Tuesday, June 05, 2018
Tuesday Morning Links
This and that for your Tuesday reading.
- Ed Broadbent examines how Doug Ford's platform (such as it is) would only further enrich the wealthy, while causing catastrophic results for everybody else:
- Daneil Summers discusses how predatory pricing is making an HIV prevention medication developed largely through public research funding inaccessible to the people who need it. And Julia Lurie exposes the lurid manipulations used to push opioids.
- Thomas Gunton highlights the irrationality of the Trudeau Libs' decision to waste public money on a Trans Mountain expansion.
- Finally, Chris Terry takes a look at British Columbia's electoral reform referendum - and its place in the pattern of making electoral results fairer and more proportional.
- Ed Broadbent examines how Doug Ford's platform (such as it is) would only further enrich the wealthy, while causing catastrophic results for everybody else:
Just imagine waking up on Friday morning and having to hear the phrase “Premier Doug Ford” for the next four years. His record as an enabler of the irresponsible and chaotic mayoralty of his brother in Toronto, and the clear ethical failings of the Progressive Conservative Party under his leadership, point to dark days for this province should he win the June 7th election.- Toby Sanger takes a look at the tens of thousands of jobs which stand to be lost if Ford gets his way. And Tom Parkin writes that the NDP represents the responsible progressive alternative to know-nothing right-wing populism.
Mr. Ford has campaigned on a promise to slash $6-billion from the provincial budget but has refused to specify how or where. The mathematical inevitably of this scale of cuts could involve closing 36 hospitals, firing 28,000 nurses, closing 780 schools, and firing 20,000 teachers.
In addition, Mr. Ford’s commitment to “leave no stone unturned” when it comes to privatization, means all of our health care, schools and other vital public services are at risk.
The result of these cuts and privatization will be a much more expensive life for Ontario families. Other damaging aspects of his plan include ignoring climate change, giving big corporations a $5 billion tax cut, and providing a huge tax benefit to the richest individuals in the province.
Mr. Ford’s extraordinary support from the most extreme of social conservatives and white supremacists should make us all concerned about any administration he would lead. I have no doubt that electing Ford as Premier would bring divisive and destructive Trump-style politics to Canada.
- Daneil Summers discusses how predatory pricing is making an HIV prevention medication developed largely through public research funding inaccessible to the people who need it. And Julia Lurie exposes the lurid manipulations used to push opioids.
- Thomas Gunton highlights the irrationality of the Trudeau Libs' decision to waste public money on a Trans Mountain expansion.
- Finally, Chris Terry takes a look at British Columbia's electoral reform referendum - and its place in the pattern of making electoral results fairer and more proportional.
Monday, June 04, 2018
Monday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material to start your week.
- Andrew Anthony interviews Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett about their new book on the connection between inequality and mental illness. And Danny Dorling discusses the external (and preventable) causes of many mental health issues:
- Alex Press writes that the success of teachers' strikes in the U.S. offers an important reminder of the effectiveness of collective action. Mike Konczal comments on the role unions have played in reducing both economic and racial inequality, while Eric Levitz highlights how the labour movement as a whole is the antithesis of a "special interest group" but instead a positive force for the general public. And Gerard Di Trolio previews what workers in Ontario could expect from an NDP government.
- Meanwhile, David Moscrop discusses the no-brainer choice between Doug Ford's circus and the responsible social democracy of Andrea Horwath. And David Bush comments on what's at stake in Ontario's election.
- Finally, Thomas Homer-Dixon and Yonatan Strauch write about the folly of betting Canada's economic future on the hope that humanity will fail to address the existential threat of climate change.
- Andrew Anthony interviews Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett about their new book on the connection between inequality and mental illness. And Danny Dorling discusses the external (and preventable) causes of many mental health issues:
People working in separate disciplines are coming to the same conclusion: that our social worlds impact on us, they can give us health or cause us harm. As the UN puts it, “mental health policies and services are in crisis—not a crisis of chemical imbalances, but of power imbalances. We need bold political commitments, urgent policy responses and immediate remedial action.” This recent report calls for a shift from biomedical models of mental distress to a more radical, human rights-based approach, acknowledging the impacts of social inequality.- Darren Bernhardt talks to Anna Cooper about the futility of trying to deal with homelessness by criminalizing and displacing homeless people, rather than dealing with the underlying causes. And Nick Saul points out that a fair minimum wage goes a long way toward ensuring that people can workers can afford a reasonable standard of living.
Another recent report published by the British Psychological Society, “The Power Threat Meaning Framework,” looks at the contextual factors which may make us sick. PTM acknowledges power inequalities and the impact of oppression. Being on the wrong side of power can lead to feelings of entrapment, shame and humiliation, as well as a sense of lacking control.
The framework highlights links between “poverty, discrimination and inequality, along with traumas such as abuse and violence, and the resulting emotional distress or troubled behaviour.” Adverse childhood experiences have a negative impact on health and wellbeing, for example.
Both The Inner Level and PTM reframe the narrative around why people get sick—refocusing the question from “What’s wrong with this individual?” to “What’s going wrong in this society?”
- Alex Press writes that the success of teachers' strikes in the U.S. offers an important reminder of the effectiveness of collective action. Mike Konczal comments on the role unions have played in reducing both economic and racial inequality, while Eric Levitz highlights how the labour movement as a whole is the antithesis of a "special interest group" but instead a positive force for the general public. And Gerard Di Trolio previews what workers in Ontario could expect from an NDP government.
- Meanwhile, David Moscrop discusses the no-brainer choice between Doug Ford's circus and the responsible social democracy of Andrea Horwath. And David Bush comments on what's at stake in Ontario's election.
- Finally, Thomas Homer-Dixon and Yonatan Strauch write about the folly of betting Canada's economic future on the hope that humanity will fail to address the existential threat of climate change.
Sunday, June 03, 2018
On history repeating
I haven't yet commented much on Ontario's provincial election campaign - and readers interested in the race will find plenty of noteworthy observers on the blogroll.
That said, it's worth noting the parallels between this campaign and a couple of the NDP's other recent breakthroughs.
To start with, Ontario's 2018 election seems to be offering an answer to one of the more interesting hypotheticals about the 2011 federal election.
In that campaign, the NDP started out well behind the Cons and Libs - but with an experienced and trusted leader who was able to contrast his own image against that of two self-perceived frontrunners who spent most of the campaign attacking each other (or three in Quebec).
By the end of the race, Jack Layton had emerged as by far the most popular of the federal leaders, including by winning over a strong plurality of Quebec voters and expanding the NDP's potential voter pool from coast to coast to coast.
But he reached that position only well into the campaign. As a result, the Libs maintained some residual support from voters accustomed to their being the default alternative to the Cons - particularly in Ontario where strategic voting campaigns based on past electoral results actually helped the Cons win three-way races. And the result was Stephen Harper's one and only majority government - albeit challenged by a strong NDP opposition.
The great what-if for the NDP was thus what would have happened if the 2011 campaign had lasted just a couple more weeks. And we may be getting our answer.
This year, Andrea Horwath's campaign is following in Layton's footsteps. She too was largely ignored at the start of the campaign as two highly-flawed parties and leaders tried to run only against each other; she too has expanded the NDP's potential voter pool far beyond what most outside observers anticipated; she too has managed to see an already-positive reputation improve in comparison to her opponents.
But after making her move in the polls somewhat earlier in the campaign, Horwath has had enough time for voters to get comfortable with the concept of an NDP victory. And yesterday's effective concession by Kathleen Wynne means that late-deciding voters will have no doubt as to which party is actually running to provide an alternative to a Doug Ford government.
For another historical precedent, that suggests David Climenhaga might be right on the money in his long-standing comparison to Alberta's 2015 election - right down to the divided and unpopular right-wing party whose only apparent late-campaign move is to hope that voters will defer to corporate insiders in casting their ballots.
Of course, there are still some important obstacles in Horwath's way - particularly the uncertainty as to the efficiency of her party's support. But it looks entirely plausible that Horwath's wave may have crested at the right time where Layton's fell just short.
That said, it's worth noting the parallels between this campaign and a couple of the NDP's other recent breakthroughs.
To start with, Ontario's 2018 election seems to be offering an answer to one of the more interesting hypotheticals about the 2011 federal election.
In that campaign, the NDP started out well behind the Cons and Libs - but with an experienced and trusted leader who was able to contrast his own image against that of two self-perceived frontrunners who spent most of the campaign attacking each other (or three in Quebec).
By the end of the race, Jack Layton had emerged as by far the most popular of the federal leaders, including by winning over a strong plurality of Quebec voters and expanding the NDP's potential voter pool from coast to coast to coast.
But he reached that position only well into the campaign. As a result, the Libs maintained some residual support from voters accustomed to their being the default alternative to the Cons - particularly in Ontario where strategic voting campaigns based on past electoral results actually helped the Cons win three-way races. And the result was Stephen Harper's one and only majority government - albeit challenged by a strong NDP opposition.
