As Margy writes in an AlterNet Op-Ed published yesterday, "as long as we keep talking about "poverty", this is much ado about almost nothing." 
Driver's license or good citizen's card?
The list of non-driving misdemeanors resulting in license suspension includes failure to pay parking fines and failure to appear in court, even for reasons completely unrelated to driving. State agencies are increasingly using driver's license suspension to enforce laws and public policies that have nothing to do with driving or even motor vehicles. The problem is that suspension of driving privileges makes it much more difficult to keep or find a job, and thus makes it even harder for individuals to comply with whatever rule was broken in the first place.
In Oregon, as in many other states, more than fifty non-driving-related offenses can lead to a driver's license suspension. Some typical non-driving-related reasons that lead to suspension are: failure to comply with court orders, failure to appear in court, failure to pay child support, and failure to pay certain fines.
In a recent report, the Mobility Agenda (a Washington D.C.-based think tank that seeks to stimulate support for strengthening the labor market and benefiting workers) discusses how driver's license suspension can have negative economic and social effects, especially if a license is suspended for non-driving-related reasons. Local communities, employers and employees experience serious negative consequences as a result of license suspensions, including unemployment, lower wages, and fewer employment opportunities and hiring choices. Some employers, particularly in the construction and healthcare fields, require a driver's license as a precondition of employment, either because driving is part of the job or as a way to screen applicants.
In addition to these negative effects, other costs can be associated with license suspension, like the expensive license reinstatement process that includes court appearances and legal assistance. In some states, automobile insurance costs automatically increase after a suspension, even if the suspension is for non-driving reasons. Low-income workers are likely to be disproportionately affected by license suspensions arising from inability to pay fines and fees. Suspending low-income workers' licenses can lead to additional economic distress both for employers and the extended community when people are unable to reach or to apply for jobs inaccessible by public transit. This is yet another barrier to a low-income worker's economic opportunity and stable income.
The Mobility Agenda report also discusses state-level policy changes making a crucial impact in reducing license suspension for non-driving-related reasons. For example, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, community leaders succeeded in facilitating some statutory changes resulting in fewer license suspensions due to non-driving-related reasons. This change significantly decreased the number of drivers with suspended licenses in Milwaukee.
The driver's license is a vital link to employment for many workers and should not be suspended for reasons unrelated to driving at the whim of policymakers who would like to convert the driver's license into a "good citizen" card.
Margy Waller
The Mobility Agenda
for
The Community Action New Narrative Initiative
November 2008
As a new set of federal policymakers gets ready to address the current economic crisis, academics and advocates are proposing changes to the official measure of poverty.
Unfortunately, as long as we keep talking about “poverty”, this is much ado about almost nothing.
Earlier this year, a similar discussion ensued in Congress. At the national level, that new proposal would move the bar ever so slightly, so that being poor equals household income of less than $21,818 for two adults with two children, up from the current $20,444.
To be sure, a new measure would likely be a better reflection of the rate of material deprivation in our nation than the current one. And Brookings’ Rebecca Blank proposes a very thoughtful approach.
Why is this even necessary?
Today’s measure still uses a formula based on 1950s household expenditures – before housing and transportation costs went up and two-income households became the requirement, causing average child care expenses to soar. In contrast, the proposed new measure would allow for regional reflection of differences in the cost of living and would count some federally-funded employment benefits as income for the first time.
Yet, it’s important to note that we aren’t really accomplishing what we desire with this goal – even with a more accurate formula. This is especially true since this high-level reconsideration of the formula is occurring at a time when there are numerous calls for a national goal to reduce poverty by 50 percent over the next ten years.
What’s wrong with expending a whole lot of energy on this discussion?
First, it’s only a proposal to measure income and not the other resources that communities need for a strong economy and full participation in our democracy and civil society. The proposal isn’t about quality education or clean air or reasonable housing costs or access to health care or reducing prejudice…. and so on. (Although, notably, Blank’s long-term proposal goes much further.)
Second, a if we want a measure of income, a relative measure would be a much more useful test of how well our nation is doing at making sure all residents can contribute to a strong society. As higher income earners do better, low-wage workers must see increases in income relative to the higher earners – otherwise poverty increases. As one leading newspaper said of a new relative measure:
Third, while we do need a better standard for measuring progress as a nation on income deprivation, we’re not likely to succeed in achieving the goal of better policy outcomes if we insist on maintaining a subsistence standard. Indeed, if the goal is based on any measure of “poverty” as it is currently understood in this country – material deprivation blamed on immoral or ill-considered personal choices – we should not expect much policy progress on efforts to strengthen our economy.
At The Mobility Agenda, we’re engaged in a conversation about developing a goal that is more consistent with widely supported policy proposals – which tend to go way beyond income deprivation and include paid time off at work, worker voices at the table for establishing workplace policy, fair wages, and access to affordable health insurance.
When we put the poverty headline over these policy options, policymakers face real resistance created by the widely-held public beliefs about causes of poverty. We cannot change these beliefs by adopting a goal to end or reduce poverty – no matter which formula we use to define the term.
Of course, we should adopt a more current measure of income deprivation, but only as part of larger goals related to well-being and inclusion.
Unfortunately, we're not doing so well on the policy front as it is, and changing the poverty formula will not have much of an impact on this reality. Progress on policy requires a different goal and new measures for testing our progress toward that goal. Moreover, we’ll need to have a different conversation altogether – one that isn’t about “poverty”.
