”  And despite the roll-out of vaccines in various countries:

    the economic implications of the pandemic are deep and far-reaching. It is ushering in a “new poor” profile that is more urban, better educated, and reliant on informal sector work such as construction, relative to the existing global poor (those living on less than $1.90/day) who are more rural and heavily reliant on agriculture. (emphasis added)

    Another source notes that:

    Pew Research Center, using World Bank data, has estimated that the number of poor in India (with income of $2 per day or less in purchasing power parity) has more than doubled from 60 million to 134 million in just a year due to the pandemic-induced recession. This means, India is back in a situation to be called a “country of mass poverty” after 45 years. (emphasis added)

    In Europe, there is no end in sight to the economic decline that keeps unfolding. The United Kingdom, for example, experienced its worst economy in literally 300 years:

    The economy in the U.K. contracted 9.9 percent in 2020, the worst year on record since 1709, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said in a report on Friday (Feb. 12). The overall economic drop in 2020 was more than double in 2009, when U.K. GDP declined 4.1 percent due to the worldwide financial crisis. Britain experienced the biggest annual decline among the G7 economies — France saw its economy decline 8.3 percent, Italy dropped 8.8 percent, Germany declined 5 percent and the U.S. contracted 3.5 percent. (emphasis added)

    Another source also notes that, “The Eurozone is being haunted by ‘ghost bankruptcies,’ with more than 200,000 firms across the European Union’s four biggest nations under threat when Covid financial lifelines stop.” In another sign of economic decline, this time in Asia, Argus Media reported in April 2021 that Japan’s 2020-21 crude steel output fell to a 52-year low.

    Taken alone, on a country-by-country basis, these are not minor economic downturns, but when viewed as a collective cumulative global phenomenon, the consequences are more serious. It is a big problem when numerous economies decline simultaneously. The world is more interdependent and interconnected than ever. What happens in one region necessarily affects other regions.

    One could easily go country by country and region by region and document many tragic economic developments that are still unfolding and worsening. Argentina, Lebanon, Colombia, Turkey, Brazil, Mexico, Jordan, South Africa, Nigeria, and dozens of other countries are all experiencing major economic setbacks and hardships that will take years to overcome and will negatively affect the economies of other countries in an increasingly interdependent world. And privatization schemes around the world are just making conditions worse for the majority of people. Far from solving any problems, neoliberalism has made everything worse for working people and society.

    It is too soon for capitalist ideologues to be euphoric about “miraculous economic growth and success.” There is no meaningful evidence to show that there is deep, significant, sustained economic growth on a broad scale. There is tremendous economic carnage and pain out there, and the scarring and consequences are going to linger for some time. No one believes that a big surge of well-paying jobs is right around the corner. Nor does anyone believe that more schemes to pay the rich under the banner of high ideals will improve things either.

    Relentless disinformation about the economy won’t solve any problems or convince people that they are not experiencing what they are experiencing. Growing poverty, hunger, homelessness, unemployment, under-employment, debt, inequality, anxiety, and insecurity are real and painful. They require real solutions put forward by working people, not major owners of capital concerned only with maximizing private profit as fast as possible.

    The economy cannot improve and serve a pro-social aim and direction so long as those who produce society’s wealth, workers, are disempowered and denied any control of the economy they run. Allowing major decisions to be made by a historically superfluous financial oligarchy is not the way forward. The rich and their representatives are unfit to rule and have no real solutions for the recurring crises caused by their outmoded system. They are focused mainly on depriving people of an outlook that opens the path of progress to society.

    There is no way for the massive wealth of society to be used to serve the general interests of society so long as the contradiction between the socialized nature of the economy and its continued domination by competing private interests remain unresolved. All we are left with are recurring economic crises that take a bigger and bigger toll on humanity. To add insult to injury, we are told that there is no alternative to this outdated system, and that the goal is to strive for “inclusive capitalism,” “ethical capitalism,” “responsible capitalism,” or some other oxymoron.

    But there is an alternative. Existing conditions do not have to be eternal or tolerated. History shows that conditions that favor the people can be established. The rich must be deprived of their ability to deprive the people of their rights, including the right to govern their own affairs and control the economy. The economy, government, nation-building, and society must be controlled and directed by the people themselves, free of the influence of narrow private interests determined to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone and everything else.

    The rich and their political and media representatives are under great pressure to distort social consciousness, undermine the human factor, and block progress. The necessity for change is for humanity to rise up and usher in a modern society that ensures prosperity, stability, and peace for all. It can be done and must be done.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The disconnect between poverty and unemployment is not surprising but as of last month, the U.S. poverty rate has been on an upward trajectory. It is a call for action around UBI.

