NYTimes Letter to the Editor: Deportations for Minor Offenses
New York Times - April 13, 2014 To the Editor: Re “...
New York Times - April 13, 2014
To the Editor:
Re “More Deportations Follow Minor Crimes, Data Shows” (front page, April 7):
It’s a mistake to focus the debate about immigration enforcement on the question of which immigrants are sufficiently “criminal” to deserve deportation. When the Obama administration talks about deporting people with convictions, they are talking about people who have already served their sentences for those convictions.
If you are a citizen who commits an offense, you pay the penalty issued by the criminal legal system, and then you are free to try to rebuild your life. If you are a noncitizen who commits that same offense and pays that same penalty, you can be subjected to the double punishment of permanent exile from your home and family.
This two-tiered system of justice is morally abhorrent regardless of how serious the underlying offense may have been. It’s an unfairness compounded by the well-documented unfairness of the criminal legal system itself, which disproportionately targets poor people and minorities.
Let’s not rely on our corrupt criminal justice system to justify the operations of our corrupt immigration system.
EMILY TUCKER Brooklyn, April 7, 2014
The writer is staff attorney for immigrant rights and racial justice at the Center for Popular Democracy.
Source
Warren allies demand answers from Clinton on Wall St. ties
“On behalf of our nine million supporters across the country, we are writing to request more information about your...
“On behalf of our nine million supporters across the country, we are writing to request more information about your positions regarding the revolving door between Wall Street and the federal government,” reads a statement backed by Democracy For America, Rootstrikers, CREDO Action, MoveOn.Org Political Action, the Center for Popular Democracy Action, The Other 98%, Friends of the Earth Action, and American Family Voices.
The missive, which comes as Clinton interrupts her Hamptons vacation to unveil her rural policy platform in Iowa on Wednesday, specifically notes that Clinton has yet to support or comment on Sen. Tammy Baldwin’s Financial Services Conflict of Interest Act. Progressive icon Sen. Elizabeth Warren — who has ties to many of those who signed the letter — has encouraged all presidential candidates to back the legislation, as both Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley have done.
“These types of ‘golden parachute’ compensation packages are highly controversial, and for good reason,” the letter reads. “At worst, it results in undue and inappropriate corporate influence at the highest levels of government — in essence, a barely legal, backdoor form of bribery.”
The letter concludes by posing two questions to the Democratic front-runner: “Do you still support the use of this controversial compensation practice?” and “If you become president, will you allow officials who enter your administration to receive this sort of bonus?”
While Clinton has made steps to appeal to the types of progressive voters behind this letter, she has so far resisted pressure from the left to support reviving the Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial and investment banking before it was repealed in 1999. And members of these groups who wanted bank antagonist Warren to run for the presidency are on high alert this week after news broke that the Massachusetts senator met with Vice President Joe Biden over the weekend as he considers his own presidential ambitions.
“It’s hard to imagine Democrats’ 2016 nominee will be truly tough on Wall Street banks that break the law, if they won’t commit to banning their advisers from receiving legalized bribes from those same banks,” said Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America, a group founded by former Vermont governor and current Clinton backer Howard Dean.
The letter names a pair of Clinton associates who moved from banks to the State Department: Robert Hormats, an undersecretary who came from Goldman Sachs, and Thomas Nides, a deputy secretary who came from Morgan Stanley.
Warren has suggested repeatedly that any candidate seeking her endorsement must agree not to appoint officials with Wall Street ties.
“Anyone who wants to be president should appoint only people who have already demonstrated they are independent, who have already demonstrated that they can hold giant banks accountable, who have already demonstrated that they embrace the kind of ambitious economic policies that we need to rebuild opportunity and a strong middle class in this country,” she said in July.
Source: Politico
I don’t like the GOP tax bill, but now my life depends on beating it
I don’t like the GOP tax bill, but now my life depends on beating it
My path as an activist had been fairly conventional. After law school, I represented low-wage Latino workers in Queens...