The great what-if for the NDP was thus what would have happened if the 2011 campaign had lasted just a couple more weeks. And we may be getting our answer.
This year, Andrea Horwath's campaign is following in Layton's footsteps. She too was largely ignored at the start of the campaign as two highly-flawed parties and leaders tried to run only against each other; she too has expanded the NDP's potential voter pool far beyond what most outside observers anticipated; she too has managed to see an already-positive reputation improve in comparison to her opponents.
But after making her move in the polls somewhat earlier in the campaign, Horwath has had enough time for voters to get comfortable with the concept of an NDP victory. And yesterday's effective concession by Kathleen Wynne means that late-deciding voters will have no doubt as to which party is actually running to provide an alternative to a Doug Ford government.
For another historical precedent, that suggests David Climenhaga might be right on the money in his long-standing comparison to Alberta's 2015 election - right down to the divided and unpopular right-wing party whose only apparent late-campaign move is to hope that voters will defer to corporate insiders in casting their ballots.
Of course, there are still some important obstacles in Horwath's way - particularly the uncertainty as to the efficiency of her party's support. But it looks entirely plausible that Horwath's wave may have crested at the right time where Layton's fell just short.
Sunday Morning Links
This and that for your Sunday reading.
- Mariana Mazzucato discusses the dangers of confusing market prices with intrinsic values:
- Meanwhile, Bruce Livesey wonders whether the Libs' Trans Mountain bailout is based on a perception that Canada has signed away any ability to limit the prospect of an oil pipeline to serve Chinese investors. Michael Harris weighs on on the foolishness of paying far above market price for a project which creates massive public risks, while David Climenhaga wonders whether Trudeau plans to be bound by Kinder Morgan's side deal with the anti-worker CLAC. And Mike De Souza reports that two Kinder Morgan executives are being rewarded with $1.5 million bonuses for extracting the deal the company was able to wring out of the federal government.
- Finally, Denise Balkissoon rightly argues that Canada needs to take responsibility for the continued pattern of children being removed from their families - particularly in Indigenous and minority communities.
- Mariana Mazzucato discusses the dangers of confusing market prices with intrinsic values:
Value has gone from being a category at the core of economic theory, tied to the dynamics of production (the division of labour, changing costs of production), to a subjective category tied to the ‘preferences’ of economic agents. Many ills, such as stagnant real wages, are interpreted in terms of the ‘choices’ that particular agents in the system make, for example unemployment is seen as related to the choice that workers make between working and leisure. And entrepreneurship – the praised motor of capitalism – is seen as a result of such individualized choices rather than of the productive system surrounding entrepreneurs – or, to put it another way, the fruit of a collective effort. At the same time, price has become the indicator of value: as long as a good is bought and sold in the market, it must have value. So rather than a theory of value determining price, it is the theory of price that determines value.
Along with this fundamental shift in the idea of value, a different narrative has taken hold. Focused on wealth creators, risk taking and entrepreneurship, this narrative has seeped into political and public discourse. It is now so rampant that even ‘progressives’ critiquing the system sometimes unintentionally espouse it.- Ben Parfitt notes that British Columbia is being severely shortchanged when it comes to deriving public revenue from natural resources. And Simon Enoch and Emily Eaton examine how an oil boom tends to offer little benefit to public coffers and services even in the areas which are supposed to be prospering.
...
Such assumptions about the generation of wealth have become entrenched, and have gone unchallenged. As a result, those who claim to be wealth creators have monopolised the attention of governments with the now well-worn mantra of: give us less tax, less regulation, less state and more market. By losing our ability to recognize the difference between value creation and value extraction, we have made it easier for some to call themselves value creators and in the process extract value. Understanding how the stories about value creation are around us everywhere – even though the category itself is not – is essential for the future viability of capitalism.To offer real change we must go beyond fixing isolated problems, and develop a framework that allows us to shape a new type of economy: one that will work for the common good. The change has to be profound. It is not enough to redefine GDP to encompass quality-of-life indicators, including measures of happiness, the imputed value of unpaid ‘caring’ labour and free information, education and communication via the Internet. It is also not enough to tax wealth. While such measures are important in themselves, they do not address the greatest challenge: defining and measuring the collective contribution to wealth creation, so that value extraction is less able to pass for value creation.
- Meanwhile, Bruce Livesey wonders whether the Libs' Trans Mountain bailout is based on a perception that Canada has signed away any ability to limit the prospect of an oil pipeline to serve Chinese investors. Michael Harris weighs on on the foolishness of paying far above market price for a project which creates massive public risks, while David Climenhaga wonders whether Trudeau plans to be bound by Kinder Morgan's side deal with the anti-worker CLAC. And Mike De Souza reports that two Kinder Morgan executives are being rewarded with $1.5 million bonuses for extracting the deal the company was able to wring out of the federal government.
- Finally, Denise Balkissoon rightly argues that Canada needs to take responsibility for the continued pattern of children being removed from their families - particularly in Indigenous and minority communities.
Saturday, June 02, 2018
Saturday Morning Links
Assorted content for your weekend reading.
- CBC talks to Robert Frank about the role of luck and privilege in generating concentrated wealth. And Kate Bahn highlights the reality that collective action is needed to help level a playing field currently tilted to benefit those who already have the most.
- Samantha Eyler-Driscoll interviews Gabriel Zucman about the dangers of inequality (and the financial secrecy which enables it). And Richard Brooks offers a warning that big accounting firms are too close to the corporations they're supposed to be monitoring, while Matthew Yglesias writes that the Republicans are setting up another financial crisis by letting the financial sector run amok.
- Peter Goodman discusses Stockton, California's plans for a basic income experiment. And Johann Hari notes that a secure income can have massive mental health benefits - while financial precarity can instead feed into depression and other illnesses:
- Finally, Jessica McCrory Calarco notes that the "marshmallow test" referred to regularly in behavioural economics likely has more to do with socioeconomic status than any inherent self-discipline.
- CBC talks to Robert Frank about the role of luck and privilege in generating concentrated wealth. And Kate Bahn highlights the reality that collective action is needed to help level a playing field currently tilted to benefit those who already have the most.
- Samantha Eyler-Driscoll interviews Gabriel Zucman about the dangers of inequality (and the financial secrecy which enables it). And Richard Brooks offers a warning that big accounting firms are too close to the corporations they're supposed to be monitoring, while Matthew Yglesias writes that the Republicans are setting up another financial crisis by letting the financial sector run amok.
- Peter Goodman discusses Stockton, California's plans for a basic income experiment. And Johann Hari notes that a secure income can have massive mental health benefits - while financial precarity can instead feed into depression and other illnesses:
For several decades now, we have been taught to see our deepest forms of pain—our depression, our anxiety—as primarily problems with our internal brain chemistry: some missing serotonin here, some missing dopamine there. This is how I was told to think about my depression by my doctor. But the UN’s leading medical figures have warned that this view is “biased and selective use of research outcomes” that “cause more harm than good” and “must be abandoned.” There is, they claim, a different way of looking at this problem—one that offers meaningful solutions.- But Stephanie Nebehay reports on a UN human rights investigation showing how the Trump administration is going out of its way to further impoverish the U.S.' lower classes, while Ed Pilkington notes that core Trump supporters in rural areas are likely suffering some of the worst effects.
...
...If depression is primarily—as we have been led to believe by pharmaceutical company marketing campaigns—a problem with our brain chemistry, this makes no sense. The brains of the people of Dauphin did not suddenly evolve in those three years. But the World Health Organization, the leading medical body in the world, has explained: “Mental health is produced socially. The presence or absence of mental health is above all a social indicator and requires social as well as individual solutions.” In reality, depression and anxiety are produced by a broad range of factors. Some are biological—but many are social and psychological.
This requires us to think differently about how we respond to depression and anxiety. Dr Forget told me, after she interviewed many of the people who had been on the guaranteed income program, that it “works as an antidepressant.” Severe financial anxiety is one of several factors which has been proven to cause depression. Reducing that cause reduces the amount of depression. All over the world, I hunted for alternative antidepressants that should be offered alongside chemical antidepressants—and I kept seeing this key insight that had been discovered in Canada in the 1970s: the most effective strategies for dealing with depression are the ones that deal with the reasons why we are in such pain in the first place.
- Finally, Jessica McCrory Calarco notes that the "marshmallow test" referred to regularly in behavioural economics likely has more to do with socioeconomic status than any inherent self-discipline.
Friday, June 01, 2018
Friday Morning Links
Assorted content to end your week.
- Cherise Seucharan interviews Andrew MacLeod about his new book on the health benefits of investing in income, housing and education. And Kyle Edwards discusses the unconscionable number of Indigenous children being put in foster care.
- Ben Smee reports on the UK's parliamentary inquiry into franchising - including evidence that franchisees have been advised to use wage theft and exploitation of vulnerable workers as regular business strategies. And Jeffry Bartash examines new U.S. data showing that an unusually high number of employees are seeing no raises despite a supposedly tight job market.