November 24, 2008
As we
know, access to driving is key to a strong economy. Workers with a car
are more likely to be employed, work more hours, and earn more than
those without a car. (Workers with access to public transit are also
disadvantaged compared to those with a car.)
For much more information on access to driving - please view our web pages on this topic at http://www.mobilityagenda.org/
Please review the following invitation and contact
information for a new listserv dedicated to car ownership and
financing, from our friends at the National Consumer Law Center:
I am pleased to invite you to join an email
discussion listserv dedicated to issues affecting car finance, sales, and
ownership. The discussion will focus on car ownership programs, policy
changes to bring fairness to car buying and financing, and alternative financing
products for car purchases by low-wage workers.
This list is
operated by the National Consumer Law Center with funding from the Annie E.
Casey Foundation. This listserv is for anyone who is concerned about
car finance, sales, and ownership as well as anyone working on broader issues
that affect access to transportation for workers and their families
(e.g., insurance, driver's licenses, maintenance, etc.).
The goals of
this list are to:
2. Highlight promising practices and innovative solutions
3. Provide a forum for sharing questions and addressing mutual challenges
4. Encourage improvement in public policy and advocacy for low-wage worker car finance, sales, and ownership
5. Promote resources, research, conferences, relevant materials, and job opportunities
6. Encourage networking and relationship building within the field
To join please go to: http://lists.nclc.org/
I hope you will join us in our effort to ensure
that families have access to safe, reliable transportation at a reasonable price
with fair financing terms.
November 14, 2008
Paid Sick Days Wins Big in Milwaukee
On November 4, Milwaukee made its voice heard, becoming the third US city to guarantee paid sick leave to workers. 69% of city voters cast ballots in favor of the measure to give full-time workers 9 paid sick days per year. While business leaders continued to voice their opposition to the referendum, Milwaukee residents decided that this is one work/life policy that everyone deserves.
In September, the Institute for Women's Policy Research published the results of a cost/benefit analysis of the paid sick leave measure, which found that "the new standard will directly benefit more than 75,000 Milwaukee workers who currently lack paid sick days and provide net savings to Milwaukee employers of $15 million per year, largely from reduced costs of turnover."
At The Mobility Agenda, we have written about the importance of paid sick leave and other crucial work life policies before (see our Work-Life page or read our recent report, Work-Life Policies for the Twenty-First Century Economy). And while workers everywhere can applaud Milwaukee's victory, it is little comfort to the millions of workers and families around the country whose work and survival remains vulnerable to an unanticipated illness. Paid sick leave is crucial not only to individual workers, but their families and larger communities as well - the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recognized a lack of paid sick days as a public health concern. That is particularly true in the service industry, whose workers come into close contact with the public on a daily basis.
Paid sick leave is important to healthy communities and a strong economy - and not just in Milwaukee. It ensures that workers are able to meet work, family, and social obligations that keep America running. Federal and state policymakers and employers should build on Milwaukee's success by guaranteeing paid sick days for all workers.
October 31, 2008
Notes on Media Coverage of Poverty
by Margy Waller
At The Mobility Agenda, we track media coverage of poverty
proposals. We thought you would be interested in these new links to
articles representing a classic example of what happens when poverty is
invoked to support policy proposals.
This Manhattan Institute article, Getting Poverty Wrong, and the media followup is a good reminder that we will not achieve the policy results we seek (note the list of Obama proposals attacked in the article) with a conversation that makes people think about poverty.
When we use this frame, we inevitably get a response from our
opponents that goes straight to the place Bill Cunningham does in this interview: "...they're poor because
they lack values, morals, and ethics." At another spot in the interview he argues that "...unlike
many countries in the world, Steve, we have fat poor people. We don't
have skinny poor people. Ours are fat and flatulent."
Lowlight:
"CUNNINGHAM: Steve Malanga -- the article is "Obama's counterproductive war on poverty." The war on poverty was declared in the 1960s. It was lost in the 1970s. The funding continued for poverty. You know, people are poor in America, Steve, not because they lack money; they're poor because they lack values, morals, and ethics. And if government can't teach and instill that, we're wasting our time simply giving poor people money."
For much more, including suggestions for alternative approaches - check out our page on reframing poverty:
http://www.mobilityagenda.org/reframingthepovertydebate
October 1, 2008
Or
The Big Price of Bad Jobs
The Mobility Agenda
for
The Community Action New Narrative Initiative
There are a lot of places to point fingers when trying to assign responsibility for recent failures of major corporations and the perceived need for a “bailout” of other institutions.
Among those who deserve some of the blame are employers, particularly those who pay low-wages and don’t offer employment benefits like health care and paid sick days. One in three jobs – over 40 million in our economy – pay low-wages, and most of these are without benefits.
In recent years, wages for these jobs, like too many middle income jobs as well, have been flat or even declining. At the same time, costs for gas, food, and other everyday expenses have continued to rise.
Workers were forced to go into debt to cover this loss in purchasing power. People at all income levels borrowed against the home equity that they had accumulated within the housing bubble in order to pay for cost increases. This debt, over time, artificially inflated the economy to levels sustained only by consumers’ willingness, and need, to assume more debt. Workers across the country have found themselves spending on credit to survive while saddled in a spiral of ever decreasing net worth – and for it, everyone has suffered.