My path as an activist had been fairly conventional. After law school, I represented low-wage Latino workers in Queens who had been victims of wage theft, and I helped write New York City’s groundbreaking paid sick days law. Later, I created a campaign called Fed Up, urging the Federal Reserve to use its economic tools to focus on raising wages and creating jobs, not just minimizing inflation. I didn’t think of myself as a direct beneficiary of these policies: I was an upper-middle class white man with elite degrees, a bright future and financial security. I could focus on empowering others.
Read the full article here.
Nan Goldin, Activists Bring Sackler Protest to Harvard Art Museums
Nan Goldin, Activists Bring Sackler Protest to Harvard Art Museums
“Protestors threw pill bottles on the floor of the atrium, handed out pamphlets, and held banners and posters with...
“Protestors threw pill bottles on the floor of the atrium, handed out pamphlets, and held banners and posters with phrases like “MEDICAL STUDENTS AGAINST THE SACKLERS,” and “HARM REDUCTION NOW/TREATMENT NOW.” A number of speakers gave speeches about the Sacklers and the opioid crisis in the atrium, including Jennifer Flynn Walker of the Center for Popular Democracy and Goldin, who began organizing against Purdue and the Sacklers, who are major donors to cultural institutions throughout the United States and Europe, following treatment for opioid addiction last year. She said she became addicted after being prescribed OxyContin in 2014 following wrist surgery.
Read the full article here.
States Expand Inquiry Into On-Call Scheduling
Eight states and the District of Columbia have expanded their probe into on-call scheduling at retail companies,...
Eight states and the District of Columbia have expanded their probe into on-call scheduling at retail companies, asking a group of national chains to provide detailed information on their use of the controversial practice.
On-call shifts, where a worker must be available to work a shift that can be cancelled at the last minute without compensation, has become popular in retail. But the practice wreaks havoc on the lives of low-paid hourly workers trying to plan plan around child care, schooling, or second jobs, as a BuzzFeed News investigation found last year.
At the time, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman sent a letter to 14 chains (published below), inquiring about their use of on-call scheduling and warning it may be illegal. Since then, Victoria’s Secret, Bath & Body Workers, J. Crew, Urban Outfitters, and Gap have committed to ending the practice.
“On-call shifts are not a business necessity, as we see from the many retailers that no longer use this unjust method of scheduling work hours,” said Schneiderman in a statement.
A study by the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute found that the lowest income workers receive the most irregular schedules, with unpredictability leading to increased stress.
“It’s heartening to see more and more policymakers and regulators take action,” said Carrie Gleason, Director of the Fair Workweek Initiative at the Center for Popular Democracy, a liberal advocacy group.
On Tuesday, the offices of the Attorneys General in California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, and Rhode Island sent a letter requesting employee handbooks, schedules, and payroll information.
In these states, the Attorneys General warn, the practice may be a violation of a law mandating a minimum of four hours of pay for employees who report for work.
The following retailers received the letter: Aéropostale, American Eagle, BCBG Max Azria, Carter’s Inc., Coach, DavidsTea Inc., Walt Disney Co., Forever 21 Inc., Ascena Retail Group Inc.’s Justice, Pacific Sunwear of California Inc., Payless ShoeSource, Tilly’s Inc., Uniqlo, VF Corp.’s Vans, and Zumiez Inc.
Spokespeople from Uniqlo and Coach told the Wall Street Journal that the companies don’t use the practice. BuzzFeed News has reached out to the companies listed for comment and will update the post with responses.
UPDATE
A spokesperson for American Eagle Outfitters said in a statement, ““American Eagle Outfitters is committed to providing our associates with a positive working environment. We decided in November 2015 to cease the use of ‘on-call shifts’ and advised our stores. We are taking steps to reinforce and assure adherence to this policy across our store fleet.”
A spokesperson for Forever 21 said, “Contrary to published reports, Forever 21 does not permit on-call scheduling nor do we have a company policy around doing so.”
