Article 43

 

Wednesday, July 24, 2019

The Housing Crisis Is Worse Than You Think

A new report by the National Low Income Housing Coalition shows its getting increasingly difficult to afford housing.

By In These Times Staff
In These Times
July 22, 2019

"Housing is a human right,” Julin Castro, the former Obama Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, wrote in the preamble to his PEOPLE FIRST HOUSING platform in June. Hes one of a few Democratic contenders who have spoken about affordable housing in recent weeks, an issue that;s historically received limited attention on the campaign trail. But housing’s newfound importance makes good sense: As In These Times has noted, the economic prospects for everyday Americans are hardly sunny, even after the putative rebounds made by the nation since the Great Recession.

While there are ample REASONS TO DOUBT the progressive promises made by the likes of Castro, the need to address the shortage of affordable housing could not be more real. And with the recent release of the National Low Income Housing Coalition’s annual report on the gap between wage-earners and rent prices, now is an important moment for candidates to outline their plans to address the issue. Here are 10 statistics that outline the U.S. housing crisis:

24.7%: U.S. renters who spend more than half their income on rent.
49.5%: Those who spend more than the federal threshold of “affordable” (30% of income).
7,000,000: Nationwide shortage of affordable homes for low-income renters.
552,830: People experiencing homelessness on a single night in 2018.
7,400,000: Americans forced to move in with friends or family.
32%: Increase in median rent from 2001 to 2015.
97%: Increase in the number of homes renting for $2,000 or more between 2005 and 2015.
80%: U.S. markets where home prices are growing faster than wages.
1%: U.S. counties where a fair-market one-bedroom rental home is affordable for a full-time minimum-wage worker.
103: Weekly hours worked at minimum wage needed to afford a one-bedroom home at national average fair-market rent.

SOURCE

Posted by Elvis on 07/24/19 •
Section Dying America
View (0) comment(s) or add a new one
Printable viewLink to this article
Home

Thursday, July 04, 2019

Reclaiming Independence Day

image: deceived

Reclaiming Independence Day

By DayRosanne Lindsay
Activist Post
July 3, 2019

Has the concept of independence been lost under Acts of Tyranny perpetrated by government?

Based on historical evidence, the only freedom people have is the freedom they defend. As this country celebrates Independence Day 2019, tyrannical Acts that remove rights are being rolled out under the guise of safety and security.

On June 24th, President Trump signed into law the Pandemic and All Hazards Preparedness Advancing Innovations Act (PAHPA), authored by Rep. Susan w. Brooks (R-IN) and Anna Eshoo (D-CA) to strengthen the country’s preparedness and response program. PAHPA ensures that the country is better prepared to respond to a wide array of Public Health emergencies, whether man-made or occurring through natural disaster or infectious disease.

Problem - Reaction - Solution

The PAHPA Act is part of the HEGELIAN DIALECTIC Playbook of Problem, Reaction, Solution. This Act, act-ivates the government to prepare and respond in any way it deems necessary by doing whatever it wants, wherever it wants, however it wants, without your permission.

This DISCLOSURE to all subjects and slaves of the world show that the ideal of FREEDOM has been a ruse. The Constitution of the United States does not protect freedom. The Declaration of Independence does not ensure rights. True freedom is is not found in any Act, but must be defended through action.

Panic Propaganda

Panic Propaganda is predictive programming that keeps people in a state of fear. Fear is a low frequency. As vibrational beings, what we believe, think, and feel are frequencies that determine HOW WE ACT or whether we act. Fear keeps people is a state of flight, fight, or freeze. Fear keeps people stuck and afraid of acting on their own behalf and for their own best interests.

In a state of fear, people are unlikely to remember that they are the true authors of government, and that elected officials must get permission from the people. Under mandates it is easy to forget that legislators work for YOU.

Have Americans forgotten the words of Thomas Jefferson, written in the Declaration of Independence?

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Undo The Conditioning

Americans have taken on the CONDITIONING of the public SCHOOL SYSTEM to believe that rights come from government and you have no say over your life since all decisions must be made to protect the “Public Health” and well being.

