NMHC: Rent Payment Tracker Finds Decline in People Paying Rent in July [feedly]

NMHC: Rent Payment Tracker Finds Decline in People Paying Rent in July
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CalculatedRisk/~3/1ZhrhQESMt8/nmhc-rent-payment-tracker-finds-decline.html

Without further disaster relief, there will a significant housing and financial issue.

From the NMHC: NMHC Rent Payment Tracker Finds 77.4 Percent of Apartment Households Paid Rent as of July 6

The National Multifamily Housing Council (NMHC)'s Rent Payment Tracker found 77.4 percent of apartment households made a full or partial rent payment by July 6 in its survey of 11.4 million units of professionally managed apartment units across the country.

This is a 2.3-percentage point decrease from the share who paid rent through July 6, 2019 and compares to 80.8 percent that had paid by June 6, 2020. These data encompass a wide variety of market-rate rental properties across the United States, which can vary by size, type and average rental price.

"It is clear that state and federal unemployment assistance benefits have served as a lifeline for renters, making it possible for them to pay their rent," said Doug Bibby, NMHC President. "Unfortunately, there is a looming July 31 deadline when that aid ends. Without an extension or a direct renter assistance program, that NMHC has been calling for since the start of the pandemic, the U.S. could be headed toward historic dislocations of renters and business failures among apartment firms, exacerbating both unemployment and homelessness."
emphasis added

CR Note: It appears fewer people are paying their rent compared to last year (down 2.3 percentage points from a year ago).   In the previous surveys, over the last few months, people were paying their rents at about the same pace as last year.   The disaster relief has been key to helping people pay their bills, especially the extra unemployment benefits and the PPP.  

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Almost four months in, joblessness remains at historic levels: Congress must extend the extra $600 in UI benefits, which expires in a little more than two weeks [feedly]

Almost four months in, joblessness remains at historic levels: Congress must extend the extra $600 in UI benefits, which expires in a little more than two weeks
https://www.epi.org/blog/almost-four-months-in-joblessness-remains-at-historic-levels-congress-must-extend-the-extra-600-in-ui-benefits-which-expires-in-a-little-more-than-two-weeks/

Last week, 2.4 million workers applied for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits. This is the 16th week in a row that unemployment claims have been more than twice the worst week of the Great Recession. Of the 2.4 million workers who applied for UI, 1.4 million applied for regular state unemployment insurance (not seasonally adjusted), and 1.0 million applied for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA). PUA is the federal program for workers who are not eligible for regular unemployment insurance (UI), like gig workers. It took some time, but all states except New Hampshire and West Virginia are now reporting PUA claims.

It's important to note that some initial claims from last week are likely from people who got laid off prior to last week but either waited until last week to file a claim, or applied earlier and their application had been caught in an agency backlog. Why do I think that's likely? In May, there were more than 8 million initial claims in regular state UI programs, but last week's Job Opening and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) data show there were only 1.8 million layoffs, which is back to pre-virus levels. This suggests many May UI claims were from earlier layoffs, and that dynamic is likely still in play.

Figure A shows continuing claims in all programs over time (the latest data are for June 20). Continuing claims are more than 31 million above where they were a year ago. The latest figure in "other programs" in Figure A is 1.2 million claims. Most of this (0.9 million) is Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC). PEUC is the additional 13 weeks of benefits provided by the CARES Act for people who have exhausted regular state benefits. The number of people on PEUC can be expected to grow dramatically as the crisis drags on and more and more of the nearly 17 million people currently on regular state benefits exhaust their regular benefits and move on to PEUC.

Figure A

"Other programs" in Figure A also includes Short-Time Compensation (STC). STC is a great alternative to layoffs where employers reduce work hours rather than lay off workers, and workers get partial UI. But DOL reports that just 360,000 workers are receiving STC.

Figure A only covers continuing claims through June 20, but Figure B combines the most recent data on both continuing claims and initial claims to get a measure of the total number of people "on" unemployment benefits as of July 4th. DOL numbers indicate that right now, 35.8 million workers are either on unemployment benefits, have been approved and are waiting for benefits, or have applied recently and are waiting to get approved. That is more than one in five workers. But a note of caution: while regular state UI and PUA claims should be completely non-overlapping—that is how DOL has directed state agencies to report them—some states may be misreporting claims, so there may be some double counting. Further, some states may be including some back weeks in their continuing claims.