    By: Quentin Fottrell

    Between February and March, the rate of poverty in the U.S. increased by 0.5 percentage points to 11.7%, resulting in the highest level since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, though the change wasn’t statistically significant. The second-highest rate of 11.6% was recorded in November 2020. These estimates were taken before the rollout of the Biden administration’s American Rescue Plan.

    Since spring of 2020, real-time poverty data in the U.S. has been tracked every month by economists Bruce Meyer, from the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy, and James Sullivan of the University of Notre Dame’s Department of Economics and the Wilson Sheehan Lab for Economic Opportunities.

    More than 100 million claims for unemployment insurance have been filed over the last year, the economists wrote with co-author Jeehoon Han of Zhejiang University in China, describing the government’s three stimulus packages.

    “While new UI claims fell sharply from April through July of last year, weekly claims have remained high since then at more than 1 million claims each week, about 5 times the pre-pandemic rate,” they added.

    ‘Many government benefits expired, unemployment insurance benefits are typically only about half of pre-job loss earnings, and nearly 5 million people have left the labor force since the start of the pandemic and, therefore, are not counted as unemployed.’

    Those who experienced the sharpest rise in poverty included children, white people, women, those with low education, and those in nearly half of U.S. states that have more restrictive unemployment-insurance payment policies. Last month marked the first time that poverty has been so acute for children, non-minorities and women, the report added.

    Under the American Rescue Plan, individuals making less than $75,000 a year in adjusted gross income received $1,400. The payments decreased for individuals earning $75,000 and up — and phased out completely for those making $80,000 or more and couples making $160,000 or more in adjusted gross income. It was the third such relief package over the last year.

    Unemployment fell to 6% in March 2021 from a seasonally adjusted 14.8% in April 2020, as poverty rose. Initial jobless claims filed traditionally through the states fell to a seasonally adjusted 576,000 from 769,000 in the prior week, the government said last week, marking the largest decline since August. Yet 16.9 million people are still reportedly collecting benefits.

    “This disconnect between poverty and unemployment is not surprising given that many government benefits expired, unemployment insurance benefits are typically only about half of pre-job loss earnings, and nearly 5 million people have left the labor force since the start of the pandemic and, therefore, are not counted as unemployed,” the economists added.

    In the last week of March, 20 million Americans getting by primarily due to the generosity of friends and family were more likely to be suffering from food insecurity, according to a separate analysis by Claire Zippel, a research analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank focused on the impact of budget and tax issues on inequality and poverty.

    The post Despite falling unemployment, America’s poverty rate just reached the highest level since the pandemic began appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • By Andrew Trunsky

    • After years of fiscal conservatism and deficit hawkishness, the Republican Party has shown signs of a shift toward a more populist, pro-worker economic platform.
    • Some Republicans have introduced proposals aimed at increasing the minimum wage or providing cash relief that hardly resemble previous efforts to cut spending or taxes, but instead mirror increasing calls to help working-class Americans who were struggling even before the coronavirus pandemic.
    • “There has been a strongly populist bend,” Republican Rep. Peter Meijer told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “I think we’ve seen a lot of folks who are guessing that’s the way the party is going, and are proposing options that are more based around generating broad political support than they are around pursuing a more narrow policy end.”
    • “There’s a recognition [among Republicans] that the government already constantly intervenes in the market,” said Rachel Bovard, the senior director of policy at the Conservative Partnership Institute. “There is a growing number of people on the right who are saying, ‘we already do this … Why aren’t we doing it to support the people who make up this country?’”

    After years of rhetoric echoing fiscal conservatism and deficit hawkishness, the Republican Party has shown signs of embracing a more populist, pro-worker economic platform as more Americans look to the government for financial help.

    Some Republican lawmakers have introduced proposals since the pandemic began aimed at increasing the minimum wage or providing cash relief that hardly resemble previous efforts to cut spending or taxes, but instead mirror increasing calls to help working-class Americans who were struggling even before the coronavirus pandemic. And while some in the party debate what forces have driven the change within the party, there is little doubt among Republicans that change is occurring.

    “There has been a strongly populist bend,” Republican Rep. Peter Meijer, a freshman from western Michigan and a member of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

    “I think we’ve seen a lot of folks who are guessing that’s the way the party is going, and are proposing options that are more based around generating broad political support than they are around pursuing a more narrow policy end.”