People are made to believe that “Public Health” exists. But “the Public” is like a forest. A forest does not exist except for the individual trees. Therefore, “the public” does not exist except for individuals who make up the public. When it comes to health, wealth, and happiness, it is not “the Public” that benefits. It is individual who does.

Where Does Freedom Live?

When you decide to un-condition yourself from falsehoods you have accepted to the truth that is self-evident, you realize that freedom is not granted by government, or presidents, or kings. Freedom lives in individuals. You are born with inherent rights.

In order to experience freedom, you must live it and express it through your choices. Without choice there is no freedom. Avoid the “pro” vs. “anti” propaganda that is set up by social engineers to DIVIDE AND CONQUER. While you are bogged down in endless debate (pro or anti), mandates are rolled out. Totalitarian rule is established.

The Healthy People 2020 Act is coming. This cradle-to-grave vaccine mandate demands young and old, and every one in between, roll up their sleeves and submit to an injection.  It is an Act that removes choice and tests the will of the people. Everyone will be faced with a choice. What will you choose? How do you reclaim independence?

SOURCE

Posted by Elvis on 07/04/19 •
Section American Solidarity
View (0) comment(s) or add a new one
Printable viewLink to this article
Home

Union Rise

image: american flag

America’s labor movement is finally waking up after a 30 year slumber

By George Pearkes, Opinion Contributor
Business Insider
June 30, 2019

You may have noticed some labor disruptions in the headlines. A few examples from the past month: employees of Vox Media successfully NEGOTIATED a collective bargaining agreement, Buzzfeed employees WALKED OUT in an effort to get recognition for their union, and VOLKSWAGEN workers in Tennessee TALKED WILDCAT STRIKES after a vote to unionize failed by a small margin.

Last year, teachers walked off the job in West Virginia, Oklahoma, and Arizona with walk-outs and other disruptions from Colorado to the Carolinas. This may seem like bad news for capitalists, but unions can be a source of stability as well as class conflict. The recent labor renaissance could help to reverse some worrying long-term trends in the American economy, while also still benefiting the businesses from which workers are extracting gains.

The recent uptick in strikes is not just your imagination, and it recalls an earlier era when unions played a greater role in the American labor market. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) showed more than 485,000 workers were impacted by large strikes that started during the year, the highest number since 1986.

This year, the first five months of the year have seen 307,000 workers impacted by strikes, versus 431,000 in the first five months of 2018.

The return to labor disruptions after a long post-Reagan slumber comes as workers are becoming scarcer. Using BLS data which goes back to 1994, as-of May only 9.12% of the potential workers either had no job and want one, or are working part-time because they can’t find full-time work. The measure is approaching its record low of 8.9%, from April of 2000.

This extremely broad metric measures not just those who are counted as unemployed by the BLS, but goes further to include those who haven’t been looking for work but want a job as well as those working part-time for economic reasons. If employers want to add capacity or replace workers who retire or quit, there are fewer and fewer places to turn, which gives workers more bargaining power.
George Pearkes

The surge in organized labor activity also poses a concern for investors and economic observers: won’t all that labor bargaining power lead to wage-price spirals and runaway inflation? Not necessarily.

In fact, the FOMC’s most recent Summary of Economic Projections showed 8 of 15 FOMC members see multiple interest rate cuts this year, spurred in part by a weak inflation outlook. Many doves are more worried about slow inflation and the possibility of slipping inflation expectations, rather than inflation surging thanks to excessive labor bargaining power.

One reason a dovish outlook in the presence of low unemployment may carry less risk of a sudden uptick in inflation than it otherwise might: labor share of income is extremely low.

As Bloomberg’s Matt Boelser POINTED OUT in April, Federal Reserve Vice Chair Richard Clarida brought the below chart with him from his role at fixed income fund giant Pimco. It shows that labor compensation share of national income hit a record low earlier in the expansion, and has only risen modestly since.