Figure B

Note that of the 35.8 million workers DOL's numbers indicate are "on" unemployment benefits, close to half (45.8%) are on PUA. This is a stark reminder of the huge gaps are in our regular state UI programs and how important it is that Congress established PUA, and continue to fund it.

Today's data highlight the deep recession we are now in. It's important to remember that this recession is exacerbating existing racial inequalities by causing greater job loss in Black households than white households. Policymakers must do much more. For starters, they need to extend the across-the-board $600 increase in weekly unemployment benefits, which was probably the most effective part of the CARES Act. The extra $600 expires in a little more than two weeks (the CARES Act says the $600 applies to weeks "ending on or before July 31," which is a Friday. Since, in the UI world, weeks typically end on Saturday, the last payment will be for the week ending July 25).

Letting the extra $600 expire would be a disaster for UI recipients, who would have to drastically cut their spending, and for the economy, which is being held afloat by this spending. Letting the $600 expire would cost more than 5 million jobs over the next year. Federal lawmakers also need to provide massive aid to state and local governments. Without it, 5.3 million workers in the public and private sector will lose their jobs by the end of 2021.

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

New research finds enhanced U.S. social insurance will be necessary until the coronavirus recession recedes [feedly]

New research finds enhanced U.S. social insurance will be necessary until the coronavirus recession recedes
https://equitablegrowth.org/new-research-finds-enhanced-u-s-social-insurance-will-be-necessary-until-the-coronavirus-recession-recedes/

A new working paper released by Harvard University economist and former Equitable Growth Steering Committee member Raj Chetty and his Opportunity Insights colleagues finds that U.S. consumer spending fell dramatically over the past few months, driven by public health and safety concerns due to the novel coronavirus and COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus. These concerns are keeping people, especially those in high-income households, away from purchasing in-person services, indicating that until people feel safe engaging again in in-person services such as dining out or getting haircuts, consumer spending on services—which accounts for 66 percent of all consumer spending—will not meaningfully rebound.  

In short, if policymakers want to fix the U.S. economy, then they must first fix the U.S. public health crisis. Merely announcing that the economy is "reopened" will not make it so. In the meantime, Chetty and his co-authors find that investing in social insurance programs—such as the expanded unemployment benefits enacted by Congress in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security, or CARES, Act—is the best way to mitigate economic suffering during the recession, rather than stimulus measures targeted toward businesses or the rich.

One of the key findings underlying the conclusions in this latest research is that the fall-off in consumer spending is being driven by high-income households, particularly in areas with high rates of COVID-19. The authors find that as of May 31, two-thirds of the total reduction in credit card spending since January was from households in the top 25 percent of the income distribution, whereas spending by households in the bottom quartile had returned to normal levels. (See Figure 1.)

Figure 1

High-income U.S. households have cut back sharply on spending
Consumer spending changes during the coronavirus recession, by income group, January 2020–June 2020

Source: "How Did COVID-19 and Stabilization Polices Affect Spending and Employment?," Opportunity Insights

This fall-off in spending by the highest-income households is not driven by a decrease in their incomes, but rather because of the decline in in-person services they're buying, such as dining out, traveling, or haircuts. The authors find that spending on other services and luxury goods that do not require in-person contact—such as the installation of home swimming pools or landscaping services—actually increased slightly since the onset of coronavirus pandemic. This strongly suggests that public health concerns about contracting the novel coronavirus are driving the changes in spending patterns among the highest-income households, which also are more likely to have the luxury of working from home and maintaining self-isolation.

The findings by Chetty and his co-authors should come as no surprise because of what we already know about the differences in spending and savings patterns among low- and high-income households. Research by Harvard University economist and Equitable Growth Steering Committee member Karen Dynan and her co-authors finds that while Americans, on average, save about 20 cents of every dollar they earn and spend the rest, those in the top 5 percent save 37 cents, and those in the top 1 percent save 51 cents. Meanwhile, those in the bottom 20 percent save only one cent of every dollar. That's because higher-income households earn enough money to actually be able to put some of it aside in savings.

