Why Are Poverty Rates for People With Disabilities So High?

October 30, 2014

My last post tried to answer a straightforward question: How many District of Columbia residents lived in poverty last year? The answer was about one in three, but rates were higher for children and working-age adults, especially the former.

Computing the rates is a whole lot easier than explaining why they’re so high. No source I’ve found comes close. Here’s what I’ve pieced together from federal data and other research for the nation as a whole.

Poverty As Both Cause and Effect for Children With Disabilities

The poverty rate for children with disabilities is high nationwide, though not as high as in the District, where it’s 45.5% of children old enough for the Census Bureau’s survey to have captured all the major types of disabilities they may have.

Such research as we have indicates that children are more likely to be disabled if they’re borne by poor mothers and into poor families. Inadequate nutrition, including actual hunger is a factor. Likewise inadequate health care and exposure to toxins in the environment, e.g., lead paint, pollutants in the air.

Stress itself has toxic effects on children’s physical and mental development. And living in poverty is stressful — not only because of the material hardships and instability children suffer, but because the stresses sometimes cause parents to neglect or even abuse their children — or one parent to abuse the other.

At the same time, childhood disability contributes to family poverty. Parents who would otherwise work can’t — or can’t work as much — because they need to care for their disabled child. Parents here generally means mothers, the research tells us.

Working-Age, But Not Many Working

The poverty rate for working-age adults with disabilities is somewhat easier to understand. They may be working-age, but relatively few of them are working — only 26.8% of those 16-64 last year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

About one in three were working part time — a higher percent than for their counterparts without a disability.

And both they and the full-timers may, in some cases, have gotten paid as little as a quarter an hour because some employers may legally set wages based on their own assessments of productivity.

An additional 14.7% of working-age adults with disabilities were jobless and actively looking for work — about the same percent as in 2012. The unemployment rate for their counterparts without a disability dropped to less than half this rate.

Rolling the working and looking-for-work figures together, we find that more than two-thirds of working-age adults with disabilities were not counted as part of the labor force.

How many could have worked, but became utterly discouraged by employers who wouldn’t even consider them — or who wouldn’t accommodate their disabilities, as the law requires — is an open question.

Some of the dropouts may have worked before they became disabled. If they’d worked long enough and earned enough, they might have qualified for SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance).

But disability alone wouldn’t suffice. The Social Security Administration would have had to decide that they couldn’t earn much, if anything from work because of their disability and wouldn’t be able to for at least a year.

The benefits might — or might not — lift them over the poverty threshold. Probably wouldn’t for those whose annual earnings averaged somewhere around what a full-time, minimum wage job pays.

Adults who can’t meet the SSDI standards may instead receive Supplemental Security Income benefits if their incomes are low enough, their cash and near-cash assets small and, again, if SSA decides they’re too severely disabled to “engage in substantial gainful activity.”*

SSI lifted about 3.9 million people out of poverty last year. But their incomes couldn’t have been far below the poverty threshold without it. The maximum annual benefit for an individual was about 73% of the threshold for a single person — less, of course, for a family of any size.

Late-Onset Disabilities for Some

Presumably the poverty rate for seniors with disabilities reflects in part the fact that some incurred their disabilities long before their “golden years” — born with them, in some cases, in others early enough so that their Social Security retirement benefits are very low.

But those retirement benefits, plus SSI or draw-downs from their own retirement accounts probably explain why their poverty rate is lowest among the age groups I’ve carved out. Doesn’t mean that all those who cleared the threshold are doing fine.

As I’ve said many times, the thresholds are very low. And when the Census Bureau takes account of basic living expenses, including medical out-of-pocket costs, the District’s senior poverty rate rises to 26% — higher than the rate for any state.

Would that we had SPM rates specifically for young, old and in-between people with disabilities.

* SSI benefits are also available to children with severe disabilities if their families meet somewhat similar income and asset tests and to low-income seniors, disabled or otherwise.

 

 

 


More Than a Third of Young DC Adults in Poverty Last Year

October 6, 2014

My recent post on the new poverty rates for the District of Columbia prompted an email from Deborah Shore. She wanted to know what I could tell her about poverty among older teens and young adults.