    Meijer is one such Republican. He has advocated for direct cash relief instead of existing welfare programs that have large bureaucratic components and generate “paperwork overhead” for those depending on it, arguing that it can deliver critical aid to struggling Americans in more effective means that adheres to the idea of limited government.

    He even introduced his Direct Dollars Over Government Expenses ($DOGE) plan, which would have given $2,400 checks to qualifying Americans instead of the $1,400 outlined in the American Rescue Plan. His bill, however, was nearly $1 trillion smaller than the ARP, which President Joe Biden signed into law on Mar. 11.

    President Joe Biden signs the American Rescue Plan into law. (Doug Mills-Pool/Getty Images)

    ‘For Whose Benefit?’

    Republicans also overwhelmingly supported earlier bipartisan relief plans that included direct checks, including the CARES Act passed last March and the stimulus passed in December, despite their extraordinary size and scope.

    “There’s a recognition [among Republicans] that the government already constantly intervenes in the market,” Rachel Bovard, the senior director of policy at the Conservative Partnership Institute, told the DCNF.

    “The debate right now is for whose benefit should that be done? … There is a growing number of people on the right who are saying, ‘we already do this, why aren’t we doing it for the family? Why aren’t we doing it to support the people who make up this country?’”

    Even though every congressional Republican voted against the American Rescue Plan largely due to its lack of targeted relief, Meijer said that there is bipartisan opportunity regarding cash payments and other pro-worker policies.

    “There are Republicans who are willing to enter into good-faith negotiations,” Meijer said, discussing how there were broad areas of agreement over coronavirus vaccine and testing aid and direct payments for individuals and small businesses.

    Sen. Mitt Romney speaks alongside a bipartisan group of lawmakers as they announce a proposal for a Covid-19 relief bill. A bill was finally agreed upon after months of negotiations, and was signed by President Trump on Dec. 27. (Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

    When asked if a large aid bill primarily focused on cash relief and pandemic aid would have sailed through Congress with bipartisan support: “I believe it would,” Meijer said. “Those earlier [relief] bills were not viewed with an inherently partisan lens.”

    Not only has cash relief become more popular among lawmakers and voters alike, but an increasing number of Republicans believe that its expansion can coexist with the idea of fiscal conservatism.

    “Direct cash payments have long been part of the conservative playbook,” Scott Lincicome, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, told the DCNF.

    “There has always been an attraction among free-marketers for the most basic type of assistance, which is a direct cash payment … Basically, you just give people money.”

    Far From Unanimous

    Many Republicans have pushed back against the intraparty shift and instead advocated fiscal conservatism and deficit hawkishness even with the pandemic. A majority of Senate Republicans blocked a December push for $2,000 stimulus checks multiple times even after former President Donald Trump backed the effort, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell labeling them as a “universal cash giveaway” and “socialism for rich people.”

    Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson blocked a bipartisan attempt to include $1,200 checks instead of the $600 ones in the December stimulus.

    “What I fear we’re going to do with this bipartisan package … is a shotgun approach,” Johnson said, objecting to the amendment’s size and lack of targeted funds.

    Few in Congress have adhered to the fiscal conservative line more than Sen. Rand Paul, a libertarian-leaning Republican from Kentucky. He not only voted against every major coronavirus relief bill, but has also never voted for the annual defense spending bill or federal budget.

    “We have no rainy day fund. We have no savings account,” Paul said in December before the stimulus passed. “Congress has spent all of the money. Congress spent all of the money a long time ago. The monster spending bill presented today is not just a ‘deficit’s don’t matter disaster,’ it is everything Republicans say they don’t believe in.”

    But despite the populist shift within the GOP and the growing bipartisan consensus that direct checks are efficient, effective and relatively simple, Republicans say that they are concerned about government spending, and have increased their calls to address the growing national debt since Biden won.

    “Cash payments are rarely, in the real world, an alternative to welfare,” Lincicome said. “They are a supplement. And I think that’s really where things can go off the rails, at least from a conservative viewpoint.”

    “[Conservatives] have always envisioned payments as a replacement to the welfare state, not a supplement to the existing welfare state,” Bovard said, mentioning how Meijer’s bill beefed up cash payments and pandemic aid while almost eliminating other non-targeted relief.

    But even with the concerns over the debt and Republican worry that hyperinflation may occur as a result of the American Rescue Plan, Bovard said that conservative lawmakers who were overly focused on deficits and spending are not in tune with the country or their voters.

