Monday, September 21, 2020

Racial disparities in income and poverty remain largely unchanged amid strong income growth in 2019 [feedly]

Racial disparities in income and poverty remain largely unchanged amid strong income growth in 2019
https://www.epi.org/blog/racial-disparities-in-income-and-poverty-remain-largely-unchanged-amid-strong-income-growth-in-2019/

The Census Bureau report on income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in 2019 reveals impressive growth in median household income relative to 2018 across all racial and ethnic groups, but income gaps persist. While the Census cautions that the 2019 income estimates may be overstated due to a decline in response rates for the survey administered in March of this year, real median household income increased 10.6% among Asian households (from $88,774 to $98,174), 8.5% among Black households (from $42,447 to $46,073), 7.1% among Hispanic households (from $52,382 to $56,113), and 5.7% among non-Hispanic white households (from $71,922 to $76,057), as seen in Figure A.

In 2019, the median Black household earned just 61 cents for every dollar of income the median white household earned (up from 59 cents in 2018), while the median Hispanic household earned 74 cents (unchanged from 2018).

Figure A

Based on EPI's imputed historical income values (see the note under Figure A for an explanation), African American households finally surpassed their pre-recession median income 12 years after the start of the Great Recession in 2007—the last racial group to do so. Compared with household incomes in 2007, median household incomes in 2019 were up 21.1% for Hispanic households, 11.3% for Asian households, 8.2% for non-Hispanic white households, and 6.3% for African American households. Unfortunately, this recovery of income has been cut short by massive job losses, particularly among Black and Hispanicworkers, during the current pandemic and recession.

The 2019 poverty rates also reflect the strong income growth between 2018 and 2019, though the Census also cautions that the poverty estimates may be understated due to a decline in response rates. As seen in Figure B, poverty rates for all groups were down, but remained highest among African Americans (18.7%, down 2.0 percentage points), followed by Hispanics (15.7%, down 1.9 percentage points), Asians (7.3%, down 2.8 percentage points), and whites (7.3%, down 0.8 percentage points). African American and Hispanic children continued to face the highest poverty rates—more than one-quarter (25.6%) of African Americans and more than one-fifth (20.9%) of Hispanics under age 18 lived below the poverty level in 2019. African American children were more than three times as likely to be in poverty as white children (8.3%).

Figure B

The Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), an alternative to the long-running official poverty measure, provides an even more accurate measure of a household's economic vulnerability. While the official poverty rate captures only before-tax cash income, the SPM accounts for various noncash benefits and tax credits. The SPM also allows for geographic variability in what constitutes poverty based on differences in the cost of living. According to the 2019 SPM, the official poverty measure understates poverty among Hispanics (the 2019 SPM rate is 18.9% vs. 15.7% by the official poverty measure), Asians (11.7% vs. 7.3%), and non-Hispanic whites (8.2% vs. 7.3%), while the measures produce relatively similar rates for African Americans (18.3% vs. 18.7%).


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

President Trump has attacked workers’ safety, wages, and rights since day one [feedly]

Behind the scoundrel, gaslighting, racist 'patriotism' (treason, truthfully) -- the rape of working class families laid bare.

President Trump has attacked workers' safety, wages, and rights since day one

https://www.epi.org/blog/president-trump-has-attacked-workers-safety-wages-and-rights-since-day-one/

From President Trump's first day on the job, his administration has systematically promoted the interests of corporate executives and shareholders over those of working people. The current administration has rolled back worker protections, proposed budgets that slash funding for agencies that safeguard workers' rights, wages, and safety, and consistently attacked workers' ability to organize and collectively bargain. The pandemic has provided the administration an opportunity to continue its attack on workers' rights. We recently published a report that looks at the 50 most egregious actions the Trump administration has taken against workers, but here we take a look at five of the worst actions:

The Trump administration failed to adequately address the coronavirus pandemic.

Despite the widespread reach of COVID-19 in the workplace, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has refused to issue an Emergency Temporary Standard to protect workers during the pandemic. OSHA is also failing to enforce the Occupational Safety and Health Act during the pandemic. Despite nearly 10,000 complaints from workers about unsafe working conditions from COVID-19, the agency has only issued a handful of citations for failure to protect workers. In addition, the Centers for Disease Control issued dangerous guidelines that allowed essential workers to continue to work even if they may have been exposed to the coronavirus—as long as they appear to be asymptomatic and the employer implements additional limited precautions. The lack of these basic protections has led to thousands of essential workers becoming infected with the coronavirus, and many have died as a result.