I’m sure many of you know why. For the rest, Deborah is the executive director of Sasha Bruce Youthwork, a nonprofit she founded 40 years ago. It now provides emergency shelter, transitional housing and a range of services to homeless and at-risk youth in the District.

Deborah also chairs the board of the National Network for Youth — a large coalition of organizations that serve and advocate for runaway, homeless and disconnected youth, i.e., those who are neither in school nor working.

I’m grateful for her question because, like many others who reported on the results of the American Community Survey, I didn’t initially pay attention to the figures for young adults.

Children, of course. Yet the very high poverty rates for them, both in the District and nationwide, can’t be neatly separated from poverty among teens and young adults because some are parents — mostly single mothers, it seems.

The Census Bureau doesn’t tell us a whole lot about youth in poverty, though I suspect one could dig up a fair amount if one had the tools to work with the detailed tables that expand what it reports from a special piece of the Current Population Survey. I don’t.

So I went searching among the thousands of tables the Bureau uses to report the results of the ACS — a better source for community-level data anyway. Here’s what I found there and in some other reports.

Folded into the District’s child poverty rate are roughly 2,925 children on the verge of adulthood, i.e., 16 and 17 year olds. They represent about a tenth of all poor D.C. children — a far lower percent than the very youngest.

But many more who’d just crossed the threshold were officially poor. The Census Bureau reports 21,000 young D.C. adults, i.e., 18-24 year olds, in poverty. This makes for an age-group poverty rate of a bit under 37%. It’s more than 11% higher than the national poverty rate for the age group.

And (here comes the bombshell ) nearly one in four young adults in the District lived in deep poverty last year, i.e., had incomes at or below half the applicable threshold. For one person living alone, deep poverty means a maximum annual income of $6,060 — and for a single parent with one child, a maximum of $8,029.

By far and away more young adults in the District were deeply poor than poor, but less so. This was not true for young adults nationwide. For them, the deep poverty rate was 13.7%, according to the ACS, or 10.2%, according to CLASP’s analysis of the Current Population Survey.

Well, what are we to make of all this? One thing is that the poverty rates reflect the unusually hard time young adults are having in the labor market.

The unemployment rate for 18-19 year olds was 19.8% last month, as compared to 5.4% for everyone older who was also jobless and actively looking for work. The rate for 20-24 years olds was 11.4%. And rates for both groups were even higher for men.

Such figures as we have suggest that far from all jobless young people were actively looking. Last year, only 64.7% of 18-24 year olds were either working or seeking work. This is nearly 8.7% lower than in 2000.

At the same time, those who were working didn’t earn much. The median for 18-24 year olds was $17,760 in 2012 — and for those with less than a high school education, a mere $13,510.

Try as I might, I haven’t found comparable figures for young adults in the District. The Economic Policy Institute provides a couple that come close, however. It tells us that 14.8% of D.C. workers under 25 were unemployed last year, not including those who were still enrolled in school or those who’d decided it was futile to look.

An additional 26.2% were underemployed, i.e., working part time, though they wanted full-time work or had looked during the year, but given up. (I don’t know why EPI doesn’t count the latter as unemployed.)

Both rates are due partly to the fact that young workers generally have a tougher time getting — and staying — employed than workers with more job experience. This is especially true when there are far more job-seekers than jobs to go around.

But the premium our local labor market puts on college degrees is probably also a factor, as the DC Fiscal Policy Institute’s analysis of 2012 unemployment rates shows.

And so far as good jobs are concerned, only one of the “high demand/high wage” jobs in the District requires only a high school diploma or the equivalent — and only two others less than a four-year college degree.

Both the poverty and the un/underemployment rates help explain the surge of homeless families in the District, since nearly half the parents who spent at least part of last winter in the DC General family shelter were 18-24 year olds.

They also help explain some first-time-ever figures for homeless youth who had no family members with them. Of which more in my next post.

 


DC Bans the Box, Gives Returning Citizens a Better Shot at Jobs

July 21, 2014

An estimated 60,000 District of Columbia residents have criminal records. Roughly 8,000 return to the community each year after serving time behind bars.

And about half of them will be back behind bars within three years. One, though not the only reason is that they can’t get legal, paying work. And one reason they can’t is that their job applications get tossed before they’re read.