    “An ideological clinging to deficit hawkishness as if that’s the only thing that matters, as if that’s the biggest threat, is completely missing the stakes of how most people see the world right now,” Bovard said.

    “It’s still an issue, but it’s not the ultimate one. People aren’t threatened every day by the debt.”

    “I think you have a lot of Republican donors that want to put the debt and the deficit in the driver’s seat because it’s the only thing they feel threatened by. But the reality is, the base of the Republican Party feels threatened on a day-to-day basis by tons of other forces,” she added.

    Sen. Josh Hawley speaks during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on March 2, 2021. Sen. Tom Cotton looks on. (Graeme Jennings-Pool/Getty Images)

    Bipartisanship?

    Though the two parties have sharply diverged on social and cultural issues and partisan gridlock has become the default, signs of bipartisanship have appeared among Republicans and Democrats who have pushed for more pro-worker policies. Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders and Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley jointly introduced a proposal for $2,000 relief checks in December after Trump said the $600 checks in December’s stimulus package were too small, and the pair later introduced similar plans to raise the minimum wage after the Senate parliamentarian excluded it from the American Rescue Plan.

    And even though most Republicans opposed Democrats’ effort to pass a $15 minimum wage, some, like Utah Sen. Mitt Romney and Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, introduced a joint plan that would raise the wage up from the current $7.25.

    “There is a bipartisan consensus that austerity politics and faith in pure market absolutism has failed the working and middle class in America,” California Rep. Ro Khanna, a progressive Democrat from Silicon Valley, told the DCNF. “We can come together to have industrial policy that creates good paying jobs in places left behind and that increases wages for those without a college degree.”

    “Recognizing the dignity of work and importance of community is not a left or right idea,” he added.

    “It is an idea rooted in ensuring that every American has an equal voice in our democracy and participates in the American dream.”

    ____

    View original article here: https://dailycaller.com/2021/03/30/republicans-embracing-economic-populism-cash-relief-minimum-wage/

    The post Is The GOP Becoming More Supportive of Direct Cash Payments? appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Two Democratic senators are introducing legislation to standardize federal unemployment insurance benefits, and to ensure extra benefits are added during times when unemployment is high across the country.

    The bill proposed by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) and Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colorado) would require states to pay at least 75 percent of a claimant’s previous weekly wage up to the state’s maximum benefit rate. The proposal would also raise unemployment benefits to match that of at least two-thirds of the weekly amount the average worker in the state earns.

    Such a move would raise unemployment insurance benefits in a number of areas. In at least 13 states across the country, the average weekly benefit for unemployment is below the 2020 poverty line measure.

    The bill would likely close a benefits gap seen between states across the U.S. The maximum benefit allotted to unemployed workers in the country is currently in Massachusetts, where an individual without dependents can receive up to $823 per week if they suddenly find themselves without work. In Mississippi, the maximum benefit is just $235.

    The legislation the two Democrats are proposing would require states to also provide at least 26 weeks of unemployment benefits. Most states are already at that standard, but a handful do not guarantee that those without work can receive benefits for that long.

    Wyden’s and Bennet’s bill would also ensure that the unemployment system would provide extra benefits during economic crises, when the unemployment rate is higher than usual — such as what was seen during the COVID-19 pandemic or during the Great Recession. The current boost to unemployment insurance, which adds $300 to weekly checks sent to out-of-work Americans, is set to expire in September.

    Under this bill, when the unemployment rate reaches 5.5 percent, benefits would extend from the required 26 weeks to an additional 13 weeks, for a total of 39 weeks.

    “As we’ve seen the last year, it’s much harder for the unemployment system to work in a crisis when it’s been neglected and sabotaged. We can’t fail again to fix it in the wake of the second major economic crisis in 10 years,” Wyden said to HuffPost about his and Bennet’s proposal.

    In addition to these new standards, the bill would also ensure that workers in the so-called “gig economy” would be covered, allowing workers who are freelancers or those who drive for ride-share companies would also receive a benefit.

    The last monthly jobs report found that 6 percent of the population is currently classified as unemployed. Long-term unemployment since the start of the pandemic also remains high. Those who have been unemployed for more than 26 weeks represent 43.4 percent of all individuals who are currently without work.

    It’s unclear whether the proposal could be passed through Congress at this time. While there would likely be support for its passage in the Democrat-led House, in the Senate, more evenly divided at 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans, the bill would likely face the threat of being blocked by a filibuster.