A spokesperson for Vans said the company does not use on-call scheduling and will comply with the request for information.
A spokesperson for Uniqlo said that Uniqlo has received the letter and that on-call scheduling is not a Uniqlo practice or policy.
A spokesperson for Payless ShoeSource says the company does not engage in on-call scheduling, has received the inquiry and will respond accordingly.
A spokesperson for Zumiez said, “It is our practice to cooperate with any request from the attorney general or other state agencies and we will do so in this case as well.” Apr. 14, 2016, at 10:21 a.m.
By Cora Lewis
Source
More states question controversial on-call scheduling
Dive Brief: Attorneys general from eight states and the District of Columbia sent letters to 15 retailers asking them...
Dive Brief:
Attorneys general from eight states and the District of Columbia sent letters to 15 retailers asking them to explain their policies regarding “on-call” scheduling, seeking information and documents related to their use of on-call shifts.
Letters were sent to American Eagle, Aeropostale, Payless, Disney, Coach, PacSun, Forever 21, Vans, Justice Just for Girls, BCBG Maxazria, Tilly’s, Inc., David’s Tea, Zumiez, Uniqlo, and Carter’s, with signatures from any attorney general involved in the state where the retailer has operations.
The coordinated move follows a similar one last year from New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s office, an effort that prompted six retail brands, including Urban Outfitters, Gap Inc., L. Brands, J. Crew, Pier 1, and Abercrombie & Fitch to end on-call scheduling.
Dive Insight:
Algorithms in software have helped retailers lower costs through efficient staffing, cutting workers loose in slow times, having them wait "on call" in case things get busy, and leaving little room for flexibility. The practice makes it difficult for retail employees to juggle the realities of their those jobs while also trying to manage their households and earn enough money to get by.
“On-call shifts are unfair to workers who must keep the day free, arrange for child care, and give up the chance to get another job or attend a class–often all for nothing,” Schneiderman said in a statement. “On-call shifts are not a business necessity, as we see from the many retailers that no longer use this unjust method of scheduling work hours.”
Schneiderman’s office has been keen on cracking down on the practice for a while now, which in most cases violates his state’s laws, and there’s been rising sentiment among lawmakers in several states—and possibly even in Congress—to pull back on the practice.
But even with this pressure, and despite its dubious legality in some areas, on-call scheduling is still fairly widespread, according to the Fair WorkWeek Initiative.
“Over the past year, workers have been speaking out about the struggles caused by increasingly unpredictable hours,” Fair Workweek Initiative director Carrie Gleason said in an email to Retail Dive. “Workers should not have to choose between living with dignity and getting enough hours to put food on the table. It is heartening to see more and more policymakers and regulators take action to address a crisis affecting millions of Americans.”
Retailers should be prepared to see more such concerns, warnings, and even legislation as just-in time scheduling gets more scrutiny, Gail Gottehrer, a labor & employment litigator at Axinn Veltrop & Harkrider in New York who works on behalf of employers, told Retail Dive last year. The practice was a major concern when the San Francisco Board of Supervisors last year unanimously passed its Worker Bill of Rights law.
“This can be especially difficult for multi-state employers,” Gottehrer said. “If you’re in a lot of jurisdictions it can be complicated to get things right.”
Not all the retailers that received letters use the practice. Forever 21 emailed Retail Dive to say, "Contrary to published reports, Forever 21 does not permit on-call scheduling nor do we have a company policy around doing so." On Friday, American Eagle Outfitters also released a press release reiterating that it has banned the practice nationwide. "We decided in November 2015 to cease the use of “on-call shifts” and advised our stores," the company states. "We are taking steps to reinforce and assure adherence to this policy across our store fleet."
Spokespeople for Coach and Payless told Reuters that they don’t use on-call scheduling, and a Zumiez spokesperson told Reuters that it’s cooperating, and a spokesperson for Carter's said that company is reviewing the letter. Other retailers receiving the new letters did not immediately respond to requests for comment, according to Reuters.
