Mayor Ed Murray Makes the Case for Secure Scheduling in Seattle

February 17, 2016 Paul Constant

Off

Readers of this blog know that I care deeply about secure scheduling laws , which ensure that employees will be able to predict their schedules in advance and be fairly compensated for their time. We’ve seen that Seattle City Councilmembers Lisa Herbold, Lorena González, and Debora Juarez have vowed to advance the cause of secure scheduling in Seattle. Civic Ventures founder Nick Hanauer has made the case for a “scheduling Golden Rule.” And yesterday in his State of the City Address, Mayor Ed Murray demonstrated his support for secure scheduling in a big way. Here’s the relevant passage from the transcript (PDF) : Part of our affordability agenda is ensuring all people get paid fairly. As a first step, we committed to increasing our minimum wage, which in particular will help woman and people of color who are disproportionately represented among low-wage workers. Also, we know that having a secure schedule of hours helps workers plan their budget, plan for childcare, enroll in school or take a second job – and we know schedule predictability will most help low-wage hourly workers. This year, we will work with labor, our community of progressive employers, and this Council, especially Councilmembers González and Herbold, to provide new guidelines for secure scheduling for larger employers. This show of support from Mayor Murray has arrived at just the right time. He’s clearly made the case for a scheduling Golden Rule. Secure schedules help employees plan their time so they can be better involved as citizens and neighbors and workers, and it will give them the tools they need to improve their own futures, so they can go back to school and start their own businesses and become the employers of tomorrow. Mayor Murray’s support indicates that Seattle’s leaders are coming together to work on this proposal. We’ll be hearing a lot about secure scheduling in the days and weeks to come.

+ Read More

Daily Clips: February 17th, 2016

February 17, 2016 Nick Cassella

Off

Daily Clips

Hillary Clinton vows to solve racial disparities: Her plan is ambitious, I’ll giver her that. Clinton claimed that if elected “she would spend $2 billion to encourage public school districts with a high number of troubled students to hire social workers and other experts to help young people before they get entangled in the criminal justice system.” While that my sound impressive at first, the more one thinks about it, the less likely they are to feel this program is going to solve the systemic problems. It feels like a mere clog. For example, why not legalize marijuana as a way to make sure young men and women do not get “entangled in the criminal justice system?” After all, “ of the 8.2 million marijuana arrests between 2001 and 2010, 88 percent were for simply having marijuana .” That seems like a policy change which would significantly decrease our grossly oversized prison population. These arrests also disproportionately impact Blacks. In fact, “despite roughly equal usage rates, Blacks are 3.73 times more likely than whites to be arrested for marijuana.” Look, I understand that Clinton’s program would help. It just seems like she’s pandering to special interests in this scenario. We know where marijuana legalization is going. Why not get out in front of that issue and really help racial inequalities? Unfortunately, we know through her past that that’s a very difficult thing for Clinton to do as a politician. She has a lot of gifts – and caution is one of them. It can also make her appear incrementalist to a fault. Video of the day: Thomas Piketty on the rise of Bernie Sanders: the US enters a new political era Sanders’ success today shows that much of America is tired of rising inequality and these so-called political changes, and intends to revive both a progressive agenda and the American tradition of egalitarianism. Hillary Clinton, who fought to the left of Barack Obama in 2008 on topics such as health insurance, appears today as if she is defending the status quo, just another
+ Read More

+ Read More

Wage Growth, Employment Climb in Washington State

February 16, 2016 Paul Constant

Off

Economics, Minimum Wage

There’s so much good news in this Seattle Times story by Blanca Torres that I encourage you to go read the whole thing . Some highlights: “An ADP index that combines both factors shows the Evergreen State far outpacing any other state in growth during the fourth quarter of 2015 compared with the year-earlier period. Washington earned an index score of 117.9 — topping the national average of 106.8 and other states such as California, 108.7; Texas, 108.8; and New York, 105.4.” “In Washington…employment climbed by 3.7 percent. Much of that came from hiring in construction, information technology, professional services, and leisure and hospitality industries.” “For current full-time employees, wages in Washington were up 5 percent year-over-year during the fourth quarter, compared with 4.1 percent nationally.” This is all great news. And it’s an interesting pattern, for sure. Funny, isn’t it, how when workers have more money to spend, more money is spent? It’s almost as though growth and wages are connected, somehow.

