If asked, Americans of all political persuasions will say overwhelmingly that they prefer “tougher rules” for Wall Street. But what does that actually mean?
Here's a question for every reader of this post who lives in a major metro area and has at least a college degree: How many people do you know who make under $40,000 a year?
Exclude that artist friend who's husband is in finance. And eliminate younger people still paying their dues. I'm talking about people who really earn under $40,000 year.
Public investment is crucial to future growth. The economic boom in the 50s and 60s relied on government investments in education (G.I. Bill), infrastructure (National Highway System) and science (NASA).
Give them jobs. That's the most important answer to the serious economic crisis gripping young America, which faces double digit unemployment rates for some groups -- levels rivaling that of the Great Depression.
Of course, creating jobs sounds very complicated -- a multi-part process of "stimulating" economic growth to boost demand so that employers add more workers. In fact, though, creating jobs is one of the easiest things for government to do: Just use public dollars to directly hire workers and, presto, government has created jobs.
It's no secret that wealthy Americans have enjoyed low taxes since the dawn of the Reagan era—even as they have scored huge income gains thanks to changes in the economy. A less well-known fact, though, is that middle and low-income earners have seen far bigger cuts in their federal taxes, which has helped offset stagnant incomes for these groups and may explain why there hasn't been a bigger revolt against income inequality in America.
Congress resolved the shutdown and debt ceiling crisis (for now) by agreeing to hash out a budget agreement by mid-December. Already, hopes are dim. Budget experts say that if any deal at all is worked out to replace the deep budget cuts that went into effect in March, the most likely outcome will be a short-term plan involving slightly less severe spending cuts—but with no new revenue, a big Democratic priority.
Washington is in its usual state of hysteria this week -- now over the Obamacare rollout -- so, as usual, few people in power are talking about the biggest problem facing the country: a still-stagnant labor market that has stranded millions in a jobless hell, with real unemployment rates for some groups at Great Depression levels.
The most likely consequence of the sequestration will be be slower growth and lower tax revenues, and it’s a distinct possibility that the sequestration could actually increase the deficit.
As a retiree with a defined-benefit pension; a former public employee who defended public workers’ pension benefits for decades; and an advocate who, after leaving the Service Employees International Union, chose to spend several years trying to create a national effort to build a new all-American retirement system, I want to offer my perspective on some of the recent pension issues in Rhode Island.
Wal-Mart Stores is the country’s biggest private employer. Its low wages have incited labor protests and congressional criticism, and have created a cottage industry of public policy research.
Last week, I wrote about the “separate but equal” two-tiered voting system that Arizona and Kansas want to implement that would create two separate ballots for elections; one with federal, state and local races for eligible voters who show proof of citizenship, like a birth certificate or passport, and another with only federal races for remaining voters.
Six years after finishing college – with a degree in molecular and cellular biology – Sydney Gray works 18 hours a week as a cashier at a New Orleans farmers' market. Other times, she volunteers there to get free food.
"I can't even get a job waiting tables," says Ms. Gray, whose two previous part-time jobs ended when the employers folded. "When I apply for jobs, I'm competing against people with master's degrees and PhDs."
Washington D.C. Mayor, Vincent C. Gray vetoed legislation demanding that large retailers pay a higher minimum wage, Sept.15. The announcement came on the heels of Wal-Mart threatening to cancel plans for new stores in the District of Columbia if the minimum wage was increased.
Mayor Gray denied that he vetoed the minimum wage because of Wal-Mart’s threat in his weekly radio address.
On September 15, the fifth anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, progressives toasted a victory.
True, thanks to Congressional timidity, the biggest banks have only gotten bigger since the financial crisis five years ago, and the men (yes, mostly men) in charge of them are mostly still in charge. But Larry Summers, the architect of a good chunk of the deregulation that set the stage for the crisis in the first place, had withdrawn his name from consideration to be chair of the Federal Reserve, thanks to a populist uprising within the Democratic Party.
Three and a half years have passed since the afternoon when the stock markets went into a trillion-dollar free fall and just as suddenly reversed course, recovering 80 percent of that loss. It all happened in less than 45 minutes.
Suppose we think income redistribution is a good idea -- given near-record corporate profits at a time when wages for most workers are stagnant. There are two main ways to achieve this goal: We could make business pick up the tab directly by raising the minimum wage, making it easier for workers to form unions, and mandating more employee benefits, such as paid vacation time. Or, we could leave business alone, but give poorly paid workers public benefits like tax refunds, free health insurance, food assistance, and so on.
In 2005, Indiana passed a law requiring voters to present a government issued photo-ID before they would be allowed to vote. The law was challenged by voting rights advocates and was upheld by the Appellate Court and ultimately, the Supreme Court. The Appellate Court concluded that the burden placed on potential voters to show a photo-ID was outweighed by the state’s interest in reducing voter fraud.