In contrast, because of rising inequality, stagnant wages, and deteriorating public institutions, low-income households have to spend all their income just meeting their basic needs—paying rent, putting food on the table, and securing childcare. Additionally, we know that lower-wage workers' accumulated savings don't amount to much of a cushion. Research from the Federal Reserve shows that 40 percent of U.S. adults would have a hard time handling an unexpected bill of $400. The Opportunity Insights research builds on this scholarship by demonstrating that there was less of a coronavirus-related fall-off in low-income households' spending because there were no fancy restaurant dinners out or Broadway theater tickets to eliminate from their budgets in the first place.

The trend in low-income households' spending, falling during the second half of March and then gradually returning to close to its original level, is also evidence of the success in government efforts to help replace low-income households' lost income from coronavirus-related job layoffs. Chetty and his co-authors find that in the week after April 15, when the $1,200 checks enacted by Congress in the CARES Act hit most Americans' bank accounts, spending by the bottom quartile of households increased by nearly 20 percentage points. Spending by the top quartile increased too, but by not even half as much, consistent with the different spending needs of high- and low-income households, as well as the much higher levels of savings among high-income families discussed above.

Chetty and his co-authors also examine two other recent government policies to prop up consumer spending and employment: state governments' declarations that they were reopening their economies and the Paycheck Protection Program, a $670 billion effort to provide loans to small businesses that convert to grants if employees are rehired. The researchers find that both of these efforts have had limited effects because they do not address the underlying cause of the fall-off in consumer spending—the public health concerns that are keeping people home, notwithstanding announcements about reopenings.

The authors offer a case study of Colorado and New Mexico. These two states issued stay-at-home orders within days of one another in late March, and then Colorado partially reopened its economy May 1 while New Mexico didn't do so until May 16. Despite this difference in reopening dates, there's no discernible difference in spending between the two during early May. (See Figure 2.)

Figure 2

Different economic reopening dates did not make a difference in consumer spending
Effects of reopening on consumer spending in Colorado and New Mexico, February 2020–June 2020

Source: "How Did COVID-19 and Stabilization Polices Affect Spending and Employment?," Opportunity Insights

Similarly, the authors' analysis of the Paycheck Protection Program find it had negligible effects on employment—total payroll at businesses fell by about 40 percent for both small firms eligible under the program and larger firms that weren't eligible. Instead, the researchers' analysis found that PPP loans were most likely to go to industries and the areas that were the least likely to experience job losses during the pandemic.

Professional, scientific, and technical services, for example, received a greater share of loans than did accommodation and food-service businesses. This is consistent with research recently highlighted by Equitable Growth from University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill economist T. William Lester, which showed that small, independent restaurants are suffering particularly acutely during the coronavirus recession, with current programs ill-suited to their needs.

The coronavirus and the economic recession it triggered have caused widespread physical and economic suffering. This latest research clearly illustrates that until the public health crisis is addressed, economic activity will not return to anything close to "normal," regardless of whether state officials declare their economies reopened. Therefore, government efforts to address the public health crisis must be improved.

In the meantime, policymakers should concentrate their efforts not on stimulus measures for the rich or for businesses, but on supporting the incomes of the tens of millions of workers who have lost their jobs, who are far more likely to have been low-income to begin with and have little savings to draw on. Most importantly, this includes extending the additional $600 in Unemployment Insurance benefits contained in the CARES Act, which are set to expire at the end of July.

This extra $600 is the easiest way to ensure that most workers and their families are able to get close to full wage replacement and continue to support themselves during what is increasingly looking like a prolonged economic recession. Other policies, such as providing stimulus for the rich, re-employment bonuses, or credit to businesses, will do little to reduce economic hardship when it is increasingly clear that economic activity simply will not come back while the threat of contagion continues.