That’s going to change. And it ought to change their extraordinarily high unemployment rate — 46%, according to a 2011 survey. Here’s why.

Last week, the DC Council passed what’s commonly known as a “ban the box” bill. Like others of its kind, the new law prohibits generally employers from including queries about criminal records in their job applications.*

They thus can’t automatically screen out anyone and everyone who’s ever been arrested, charged and/or convicted of a crime. Nor, in the District’s bill, can they ask about any of these during interviews.

They may, however, ask about convictions — or conduct a background check — after they’ve made a conditional offer of employment, i.e., one contingent on what they learn about the candidate’s criminal offenses or other matters they’ve said they’d look into.

They may then withdraw the offer, but only for a “legitimate business reason.” For this, the law establishes criteria, e.g., the responsibilities the candidate would have, how long ago s/he committed the crime(s).

But they don’t have to explain an about-face, as they would have in the original version. Nor does the rejected candidate have a right to sue, though s/he can file a claim with the Office of Human Rights — a lot of hassle for minimal compensation, the DC Jobs Council said.

For these reasons, as well as others, the law isn’t as strong as it might be.

Employers with fewer than 11 workers get a free pass, for example. This, as the Employment Justice Center’s Deputy Director testified is a large loophole because even big projects in some industries, e.g., construction, often include small contractors.

But the bill is ever so much better than nothing. And it might have been nothing without the exemptions and other concessions to employer concerns.

In fact, it’s somewhat better than the revised version lead sponsor Councilmember Wells produced in an effort to accommodate the altogether predictable complaints from some business interests, e.g., the local restaurant association.

So count the about-to-be law as a piece of good news in the midst of so much truly terrible stuff.

The District will join the dozen states that have banned the box. And with a stronger law than most. Only four of the states cover private employers. And only one — Hawaii — unequivocally prohibits conviction history inquiries before an offer is made.

The law will surely open doors for some returning citizens — and citizens who returned some considerable time ago. It will also keep doors open for those who are working because the law extends similar protections to employees. Some, we know, have been fired when their criminal records came to light.

The law won’t be a cure-all, however. And no one, to my knowledge, thinks it will be.

The Center for Court Excellence survey cited above indicates some employment barriers beyond the scope of any “ban the box” law, e.g., lack of a pre-incarceration work history and/or in-demand skills and credentials.

There are others — extraordinary difficulties in getting housing, for example. Some Ban the Box Coalition members advocated an expansion of the law to remedy this. So there’s more work to do on the policy front.

But experience tells us that anti-discrimination laws can go only so far — even when they’re strongly enforced, which they generally aren’t. I rather doubt the District’s “ban the box” law will prove an exception, since it’s complaint-based.

Management consultant Wendy Powell argues that such laws “can provide false hope to candidates with a felony conviction” because their job histories will inevitably have a gap. And that, she says, is always a legitimate basis for inquiry.

Whether the criminal record emerges during an interview or, as she recommends, is preempted by voluntary disclosure, employers will have to give returning citizens a chance.

The same, I think, is true when they decide whether to exercise their “legitimate business interest” because they’ve got wiggle room if they’re predisposed to use it — not in all cases perhaps, but I can imagine many.

Ultimately, the success of the new law will depend on whether employers fully embrace the intent. The more that do, the more that will, I think.

* The bill exempts employers that provide programs, services and/or direct care to minors and “vulnerable adults.” This, I’m told, basically reaffirms a provision stating that the pre-offer provisions don’t apply when a federal or local laws and rules require consideration of an applicant’s criminal history.

 


Lots of Solutions to Long-Term Jobless Crisis. But Bipartisan?

June 30, 2014

A panel discussion hosted by the Congressional Full Employment Caucus took on the plight of long-term jobless workers. The big push — and push-back — as you undoubtedly know, has centered on the need to renew their federal unemployment benefits.

But even if — big if — Congress does renew them, long-term jobless workers will still face daunting challenges in the labor market.

These have everything to do with how long they’ve been unemployed — and virtually nothing to do with anything else.

A recent analysis by panelist Heidi Shierholz at the Economic Policy Institute found that long-term unemployment rates were considerably higher last year than in 2007 for every group — age, education level, race/ethnicity, gender, prior type of occupation and industry.