    It’s possible, however, that if the Democratic caucus in the Senate gets behind this proposal, that the bill could be included as an amendment to the recently passed stimulus package, allowing it to go through the reconciliation process and thus bypassing the filibuster entirely, to ensure more Americans who are without work can receive unemployment insurance.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • By Greg Iacurci

    • Nearly 2.4 million Americans were unemployed for at least a year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which issued its March jobs report on Friday. That represents 24% of all unemployed.
    • The statistics offer a snapshot through the middle of last month, about a year after the Covid pandemic began to upend the labor market.
    • Long-term joblessness is increasing even as the U.S. unemployment rate falls. That’s an unusual dynamic during recessions, economists said.

    Nearly a quarter of all unemployed workers in the U.S. have been out of work for at least a year, a stretch of joblessness dating to the early days of the Covid pandemic.

    The dynamic speaks to persistent — and rising — long-term joblessness even as the national unemployment rate falls.

    That divergence is unusual during downturns and highlights the unequal (or K-shaped) nature of the recovery, economists said.

    Nearly 2.4 million Americans were unemployed 52 weeks or more in March, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    That’s almost double the number in February and is about 1.6 million more people than in March 2020.

    ‘Breathtaking’

    In all, those long-term unemployed represented 24% of the 9.9 million total jobless workers last month, according to the bureau. (The data are without seasonal adjustments.)

    “I think that number is pretty breathtaking, that nearly a quarter of unemployed workers have been unemployed for over a year,” said Heidi Shierholz, director of policy at the Economic Policy Institute and former chief economist at the Department of Labor from 2014 to 2017.

    “It really shows that even as the economy is recovering, you have a lot of the same people who have been unemployed throughout this whole damn thing,” she added.

    The statistics offer the first glimpse of joblessness a year after officials began issuing lockdown orders to contain the coronavirus and millions of Americans began filing for unemployment benefits.

    And that number is likely an undercount since the department doesn’t consider certain workers, like those who left the labor force entirely due to pandemic health risks or child-care duties. And the share may rise next month, since the current numbers only offer a snapshot through the middle of last month, which doesn’t quite align with the flood of unemployment filings toward late March and into April 2020.

    The bureau doesn’t break out these long-term unemployment numbers by industry.

    But it’s likely that workers among this group are overrepresented in the hardest-hit industries, like leisure and hospitality, Shierholz said. More than 3 million jobs in that sector have yet to return — accounting for more than a third of the total.

    Long-term unemployment

    Long-term unemployment has risen steadily throughout the health crisis and is near a Great Recession peak.

    Economists consider workers to be long-term unemployed after at least six months without work.

    It’s an especially dangerous period for households from a financial perspective. Finding a new job becomes more difficult, workers’ long-term earnings potential is scarred and the odds of losing a job if they find one down the road increase.

    The federal government has stepped in to offer income support by extending and raising weekly unemployment benefits. The $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, which President Joe Biden signed last month, extends aid through Labor Day and offers a $300 weekly supplement to state benefits.

    However, not all workers qualify for assistance, despite broader eligibility criteria during the pandemic.

    More than 4 million Americans were jobless for six or more months in March — or 43.4% of all unemployed, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said Friday.

    That’s almost on par with the record 45.5% share hit in the aftermath of the Great Recession.

    The share is growing even as the U.S. unemployment rate fell to 6% in March. The U.S. gained 916,000 jobs, the most since the summer.

    In recessions, unemployment and long-term unemployment generally move up and down together, Shierholz said.

    “That is not what’s going on here,” she said. “Right now, they’re going in a totally opposite direction — you have unemployment coming down, and long-term unemployment going up.”

    The number of Americans out of work for at least a year is still about half the peak hit after the Great Recession.

    In April 2010, more than 4.6 million people had been out of work at least 52 weeks, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It took another 20 months for that number to dip below the 4 million mark.

    However, long-term unemployment may not linger to the same extent this time around, given the pace of vaccinations and the trend of the economic rebound.

    View original article here: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/04/06/24percent-of-unemployed-workers-have-been-jobless-for-over-a-year.html

    The post 24% of unemployed workers have been jobless for over a year appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • A "we are hiring" sign is seen in front of a store on March 5, 2021, in Miami, Florida.

    The March employment reports show the economy bouncing back sharply due to the spread of vaccines and the first effects of the Biden recovery package. The establishment survey showed the economy adding 916,000 jobs in the month. The household survey was also encouraging, with the unemployment rate dropping 0.2 percentage points to 6.0 percent, a level not reached in the recovery from the Great Recession until September of 2014. The employment-to-population ratio (EPOP) also edged up 0.2 percentage points to 57.8 percent.