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Hires up, layoffs down but more economic pain is on the horizon: Policymakers must act in order to protect workers’ health and economic well-being [feedly]

Hires up, layoffs down but more economic pain is on the horizon: Policymakers must act in order to protect workers' health and economic well-being
https://www.epi.org/blog/hires-up-layoffs-down-but-more-economic-pain-is-on-the-horizon-policymakers-must-act-in-order-to-protect-workers-health-and-economic-well-being/

Last week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that, as of the middle of June, the economy was still 14.7 million jobs below where it was in February. Today's BLS Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) reports that the labor market was down 13.1 million jobs at the end of May. The labor market began picking up in May, and more so in June, as states began relaxing their stay at home orders. Congress's aid to workers and households also helped to boost demand and spending. Unfortunately, what's clear from the latest coronavirus datais that the relaxed restrictions on social distancing also had the effect of increased cases and subsequent re-shuttering in certain parts of the country.

Today's data show that at the end of May, the number of hires increased by 2.4 million to a series high of 6.5 million—the largest monthly increase and largest number of hires on record (series began in 2000). The hires rate also rebounded significantly to 4.9%, the highest rate on record. At the same time, layoffs dropped considerably to 1.8 million, consistent with the average number of layoffs in the pre-coronavirus period. This is a significant fall off from previous months. In April and May, layoffs totaled 19.2 million. Further, 1.8 million layoffs is much lower than the initial unemployment insurance (UI) claims we saw in May. In May, there were more than 8 million initial UI claims in regular state programs. This suggests is that a significant share of the initial UI claims in May were from layoffs in March or April, and people either waited to file claims until May, or state agencies were working through backlogs of claims.

Unfortunately, there are more recent indicators that layoffs are going to pick up again as people being laid off for the second time and hires will likely slow as well.

Pre-coronavirus, there were typically around 3.5 million voluntary quits each month, or a rate of about 2.3%. A large number of quits signifies a healthy labor market where people can leave their job to find one that is better for them. The quits rate increased from 1.4% in April to 1.6% in May, but is still well below its pre-virus level, underscoring that workers lack confidence in the labor market. Even at this low level, it's likely quits would have dropped even further if not for the fact that people were counted who had to, for example, leave a job to take care of a child whose school or child care center closed as a result of the virus.

The ratio of unemployed workers (averaged for mid-May and mid-June) to job openings (at the end of May) is about 3.6 workers to every job opening. On average, there were 19.4 million unemployed workers while there were only 5.4 million job openings at the end of May. This demonstrates tremendous continued slack in the labor market; for every 36 workers who were officially counted as unemployed, there were only available jobs for 10 of them. And, this misses the fact that many more weren't counted among the unemployed.

Even with the measurable gains in May as shown in improvements in hiring and layoffs in the JOLTS data and in increases to payroll employment and declines in unemployment in the Jobs data through mid-June, the recovery thus far just begun to fill in the mammoth losses in March and April. Unfortunately, more trouble is on the horizon as coronavirus cases continue to rise, states begin to re-shutter, and unemployed workers face further economic devastation when the unemployment insurance enhancements expire on July 25. Without further aid to workers and their families as well as state and local governments, the economic pain will be with us for a very long time.

Quick reminders about the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS):

• JOLTS data provide information on all pieces that go into the net change in the number of jobs. These components include: hires, layoffs, voluntary quits, and other job separations (which includes retirements and worker deaths). Putting those components together reveals the overall (or net) change.
• JOLTS data provide information about the end of one month to the end of the next, whereas the monthly employment numbers provide information from the middle of one month to the middle of the next.

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Dean Baker: Combating the Political Power of the Rich: Wealth Taxes and Seattle Election Vouchers [feedly]

Mostly to  start a discussion, I submit there is a serious flaw in Baker's retreat from wealth taxation to a gimmick like 'election vouchers'. It's the same flaw that arose when the overthrow of the Soviet state denationalized major industries by  "granting stock" to the "public". The "stock" was purchased (largely) by former Ministry leaders whenever the first recession came and the Russian people could not eat "stock". I do not think you can keep  real, serious, and unsustainable  wealth divergence from polluting any electoral system, over time.

Combating the Political Power of the Rich: Wealth Taxes and Seattle Election Vouchers
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/beat_the_press/~3/y_wZAMaarp4/

I have written many times that I thought the focus on wealth inequality, as opposed to income inequality, was misplaced. There are many practical, political, and legal problems associated with taxing wealth that are considerably smaller when we talk about altering the economic structures that redistribute so much income upward.

But beyond the issue of whether inequalities of income or wealth are more easily tackled, there is also a very strange argument for focusing on wealth that is based on its impact on political power. The argument is that people like the Koch brothers or Mark Zuckerberg can gain enormous political power as a result of their immense wealth. Therefore, if we believe in democracy, we have to bring such outsized fortunes down to earth.

It is certainly true that the rich and very rich enjoy enormous political power under our current system, but it does not follow that attacking their wealth is the most effective way to restore a more functional democracy. To see this point, just imagine the most optimistic plausible scenario.

Let's say that we get progressives in the presidency, a progressive majority in Congress, and can either get a sympathetic Supreme Court or find a work around with a hostile court. Maybe in that scenario we can get a wealth tax in place in eight to ten years. Then let's say the tax has been in operation for ten years. Again, being optimistic but at least somewhat realistic, perhaps after ten years we will have downsized the big fortunes, like those held by Koch and Zuckerberg, by 50 percent.

So, in this optimistic scenario, twenty years from now, Jeff Bezos will still have $80 billion, Bill Gates will have $50 billion, and Mark Zuckerberg will have $40 billion. Will the United States then have a functioning democracy, with everyone getting a more or less equal voice?

The point here is that the rich do have a hugely disproportionate amount of political power, and we should be upset about this, but the fact is that we cannot plausibly hope to balance the scales by reducing their wealth, or at least not any time in the foreseeable future. There is an alternative route, which is both simple and already in practice:  the Seattle Democracy Voucher program.

This program gives Seattle residents four vouchers, worth $25 each, to be given to the candidate(s) of their choice. To be eligible to receive a voucher, a candidate must accept limits on both overall spending and the amount of money that they can get from any individual donor. This system has allowed many candidates to run competitive campaigns, without relying at all on getting the support of rich people.[1]   

This sort of system of campaign finance, focused on giving low and middle-income people a voice, will not necessarily be able to the match the millions or tens of millions that the very rich can shower on their favored candidates, but it is adequate to ensure that candidates appealing to the non-rich can get their arguments out. And, there is sufficient research to show that, while candidates need a certain amount of money to be competitive, the biggest spending candidate does not always win.

This raising of the voice of the bottom approach can be applied elsewhere, including to the media and creative work more generally. A major problem for those of us concerned about the future of democracy is the collapse of traditional newspapers and other print media. The Internet, and the rise of Facebook and Google, have deprived them of the advertising revenue they depended upon to survive. As a result, hundreds of newspapers have gone out of business in the last quarter century, and even most of those that survive have hugely cut back on their staff of reporters.

The few outlets that still maintain a large staff of reporters, such as the New York Times and Washington Post, depend on the goodwill of rich people who are prepared to lose money, or at least get well below market returns on the money they have invested in their papers. While it is great that some of very rich are committed to help maintain a vibrant press, this is not a viable long-term mechanism.

We can pick up on the Seattle democracy voucher approach to support the media as well. Suppose that every adult had a $100 a year fully refundable tax credit to be used to support the creative worker or organization of their choice. This could include individual reporters, writers, musicians, singers, or any type of creative worker, or alternatively they could support an organization, such as a newspaper, a publisher, a movie production company or any other organization that supports creative work.

There are two reasons for including creative workers more generally and not just journalists and news outlets in the list of potential beneficiaries. The first is that they have also seen plunges in revenue as a result of the Internet. The amount of spending for recorded music in particular has dropped by close to 90 percent over the last two decades. It is important to set up a new source of revenue to support creative workers.

The other reason for extending eligibility beyond news media is that we don't want the government to be in the business of deciding what qualifies as news. If a news outlet were to include opinion pieces or satire on political events, would the government allow it to get money designated for news reporting? If we draw the lines broadly, this should not be an issue. There will always be issues of outright fraud, which must be policed, but these should be far removed from anything resembling judgements about what constitutes proper news reporting and commentary.

The $100 figure is arbitrary, but even this modest sum could provide more than $20 billion a year to support creative work.[2] At a pay rate of $80,000 a year, this could support 250,000 journalists and other creative workers. It is also important to realize that this system does not preclude other mechanisms for raising revenue.

For example, newspapers can still sell print copies and get ads, as they do today. The big difference would be that this would not be their primary mode of raising revenue. Musicians, writers and creative workers could still earn money from other sources, such as live performances or conducting workshops. So, the money they receive through this tax credit system would not be the sole support for newspapers and other creative work, but it would provide an enormously important supplement that could maintain a vibrant news media and creative sector that did not depend on the good will of a small number of very wealthy people.

 

Going Local

Another tremendously important aspect to this tax credit route is that it can be implemented at the state or even local level, as demonstrated by the Seattle democracy voucher program. The ability to start a measure like this at the state or local level is tremendously important given the improbability of major action addressing the unequal distribution of political power at the national level.

As a practical matter, it would be a relatively simple thing for a state or city to give each of its adult residents a voucher of $100 to support journalism and other creative work. To avoid freeloading by residents of other states or cities, it can even put up paywalls, as most newspapers do now. That way, if people in Chicago, or the state of Illinois, were prepared to use their vouchers to support a high-quality newspaper like the New York Times, they would be able to get free access themselves, but people elsewhere in the United States would have to pay, just as they do now for the New York Times.   

On the creative worker side, a state or city going this route could set itself up as an artistic mecca with this sort of system. It could just include a requirement that to be eligible to receive money through the voucher system, a person had to be physically present for at least nine months a year. This would attract musicians, singers, writers, and other creative workers, since they would want to be eligible for this pool of money. Furthermore, to make additional money and to increase the likelihood that residents would support them, they would want to perform their music, or offer workshops, or engage in other activities that would make them known to the community. These activities would also attract tourists from around the country.

The key point here is of course to establish an alternative mechanism for supporting an independent media.  If this can be done successfully in a city or state, it is likely to be emulated by others. Ideally, it would be adopted nationally, but even if just a small number of cities and states went this route it can provide a substantial measure of support that does not currently exist.

In any case, even a single city would be a big step forward. We can sit around and wait for the gods to make things work out to our liking so that there is a radical downward redistribution from the very rich to everyone else or we can take simple steps that will actually have an impact. We know liberal funders much prefer the former route, but anyone who actually gives a damn about inequality better be looking for things we can do now.

[1] There are comparable systems that amplify the voice of people with less money, such as the "super-match" system that New York City has in place for local elections. Under this system, small donations can be matched up to eight to one for candidates that limit their spending and large contributions and meet other criteria. The advantage of the Seattle system is that the vouchers can give a voice even to people who may find a small contribution to be a substantial burden.

[2] I would require a trade-off to be eligible for this money that the recipients could not also get copyright protection for their work. The government supports you once, not twice. If you take the money, then your work is in the public domain and can be freely reproduced and transferred. We want people to have access to the material that the government has paid for. I discuss the mechanics of this sort of system in more detail in chapter 5 of Rigged [it's free].

The post Combating the Political Power of the Rich: Wealth Taxes and Seattle Election Vouchers appeared first on Center for Economic and Policy Research.

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Mexican labor lawyer Susana Prieto Terrazas arrested, raising USMCA enforcement doubts [feedly]

Mexican labor lawyer Susana Prieto Terrazas arrested, raising USMCA enforcement doubts
https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/mexican-labor-lawyer-susana-prieto-terrazas-arrested-raising-usmca-enforcement-doubts/

Prominent Mexican labor lawyer Susana Prieto Terrazas has been detained since May.

WASHINGTON—The arrest and detention in Mexico of prominent and outspoken pro-worker labor lawyer Susana Prieto Terrazas is raising questions about whether Mexico can implement its commitments under the new "free trade" pact with the U.S. and Canada, which took effect July 1.

Susana Prieto Terrazas was arrested in May on charges of inciting a riot after she led protests in the Mexican border state of Tamaulipas for better pay in maquiladoras, factories erected by U.S.-based firms to make products, from cars to cookies, for export northwards.

The local prosecutor has held her in jail even as Mexico's Labor Minister, Luisa Alcalde, named by pro-worker President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, demands she be let go.

The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which replaced NAFTA, had tough labor rights guarantees Mexico is supposed to implement written into its text and into the USMCA approval law Congress passed. López Obrador will visit Washington on July 8 to discuss the USMCA with President Donald Trump, who jammed it down Mexico's throat.

The USMCA guarantees include a new pro-worker labor law, a new and tougher enforcement system, replacement of company unions with independent unions, higher wages, guarantees of minimum U.S. "domestic content" on North American-made cars, and abolition of some 700,000 "yellow dog" Mexican labor contracts, which were crafted to exploit workers.

Those conditions are also supposed to apply to the maquiladoras, which led Prieto Terrazas to Tamaulipas to lead the protests for better pay and cancellation of those pacts. She also showed up in a hazmat suit, urging workers to demand a shutdown of a particular plant due to the coronavirus pandemic, with full pay for the workers.

But at the behest of the plant owners, the Tamaulipas prosecutor sent police to arrest her. The arrest was peaceful, but she filmed it and the video has gone viral, sparking outrage and questions.

Prieto Terrazas's arrest "implies a major challenge, since there could be matters where the reform still isn't implemented, and yet, there are complaints over rights violations, above all about union freedoms and collective bargaining," Alcalde told Reuters.

Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, a leading congressional voice on trade and one of the few lawmakers who's been there long enough to vote against both NAFTA 28 years ago and the USMCA last year, agreed. She called the USMCA "a minor rewrite" of NAFTA.

"NAFTA sold communities like ours down the river," Kaptur said. The "USMCA was sold on the same exaggerated promises, (so) I have little faith USMCA will not continue down the same failed path of lost American jobs."

With strong enforcement being the key to the USMCA, Kaptur added, "We witnessed a rough start as Mexican labor activists were jailed under false pretenses, raising concerns as to how seriously the Mexican government will enforce newly mandated worker protections."

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, who says corporate interests are doing all they can, including filing 92 lawsuits in Mexico, to stop implementation of the USMCA's pro-worker safeguards, protested Prieto Terrazas's arrest when Mexican police grabbed her on May 10.

"Susana Prieto's tireless advocacy on behalf of workers in Mexico's maquiladoras made her a thorn in the side of powerful companies and corrupt officials. Her arrest on trumped-up charges of 'inciting riots' is an outrage. The AFL-CIO calls for her immediate and unconditional release. As we approach entry into enforcement of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, Mexico must live up to its commitments to respect fundamental workers' rights," he said then.

The Rethink Trade coalition, which now includes Public Citizen's Trade Watch, is circulating an online petition for signatures demanding U.S. lawmakers put pressure on Mexico to free Prieto Terrazas. It's at www.rethinktrade.org and promoted on social media with the hashtag #FreeSusana.

Prieto Terrazas "has been arrested on trumped up charges for helping organize independent unions," said coalition spokesman Ryan Harvey in seeking signatures.

After recounting the same history Kaptur did, he added, "We fought and won changes" in the USMCA "to improve working conditions in Mexico and guarantee workers the right to organize and affiliate with independent unions. We need your help to make sure these promises become realities. The first step is the immediate release of Susana Prieto Terrazas."

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

2020 Poverty Projections [feedly]

2020 Poverty Projections
https://www.urban.org/research/publication/2020-poverty-projections

To inform federal and state decisions about policies to mitigate material hardship created by the current economic and public health crises, Urban is using its Analysis of Transfers, Taxes, and Income Security (ATTIS) microsimulation model to project poverty rates for 2020. We project that without the current COVID response policies in place (no stimulus checks, and no expansions to SNAP or unemployment benefits beyond what would normally have occurred), the 2020 annual poverty rate will be 12.4 percent (39.5 million people in poverty, using our definition). The policy response lowers projected poverty to 9.2 percent (29.3 million people), more than 3 points lower than it otherwise would have been. We also present findings by demographic subgroups, and by state.  

 -- via my feedly newsfeed