Tight labor markets may help return some balance to the economy, raising income share for workers after decades of declines and very little bounce during the current economic expansion. Higher labor compensation share of income could push up wages and incomes, without a dramatic uptick in inflation from businesses passing wage costs on to consumers.
Geroge Pearkes

Can a burgeoning push for unions help that process along? It’s always hard to draw concrete causal links between two economic variables, and we should be cautious to say rising union power would definitely raise worker bargaining powerespecially without inflationary consequences. But it’s clear that declines in labor share of income since the 1970s only took place after unionization rates had been falling, and for quite some time.

Today, less than 11% of workers are union members per the BLS, with even lower numbers for the private sector (6.4%). Back in 1960, per the University of Amsterdam’s ICTWSS database, almost a third of the labor force was unionized.

The contemporary political framing of unions is often very negative, and given the experience of high inflation that subsided after supply-side reforms in the 1980s, that’s somewhat understandable, but it ignores a longer and more nuanced history of the LABOR MOVEMENT in the US. Modern edifices like the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) were introduced to balance the conflicts BETWEEN UNIONS AND EMPLOYERS.

Examples of past excesses include a million rounds fired and chemical weapons used at the Battle of Blair Mountain (West Virginia, 1921) or President Truman nationalizing the steel industry by executive order in 1952 in response to a strike. Unrestrained conflict between workers and management is bad for everyone, but a managed negotiation between workers and business can play a role in creating a more equitable and stable society.

Years of political and judicial maneuvering (ranging from the 2018 Janus decision to much older right-to-work laws) have reduced the power of unions and the NLRB. But workers and employers are also well-served to remember that both can benefit from orderly collective bargaining: stability and predictability may be worth the bottom-line cost of paying workers more.

No employer need worry about an armed revolt or sudden nationalization these days, but even small wildcat strikes or walk-outs (which can destroy a business overnight), higher turnover rates in a low unemployment economy, and failure to attract talent can have devastating consequences. Unions and formalized negotiating can be a venue for class conflict that might otherwise boil over if kept bottled up.

For now, unionization movements are still limited. Organizers’ failure to introduce the South to unionized auto manufacturing via the Volkswagen plant is just one example of the difficulties organized labor still faces.

Given the longstanding frustration with slow wage growth and a society that feels imbalanced, recent victories at the bargaining table for journalists and teachers, facilitated by unions, seem likely to get copied in other workplaces.

SOURCE

---

image: union workers

Unions Did Great Things for the Working Class
Strengthening them could blunt inequality and wage stagnation.

By Noah Smith
Bloomberg
June 13, 2018

Politically and economically, unions are sort of an odd duck. They aren’t part of the apparatus of the state, yet they depend crucially on state protections in order to wield their power. They’re stakeholders in corporations, but often have adversarial relationships with management. Historically, unions are a big reason that the working class won many of the protections and rights it now enjoys, but they often leave the working class fragmented and divided—between different companies, between union and non-union workers, and even between different ethnic groups.

Economists, too, have long puzzled about how to think about unions. They don’t fit easily into the standard paradigm of modern economic theory in which atomistic individuals and companies abide by rules overseen by an all-powerful government. Some economists see unions as a cartel, protecting insiders at the expense of outsiders. According to this theory, unions raise wages but also drive up unemployment. This is the interpretation of unions taught in many introductory courses and textbooks.

If this were really what unions did, it might be worth it to simply let them slip into oblivion, as private-sector unions have been doing in the U.S.

But there are many reasons to think that this theory of unions isn’t right—or, at least, is woefully incomplete.

First, even back in the 1970s, some economists realized that unions do a lot more than just push up wages. In a 1979 paper entitled “The Two Faces of Unionism,” economists Richard Freeman and James Medoff argued that “by providing workers with a voice both at the workplace and in the political arena, unions can and do affect positively the functioning of the economic and social systems.”

Freeman and Medoff cite data showing that unions reduced turnover, which lowers costs associated with constantly finding and training new workers. They also show that unions engaged in political activity that benefitted the working class more broadly, rather than just union members. And they showed that contrary to popular belief, unions actually decreased racial wage disparities. Finally, Freeman and Medoff argue that by defining standard wage rates within industries, unions actually reduced wage inequality overall, despite the cartel-like effect emphasized in econ textbooks.