Recommended Reading
Reuters: US regulators probe retailers' on-call scheduling
By Daphne Howland
Source
Ahead of Black Friday, Walmart Workers Brief Capitol Hill Lawmakers
People's World - November 19, 2014 - Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D, Mass., Rep. George Miller, D,Calif., and legislative...
People's World - November 19, 2014 - Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D, Mass., Rep. George Miller, D,Calif., and legislative experts held a committee briefing today, titled Walmart and the Economic Insecurity of American Families. Only a week before Black Friday job actions that are expected at more than 1,000 Walmart stores nationwide the lawmakers heard from members of OUR Walmart on how the country's largest employer is creating an economic crisis for working families in America.
"I was glad to join Walmart employees today to support efforts to push back against practices by Walmart and other big corporations that make it hard for working families to make ends meet," said Warren. "Hardworking men and women across the country want a fighting chance to build a future for themselves and their families. We need to give workers this chance by raising the minimum wage, providing some basic fairness in scheduling, and fighting for equal pay for equal work."
"Walmart's shoddy business model is singlehandedly wreaking havoc on American families across the country and making it impossible for hundreds of thousands of workers to have a shot at the American Dream," said Miller, senior Democrat on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. "America's workers and their families deserve better than they're getting from Walmart today-they deserve higher wages, less erratic schedules, and equal pay regardless of their gender. The courage of Walmart workers who are engaged in sit-down strikes to protest the company's illegal silencing of workers who have called for better jobs and full-time work is essential to creating real change."
At the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee briefing, Walmart workers discussed how Walmart's low pay, manipulation of scheduling and illegal threats to workers have created a new norm across industries that makes it nearly impossible for workers to hold down second jobs, arrange child care, go to school or manage health conditions.
"With Walmart's low-wages and hectic schedules, too many Walmart workers are left on the edge of poverty. But all too often when we stand up, Walmart tries to silence us. Just days before I planned to participate in our first sit-down strike in LA, Walmart fired me for speaking up for better wages and hours, but I'm still fighting today because my former colleagues like Fatmata Jabbie and Cantare Davunt deserve better," said Evelin Cruz, former Walmart employee and OUR Walmart member.
The briefing highlighted the Schedules That Work Act, Fair Minimum Wage Act and Paycheck Fairness Act-legislation that would force the company to improve its pay and hours for hundreds of thousands of American workers. Legislative experts including Carol Joyner of the Labor Project for Working Families, Amy Traub of Demos and Carrie Gleason of the Center for Popular Democracy joined the elected officials and Walmart associates on the panel to discuss the need for legislative action to set a new standard at the country's largest employer.
The action from elected officials comes as an increasing number of Americans and Walmart workers point to OUR Walmart as making significant changes at the country's largest retailer. Most recently, after public calls from OUR Walmart, the company committed to raise wages for its lowest paid workers and rolled out a new scheduling system that allows workers to sign up for open shifts. To date, workers at more than 2,100 Walmart stores nationwide have signed a petition calling on Walmart and the Waltons to publicly commit to paying $15 an hour and providing consistent, full-time hours.
"In three short years, OUR Walmart has grown to a powerful, national network that is making big changes at the country's largest employer," said Cantare Davunt, a Walmart customer service manager and OUR Walmart member during the briefing today."But more needs to be done. Legislative action would have a huge impact, but Walmart can lead the way now by adopting policies that give us the schedules and pay we need."
The briefing comes before next week's Black Friday nationwide strikes. Tens of thousands of workers, teachers, voters, clergy, environmentalists, and civil rights leaders will join workers at more than 1,600 protests, speaking out against retaliation and calling on Walmart and the Walton family to publicly commit to $15 an hour and provide full-time work.
Source
Pilot Program to Represent Detainees Facing Deportation
New York Law Journal – September 30, 2013, by Mark Hamblett and Jeff Storey - Aiming to foster the rights of...