Our colleague Dean Baker, at the Center for Economic Policy Research, put it this way:
The main cause of the economy's weakness is not insolvent banks and lack of credit; it's the loss of $4 trillion to $5 trillion in housing equity as a result of the bubble's partial deflation. Families used their equity to support their consumption in the years from 2002 to 2007, as the savings rate fell to almost zero.With much of this equity now eliminated by the collapse of the bubble, many families can no longer sustain their levels of consumption. The main reason that banks won't lend to these families is that they no longer have home equity to serve as collateral. It wouldn't matter how much money the banks had, they are not going to make mortgage loans to people who have no equity.
And house prices are not going to come back. This is like Pets.com. We are not going to get the price of $200,000 homes in central California back up to $500,000.
The main problem in recovering from the recession will be finding ways to boost demand other than household consumption…. In the short-run, we will have to rely on government stimulus to help spur growth and reduce unemployment…. demands for stimulus were not extraneous to the legitimate goal of a bank bailout bill. Fiscal stimulus must be central to any serious effort to boost the economy.
With workers stuck in bad jobs and prices soaring, no one’s debt is going to disappear. It will take bold policy changes, to effect the kind of change we need.
To strengthen the labor market, policymakers could 1) make changes and extensions to unemployment insurance options, 2) invest in good jobs created to strengthen our infrastructure, build green, and improve transit options, and 3) guarantee paid sick days for all workers. Any of these improvements would strengthen our economy for all of us.
September 26, 2008
Notes on "Presidential Politics and Poverty" at The Urban Institute
or, "The Mobility Agenda gets a shout out"
by Research Associate Jonny Finity
On Tuesday, EJ Dionne – distinguished Washington Post journalist,
renowned political analyst, and Brookings Institution Senior Fellow –
addressed a crowd for the 2008 Paul Offner Lecture at The Urban Institute on "Presidential Politics and Poverty." We want to live in a place where all have the opportunity and resources necessary to contribute and participate fully in our economy and democracy. We all fare better when no one is left to fall too far behind and the economy works for everyone. Right now our communities have become too dependent on corporations that don't pay well and don't provide benefits like health care or paid sick days. As a result, there are over 40 million jobs (1 in 3 in our economy!) that pay under about $11 an hour. If we want a strong economy for all, we have to address job quality too. If we want people to participate in our civic life - volunteering in schools and on ball fields - then we need to make sure that everyone has what they need to do that. Because whenever too many fall too far behind the rest, our whole society is diminished.
These comments couldn't be timelier, as the economic crisis unfolds and the media and politicians nationwide clamber for a redefinition of "poverty." It is true that the current definition of poverty is flawed and outdated. But the fact remains, that to define poverty is to divide society. It creates a chasm between "us" and "them", and creates a culture of sympathy and – equally as often – blame. To address the problems attributed to poverty, we need to focus on the bigger picture: a picture in which all of use are included.
September 10, 2008
The Mobility Agenda's Margy Waller was a featured speaker at
International Association of Machinists' 37th Grand Lodge Convention in
Orlando – a gathering of 2,500 members of the union.
As part of a week-long convention dedicated to President Franklin
Delano Roosevelt's "Four Freedoms" speech, Margy spoke to the attendees
about defining and addressing "freedom from want" in the 21st century.
The panel discussion focusing on the economy and labor market
included Jared Bernstein from the Economic Policy Institute, Sheldon
Danziger from the University of Michigan, and Dave Brady from Duke
University.
Quoting from FDRs speech, Margy noted that his definition of "freedom from want" was that it "means economic understandings which
will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants -- everywhere in the world."
The
panelists discussed the inadequacy of the current official measure of
poverty, barriers presented by public understanding of the causes of
poverty, and policy proposals designed to strengthen the labor market.
Margy's presentation highlighted work of The Mobility Agenda to
energize a new public conversation designed to create public will and
political space for policies that ensure everyone can be a full
participant in our economy and democracy.
August 8, 2008
Striking a Work-Life Balance
HearSay with Cathy Lewis,WHRV 89.5 FM National
Public Radio
Margy Waller, Executive Director of The Mobility Agenda, discusses changes in the work force over the last 50 years, what those changes mean for families and workers, and how public policies can best adapt to reflect the impact of these changes, including paid sick days, paid family and medical leave, workplace flexibility, and scheduling predictability.
For more information visit our webpage on work-life policies, and read our recent report on the issue, Work-Life Policies for the Twenty-First Century Economy.
July 17, 2008
A New Poverty Measure is Not Real Change
Margy Waller, Executive Director, The Mobility Agenda
This week, Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed changing the formula for measuring poverty. Now Congressional leaders are holding a hearing on adopting a similar change at the national level.
This is all much ado about almost nothing.
At the national level, the proposal would move the bar ever so slightly, so that being poor equals household income of less than $21,818 for two adults with two children, up from the current $20,444.
To be sure, the new measure would be a better reflection of the rate of material deprivation in our nation than the current one.
Today’s measure still uses a formula based on 1950s household expenditures – before housing and transportation costs went up and two-income households became the requirement, causing average child care expenses to soar. In contrast, the new measure would allow for regional reflection of differences in the cost of living and would count some federally-funded employment benefits as income for the first time.
Yet, it’s important to note that we aren’t really accomplishing what we desire with this goal – even with a more accurate formula! This is especially true since this high-level reconsideration of the formula is occurring at a time when there are numerous calls for a national goal to reduce poverty by 50 percent over the next ten years.
What’s wrong with expending a whole lot of energy on this discussion?
First, it’s only a proposal to measure income and not the other resources that communities need for a strong economy and full participation in our democracy and civil society. The proposal isn’t about quality education or clean air or reasonable housing costs or access to health care or reducing prejudice…. and so on.