So “it’s not something wrong with the workers,” she said. And her fellow panelists agreed. Their main business, however, was to identify “proven bipartisan solutions to the crisis.”

I wish I could say that I came away believing that the ideas they teed up would, in fact, gain bipartisan support in Congress.

As panelist Judy Conti at the National Employment Law Project said, there is a bipartisan consensus on the problem to solve — not enough jobs for everybody who needs one.

But that’s about as far as it goes. Conti mentioned what are generally partisan splits over how job-creating measures should be paid for — by closing corporate tax loopholes, for example, or by cutting other federal spending.

The split, I think, goes deeper than that. We’ve got Republicans going on about the job-killing effects of the Affordable Care Act, other regulations that are strangling businesses, etc.

Democrats, on the other hand, talk of more federal investment — in infrastructure, education, clean energy and other cutting-edge technologies. They’d like to channel more money to state and local governments for police and firefighters.

They want to change provisions in the tax code that effectively subsidize the costs of off-shoring jobs, as well as others that enable corporations to significantly reduce — or altogether eliminate — their federal tax liabilities.

And, of course, they want long-term unemployment benefits renewed — not only because jobless workers and their families need them, but because they create and/or preserve jobs.

This is because people who receive the benefits generally perforce spend them on basic needs. So demand for goods and services rises. More demand translates into more jobs — and more jobs into more demand.

This, I take it, is the same basic premise underlying the call for more investments. It also underpins another solution Shierholz mentioned — action that would deter other countries from manipulating their currencies so as to make their exports cheaper and imports from the U.S. costlier.

What’s not altogether clear is whether more jobs would solve the long-term unemployment crisis, unless there were so many more employers needed to fill that they couldn’t continue to screen out applicants who’d been out of work for some time.

Happily, panelists also had some thoughts about how to level the playing field.

One already underway is somewhat similar to the subsidized employment programs most states created, using money from the now-expired TANF Emergency Contingency Fund that was part of the Recovery Act.

Two other solutions are already pending in Congress. An uphill battle there. One would prohibit employers from using credit checks as a screening tool. It’s not specifically for long-term jobless workers, but for obvious reasons, they’re more likely than others to fall behind on their bills.

The other would undo a Supreme Court ruling that makes it extraordinarily difficult for older workers to prove age discrimination — apparently a reason that so many who become jobless remain so.

Though I’ve referred to these solutions as leveling the playing field, the last two could also be viewed as preventive measures.

Another explicitly endorsed by two panelists (and a third who couldn’t participate) would also tend to prevent unemployment — and thus the risks of its becoming long term.

It’s commonly known as work sharing. And federal funds are temporarily available for states that adopt it — or modify their existing programs to comply with the Department of Labor’s standards.

Under work sharing, employers may reduce workers’ hours, with their consent, rather than lay them off when business is slow. What the workers lose in wages is partly made up for by unemployment benefits.

This is obviously better for workers than getting fired. And better for employers because they don’t lose experienced workers — and incur the costs of hiring and training when business picks up again.

Work sharing isn’t new, but we’ve been hearing more about it, thanks to the Great Recession — and ongoing labor market woes. It’s often cited as the reason Germany’s unemployment rate didn’t spike, though its economy was hard hit.

Even though our unemployment rate is inching down, there are still about 1.5 million layoffs a month, Shierholz told us. So work sharing could still save a lot of grief.

And it enjoys support from lead economists at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute and the decidedly left-wing Center for Economic and Policy Research. Bipartisan in this respect, at least.

Lastly, Conti reminded us that jobless workers used to have to pick up their unemployment benefits checks. Office staff told them about suitable openings and sometimes helped them in other ways.

Such individualized, in-person services have dwindled — at least partly due to cuts in federal funding for the One Stop Career Centers.

A greater investment in these services would more than pay for itself, NELP says — in unemployment benefits saved, tax revenues collected and reduced social and human costs.

We see a glimmer of bipartisan support for more robust reemployment services in the new “bipartisan” bill to renew long-term unemployment benefits, as in the bill that recently died in the House.

Ultimately, I suppose, it all depends on what we mean by “bipartisan.” A number of the panelists’ solutions have — or could gain — support from some conservatives. But substantial support from both parties in Congress is a whole other matter.

 


More to Bad Jobs Than Low Hourly Pay

March 24, 2014

New York Times columnist Steven Greenhouse profiles a nurse’s aide and several other low-wage workers in Chattanooga, Tennessee to show why low-wage workers generally are “finding poverty harder to escape.”

One reason is simple enough. Their hourly pay rates are too low. All the profiled workers get somewhat more than the federal minimum, which applies in Tennessee and 28 other states — not, however, as much as the proposed $10.10 an hour. So the increase would help.

But low pay rates alone don’t account for the troubles the workers have paying for basic expenses. The nurse’s aide, for example, like a growing number of low-wage workers across the country, doesn’t have a regular work schedule, let alone a full-time job.

“For today’s low-wage, hourly workers, … scarce, unstable and unpredictable hours are the new norm,” write Professors Charlotte Alexander and Anna Haley-Lock.

Employers aren’t only cutting back on full-time jobs. Those that can are, in many cases, relying on “just-in-time” scheduling, i.e., adding and subtracting workers’ hours according to immediate need.

It’s reportedly common in restaurants and other retail businesses, which can now establish very short shifts — 15 minutes, in some cases — and use software to fill them, based on customer traffic, sales or predictors like weather conditions.

Workers may show up for what they think is a five-hour shift and be sent home early. They may be told they’ll need to put in extra hours — or to be available for them, with no guarantee they’ll be working.

They may have no regular hours at all, but instead have to call in daily — or be constantly accessible by phone. More commonly, their work days and/or hours change from week to week. And they don’t know what their schedule will be until a day or so before they’ve got to meet it.

“Even then,” said one chain restaurant worker, “it was only a guesstimate.”

Likewise, of course, the budget planning that low-income people are enjoined to practice. “I have been scheduled for as few as six hours in a week and as many as forty,” says a New York City sales associate. “How is anyone … supposed to plan a budget with such erratic schedules?”

And how is a parent supposed to manage childcare arrangements, when she’s sometimes needed, sometimes not, sometimes for far longer than scheduled — or at altogether different hours?

And how will she afford child care when a center may tack on a hefty fee for late pick-ups — or when her hours are suddenly, though perhaps (or perhaps not) temporarily cut in half?

Iffy schedules pose other problems for low-wage workers. For example, they can’t take on a second part-time job because they can’t commit to any work schedule, even if not another “just-in-time.”

They often can’t try to improve their prospects by getting more education or specialized training because they never know when or how often their work schedule will conflict with their classes.

The surges and plunges in working hours also wreak havoc on eligibility for many public benefits and the support they provide because recipients generally have to recertify, i.e., periodically reapply.

A woman in Massachusetts says, “A good month, I can work thirty-eight to forty-five hours and it just happens to be that month they want my pay stubs for food stamps. OK, the next month comes around I’ve worked three hours one week, twelve hours another week … They don’t want my pay stubs for that month.”

So she could lose at least part of her food stamp benefit — and then have to try to recover it. Temporary hours spikes can also jeopardize childcare subsidies, WIC, housing assistance and Medicaid.

On the other hand, earnings plunges make it even more difficult for low-wage workers to qualify for unemployment benefits. Yet they’re at high risk for unemployment — in part because they’re expected to work whenever.

Finally, as many have written, the on-again, off-again, never-know-when schedules create high levels of stress for workers. They’re also harmfully stressful for their children, whose daily routines and caregivers constantly change.

CLASP and partners have identified two policies that some employers have adopted to mitigate the problems of unstable schedules for low-wage workers.

One, also favored by Professors Alexander and Haley-Lock, guarantees workers who’ve reported when told to a certain number of hours of pay.

Seven states and the District of Columbia actually have so-called “reporting pay” laws, but they vary considerable in whom they cover, the number of hours guaranteed and the required pay rate.

These laws may be on the books, but it’s doubtful they’re consistently enforced, since they hinge on vulnerable workers filing complaints. And, of course, they do nothing about schedules that constantly change.

Nor does the other policy, though it comes closer. It guarantees workers a set number of hours a week — or pay for those hours if there’s not enough work for them to do. Costco, among others (probably not very many), has a version of this policy.

There’s a business case to be made for a work guarantee. It can help reduce turnover, for example, and increase productivity — not only because workers know their jobs, but because they want to do them well.

But, as the CLASP report says, “relying solely on voluntary employer action will not suffice.” We’ll need new and/or revised laws and regulations to make bad jobs better in the rapidly-growing low-wage service sectors.


Why We Need Full Employment Policies Now

March 13, 2014

Awhile back, Dean Baker at the Center for Economic and Policy Research published a (free) book castigating progressives for “loser liberalism.” We’ve played into the hands of conservatives, he argued, by failing to focus on how they’ve structured markets to “redistribute income upward.”

This came not long after Rortybomb blogger Mike Konszal asserted that we’ve given in to “a kind of pity-charity liberal capitalism” because we’ve abandoned the vision of a government that empowers workers.

New York Times columnist Thomas Edsell picked up on this, saying that our focus on “means-tested transfer programs” like food stamps and long-term unemployment benefits leave “the most needy and vulnerable to the vagaries of public opinion” — a big mistake because hard times like these diminish sympathy for the less fortunate.

These critiques make me feel more than a little sensitive, since I’ve tended to focus on programs designed to compensate for the economic disadvantages of the poor and near-poor.

I’m not inclined to shift my focus to how markets are structured. Which is just as well because I don’t have the expertise.

But I do think it’s time to get a little balance here. So I want to take note of a major theme in the critiques — and another (free) book, co-authored by Baker and fellow economist-blogger Jared Bernstein.

The theme is the need for government policies that will create and sustain full employment.

We’d then have an economy where increased demand for goods and services wouldn’t create a more jobs because, with some limited exceptions, everyone who wanted a job had one — and was working for as many hours as s/he wanted to or could.

Or, as economists conceive it, the unemployment rate would be low enough so that increased demand would only drive up inflation.

Full employment would obviously solve our immediate jobless worker problems — especially the very high percent of workers who’ve been jobless a long time and seemingly will remain so as long as employers can chose to summarily reject them, as many apparently do.

But as ex-Wonkblogger Ezra Klein’s review of the Baker-Bernstein book says, full employment also creates the conditions for worker power — and the wages, benefits and other working conditions that power can gain.

It’s especially important in today’s economy, where unions represent only 6.7% of private-sector workers. This, combined with other developments, e.g., opportunities for businesses to shift jobs overseas or to states with laws that weaken unions, helps explain the fact that wages have flat-lined — except for those at the tippy-top.

It’s most important for workers without a college degree — in part because many who have one are perforce currently taking jobs that don’t require college-level skills. Hence an unemployment rate for the lowest-educated workers that’s three times higher than the rate for college graduates.

This is one reason Bernstein calls full employment “the best, if not the only, friend of the working class.” But it’s not the only reason.

When he analyzes data from the Economic Policy Institute, he finds significant increases in hours worked by those in the bottom fifth of the income scale during past periods of full employment — and increases for those in the middle fifth also.

This, of course, is another way that full employment boosts wages. It would surely make a big difference now, with more than 7.2 million part-timers who’d like full-time work, but can’t get it.

Needless to say, I hope, anything that boosted working families’ incomes would narrow the growing gap between the richest and the rest. We’d probably still have a high degree of income inequality, which ought to concern us forth both economic and political reasons.

But (back to Bernstein again) the growth of our economy, i.e., the value of all the goods and services produced, would be more equally shared.

And there’d be more growth because lower and middle-income families would spend more, without contributing to the sort of credit bubble that’s been held partly responsible for our Great Recession.

And for all these reasons, there’d more tax revenues that could be used to strengthen the safety net and/or work supports — the Earned Income Tax Credit, for example, and subsidized child care — for the smaller number of people who still couldn’t afford what Baker and Bernstein refer to as “a decent standard of living.”

Baker and Bernstein propose a number of ways to achieve full employment — some more controversial than others.

Most controversial perhaps is the fundamental premise. The federal government should actively intervene to restore full employment. And that will mean choosing to run deficits for awhile, rather than trying to squeeze as much as possible out of the non-defense part of the budget.

Hard to imagine in this political climate. But if enough people understood what they — and the country as a whole — would gain from a full employment economy, we might see the political will to pursue it.


What Could Cut the Poverty Rate Right Now

February 20, 2014

A nice, short video from the Half in Ten campaign tells us five things we can do to cut poverty today. They’re actually four things Congress can do — and one that it shouldn’t.

They’re all modest, middle-of-the-road proposals, reflecting both pending legislation and priorities identified in the President’s latest State of the Union address. That alone should tell you that they won’t have an easy time getting through Congress, though polls indicate bipartisan support from voters.

Here they are, with supporting details from the video and others I’ve added.

Create Jobs. What Half in Ten has in mind here are investments in renewable energy, other “growth sectors” and infrastructure projects, e.g., repairing our pot-holed roads and crumbling bridges, improving public transport.

We’re still 7.7 million jobs shy of the number needed to bring the unemployment rate down to its pre-recession level — 600,000 fewer than when the video was created, but still a daunting number. The recommended investments would help close the gap — as might the next thing, according to many economists.

Raise the Minimum Wage. In other words, Congress should pass the Fair Minimum Wage Act, which has been awaiting a vote for about a year and a half now.

As I’ve written before, the bill would raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour by 2016 and then link it to a commonly-used consumer price index so that it wouldn’t again lose purchasing power due to inflation.

The bill would also, over a longer period of time, raise the federal tip credit wage — now and since 1991 stuck at $2.13 an hour — to 70% of the regular minimum wage and then link it to preserve this ratio.

In the late 1960s, Half in Ten says, the minimum wage was enough to lift a family of three out of poverty. A full-time, year round job at the federal minimum wage now pays less than the federal poverty line for a two-person family.

Expand Access to High-Quality Pre-K and Childcare. This, as you probably know, is a high priority for the President and a broad spectrum of advocacy organizations. They’re focused especially on children in low-income families, more than half of whom start school at a disadvantage — and never catch up.

A bill reflecting the Obama administration’s proposal — the Strong Start for America’s Children Act — would make pre-K available for more low-income four-year-olds and, at the same time, establish quality standards. It also seeks to raise quality in programs for younger kids.

The Half in Ten video, however, focuses on the immediate pocketbook issue. Low-income families, it says, spend, on average, 40% of their income on childcare. More money for publicly-funded programs and/or subsidies to help pay the rates other programs charge would obviously leave more leftover for other needs.

Make the Workplace Family Friendly. Three priorities here. One is mandatory paid sick leave for the more than 40% of private-sector workers whose employers don’t see fit to grant it voluntarily. The percent in roughly double for low-wage workers, who can least afford to take unpaid leave.

A second priority is paid family leave so that workers can take time off for a broader range of compelling reasons, e.g., childbirth, a sick family member in need of care. Only 212% of workers have this benefit now.

And of the 59% who have an unpaid family leave guarantee under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act, about two million need, but can’t afford to take it, according to a recent survey.

A bill now pending in Congress would take care of both these issues — and without adding a penny to the federal debt, says one of the cosponsors.

The third priority is legislation to further strengthen the Equal Pay Act. Women still earn only 77 cents for every dollar men earn. Various reasons for this, but an estimated quarter to a third of the gap may reflect discrimination.

Don’t Make Poverty Worse. In other words, Congress is to refrain from further cuts to programs that provide cash or near-cash benefits to people in need.

Half in Ten flags SNAP (the food stamp program), which, as you know, was recently cut. It lifted nearly five million people above the poverty threshold in 2012, according to the Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure.

Also flagged are unemployment insurance benefits, which lifted more than 2.4 million above the poverty threshold.

So Congress will surely make poverty worse if it doesn’t renew the recently-expired Emergency Unemployment Compensation program — or does, but trims it back again. The former seems more likely than the latter, unless Republicans rethink their position.

This is, in a way, a sad agenda because it’s largely based on pending legislation, which is largely based on what stands at least a remove chance of passing in this highly-divided, deficit-obsessed Congress. Sad also because chances seem pretty remote for much of it.

But one never can tell. So the thing we can do right now is to weigh in with our elected representatives on these five things — unless, of course, we’re disenfranchised District of Columbia residents. Sigh.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 176 other followers