New York Law Journal – September 30, 2013, by Mark Hamblett and Jeff Storey -
Aiming to foster the rights of immigrants and to keep their families together, two legal services organizations, the Bronx Defenders and Brooklyn Defender Services, have been picked for a unique pilot project to represent indigent detainees facing deportation.
The two organizations will form the New York Immigrant Defenders, which will take on 166 cases in the next year at the Varick Street Immigration Court.
The program will be funded by a $500,000 grant made available by the New York City Council in June.
Robin Steinberg, executive director of the Bronx Defenders, said that her organization created an in-house immigration practice more than a decade ago when it realized that nearly one-third of its clients were facing adverse immigration consequences from even minor brushes with the law.
“The Bronx Defenders joining forces with the Brooklyn Defender Services to create NYID is a natural and necessary step in ensuring that all residents of New York City—no matter where they were born—have their day in court with lawyers who will fight for their right to stay here, with their families and in the communities they now call home,” she said in a statement.
Lisa Schreibersdorf, executive director of Brooklyn Legal Services, agreed that working with immigrants was “very much in line with our mission.”
Schreibersdorf said that she had told her daughter after the group’s selection Thursday that the new program was part of the most groundbreaking public defense development of her generation—the extension of the right to counsel to immigrants.
“This is a groundbreaking program. There is no program of this sort anywhere else in the country. It’s a program that aligns American values with the reality on the ground when it comes to immigrants and due progress,” said Angela Fernandez, executive director of the Northern Manhattan Coalition for Immigrant Rights, one of the groups that advocated for creation of the program.
According to Brittny Saunders, senior staff attorney for the Center for Popular Democracy, another leading advocate for the effort, potential clients will be screened only for economic need, with anyone making under 200 percent of the poverty limit making the cut.
The poverty limit currently is $11,400 for a single person and $23,550 for a family of four.
Other factors, such as the strength of immigrant cases, will not be considered.
Oren Root of the Vera Institute of Justice, a nonprofit and nonpartisan center for justice issues, said the program will stress the importance of keeping families together. In many cases, the detainee has lived in the country for years, is the family’s principal wage earner, serves as the caretaker for family members and has children born and raised in the United States.
The one-year pilot project will be administered by Vera, which will coordinate the delivery of legal services and analyze the data that emerges from the effort.
Root said that Vera is “thrilled” to be working with “such high-caliber, innovative organizations as Brooklyn Defender Services and the Bronx Defenders.”
Providing support for the effort to represent immigrant families has been the Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Center at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.
Most immigrants cannot afford representation, and attorneys and bar groups have become increasingly concerned about the dire consequences they face
Schreibersdorf said studies show that detainees with a lawyer are “more likely to identify valid immigration remedies.”
She cited one case of a 17-year-old on a minor offense handled by her agency. His attorney dug into the defendant’s family background and discovered that his parents had been naturalized, and thus he was a citizen himself.
“Without a lawyer, that kid would have been deported,” she said.
Source
Victoria's Secret on-call policy remains under wraps
In the face of a legal challenge in California and a probe by the New York State attorney general, underwear purveyor...
In the face of a legal challenge in California and a probe by the New York State attorney general, underwear purveyor Victoria's Secret is said to have pulled the plug on a controversial labor practice known as on-call scheduling.
BuzzFeed reported the chain informed employees on Monday that it would no longer require its workers be available for shifts that could then be canceled with little notice and zero pay.
Victoria's Secret, one of five brands run by Columbus, Ohio-based L Brands (LB), on Tuesday said it was working on a response to the online publication's story but was not yet ready to do so seven hours after being called for comment.
In addition to Victoria's Secret, L Brands operates Bath and Body Works, La Senza, Victoria's Secret PINK and Henri Bendel. The company rang up $11.5 billion in sales in 2014 and runs nearly 3,000 specialty stores in the U.S.