Second, a if we want a measure of income, a relative measure would be a much more useful test of how well our nation is doing at making sure all residents can contribute to a strong society. As higher income earners do better, low-wage workers must see increases in income relative to the higher earners – otherwise poverty increases. As one leading paper said of a new relative measure:
Certainly, the…relative poverty measure is hard to budge…Yet, when all the research shows that it is how one's income compares to the average that drives one's health, happiness and opportunity, the target must be the right one.
Third, while we do need a better standard for measuring progress as a nation on income deprivation, we’re not likely to succeed in achieving the goal of better policy outcomes if we insist on maintaining a subsistence standard. Indeed, if the goal is based on any measure of “poverty” as it is currently understood in this country – material deprivation blamed on immoral or ill-considered personal choices – we should not expect much policy progress on efforts to strengthen our economy.
At The Mobility Agenda, we’re engaged in a conversation about developing a goal that is more consistent with widely supported policy proposals – which tend to go way beyond income deprivation and which include paid time off at work, worker voices at the table for establishing workplace policy, fair wages, and access to affordable health insurance.
When we put the poverty headline over these policy options, policymakers face real resistance created by the widely-held public beliefs about causes of poverty. We cannot change these beliefs by adopting a goal to end or reduce poverty – regardless of which formula we use to define the term.
Of course, we should adopt a more current measure of income deprivation. Mayor Bloomberg and members of the House should be applauded for their effort to make the more up-to-date but unofficial Census measure more official.
Unfortunately, we're not doing so well on the policy front as it is, and changing the formula will not have much of an impact on this reality. Progress on policy requires a different goal and new measures for testing our progress toward that goal.
Cross-posted at
The Mobility Agenda team bids farewell and best wishes to Sarah S!
Senior Research Associate Sarah Sattelmeyer is leaving The Mobility Agenda to attend graduate school. Sarah was a founding staffer and has been an integral part of our organization for almost two years and we will miss her dearly. Good luck Sarah!
See Sarah's most recent commentary below!
Moving Away From Employer Based Coverage: Don't Forget Public Opinion
(Don’t Worry, We Won’t!)
Sarah Sattelmeyer, Senior Research Associate, The Mobility Agenda
As Dr. Altman points out, the way the public perceives an issue often predicts how that issue will fare on the legislative agenda. But language used to talk about that issue can also influence communication and opinions.
When you present information, people use previous experiences and knowledge as shortcuts to mentally organize that information in a way that makes sense to them. The poll referenced in this article by Dr. Altman asks people how they conceptualize getting health care "by themselves." In general, I would imagine that many people, when asked undertake a large task alone, such as wading through the sea of healthcare options, would feel that it would be difficult.
However, this poll does not represent all viable health care reform proposals; not all health care proposals that separate health care coverage from employment status actually require individuals to find and sign up for their own health coverage.
While I agree that this poll does show that the public is somewhat uneasy with a major, national policy change, does it overestimate how strongly people feel? I certainly don’t know the answer, but I am raising the question as a way of demonstrating that we desperately need a new dialogue to discuss health care, one that is as inclusive of policies as it will (hopefully!) be of people.
Why There Were Germs on the Steps of City Hall, or What I Learned About Paid Sick Leave
Until recently, I had never thought much about paid sick leave. But within this past week, leading up to an event on Wednesday that featured Sara Flocks, the co-founder of Young Workers United and one of the prominent voices behind San Francisco's first-in-the-nation paid sick leave law, I've become a big fan of this policy.
This is some of what I learned:
* Anecdotally, paid sick leave is a good idea. Flocks told story after story of workers who were forced to go to work sick. She told of a server at the Cheesecake Factory whose boss told her that she would be fired if she didn't show up for work, despite the fact that she had pinkeye. So the boss "allowed" the sever to wear sunglasses. (Call me crazy, but I don't like people with pinkeye touching my food.) In another example, a woman who was pregnant and hemorrhaging lost her job because her boss told her that if she didn't come to work she'd get fired.
Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, who was on the panel, gave what was perhaps the scariest example,
telling of a hotel worker in Nevada who went to work sick and infected
600 hotel guests. "It's not only a moral issue but a social issue," she
said.
* The statistics agree with the anecdotes.Forty-six million
U.S. private sector employees don't have paid sick leave. One in three
employees worry that taking time off when they are sick would
jeopardize their job, and 58%
of employees without paid sick leave say they cannot afford to take
unpaid time off work when they become ill. Working when sick is
especially common among restaurant workers. Eighty-six percent of food and accommodation workers don't have paid sick leave and 52% of NYC restaurant workers say they've gone to work when sick.
The public is largely supportive of paid sick leave policies: 80% of Americans think that employers should be required to provide paid sick days. The U.S. is falling behind the rest of the world on this issue. One hundred and thirty six countries require employers to provide a week or more of paid sick leave to employees, but the U.S. has no such requirement.
* There's no real disadvantage to this policy. At
the DMI event on Monday, Andrea Batista Schlesinger read from a web
memo on paid sick leave written by the Heritage Foundation (Check out
the clip on YouTube). The memo gave three reasons why the Foundation doesn't support paid sick leave. They are
"1. Some workers have used FMLA to excuse tardiness and to skip work.
2. Co-workers face the burden of covering for shirking employees who misuse their leave.
3. Customers suffer unpredictable delays and shortcomings in service."
And ironically, the Heritage Foundation does offer paid sick leave to their employees. Don't they have to worry about tardy employees and covering shirking co-workers?
