Monday, March 1, 2021

Economic Update - The System Implodes: Amazon, Evictions, Tax Abuses, and Minimum Wages [feedly]

Economic Update - The System Implodes: Amazon, Evictions, Tax Abuses, and Minimum Wages
https://economicupdate.podbean.com/e/economic-update-the-system-implodes-amazon-evictions-tax-abuses-and-minimum-wages/

On this week's show, Prof. Wolff discusses Amazon's profits; New York state's eviction crisis and capitalism's reproduction of poverty and inequality; New York's stock transfer tax; raising the minimum wage; and the subsidizing of billionaire's big sport businesses.

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

For Black History Month: The Economics of the Great Migration [feedly]

For Black History Month: The Economics of the Great Migration
http://dollarsandsense.org/blog/2021/02/for-black-history-month-the-economics-of-the-great-migration.html

Ellora Derenencourt, assistant professor in the Department of Economics and the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley.

At the tail end of Black History Month, we have posted to the Dollars & Sense website Rolling Up the Welcome Mat at the Door to the Promised Land: The Economic History of the Great Migration and Its Aftermath, an interview with Ellora Derenoncourt, assistant professor of economics at UC Berkeley.  (Make sure to check out the gorgeous photos accompanying the written version of the interview, also in the print edition, from the Charles "Teenie" Harris Archives at Pittsburgh's Carnegie Museum of Art. Harris was a staff photographer for the Pittsburgh Courier, an African-American weekly newspaper whose publication years, 1910 to 1966, coincided almost exactly with the years of the Great Migration.)

The interview was conducted by Zoe Sherman, associate professor of economics at Merrimack College and a member of the Dollars & Sense editorial collective.  You can listen to the interview here:


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Six ways the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act restores workers’ bargaining power [feedly]

Six ways the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act restores workers' bargaining power
https://www.epi.org/blog/six-ways-the-protecting-the-right-to-organize-pro-act-restores-workers-bargaining-power/

When it was passed in 1935, the National Labor Relations Act declared that its purpose was to promote the practice of collective bargaining, where workers and their union sit down with their employer to negotiate over wages, safety, fairness, and other important issues. But over time, this promise has become hollow because weaknesses in the law have been exploited by employers and the courts to undermine workers' bargaining power. Here are six ways the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act helps to level the playing field and restore workers' bargaining power:

  1. The PRO Act has a process for reaching a first collective bargaining agreement.
    When workers first form a union, too often employers drag out the bargaining process and avoid reaching an initial agreement, because there are no monetary penalties in the law for bad faith bargaining. A year after forming their union, more than half of all workers do not yet have an initial bargaining agreement with their employer. This leads to worker frustration which employers exploit to undermine the new union. The PRO Act addresses this problem by establishing a mediation and arbitration process for reaching an initial agreement.
  2. The PRO Act requires employers to continue bargaining instead of taking unilateral action.
    Current law gives employers too much power to force its position on workers by unilaterally declaring that the parties have reached an impasse in bargaining and then either locking out workers—preventing them from working and getting paid— or implementing the employer's proposals. This power, either alone or combined with the restrictions on workers' ability to strike or put other economic pressure on the employer, puts employers in the driver's seat in bargaining and greatly undermines workers' bargaining power. To address this problem, the PRO Act prohibits employers from declaring impasse and locking out workers—a so-called "offensive lockout." And the PRO Act requires employers to maintain the status quo on wages and benefits during bargaining—no more unilateral changes to put pressure on workers to cave into the employer's demands.
  3. The PRO Act gets the economic players to the bargaining table.
    Under current law, staffing firms, contractors, temporary agencies, and other employers try to evade their responsibility to bargain with workers and their union even when they have power over workers' health and safety, schedules, wages, and other key issues. This leaves workers without the real economic players at the bargaining table. The PRO Act fixes this problem by adopting a strong joint-employer standard that will bring employers with power over wages or working conditions to the bargaining table.
  4. The PRO Act eliminates the ban on so-called "secondary" activity.
    In order to win a wage increase, a voice on new technology, safety improvements, or other bargaining priorities, workers need leverage to put economic pressure on their employer to accept their demands. But current law robs workers of their leverage in many ways, including a prohibition on so-called "secondary" activity that was enacted by Congress in 1947. In fact, current law instructs the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to give top priority to shutting down so-called "secondary" activity. These cases are given even higher priority than cases alleging that employers have illegally fired union activists, and statistics show this has in fact been the case. For example, in the first 12 years after the restriction on secondary activity was first implemented, the number of injunction proceedings against unions for engaging in illegal secondary activity skyrocketed by 1,188%, while virtually no injunction proceedings were brought against employers for violating workers' rights.1 This restriction on secondary activity forbids workers from picketing or otherwise putting pressure on so-called "neutral" companies other than their employer, even if those companies could influence their employer's practices by, for example, withholding purchases until workers and their employer reach a collective bargaining agreement. The restriction has been interpreted so broadly as to prohibit janitors from picketing a building management company over sexual harassment by its janitorial subcontractor. The Trump NLRB General Counsel unsuccessfully tried to argue that floating an inflatable Scabby the Rat balloon at a labor protest was illegal secondary activity, even though courts have consistently said such protests are protected by the First Amendment. Given the prevalence of subcontracting and the interrelated nature of business relationships, the ban on secondary activity does not reflect the realities of today's business structures. It deprives workers of an important tool in the bargaining process and unfairly tips the power balance to employers. To correct this imbalance, the PRO Act repeals the ban on secondary activity.
  5. The PRO Act prohibits employers from permanently replacing strikers.
    Workers' ultimate leverage in bargaining is to withhold their labor—in other words, to strike. The law technically protects workers from being fired when they go on a lawful strike, but this right has been gutted by a 1938 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court which stated that employers can permanently replace, i.e., terminate, workers who are on strike over economic issues. Despite a slight increase in strike activity last year, the number of strikes continues to be at a historic low in part because of this weakness in the law. The PRO Act restores the right to strike by prohibiting employers from permanently replacing economic strikers.
  6. The PRO Act overrides state "right-to-work" laws that weaken unions.
    So-called "right-to-work" laws have nothing to do with getting or keeping a job—they are about weakening workers' collective voice on the job. Under the law, unions are required to represent all workers protected by the collective bargaining agreement, but so-called "right to work" laws prohibit unions and employers from voluntarily agreeing that all workers covered and protected by the agreement should share in the costs of union representation through union dues or fees. This creates a "free rider" problem, where workers get the benefits of unionization but do not contribute toward the costs, creating a financial drain on unions. The PRO Act overrides state "right-to-work" laws and allows unions and employers to negotiate fair share agreements whereby all workers covered by the collective bargaining agreement share in the cost of representation.

Read EPI'S fact sheet on why workers need the PRO Act.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

[The Washington Post] America’s first post-World War II race riot led to the near-lynching of Thurgood Marshall

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/02/25/columbia-race-riot-wwii-thurgood-marshall/

On Feb. 25, 1946, a Black woman, Gladys Stephenson, and her son, James Stephenson, who had recently been discharged from the Navy, went to Castner-Knott to pick up a radio that needed to be repaired. William Fleming, a White man who worked at the department store in downtown Columbia, Tenn., charged her for the repair, but the radio still didn't work.

Gladys Stephenson and Fleming got into an argument. Fleming slapped her. James Stephenson interceded, and the two men got into a scuffle. Stephenson shoved Fleming through the store's plate-glass window. White men, hearing the ruckus and seeing Fleming on the sidewalk, attacked James Stephenson. When his mother intervened, she, too, was beaten. The Stephensons were arrested and charged with assault.

Race relations were already tense in Maury County, where African Americans still remembered Cordie Cheek, a Black teenager who was taken from his home, beaten, castrated and lynched after being falsely accused of raping a White girl in 1933.

AD

Tensions intensified in the South in the months after the end of World War II, when Black veterans returned home to find that Jim Crow laws consigned them to second-class citizenship. When Black veterans pushed for racial equality, White law enforcement officers responded violently.

Two weeks before the incident at Castner-Knott, Isaac Woodard, a decorated Army veteran who had been discharged earlier that day and was still wearing his uniform, exchanged words with a White bus driver. He was subsequently beaten so brutally by a South Carolina sheriff that he was left permanently blind. Days earlier, veteran Timothy Hood took down a Jim Crow sign in Bessemer, Ala. A streetcar conductor shot him five times, and the police chief followed him home and shot him in the head, killing him. The coroner ruled the killing a "justifiable homicide."

After the Stephensons were arrested, White men began drinking in the Columbia town square and plotting to punish the mother and son for their impudence. The White men went to the jail and demanded that the sheriff, J.J. Underwood, release the Stephensons. Underwood refused. He contacted a prominent Black businessman, who smuggled the Stephensons out of town.

AD

By then, word of the confrontation at the jail had spread to the nearby Black neighborhood of Mink Slide. Black residents, including many war veterans, suspected their lives were in danger and armed themselves. According to an account in Thomas Brooks's "Walls Come Tumbling Down: A History of the Civil Rights Movement," one of the veterans shouted, "We fought for freedom overseas! And we'll fight for it here!"

Someone shot out the streetlights in Mink Slide, presumably so White intruders would not see where they might direct their gunfire. Hearing the shots, four Columbia patrolmen ran toward Mink Slide, where they were met with gunfire and injured.

Hundreds of state police and other law enforcement officers converged on Mink Slide early the next morning, forcing residents from their houses and confiscating their guns, jewelry and money. Homes and businesses were destroyed.

AD

Harry Raymond, a reporter for the Daily Worker, a communist newspaper published in New York City that campaigned against racial discrimination, counted 34 bullets in front of a barber shop. He said the letters "KKK" were scrawled on the walls of businesses. A jukebox was smashed in one business and the money removed from it. A bayonet was shoved through the music box in another business, and a grocery store was pillaged. Raymond described the destruction inside a church: "With fiendishness, these men, sworn to uphold law and order, ripped and tore the chapel draperies. Pieces of wreckage were on top of a Bible on the pulpit."

Over the next two days, dozens of Black residents — but no Whites — were arrested. Police identified two of the men, William Gordon and James Johnson, as being the primary troublemakers. When they were being questioned, one of them reportedly grabbed a confiscated weapon and shot and injured one of the police officers. Police responded by shooting and killing Gordon and Johnson.

Image without a caption
Thurgood Marshall outside the Supreme Court in Washington in 1958. (AP) (Uncredited/AP)

Walter White, executive director of the NAACP, sent the organization's top attorney, Thurgood Marshall, to defend the 25 suspects charged with rioting and attempted murder. But Marshall contracted pneumonia, and the suspects were defended by Z. Alexander Looby of Nashville, Maurice Weaver of Chattanooga and Harvard law professor Leon Ransom.

AD

The judge moved the case to nearby Lawrence County, where a jury, resentful of the fact that, according to prosecutor Paul Bumpus, "Maury County had dumped its dirty laundry on them," acquitted 23 of the 25 suspects.

Marshall, who had by then recovered from his illness, represented the two remaining suspects in their appeal in mid-November. The all-White jury found one guilty.

When the trial ended, Marshall and the other attorneys knew it was not safe for them to remain in Columbia and decided to drive to Nashville. Shortly after leaving Columbia, they realized they were being followed by several cars, including a police car. They were pulled over by the police. Marshall was arrested for being drunk — even though he had had nothing to drink — handcuffed and put in one of the cars.

Raymond, Looby and Weaver were told Marshall was being taken back to Columbia and ordered to continue to Nashville. Looby saw that the police car and the other cars were not returning to Columbia. He followed them as they turned down a dirt road.

AD

"They're taking him into the woods," Raymond told the others. "They're going to lynch Thurgood Marshall."

Marshall saw a menacing group of White men waiting at the end of the road. But upon seeing Marshall's friends, the police knew that they could not continue with their plans. Marshall was driven back to Columbia to face charges of being drunk.

An elderly judge demanded that Marshall breathe into his face. Marshall obliged. The judge then turned toward the police officer and snapped: "This man hasn't had a drink in 24 hours. What the hell are you talking about?"

Marshall was free to leave but worried about what would happen to him once he got back on the road. Local Black residents escorted Marshall and the others out of town, hiding them in different cars.

The experience made an impression with Marshall, who later argued Brown v. Board of Education in front of the U.S. Supreme Court and went on to become the country's first African American Supreme Court justice. "He had a newly found fear of white mobs and violent policemen," his biographer Juan Williams wrote.

AD

And the riot had longer-reaching effects — the event and other violence against African Americans prompted President Harry S. Truman to establish the President's Committee on Civil Rights to document instances of racial violence and to make recommendations to address racial discrimination in the United States. In 1948, as a result of the commission's conclusions, Truman signed Executive Order 9981 that ended segregation in the armed forces.

Read more Retropolis:

RWDSU-UFCW Leads Organizing Drive at Amazon Fulfillment Center in Alabama

Sunday, February 28, 2021

Tim Taylor reviews Robert J. Gordon: Thoughts on Long-Run US Productivity Growth [feedly]

Robert J Gordon is a well known and influential analyst on the perplexing shifts in productivity [our most important value-creating measure for human work] since the onset of the computer age and the vast expansion in the production -- and consumption -- of intangibles.

Here he opens a different door:  new studies reveal a correspondence between poverty and productivity, and recommends big interventions in "education" at age 6 months, not just in K-12. Huge vocabulary gaps between upper and poor classes are a telling marker.

Of course, maybe the first "intervention" should just be ending poverty. That might lessen the cost of the "intervention" in the long run..

Robert J. Gordon: Thoughts on Long-Run US Productivity Growth
https://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2021/02/robert-j-gordon-thoughts-on-long-run-us.html

Leo Feler has a half-hour interview with Robert J. Gordon on "The Rise and Fall and Rise Again of American Growth"  (UCLA Anderson Forecast Direct, February 2021, audio and transcript available). The back-story here is that Gordon has been making the argument for some years now that modern economic interventions, like the rise of information technologies and the internet, have not had and will not have nearly the same size effect on productivity as some of the major technologies of the past like the spread of electricity or motor vehicles (for some background, see here and here). 

Here, Gordon makes a distinction worth considering between growth in productivity and growth in consumer welfare.
Let's divide the computer age into two parts. One is the part that developed during the 1970s and 80s and came to fruition in the 1990s, with the personal computer, with faster mainframe computers, with the invention of the internet, and the transition of every office and every business from typewriters and paper to flat screens and the internet, with everything stored in computer memory rather than filing cabinets. That first part of the computer revolution brought with it the revival of productivity growth from the slow pace of the 70s and 80s to a relatively rapid 2.5% to 3% per year during 1995 to 2005. But unlike the earlier industrial revolution where 3% productivity growth lasted for 50 years, this time it only lasted for ten years. Most businesses now are doing their day-to-day operations with flat screens and information stored in the cloud, not all that different from how they did things in 2005. In the last 15 years, we've had the invention of smartphones and social networks, and what they've done is bring enormous amounts of consumer surplus to everyday people of the world. This is not really counted in productivity, it hasn't changed the way businesses conduct their day-to-day affairs all that much, but what they have done is change the lives of citizens in a way that is not counted in GDP or productivity. It's possible the amount of consumer welfare we're getting relative to GDP may be growing at an unprecedented rate.
To understand the distinction here, say that you pay a certain amount for access to television and the internet. Now say that over time, the amount of content you can access in this way--including shows, games , shopping , communication with friends, education, health care advice, and so on--rises dramatically, while you continue to pay the same price for access. In a productivity sense, nothing has changed: you pay the same for access to television and internet as you did before. But from a consumer welfare perspective, the much greater array of more attractive and easier-to-navigate choices means that you are better off. 

The expression "timepass" is sometimes used here. One of the big gains of information technology is that, for many people, it seems like a better way of passing the time than the alternatives. 

Gordon also points out that the shift to working from home and via the internet could turn out to involve large productivity gains. But as he also points out, shifts in productivity--literally, producing the same or more output with fewer inputs--is an inherently disruptive process for the inputs that get reduced. 
This shift to remote working has got to improve productivity because we're getting the same amount of output without commuting, without office buildings, and without all the goods and services associated with that. We can produce output at home and transmit it to the rest of the economy electronically, whether it's an insurance claim or medical consultation. We're producing what people really care about with a lot less input of things like office buildings and transportation. In a profound sense, the movement to working from home is going to make everyone who is capable of working from home more productive. Of course, this leaves out a lot of the rest of the economy. It's going to create severe costs of adjustments in areas like commercial real estate and transportation.
When asked about how to improve long-run productivity, Gordon's first suggestion is very early interventions for at-risk children:  
I would start at the very beginning, with preschool education. We have an enormous vocabulary gap at age 5, between children whose parents both went to college and live in the home and children who grow up in poverty often with a single parent. I'm all for a massive program of preschool education. If money is scarce, rather than bring education to 3 and 4 year olds to everyone in the middle class, I would spend that money getting it down as low as age 6 months for the poverty population. That would make a tremendous difference. ... This isn't immediate. These children need to grow into adults. But if we look out at what our society will be like 20 years from now, this would be the place I would start.
For some of my own thoughts on very early interventions, well before a conventional pre-K program, see herehere and here

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Friday, February 26, 2021

Enlighten Radio Podcasts:Talkin Socialism: Bamazon!

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



Blog: Enlighten Radio Podcasts
Post: Talkin Socialism: Bamazon!
Link: http://podcasts.enlightenradio.org/2021/02/talkin-socialism-bamazon.html

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