"It feels like a safe bet to say that Victoria Secret's is feeling pressure," Elianne Farhat, deputy campaign director for the Fair Workweek Initiative at the Center for Popular Democracy, said. "We've seen a growing demand across the country for fair schedules because of the extreme chaos it creates."
Workers and labor activists say on-call scheduling can create havoc for livelihoods and personal lives, with the unpredictable hours making tasks such as taking classes, working another part-time job and covering child care difficult.
The practice of having on-call shifts has historically involved professions including emergency and medical workers, "but they are fairly compensated," Farhat said. "Over the last 10 years, as the retail sector has become the source of many jobs in our economy. It has seen the increased use of on-call scheduling."
If Victoria's Secret is shelving the on-call practice, "they are probably doing it to err on the side of caution, and not spend the time or money litigating the issue," said Los Angeles attorney Laura Reathaford, a partner at Venable who specializes in management-side employment issues. "California is a very employee-friendly state -- it's a very litigious state too."
If the company is indeed discontinuing the system, it would be offering some of what is sought in a lawsuit pending against the retailer in California.
"We're suing to recoup wages, and we're also seeking to put an end to the practice," David Leimbach, an attorney at Marlin & Saltzman, said of the litigation filed on behalf of two former Victoria Secret workers.
The complaint was filed on July 9, 2014, and the proposed class includes all individuals who worked at Victoria's Secret in California from July 9, 2010, to the present. L Brands told the court the proposed class numbered around 20,000, Leimbach said.
The federal judge presiding over the case dismissed the workers' claim that they were entitled to compensation under the state's reporting-time-pay law for on-call shifts for which they did not have to show up for work. But he also granted the two the right to appeal, saying the question of on-call shifts presented a question of law that could go either way.
"I can see the judge's point, no one really showed up, no one took the bus only to turn around and go home," Reathaford said.
"The district court dismissed that one claim, but said it's something the 9th circuit should immediately consider," Leimbach said.
Beyond the pending suit, no-call scheduling is drawing the attention of the New York state attorney general's office, which in April sent letters to 13 retailers, including Victoria's Secret, seeking information about their scheduling practices. A spokesman on Tuesday said the AG's office had no further comment.
And San Francisco next week begins enforcing an ordinance that requires major retailers give at least 24 hours notice to workers when changing or canceling shifts, or give them at least two hours of pay. The measure, which took effect in January, applies to retailers with at least 20 stores worldwide and 20 or more employees in San Francisco.
Source: CBS News
Why the Federal Reserve Needs To Go Beyond Interest Rate Policy
Why the Federal Reserve Needs To Go Beyond Interest Rate Policy
KIM BROWN, TRNN: Welcome to the Real News Network. Im Kim Brown in Baltimore. Interests rates will remain unchanged....
KIM BROWN, TRNN: Welcome to the Real News Network. Im Kim Brown in Baltimore.
Interests rates will remain unchanged. That coming out of this weeks meeting of the Federal Reserve in DC. The official word from the feds, per their own statement, was that job gains have been solid, that household spending has been growing strongly, and inflation is running below expectations. But does this mean that the economy is actually doing well or are we still in a recession dressed up to appear better than what it actually is?
Joining us today from New York City is Jerald Epstein. Jerald is the co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute. Hes also professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Jerald welcome back.
JERALD EPSTEIN: Thanks a lot Kim.
BROWN: Jerald lets start with the basics and then we can delve a little bit deeper. If the economy is showing the signs of strength as the Fed has indicated, then why didnt they raise interest rates now and do you think that they are likely to do so at all this year?
EPSTEIN: Well I think Janet Yellen whos the chair of the Fed, is aware that even though its been showing strength and the economy has been growing moderately for several years now, that theres still much more room to go. That is that wage growth has gone up a tiny bit more than inflation recently, its still pretty stagnant, pretty flat line and she knows theres still a number of workers out that who are so discouraged that they havent joined the labor force. So Janet Yellen is concerned about the labor force and the growth of wages but the problem is twofold. First of all, its always dangerous to raise interest rates around election time. So traditionally the federal reserve, theyll try not to do that, move interest rates right around an election. So thats one factor leading them not to do anything.
The second factor leading them not to do anything is that keeping inflation under control is one of their main mandates. They have two. Maintaining inflation at a low rate and they have a 2% target, and reaching high employment. Inflation is still below 2%. Theres really no signs of inflation going up. So theres no compelling reason from the point of view of the macro economy to raise interest rates.
BROWN: Its funny that you mention that the Fed is less likely to raise interest rates or even mess with the interest rate around election time because the Republican nominee for president, Donald Trump has already accused Chairwoman Yellen of keeping the interest rates unchanged in order to appease the Obama administration. She of course has denied this. What are your thoughts?
EPSTEIN: Well I dont think she did it for Clinton or Obama. But it is I think a tradition and its common for Federal Reserves not to raise and certainly change interest rates right before an election. So she is in sort of a tradition of what the Federal Reserve typically does. And its also typical especially recently for politicians to make the Federal Reserve the whipping boy or girl for political reasons. Sometimes theres good reasons. For that.
But there was something kind of unusual for this meeting. In the recent meetings its been unanimous to keep interest rates the same or to mostly do what the Federal Reserve has done. But this time it was quite contentious. There were actually 3 people on the federal open market committee, the ones who make this decision who voted to raise interest rates.
This is kind of challenge to Janet Yellens leadership in this regard and it also shows what kind of pressure the Federal Reserve is under, particularly from the banks and the mutual fund industry, the insurance industry because with interest rates being so low, its very difficult for them to eek out much of a profit. And is typically the case when interest rates are very low for a very long period of time. Some sectors and very powerful important sectors of the financial industry push very hard for interest rates to be raised and they usually get a pretty good hearing at the Federal Reserve [be]cause the Federal Reserve has traditionally done pretty much what the banks have wanted them to do.
BROWN: Jerald it seems as if theres not enough agreement between the Federal Reserve and among every day Americans on how well this economic recovery is going. So lets unpack some of the elements of this. Starting with Chairwoman Janet Yellens comments on labor markets.
JANET YELLEN: Were generally pleased with the progress of the economy and the decision not to raise rates today and to wait for some further evidence that were continuing on this course is largely based on the judgement that were not seeing evidence that the economy is overheating and that we are seeing evidence that people are being drawn in in larger numbers than what I wouldve expected into the labor market and that thats healthy to continue.
BROWN: So the unemployment rate was under 5% in August and the caveat to that is more Americans are working part-time jobs. Plus, the gig economy is one way that people are surviving and supplementing their income. So is unemployment published monthly by the Bureau of Labor statistics, giving us an accurate figure on the number of Americans who are out of the labor force?
EPSTEIN: They dont have an accurate number. They have estimates and I think its true that theres still quite a few so called discouraged workers who are out of the labor force. Its also the case like we said in the beginning that wage growth has been stagnant. Look, the Federal Reserve has a real dilemma here. On the one hand and this is typically the case with Janet Yellen who I think does want to indicate that their policies have had some effect, otherwise nobody will want them to continue these policies. And she thinks that they have had some positive effect on employment and I think they have.
But on the other hand their policies cannot turn around the long run decline of our economy. We need much different kinds, much bigger, much more radical policies in terms of public investment to generate jobs, hiking the minimum wage to a living wage, providing much more in a way of a safety net for workers, protecting pensions and other investments. So the list is very, very broad and very deep. And the Federal Reserve has been pretty reluctant to go further down that list.
The Federal Reserve could do more. They could use different tools to invest directly in the economy. Theres a group called Fed Up which has proposed that they do this. But Janet Yellen and her committee want to stay pretty close to their broader toolkit that theyve developed and are really afraid to, I think take more radical action which they plausibly could take.