+ Read More

This Is What Happens When The Free Market Has Its Way

February 16, 2016 Nick Cassella

Off

Economics

This weekend I caught glimpse of a jarring Seattle Times headline – “ Pot products recalled for pesticides in Colorado, but not in Washington ”. Here, in 2016, was a perfect example of what industries will do when the free market “has its way.” The use of harmful pesticides on marijuana is hardly an anomaly. Over the course of history, we have seen that when businesses are given the freedom to either poison their consumers or not, the results have been disturbingly lopsided. Why is this so? The answers lie in the faulty assumptions of free market philosophy; the very theory which allows for industries to be free from government regulation. The core assumption of human rationality influencing consumer choices, first and foremost, seems to be responsible. The concept is simply unnatural. It assumes a consistent and pure level of rationality that does not exist in buying practices . Look, I understand why Baruch Spinoza, Thomas Jefferson, and Adam Smith loved equipping their fellow humans with a virtuous capability like rationality. They lived in times where the power of the individual was stunted by various forms of Christianity and monarchism. Their motivations were pure. And while casting humans as “rational beings” helped create a myriad of powerful political concepts, it has also helped prop up a quixotic understanding of political economy. After all, human decision making is complex. Humans are not dumb, but we are also prone to myopic choices. Even if we grant that humans always make rational choices, the consumer is often not given the opportunity to make fully informed decisions. That’s because without any government regulation, businesses are not required to let you know what is in their products. The marijuana example I mentioned earlier illustrates this hands off approach. So too is the recently passed “ Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act ” which argues that it’s simply too burdensome for businesses to inform consumers about what is in their food. Here’s Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) justification: The government should not be
+ Read More

+ Read More

Daily Clips: February 16th, 2016

February 16, 2016 Nick Cassella

Off

Daily Clips

Donald Trump is fanning conspiracy theories about Scalia’s death: Yes, you read that right. The GOP frontrunner is a “conspiracy theory aficionado” of sorts, so there’s really no reason why anyone should be surprised. A right wing radio host, Michael Savage, asked Trump about the circumstances of Scalia’s death. This is how Trump responded: I just landed, and I’m hearing it’s a big topic — that’s the question. And it’s a horrible topic, but they say they found a pillow on his face, which is a pretty unusual place to find a pillow. I can’t tell you what — I can’t give you an answer. You know usually I like to give you answers but I literally just heard it a little while ago. Talk about politicizing a death. The ugly political spectacle around Justice Scalia’s death: Dana Milbank, as usual, delivers his opinion with great force. McConnell and his colleagues appear to be asserting that they won’t even consider a nominee — no hearings and no vote. This is a grim commentary on the current state of dysfunction in American government. If Republicans refuse to confirm an Obama nominee, they will almost certainly break the record for the longest vacancy on the court since the court expanded to nine members in 1869. And that delay — 391 days in 1969-1970, was because the Senate rejected two of Richard Nixon’s nominees, not because it wouldn’t take up any. We already had an election to decide who gets to appoint the next Supreme Court justice. It was in 2012. Unfortunately, a strategy of obstruction without regard to consequence is not new. There are also 34 judicial nominees to other federal courts pending, including four to circuit courts of appeals. Yet no votes are scheduled, and this Senate is on pace to confirm the fewest judges in a two-year congress since 1951-52. Even in the minority, Republicans worked to block President Obama’s judicial nominees, including in 2013, when they filibustered three nominees to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
+ Read More

+ Read More

Sorry, Liver! Here’s Our GOP Debate Drinking Game

February 12, 2016 Hanna Brooks Olsen

Off

2016, debates, GOP

Another Saturday night debate, another excuse to get politically inebriated. Last week, we did pretty well on our BINGO card (just a few squares were left untouched), but then, who could have predicted Jeb!’s plan to mint millionaires or the spectacle that was Robot Rubio ? With Chris Christie’s tap out, Donald Trump’s trumping Ted Cruz in New Hampshire and Marco Rubio’s repetition ramifications, we anticipate that tomorrow night’s debate—which will feature a relatively slender six-man stage—should be rich in sideways punches, completely bombastic claims about national security, and likely a hefty dose of economic policies and ideas that are packaged for the little guy but, in truth, only serve to benefit the wealthy. Moderators for tomorrow night will be Face the Nation anchor John Dickerson, CBS News White House correspondent Major Garrett, and, interestingly, The Wall Street Journal‘s Kimberley Strassel, who has been extremely critical of Cruz in the past. It’s going to fiery, to be sure. For this weekend’s viewing, I figured I’d go ahead and stop pretending that any of us are watching these Saturday night GOP debates in any form of sobriety, and just made us a drinking game. All you’ll need is a beer or glass of wine, a shot glass, some form of hard liquor, and probably a grilled cheese sandwich or some other hearty food to line your gut. (For those among us who don’t imbibe, yes, this game works with mocktails and family-friendly beverages, too. Just make a really tall glass of soda-and-non-alcoholic-bitters and join in. As for the shots, can I suggest a nice demitasse of espresso?) Here’s the game board: And as always, you can follow us on Twitter (I’ll be tweeting, too ). Good luck and godspeed.