But the world didnԒt listen to Freeman and Medoff, and private-sectors unions declined into near-insignificance. Now, four decades later, economists are again starting to suspect that unions were a better deal than the textbooks made them out to be. A recent paper by economists Henry Farber, Daniel Herbst, Ilyana Kuziemko and Suresh Naidu concludes that unions were an important force reducing inequality in the U.S.

Since past data tends to be patchy, Farber et al. combine a huge number of different data sources to get a detailed picture of unionization rates going all the way back to 1936, the year after Congress passed a law letting private-sector employees form unions. The authors find that as unionization rises, inequality tends to fall, and vice versa. Nor is this effect driven by greater skills and education on the part of union workers; during the era from 1940 through 1970, when unionization rose and inequality fell, union workers tended to be less educated than others. In other words, unions lifted the workers at the bottom of the distribution. Black workers, and other nonwhite workers, tended to benefit the most from the union boost.

Now, however, private-sector unions are mostly a faded memory and their power to raise wages has waned—Farber et al. find that although there’s still a union wage premium, it’s now much more due to the fact that higher-skilled workers tended to be the ones who stayed unionized. A 2004 paper by economists John DiNardo and David Lee found that by 1984-1999, unions had lost much of their ability to force wages higher.

Given the contrast between the golden age of 1940-1970 and the current age of spiraling inequality, wouldn’t it make sense to bring unions back? Perhaps. The key question is why private-sector unions mostly died out. Policy changes—right-to-work laws, and the appointment of anti-union regulators, probably played a key role in reducing unionization. But globalization may have also played a big part. Competition from companies in countries like Germany—where unions often bargain to hold down wages in order to increase their companies’ competitiveness—might have made the old American model of unionization unsustainable. Now, with even stiffer competition from China, the challenge of re-unionizing the U.S. might be an insurmountable one.

But it might be worth it to try. Other than massive government redistribution of income and wealth, theres really no other obvious way to address the country’s rising inequality. Also, there’s the chance that unions might be an effective remedy for the problem of increasing corporate market power—evidence suggests that when unionization rates are high, industry concentration is less effective at suppressing wages. Repealing right-to-work laws and appointing more pro-union regulators could be just the medicine the economy needs.

So supporters of free markets should rethink their antipathy to unions. As socialism gains support among the young, both economists and free-market thinkers should consider the possibility that unions—that odd hybrid of free-market bargaining and government intervention—were the vaccine that allowed the U.S. and other rich nations to largely escape the disasters of communism in the 20th century.

It looks like it’s TIME FOR A BOOSTER SHOT.

SOURCE

Posted by Elvis on 07/04/19 •
Section American Solidarity
View (0) comment(s) or add a new one
Printable viewLink to this article
Home

Tuesday, July 02, 2019

Profits over People

image: 7237 Maxx

A few years ago I wrote about MY JOB AT AT&T that led me to stumble on a possible big, fat security hole in dial-up modems connected to inside plant equipment that was dismissed by management.  The PROFIT OVER PEOPLE mantra that that hangs over the U.S. like a dark cloud keeps getting bigger and darker.

Boeing Outsourced Its 737 MAX Software To $9-Per-Hour Engineers

By Tyler Durden
ZeroHedge
June 29, 2019

The software at the heart of the Boeing 737 MAX crisis was developed at a time when the company was laying off experienced engineers and replacing them with temporary workers making as little as $9 per hour, according to BLOOMBERG.

In an effort to cut costs, Boeing was relying on subcontractors making paltry wages to develop and test its software. Often times, these subcontractors would be from countries lacking a deep background in aerospace, like India.

Boeing had recent college graduates working for Indian software developer HCL Technologies Ltd. in a building across from Seattle’s Boeing Field, in flight test groups supporting the MAX. The coders from HCL designed to specifications set by Boeing but, according to Mark Rabin, a former Boeing software engineer, “it was controversial because it was far less efficient than Boeing engineers just writing the code.”

Rabin said: “...it took many rounds going back and forth because the code was not done correctly.”