But in the end it really raises questions of the Federal Reserves legitimacy. Can they take some kind of really radical action without the broader government saying go ahead and do it? And until the political stalemate we have is resolved, Im afraid the Federal Reserve cant do much more and that means this kind of stagnation in wages and so forth is going to continue.
BROWN: Jerald you raise an excellent point about wage stagnation and how wages have largely remained flat going back 20, 30, and even 40 years depending on who you ask. But new census data this month says that household income jumped over 5% which is the largest such gain in decades but that top 1% of Americans saw an increase of around 7% rise in their income. If most of the economic recovery gained since the great recession of 2007, 2008--if most of these gains have gone to the top1%, does it still count as a recovery if its not being felt by the majority of Americans?
EPSTEIN: No it does and this has been a very lopsided so called recovery and yes there have been some modest gains for the middle class and some working class people. So the Federal Reserve actions have had some positive effect. But until you really change the structure, change the tax policies so that the wealthy have to pay more of their taxes so the multinational corporations cant park their earnings overseas and not pay any taxes like Apple and other corporations have been doing until you have much more aggressive jobs programs to bring about a Green transition and many other things. Were not going to have a real recovery. These kind of very small sorts of gains which are gains but arent enough are going to be the best were going to see.
BROWN: Jerald whats keeping inflation in check right now? Is it cheap oil prices?
EPSTEIN: Its several things. First of all, cheap oil prices and other commodity prices are one thing. But theyre also partially related to the headwinds in the global economy against economic growth. Chinas not growing as much so theyre not demanding as much oil and other commodities. Many other developing countries arent growing so fast. Europe isnt growing hardly at all.
So this really dampens the demand for all of these commodities and with these prices going down that does keep inflation in check. The other thing is, all of the forces that are keeping wages in check. That is, imports from China, the union busting thats been going on, the threat of multinational corporations to move abroad. All of these factors plus more are making it very difficult for workers to have their wages go up. Wages are a cost so that to some extent keep inflation in check as well.
And finally you have the retail industry thats subject to loss of competition that just keeps squeezing and squeezing and squeezing workers more and more. Until we get big increase in the minimum wage, until we get policies to put workers back to work at well-paying jobs, were not going to see real wages go up and were also not going to see prices go up very much at all.
BROWN: And lastly Jerald, the wealthiest Americans, the top 1% of Americans are fairing very well and we are experiencing income inequality probably at the largest gap since the Gilded Age. We have seen so many sickle economic bubble burst over the past 20 years with the tech bubble bursting in the late 90s and the housing bubble bursting in the mid 00s. Are we at risk of another such economic bubble burst on the horizon any time soon.
EPSTEIN: Yes, were always at that kind of risk. Its hard to see where exactly the bubble would come from. There are little bubblets going on all over the place that dont seem so broad and connected up with debt and the financial system that it seems as so were going to have a kind of bubble burst the way we saw in 2007, 2008 but we might have bubblets burst in the high tech industry and so forth. Whats more likely is this slow burn of stagnation and increases in distress effecting so many people in the United States except for the wealthy who will continue to do very well. Not only income inequality at all-time highs, wealth inequality, how much assets people own has grown and grow and grow and grown. If you look for example, if the net wealth, that is assets minus liabilities, minus debt of African Americans in this country. A report recently came out that said, the median net wealth of African Americans is zero. Theres no net wealth. So this system cannot continue to go in this form. It helps to explain a lot of the political disorder that were seeing. The political fighting up were seeing and its just going to keep going unless we have some fundamental changes in the economy.
BROWN: Indeed. Weve been speaking with Jerald Epstein. Jerald is a co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute. Hes also professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Jerald as always, we appreciate you joining us here on the Real News.
EPSTEIN: Thank you very much Kim.
BROWN: And thank you for tuning in to the Real News Network.
End
DISCLAIMER: Please note that transcripts for The Real News Network are typed from a
recording of the program. TRNN cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.
Source
2 months ago
2 months ago