While Congress passed Families First Coronavirus Relief Act (FFCRA) and the CARES Act to provide workers with temporary paid sick leave and unemployment insurance (UI) expansion, the Trump administration issued temporary guidance that weakened worker protections under these relief and recovery measures. For example, the Department of Labor (DOL) excluded millions of workers from paid leave provisions under the FFCRA, including 9 million health care workers and 4.4 million first responders, before revising the rule after a federal judge invalidated parts of the original rule in August. Further, the Trump administration has vehemently opposed the extension of the $600 increase of unemployment insurance benefits and additional aid to state and local governments. The lack of fiscal relief will cost millions of jobs, including 5.3 million jobs due to insufficient federal aid to state and local governments and 5.1 million jobs due to the expiration of the $600 boost in UI.

The Trump administration attacked workers' wages.

Since Trump took office, the Department of Labor (DOL) rolled back numerous regulations that protected the wages of working people. For starters, the Trump DOL prevented millions of workers from receiving overtime pay by not defending the Obama administration's 2016 overtime rule, but instead finalizing their own, weaker overtime rule in September 2019. Roughly 8.2 million workers who would have benefited from the 2016 rule have been left behind by the Trump administration's rule.

The Trump DOL also finalized a new joint-employer standard under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which narrowed the set of circumstances whereby a firm could be deemed a joint employer under the FLSA. The Trump DOL's final rule substantially limits shared liability for wage and hour violations, making it harder for workers to hold all parties who set their terms of employment accountable. EPI estimated the ruling will cost workers more than $1 billion annually. A federal court struck down most of this rule, holding that the Trump DOL failed to account for some of the rule's "important costs, including costs to workers."

One of the Trump DOL's most egregious rulemakings was the proposed "tip stealing" rule, which would allow employers to pocket the tips of their employees, so long as workers are paid the minimum wage. EPI's estimates showed that, if finalized, the rule would have resulted in $5.8 billion in lost wages of tipped workers each year. However, before the rule was finalized, reports found that the Secretary of Labor went to great lengths to hide DOL's economic analysis that showed the rule would have been costly to workers. In the wake of this news, Congress added a section to the Fair Labor Standards Act that prohibits employers from keeping tips received by employees, ultimately making the proposed rule invalid.

The Trump administration undermined workers' collective bargaining rights.

Under President Trump, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has systematically rolled back workers' rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which provides workers the fundamental right to organize and bargain collectively. The Trump NLRB has engaged in an unprecedented number of rulemakings aimed at overturning existing worker protections, including narrowing the joint-employer standard under the NLRA and obstructing workers' right to fair union elections. Further, the Trump NLRB has issued a series of significant decisions weakening worker protections such as hindering workers' ability to organize during non-work hours and allowing the misclassification of workers. As a result, the Trump NLRB has completed the wish list of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—the largest corporate lobbying firm in the U.S.

Table 1

However, the NLRB is not working alone in attacking workers' collective bargaining rights. President Trump has issued several executive orders that eroded the collective bargaining rights for federal workers, including limits on the use of official time for collective bargaining activities and weakening due process protections for federal workers subject to discipline. And when the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, which would significantly restore workers' right to organize and bargain collectively, the Office of Management and Budget issued a Statement of Administration Policy that recommended President Trump to veto the bill if it reached the president's desk.

The Trump administration repeatedly attempted to take away workers' health care.

Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), nearly 20 million people have gained health insurance coverage. The ACA, among other provisions, provides a number of protections for workers who receive health insurance through their employers. It requires large firms to provide health insurance to workers or pay a penalty. It requires that employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) have no caps on benefits paid for essential health services. It also requires caps on individual out-of-pocket spending in ESI plans. It allows children to stay on parents' ESI plans until the age of 26. Additionally, it mandates maternity coverage and free preventative care from ESI plans. And it limits waiting periods for when workers could qualify for ESI plans.

Over the last three years, Trump administration has sided with Congressional Republican allies in attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2017, asked the Supreme Court to rule the ACA unconstitutional in its entirety on a wafer-thin legal justification, and weakened the ACA greatly as part of the 2017 tax cut for corporations. Finally, even in the face of millions of workers losing their ESI due to the COVID-19 economic shock, the Trump administration not only persisted in its efforts to repeal the ACA (through its request to the Supreme Court), but it also did nothing to make it easier for workers losing ESI to slide into coverage under the ACA marketplace exchanges, even though an administrative fix was easily available at the time.