In addition to cutting costs, the hiring of Indian companies may have landed Boeing orders for the Indian military and commercial aircraft, like a $22 billion order received in January 2017. That order included 100 737 MAX 8 jets and was Boeing’s largest order ever from an Indian airline. India traditionally orders from Airbus.

HCL engineers helped develop and test the 737 MAX’s flight display software while employees from another Indian company, Cyient Ltd, handled the software for flight test equipment. In 2011, Boeing named Cyient, then known as Infotech, to a list of its “suppliers of the year.”

One HCL employee posted online: “Provided quick workaround to resolve production issue which resulted in not delaying flight test of 737-Max” (delay in each flight test will cost very big amount for Boeing).

But Boeing says the company didn’t rely on engineers from HCL for the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, which was linked to both last October’s crash and March’s crash. The company also says it didn’t rely on Indian companies for the cockpit warning light issue that was disclosed after the crashes.

A Boeing spokesperson said: “Boeing has many decades of experience working with supplier/partners around the world. Our primary focus is on always ensuring that our products and services are safe, of the highest quality and comply with all applicable regulations.”

HCL, on the other hand, said: “HCL has a strong and long-standing business relationship with The Boeing Company, and we take pride in the work we do for all our customers. However, HCL does not comment on specific work we do for our customers. HCL is not associated with any ongoing issues with 737 Max.”

Recent simulator tests run by the FAA indicate that software issues on the 737 MAX run deeper than first thought. Engineers who worked on the plane, which Boeing started developing eight years ago, complained of pressure from managers to limit changes that might introduce extra time or cost.

Rick Ludtke, a former Boeing flight controls engineer laid off in 2017, said: Boeing was doing all kinds of things, everything you can imagine, to reduce cost, including moving work from Puget Sound, because we’d become very expensive here. All that’s very understandable if you think of it from a business perspective. Slowly over time it appears that’s eroded the ability for Puget Sound designers to design.

Rabin even recalled an incident where senior software engineers were told they weren’t needed because Boeing’s productions were mature. Rabin said: “I was shocked that in a room full of a couple hundred mostly senior engineers we were being told that we weren’t needed.”

Any given jetliner is made up of millions of parts and millions of lines of code. Boeing has often turned over large portions of the work to suppliers and subcontractors that follow its blueprints. But beginning in 2004 with the 787 Dreamliner, Boeing sought to increase profits by providing high-level specs and then asking suppliers to design more parts themselves.

Boeing also promised to invest $1.7 billion in Indian companies as a result of an $11 billion order in 2005 from Air India. This investment helped HCL and other software developers.

For the 787, HCL offered a price to Boeing that they couldn’t refuse, either: free. HCL “took no up-front payments on the 787 and only started collecting payments based on sales years later”.

Rockwell Collins won the MAX contract for cockpit displays and relied in part on HCL engineers and contract engineers from Cyient to test flight test equipment.

Charles LoveJoy, a former flight-test instrumentation design engineer at the company, said: “We did have our challenges with the India team. They met the requirements, per se, but you could do it better.”

SOURCE

Posted by Elvis on 07/02/19 •
Section Dying America
View (0) comment(s) or add a new one
Printable viewLink to this article
Home

Monday, July 01, 2019

Long-Term Unemployment Elimination Act

image: jobs

As the economy approaches full employment, one of the persistent challenges remains finding jobs for those Americans who want to work but have been unemployed for a very long time. 

In May 2019, 1.3 million Americans fell into this category, which means they have been unemployed for more than six months and that does not even include all the people who had been looking for a job and then dropped out of the labor market altogether. Long-term unemployment can lock workers out of the job market, as research shows that employers are less likely to hire applicants with long gaps in their work history.
- Long-Term Unemployment Elimination Act

New Bill Will Get the Labor Market Running on All Cylinders

Mark Paul and Dean Baker
The Hill
June 28, 2019

For years, economists have been saying that were at, or “awfully close” to, full employment. The most recent numbers put the headline unemployment rate at 3.6 percent - the lowest rate we’ve seen in nearly 50 years. This is welcome news.