According to Flocks, the cost of paid sick leave is minimal, especially considering that not having sick workers in the workplace boosts productivity and prevents the spread of disease. The biggest concern of small business owners that YWU spoke with was how to keep track of the days, not the actual cost of workers not working when they were sick. She said that a lot of businesses wanted to provide paid sick leave, but didn't provide it because their competitors didn't. "We're leveling the playing field," she said.
* If San Francisco can do it, other cities can do it, too. Before the event, I had looked around the web for information on the San Francisco campaign. I was pretty surprised -- besides the website for Young Workers United, there wasn't much out there. But after hearing Sara Flocks speak, I began to understand why. Much of the audience that YWU was targeting was not an audience that used the web as a primary source of information. So instead the group disseminated its message through Spanish media, Chinese media, and bus ads. They even dressed up as germs and demonstrated on the steps of City Hall.
Flocks said ones of the reason the campaign was so successful was that YWU was able to build successful coalitions between unions, immigrant rights groups, and other organizations. They also negotiated and talked directly with groups that were against the law (like the restaurant association) and cooperated to write a law that all parties could live with. These same tactics could be used to successfully pass legislation in other cities.
Following in San Francisco's footsteps, Washington, D.C., passed a paid sick leave bill, and there is currently national legislation called the Healthy Families Act, which was introduced in the House this March.
For more on paid sick leave, check out the Paid Sick Leave Injustice Index, the liveblog of the Marketplace of Ideas event, and DMI's YouTube channel, which has clips from the event.
Compiled by The Mobility Agenda Staff
Some stakeholders promote coverage of poverty issues and policy, and recommend adopting a goal to cut poverty in half. We note that historically, when politicians focus on the poor and/or media coverage increases, public opinion opposing funding for anti-poverty programs goes up. At the same time, media coverage often reinforces problematic frames on causes of poverty and creates opportunities for opponents to promote these frames.
We provide these recent examples:
“A New Strategy Against Poverty” commentary by Newt Gingrich
Newt Gingrich answers Barack Obama's call for an honest discussion about poverty.
May 15, 2008: Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity
For more examples, click here
In a new report
released this week, The Mobility Agenda finds that the U.S. economy, workplace,
workforce, and labor market have changed radically in the last 50 years,
yet public and private policies have not kept up with these changes. In the report, the authors review the evidence regarding work-life conflicts, the economic
case for policy initiatives, and effectiveness of the policy options.
“No single policy will meet all needs, which is why we recommend a menu of policy solutions to address changes in workforce, living arrangements, and society,” explains Margy Waller, Executive Director of The Mobility Agenda. The authors, Heather Boushey, Layla Moughari, Sarah Sattelmeyer, and Margy Waller present a clear explanation of the policy options and make specific recommendations for decision-makers.
For more information and to see the full report and abstract, please visit www.mobilityagenda.org/worklife
But why has racial division become so much less important in American politics?
Part of the credit surely goes to Bill Clinton, who ended welfare as we knew it. I’m not saying that the end of Aid to Families With Dependent Children was an unalloyed good thing; it created a great deal of hardship. But the “bums on welfare” played a role in political discourse vastly disproportionate to the actual expense of A.F.D.C., and welfare reform took that issue off the table.
We find exactly the opposite in our review of academic literature on this question. The evidence directly contradicts Krugman’s assertion.
In a report The Mobility Agenda commissioned and released last fall to review public opinion on poverty, welfare, and low-wage work, Matthew Nisbet of American University writes:
Also:
And finally:
Unfortunately, in a systematic analysis comparing multiple indicators of polling data gathered between 1998 and 2004 with data from the late 1980s, [Joe] Soss and [Sanford]Schramm find no evidence for this impact. The tendency for Americans to blame poverty on a lack of effort has held steady, feelings toward the poor have grown slightly cooler, willingness to aid the poor has stayed the same or diminished, and racial attitudes still color support for assistance to the poor.
Yet, pointing to more recent polling data, influential progressives remain optimistic that the public is finally ready to get behind a campaign against poverty. In particular, a widely talked about analysis by Pew (2007) indicates a roughly 10% shift between 1994 and 2007 in the public’s agreement that the government should take care of people who can’t take care of themselves, guarantee food and shelter for all, and help more needy people even if it means government debt.
However…any comparison to 1994 is misleading, since these polls were taken at the height of the welfare reform campaign. During this period, news attention to welfare soared, with this coverage overwhelmingly negative in its tone. By 1998, however, news attention and negativity had both sharply declined. In reality, absent very salient messages attacking welfare programs, what the 2007 polls reveal is a normalization of public attitudes about poverty to their pre-Clinton era levels, rather than any turning point in public sentiment.
It's the Same Country: Different Language, Different Leader
Sarah Sattelmeyer, Senior Research Associate, The Mobility Agenda
Having Barack Obama as the first African-American nominee of a major political party is indeed a milestone in American history. And, over the last several decades, I do believe that America has gotten progressively less racist (or at least less outwardly so) to the point that a minority candidate can be a viable contender in the race of the presidency.
But, unlike Paul Krugman, Idon't attribute Obama’s ascendance into the national spotlight as a sign that racial politics are a non-issue.The primary exit polling data and interviews from many Americans, especially blue-collar voters, demonstrates that racism and discrimination is indeed alive and well.
Rather, I think that Obama should
be given credit for being the first politician in a long while to shift the
dialogue and rhetoric to a message that is about
all of us and not the “us” versus “them” syndrome to which Krugman alludes.
If Obama is elected president, it shows not that America has put
aside racism, but that a message of inclusion and economic stability is the
only card that can trump prejudice.
The past isn't history...yet
Jonny Finity, Research Assistant, The Mobility Agenda
Obama’s pre-supposed nomination as the Democratic candidate for president is historic, yes - but only because it has never happened before.Not because it signals the end of anything – racism, welfare, exclusion – in America. At least not yet.
According to Krugman, Obama’s success among Democratic primary voters suggests that America’s racial divide has been successfully bridged, and that the closing of this gap somehow translates into support for social policy like welfare: "Take away the racial element, and Americans like government spending just fine."
In reality, welfare is debated as much now as ever along racial lines, with poor black single mothers taking center stage. Obama's victory won't be an indication that anything HAS changed in this regard, but rather that people are finally beginning to see the light.As long as our economy and society are discussed sectionally, with division the ruling theme, history will continue to repeat itself.
By changing the debate from one of division – along racial or other lines – to one of inclusion, everyone shares in America’s success. That is why Obama has received so much fervent support; not because his vision has already been achieved, but because his is a message, an ideal, which can put the past behind us.
What Ails the U.S. Labor Market: Too Many Bad Jobs
Margy Waller, Executive Director, The Mobility AgendaWriting in the New York Times Week in Review, Louis Uchitelle reviews the recent decline in the floor for wages in the U.S. labor market.
The $20 hourly wage, introduced on a huge scale in the middle of the last century, allowed masses of Americans with no more than a high school education to rise to the middle class. It was a marker, of sorts. And it is on its way to extinction.
Americans greeted the loss with anger and protest when it first began to happen in big numbers in the late 1970s, particularly in the steel industry in Western Pennsylvania. But as layoffs persisted, in Pennsylvania and across the country, through the ’80s and ’90s and right up to today, the protests subsided and acquiescence set in.
Hourly workers had come a long way from the days when employers and unions negotiated a way for them to earn the prizes of the middle class — houses, cars, college educations for their children, comfortable retirements. Even now a residual of that golden age remains, notably in the auto industry. But here, too, wages are falling below the $20-an-hour threshold — $41,600 annually — that many experts consider the minimum income necessary to put a family of four into the middle class.
The nation’s political leaders — Democrats and Republicans alike — have argued that education and training are a route back to middle-class wages for those who have fallen out. But the demand isn’t sufficient to absorb all the workers that the leaders would educate.
…. The trend in the hourly work force is striking. Take only the peak years in each business cycle, starting in 1979. The proportion earning at least $20 an hour declined from 23 percent that year, to 20 percent in 1980, to 18 percent in 1989, and to 16 percent in 2000. Manufacturing was hit the hardest.
Uchitelle doesn’t take the data to the next point, which is a focus of our research at The Mobility Agenda: the high proportion of the U.S. labor market made up of low-wage jobs. Our policy leaders haven’t focused nearly enough on the fact that the U.S. isn't just losing better jobs, growth in low-wage jobs is changing our economy in ways that affect all of us. Our economy is heavily dependent on individual spending. When workers don’t earn enough to take care of daily expenses like housing, transportation, and food – spending and consumption decline. And that hurts the economy for all of us. As is apparent today.
Unfortunately, over. Even though the United States is among the wealthiest nations in the world, employers pay these workers less than workers who hold similar jobs elsewhere.
The last decade has seen some progress on advancing a number of well-known policies to improve job quality by boosting the minimum wage and expanding publicly subsidized employment benefits, like child care and wage subsidies such as the Earned Income Tax Credit. Likewise, we support efforts to address education and advancement strategies that prepare workers for skilled jobs.
Still, when one worker advances out of a low-wage job and another worker takes it, the job does not change.
In contrast to the manufacturing jobs, many of these jobs are in growth sectors like retail and hospitality, jobs that will not be off-shored because they are geographically specific.
At The Mobility Agenda, we’ve surveyed key contacts across the nation for new ideas and strategies to strengthen the labor market by improving these jobs. State and local stakeholders are experimenting with a host of new initiatives to improve low-wage jobs. These innovative ideas are less well known and are not commonly incorporated into the agenda of advocates and academics. For much more information about these new strategies, see our web based resources on this research, starting here.
Here's an update from The Mobility Agenda's Senior Research Associate Sarah Sattelmeyer and Executive Director Margy Waller, coauthors of a forthcoming report on work-life policies for the United States.
Is Representative Issa overlooking some important changes in our economy and labor market:
The American workplace, she said, has not kept pace with the changing needs of families, especially those that "no longer have a stay-at-home parent to provide care for a new child."
Outdated family-leave policies, she said, "are a talent drain on the government -- they're an incentive for skilled people to look elsewhere for work at the very time when our government needs them most."
The Mobility Agenda’s forthcoming report on work-life policy proposals to strengthen the economy and our labor market addresses these issues. Watch for it soon!
Here's an update from The Mobility Agenda's Research Assistant, Jonny Finity.
The California legislature appears poised to create a new Universal Voluntary Account initiative. If approved, employees and employers alike in the nation’s most populous state will definitely have something to cheer about. The proposed bill would allow thousands of workers without employer-sponsored retirement investment plans or options to invest for retirement using the state-run California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS).
When it comes to retirement benefits, employees of small businesses have traditionally been left out; small business owners are often unable to meet the high costs of managing a company pension system. According to director Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), a state-sponsored universal retirement account initiative would virtually eliminate small-holder risk and administrative costs associated with employer-sponsored plans, allowing small businesses to compete in the global marketplace. The increase in operational fees incurred by the investing agency (such as CalPERS) would be covered by new users through account holder fees or investment interest and would not have to be paid for by the state.
Employees without access to employer-sponsored retirement plans, forced to act independently on financial investment matters, often act too late; that affects all of us. In a 2006 paper Baker points out that in 2004 “53 percent of near retirement age workers (ages 45-54) had accumulated less than $48,000 in financial assets.” That is a dismal number at a time when the New York Post warns that soon-to-be New York retirees will require about $548,000 in order to retire. Social Security will likely be going strong for another 40 years or so, according to Baker, but additional sources of retirement income are still necessary.
Fifty years ago, many retirees had a defined-benefit pension to rely on in addition to their Social Security income; today defined-benefit pensions have all but dried up (The “gold watch” pension is an example; a defined-benefit pension is any retirement package where the benefits are defined). Universal retirement accounts bridge this gap; they have become necessary to bring our jobs and our economy up to date and in line with contemporary needs like flexibility and increased mobility. Workers whose employers do not offer investment accounts will become retirees without savings, who can place a great strain on the economy. It is better for all of us that everyone has access to – and uses – investment opportunities available. And since the proposed California bill would also allow employers to match employee contributions, maximizing investment leverage, the likelihood of economic security in retirement will only increase under this initiative.
One of the major job market changes in the last several decades has been in workforce mobility. Older generations expected the job chosen in their 20’s to be a lifetime career – usually with the same company! Today’s jobs are less rigid, and workers change jobs much more frequently. As defined-benefit pensions go the way of lifetime employment, investment options need the same kind of mobility that today’s workers have. Universal retirement accounts can offer mobility the way defined-benefit pensions and the 401(k) never could – with the flexibility to take your retirement pension with you from job to job.
While several states have been tossing around the idea of offering state-sponsored universal retirement accounts, California would become the first to enact legislation to actually create one. For California this could mean a stronger, more competitive job market with better jobs to attract out-of-state workers – which could spell danger for job markets and employers in neighboring states that don’t offer the same opportunity.
Finally, universal retirement accounts are voluntary. Offering workers options such as universal retirement accounts does not automatically turn a bad job into a good one, but California’s legislation is a positive step towards better jobs. Better jobs mean healthier communities and a stronger economy. That is something we can all cheer about.
April 8, 2008
The 2008 New Jersey Paid Family Leave Bill: Bringing Employers and Employees...Together?
Here's an update from The Mobility Agenda's Senior Research Associate, Sarah Sattelmeyer.
Yesterday, the New Jersey Senate approved a (long time in the works!) paid family leave bill, which the Assembly passed in March. Governor Corzine has committed to signing this bill, which will make New Jersey the third state to adopt paid family leave.
For those of you who are not work-life policy junkies like myself, family and medical leave (which differs from paid sick days) can guarantee workers time away from work to recover from a personal health condition, for the birth or adoption of a child, to care for an elderly family member, and/or to incorporate additional longer-term family care needs.
The 1993 federal Family and Medical Leave Act, administered by the US Department of Labor, provides unpaid family and medical leave for some U.S. workers. On the other hand, State Temporary Disability Insurance programs are administered on a state level and offer paid family and medical leave for workers. Employer and employee generally jointly fund these programs.
Many states are working (California has been successful!) to extend their Temporary Disability Insurance programs or develop new programs to cover a wide array of family and medical needs, including adoption. According to the National Partnership for Women and Families, New Jersey's new law falls into this category in that it will expand the state's temporary disability insurance program to give workers up to six weeks of family leave benefits to care for a sick family member or a newborn or newly adopted child. It provides temporary disability insurance benefits at two-thirds of wage replacement up to a maximum of $524 per week in 2008, and is financed by a small employee payroll deduction.
It’s about time, right? But despite the passage of this bill through both houses of the New Jersey legislature, significant conflict about the idea of work-life policies still exists. According to an Associated Press reporter and Newsday.com, Sen. Jennifer Beck (R-Monmouth) and other opponents of the bill fear that "[t]his [bill will] impose a tax on every employer in our state and continue…to lay the groundwork for the exodus of citizens and employers."
This comment by Senator Beck should have provided the perfect opportunity for Senate Majority Leader Stephen Sweeney, a leading proponent of the bill, to use language that bridged the business-worker gap. But instead, he followed in the divisive footsteps of Senator Beck by commenting that "[t]his bill…signif[ies] a new day for the state's work force, in that, the needs of families will be put before the needs of business owners."
Senator Sweeney, while meaning well and clearly a strong champion of workers who is on the right side of this issue, lost his chance to promote the pro-business benefits of work-life policies when he verbally created a divide between “families” and “business owners”—between us and them.
In many situations, employers have used public and private policy to balance competing work-life priorities. In a recent study conducted by WFD Consulting and Corporate Voices for Working Families, offering work-life policies in the workplace improves employee retention, creates more positive human capital outcomes, and establishes a more productive workforce, all of which can lead to stronger financial performance, especially for retail companies whose employees often have a direct relationship with customers. In fact, researchers reporting on a 2002 Watson Wyatt study found that “companies that provide more flexible work arrangements” could see as much as a 3.5 percent rise in shareholder value.
Work-life policies also lead to better mental health and less stress, which contribute to a reduction in employee health care costs. According to the CDC, stress at work can increase employees’ unscheduled absences, and health care expenditures (something about which we are all concerned!) are nearly 50 percent greater for U.S. workers who report high levels of stress.
We still need research to explore the narrative lens that works best when discussing work-life policy with a pro-business contingent. But even without the research, stakeholders should use common sense in their public remarks about work-life policy. New Jersey legislators just passed a bill that will help thousands of workers, but Senator Sweeney’s comments did not even open the door for a productive dialogue with the business community about legislation that affects all of us.
The facts are on his side. The battle is won, but not the war. The Senator Sweeneys of the world need to see their legislation through in a manner that will help other leaders win similar battles.
The Mobility Agenda will soon release Work-Life Policies for the Twenty-First-Century Economy, a report that explains the need for better work-life policy and provides recommendations for stakeholders.
April 8, 2008
E.J. Dionne Finds Inclusion on the Campaign Trail
In his column today, E.J. Dionne (a favorite of The Mobility Agenda) reports that the message of “inclusion” on the campaign trail has overcome old-style, slice-and-dice-progressive-constituencies “micropolitics”.
It’s great to have the press call attention to this concept. And no surprise that E.J. Dionne is one of the first to do so.
April 2, 2008
Talking about Economy, not Poverty
by Margy Waller, Executive Director, The Mobility Agenda
For much more about the evidence on changing narratives, see our website.
The Nation magazine recently praised efforts by the Congressional Progressive Caucus,
led by Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D- CA), to introduce a plan to cut
poverty. The detailed package of policy proposals, “The Anti-Poverty
and Opportunity Initiative,” calls for:
The
initiative incorporates many policy ideas community organizations and
other stakeholders have been wishing that Congress and the
administration would adopt – for many years now. Individual lists might
differ a bit from Congresswoman Lee’s, but any Congressional staffer
from a progressive office already has a list like this memorized.
So why aren’t these proposals the law of the land?
It's
probably because supporters have reached everyone persuadable by
talking about the proposals as “anti-poverty” initiatives for forty
years. And all that support still isn’t enough to overcome the
opponents of legislation like this. While many people want to do
something about poverty—it’s not a high priority for voters. In
February, the Gallup Poll asked voters about "the most important
problem facing the country" and just 2 percent named
poverty/hunger/homelessness.
That means friendly policymakers don’t have the political space they need to take on opponents.
And
continuing to use the poverty banner means it is unlikely that this
plan will generate adequate support in the future. There are a few
reasons for this:
* The U.S. definition of poverty is out of
date and flawed, allowing opponents to use it to limit policy solutions
to a narrow very low-income group.
* Public understanding of the
causes of (irresponsible and immoral behavior) and remedies
(responsible personal behavior) for poverty hinders adoption of the
policy solutions we seek to address it.
* Defining the problem as “poverty” opens the door to a losing scenario in the legislative debate.
In
fact, when Senator Clinton announced her support for a plan to adopt a
goal to cut child poverty in late February, the conservative think tank
Heritage Foundation took the opening to criticize and offer their
alternative:
See the problem?
The
poverty debate provides a classic example of the imperative not to
sacrifice our larger policy goals for the sake of an incremental or
different advance, particularly when that advance actually undermines
the shared agenda for the long term. By advancing a plan to set a
target for cutting poverty, elected officials and candidates set up a
problematic future, and one that threatens to undermine the policy
goals.
Let’s
imagine the likely scenario to come. Whether or not a candidate who has
promised to set a goal to cut poverty wins the White House, we can
expect continued efforts by some advocacy groups and members of
Congress to push for the goal and the policy to match.
The
mainstream media will portray the likely legislative options as two
competing proposals: one we like (a comprehensive approach to
addressing inequality and economic mobility) and one we don’t (solve
poverty with marriage and harder work).
Our
opponents are able to push these concepts with success because they are
consistent with a broad public understanding of the causes of poverty,
and a widely held belief that government programs cannot really address
the issue of poverty or inequality. We already lost this same fight in
battles over welfare. Why would we want to engage in it again?
We
don’t need to re-fight that battle. We know that some people (democrats
and low-income voters) are persuaded by a sympathy lens on the issue
(the one that the word “poverty” calls up for many people in this
country) to support a limited set of policies. Unfortunately, this
language actually decreases support for progressive policies like a
living wage.
Moreover,
we also know that using an economic narrative moves these same voters
and others (working-class, non college-educated men, older men,
Republican voters, union households, and older voters without a college
education) to support more of our policy goals.
So,
if there is no true demand for a goal to cut poverty and it won’t help
add new support, it would be much smarter strategically to use an
economic case to promote the same larger policy agenda without the
damaging poverty headline. (You’ll find much more information about the
evidence on the impact of using different narratives for policy results
on our website.
In
fact, the Progressive Caucus members have proposals that would address
poverty, social and economic mobility, and inequality that they’ve put
under an economy title, the “Rebuild and Reinvest in America
Initiative.” They should focus on this legislation and incorporate the
“anti-poverty” agenda into that legislation.
Anyone
who wants anti-poverty policy to be high on the agenda after the
upcoming election should stop talking about goals to cut poverty and
instead talk about an economy that will work for everyone. Changing the
way we start the conversation with others about this issue doesn’t mean
we don’t care about the poor anymore or that our policy goals have to
change at all. It’s just an acknowledgment that if we want to win, we
have to change the narrative to one that works for us, and for more of
the public too.