President Trump stacked agencies and the Supreme Court with anti-worker appointees

President Trump has put forth numerous anti-worker nominees for agencies in charge of protecting workers. Andrew Puzder, former CEO of a company with a record of labor law violations, withdrew his nomination for Labor Secretary less than a month after his nomination after strong opposition from worker advocates. President Trump's first confirmed Secretary of Labor, Alexander Acosta, advanced a pro-business agenda by delaying and rolling back many workplace protections the Obama administration implemented, most notably the 2016 overtime pay rule. Eugene Scalia, President Trump's current Secretary of Labor, built a career representing corporations, financial institutions, and other business organizations while fighting against worker protections like health and safety regulations, retirement security, and collective bargaining rights.

The Trump administration also stacked the National Labor Relations Board with corporate lawyers and a former Republican Hill staffer. In September 2017, William Emanuel, a former attorney at the Littler Mendelson law firm who regularly represented large employers, was confirmed as a member of the NLRB, along with Marvin Kaplan, a former Republican Hill staffer. Later in November 2017, Peter Robb, who spent much of his career as a management-side labor and employment lawyer, was confirmed as the NLRB's General Counsel, and John Ring, another corporate-side lawyer, was confirmed and made chairman in April 2018. These Trump appointees have systematically rolled back workers' rights under the National Labor Relations Act.

Furthermore, President Trump stacked the Supreme Court with anti-worker justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, both with records of ruling against workers and siding with corporate interests. Justice Gorsuch was the deciding vote in two Supreme Court cases that dramatically impacted workers' rights: Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, which stripped public-sector workers of their right of fair share agreements, and Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, which allows employers to require employees to waive their right to class or collective claims.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Are Red State Governors Getting Their People Killed to Help Donald Trump’s Re-election Chances? [feedly]

The kind of Baker post I love.


Are Red State Governors Getting Their People Killed to Help Donald Trump's Re-election Chances?

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/beat_the_press/~3/QYX2ONoJ9c8/

This is an incredibly ghoulish question that would be absurd to ask in normal times. But these are not normal times. We know Donald Trump has staffed the top levels of his administration with people who unhesitatingly put Donald Trump's political prospects above the well-being of the people. It is certainly plausible that Republican governors have similar priorities.

A simple test for the governors is to look at their positive test rates for the coronavirus. Test rates are a good measure of how serious the governors are in trying to bring the pandemic under control. While they can take measures to limit the actual spread, such as longer and stronger lockdowns and mask requirements, many factors determining the spread are outside their control.

For example, New York, New Jersey, and other states in the Northeast were hard hit early because they had a large number of international travelers. More recently, North Dakota has seen a huge spike in infections because Kristi Noem, the governor of neighboring South Dakota, thought it was clever to have a huge week long motorcycle rally in the middle of a pandemic.

However, positive rates are largely under the control of the state. If the governor makes more of an effort to find positive cases, the state will have a lower positive rate. In states with high positive rates, governors have been less concerned about tracking the spread of the pandemic.

This is a matter of life and death for tens of thousands of people, since if a person knows they are infected, they can take steps to protect their co-workers, friends, and family. If they don't know, they will likely get many of these people infected as well.

It is not hard to imagine that Republican governors would deliberately limit testing so that they find fewer cases. Donald Trump explicitly saidat a campaign rally that he told his staff to "slow the testing down." He subsequently insisted that he was not joking.

In this context, it is perfectly reasonable to ask whether there is evidence that Republican governors have decided to deliberately slow testing, knowing that it will mean that more people in their states get sick and die, just so that Donald Trump will have fewer reported cases.

Here is the story. The chart shows the ten states with the highest positive rates and the ten states with the lowest rates. (The data are seven-day averages, given for September 20th, by the John Hopkins University Coronavirus Resource Center.)    

 

 

 

Eight of the ten states with the highest positive rates have Republican governors. The exceptions are Wisconsin and Kansas. Wisconsin stands out as being the worst state by this measure.  This could be the fault of its Democratic governor, Tony Evers, but the Republican controlled legislature may also be a factor. The legislature has repeatedly taken steps to thwart Evers' effort to contain the virus, as has the state's Supreme Court.