- Meanwhile, Jude Kirton-Darling and Agnes Jongerius report on a new EU law - fought tooth and nail by the UK's Cons - intended to ensure that the free movement of workers doesn't serve to undercut wages and employment standards.
- Robert Benzie reports on the Ontario NDP's plan for a rent registry for transparency in housing pricing (and as a safeguard against "renovictions").
- Finally, Kevin Taft comments that the Trans Mountain buyoff and expansion look to be symptoms of a continued addiction to fossil fuels. And James Wilt interviews Peter Erickson about the long-term ramifications of those choices today.
- Cherise Seucharan interviews Andrew MacLeod about his new book on the health benefits of investing in income, housing and education. And Kyle Edwards discusses the unconscionable number of Indigenous children being put in foster care.
- Ben Smee reports on the UK's parliamentary inquiry into franchising - including evidence that franchisees have been advised to use wage theft and exploitation of vulnerable workers as regular business strategies. And Jeffry Bartash examines new U.S. data showing that an unusually high number of employees are seeing no raises despite a supposedly tight job market.
- Meanwhile, Jude Kirton-Darling and Agnes Jongerius report on a new EU law - fought tooth and nail by the UK's Cons - intended to ensure that the free movement of workers doesn't serve to undercut wages and employment standards.
- Robert Benzie reports on the Ontario NDP's plan for a rent registry for transparency in housing pricing (and as a safeguard against "renovictions").
- Finally, Kevin Taft comments that the Trans Mountain buyoff and expansion look to be symptoms of a continued addiction to fossil fuels. And James Wilt interviews Peter Erickson about the long-term ramifications of those choices today.
Thursday, May 31, 2018
New column day
Here, on how the Libs' willingness to throw tens of billions of public dollars at the Trans Mountain pipeline (and its corporate partners) confirms the broken promise that infrastructure money would serve the public interest.
For further reading...
- Campbell Clark wrote about the slow pace of the infrastructure spending which was put forward as evidence of the Libs' supposed vision for the public good. And Mia Rabson reports on the Canada Infrastructure Bank which will divert public infrastructure funding toward the generation of corporate profits.
- document how Kinder Morgan schemed its way into a no-lose situation while making laughable pleas of hardship. And Robyn Allan has previously written about Kinder Morgan's refusal to contribute its fair share to the government which has now decided to pay it off.
- Paul Willcocks takes a look at the combined cost of buying Trans Mountain and planning to fund its expansion, while Perrin Grauer examines a few of the other ways the Libs could be spending the same money to meet far more urgent and important social priorities. And both Matt McClure and Vanmala Subramaniam find that experts see the purchase as indefensible.
- Finally, Pam Palmater points out a few of the additional promises the Libs are breaking by buying Trans Mountain.
For further reading...
- Campbell Clark wrote about the slow pace of the infrastructure spending which was put forward as evidence of the Libs' supposed vision for the public good. And Mia Rabson reports on the Canada Infrastructure Bank which will divert public infrastructure funding toward the generation of corporate profits.
- document how Kinder Morgan schemed its way into a no-lose situation while making laughable pleas of hardship. And Robyn Allan has previously written about Kinder Morgan's refusal to contribute its fair share to the government which has now decided to pay it off.
- Paul Willcocks takes a look at the combined cost of buying Trans Mountain and planning to fund its expansion, while Perrin Grauer examines a few of the other ways the Libs could be spending the same money to meet far more urgent and important social priorities. And both Matt McClure and Vanmala Subramaniam find that experts see the purchase as indefensible.
- Finally, Pam Palmater points out a few of the additional promises the Libs are breaking by buying Trans Mountain.
Thursday Morning Links
This and that for your Thursday reading.
- Frances Ryan rightly calls out the anti-choice right for having no interest in the well-being of children once they're born:
- Edgardo Sepulveda examines the effect on inequality of the party platforms in Ontario's provincial election, showing the stark distinction between the increased fairness of the NDP's platform and the exacerbated inequality on offer from Doug Ford. And Michael Laxer's roundup contrasts the real Conservative scandals which have been downplayed by the media against the contrived attempts to manufacture controversy surrounding the NDP.
- Andrew Jackson reviews Christo Aivailis' The Constant Liberal on Pierre Trudeau's consistent pattern of trying absorb progressive activity into centrist power structures to dilute its ultimate effect.
- Finally, Helene Laverdiere criticizes the Libs' insistence on enabling the sale of arms to human rights abusers.
- Frances Ryan rightly calls out the anti-choice right for having no interest in the well-being of children once they're born:
(S)mall-state ideology can make it devastatingly difficult for a low-income parent to look after a child. Look at the controversial “two-child” limit to child tax credits under universal credit (UC). From its inception, it was predicted the policy would lead to hundreds of thousands of additional children living in poverty, but it’s now emerging that some women are even feeling forced to have abortions because they can’t afford to go ahead with the pregnancy. “It wasn’t planned but it was very much wanted. I was crying as they wheeled me in,” one woman told the Mirror this month about her abortion; without the safety net of tax credits, she had no way to afford another baby. Women in Northern Ireland in similar positions have an even more restricted choice: the rape-exemption clause that gives some women on UC a financial reprieve endangers women who haven’t reported their attack to the police (in Northern Ireland, failure to report a crime is an offence) and, as the renewed calls for reproductive rights in light of the Irish vote has highlighted, Northern Irish women have no legal access to abortion in their own country if they feel they can’t raise a child.- And Elizabeth Wall-Weiler points out the vicious cycle of separating children from teenage mothers in care - which tends only to ensure a lack of family security across generations.
Recent years have in fact seen a determined removal of support from low-income mothers – everything from forcing single parents (90% of whom are women) to look for work once their child turns three or have their benefits sanctioned, to the benefit cap, a policy so regressive it was actually ruled to be unlawful when forced on single parents with toddlers.
...
In the post-crash austerity era, this sense of social solidarity towards children has noticeably lessened. Under each policy to remove state support from parents there’s a lurking narrative that working-class women are “breeding too much” or that low-income children are drains on the “hardworking taxpayer”. (“Why should I pay for someone else to have more kids?” is the rejoinder on most articles advocating child benefits). In the real world, pregnancy is rarely predictable – contraception fails, relationships end, and jobs are lost – and besides, even the most ardent individualist would admit low-income children have done nothing to “deserve” their own poverty.
We are at the point in which it is not rare to hear of infants living in B&Bs, sleeping on cardboard, or even scrambling for food in school bins. If the ongoing debate over abortion rights teaches us anything, it’s that there are no shortage of voices content to defend the “unborn”. It’s a shame few are willing to give the same care to those children who are already here.
- Edgardo Sepulveda examines the effect on inequality of the party platforms in Ontario's provincial election, showing the stark distinction between the increased fairness of the NDP's platform and the exacerbated inequality on offer from Doug Ford. And Michael Laxer's roundup contrasts the real Conservative scandals which have been downplayed by the media against the contrived attempts to manufacture controversy surrounding the NDP.
- Andrew Jackson reviews Christo Aivailis' The Constant Liberal on Pierre Trudeau's consistent pattern of trying absorb progressive activity into centrist power structures to dilute its ultimate effect.
- Finally, Helene Laverdiere criticizes the Libs' insistence on enabling the sale of arms to human rights abusers.
Wednesday, May 30, 2018
Wednesday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.
- Lambert Strether points out that standard estimates of income inequality (jarring though they are to begin with) tend to ignore the capital gains which accrue disproportionately to those who already have the most.
- Scott Alexander makes the case for a basic income as opposed to a jobs guarantee - including the observation that the requirements of work (including housing location and transportation) can themselves be contributors to poverty and stress.
- Josh Eidelson points out how the U.S. has allowed "prevailing wage" data which is intended to ensure reasonable pay on federal projects to fall decades out of date. And Noam Scheiber reports that Donald Trump is attacking both the job security of federal employees and their ability to defend themselves collectively - while William Brown and Chris Wright write that exactly the opposite steps represent the best hope of protecting the UK's labour standards in the face of Brexit.
- Harry Quilter-Pinner argues that there's no excuse for failing to limit avoidable air pollution which causes serious public health risks.
- Finally, Andrew Nikiforuk examines the true costs of the Libs' Trans Mountain subsidies and giveaways - with a price tag likely to approach $20 billion. Bill McKibben criticizes Justin Trudeau's decision to become an oil executive rather than governing in the interest of Canadians, while Thomas Walkom notes that buying up a pipeline doesn't solve any of the underlying factors pointing against pipeline expansion while rewarding Kinder Morgan for its petulance. And Vicky Mochama offers some suggestions as to Trudeau's anticipated pitch to try to sell off the pipeline in the years to come.
- Lambert Strether points out that standard estimates of income inequality (jarring though they are to begin with) tend to ignore the capital gains which accrue disproportionately to those who already have the most.
- Scott Alexander makes the case for a basic income as opposed to a jobs guarantee - including the observation that the requirements of work (including housing location and transportation) can themselves be contributors to poverty and stress.
- Josh Eidelson points out how the U.S. has allowed "prevailing wage" data which is intended to ensure reasonable pay on federal projects to fall decades out of date. And Noam Scheiber reports that Donald Trump is attacking both the job security of federal employees and their ability to defend themselves collectively - while William Brown and Chris Wright write that exactly the opposite steps represent the best hope of protecting the UK's labour standards in the face of Brexit.
- Harry Quilter-Pinner argues that there's no excuse for failing to limit avoidable air pollution which causes serious public health risks.
- Finally, Andrew Nikiforuk examines the true costs of the Libs' Trans Mountain subsidies and giveaways - with a price tag likely to approach $20 billion. Bill McKibben criticizes Justin Trudeau's decision to become an oil executive rather than governing in the interest of Canadians, while Thomas Walkom notes that buying up a pipeline doesn't solve any of the underlying factors pointing against pipeline expansion while rewarding Kinder Morgan for its petulance. And Vicky Mochama offers some suggestions as to Trudeau's anticipated pitch to try to sell off the pipeline in the years to come.
Tuesday, May 29, 2018
Tuesday Morning Links
This and that for your Tuesday reading.
- Peter Goodman discusses how austerity has changed society for the worse in the UK:
- Jim Stanford examines the spread of precarious work in Australia, with less than half of current jobs meeting a basic definition of "standard" secure work. And Tracey Warren argues that any discussion about work-life balance needs to take into account the individual effects of poverty-level wages.
- Finally, Richard Florida warns Ontario voters about the economic risks of allowing Doug Ford to tear down progress in the name of know-nothing populism.
- Peter Goodman discusses how austerity has changed society for the worse in the UK:
For a nation with a storied history of public largess, the protracted campaign of budget cutting, started in 2010 by a government led by the Conservative Party, has delivered a monumental shift in British life. A wave of austerity has yielded a country that has grown accustomed to living with less, even as many measures of social well-being — crime rates, opioid addiction, infant mortality, childhood poverty and homelessness — point to a deteriorating quality of life.- Noelle Sullivan and Lisa Ann Richey offer a reminder that we won't successfully fight poverty by throwing money at self-serving corporate public relations campaigns. And LA Kouffman comments on the need for protest and other collective activism to push for social change.
...
By 2020, reductions already set in motion will produce cuts to British social welfare programs exceeding $36 billion a year compared with a decade earlier, or more than $900 annually for every working-age person in the country, according to a report from the Center for Regional Economic and Social Research at Sheffield Hallam University. In Liverpool, the losses will reach $1,200 a year per working-age person, the study says.
...
But the reality at hand is dominated by worries that Britain’s pending departure from the European Union — Brexit, as it is known — will depress growth for years to come. Though every major economy on earth has been expanding lately, Britain’s barely grew during the first three months of 2018. The unemployment rate sits just above 4 percent — its lowest level since 1975 — yet most wages remain lower than a decade ago, after accounting for rising prices.
...
In the blue-collar reaches of northern England, in places like Liverpool, modern history tends to be told in the cadence of lamentation, as the story of one indignity after another. In these communities, Mrs. Thatcher’s name is an epithet, and austerity is the latest villain: London bankers concocted a financial crisis, multiplying their wealth through reckless gambling; then London politicians used budget deficits as an excuse to cut spending on the poor while handing tax cuts to corporations. Robin Hood, reversed.
- Jim Stanford examines the spread of precarious work in Australia, with less than half of current jobs meeting a basic definition of "standard" secure work. And Tracey Warren argues that any discussion about work-life balance needs to take into account the individual effects of poverty-level wages.
- Finally, Richard Florida warns Ontario voters about the economic risks of allowing Doug Ford to tear down progress in the name of know-nothing populism.
Sunday, May 27, 2018
Sunday Morning Links
This and that for your Sunday reading.
- Laura Basu discusses the media's role in accepting and perpetuating the corporatist ideology behind privatization campaigns:
- Alex Matthews-King discusses new research on the connection between inequality and increased obesity among other health risks.
- Chris Mooney and Juliet Eilperin reveal the Trump administration's attitude toward climate change - with ignorance and deliberate undermining of scientific evidence both treated as viable options, while acting based on reality was left off the table. And Ellen Knickmeyer reports on the collusion between Trump's appointed environmental regulators and the climate change denial industry.
- Finally, Ben Choiniere reports on Rhode Island's proposal to offer employees the chance to turn layoffs or closures into a first step toward cooperative ownership.
- Laura Basu discusses the media's role in accepting and perpetuating the corporatist ideology behind privatization campaigns:
(R)esearch carried out by myself at Cardiff University has shown that while austerity has been controversial, trickle-down reforms like privatisation, deregulation and corporation tax cuts have been embraced by the media. In the sample of five UK mainstream media outlets, only one – the Guardian – took a more critical stance towards these reforms than a supportive one. Even that outlet contained almost as much favourable coverage as critical coverage. The right-wing sections of the press, which dominate the British media landscape, were unflinchingly supportive of these measures and urged the government to go even further.- Meanwhile, Tom Wall exposes how UK landlords are exploiting the opportunity to extract millions of pounds by offering unsafe housing as publicly-funded temporary accommodation to people who can't find anywhere affordable to live on a permanent basis.
The idea behind these policies is that what’s good for business is good for everyone. If businesses are handed more resources, freed from regulation and handed tax breaks, they will be encouraged to invest in the economy, creating jobs and growth. The rich are therefore ‘job creators’ and ‘wealth creators’. One exposé revealed that in the UK, business is handed £93 billion a year in this kind of corporate welfare. With a few notable exceptions, there has been a black hole around corporate welfare in public discourse.
This is despite the fact that these policies have an impressive fail rate. Business investment and productivity growth remain low, as corporations spend the savings not on training and innovation but on share buy-backs and shareholder dividends. Share buy-backs are when a company purchases its own shares, decreasing the number of its shares on the open market and thereby increasing their value. According to the Financial Times, in 2014, the top 500 US companies returned 95 per cent of their profits to shareholders in dividends and buybacks. Meanwhile, inequality is spiralling.
...
By the time of the 2008 crash, neoliberal ideology had become so dominant that other positions were virtually invisible. And so, the same people responsible for financial collapse were called upon to offer solutions.
In my study, business and finance representatives were the second biggest category of sources featured in the media coverage. The biggest category was politicians, who until the Corbyn shake-up have been pursuing a blindly pro-business agenda. These two groups got to set the news agenda and the terms of debate. Other voices – trade unions, campaign groups, activists and academics – were sidelined. These groups helped manufacture an amnesia that was taken up zealously by some sections of the media and passively reproduced by others.
It has taken the Grenfell fire tragedy costing the lives of at least 70 people and the collapse of Carillion for the political consensus to even begin to be questioned. If we are to build on this progress we will need to start having grown-up conversations about corporate welfare and the strengths and weaknesses of market capitalism.
- Alex Matthews-King discusses new research on the connection between inequality and increased obesity among other health risks.
- Chris Mooney and Juliet Eilperin reveal the Trump administration's attitude toward climate change - with ignorance and deliberate undermining of scientific evidence both treated as viable options, while acting based on reality was left off the table. And Ellen Knickmeyer reports on the collusion between Trump's appointed environmental regulators and the climate change denial industry.
- Finally, Ben Choiniere reports on Rhode Island's proposal to offer employees the chance to turn layoffs or closures into a first step toward cooperative ownership.
Saturday, May 26, 2018
Saturday Morning Links
Assorted content for your weekend reading.
- Martin Lukacs offers a reminder that Doug Ford is nothing but a mercenary for his fellow children of privilege, while Andrea Horwath's NDP actually offers a platform which will benefit the 99%. And Michal Rozworski observes that Ontario's election is properly focusing on contrasting priorities rather than an obsession over deficit numbers.
- David Climenhaga challenges Rachel Notley's attempt to scupper any discussion about pharmacare - even when it stands to save money for Alberta and the other provinces - in the name of putting pipelines first. And the Narwhal publishes an open letter challenging the approval of the Trans Mountain expansion in the absence of meaningful scientific support.
- Paul McKay notes that new rules governing sulphur content for shipping fuel may take a substantial bite out of the market for dilbit from the oil sands. And Damian Carrington reports on new research showing that the global cost of climate change will far exceed the price of reining in greenhouse gas emissions.
- Bridget Yard reports on the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission's survey of Saskatoon renters, including its finding of explicit discrimination against Indigenous people, single mothers and people receiving social assistance.
- Finally, Wendy Stueck reports on FSIN's newly-announced suicide prevention strategy - while noting the need for the provincial and federal governments to care enough about Indigenous people's lives to contribute.
- Martin Lukacs offers a reminder that Doug Ford is nothing but a mercenary for his fellow children of privilege, while Andrea Horwath's NDP actually offers a platform which will benefit the 99%. And Michal Rozworski observes that Ontario's election is properly focusing on contrasting priorities rather than an obsession over deficit numbers.
- David Climenhaga challenges Rachel Notley's attempt to scupper any discussion about pharmacare - even when it stands to save money for Alberta and the other provinces - in the name of putting pipelines first. And the Narwhal publishes an open letter challenging the approval of the Trans Mountain expansion in the absence of meaningful scientific support.
- Paul McKay notes that new rules governing sulphur content for shipping fuel may take a substantial bite out of the market for dilbit from the oil sands. And Damian Carrington reports on new research showing that the global cost of climate change will far exceed the price of reining in greenhouse gas emissions.
- Bridget Yard reports on the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission's survey of Saskatoon renters, including its finding of explicit discrimination against Indigenous people, single mothers and people receiving social assistance.
- Finally, Wendy Stueck reports on FSIN's newly-announced suicide prevention strategy - while noting the need for the provincial and federal governments to care enough about Indigenous people's lives to contribute.
Friday, May 25, 2018
Friday Morning Links
Assorted content to end your week.
- Dru Oja Jay points out the connections between improved public services, decreased inequality and meaningful action to fight climate change.
- Adam Corlett challenges spin from the UK Conservatives intended to mislead voters about the relative tax contributions of the wealthy as opposed to everybody else. And Larry Elliott reports on the harm the Conservatives' austerity has done to an underfunded public health system.
- Meanwhile, Matt Taylor writes that the U.S. is setting up the next financial crisis by once again handing reckless banksters the ability to write their own rules.
- Andrew Jackson calls for a new Canadian trade strategy aimed at establishing a fair playing field including protections for workers and the environment in any country seeking preferential access to Canadian consumers.
- Lois Ross highlights the need for migrant farm labourers to be offered the same protections which apply to other workers.
- Laurie Monsebraaten reports on a healthy drop in food bank use in Ontario due to a combination of an improved minimum wage and increased social benefits. And Seth Klein and Iglka Ivanova point out how British Columbia can and should put an end to deep poverty in the very near future.
- Finally, Jim Stanford argues that a minor complaint over a modest mistake in the Ontario NDP's fully-costed platform serves largely to highlight the utter lack of transparency or plausibility in the scattershot promises made by Doug Ford and the PCs.
- Dru Oja Jay points out the connections between improved public services, decreased inequality and meaningful action to fight climate change.
- Adam Corlett challenges spin from the UK Conservatives intended to mislead voters about the relative tax contributions of the wealthy as opposed to everybody else. And Larry Elliott reports on the harm the Conservatives' austerity has done to an underfunded public health system.
- Meanwhile, Matt Taylor writes that the U.S. is setting up the next financial crisis by once again handing reckless banksters the ability to write their own rules.
- Andrew Jackson calls for a new Canadian trade strategy aimed at establishing a fair playing field including protections for workers and the environment in any country seeking preferential access to Canadian consumers.
- Lois Ross highlights the need for migrant farm labourers to be offered the same protections which apply to other workers.
- Laurie Monsebraaten reports on a healthy drop in food bank use in Ontario due to a combination of an improved minimum wage and increased social benefits. And Seth Klein and Iglka Ivanova point out how British Columbia can and should put an end to deep poverty in the very near future.
- Finally, Jim Stanford argues that a minor complaint over a modest mistake in the Ontario NDP's fully-costed platform serves largely to highlight the utter lack of transparency or plausibility in the scattershot promises made by Doug Ford and the PCs.
Thursday, May 24, 2018
Thursday Evening Links
This and that for your Thursday reading.
- Ian Millhiser writes that the Republican majority on the U.S.' Supreme Court is restoring the robber baron era:
- Noah Smith discusses the uneven effect of a university education - with already-privileged white males seeing far more income gains from a degree than their classmates. And Martin Armstrong charts the additional work performed by women compared to men.
- Corey Mintz offers a reminder of the importance of regulations to ensure that our food is safe to eat. And Jayme Poisson and David Brusser report on a new study showing the damage done to the residents of Grassy Narrows by industrial mercury poisoning.
- Finally, Vicky Mochama criticizes the inhumane use of indefinite detention in maximum-security facilities pending determination of an individual's immigration status.
- Ian Millhiser writes that the Republican majority on the U.S.' Supreme Court is restoring the robber baron era:
The conceit of Gorsuch’s Epic Systems opinion is that workers and their bosses sit down like equal bargaining partners to hash out their terms of employment. “Should employees and employers be allowed to agree that any disputes between them will be resolved through one-on-one arbitration?” Gorsuch begins his opinion with a question framed as if it could only have one answer. “Or should employees always be permitted to bring their claims in class or collective actions, no matter what they agreed with their employers?”- David Dayen comments on the severed connection between economic growth and wages in the U.S., while Sarah Anderson notes that the appalling pay gap between CEOs and frontline employees is bad for business. And Terri Gerstein calls for stronger legal action against employers who steal wages from their workers.
In reality, the facts of Epic Systems bear little resemblance to the civilized negotiation presented by Gorsuch. Workers at one of the companies at issue in this case received an email one day informing them that they must give up their right to bring class actions. Employees who “continue[d] to work at Epic,” according to the email, would “be deemed to have accepted” this agreement. A similar email was sent to the employees of one of the other companies that prevailed in Epic Systems.
These employees, in other words, only “agreed” to the terms proposed by their bosses in the same sense that a person accosted by a gunman in a dark alley “agrees” to give up their wallet. Their choice was to give up their rights or to immediately lose their jobs.
This is not the first time the Supreme Court ignored the fairly basic fact that employers typically have far more bargaining power than their workers — and can use this greater share of power to exploit their employees.
...
[At the time of the similar decision in Lochner v. New York,] (b)akeries often had no windows and little ventilation, filling the air with irritating flour dust and fumes. Ovens heated the workplaces into infernos. Low ceilings required many workers to crouch, and the floors were typically either dirt or rotten wood filled with rat holes.
The average bakery worker labored at least 13 hours a day in these conditions, though some worked as much as 126-hours a week. Workers, moreover, were often required to sleep on the very same tables where they prepared the dough, and the cost of these makeshift beds were then deducted from their wages.
These were the sorts of conditions that the free market offered workers who, without the law to protect them, were forced to bargain alone with their employers. Perhaps, in some narrow sense, these workers “agreed” to work countless hours among the roaches, the heat, and the raw sewage. But only a judge blinded by their own ideology could conclude that these workers had any real choice in the matter.
...
[Gorsuch] ignored the way the law was originally understood, ignored the text of the National Labor Relations Act, ignored the law’s hard-won understanding that employees and employers do not have equal bargaining power, and ignored Congress’ explicit efforts to strike a different balance of power between workers and their bosses.
It is a great day for law firms that profit off the exploitation of workers. And it is an even greater day for their clients.
The rest of us can either sign away our rights or lose our jobs.
- Noah Smith discusses the uneven effect of a university education - with already-privileged white males seeing far more income gains from a degree than their classmates. And Martin Armstrong charts the additional work performed by women compared to men.
- Corey Mintz offers a reminder of the importance of regulations to ensure that our food is safe to eat. And Jayme Poisson and David Brusser report on a new study showing the damage done to the residents of Grassy Narrows by industrial mercury poisoning.
- Finally, Vicky Mochama criticizes the inhumane use of indefinite detention in maximum-security facilities pending determination of an individual's immigration status.
Wednesday, May 23, 2018
Wednesday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.
- Matt Taylor discusses how the U.S.' Supreme Court has stacked the deck against workers by allowing employers to evade all types of collective action, while the Economic Policy Institute points out that a majority of workers are required to sign away their ability to seek class action remedies against illegal actions. And Elizabeth Tippett reports on the use of distorted time-keeping technology to systematically require workers to put in extra time without pay.
- Meanwhile, Jim Stanford comments on the importance of using the government's role in the economy to raise the bar for worker rights and employment standards:
- Catherine Griwkowsky interviews Siobhan Vipond about the importance of child care in narrowing the pay equity gap between men and women.
- Finally, Raymond Saint-Germain and Art Eggleton highlight the need for improved social supports and evidence-based criminal justice policy to reverse a sharp increase in the number of women incarcerated in Canada.
- Matt Taylor discusses how the U.S.' Supreme Court has stacked the deck against workers by allowing employers to evade all types of collective action, while the Economic Policy Institute points out that a majority of workers are required to sign away their ability to seek class action remedies against illegal actions. And Elizabeth Tippett reports on the use of distorted time-keeping technology to systematically require workers to put in extra time without pay.
- Meanwhile, Jim Stanford comments on the importance of using the government's role in the economy to raise the bar for worker rights and employment standards:
Australia’s government sector is by far the largest single part of Australia’s economy. The report documents the enormous fiscal dimensions of the economic footprint of government:- Erika Shaker argues that an increased reliance on fund-raising rather than public revenue is only exacerbating differences between wealthier and poorer schools. And Jen St. Denis reports on hundreds of millions of dollars of takes owed which are going unpaid in the real estate sector in Toronto and Vancouver.
This economic footprint, if wielded consistently to achieve higher wages and better jobs, could have a powerful impact on labour market outcomes. Moreover, through a “demonstration effect,” improved wages and labour standards would “spill over” into better practices in businesses and sectors that have no direct connection to government spending at all.
- Total expenditures of over $660 billion per year, equal to 36 percent of Australia’s GDP.
- Total “consumption” spending (that is, expenditures on current production of public goods and services) of over $330 billion per year (18.5 percent of GDP), and investment spending (on longer-lived capital projects) of over $85 billion (another 5 percent of GDP).
- Direct public sector employment of close to 2 million workers, with millions more jobs indirectly dependent on government injections of spending power into the economy.
- Fiscal and policy support for public and community service provision by arms-length non-profit agencies, worth at least another 4 percent of GDP.
- Goods and services procured from private-sector suppliers equivalent to around 10 percent of GDP (or about $175 billion per year).
It is ironic that Treasurers always pray for stronger wage growth in every budget they prepare, because strong wages are essential to healthy government revenues and stronger economic growth. But governments don’t pursue obvious opportunities to help achieve that growth, by tying their own expenditure programs to stronger wages and better working conditions.
- Catherine Griwkowsky interviews Siobhan Vipond about the importance of child care in narrowing the pay equity gap between men and women.
- Finally, Raymond Saint-Germain and Art Eggleton highlight the need for improved social supports and evidence-based criminal justice policy to reverse a sharp increase in the number of women incarcerated in Canada.
Tuesday, May 22, 2018
Tuesday Morning Links
This and that for your Tuesday reading.
- Tom Parkin discusses the distinction between giveaways to the rich which are perpetually seen as carrying no price, and the expansion of the commons which is treated as intolerably costly:
- Meanwhile, Patrick Greenfield and Sarah Marsh highlight how the UK is criminalizing homelessness. And Justin Wm. Moyer reports on the 7 million Americans who have lost their drivers' licences - and in many cases their ability to legally meet the availability demands of most employers - to punitive traffic debt.
- Finally, The Mound of Sound takes note of the grim milestone that's seen the Earth above its normal temperature for 400 consecutive months. And Damian Carrington offers a reminder that even as the worst effects of climate change loom in the future, humanity's track record involves the widespread destruction of plant and animal species.
- Tom Parkin discusses the distinction between giveaways to the rich which are perpetually seen as carrying no price, and the expansion of the commons which is treated as intolerably costly:
(O)ffer something that is actually free and things get downright snarky. In the currently Ontario election, the NDP platform includes a free drug plan, free dental benefits and free childcare for lower income households. There’s no fee, toll or service charge. It really is free to the user, paid for through our progressive tax system.- But on the bright side, David Climenhaga renews his prediction that the Horwath NDP's plan for a more caring and secure society will win out over Doug Ford's attempt to get the working class to vote for exploitation by the rich.
In Horwath’s plan, tax on income over $220,000 goes up one point, tax over $300,000 goes up a second. It’s all accounted for.
Now suddenly come a wave of objections—the service “isn’t really free,” say detractors as if there is some sort of deception.
But just stop. We use lots of great free public services everyday, paid by our progressive tax system.
Roads and bridges. Parks. Schools. Health care. Libraries. Police. Firefighters. Armed Forces. Coast Guard. It’s a long list.
And it we want we can add a free drug plan, dental benefits and child care. And just like our roads and health care, they will be paid through our progressive income tax. There’s no deception.
And these new public services are right. Working people are struggling. Families with two incomes need affordable childcare. Fewer workers get union dental and drug benefits. Wages are stagnant. But executive compensation is skyrocketing. It’s fair.
Boil it all down, here’s the basic point. In our society, free money for rich people requires no explanation. Free public services, even if fully paid for, are an outrage. Go get it at my supermarket.
- Meanwhile, Patrick Greenfield and Sarah Marsh highlight how the UK is criminalizing homelessness. And Justin Wm. Moyer reports on the 7 million Americans who have lost their drivers' licences - and in many cases their ability to legally meet the availability demands of most employers - to punitive traffic debt.
- Finally, The Mound of Sound takes note of the grim milestone that's seen the Earth above its normal temperature for 400 consecutive months. And Damian Carrington offers a reminder that even as the worst effects of climate change loom in the future, humanity's track record involves the widespread destruction of plant and animal species.
Monday, May 21, 2018
Monday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material to start your week.
-The UK's Association of Directors of Public Health speaks out (PDF) about the importance of giving children the best possible start in life - including through security in the essentials of life.
- But Christina Gibson-Davis and Christine Perchenski write about the increased inequality that is leaving a large majority of families in the U.S. with no safety net. And Matthew Stewart breaks down the U.S.' income brackets into the .1% which is accumulating wealth faster than it can spend, the 90% which is falling behind, and the 9.9% between the two which has mostly held its position.
- Melissa Davey comments on the lack of investigation and punishment of wage theft in Australia. But David Marin-Guzman reports on one noteworthy example of an employer being sentenced to a meaningful jail term - if only for contempt of court after the employer breached an order to retain funds to pay workers.
- Christian Breyer summarizes new research showing that a 100% renewable energy system is entirely feasible and affordable. And David Fickling notes that for that reason, the next key developments in energy figure to involve storing the product of intermittent renewable sources, not looking for excuses to keep extracting and burning fossil fuels.
- Meanwhile, Wal van Lierop calls for a reality check about the future of an oil-dependent economy (and the construction of pipelines intended to extend that dependence).
- Finally, Tabatha Southey examines the parallels between Doug Ford and Donald Trump as overgrown children of privilege trying to use populist language to further indulge the advantages they've held. And Paul Wells writes about Andrea Horwath's campaign as she offers Ontario a positie alternative.
-The UK's Association of Directors of Public Health speaks out (PDF) about the importance of giving children the best possible start in life - including through security in the essentials of life.
- But Christina Gibson-Davis and Christine Perchenski write about the increased inequality that is leaving a large majority of families in the U.S. with no safety net. And Matthew Stewart breaks down the U.S.' income brackets into the .1% which is accumulating wealth faster than it can spend, the 90% which is falling behind, and the 9.9% between the two which has mostly held its position.
- Melissa Davey comments on the lack of investigation and punishment of wage theft in Australia. But David Marin-Guzman reports on one noteworthy example of an employer being sentenced to a meaningful jail term - if only for contempt of court after the employer breached an order to retain funds to pay workers.
- Christian Breyer summarizes new research showing that a 100% renewable energy system is entirely feasible and affordable. And David Fickling notes that for that reason, the next key developments in energy figure to involve storing the product of intermittent renewable sources, not looking for excuses to keep extracting and burning fossil fuels.
- Meanwhile, Wal van Lierop calls for a reality check about the future of an oil-dependent economy (and the construction of pipelines intended to extend that dependence).
- Finally, Tabatha Southey examines the parallels between Doug Ford and Donald Trump as overgrown children of privilege trying to use populist language to further indulge the advantages they've held. And Paul Wells writes about Andrea Horwath's campaign as she offers Ontario a positie alternative.
Sunday, May 20, 2018
Sunday Morning Links
This and that for your Sunday reading.
- Brian Wakamo notes that Kirsten Gillibrand is pushing for postal banking in the U.S. as an alternative to predatory lenders in underserved communities.
- Glen Hodgson discusses the rising fiscal costs of climate change - even as the Trudeau Libs plan to put public money into exacerbating it. And Damian Carrington examines the looming danger of severe destruction of insect habitat from even best-case climate change scenarios.
- Meanwhile, Yonatan Strauch points out that the threat of oil embargos being used to try to bully British Columbia into risking its environment for pipelines ultimately only highlights the need to stop depending on fossil fuels. And Gary Mason comments on the need for Alberta (among other jurisdictions pushing the Trans Mountain expansion) to pay attention to British Columbia's legitimate concerns.
- Murray Mandryk argues that Scott Moe and the Saskatchewan Party need to start doing something more productive than taking potshots at the federal government - even if it's obvious that they're desperate to distract from their own failings and scandals.
- Finally, Yves Engler discusses the Libs' Bill C-59 - which goes beyond authorizing surveillance to also allow for aggressive "disruption".
- Brian Wakamo notes that Kirsten Gillibrand is pushing for postal banking in the U.S. as an alternative to predatory lenders in underserved communities.
- Glen Hodgson discusses the rising fiscal costs of climate change - even as the Trudeau Libs plan to put public money into exacerbating it. And Damian Carrington examines the looming danger of severe destruction of insect habitat from even best-case climate change scenarios.
- Meanwhile, Yonatan Strauch points out that the threat of oil embargos being used to try to bully British Columbia into risking its environment for pipelines ultimately only highlights the need to stop depending on fossil fuels. And Gary Mason comments on the need for Alberta (among other jurisdictions pushing the Trans Mountain expansion) to pay attention to British Columbia's legitimate concerns.
- Murray Mandryk argues that Scott Moe and the Saskatchewan Party need to start doing something more productive than taking potshots at the federal government - even if it's obvious that they're desperate to distract from their own failings and scandals.
- Finally, Yves Engler discusses the Libs' Bill C-59 - which goes beyond authorizing surveillance to also allow for aggressive "disruption".
Saturday, May 19, 2018
Saturday Afternoon Links
Assorted content for your weekend reading.
- Noah Smith writes that public resentment toward the U.S.' wealthiest few is based on a genuine (and justified) concern about an economic system rigged to exacerbate inequality across generations, not mere envy toward the people who have more:
- Adam Litwin, Ariel Avgar and Edmund Becker study (PDF) how the outsourcing of cleaning services in hospitals leads to the increased spread of infectious diseases.
- Bernard Goldstein comments on another of the Trump administration's moves to prevent regulators from doing their jobs, this time by making a policy of rejecting some of the best available environmental studies.
- Finally, following up on this week's column, Samir Shaheen-Hussain points out another policy choice which results in children being deprived of family support when it's needed most, as air ambulances refuse to allow parents to accompany Inuit children to receive care.
- Noah Smith writes that public resentment toward the U.S.' wealthiest few is based on a genuine (and justified) concern about an economic system rigged to exacerbate inequality across generations, not mere envy toward the people who have more:
(R)esentment of the super-rich is probably not simply envy. It likely has to do with notions of fairness. As economist N. Gregory Mankiw conjectured in a 2013 essay, people are more likely to begrudge vast fortunes if they feel the wealth wasn’t earned. Technology company founders may be rich, but they mostly got that way by creating new products or services that benefit many people’s lives — think PayPal or iPhones or Facebook. Similarly, rich athletes or entertainers used their talents to make life more enjoyable for millions of Americans.- George Eaton discusses the combination of popular support which is leading toward increasing public ownership of the UK's public services. And David Zarnett reports on the Wynne government's giveaway of a profitable casino for pennies on the dollar - representing just one more example of how the public loses out when neoliberal government focus on privatization over competent management.
But about 38 percent of American billionaires inherited at least a substantial part of their fortunes. These heirs and heiresses tend to be less in the public eye, but they hold vast sums nonetheless. Taxing these unearned billions seems like a great way to allay public concerns about the super-rich.
Economics provides both empirical and theoretical support for the idea of taxing inheritances at much higher rates, and making the tax much harder to avoid. Surveys find that informing people about wealth inequality makes them much more likely to support higher estate taxes, but only slightly more likely to support other forms of taxation. And economic theory suggests that taxing wealthy inheritors can increase economic efficiency if many of them are bad investors.
So one idea to address popular anger over the dramatic success of a few super-rich individuals is to stop them from passing most of those fortunes on to their children. That won’t take the Elon Musks and the Mark Zuckerbergs out of the news, but it will reassure Americans that most of their crazy-rich countrymen made their own money through hard work and talent, not just the luck of having rich parents.
- Adam Litwin, Ariel Avgar and Edmund Becker study (PDF) how the outsourcing of cleaning services in hospitals leads to the increased spread of infectious diseases.
- Bernard Goldstein comments on another of the Trump administration's moves to prevent regulators from doing their jobs, this time by making a policy of rejecting some of the best available environmental studies.
- Finally, following up on this week's column, Samir Shaheen-Hussain points out another policy choice which results in children being deprived of family support when it's needed most, as air ambulances refuse to allow parents to accompany Inuit children to receive care.
Friday, May 18, 2018
Friday Morning Links
Assorted content to end your week.
- George Monbiot discusses the dangers of treating our natural environment solely as something to be priced and commodified.
- The Mound of Sound comments on Stephen Leahy's work in crunching the numbers on the climate change impact of a Trans Mountain expansion. And Matt Scuffham and Rod Nickel report on Bill Morneau's apparent plan to divert Canada Pension Plan funds into forcing through a pipeline which can't find private investors.
- Nora Loreto writes about Canada's criminalization of dissent on the left. And Nathan Robinson argues that the right's perpetual persecution complex serves mostly to distract from the suppression of anti-establishment speech:
- George Monbiot discusses the dangers of treating our natural environment solely as something to be priced and commodified.
- The Mound of Sound comments on Stephen Leahy's work in crunching the numbers on the climate change impact of a Trans Mountain expansion. And Matt Scuffham and Rod Nickel report on Bill Morneau's apparent plan to divert Canada Pension Plan funds into forcing through a pipeline which can't find private investors.
- Nora Loreto writes about Canada's criminalization of dissent on the left. And Nathan Robinson argues that the right's perpetual persecution complex serves mostly to distract from the suppression of anti-establishment speech:
I want to suggest a hypothesis that may sound outlandish: What if the whole narrative is backwards? What if people who think they are voicing suppressed dangerous ideas are actually the ones suppressing the truly dangerous ideas? What if this effort to condemn the irrational excesses of political correctness is in part a way of avoiding having to engage with its arguments and listen carefully to its advocates? What if people who seem to be “challenging” a dissent-stifling power structure are actually defending one? Now, I’m not saying this is the case; I’m just asking some questions. But let’s, for a moment, because we are rational and skeptical, consider the possibility that the conservative narrative is totally upside-down. Let’s picture a topsy-turvy world in which Donald Trump is the president and left ideas are actually marginal.- And finally, Rinaldo Wolcott and Naomi Klein discuss how Ontarians can prevent Trumpism from spreading into their provincial government by voting for the change they actually want.
...
...I’m just asking us to imagine a strange world in which the interests of the wealthy mattered far more than the interests of the poor, and in which the good people got left behind while the bad people were honored and celebrated. But let’s stick with the idea, just a moment longer. In this kind of world, what would we make of people like the members of the “Intellectual Dark Web,” who insist that their ideas pose a challenge to the mainstream consensus? Well, first we’d have to look at the ideas themselves. But if those ideas turned out to coincide remarkably well with the interests of those who are already wealthy and powerful, and if those ideas seemed to downplay, deny, and evade all of the contrary evidence, we might begin to suspect that these Dissident Intellectuals should not, in fact, rightfully be considered dissidents. In this kind of world, the real dissidents would be the ones whose names we didn’t know, the ones who were trying to dredge up the truths nobody wanted to listen to, rather than the people whose faces and opinions were constantly in the newspapers. The dangerous ideas would be the ones that weren’t spoken from the White House and on cable news, because they actually indicted those institutions rather than benefiting them.
Thursday, May 17, 2018
Thursday Evening Links
This and that for your Thursday reading.
- Alex Boutilier discusses the glaring gap between hype and reality when it comes to tech sector jobs. And Virgina Eubanks writes about the futility of expecting miracles from algorithms in allocating grossly insufficient funding for social programs.
- Meanwhile, Dean Baker argues that if anybody should face the prospect of workfare, it's the financial-sector profiteers who enrich themselves while offering poor service managing public assets such as pensions.
- Geoffrey Stevens warns Ontario voters not to once again saddle their province with the mindset which brought them Walkerton and other avoidable tragedies. And Vjosa Isai's report on toxic chemicals in Canadian baby products should instead confirm the need for far stronger protection of the public against corporate irresponsibility.
- And Rachel Cohen discusses the findings of Alex Taborrok, a libertarian economist who wanted to prove a connection between regulations and economic stagnation - but instead demonstrated that one has nothing to do with the other:
- Alex Boutilier discusses the glaring gap between hype and reality when it comes to tech sector jobs. And Virgina Eubanks writes about the futility of expecting miracles from algorithms in allocating grossly insufficient funding for social programs.
- Meanwhile, Dean Baker argues that if anybody should face the prospect of workfare, it's the financial-sector profiteers who enrich themselves while offering poor service managing public assets such as pensions.
- Geoffrey Stevens warns Ontario voters not to once again saddle their province with the mindset which brought them Walkerton and other avoidable tragedies. And Vjosa Isai's report on toxic chemicals in Canadian baby products should instead confirm the need for far stronger protection of the public against corporate irresponsibility.
- And Rachel Cohen discusses the findings of Alex Taborrok, a libertarian economist who wanted to prove a connection between regulations and economic stagnation - but instead demonstrated that one has nothing to do with the other:
(F)or the first time, economists could more confidently measure federal regulations over time and by industry. In theory, that would make it easier to build the case that regulations were hurting the economy.- Finally, Marie Burge criticizes the P.E.I. Liberals' latest efforts to avoid a fair referendum on electoral reform.
For his first paper using the database, Tabarrok decided to analyze the effect of federal regulation on “economic dynamism”—a catch-all term referring to the rate at which new businesses launch and grow, and at which people switch jobs, lose jobs, or migrate for work. There has been a notable and somewhat mysterious decline in dynamism over the last few decades. The rate at which start-ups form is half of what it was forty years ago, the fraction of workers who bounce from one job to another—a sign of competitive labor markets—has plunged, productivity has slowed, and adult employment remains well below its early-2000 peak.
Armed with RegData, Tabarrok and Goldschlag set out to show that regulations were at least partly to blame. But they couldn’t. There was simply no correlation, they found, between the degree of federal regulation and the decline of business dynamism. The decline was seen across many different industries, including those that are heavily regulated and those that are not. They tried two other independent tests that didn’t rely on RegData, and came to the same conclusion: an increase in federal regulation just could not explain what was going on.
...
Indeed, the new paper undermines one of the most deeply held convictions of the American right, one that unites libertarians like Tabarrok with mainstream conservatives: that regulations inevitably impose “deadweight loss” on the economy and are therefore an enemy of economic growth. This idea has been a mainstay of Republican politics since the Reagan era, and the Trump administration has taken to deregulation with missionary zeal. In fact, it’s probably the policy objective that the administration has pursued most successfully—rolling back the Clean Power Plan, repealing net neutrality, freezing the fiduciary rule, and on and on.
The premise that regulations come at the expense of economic activity—that we must always make trade-offs between safety and jobs—is so pervasive that even the American left tends to accept it, defending regulations as necessary evils to promote other social goods. Yet there has never been strong evidence that these trade-offs actually exist. To the contrary, federal regulations have often driven growth and innovation, whether it’s fuel standards spurring new electric cars and solar energy, or the Dodd-Frank law causing an entirely new industry—financial technology—to appear out of whole cloth.
New column day
Here, on how Canada continues to tear Indigenous children away from their families due to the lingering effects of discriminatory policies.
For further reading...
- Katie Hyslop has been reporting on the causes and consequences of a severe lack of attention to the welfare of Indigenous children.
- CBC News previewed last week's Federal Court hearing into the sixties scoop settlement, while Jason Warick reported on it afterward.
- Meanwhile, Jennifer Ackerman has reported on the continued delays in the work survivors are being forced to put in just to pursue an apology from Saskatchewan's provincial government.
- Finally, Doug Cuthand comments on the lingering effect of the sixties scoop. And the Star's editorial board has also highlighted the need to stop the cycle of family disruption.
For further reading...
- Katie Hyslop has been reporting on the causes and consequences of a severe lack of attention to the welfare of Indigenous children.
- CBC News previewed last week's Federal Court hearing into the sixties scoop settlement, while Jason Warick reported on it afterward.
- Meanwhile, Jennifer Ackerman has reported on the continued delays in the work survivors are being forced to put in just to pursue an apology from Saskatchewan's provincial government.
- Finally, Doug Cuthand comments on the lingering effect of the sixties scoop. And the Star's editorial board has also highlighted the need to stop the cycle of family disruption.
Wednesday, May 16, 2018
Wednesday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.
- The CCPA offers some questions and answers on the problems with "social impact bonds" designed to turn the delivery of needed programming into a source of corporate profits. And Andy Blatchford reports on the Trudeau Libs' secretive attempt to undermine any prospect of prosecutions for corporate crimes.
- Mike De Souza exposes the existence of a "mystery safety gap" in the Trans Mountain expansion which the Libs are concealing from the public. Mitchell Anderson examines the environmental time bomb of unfunded oil sands tailings ponds. And Bess Levin writes about the Trump administration's suppression of a report on chemical threats to drinking water - based on its being far more concerned about public relations fallout than the lives of people with unsafe water supplies.
- Murray Mandryk points out that Saskatchewan's grim job numbers show weakness going far beyond immediate trends in the resource sector - and that indeed, the damage inflicted by the Saskatchewan Party is lasting even as oil prices rebound.
- And Adam Hunter reports on Scott Moe's strategy of contrived cluelessness in response to important questions about his facilitation of Bill Boyd's environmental violations.
- Finally, Annalisa Merelli highlights the high cost of motherhood in the U.S. And Gabriel Arsenault, Olivier Jacques and Antonia Maioni examine why other provinces haven't yet matched Quebec's success in developing a comprehensive affordable child care program - with a lack of emphasis on building a program to include the middle class serving as the main obstacle so far.
- The CCPA offers some questions and answers on the problems with "social impact bonds" designed to turn the delivery of needed programming into a source of corporate profits. And Andy Blatchford reports on the Trudeau Libs' secretive attempt to undermine any prospect of prosecutions for corporate crimes.
- Mike De Souza exposes the existence of a "mystery safety gap" in the Trans Mountain expansion which the Libs are concealing from the public. Mitchell Anderson examines the environmental time bomb of unfunded oil sands tailings ponds. And Bess Levin writes about the Trump administration's suppression of a report on chemical threats to drinking water - based on its being far more concerned about public relations fallout than the lives of people with unsafe water supplies.
- Murray Mandryk points out that Saskatchewan's grim job numbers show weakness going far beyond immediate trends in the resource sector - and that indeed, the damage inflicted by the Saskatchewan Party is lasting even as oil prices rebound.
- And Adam Hunter reports on Scott Moe's strategy of contrived cluelessness in response to important questions about his facilitation of Bill Boyd's environmental violations.
- Finally, Annalisa Merelli highlights the high cost of motherhood in the U.S. And Gabriel Arsenault, Olivier Jacques and Antonia Maioni examine why other provinces haven't yet matched Quebec's success in developing a comprehensive affordable child care program - with a lack of emphasis on building a program to include the middle class serving as the main obstacle so far.
Tuesday, May 15, 2018
Tuesday Morning Links
This and that for your Tuesday reading.
- Joel French discusses the need for Alberta to implement a more thorough and progressive tax system in order to ensure it has the revenue to support its residents.
- Meagan Day highlights how Bernie Sanders' new labour bill would empower workers and enhance workplace democracy:
- Finally, Robert Bea notes that Canada's environmental assessment process has approved BP to conduct offshore drilling based on the same assertions which were rejected by Australia. And Rob Antle reports on Husky's attempt to suppress information about a near-miss incident off of the coast of Newfoundland.
- Joel French discusses the need for Alberta to implement a more thorough and progressive tax system in order to ensure it has the revenue to support its residents.
- Meagan Day highlights how Bernie Sanders' new labour bill would empower workers and enhance workplace democracy:
The bipartisan neoliberal attack on unions, which began in earnest in the 1970s, has been enormously effective in undermining the power of the United States labor movement. As a result, the percentage of US workers who currently belong to a union is about 10 percent, down from its peak of nearly 28 percent in 1970.- Paul Barrett writes that contrary to the trumped-up complaints of the bigoted right, the only real threat to free speech on campus is the precarious work environment which prevents far too many part-time instructions from speaking up. And PressProgress notes that right-wing astroturf operations are still flouting Canada's income tax laws by pretending not to be involved in political activity.
Again this problem is fundamentally political, stemming from the balance of power in our society and not from a natural or inevitable economic process. The solution, too, has to be political — and it’s in that spirit that Bernie Sanders has introduced a new bill called the Workplace Democracy Act, which aims to clear obstacles to the labor movement’s growth, and ultimately increase collective worker control over the economy. The chances of such a bill passing in a GOP-controlled legislature (or even in a Democrat-controlled legislature; a weaker bill was opposed by moderate Democrats during the Obama administration) are basically nil, but Sanders’s bill is a strong political move anyway. It signals an uncompromising commitment to unions and invites other politicians to support an ambitious vision of a revitalized movement for worker power — or oppose that vision at their own risk.
The Workplace Democracy Act makes three crucial interventions. First, it would overturn a provision in the 1947 Taft-Hartley law that replaced card check — a system where employers have to recognize a union if more than 50 percent of employees in a particular bargaining unit say they want one — with an elaborate secret-ballot election process overseen by the National Labor Relations Board...A national card check system would allow workers to unionize by simple majority, avoiding the messy electioneering process that’s tilted in favor of employers, who inevitably have more resources.
Second, Sanders’s bill would repeal so-called “right to work.” Also a legacy of the Taft-Hartley Act, right to work prevents unions from negotiating contracts with employers that require all employees to join or pay a bargaining fee to the union...
Third, according to some reports, Sanders will seek to increase financial penalties on employers who fire workers for union organizing, a practice that is illegal but ubiquitous, due in part to the lack of consequences. The Center for Economic and Policy Research estimates that “one-in-five union organizers or activists can expect to be fired as a result of their activities in a union election campaign.” The share of union drives that saw illegal firings of workplace activists rose steadily from the the mid-seventies to the mid-2000s. The paper’s authors note that employers “are unlikely to fire workers randomly, or simply for expressing pro-union views. Employers maximize the return to illegal firing by focusing on union activists.” The result is a climate of fear and a chilling effect on union activism, especially organic leadership among the rank-and-file, who are the least likely to take risks regarding their job security. Corporations are not currently forced to pay penalties when they’re caught retaliating against labor activists — all they need to do is make up lost income, which is not sufficient to distance them from the practice.
- Finally, Robert Bea notes that Canada's environmental assessment process has approved BP to conduct offshore drilling based on the same assertions which were rejected by Australia. And Rob Antle reports on Husky's attempt to suppress information about a near-miss incident off of the coast of Newfoundland.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)