    Gains Were Broadly Based

    The benefits of the job growth were broadly shared. The unemployment rate for Black workers fell from 9.9 percent to 9.6 percent, while their EPOP rose from 54.2 percent to 54.9 percent, but this is still down 3.8 percentage points from its 2019 average. The EPOP for white workers was 58.1 percent in March, 2.9 percentage points below its 2019 average. The unemployment rate for Hispanic workers fell a 0.6 percentage point to 7.9 percent, while their EPOP rose a 0.5 percentage point to 60.4 percent.

    By education group, workers without high school degrees and workers with just high school degrees saw the sharpest drops in unemployment, with their rates falling by 1.9 and 0.5 percentage points, respectively, to 8.2 percent and 6.7 percent. The unemployment rate for college grads fell a 0.1 percentage point to 3.7 percent, while the rate for those with some college was unchanged at 5.9 percent.

    Asian Americans were an exception, with a rise in their unemployment rate of 0.9 percent to 6.0 percent, which is 0.6 percentage points above the 5.4 percent rate for whites. It typically is lower. Their EPOP of 59.4 percent is 2.9 percentage points below its 2019 average.

    Women Did Slightly Better Than Men in March

    The situation for women improved slightly more than for men in March, with a drop in their unemployment rate of a 0.2 percentage point to 5.9 percent, compared to a 0.1 percentage point drop for men to 6.2 percent. The labor force participation rates for both men and women are well below 2019 levels, with a drop of 1.3 percentage points for women to 56.1 percent and 1.9 percentage points for men to 67.3 percent.

    Long-Term Unemployment Still Extraordinarily High

    One item in the household survey that is discouraging is that the share of long-term unemployment (more than 26 weeks) rose again to 43.4 percent, approaching the all-time high of 45.2 percent in the Great Recession. This means many of the same people have been unemployed throughout the recession. Typically, unemployment is more widely shared with people experiencing short stretches.

    The share of unemployed due to temporary layoffs fell to 20.8 percent. This is still high. In normal times this is in a range of 12.0–15.0 percent, but it’s far below the peak of 77.9 percent last April. The percent of the unemployed who voluntarily quit their job, a measure of labor market strength, rose from 7.0 to 8.0 percent. That’s up from a low of 2.5 percent in April, but still far below peak of more than 15.0 percent in 2019.

    Jump in Incorporated Self-Employed

    One interesting item in the household survey was a jump in the incorporated self-employed of 354,000 to 6,024,000. This was largely reversing a drop reported in February, but it left the number of people in this category of small business owners just 2.6 percent below the 2019 average.

    Job Gains in Establishment Survey Broadly Based Across Sectors

    With upward revisions to the prior two months data, this brings the average rate of job growth for the last three months to 539,000. Restaurants and state and local governments had the strongest gains, adding 175,800 and 129,000 jobs, respectively, but there were gains everywhere. The gains in restaurants reflect fewer restrictions and more people willing to go out after being vaccinated. State and local governments are bringing workers back as in person teaching resumes and they have a new infusion of money from the recovery package.

    Construction added 110,000 jobs in March, more than reversing a weather-caused loss of 56,000 jobs in February. Manufacturing gained 53,000 jobs. Transportation added 47,500, while retail added 22,500.

    Wage Growth Has Held Up Through the Recession

    It seems that wage growth has continued largely at its pre-pandemic pace. The average hourly wage for production workers rose at 3.4 percent annual rate, comparing the last three months (January, February, March) with prior three months (October, November, December).

    Wage growth maintains a healthy pace as the recovery picks up steam

    One very encouraging item in these data is it seems that productivity is still growing at a healthy pace. It grew at a 2.5 percent rate last year. With hours up around 2.5 percent in the first quarter, GDP is likely to be close to 6.0 percent. We are looking at another quarter of strong growth. This will allow for large wage gains without inflation.

    On the whole, this is a very strong report. The growth in jobs is impressive as is the drop in the unemployment rate. But, we still have a very long way to go. We are down 8.4 million jobs since February of 2020. If we add in 1.8 million for the job growth we should have seen, that puts us down 10.2 million. It would take more than 11 months of job growth like March to make up this loss.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • And my own looming job crisis. Continue reading

    The post Rethinking Employment in the Biden-Harris Era appeared first on BillMoyers.com.

    This post was originally published on BillMoyers.com.