We see pretty much the opposite picture when we look at the states with low positive rates, although the relationship is not as strong. Six of the ten states have Democratic leaders. The four exceptions are Phil Scott in Vermont, which has the second lowest rate, Charlie Baker, in Massachusetts, which has the third lowest positive rate, Chris Sununu in New Hampshire, with seventh lowest rate,  and Mike Dunleavy in Alaska, which scrapes in with the tenth lowest positive rate.

The sharp contrast, with blue states having very low positive rates, and red states having very high positive rates, does not prove that Republican governors are deliberately restricting testing. However, it is certainly consistent with this story and should be the basis for some serious questioning of these governors.

(Correction: this post has been corrected to reflect the fact that Kansas has a Democratic governor and Vermont and New Hampshire have Republican governors.)

The post Are Red State Governors Getting Their People Killed to Help Donald Trump's Re-election Chances? appeared first on Center for Economic and Policy Research.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Coal’s Last Refuge Crumbles With China’s Renewables Plan [feedly]

Coal's Last Refuge Crumbles With China's Renewables Plan
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/coals-last-refuge-crumbles-with-chinasrenewables-plan/2020/09/21/4e896cc4-fc5e-11ea-b0e4-350e4e60cc91_story.html?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=wp_business

Coal-fired power has been dying everywhere except where it poses the greatest threat.

Draw a line down the world around the longitude of the Nile. The region to the west — encompassing Europe, Africa and the Americas — has seen coal consumption drop by a quarter over the past decade. In the U.S., demand fell 43% on an energy-equivalent basis between 2009 and 2019, according to BP Plc's latest statistical review of energy. In Europe, it slipped 23%. The U.K., cradle of the coal-fired industrial revolution, saw a 79% decline that has left its few remaining thermal plants barely operating since spring. 

The trouble is what's happening east of the line. Consumption there rose by a quarter over the same period, and since the region already accounted for about 70% of coal demand, that has driven the global tally up by nearly 10%. If Asia — and in particular China, which accounts for about half the world's coal consumption — can't break the habit, devastating climate change will be unavoidable.

AD
Image without a caption

On that front, good news may finally be emerging. Beijing is lifting its energy-transition ambitions in its 14th five-year plan, running from 2021 to 2025, people familiar with the matter have told Bloomberg News. A plan to derive 20% of its primary energy from non-fossil fuels may be brought forward by five years from 2030 and the share of coal in the energy mix cut to 52% by the same date from 57.5% this year, according to the report.

You need to decode those numbers a little to see why such apparently modest changes are a big deal. "Primary energy" is a concept that's a little baffling to non-specialists, including not just the power delivered as electricity but the stuff that's burned in vehicle engines and industrial boilers. It also makes no adjustment for the fact that the relatively low efficiency of turbines means only about 40% of the primary energy that goes into a thermal power station as fuel comes out as electricity. 

Adjust the figures according to those rules of thumb, and things come more into focus. Electricity accounts for about 48% of China's final energy mix. If 20% is going to come from non-fossil fuels, that means about 42% of China's grid in 2025 will be renewable- or nuclear-powered, up from about 32% at present.

AD
Image without a caption

Assuming current rates of electricity demand growth of about 5% or so a year continue, that's going to require a blistering build-out of wind, solar, nuclear and hydro-electric generation — especially the first two. At present, China has about 241 gigawatts of wind turbines, 180GW of utility-scale solar and 86GW of rooftop photovoltaic panels. The government's target would require 80GW to 115GW of new solar to be installed every year, as well as 36GW to 45GW of wind, according to a note from Industrial Securities Co. No wonder shares of Chinese renewables companies have been surging as reports of the plans have spread.

China already has more than a third of the world's wind and solar generation capacity. Meeting those levels of installations would almost double its installed wind base in five years, and leave solar facilities more than three times the size of the current utility-scale fleet.

The most important issue is what that would do to its coal plants. As we've written, China shows signs of being more addicted to solid fuel than even to oil. Unlike petroleum, there are abundant domestic reserves of coal at a time when Beijing is increasingly mistrustful of foreign countries.

AD

Building coal-fired power plants is also a time-honored way for provincial authorities to juice the economy, however much central government may prefer to decarbonize the energy mix. China has about 250GW of new coal power plants under development, greater than the coal fleets of the U.S. or India, Global Energy Monitor, a group backing the phaseout of fossil fuels, wrote in a June report.