+ Read More

Daily Clips: February 12th, 2016

February 12, 2016 Nick Cassella

Off

Daily Clips

Weekly David Brooks analysis: Yes, it’s that time of the week again! In this column, Brooks is stunned that Bernie is upset with the economic status quo. And he can’t get over why millennials buy this stance. It’s amazing that a large part of the millennial generation has rejected this consensus. In supporting Bernie Sanders they are not just supporting a guy who is mad at Wall Street. They are supporting a guy who fundamentally wants to reshape the American economic system, and thus reshape American culture and values. As he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos , he wants to make us more like northern Europe. And this: Fourth, Sanders would Europeanize American public universities. It sounds great to make college free. In fact, it’s a hugely expensive program that would mostly benefit the already affluent. It would create, as in Germany , a legion of eternal students who have little incentive to leave school because the costs are so low. It would give Washington officials greater control over state universities, determining what sort of faculty they could hire and what sort of programs they could run. It would threaten hundreds of private colleges, which could no longer compete against the completely subsidized state system. It would reduce the pressures universities now feel to reform themselves because it would cushion them with federal largess. Slowly, American universities would look more like their European counterparts. They’d be less good. I love how Brooks is worried about the poor “private colleges” and how free college would effect them. Screw the American students who have to pull out $50,000 in loans! The real victims are institutions that hoard $38 billion and still make their students pay for tuition . He concludes: It’s amazing that so many young people want to mimic a continent that has been sluggish for decades. It’s amazing that so many look to the future and want a country that would be a lot less vibrant. Wait, is
+ Read More

+ Read More

One Hundred and Six Congressional Republicans Come Out Against Overtime

February 11, 2016 Paul Constant

Off

Overtime

One hundred and six congressional Republicans and two Democrats have sent an open letter ( PDF ) to Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez protesting the Department of Labor’s new proposed overtime rules. (You can read more about overtime rules in this post by Nick Hanauer , but in brief the new regulations would increase the salary threshold from $23,600 a year to $50,440, benefitting at least 13.5 million American workers .) Their letter is about as ominous as it gets. Currently, employers are required to pay overtime for all employees who make $23,660 or less per year. The new rule, proposed by DOL’s Wage and Hour Division, would raise the salary threshold and require employers to pay overtime for all employees who make $50,440 or less per year. With the implementation of the rule, nearly 5 million employees would suddenly become eligible for overtime pay. This 113 percent increase in the salary threshold would place a large burden on business owners and their workers, and is a major departure from previous DOL policy. To be clear, they’re arguing that American business owners can’t afford to pay their employees for their time—that if businesses had to pay their employees for the true number of hours that they work, the whole system would collapse. This is not American exceptionalism. It’s fear-mongering, and it’s just not true. And the last suggestion in that quote, that raising the threshold is “a major departure from previous DOL policy,” is simply not true. Fifty years ago, more than sixty percent of all American workers qualified for overtime pay. But because the threshold has stayed stagnant for all that time, only eight percent of all Americans qualify today. And we’re working harder than ever: Americans work 47 hours a week on average. The new overtime rule wouldn’t bring anything new to the business paradigm in America; it would simply unrig the game. The threats in this letter are purposefully
+ Read More

+ Read More

Daily Clips: February 11th, 2016

February 11, 2016 Nick Cassella

Off

Daily Clips

Low US jobless claims underscore labor market strength: Amidst all of the chatter about the 2016 primaries, the US economy’s labor market continues to show signs of growth – an excellent figure for Democrats and their chances to retain the White House. “The number of Americans filing for unemployment benefits fell more than expected last week,” reports Reuters. This news suggests “the labor market remains on solid footing despite slowing economic growth and a stock market rout.” Elizabeth Warren urges CDC to look at marijuana as a potential fix to prescription painkiller epidemic: I wonder what industry would hate to see marijuana legalized? I don’t know, maybe the industry that is profiting off the constipation caused by opioids… To be clear: The opioid CONSTIPATION market is expected to hit $500 million by 2019. — Matt Pearce (@mattdpearce) February 11, 2016 Marco Rubio’s tax plan would increase the deficit by $8.2 trillion: That’s…something. Let’s see how David Brooks spins Rubio’s trickle-down budget.

+ Read More

Seattle’s Booming Economy Is, Apparently, A Mirage

February 10, 2016 Hanna Brooks Olsen

Off

$15, hot takes, Minimum Wage, Seattle, Tim Worstall

Hot takes! Get your hot takes! Forbes contributor Tim Worstall has one cooling on the windowsill and you’d better grab it while it’s steaming. Actually, even if you don’t read it today, it’ll still steam because, like warm garbage on a summer day, his consistent beat regarding the economic calamity of a higher minimum wage is only getting more ripe as time goes on. Today, Worstall has chosen to launch an attack (kind of?) on a new paper about a year-old study. But does he refute it with evidence? Or data? Or, dare I ask, economic reasoning? Nope! He just disagrees with it. First let’s read the initial article that Worstall has decided to launch in on. It’s a really solid, illuminating paper by Jeannette Wicks-Lim about a study she co-authored in January of last year about the minimum wage’s impacts on the economy, and how raising the minimum wage changes consumer and employer behavior. The current state of research on this employment question, however, finds that minimum-wage increases do not produce significant job losses. This then raises an important policy question: Why haven’t there been significant job losses when minimum wages have increased? First, the basic law of demand actually says something quite different and more specific than just “if the price of something goes up, the quantity demanded of that thing goes down.” It actually says that if the price of something goes up—and nothing else changes—the quantity demanded of that something goes down. In the real world, however, other things are changing all the time. Moreover, raising the minimum wage itself causes businesses to change how they operate (more on this below). As a result, the minimum wage’s actual impact on jobs depends on what other factors are changing at the same time. Well now, that sounds like a reasonable understanding of the economy. And
+ Read More

+ Read More

Civic Ventures