Relatively low unemployment means there are far fewer people looking for work who can’t find it. But low unemployment doesn’t affect everyone equally. When the unemployment rate dips to low levels, the people who benefit the most are those who have been at the back of the queue - black workers, Hispanic workers, immigrants and other disadvantaged workers in the labor market.

If we go back just five years, when the overall unemployment rate was 6.3 percent, the unemployment rate for blacks was 11.4 percent. Today, it is 6.2 percent, a drop of 5.2 percentage points. While this is still far higher than we should accept, it does represent progress.

The benefits of low unemployment go beyond just allowing more people to get jobs. It also gives more bargaining power to those workers who have jobs. We have seen this impact, as wages have at least modestly outpaced prices for the last four years, allowing workers at the middle and the bottom to see gains in living standards; though its barely putting a dent in the decades of stagnant wages for most workers.

According to the predictions of Federal Reserve officials a few years ago, these levels of unemployment were simply unsustainable. Importantly, this highlights a long and ongoing battle within the Fed over just how low unemployment can go if we are to avoid spiraling inflation.

Historically, the Fed has chosen to prioritize stable prices over full employment, resulting in decades of persistently weak labor markets that force millions of workers to remain idle.

But in this recovery, these economists were beaten back. This was in part due to pressure from groups like the grassroots labor and community coalition Fed Up, and, in part, the result of then-Fed Chair Janet Yellen’s willingness to hold off on rate hikes until there was actual evidence of inflation, which remains below the Feds target.

With these data points in mind, it would be easy to think that the labor market is running on all cylinders. But it’s not. Many groups of workers are still struggling to find employment and decent wages.

Nearly one-in-four unemployed workers have been out of a job for at least 27 weeks. These 1.3 million long-term unemployed workers, plus the millions of other people who have dropped out of the workforce or are underemployed, highlight the failures of the labor market.

Thankfully, some in Washington have been paying attention. Last week, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced the Long-Term Unemployment Elimination Act.

The bills aim is simple: Put an end to long-term unemployment. Importantly, the bill would provide much-needed funding to generate real job opportunities for the long-term unemployed through new mandatory federal funding to local workforce development boards and community-based organizations.

The jobs, which would last a year on average, will not only provide non-poverty wages to workers but will also provide the necessary wrap-around services to ensure success. This will help workers overcome some barriers to employment including transportation and childcare costs.

Targeted job creation, rather than tax cuts, which are the oft-proposed Republicans’ answer to such economic challenges, has a proven track record. First, instead of relying on the myth of trickle-down economics, programs such as these provide funding to employ all workers affected by long-term unemployment.

Importantly, the legislation also includes the millions who have been out of work for at least 27 weeks but aren’t counted in the official unemployment statistics.

Many will argue that now is not the time for such measures. After all, the economy is running hot. But they’re missing the big picture.

First, by putting in place the Long-Term Unemployment Act during a relatively strong labor market, the program will have a bit of time to get up and running. Second, by scaling up the program now, itll be ready to quickly ramp up when the next recession comes, which it inevitably will.

Democrats can decry Trump and the Republican party all day, but they need to take concrete steps to show workers that they can offer an economy that works for all.

As 2020 presidential candidates start offering their economic messages, we’ve seen many of them get behind the idea of a job guarantee. This program is no job guarantee, but it takes important steps toward ridding our economy of unnecessary unemployment that is costing not only economic output, but peoples lives.

Mark Paul is an assistant professor of economics at New College of Florida and a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. Dean Baker is senior economist and co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

SOURCE

---

Long-Term Unemployment Elimination Act

By Senator Chris Van Hollen
June 2019

Long-Term Unemployment Elimination Act

There is no question that we have made important progress in rebuilding our economy since the Great Recession of 2008. But instead of helping forgotten men and women, President Trump and the Republican Congress have trained their sights on helping the biggest corporations and the very wealthy above all else. Senator Van Hollen believes there is a critical group being left behind: over one million Americans who are long-term unemployed. He is teaming up with Senator Wyden to introduce an innovative federal program that would generate real job opportunities for people who have been unemployed for six months or more, getting them back on their feet and into the workforce. 

The Problem: Too Many Men and Women Left Behind by the Economic Recovery

As the economy approaches full employment, one of the persistent challenges remains finding jobs for those Americans who want to work but have been unemployed for a very long time.  In May 2019, 1.3 million Americans fell into this category, which means they have been unemployed for more than six months and that does not even include all the people who had been looking for a job and then dropped out of the labor market altogether. Long-term unemployment can lock workers out of the job market, as research shows that employers are less likely to hire applicants with long gaps in their work history. 

This group of jobseekers cuts across all communities, ages, ethnicities, and occupations. In 2018, for example, 56 percent of long-term unemployed workers were younger than age 45, while the remaining 44 percent were 45 and older. Long-term unemployment is linked to lower wages for workers - even years after they do find a job and it reduces the economic potential of the entire U.S. economy.

Because of the normal churn in the economy, there will always be some unemployment. But the long-term unemployment rate should be near zero. This plan takes direct action to achieve that goal.

The Solution: Focused Funding to Create Jobs and Support Workers The Long-Term Unemployment Elimination Act recognizes the transformational power of work. It would provide targeted funding to local areas to generate work opportunities and get these Americans back into the workforce.

- The jobs would generally exist for one year. This would provide enough time to accomplish valuable work and build solid experience, and could be extended for an additional year to support apprenticeships and other on-the-job training. The jobs could be at a private business, a non-profit, or a government agency.

- With mandatory federal funding, the program can grow large unemployed and wants to participate. The plan is designed to address long-term unemployment under all economic conditions - the program will expand during periods of high unemployment.

The legislation provides supports to help people overcome the barriers keeping them out of the workforce such as transportation, childcare, job readiness training, substance abuse treatment, or assistance finding a permanent job - and training programs that build skills to sustain permanent employment.  Instead of the work requirements being pushed by Republicans which strip access to health care, food, and housing without creating a single job - this project would match the people who are looking for work with a job. 

The bill also provides competitive grants to local areas to support innovation and investment in areas hit hardest by high poverty and chronic joblessness, which would give additional flexibility and support in the places where it is needed most. These grants would support locally-driven development, worker-owned enterprises, and other strategies to ensure that area residents are part of the process and benefit from the results.

The Pay-For: Eliminating Tax Breaks for Shipping Jobs Overseas

The new Republican tax law creates incentives for corporations to locate production abroad and ship jobs overseas. By imposing a true minimum tax on foreign profits, we can keep jobs right here at home and fully fund this plan to tackle long-term unemployment.

Senator Van Hollen has joined with Senator Whitehouse to introduce the NO TAX BREAKS FOR OUTSOURCING ACT, and joined with Senators Klobuchar and Duckworth to introduce the REMOVING INCENTIVES FOR OUTSOURCING ACT. President Obama’s minimum tax proposal is a third option, and this policy would have raised roughly $300 billion over 10 years.

SOURCE

Posted by Elvis on 07/01/19 •
Section Dying America • Section Workplace
View (0) comment(s) or add a new one
Printable viewLink to this article
Home
Page 1 of 1 pages

Statistics

Total page hits 9359732
Page rendered in 1.0522 seconds
40 queries executed
Debug mode is off
Total Entries: 3182
Total Comments: 337
Most Recent Entry: 08/15/2019 09:50 am
Most Recent Comment on: 01/02/2016 09:13 pm
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 9
Total anonymous users: 0
The most visitors ever was 114 on 10/26/2017 04:23 am


Email Us

Home

Members:
Login | Register
Resumes | Members

In memory of the layed off workers of AT&T

Today's Diversion

We are reluctant to admit that we owe our liberties to men of a type that today we hate and fear -- unruly men, disturbers of the peace, men who resent and denounce what Whitman called 'the insolence of elected persons' -- in a word, free men. - Gerald W. Johnson

Search


Advanced Search

Sections

Calendar

July 2019
S M T W T F S
 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      

Must Read

Most recent entries

RSS Feeds

Today's News

ARS Technica

External Links

Elvis Picks

BLS Pages

Favorites

All Posts

Archives

RSS


Creative Commons License


Support Bloggers' Rights