If China does succeed in deploying wind and solar at the rates estimated by Industrial Securities, all that extra coal power will be for nothing. Renewables already appear to enjoy priority over fossil fuels in China where grid access is available, thanks to their lower costs. Assuming that they run the same percentage of the time as current facilities, that scale of building should be sufficient to accommodate almost all electricity demand growth by 2025, even if consumption from the grid increases by 30% over last year's levels.

That's not enough on its own. China produces more greenhouse gases than the U.S. and Europe put together. Like those regions, it needs to be decommissioning its coal-fired power fleet, not just holding current levels of generation constant — especially because renewables now deliver electricity that's cheaper as well as less polluting.

AD

Still, the prospect of a juggernaut of Chinese solid fuel destroying the world's climate goals — a very real prospect, given some of the pro-coal noises that have emerged while the five-year plan has been under development — is looking more remote. China has been the world's most important redoubt of lingering coal demand. As those defenses crumble, the prospect of keeping the world's emissions within more manageable limits looks a little brighter.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

David Fickling is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering commodities, as well as industrial and consumer companies. He has been a reporter for Bloomberg News, Dow Jones, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times and the Guardian.

For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Friday, September 18, 2020

Enlighten Radio:Talkin Socialism: All Around the World

The Red Caboose has sent you a link to a blog:



Blog: Enlighten Radio
Post: Talkin Socialism: All Around the World
Link: https://www.enlightenradio.org/2020/09/talkin-socialism-all-around-world.html

--
Powered by Blogger
https://www.blogger.com/

Wednesday, September 16, 2020

Chinese Communist Party Wants Stronger Role in Private Sector [feedly]

Chinese Communist Party Wants Stronger Role in Private Sector
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-16/chinese-communist-party-wants-stronger-role-in-private-sector

China's Communist Party is looking to strengthen its leadership and control of the country's growing private sector and its employees by extending the work of the United Front further into the business community.

The party called on the United Front to improve the government's leadership role in the nation's private sector, according to guidelines issued by the General Office of the CPC's Central Committee on Tuesday. The front is an umbrella organization that aims to increase the party's influence and control both domestically and internationally.

The move aims to address emerging challenges and risks as the scale of private enterprises increases and private businesspeople have more diverse values and interests. The policy will "strengthen ideological guidance" and "create a core group of private sector leaders who can be relied upon during critical times."

Read more: China Steps Up Communist Party Control in State-Owned Firms

While it's unclear what the new policy will mean for China's millions of private firms, it comes as the state and party are pushing for greater control and influence over more of the economy. That increasingly unclear dividing line between public and private sector is one of the factors behind rising tensions with the U.S. and other states, with ostensibly private firms such as Huawei Technologies Co. seen overseas as tools of Chinese state power.

"The document shows China is trying to mobilize more resources around the national strategy amid the economic slowdown caused by the pandemic and the deterioration of diplomatic and trade relations with the US," said Yue Su, China economist at the Economist Intelligence Unit, based in Shanghai. "The authorities will give priority to companies that assist in realizing policy goals when allocating financial and policy resources," she said.

Private businesses account for 60% of China's economic output and create 80% of urban jobs, but their position has been difficult in recent years, with the perception that the government under President Xi Jinping favored the state sector. In addition, they have borne the brunt of the U.S.-China trade war as many are export-oriented manufacturers. The Covid-19 outbreak and economic slump have added to their woes this year.

Read more: China's Talk of 'Two Unwaverings' Reveals Private Sector Fears

Notable Details

  • This change is in response to profound flux in international and domestic situations
  • The CPC will support and serve private businesses to help drive their high-quality growth
  • The work of the United Front should cover all private businesspeople including investors, managers, stakeholders, and people from Hong Kong and Macau who invest in the mainland
  • The United Front will build a database and talent pool of private businesspeople

— With assistance by Lucille Liu, Yinan Zhao, and Kari Soo Lindberg

(Updates details in third paragraph, analyst's comment in fourth paragraph.)

