Gig workers provide a range of important goods and services in the United States. Some provide rides. Others deliver groceries or provide cleaning services. Gig workers also provide labor for academic researchers.
Read More
About a quarter of Americans currently lack any paid or medical leave. The United States is unique in not guaranteeing this to all of its workers. For those Americans who lack paid sick leave, staying home when they’re sick requires them to lose wages and even risk being fired. The ongoing coronavirus crisis has both underscored and heightened the consequence of this failing as many are compelled out of economic necessity to go to work even if they’re sick.
President Trump has just signed into law legislation that expands access to paid sick and medical leave but coverage remains enormously patchy. As Heather Long lays out in the Washington Post, these benefits are 1) not permanent 2) apply only to workers homebound due to the coronavirus, and 3) quite limited in terms of benefits, providing only “two weeks of paid sick leave at 100 percent of the person’s normal salary, up to $511 per day… [and] up to 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave at 67 percent of the person’s normal pay, up to $200 per day.” In addition, this legislation excludes a whole host of workers by carving out exemptions for certain categories of businesses, namely larger firms with over 500 employees.
Read More
About a week in, President Trump is growing tired of social distancing. The Washington Post captured this message in a story published two days ago, where Trump is quoted as saying: “America will again—and soon—be open for business . . . Very soon, a lot sooner than three or four months that somebody was suggesting. A lot sooner. We cannot let the cure be worse than the problem itself.” Such a choice would run counter to the best advice of public officials, including officials in Trump’s own government.
Read More
Due to the coronavirus’s impact on its business, Boeing is asking for a government bailout. As Dominic Gates of the Seattle Times reported, “Boeing said Tuesday [March 17] it’s asking for ‘a minimum of $60 billion . . . for the aerospace manufacturing industry’ in a combination of direct taxpayer money and loans from banks backed by government guarantees.” A bailout of this size is roughly equal to the entire worth of Boeing.
Read More
As the world reels from the COVID19 epidemic, we must support all efforts to keep people safe and healthy. That includes immediate actions to ensure free testing and treatment, and a stronger social welfare system to protect the millions of people whose livelihoods are being devastated as we write. Data for Progress polling has found that many measures, including monthly cash transfers and free testing and treatment are popular. But we cannot stop there. We also face a climate emergency. You can be sure that corporations and their political allies are already fighting over the contours of the inevitable stimulus funds that will go toward economic recovery.
Read More
The threat of Coronavirus has shocked the world. From the availability of medical supplies to the feeling of safety and wellbeing to the economy, nothing has been immune. As we face this pandemic, industries are shutting their doors, laying off workers, and looking to wait out the storm. The stock market is at its lowest level since early 2017, and businesses are looking for help from the government.
Read More
The United States is in turmoil. Not only is a global pandemic rapidly spiraling out of control, but the country is also facing a series of interconnected crises, including an impending recession, a crisis of economic inequality, and a climate crisis. In isolation, each of these threatens to upend our world. But there is a feedback loop at play here too: The inequality crisis will exacerbate the pandemic and economic downturn. Together, these crises may kill and impoverish millions and bring the world to its knees.
Read More
An unprecedented crisis is threatening America. The twin crises of the most threatening pandemic in a century and a financial crisis that threatens to dwarf the Great Recession. And in this time of national struggle, Senator Richard Burr, NC abused his position as chairman of the Senate Intel Committee, selling off $1.6 million in stocks over the past month while assuring his constituents that there was nothing to fear from the coronavirus.
Read More
On Thursday evening, ProPublica reported that Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) offloaded stocks he likely knew were about to lose value in advance of the coronavirus-induced stock market crash. Specifically, Burr received a daily briefing on coronavirus preparedness in his capacity as the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. On February 7th, he wrote an op-ed arguing that the United States had never been better prepared to handle a public health crisis such as coronavirus. On February 13th, he sold between $628,000 and $1.72 million of stock—mostly in companies particularly vulnerable to a public health crisis, such as hotel chains. On February 27th, he attended a luncheon at an exclusive social club where he warned members, some of whom are donors to his campaign, that the virus would wreak havoc on the markets. But, as late as March 5th, he was reassuring the public that the government had the situation under control. When asked for comment, one of Burr’s aides explained that this was permissible because Burr offloaded his shares before the market tanked. Yet, selling his shares before the market tanked is exactly what people consider problematic about Burr’s behavior.
Read More
The last two days have brought the idea of giving every American $1,000 from the fringe of the policy landscape into the mainstream. As cities shut down bars and restaurants, as employers lay off service workers en masse, and as stocks continue to crash, people need relief now. Many politicians are starting to recognize this, too. Some form of the policy has been supported by Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Maxine Waters––whose legislation is more ambitious, calling for sending each adult $2000/month and $1000/month for each child–– as well as by Republican Senators Mitt Romney and Tom Cotton, though neither Republican has offered legislation. In short, there is now bipartisan support for a policy many once thought radically progressive.
Not only is giving each American $1,000 morally necessary and politically viable but also it is economically savvy: Economist Claudia Sahm of Equitable Growth argues that direct payments “provide a rapid, frontline defense early in a recession and a commitment to sustained support in a severe recession.” Citing work from 2001 and 2008, Sahm shows that giving Americans $1,000 a month would boost spending and stabilize demand; it would also sustain both those left in the lurch by uncertain markets and firms (and their employees) enough to keep them open during the pandemic. (For those interested in learning more about Sahm’s policy, she was recently interviewed on The Weeds.)
Read More
The COVID-19 crisis has exposed the frailty of the global economic system, and it is now clear that ideologies that place markets above all else are not just wrong, but practically suicidal. Our capacity to treat COVID patients remains so low that the only way to protect the populace is to effectively shut down the economy. However, the federal government’s response to the dual problems of developing treatment capacity and blunting the effects of economic collapse has been poor to say the least.
Read More
Typically, we think of identity in terms of demographics (e.g., race, gender, religion, etc), and those identities have gotten a lot of attention, especially recently. But in a primary election—i.e. a contest decided by people who are adopting a partisan affiliation at least in some respect by participating in a party’s nominating contest -- the strength of one’s attachment to that party can matter a great deal. In a recent Data for Progress/YouGov Blue survey of 1,619 registered voters that were likely to participate in the Democratic primary, we sought to test attitudes around partisan identity.
Read More