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

State and local governments still desperately need federal fiscal aid to prevent harmful austerity measures [feedly]

State and local governments still desperately need federal fiscal aid to prevent harmful austerity measures
https://www.epi.org/blog/state-and-local-governments-still-desperately-need-federal-fiscal-aid-to-prevent-harmful-austerity-measures/

In March and April of this year, the economy lost an unprecedented 22.1 million jobs. From May to August, 10.6 million of these jobs returned. But nobody should take excess comfort in the fast pace of job growth in those months. It was widely expected that the first half of jobs lost due to the COVID-19-driven shutdowns were going to be relatively easy to get back. But even with the jobs gained since April, the economy remains 11.5 million jobs below its pre-pandemic level in February, and the low-hanging fruit have been largely plucked. One of the key factors that will radically slow the pace of job growth in coming months is the looming state and local fiscal crisis. Using data from the recovery from the Great Recession, we simply show how state and local austerity and job loss can be a lagging indicator, putting severe downward pressure on growth even years after the official recession ends. We find:

  • From the beginning of the Great Recession in January 2008 to the trough of state and local government employment, 566,000 state and local government jobs were lost.
  • The state and local employment trough occurred in July 2013, more than five-and-a-half years after the official start of the Great Recession.
  • During the official recession from January 2008 to June 2009, state and local governments actually added 142,000 jobs.
  • In the first year of recovery (from June 2009 to June 2010), the state and local sector lost 215,000 jobs. The 73,000 jobs lots between December 2007 and June 2010 constituted just 0.3% of state and local employment. Even a year after the recession officially ended, cuts in the state and local sector were greatly softened by the substantial federal fiscal aid included in the American Relief and Recovery Act (ARRA).
  • In the second year of recovery (from June 2010 to June 2011), the state and local sector lost 368,000 jobs. Job losses continued through July 2013, with another 250,000 jobs lost.
  • State and local governments have already lost jobs during this contraction and are recovering slower than the private sector. Without federal aid now, more jobs—in both the public and private sectors—will be lost down the line.

These data are presented below in Figure A. Figure B presents job-losses for state and local and private sector jobs, both indexed to their December 2007 business cycle peak. The upshot of this analysis for today's policymakers is clear: the severe blow to state and local budgets caused by the coronavirus shock is going to drag on growth for years to come absent bold action from federal policymakers. In the case of the Great Recession, the combined effect of job cuts and cuts to other state and local spending delayed a full recovery to pre-Great Recession unemployment rates by more than four years. The lessons could not be clearer: without substantial federal aid to state and local governments, and soon, our near-term economic future will be substantially worse.

Figure A
Figure B

Too many policymakers have become far too complacent about the economy's near-term. Between the pulling back of enhanced unemployment insurance (UI) benefits and the near-total inaction on aiding state and local governments' fiscal situation, the next few months will see the economy suffer the effects of having sailed over a pronounced fiscal cliff. So far, the macroeconomic effects of this fiscal cliff have been blunted by the fact that the enormous increase in household savings undertaken during the COVID-19-driven shutdowns has been unwinding. Private, household spending has been the main engine lifting the economy out of the deep well it was in during March and April. It is highly unlikely that this private savings alone can be drawn on enough to neutralize the coming effect of state and local contractions.

Unlike the Great Recession, state and local government employment has already suffered enormously during the contraction phase of this business cycle, seeing 1.5 million in losses in March, April, and May (some surely related to the sudden shutdown of school systems). But this employment is already lagging private sector growth in the recovery as well. While the private sector has recovered nearly half of the jobs lost in the early months of the pandemic, state and local government jobs have likely only regained about a quarter of their losses. Looking at not-seasonally-adjusted data, employment in these sectors in August 2020 is still 1.1 million below employment in in the same month in 2019. Figure C displays the over-the-year change in state and local government employment as of July—the most recent month available.

Figure C

These losses cause particular harm to women and Black workers, since they are disproportionately represented in the state and local government workforce. Any impending state and local budget cuts will fall heavily on their shoulders.

Gutting state and local spending during the current recovery would be particularly perverse given how crucial the health and education sectors will be in living with COVID-19 over the next year. School systems will need to spend more, not less, to effectively and safely teach children in the face of hybrid or online learning. Federal dysfunction in getting the virus under control has put huge burdens for doing the right things on virus suppression on state and local governments.

The response to COVID-19 from policymakers has been a repeated series of getting caught behind the curve. Some of this was likely inevitable in dealing with an unforeseen pandemic. But failing to provide state and local aid would be a completely foreseen and unforced blunder, one that will greatly hamper recovery and cause unnecessary suffering.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed