For the past six months, Democrats have been glued together in a unified front against President Donald Trump, but haven’t articulated many plans of their own. On Monday, for the first time since Trump took the White House, Democrats presented their vision for the 2018 midterms and beyond. Democratic leaders unveiled the plan in Berryville, Virginia, in a predominantly Republican district currently represented by Republican Representative Barbara Comstock.

Titled “A Better Deal: Better Jobs, Better Wages, Better Future,” the Democratic message is a grab-bag of populist ideas nicked from both the Trump and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) schools of thought, as well as long-running Democratic policies. It lays out a plan to boost jobs and lower the costs of living, including prescription drug prices. The plan also includes a proposal to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Here is what else you need to know:

Better Jobs

On jobs in particular, the new agenda borrows heavily from the Trump campaign playbook of attacking “special interests” and “elites.” But Democratic leaders also sought to draw a line between their working-class promises and the promises Republicans and the Trump Administration have failed to deliver on. “Republicans have spent six months trying to raise Americans’ health costs to fund tax breaks for billionaires,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (R-CA) said in an op-ed published in the Washington Post on Monday. “Our agenda is focused on efforts to create jobs and raise incomes for American workers, to lower the cost of living for American families, and to build an economy that gives every American the tools to succeed in the 21st century,” Pelosi continued.

The minority leader, who some progressives view as embodying the elite image the party needs to rid itself of, promised “good-paying, full-time jobs” for 10 million more Americans over the next five years. Tax credits for employers to train employees, she said, would help achieve that lofty goal. Pelosi also said Democrats envision a “massive new national commitment to expanding apprenticeships and paid on-the-job training that advances their skills and careers.”

“Rigged Economy”

“A Better Deal” was not drafted by Sanders. But in their public statements about the plan, Democratic leaders have peppered their vernacular with Sanders-style rhetoric, calling the economy “rigged” and railing against “vulture capitalists.”

The second page in the new Democratic playbook concerns reforming America’s antitrust laws to increase competition and innovation, and stifle consolidation and mergers in a number of fields, from airlines to communications companies. Pelosi said the party would focus on “breaking the grip of the special interests and confronting the rising everyday costs that families have endured for too long.”

“Over the past thirty years, growing corporate influence and consolidation has led to reductions in competition, choice for consumers, and bargaining power for workers,” the Democratic plan states. “The extensive concentration of power in the hands of a few corporations hurts wages, undermines job growth, and threatens to squeeze out small businesses, suppliers, and new, innovative competitors.”

To fix these issues, Democrats promise to “prevent big mergers that would harm consumers, workers, and competition.” The party also proposed a tougher post-merger review process.

“Reorienting Government”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) echoed Pelosi in an op-ed published Monday in the New York Times, but framed the agenda in simple, rhetorical strokes. He wrote: “American families deserve a better deal so that this country works for everyone again, not just the elites and special interests.”

But Schumer also did what Democrats have largely failed to do since election night: admit that voters were unclear on where the party stood. “Democrats have too often hesitated from taking on those misguided policies directly and unflinchingly — so much so that many Americans don’t know what we stand for,” Schumer wrote.

But a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll suggests voters are still unsure of what Democrats believe in. A slim majority of those polled–52 percent–said the party only espouses an anti-Trump message, while 37 percent said the Democratic Party “currently stands for something.” With less than a year and a half until the 2018 mid-term elections, Democrats are trying to change that perception: “Our better deal is not about expanding the government, or moving our party in one direction or another along the political spectrum,” Schumer said. “It’s about reorienting government to work on behalf of people and families.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Democrats’ “A Better Deal”: Classic Liberal Priorities and a Dash of Populism appeared first on Law Street.

A recently published study found evidence that Seattle’s phased-in $15 hourly minimum wage has led to an overall decrease in low-wage jobs. But some analysts doubt the study’s methodology, and attribute the low-wage job decrease to Seattle’s booming labor market. Low-wage workers are simply getting paid more because of the market, critics of the study contend, thus the decrease in wages for lower paying jobs.

In 2014, Seattle became one of the first jurisdictions to commit to a $15 per hour minimum wage, a benchmark that would be phased-in over a few years. The first wage hike was in April 2015, as large businesses began paying their employees at least $11 per hour, up from $9.47. In January 2016, the minimum hourly wage for large businesses rose to $13; in January of this year, the rate finally hit $15. The wage increases for smaller businesses were more modest–many have yet to reach the $15 benchmark.

The study, conducted by University of Washington researchers, concluded the following:

Using a variety of methods to analyze employment in all sectors paying below a specified real hourly rate, we conclude that the second wage increase to $13 reduced hours worked in low-wage jobs by around 9 percent, while hourly wages in such jobs increased by around 3 percent. Consequently, total payroll fell for such jobs, implying that the minimum wage ordinance lowered low-wage employees’ earnings by an average of $125 per month in 2016.

But not everyone is taking the study’s findings at face value. For one, it has not been peer reviewed. Critics say the drop in working hours for low-wage jobs is not necessarily a result of the minimum wage bump–the decline is due to Seattle’s flowering economy, they say. Instead, some analysts say, lower wage earners have seen a paycheck bump because of natural economic trends.

“The key challenge this study faces is how to separate the normal shift that’s happening in a booming labor market — where low-wage jobs disappear and are replaced by higher-wage jobs — from an actual increase in the minimum wage,” Ben Zipperer, an economist at the liberal Economic Policy Institute, told the New York Times.

To discern the precise cause of the decrease in low-wage jobs–either Seattle’s economic forces or its minimum wage hike–the researchers cobbled together a control group. Normally, researchers would compare Seattle to a city with near-identical variables, but a city that, unlike Seattle, did not significantly raise its minimum wage. For this study, however, the researchers took parts of areas throughout Washington State and patched them together to create a control group. Still, the researchers found Seattle’s situation to be unique.

“You see the biggest difference in the effect when the minimum wage increased from $11 to $13,” said Mark Long, one of the authors of the UW study. “The timing suggests it’s the minimum wage,” he added, not the natural effects of a growing economy. But Long did allow that his study’s conclusions might be flawed: “If the areas we’re picking to put weight on don’t match what would have happened to Seattle in the absence of the minimum wage, our results would be potentially biased.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Has Seattle’s $15 Minimum Wage Hurt Employment? appeared first on Law Street.

The United States has become the sixth region to ban fresh beef imports from Brazil, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The U.S. joins China, Mexico, Chile, Japan, the European Union, and Hong Kong in banning the beef.

The USDA made the decision on beef imports after inspections showed health concerns, unsanitary conditions, and animal health issues. The bans will remain in place until Brazil “takes corrective action,” the statement said.

Brazil is the fifth largest exporter of fresh beef to the United States and has already shipped over 50 million pounds of beef this year. After the other regions banned Brazilian beef in March, American officials say they have been inspecting the meat more closely. This has resulted in a refusal of 11 percent of the beef, much higher than the normal 1 percent refusal rate, according to CNN Money. As a result, 1.9 million pounds of beef have been sent back to Brazil.

“Although international trade is an important part of what we do at USDA, and Brazil has long been one of our partners, my first priority is to protect American consumers,” Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue said.

Brazilian Agriculture Minister Blairo Maggi plans to visit Washington soon in an attempt to overturn the decision, Reuters reported.

Aside from health and safety concerns, other countries expressed concern over potential corruption. A few months ago Brazilian authorities said some meat companies were bribing government officials to turn a blind eye to safety concerns, according to the USA Today.

While Brazil still has other countries with which it can trade, the loss of the American market could be damaging to the Brazilian economy–the United States is the ninth biggest market for Brazilian beef export.  Since the restrictions began in March, Brazil has responded by closing three processing plants and suspending licenses for 21 meat packing plants, according to CNN Money.

It may take some time to resolve the situation, and it may result in economic issues, but the USDA has decided to take a stand after observing issues with the beef. In the mean time, the U.S. will have to rely on other global beef exporters including Japan, Mexico, Argentina, and Australia.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post United States Bans Fresh Beef Imports from Brazil appeared first on Law Street.

To raise or not to raise? That is the question when it comes to the minimum wage. The national minimum wage is $7.25, but many states have set their own minimum wages a few dollars higher (see how your state stacks up). A person working at the federal rate would earn about $15,000 a year. When the current rate was set in 2009, a single parent raising a child under the age of 18 would be above the poverty line…though not by much.

According to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), the federal poverty line for a two-person household in 2009 was $14,570. In 2016, the ASPE put the poverty line for a two-person household at $16,240. And while the poverty line has increased, the minimum wage has not, prompting many people to push for a raise in the minimum wage.

But it’s not that simple. Many people fight back against the thought of raising the minimum wage. One argument against raising the minimum wage is that it would hurt low-skilled workers. Companies will not want to pay more to employees for the same work they were getting before the rise in the minimum wage. Thus, they will lay off employees to not lose profits. What’s more, they will not hire as many workers either, now that they “cost” more.

Tim Worstall, a Forbes contributor, raised this exact concern when talking about Seattle raising its minimum wage back in 2016. “A rise in the price of something will lead to people purchasing less of that thing,” he said in an article for Forbes. “So a rise in the price of low-skill labor will lead to employers purchasing less of low-skill labor.” A trend, Worstall said, that was confirmed when Seattle raised its minimum wage and saw a decrease in hiring low-wage workers.

History of the Minimum Wage

The first minimum wage was set in 1938. It was introduced under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt during the Great Depression. The idea of a minimum wage is to protect workers, and having a minimum wage helps the government, too. If people are working and staying above the poverty line, that is less money that the government has to spend on welfare or other government programs to help the poor. When it was first introduced, the minimum wage was $0.25 an hour. In today’s dollars that would be $4.19.

Since its introduction, Congress has raised the minimum wage 22 times. The most recent raise was in 2009 when it increased from $6.55 to $7.25. There are many reasons why the minimum wage gets raised, including inflation and the changing value of the dollar, as well as an increase in productivity.

The Case for Raising the Minimum Wage

One of the strongest cases for raising the minimum wage is the fact that a single parent, working for the minimum wage and raising a child under the age of 18, is living below the poverty line. If the minimum wage was invented to help and protect workers, this is a clear failure.

Another argument for raising the minimum wage would be the positive effect it might have on the economy. According to a report from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, increasing the minimum wage by $1.75 an hour would result in an increase of $48 billion in household spending. When people have more money, they will spend more money. If a family is living at or below the poverty line, they are less inclined to spend what little money they have on anything but the essentials. Earning even a little more an hour, households would have more to spend on products that they normally would not have purchased.

In addition, raising the minimum wage could help augment the disparity in wages in the U.S. The disparity between the richest one percent and the rest of the country is staggering. Raising the minimum wage has the potential to move almost 900,000 people (out of 45 million) out of poverty, according to the Congressional Budget Office. While this is a small percentage, it is a step in the right direction. Bringing people out of poverty eases tension on the government, as a less impoverished populace means that the government will spend less on welfare and programs.

Peer pressure is another reason to raise the minimum wage. An article in The Economist explains that the U.S. is an outlier when it comes to other countries’s minimum wage rate. Considering the U.S.’ GDP per person ($53,000), the country’s minimum wage should be about $12 per hour. Converted to U.S. dollars, the minimum wages of many other western countries far surpass America’s. Australia, France, Germany, the U.K., and Canada all have higher minimum wages than we do. However, this is not a case of apples to oranges. Living conditions, local economies, taxes, health care, and a slew of other factors play into this as well. 

The Case Against Raising the Minimum Wage

Now let’s address some of the arguments against raising the minimum wage. While the current minimum wage would put a single parent below the poverty line, it would not put a dual-income household below the poverty line. Furthermore, not all living conditions are equal around the country. Many states have minimum wages that are higher than the federal one in order to compensate for higher living costs within those states.

Next, while decreasing the need for welfare paid by the government sounds positive, the money does have to come from somewhere. While the government is not paying as much for welfare, companies now take on that burden of paying people more. The effect of this is two-fold. Companies, in an effort to save money, may lay off workers, thus putting more people on welfare anyway. Companies may also raise the prices of their products, so the consumers will take a hit for the higher paid employees.

Also, companies may slow hiring employees because they now “cost” more. When it comes down to someone getting paid $7.25 an hour or $0.00 an hour, getting paid something is more beneficial than not earning anything at all. These threats are not just hypothetical. Rising minimum wage rates are happening in certain states and the effects are already starting to show.

In January 2017 some states raised their local minimum wages, causing national chains based in those restaurants to start paying their workers more for the same job they were doing before. Wendy’s CEO Bob Wright expects to spend four percent more on employees’ wages. To offset this, Wright had every store cut 31 hours of labor per week and replaced that lost labor with automated kiosks at some locations.

Some critics also argue that raising the minimum wage hurts lower-skilled workers and younger workers. The Pew Research Center published an article claiming that nearly half of all workers who are earning minimum wage are aged 16 to 24. Young members of the workforce who are trying to break their way in will have a harder time.

Companies might be less willing to hire someone with no experience and pay them a higher wage. They will be more willing to hire someone with more experience who they feel will be a better value for this higher price. Of course this then becomes a vicious cycle of young workers not getting hired because they do not have experience and having a harder time finding work because they continue to not get experience. A lower minimum wage might give young workers more opportunities.

What Should the Minimum Wage Be?

If the minimum wage is going to increase, how much should it increase by? There are a variety of numbers that get thrown around when talking about raising the minimum wage. Here is a breakdown of how people arrive at these figures.

Some people argue it should be raised to $21.67. The minimum wage had the highest purchasing power in 1968 when it was $1.60, or roughly $10.55 today when adjusting for inflation. Some studies show that personal income, excluding Social Security, has increased by 100 percent, and thus the minimum wage should be adjusted to fit that standard as well.

Others argue it should be raised to $15. In 2014 and 2015, many major cities put into place economic plans that would gradually increase the minimum wage to $15 by 2017 and 2018. Cities that enacted those plans include New York, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Washington D.C. 

In 2014, The Economic Policy Institute made the case that the minimum wage should be raised to $10.10, arguing that it should be raised over a three-year period. This amount was determined to ease pressure on Medicaid and other governmental assistance programs. The debate over the minimum wage rages on, and states may adjust their own minimum wages because the federal one is too hard to change right now.

What’s Happening Now?

There has not been much movement at the federal level. Individual states are combating the federal inertia. On January 1, 2017, 19 states raised their minimum wages. The majority of the changes were to adjust for inflation (Missouri, Ohio, and Florida raising their minimum wages by only $0.05 an hour), but some states saw significant increases, like Maine (from $7.50 to $9.00), Washington ($9.47 to $11.00), and Arizona ($8.05 to $10.00). Many states have plans to increase their minimum wages in the coming years as well.

As a candidate, President Donald Trump suggested the minimum wage might be too high. In a debate in November 2015, he said in his opening statement that he would not raise the minimum wage and that wages were “too high.” He had said previously that year in an interview with MSNBC that a higher minimum wage would hurt America. “We can’t have a situation where our labor is so much more expensive than other countries’ that we can no longer win,” Trump said. This may be bad news for Trump supporters, many of whom work at the minimum wage and struggle to get by.

Conclusion

The minimum wage debate is not a new one and it’s not one that will end any time soon. Inflation and the fluctuating value of the dollar will forever throw the minimum wage’s value into question. As it stands, the current minimum wage is too low for many people to live on, but too drastic of an increase could result in far more catastrophic job loss. A delicate hand and a knowledgable course of action will be the best hope going forward. It seems that this issue will not be raised in the current administration any time soon; individual states should (and are) trying to ameliorate the issue on a local scale. If you want to see change, go out and call, mail, email, tweet, or visit your local representatives. They’re the ones who will be able to help the most right now.

Anne Grae Martin

Anne Grae Martin is a member of the class of 2017 University of Delaware. She is majoring in English Professional Writing and minoring in French and Spanish. When she’s not writing for Law Street, Anne Grae loves doing yoga, cooking, and correcting her friends’ grammar mistakes. Contact Anne Grae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Minimum Wage: Where Are We Going and How Did We Get Here? appeared first on Law Street.

The United States and Mexico agreed to a new trade deal this week regarding the sugar trade, but some viewed it as a precursor to negotiations on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

American sugar refineries previously complained about Mexico introducing cheap sugar into the U.S. economy, while simultaneously refusing to export raw sugar to their American counterparts, according to The New York Times. This has resulted in the movement of sugar-based jobs from America to Mexico over the years.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had previously threatened an 80 percent tariff if the two sides did not reach a deal by early this month, according to Politico.

The talks between the two neighboring countries began in March, about two months after President Donald Trump took office on a platform of protecting American workers and companies. Ross led the negotiations with Ildefonso Guajardo, Mexico’s economy minister, The New York Times reported. At a news conference in Washington D.C., Ross said:

We have gotten the Mexican side to agree to nearly every request made by the U.S. sugar industry to address flaws in the current system and ensure fair treatment of American sugar growers and refiners.

Some politicians, businessmen, and analysts have viewed these negotiations as a possible preview to upcoming discussions on the existing NAFTA deal. Those negotiations are expected to begin in August, according to Reuters.

Just the fact that the Trump Administration dove into negotiations with a country they have often insulted was an encouraging sign, according to CNN Money.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said the deal “sets an important tone of good faith leading up to the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement.”

Under the terms of this new agreement, Mexico would greatly reduce the amount of refined sugar it exports to America while increasing its raw sugar exports. But many are unhappy with Trump’s first major economic agreement.

One American sugar producer, Ohio-based Spangler Candy, has voiced its displeasure at the deal. Spangler Candy, which has moved plants into Mexico for access to cheaper sugar, believes that the administration has failed on one of its main campaign promises.

“To be honest, I’m just very disappointed that the Trump administration didn’t do more to level the playing field, which is something they promised over and over again to do for the American worker,” Spangler Chief Executive Officer Kirk Vasha said in a phone interview with Reuters.

U.S. Coalition for Sugar Reform, a trade group representing U.S. sugar buyers, disavowed the deal because of the burden raising tariffs will put on consumers. The coalition estimates that the cost to consumers in higher prices will be around $1 billion, according to Reuters. The Sweetener Users Association also projected the costs at around $1 billion.

Hershey and Mondelez International, which owns the Kraft brand, both referred Reuters to those price estimates as their response to the deal. Ross has said he hopes that their concerns can be calmed in the drafting process of the deal.

So while the deal may not be ideal in the view of some companies or consumers, the deliberations bode well for future compromise between the two nations. After feuding between Mexican leaders and Trump, or his surrogates, throughout his campaign, the negotiations offered a glimpse of the upcoming collaboration regarding NAFTA.

Trump has repeatedly promised to bring jobs back to America, which he attempted to accomplish in this sugar deal. Soon enough he’ll have the chance to work on NAFTA, another major point of his throughout the campaign.

I will renegotiate NAFTA. If I can’t make a great deal, we’re going to tear it up. We’re going to get this economy running again. #Debate

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 20, 2016

Even those from the Mexican side feel the sugar deal bodes well. Carlos Vejar, a former senior Mexican trade official who served as general counsel for the trade for Mexico’s Economy Ministry, believes that sugar is “obviously an issue that is so controversial it is a good example that agreements can be reached.”

Trump’s main campaign promise was to fix America’s place in the global economy and to bring jobs back. Many are disappointed in his first attempt, so perhaps he can do better when it comes to renegotiating NAFTA.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Sugar Deal with Mexico Previews NAFTA Discussions appeared first on Law Street.

Last November, India began a campaign to eliminate large bills from its currency by removing 500 and 1,000 rupee notes from circulation. The goal was to go after criminals guilty of everything from tax evasion to drug trafficking by eliminating their means of accumulating wealth. This is not just a limited effort, however, as other countries, including the United States, are monitoring the situation in India and considering following suit. Read on to see if the U.S. is ready to actually scrap the $100 bill, what impact it will have on the country, and if the rest of the world is likely to follow suit.

India’s Move

The move by India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, was aimed at recouping some of the estimated $460 billion in untaxed wealth, which is equal to as much as 20 percent of India’s GDP. Modi was also seemingly attempting to fulfill a campaign promise to go after so-called “black money” in the economy. Despite these motivations, this led to a massive cash shortage that instead ended up affecting the poor the most and caused the IMF to slash their growth forecasts for India by a full percent. Nonetheless, even though the government failed to take these factors into account, some people hid their wealth in items such as gold, and the fact that the 500 rupee is not really a large bill, the move was still widely popular. The video below looks at the impact of the Indian government’s decision to eliminate the 500 and 1,000 rupee notes:

U.S. Efforts

There have also been calls in the United States that large bills should be eliminated, although the exact methods with which the nation would do so are unlikely to copy those used by India. The charge here is being led by Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff, whose plan calls for eliminating any bill larger than $10 over a 15-20 year time period. The goal would be similar to that of India, namely to target tax evaders and money launderers. Rogoff claims this would be an especially effective move on the part of the U.S. because 75 percent of the $100 bills worldwide are actually held abroad, many by Mexican cartel leaders and Russian oligarchs. Rogoff believes that, since most transactions in the United States are done electronically, unlike in India, eliminating these bills would not be a major change.

While Rogoff and other Harvard economists such as Peter Sands have suggested making the change, there is still no plan to eliminate big bills as of yet; in fact, there is actually strong pushback against the idea. A group of government agencies that include the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and the Drug Enforcement Agency are opposing the move for a number of reasons.

The first reason that people are opposed to the move is cost: removing $100 bills and replacing them with twice as many $50 bills would wipe out any profit made by the government through printing money. Second would be usage: while many people do not carry $100 bills, about 5.2 percent of the U.S. population still do, which equals millions of people. Lastly, although criminals may be inconvenienced by having to literally carry more bills, eliminating $100 bills would just force them to use other bills or find other means to accumulate wealth. In fact, cash shipments in smaller bills have already been seized at the border. The following video looks at whether or not the U.S. is likely to eliminate the $100 bill, and some of its potential effects:

Impact on Economy

Economically, a switch to smaller bills or to no cash altogether is also a mixed bag. As mentioned earlier, by eliminating larger bills, the government would lose out on profit made from the difference in printing the bills versus the cost of printing, because higher bills generate more revenue. The term for this is seigniorage. The estimated cost would be roughly $6 billion annually, which may seem like a lot but pales in comparison to what the government alternatively spends fighting crime funded by cash and large bills.

A potential positive economic impact of the move would be in regards to monetary policy. During recessions, central banks lower their interest rates, which makes keeping money in savings accounts less appealing and instead encourages spending. However, there is something known as the “zero lower bound,” where the interest rate actually becomes negative and banks start charging people to save their own money. At this point, rational people would withdraw their money and keep the cash until interest rates were raised. This would be much harder to do with many smaller bills and impossible if there were no bills at all.

A Global Movement?

Whether or not the United States decides to follow India’s lead in eliminating large bills, the movement is not dead on arrival. Nearly two decades ago Canada eliminated the $1,000 bill from its currency to combat the very same criminal activities India is targeting. Singapore is eliminating its $10,000 bill as well. India is not even the only nation in the developing world doing away with large notes, as Venezuela recently outlawed its $100 bill with the goal of fighting crime. There is even some precedent in the United States: in 1969, the United States did away with $500, $1,000, $5,000 and $10,000 bills because of lack of use, as they were almost entirely utilized for moving money between different Federal Reserve branches.

It is in Europe, however, where the most aggressive steps have already been taken. Last march, the European Union announced it will discontinue using the 500-euro note and stop replacing it entirely by 2018. While other large currency notes are often used by criminals, the 500-euro note had become so ubiquitous among criminals that it had garnered the unflattering nickname “the Bin Laden” after the former terrorist leader. But some critics are quick to point out, as they have in other countries, that eliminating big bills just forces illicit funds into other venues. Some also contend that this is a way to force people to spend more, because banks would be forced to use negative interest rates to reduce the larger number of bills in their safes. The accompanying video looks at the impact of eliminating the 500-euro bill on Europe:

Some countries in Europe have gone even further: in Sweden, for example, there is an unofficial yet concerted effort to do away with cash entirely. In that country, only 2 percent of national wealth is held in bills or coins and only about 20 percent of total transactions are processed in cash, so the move makes some sense. However, a switch of this magnitude and nature does not come without consequences. People who do not have access to the apps that are replacing cash and cards, such as older individuals and refugees, may find themselves unable to pay for basic necessities if the transition is made. Additionally, if all transactions are made electronically they are more susceptible to hacking and government oversight. Nevertheless, Sweden is not alone in this push, with Denmark and Norway also following suit.

Conclusion

Reducing the supply of big bills or even eliminating cash altogether comes down to a simple cost benefit-analysis. Having smaller bills will force much of the money associated with the black market economy out into the open, and at the very least it will make it harder to carry. However, as had been mentioned, there are numerous alternatives to keeping illegal funds in cash.

Conversely, while by making transactions increasingly with cards or electronic forms of payment may make it harder to hide crime, it also makes everyday purchases easier to track. This includes not only tracking by the government, but also by websites or corporations. It would make it more likely that information will get stolen by hackers or other nefarious groups as well, simply because there are more opportunities. This is not even factoring in the effort it would take to acquaint many people with the new form of payment or the effect it could have on monetary policy.

In some places this trade-off has seemingly been deemed acceptable, but for the most part it has not caught on worldwide. Cash, even in large bills, is likely to remain king until security and privacy concerns are considered less of an issue compared to concerns over how criminals are hoarding their ill-gotten gains.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Not About the Benjamins: Is the United States on the Verge of Eliminating the $100 Bill? appeared first on Law Street.

Early Friday morning, the Labor Department released a report that the U.S. economy added 235,000 jobs in February, President Donald Trump’s first full month in office. Eleven minutes after the report was released, Trump retweeted a story from Drudge Report, a conservative-leaning outlet, about the job growth. “GREAT AGAIN: +235,000,” Trump commented along with his retweet. About ten minutes later, Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, also sent out a tweet commenting on the Labor Department’s report:

Great news for American workers: economy added 235,000 new jobs, unemployment rate drops to 4.7% in first report for @POTUS Trump

— Sean Spicer (@PressSec) March 10, 2017

Spicer meant well and, of course, responding positively to positive news is hardly a crime. But, in fact, Spicer’s tweet might have violated an obscure federal rule. In September 1985, under President Ronald Reagan, the Office of Management and Budget enacted an ordinance called the Statistical Policy Directive No. 3. According to the rule, “employees of the executive branch shall not comment publicly on the data until at least one hour after the official release time.”

OMB said the rule is meant “to preserve the distinction between the policy-neutral release of data by statistical agencies and their interpretation by policy officials.” The report was used as a political tool soon after its release, as Trump seemed to take credit for the sunny February numbers, and his detractors credited President Barack Obama. Whoever deserves the credit, Spicer was simply “excited to see so many Americans back to work,” he said at Friday’s press briefing, in response to a question about his potentially rule-breaking tweet.

The Labor Department’s report was embargoed until 8:30 Friday morning, when it was officially released, but the White House received the report beforehand. It is unclear if Spicer, or Trump, with his retweet of the Drudge Report story, broke the federal rule. It does not appear the rule has been enforced in the past. For one, Obama did not tweet with the same vigor and enthusiasm as Trump does. And, traditionally, presidents wait more than 11 minutes to comment on a jobs report.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did Sean Spicer Break a Federal Rule with a Tweet? appeared first on Law Street.

Yesterday, in a $1.8 billion deal, the Canada-based fast food company Restaurant Brands International (RBI), acquired Popeyes, one of the largest chicken fast-food chains in America. The deal is expected to close in April.

“With this transaction, RBI is adding a brand that has a distinctive position within a compelling segment and strong U.S. and international prospects for growth,” RBI CEO Daniel Shwartz said in a statement. “As Popeyes becomes part of the RBI family we believe we can deliver growth and opportunities for all of our stakeholders including our valued employees and franchisees.”

This acquisition makes Popeyes part of the RBI “Family of Brands” that includes Burger King as well as the Canadian coffee and doughnut chain Tim Hortons. RBI is majority-owned by the Brazilian investment firm 3G Capital and was formed in 2014 after the Burger King and Tim Hortons merger. Since the merger, Burger King has expanded around the world with much success.

The deal seems to be good news for Popeyes investors and shareholders. Since news of the deal emerged, Popeyes stock has been soaring, according to Business Insider.

While the deal is being applauded as a good business call by RBI, some people are calling foul, bringing up the fact that RBI has been a prominent perpetrator of tax inversion, which will become even more significant now that RBI is making strides toward becoming one of the largest fast food companies in the world.

Tax inversion is a way for companies to dodge American corporate tax by rerouting their revenue to a so-called “tax haven.” In the Canadian-based RBI’s case, the Burger King merger with Tim Hortons allowed for Burger King’s revenue to be taxed at the Canadian corporate tax rate rather than the American one, which, according to CNN Money, was projected to save Burger King shareholders over $800 million in capital gains taxes and the company itself about $400 million in corporate tax.

Projected tax savings for Popeyes have not been reported yet, but, according to ThinkProgress’ Alan Pyke, being a smaller firm, Popeyes’ tax savings are probably going to be much smaller than Burger King’s. However, with the new Trump Administration, questions about tax/corporate inversion have been growing, as the administration is expected to take a much different approach towards quelling its effects than the Obama Administration did.

Per ThinkProgress’ Alan Pyke:

Inversions were all the rage in corporate management in the second term of the Obama administration, which sought to curb them through new Treasury Department rules. The bankers who helped complete those deals raked in close to a billion dollars in fees for their assistance.

Republicans in Congress are widely expected to gut the Obama-era restrictions on inversions. President Donald Trump’s administration has signaled it would prefer to slash the U.S. corporate tax rate rather than combat corporate tax avoidance through regulation — even though rates are not what drive American-made companies to pretend they live somewhere else.

Pyke cites a report from Reuters that looked at six companies that were known to have completed or were in the process of completing “inversion-type” deals. The report finds that, while the U.S. corporate tax rate is high, many large companies use elaborate strategies to cut tax costs, which reduce the effects of the country’s 35 percent statutory rate and allow companies to pay well below the actual rate. These elaborate loop holes within the U.S. tax code suggest that companies may be practicing tax inversion for a variety of incentives offered abroad, which shows that “Washington’s current debate over business tax reform may be too focused on the statutory rate, neglecting effective rates and the incentives that companies have to shift profits abroad.”

As Pyke points out, President Donald Trump and many other Republicans still prefer to slash corporate taxes to stop companies from making tax inversion deals. Trump has frequently stated that he will lower the corporate tax rate to 15 percent.

On the Bloomberg Politics show “With All Due Respect” in November 2015, Trump said that “other candidates don’t even know what corporate inversion is. I do know, I really know,” Trump said. “You are going to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs to other countries because of corporate inversions. What you are going to do is lower the taxes bring the money in and they are going to use that money to build and do things in the United States.”

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Chicken With a Side of Tax Inversion?: A Look at the Popeyes Sale appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, the United Nations formally declared a famine in parts of South Sudan, saying that the civil war and the collapse of the economy have left 100,000 people facing starvation. As many as a million more are on the verge of it. Now the UN urges the international community to act fast, as the number of people at the brink of starvation will rise to an estimated 5.5 million in July, which is the peak lean season.

“Famine has become a tragic reality in parts of South Sudan and our worst fears have been realised. Many families have exhausted every means they have to survive,” said Serge Tissot, a representative for The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in South Sudan. He added that most of the affected families are farmers who had their land and agriculture disrupted by the armed conflicts. People have had to rely on what little food they can find.

Famine has been declared today in parts of #SouthSudan. 100k facing starvation, almost 5m urgently need aid https://t.co/0TxKfgqfar pic.twitter.com/jJcT0of89x

— UNICEF (@UNICEF) February 20, 2017

This is the first declared famine since 2011 in Somalia, when more than a quarter of a million people are believed to have succumbed to starvation between October 2010 and April 2012. Expectations were high that South Sudan, the world’s youngest country that gained independence from Sudan in 2011, was going to prosper because of ample oil in the area. But the new country is also home to over 60 different ethnic groups and the conflicts didn’t end with their independence.

#Famine hits parts of #SouthSudan: 100,000 ppl facing starvation. 5 mln ppl need food, #ag & nutrition assistance https://t.co/IQGSr0YI2K pic.twitter.com/e5HmsqlRrA

— FAO Newsroom (@FAOnews) February 20, 2017

Malnutrition is a public health emergency in South Sudan and armed fighting, displacement, and poor access to health services have aggravated the situation. According to UNICEF, more than a million children are already malnourished and many will die unless they get immediate help. And to make matters worse, the crisis could have been prevented: “This famine is man-made,” said Joyce Luma, Country Director at World Food Programme, WFP. She added:

WFP and the entire humanitarian community have been trying with all our might to avoid this catastrophe, mounting a humanitarian response of a scale that quite frankly would have seemed impossible three years ago. But we have also warned that there is only so much that humanitarian assistance can achieve in the absence of meaningful peace and security, both for relief workers and the crisis-affected people they serve.

Another contributing factor to the severity of the situation is serious inflation and a devaluation of the currency by 800 percent in the past year, resulting in food prices rising ten-fold. It has also been reported that President Salva Kiir’s government has been blocking humanitarian aid to certain areas.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post UN Declares Man-Made Famine in South Sudan appeared first on Law Street.

President-elect Trump visited a Carrier Corporation factory on Thursday, officially sealing a deal that will keep 1,000 manufacturing jobs from leaving Indiana for Mexico. Making good on his campaign promise to protect American factory jobs from cheap overseas labor, if in an incremental way, Trump hashed the deal out with  Vice President-elect and former Indiana Governor Mike Pence.

The deal was a response to Carrier’s decision earlier this year to lay off 2,000 workers at two of its Indiana plants, one in Indianapolis and another in Huntington. Trump was irate at the air-conditioning company’s announcement, using it as an example in his crusade to save American factory jobs, particularly in Rust Belt states, many of which were key to his victory last month.

Carrier released a statement on Wednesday, saying the deal “benefits our workers, the state of Indiana and our company.” The statement continued:

Today’s announcement is possible because the incoming Trump-Pence administration has emphasized to us its commitment to support the business community and create an improved, more competitive U.S. business climate. The incentives offered by the state were an important consideration.

Trump and Pence offered a package of financial incentives to Carrier: the company would receive $700,000 per year, $7 million total, in tax breaks from the state of Indiana. Trump also threatened to cut $5-$6 billion in federal contracts from Carrier’s parent-company United Technologies, which accrues substantial profits from military contracts, including from the Pentagon, its largest customer.

Trump’s Carrier deal shows corporations they can:

Threaten to outsource jobs
Actually outsource jobs
Still get a tax cut

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) December 1, 2016

Not everyone was a fan of the agreement. Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT), in an op-ed in The Washington Post on Thursday, said United Technologies “took Trump hostage and won.” Sanders, who like Trump campaigned on preserving American jobs, said Trump’s “Band-Aid solution” is a short-term fix. He added:

We need to re-instill an ethic of corporate patriotism. We need to send a very loud and clear message to corporate America: The era of outsourcing is over. Instead of offshoring jobs, the time has come for you to start bringing good-paying jobs back to America.

While Trump’s handshake with Carrier might make 1,000 workers and their families happy and secure, for the time being, the longer trend of job losses primarily to automation and increased efficiency will be difficult to reverse. According to an analysis from The New York Times, the U.S has lost nearly five million manufacturing jobs since 2000.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Strikes Deal with Carrier to Keep Manufacturing Jobs in the U.S. appeared first on Law Street.

Brazil’s Senate voted on Wednesday to remove President Dilma Rousseff from office–an expected but nonetheless historic result, given that Rousseff was Brazil’s first female president.

Rousseff is accused of corruption and breaking fiscal laws, which her critics say aggravated the already bad economic situation in Brazil. Rousseff has pleaded not guilty and denied any wrongdoing ever since she was suspended from office in May this year. In the Senate, 61 voted for her impeachment on Wednesday, and 20 against. Upon hearing the result, she said, “Today is the day that 61 men, many of them charged and corrupt, threw 54 million Brazilian votes in the garbage.”

During the hearing she also said:

I’m here to look in your eyes and say with the serenity of someone who has nothing to hide that I haven’t committed any crimes of responsibility. I have not committed the crimes of which I have been unjustly and arbitrarily accused.

Dilma Rousseff, Brazil’s 1st woman president, permanently removed after impeachment: https://t.co/8SwnwTvxn0 pic.twitter.com/iqL5fiUd2r

— Women in the World (@WomenintheWorld) August 31, 2016

This means the end of a 13 year-long rule of the left-wing Worker’s Party, and the end for the country’s first female President. Rousseff, 68, used to be a guerilla fighter during the dictatorship in the 1970s. She was elected in 2011, and then reelected in 2014. At the time, the country’s economy was in  really bad shape, and she did not manage to fix it. Even though she stands accused of further ruining the economy and corruption, she has never been formally charged with a crime.

Rousseff claims she has been ousted because she allowed a corruption investigation to go on, which lead to several politicians being charged. So the question is whether she is actually guilty of a crime, or if the opposition just wanted to get rid of a leader who drained the country’s economy.

In a second vote on Wednesday, the Senate decided whether or not to ban Rousseff from public office for the next eight years. This time the majority voted no, with 42 votes against and 36 for, meaning she could technically return to politics whenever she wants.

Acting President Michel Temer will take Rousseff’s place until the next election in 2018.

Rousseff’s parting words to her supporters were, “Right now, I will not say goodbye to you. I am certain I can say: ‘See you soon.’”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Brazil Senate Votes to Oust President Dilma Rousseff From Office appeared first on Law Street.

Jill Stein is the nominee of the Green Party, a left-wing party focusing on environmentalism, grassroots democracy, and social justice. Stein, from Chicago, attended Harvard Medical School and practiced internal medicine in Massachusetts for 25 years. She has run for Governor of Massachusetts, the House of Representatives, other local Massachusetts offices, and was the Green Party’s presidential nominee in 2012. She has served as a Town of Lexington Town Meeting Representative, but has lost her other bids for public office.

Where does Jill Stein stand on some of the prevalent issues of 2016?

Economy:

Jill Stein calls for an economic solution that alleviates economic inequality while simultaneously working toward a greener economy. She calls for such initiatives as a $15 minimum wage, job creation by urging the clean energy industry forward, and democratizing banks, the federal reserve, and public utilities.

Gun Rights and Control:

Stein advocates improving community mental health resources, ending the culture of drug violence, and legalizing marijuana as mechanisms to reduce gun violence. She is in favor of increased local regulation and background checks.

Healthcare:

Jill Stein hopes to replace the Affordable Care Act by extending Medicare to everybody with a single payer public health program. In Stein’s platform, she also advocates lowering the cost of prescription drugs, expanding access to contraceptives and abortion, and enhancing community health resources.

Immigration:

Stein hopes to establish a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, supports the DREAM act and deferred action for immigrants, and condemns the deportation of law-abiding undocumented immigrants.

Privacy and National Security:

In her platform, Stein expresses dedication to personal security and privacy. She supports the deauthorization of Guantanamo Bay, termination of the executive power to indefinitely imprison citizens, and other top-heavy gestures of national security. Stein also supports the repeal of the Patriot Act.

What are Jill Stein’s priorities?

Jill Stein places high priority on addressing climate change, an unfair economy that caters to corporations and the rich, and social injustice. Her platform consists of 12 points; transitioning to a green economy, establishing jobs, education, and health care as rights, ending poverty, creating a just economy, fostering racial justice, protecting mother earth, freedom and equality, justice, peace and human rights, and empowering the people.

How is Jill Stein polling?

According to the last national poll conducted by Public Policy Polling on July 30, Jill Stein is currently polling at 2 percent.

You can read here about the other third party candidate, Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who is Jill Stein? appeared first on Law Street.

Governor Gary Johnson is the nominee of the Libertarian Party, a party that places heavy emphasis on fiscal conservatism, limited government, and civil liberties. After studying political science at the University of New Mexico, Johnson founded Big J Enterprises. The construction contracting business became a lucrative success before he sold it in 1999. Johnson ran for Governor of New Mexico in 1994, won, and held that office from 1995-2003. During his tenure, Johnson drastically cut the size of the state government, lowered taxes, favored privatization of services like prisons and Medicaid, and was known for frequently exercising veto power. Johnson was also the Libertarian Party nominee in 2012.

Where does he stand on some of the prevalent issues of 2016?

Economy:

Many of Gary Johnson’s high-priority proposals have to do with Libertarian revisions to the economy. Johnson wants to end the corporate income tax to draw companies and jobs to the U.S., introduce a single consumption tax, and cut government spending by at least 20 percent.   

Immigration:

According to Johnson’s platform, he believes that making it easier for immigrants to legally obtain work visas and enter the U.S. will create a safer national environment. Johnson opposes an increase in border security and building a border wall.

Gun Rights and Control:

Johnson strongly defends gun ownership and wants to seek provisions to make it more difficult for individuals suspected of terrorism and mentally ill individuals to obtain guns.

Health Care:

Gary Johnson favors the repeal of the Affordable Care Act in exchange for privatized healthcare based on free market principles. Johnson has expressed intentions to cut funding to Medicare and Medicaid. He also supports the right for a woman to have an abortion.

Privacy and National Security:

In line with Libertarian Party ideology, Johnson is in fierce defense of personal privacy. He has expressed intention to dismantle the National Security Agency (NSA) if elected. In his book, “Seven Principles of Good Government,” Johnson also expressed that the Patriot Act should be repealed. His platform expresses fierce opposition to foreign military intervention.

What are Gary Johnson’s priorities?

Gary Johnson places strong emphasis on civil liberties, government downsizing, and the private, laissez-faire economic strategy. His platform consists of 13 points: wasteful spending, taxes, job creation, civil liberties, internet freedom, abortion, immigration, the war on drugs, criminal justice reform, education, foreign policy and national defense, creation of term limits and the environment.

Who is Gary Johnson’s vice president pick?

William “Bill” Weld, like Gary Johnson is a former Libertarian-Republican governor. Weld has served as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, the head of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, and as Governor of Massachusetts from (1991-1997). He was also nominated as Ambassador to Mexico, ran for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts in 1996, and was a candidate for Governor of New York in 2005. While Governor of Massachusetts, Weld had a similar track record to Johnson. He cut taxes, pursued the elimination of state employees and privatization of human services, and drastically reduced state spending.

How is Gary Johnson polling?

According to the last national poll conducted by Public Policy Polling on July 30, Gary Johnson is currently polling at 6 percent.

You can read here about the other third party candidate, Jill Stein of the Green Party.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who is Gary Johnson? appeared first on Law Street.

Hillary Clinton is coming under social media fire for a clothing choice she made two months ago. The unassuming tweed jacket she had on during an April speech about income inequality didn’t make any sort of splash that day, or even that month. But now it’s all over the news, after a New York Post article about her campaign’s fashion choices valued that particular Giorgio Armani jacket at $12,495.

.@HillaryClinton wears $12,000 Armani jacket while ‘fighting’ for income equality: https://t.co/7QL3WF7kci pic.twitter.com/QQ4nEu8cW3

— BULLETT Media (@BULLETTMedia) June 7, 2016

According to the New York Post, her stylists have recently aimed for more simplistic outfits, trying not to continue Clinton’s previous trend of wearing brightly colored pantsuits. The idea, apparently, was that a more minimalist approach would draw attention away from Clinton’s clothes, and allow her words to be the focus of discussion. The goal was for people to not talk about her clothes–which is impossible. Hillary Clinton can’t afford to wear the same thing every day, like Trump or Sanders. She has to think about what she wears more than her counterparts because no matter what, it will be a subject of discussion.

This back-to-basics plan may have backfired, as Clinton went from a “Pantsuit Peggy” to an “Armani Alicia.” “Veep” fans might be reminded of Selina Meyer’s attempt to stand on a wooden crate to appear down-to-earth, only to learn that it was reinforced with steel and cost $1,200. But why do we reject expensive items like an Armani jacket? When we criticize wealthy people for making exorbitant purchases, we’re mad at them for having money. Would we prefer they hoard their money like a dragon, not turning their payment into paychecks for the people they purchase from? Is it not enough that Clinton donates hundreds millions of dollars every year? You can be mad at Clinton for any of her policy decisions or Senate votes that you disagree with, but throwing shade her way for buying a jacket is a senseless critique.

While we do know that Clinton’s campaign is spending a lot of money to dress one woman, we don’t know how much she paid for the jacket, or if she paid for it at all. Clinton might have been offered this jacket from a representative at Armani, Clinton’s buyer may have cut a wholesale deal on the jacket, or maybe Hill walked into Bergdorf Goodman, slapped 120 Benjamins on the table, and wore the damn jacket home. Regardless, the $12,000 figure is exorbitant and eye-catching, which is why that’s the number in every story about “Hillary the hypocrite.” But does wearing an expensive jacket invalidate your economic plan? Does having a pricy wardrobe mean you can’t care about bolstering the American middle class?

The answer to these questions is of course not. It isn’t hypocritical for a wealthy person wearing expensive clothes to think there should be fewer Americans living in poverty. The Bernie Sanders brag about not having money doesn’t make him any more suited to shape policy on taxes. You don’t need to be middle class to help the middle class. You have to be smart to help the middle class.

Tackling income inequality doesn’t involve slapping millionaires across the face, putting limits on their credit cards, and shutting down Giorgio Armani, Bugatti, and Sotheby’s. It involves creating a set of laws designed to raise wages across the country and end corporate tax loopholes. If the plan is solid, it doesn’t matter how you dress it up.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hillary’s $12,000 Jacket Doesn’t Mean Jacksh*t appeared first on Law Street.

A study published yesterday by the Center for Immigration Studies, or CIS, claims immigrant households collect $1,803 more in welfare benefits than native households–families headed by a U.S. born person–based on data collected in 2012.

Based on a sample size of 22,077 native households and 2,980 immigrant households, the study found that a large portion of the discrepancy in welfare benefits stems from Medicaid dollars, though immigrant households benefited from welfare by slim margins in nearly every other category–cash ($686 to $517) and food ($1,083 to $689). Native households received one dollar more in housing benefits, ($395 to $394.)

Conducted by the conservative, independent public policy analyst Jason Richwine, the study explains the findings as being attributable to the average education level of immigrant families, which is lower than those born in the U.S.

“It is easy to understand why people with fewer skills are more likely to participate in welfare programs, since eligibility for those programs requires a low income,” writes Richwine, whose 2013 study with the Heritage Foundation on IQ differences between immigrants and natives caused quite a stir.

Richwine concluded the study by saying, “the American welfare system has become increasingly focused on buttressing low-wage workers rather than supporting non-workers. Put more simply, welfare and low-wage work go together.”

While this study seems to provide evidence for those who want the U.S. to scale back immigration, claiming that immigration hurts the economy, a separate study by the American Immigration Council highlights the positive effects immigration has on the economy.

Among the findings:

• Based on 2013 figures, immigration increases GDP (by $31.4 billion) and tax revenue (“The average immigrant contributes nearly $120,000 more in taxes than he or she consumes in public benefits”).
• Immigrants are nearly twice as likely to start a business than natives–at a rate of 0.52 immigrant entrepreneurs and 0.27 for natives.
• Between 1996 and 2011, immigrants contributed $62 more per person than natives to Medicare.

As Congress and the next president will surely take a close look at U.S. immigration policy, possibly overhauling it completely or banning those of a certain faith, these studies will surely be used as fodder for both sides in the conversations to come.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New CIS Study Shows Immigrants Take in More Welfare Than U.S. Born appeared first on Law Street.

My most recent job was working as what I affectionately refer to as a “wage-slave” at a Trader Joe’s. As far as wage-slave jobs go it was a very upbeat environment, I was paid $13 an hour and treated respectfully by all the “mates.” However, on my first day, they explained to me that we are not supposed to talk to our fellow employees about how much we make. It did not seem like a suggestion. Prior to working at Trader Joe’s, I managed a team of psychologists, teachers, service providers, and secretaries at a company that provided services to preschoolers with special needs. The policy there, directly from Human Resources and our bosses, was not to discuss our salaries with each other. I had similar warnings when I worked for Starbucks at the age of 16 and later when I worked for the coffee chain again at the age of 26.

None of these warnings ever stopped me from discussing my wages with my co-workers at any of these jobs but warnings like this do silence many people. Most employers would argue that silence is a good thing. Co-workers discussing their pay with each other could lead to a hostile work environment and pay secrecy protects workers’ privacy. But being able to discuss pay without fear of retaliation is seen as an essential tool to combat discrimination and promote fairness in pay. As Justice Brandeis once said, sunlight is the best disinfectant and allows workers to learn that they are being discriminated against and do something about it.

But who is correct? Should employers be allowed to set policies that prohibit the discussion of pay in the workplace?  Or should employees be allowed to freely discuss what they are paid with each other?

Pay Secrecy vs. Pay Transparency

Discussing pay in the workplace is, actually, already protected by federal law.  There are carve-outs and exceptions but employees are generally protected from retaliation for discussing pay with their co-workers. It’s just that nobody knows about it. This article from NPR gives an explanation of the federal law that gives employees this right and how it works.

The federal law that establishes this protection, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), was designed to encourage collective bargaining, which necessitates that employees have the ability to get together and discuss the issues they face at work. But those who think we should be encouraging workplace pay transparency argue that the law does not have enough teeth. One glaring omission is that agricultural workers are not protected. Since many agricultural workers tend to be less educated than office employees they may deserve additional protection, not less.

Policies that try to prohibit employees from discussing their pay are widespread, both in hourly jobs and in salaried positions. According to the Institute For Women’s Policy Research, it is pretty clear that pay secrecy policies are widespread throughout the United States. Some of these are cultural prohibitions and some are in employee handbooks and other written policies. In the private sector, 62 percent of women and 60 percent of men work for a company with pay secrecy policies. For all workers, 51 percent of women and 47 percent of men report that discussion of pay is either discouraged or prohibited.

For an employer, pay secrecy can be an important tool for keeping peace in the workplace. The fear is that pay inequality, even when it is justified, could lead to jealousy between employees when made public. It also is in the employer’s best interest to keep the workplace stable; keeping pay rates secret may help to limit turnover because employees are less motivated to leave if they are not certain they are being underpaid. Secrecy also increases privacy for employees who may not want to discuss their salaries with other co-workers, as that may be something that they want to be kept personal. That is often because talking about money is considered socially taboo. Pay secrecy also lets employers compete for top talent by offering them a financial incentive. Employers might not want to offer their most green workers more money than their existing employees if salary information is publicly available.

Employers who want to be able to keep their pay secret would argue that the practical costs of revealing rates outweigh the potential benefits. It would be difficult to maintain cooperation in the workplace among employees, especially in situations where there was a wide disparity in what similarly situated employees made. Even if those differences were justifiable they would be so unpopular with the employees who received less compensation that it would cause dissension. It would also be difficult, if not impossible, to both publish pay rates for employees and be respectful of the privacy of those who may not want their personal salaries advertised to their co-workers. Finally, there is no proven cause-effect relationship between discrimination by race or sex and pay secrecy. Such discrimination does exist but it is not necessarily because of pay secrecy but rather other social factors at work. Disclosing pay rates would increase acrimony  between companies and their employees.

Case Study: Lilly Ledbetter 

New laws to increase the effect of penalties for violating the NLRA with “gag rules” that keep pay rates secret have many supporters. And laws such as the Paycheck Fairness Act, which was ultimately defeated, seek to go even further. There may be practical concerns with making pay more transparent, but it is ultimately necessary to combat discrimination based on both race and gender. Pay secrecy does not necessarily cause discrimination but it creates a culture in which it is allowed to flourish.

In her book “Grace and Grit: My Fight For Equal Pay and Fairness at Goodyear and Beyond” Lilly Ledbetter gives her account of how she was discriminated against on the basis of her sex. Had she not been discouraged from discussing pay with her fellow employees she would have discovered this injustice much sooner. The culture of maintaining silence was so powerful that she only discovered the discrimination through an anonymous note–despite the fact that both her employer’s insistence on that silence and how it compensated its employees were illegal. You can watch her discuss her experience on CSPAN-2 here.

In the video below Ledbetter discusses her Supreme Court battle over the same issue on the Rachel Maddow Show.

Her story indicates that people on both sides of the pay transparency debate are correct. When Ledbetter learned about her pay it greatly upset her, caused conflict with her employer, and ultimately led to litigation. That litigation was, however, necessary because learning about her pay in comparison to her colleagues revealed a pattern of discrimination. Had she learned about the difference in pay sooner she would have been able to confront the issue immediately. Litigation might actually have been avoided entirely if a transparent culture was in place at Goodyear from the start–she probably would not have accepted a position where she was paid 40 percent less than her similarly situated male colleagues. The company would not have been able to attract female workers and the market would have forced them to change their pay structure before a lawsuit did so. In the long run, transparency would have been more efficient.

Other Potential Benefits To Pay Transparency

Pay transparency may also positively impact morale, rather than destroy it as the conventional wisdom would suggest. When employees feel trusted to make decisions and weigh information intelligently they may be more likely to have a positive view of the company they work for. The main predictor of job satisfaction and whether an employee will seek to leave is based on their perception fairness. According to research done by Payscale, employees who think they are being paid less than they are worth (even in some cases where that is not true) may look to leave while employees who know they are being paid less but feel the reason is legitimate (such as the company being newly formed) are willing to stay. People also may be more eager to apply to work for companies that advertise pay transparency as a policy or core value. If companies want to retain and attract new talent, then keeping pay a secret may not be the best strategy.

Pay transparency would also require that employees take into account factors that justify disparities in pay as well as ensure that such disparities only exist for justifiable reasons. When pay rates are secret, employees may feel that they have something to hide or that the employees are not trusted to make reasoned judgments given the facts–both of which could have a negative impact on worker morale. But when companies make pay transparency their policy it may have an opposite effect–making workers feel like they work for a company that is not keeping secrets about their compensation and that the company values discussion in its culture.

Conclusion

There are benefits to the employer that pay secrecy provides. It can increase privacy and an absence of what many would find to be socially awkward, or even hostile, encounters in the workplace. Making pay rates transparent could lead to problems for employers who would have to change their cultures and deal with the economic and political consequences of sharing this knowledge.

But pay transparency has its benefits as well. Workers cannot hope to speak out against discrimination and fight for their right to equal pay if they are barred from even finding out if they are being wronged in the first place. Pay secrecy effectively keeps them from finding out and, therefore, prevents them from ever being able to do something about it. And to a certain extent, pay secrecy is already against the law in many cases, as most employers are not allowed to discourage or punish open discussion of wages.

Pay secrecy versus pay transparency is ultimately a cost-benefit analysis between the interests of capital and labor. Companies must figure out whether the stability and workplace harmony that pay secrecy can provide is more important than the opportunity for an open dialogue to shine a light on potentially discriminatory practices.

Resources

National Labor Relations Board: National Labor Relations Act

Additional

Institute For Women’s Policy Research: Pay Secrecy and Wage Discrimination

Psychology Today: Pay Secrecy: Do You Want To Know What Your Colleagues Are Paid?

National Bureau of Economic Research: Pay Inequality, Pay Secrecy, and Effort: Theory and Evidence

The Atlantic: When The Boss Says, ‘Don’t Tell Your Coworkers How Much You Get Paid

Goodreads: Grace and Grit: My Fight For Equal Pay and Fairness At Goodyear and Beyond

Fortune: How Pay Transparency Can Keep People From Quitting

Quartz: After Disclosing Employee Salaries, Buffer Was Inundated With Resumes

Mary Kate Leahy

Mary Kate Leahy (@marykate_leahy) has a J.D. from William and Mary and a Bachelor’s in Political Science from Manhattanville College. She is also a proud graduate of Woodlands Academy of the Sacred Heart. She enjoys spending her time with her kuvasz, Finn, and tackling a never-ending list of projects. Contact Mary Kate at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Talking About Pay In The Workplace: Is Sunlight The Best Disinfectant? appeared first on Law Street.

Every winter, the mountain resort of Davos, Switzerland plays host to the business world’s most eminent economic, journalistic and entrepreneurial minds at the World Economic Forum. The three-day long summit at Davos has repeatedly been lampooned as an obnoxious demonstration of power and privilege that does very little to create significant change in the world economy. However, looking past the elaborate meals and chartered helicopters, Davos can grant insight into what the top tier of the economic sector has planned for the future. Read on for a breakdown of the most important moments at Davos this month and what they mean for 2016.

What is Davos?

The World Economic Forum–a Swiss nonprofit based in Geneva–holds its annual meeting in the ski resort town of Davos, in the Eastern Alps. The meeting is usually comprised of approximately 2,500 business leaders, policy makers, and journalists–referred to as “influencers.” The three-day conference serves as an opportunity to discuss the world’s most pressing economic and social challenges and often serves as a crucial meeting place for building the groundwork for both corporate and political collaboration in the coming year. Davos’ mission is to facilitate public-private sector relations, and while it has done an admirable job of meeting that goal, it is often criticized for being too exclusive or elitist. The Davos invitee list is often limited to only the most profitable economic corporations, mainstream news networks, and representatives from developed nations.

The Issues

Spotlight on Migration

The refugee crisis took center stage at this year’s conference, with political leaders discussing both the nature of open travel across Europe and the impact of the swell of immigrants on the continent’s economy. Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte claimed that Europe has only “six to eight weeks” to save the Schengen system of travel–which allows for unrestricted travel for those who hold visas for any of the twenty-six countries that make up the Schengen zone.  Several countries have suspended their Schengen policy and Davos provided opportunities for several ministers and politicians to discuss future plans for border control. Rutte argues that as spring approaches, the number of refugees entering Europe will only swell, potentially leading to a complete shutdown of the Schengen zone’s open border policy. French Prime Minister Manuel Valls also spoke on border policies, claiming that the European Union was not originally built to withstand the challenges of the refugee crisis.

In an interview given in the days before the conference began, billionaire George Soros added to the panic surrounding a European Union breakup by stating that

The EU is on the verge of collapse…the Greek crisis taught the European authorities the art of muddling through one crisis after another… The EU now is confronted with not one but five or six crises at the same time.

Outside of the formal roundtable discussions, Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven spoke out regarding the spike in sexual attacks in Cologne, Germany and other European cities this month, saying that all refugees are not to blame for these crimes and that sexual harassment was problematic in Sweden and other nations long before the refugees arrived.

The Possibility of a “Brexit”

Davos’s discussions focused on the potential of Britain leaving the European Union in 2016 or 2017. Multiple European leaders made fervent pleas to the British representation and citizenry at large to stay within the union, referring to British secession as a “tragedy.” There is no scheduled vote on England leaving but with tensions over the refugee crisis stretching European governments thin, rumors of a potential British exit sent shock waves through Davos. However, Britain would most likely not benefit from exiting the EU in 2016. In a recent interview, Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia group, said that

If you’re asking if it is in Britain’s narrow interest to stay in Europe, I would say it is less in their interest than it was a year ago – but I would still make the point that if the Brits leave the EU, the likelihood that Scotland leaves Britain goes up very significantly, and I do believe that’s bad for the UK… Furthermore, leaving the single market, irrespective of the fact that Britain is not in the euro, would damage Britain’s role in finance globally; Britain would take a hit because of that. Also the logistics of the unwinding process, playing out over a couple of years, would be immensely distracting and damaging to both sides. Investment decisions are going to be changed both in the UK and the EU, and both would suffer

The potential “Brexit” dominated politician’s rhetoric at the summit but ultimately appeared to be a red herring as Prime Minister David Cameron stated that he is “not in a hurry” to schedule a vote on a British exit from the EU.

Debt Relief for Greece

During the forum, the IMF’s managing director, Christine Lagarde, and the Greek prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, met briefly to discuss the future of the Greek economy.  The IMF has agreed to extend new loans to Greece but it has also publicly stated that it is only prepared to support Greece on a “strings-attached basis.” Greece will need to enact significant economic changes and receive backing from Eurozone partners if it wants to take on IMF funds. Representatives from both the IMF and the Greek delegation referred to the talks as cordial and productive. Tsipras made a statement during Davos promising to reform the Greek economy–while simultaneously criticizing European insistence on lowering budget deficits.

It should be noted that Lagarde, who is responsible for the IMF’s prediction of world economic growth, recently downgraded the statistic to 3.4 percent from 3.6 percent for 2017. This contributed to worries for all countries represented at Davos but should be especially troubling for Greece as it takes on its new package of loans. Tsipras made a series of optimistic statements regarding a rebound for Greece but with limited prospects for growth and the influx of migrants that have swept into Greece, his speeches hardly seem to be realistic.

Discussions on Gender Inequality

Davos featured multiple events on closing the gender gap this year. Historically, Davos has been male dominated and as only 11 percent of company board directors from across the globe are women, the invite list was still mainly masculine this year. However, the organizers of Davos did dedicate specific time and spaces to gender inequality brainstorming sessions and panels. The United Nations brought its HeforShe campaign to the summit. Both Sheryl Sandberg and Justin Trudeau spoke at a panel on gender inequality, advocating for business and political leaders to embrace feminism. The Girls’ Lounge, a space reserved for the 18 percent of Davos attendees who are female, hosted a roundtable discussion on gender inequality during this year’s conference. The discussion focused on making workplaces more equitable and changing the culture of the corporate world. However, German journalist Manuela Kasper-Claridge noted that a great deal of the events on gender inequality were led by men, seriously undercutting the participation of the female attendees. While the soundbites produced at the forum were mainly positive, relatively few attendees committed publicly to promoting gender equality in their corporations or parliaments.

Conclusion

Davos is not a perfect yardstick for upcoming political and economic changes as it only includes a small percentage of the thousands of decision makers involved in the global economy, but it does create a platform for valuable discussion. The refugee crisis continues to dominate the political and economic discussions of European parliaments, and the pressure from the potential withdrawal of Great Britain from the EU has only complicated the debate. Davos is struggling to create gender parity in its annual conference but its efforts this year may open up more discussions in the coming years and prove valuable in the effort to promote feminism in workplaces across the world. Ultimately, Davos is a forum held for ideas not action–there are no votes or referendums that come as a direct result, the stock market does not rise or fall based on its speeches, and many of the attendees are only repeating their position on issues they have discussed time and time again. However, Davos serves as an unparalleled signpost for where European leaders hope to focus their time, energy, and resources in 2016.

Resources

The Guardian: Let’s Make Attending Davos as Shameful as Running a Sweatshop

The Atlantic Sentinal: Weeks Left to Save Schengen, Dutch Premier Warns

The Express: EU could go UNDER in 6 WEEKS, Dutch PM Claims as France Admits ‘We Weren’t Built for This’

The Daily Mail: Davos elites fear weakened European Union

The Irish Times: Number of Migrants Entering Europe ‘Needs to be Reduced’, Davos Hears

CNBC: Migrants Not to Blame for Sex Attacks: Swedish PM

Foreign Policy: Davos Diary: Europe Fears ‘Brexit’ But Not At ‘Any Price

The Telegraph: Davos Leaders Fear ‘Brexit’ May be Deathknell for EU

International Business Times: Davos 2016: Greece Promised New IMF Loans At Meeting With Lagarde And Tsipras

The Market Mogul: Worries in Davos 2016

The Guardian: IMF Demands EU Debt Relief for Greece Before New Bailout

Quartz: #Davosproblems: The Financial Crisis isn‘t Over, and the Inequality Crisis is Just Beginning

The Guardian: Embrace Feminism to Improve Decision-Making, says Justin Trudeau

Deutsche Welle: Davos, we Have a Gender Problem

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post What are the Major Takeaways from the 2016 World Economic Forum? appeared first on Law Street.

After nearly three and a half decades, China’s famous one-child policy is finally coming to an end; the Communist Party announced last week that it will begin to allow families to have up to two children. The change will officially go into effect this upcoming March, when the parliament provides approval at its annual session. The policy, which was introduced in 1979, was meant to help ease the booming population of the country, which is now at approximately 1.36 billion. However, it has had enormous adverse effects on nearly every facet of Chinese society, and has created a chaotic demographic landscape within the country. Essentially, the Chinese population is too male, and too old, and that’s a problem.

So, why should the rest of the world care about this change in China? The one-child policy has been a human-rights disaster, and the demographic, social, and economic effects will haunt China for generations to come. Here’s an overview of what this policy has meant for Chinese society over the past 30 years, and what its end will mean for the country’s future.

The One-Child Policy: A Background

In 1949, the year of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, Mao Zedong proclaimed, “of all things in the world, people are the most precious.” This declaration reflected the government’s notion that population growth was beneficial and would help boost the economy. The government even went as far as to ban the import of contraceptives into the country in order to promote this agenda.

This backfired, however, when the population levels became so large that food supplies were not sufficient enough, resulting in famine that caused around 30 million deaths. The severity of China’s population growth became evident, and something needed to be done to slow it. As a result, the one-child policy was born in 1979 and declared that couples must limit their families to only having one child.

Violators who go over the mandated quota can face a variety of consequences, ranging from fines to forced abortions and sterilizations. There are some exceptions: ethnic minorities are generally excluded from the rule, and couples are allowed to give birth to a second child in certain circumstances. Additionally, the policy has been criticized for being applied unequally depending on one’s socioeconomic status: the rich are able to pay a “social compensation fee,” a fine that is a certain percentage of their income, or are able to travel abroad to give birth. This has turned the policy into a class issue as well, because the wealthy elite are easily excluded from the law.

Perhaps one of the greatest criticisms of the policy is how unevenly it is enforced. Regulations and consequences can vary from province to province, in addition to socioeconomic status. Critics cite this as proof that the policy is simply unenforceable; there is no way to hold everyone to the same levels of accountability and ensure that everyone is receiving equal treatment. So, the argument follows, what good is a policy that can’t even be carried out as it is supposed to be?

The consequences of the policy

In a way, it could be said that this policy has been successful: ultimately, it ended up doing what it set out to do by preventing around 400 million births. However, in doing so, it has created enormous disruptions in various facets of Chinese society. The one-child policy is essentially a social experiment that seemingly has done more harm than it has good.

Strict Regulations on Fertility

This policy has led the Chinese government to implement severe methods to regulate fertility, including forced abortions on women who become pregnant with a second child. Official statistics say that there have been approximately 1,500 abortions an hour since the implementation of the policy. Another means by which this takes place is sterilization, which is often forced—nearly 196 million of these procedures have been performed since implementation of the policy. While this sterilization is effective in ensuring that couples do not have to worry about accidental pregnancies, it is not a trouble-free solution. An example of this can be seen in a story told by one reporter, who recounted that after the 2008 earthquake in Szechuan, many couples who lost children were rushing to reverse these procedures so that they would be able to conceive again.

Additionally, there is now a generation of “hidden children” (children born out of quota) who have been abandoned by their families and are often unable to receive official identification numbers from the Chinese government. This is just one of many ways in which the policy is viewed as harmful for human rights in the country.

In some cases, women feel that their reproductive organs are owned by the state, as they no longer have sovereignty over their bodies. The tight hold that the government has over women’s bodies enhances the already-patriarchal nature in Chinese society, which exists largely due to the sheer amount of males in China.

An Altered Demographic Landscape

The one-child policy has created an imbalanced sex ratio (1.16 boys born for every girl) that is becoming problematic for Chinese society. This is because it has encouraged sex-selective practices such as abortions, infanticides, and abandonment of female babies. The statistics regarding some of these practices are heartbreaking: the rates of girls at Chinese orphanages have been found to be as high as 90 percent.

These practices have created a new generation of Chinese bachelors who are finding it difficult to marry. In some rural areas, feudal practices have reemerged that dictate that if a man wants to marry, his family must pay a large price for the girl’s hand. Many men will likely never be able to marry, having even greater ramifications for future generations.

Additionally, the population of China is skewing older, and is likely continue to do so for many generations. The average population of the country is getting older and older, and will continue to do so in the future. However, since the number of younger people is declining, there will be less people to support the growing retiree population. As the video below shows, more people must rely on nursing homes for support, going against traditional Confucian traditions that dictate that families must support their elderly members.

What makes this issue even more serious is the fact that China lacks a social security system, so children are counted on to be the source of support for parents after retirement. In the 2008 earthquake many parents who lost children were rushing to undo their sterilization procedures; one of the main reasons why is that they need someone to provide for them as they age.

Lastly, China’s aging population will potentially harm the economy in a huge way. With a shrinking working-age population, China’s economic future may be in peril.

The consequences of the one-child policy on the demography of China are serious and affect nearly every aspect of Chinese life in the present and in the future. Even with the end of the policy, it will likely take generations for these repercussions to be undone.

How will the end of this policy benefit China?

While the end of the one-child policy is a step in the right direction, it probably won’t be able to undo the disastrous consequences that were created with its implementation. More so, this change won’t be able to make up for the millions of lives affected by the forced sterilizations, abortions and infanticide that took place under this policy. And while the two-child limit still exists, a Chinese woman’s fertility will still remain under the control of the government.

In an article in The Guardian, author Mei Fong argues that the one-child policy has not solely changed the number of kids that a couple has, but has overall changed the way that Chinese people live their lives. Major life decisions such as marriage, employment, and retirement have all been shaped by the policy, and as a result, it is unlikely that the end of the policy will result in any sort of “baby boom” that will undo its negative effects. Fong’s overview demonstrates an important point: it will take a long time before Chinese society sees any effects from ending this policy. So, for a long time coming, we will likely see more of the same in China.

Conclusion

At the end of the day, the one-child policy was an ideal that could never be achieved. There is no simple answer to China’s population problems, but an authoritarian policy is obviously not the solution, and it seems that the country has finally recognized it. China will be a country to watch over the next few decades, as it struggles to figure out how to manage nearly one-sixth of the world’s total population.

Resources

BBC: China to End One-Child Policy and Allow Two

The Guardian: China’s Brutal One-child Policy Shaped How Millions Lived, Loved, and Died

National Geographic: How China’s One-Child Policy Backfired Disastrously

Wired UK: The Harrowing Reality of China’s One-child Policy

TIME: A Brief History of China’s One-Child Policy

The New Yorker: Judging China’s One-Child Policy

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post An End to China’s One-Child Policy: What Does it Mean? appeared first on Law Street.

The United States is a patchwork of cultures so diverse that large groups can often go under the radar unnoticed or unidentified. That is, until a tragedy brings that group to the forefront. American Muslims in particular have repeatedly been branded as terrorists throughout history, most recently after a terrible shooting by a Muslim man at an army base in Chattanooga, Tennessee. This viewpoint is unfair and uninformed. Far from being a secret insurgency, Muslims in the United States are one of its oldest groups and most average populations. Read on to learn more about Muslims in the United States, starting with the group’s culture, moving to a profile of the modern American Muslim, and lastly how this group of people is portrayed by the culture.

History of Islam in the U.S.

Muslims have a long history in the United States, perhaps going back to a time before Europeans even settled the area. According to some legends, Muslim Moors who had been expelled from Spain as part of Christian Reconquista may have explored the Caribbean and what is now America. In fact it has even been speculated that Columbus on his travels to the New World cited a book written by Muslims who had made a similar voyage in the 12^th century. There are also reports of physical Muslim guides used by the Spanish in their conquests beginning in the 16^th century.

The first major migration of Muslims unquestionably came through the slave trade. In fact, as many as ten to 15 percent of the imported human cargo was believed to be Muslim. These slaves were often forced to convert to Christianity or at least hide their beliefs, however some populations were able to hold out into the 20^th century.

Following this wave was another from the Middle East from the late 1800s to early 1900s. This group settled in the modern day American Midwest, as jobs were readily available particularly in the automobile industry. A third wave came in the 1950s and 60s from throughout Asia, when the United States relaxed its strict immigration policies. Islam in the United States was also invigorated by Black Americans who sought to restore their original faith, beginning with the Great Migration and continuing to this day. The first mosque in the United States was built in Cedar Rapids, Iowa and as of today there are more than one thousand mosques nationwide. Additionally, some of the most notable Muslims of the time were and are major historical figures such as Malcolm X and Muhammed Ali.

The Modern American Muslim

Like the varied waves in which they immigrated to the United States, the current population of Muslims in the U.S., numbering anywhere from five to 12 million people, is also an ethnic hodgepodge of American Blacks, Africans, Asians, Hispanics, Europeans, and converts. Along with a diversity that mirrors the U.S. population as a whole, Muslims in America are quintessentially American in a number of other ways. The number of Muslims with college and graduate degrees for example is nearly exactly the national average. This correlation holds true for the number of Muslims making $100,000 down to those making less than $30,000 annually.

Muslims also are slightly different in some ways as well. First, unlike America as a whole, Muslims skew young, over 75 percent of the Muslim population in the United States is 49 or younger. It also skews slightly male with approximately 54 percent of the Muslim population in this country being male. As far as geography, most live near urban centers such as New York and other coastal areas. The population of Muslims is also greater near university towns as many are graduate students or faculty. Thus while Muslim populations may go unrecognized, that may in part be because of how similar they are to the general population of which they are a part.  The video below looks in-depth at Muslims in the U.S.

Popular Perception of Muslims in American Culture

Clearly then, American Muslims have a rich historical place in America and blend in quite well with the population, too. However, while by most any metric Muslims are the epitome of America, the perception of Muslims remains disproportionately hostile. According to a recent poll, only 27 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Muslims. Additionally, nearly half of the respondents thought that Muslims’ decisions would be overly impacted by their religion and that profiling people of the Islamic faith was justified.

These are not just views of anonymous individuals. Following in the wake of the recent shootings for example, prominent Reverend Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham, called for the end of Muslim immigration to the United States. Graham is not alone in his vitriol. The FBI, it was revealed, also seems ill-disposed to American Muslims and unsurprisingly teaches its counter-terrorism agents that American Muslims are potential terrorist sympathizers, that the prophet Muhammad was a cult leader, and the act of giving is actually a covert effort to fund terrorist activities. The FBI was not the only policing agency in on the act; the NYPD also ran a notorious anti-terrorism program that targeted Muslims. Since 9/11, members of the NYPD infiltrated mosques, spied on attendees, and even enticed informants to trick other Muslims to make seditious statements on recordings.

In fact the American media in general is guilty of mischaracterizing Muslims. In a study done by a North Carolina professor of media from 2001 to 2008, he found overwhelming evidence of a media bias against Muslims, including a disproportionate focus on groups who denounced Islam.  The accompanying video details this bias through a triple murder of Muslims in North Carolina earlier this year.

Misplaced Hate

When one looks at the numbers, this anger and hate is clearly misplaced. For example, from 1980 to 2005, 94 percent of terrorist attacks committed on U.S. soil were done by non-Muslims. In 2013 in fact, more people were killed inadvertently by guns fired by toddlers than by Muslims.

Conclusion

There is an old saying that people fear the unknown. When it comes to the Muslim population in the United States, unknown might not be an adequate description. Perhaps the best example is that most Americans equate Arabs and Islam, even when most Arabs in the U.S. are not Muslims. Yet this void of knowledge has not remained unfilled, on the contrary a concerted effort has been made to twist and often distort the popular opinion of Americans into believing all Muslims are terrorists or at the very least, sympathetic to the cause of terror groups.

The numbers show nothing could be further from the truth. Far from being a homogenous group of troublesome people, Muslims, like America itself, are a diverse collection of peoples. Furthermore, these people encapsulate the average American identity in virtually every way.

Muslims like so many groups before them are often not treated equally in American society for a number of factors ranging from media influence to that all important unknown. However, closer examination reveals that in the United States, Muslims are most representative of one thing, the patchwork nature of the country itself.

Resources

Embassy of the United States: Muslims in America

PBS: Islam in America

Reuters: American Opinion of Arabs, Muslims is Getting Worse

Wired: FBI Teaches Agents

Atlantic: Horrifying Effects of NYPD Ethnic Profiling on American Muslims

Think Progress: Study; Anti-Islam Messages Dominate Media Coverage

 Daily Beast: Are All Terrorists Muslims? It’s Not Even Close

Viral Buzz: 30 Hollywood Muslims

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post American Muslims: A Vibrant History, Misplaced Hatred appeared first on Law Street.

The United States Postal Service has been in financial trouble for the better part of a decade. As a society, we rely on the postal service in our everyday lives. Although email and social media are today’s go-to communication methods, we still expect some things to show up at the door whether it be bills, college acceptance letters, or items ordered from Amazon. Many give an extra tip to the mailman or mailwoman during the holiday season in thanks to that integral service all year round. Perhaps we should no longer take that service for granted. The Postal Service is in hot water with an ongoing deficit. So what actions are being taken today to rectify the budget crisis and how could it affect the average American?

 The U.S. Postal Service

Here is a brief background on how the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) came to be the organization it is today. The government created the United States Post Office Department, headed by the Postmaster General, in 1872. It was elevated from its post as a cabinet department from 1872 to 1971. The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, signed by President Richard Nixon, replaced the U.S. Post Office Department with the current USPS. The Act came as a response to the 1970 Postal Strike. On March 23, 1970, President Nixon called in the National Guard and armed forces to counteract the large wildcat strike. The strike called for higher wages, better benefits, and safer working conditions. For example, Congress had allocated a 41 percent raise for members of Congress, while Postal Department workers only received a 4 percent increase.

The 1970 Postal Reorganization Act redesigned the branch. The newly created USPS, as we know it today, became an independent body of the executive branch with a legal monopoly over mail service. The USPS was restructured to achieve financial independence through postage sales, mail products, and services. Taxpayer money is only used in providing mail services to the disabled and Americans overseas. Although the USPS is legally responsible for its own budget, it may borrow up to $3 billion a year from the U.S. Treasury and retain a debt ceiling of up to $15 billion. As an independent but federal organization, the USPS receives many perks including exemption from vehicle licensing requirements, sales tax, local property taxes, and even parking tickets. To ensure universal service and a six-day delivery service nationwide, the USPS is granted a monopoly over first class and standard mail delivery. Competition, such as UPS and FedEx, are not allowed access to mailboxes.

 What is Causing the Deficit?

USPS has accumulated $47 billion in operating losses since the 1971 reorganization. This is even more shocking when you learn that the USPS has generated more than $700 billion in revenue. From 2007-2010 alone, the “USPS lost $20 billion, and its debt increased from $2.1 billion to $12 billion.” It has only increased since then. The USPS lost $5 billion in the 2013 fiscal year and $5.5 billion in the 2014 fiscal year. The USPS reached its legal $15 billion deficit ceiling back in 2012.

The primary factor for this likely depends on who you ask because there are a few different pieces to this puzzle. One major reason: the USPS is legally bound by Congress to “prefund more than $5.5 billion annually for health benefits for future retirees,” since 2006. As of 2013, the USPS set aside about $44 billion for this specific allocation. Frankly, it’s something the USPS can’t afford. When the mandate was implemented in 2006, the USPS was financially strong. It was before the 2008 recession and explosion of other communication outlets. In 2012, it defaulted on this payment for this first time.

That brings us to our second reason for the default: lower volume. In 2006, the USPS delivered 97 billion pieces of first-class mail. In 2012, it delivered 68 billion pieces. The decline isn’t surprising with today’s innovative technologies that are only expanding. Everything seems to be going online from bills to keeping in touch. Other factors include competition from FedEx/UPS, ballooned operating costs, and the demands of the unionized workforce.

President’s Obama’s Proposed Solution

President Obama has a plan for the 2016 fiscal budget and the USPS that would potentially save $36 billion over the course of 11 years. The plan is similar to a bill introduced by Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) and former Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), previously killed in Congress. For starters, Saturday delivery would be cut. This would be implemented when volumes drop to the predicted amount in late 2018. It would also replace door-to-door service with a centralized or curbside delivery service. This would perhaps ultimately be safer for mailmen and mailwomen. The plan offers the idea of “increasing revenue by providing postal management with more flexibility in creating new business opportunities, as well as boosting cooperation with state and local governments to offer services at post offices.”

The White House also addresses the mandated prefund healthcare benefits of retirees, deferring the 2015 and 2016 payments. The payments would ultimately be paid out under a 40-year amortization schedule beginning in 2017. This would bring in “$13 billion in relief to USPS through 2016.” The plan would reimburse USPS an estimated $1.5 billion in over-costs to the Office of Personal Management for federal retirement payments. It also calls for more future investments and faster technology.

Increased Rates

Lastly, the plan calls to make the emergency price increase of postage permanent. This, however, has been struck down multiple times. The price of mail increased by three cents in January 2014, the largest rate bump initiated in 11 years. The rate of inflation should have called for a 1.7 percent increase, but it set a 4.3 percent increase. The current stamp price is 49 cents. The price increase was granted to allow the USPS extra revenue and was set as a two-year term. When the USPS initially asked for the increase to be permanent, they were rejected by the Postal Regulatory Commission. They explained that the increase was meant to counteract losses from the recession, not to alleviate losses caused by the expanding electronic industry.

In a recent development, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia Circuit ruled on June 6, 2015 that the priced increase could not be permanent. Circuit Judge Patricia Ann Millet wrote the following:

The Commission sensibly concluded that the statutory exception allowing higher rates when needed to respond to extraordinary financial circumstances should only continue as long as those circumstances, in fact, remained extraordinary,” Circuit Judge Patricia Ann Millet wrote on behalf of the appeals court. “The Commission permissibly reasoned that just because some of the effects of exigent circumstances may continue for the foreseeable future, that does not mean that those circumstances remain ‘extraordinary’ or ‘exceptional’ for just as long.

This ruling does not favor this one aspect of the White House’s overall plan.

Other Possible Solutions

There are a plethora of ideas circulating for the USPS to generate extra money. One idea is the reincorporation of the Postal Savings System. It’s a basic savings account for those who don’t wish to use a private bank. Lower-income families that don’t currently use a bank and pay bloated prices for transactions like cashing checks could potentially benefit from this system. There are more than enough post offices around the country to make this convenient for customers. Another idea is for the USPS to catch up to its communication competitors and offer email/internet services. The USPS could offer an affordable rate compared to its potential competitors. Other ideas include “a notary service, selling fishing and hunting licenses, and ending restrictions on shipping wine and beer.”

The USPS could also remodel its system to more resemble postal services in Europe. Countries like Sweden, Germany, and Finland only allocate a certain percent of the market to their national postal services. For example, the Swedish service Posten only accounts for 12 percent of Sweden’s post offices. This allows it to streamline and focus on certain aspects of the market like digital mail products. Whether this is a viable option is up in the air, but could be an idea worth considering.

Conclusion

The financial issues of the U.S. Postal Service have massive effects on our country from the thousands of employed postal service workers to everyday citizens receiving and sending mail. An increase in stamp prices severely affects businesses that allocate a certain amount of their budgets to sending out materials. All in all, it is a national issue. With certain actions already in place, the USPS saw a $569 million revenue increase in the 2014 fiscal year. This by no means offsets the deficit, but it proves innovative ideas can make a difference. With any luck, revisions made to the 2016 fiscal budget will provide promising results.

Resources

CATO: Privatizing the U.S. Postal Service

Government Executive: As New Postal Leader Takes Charge, Obama Calls for Major USPS Reforms

Huffington Post: The Plight of the Postal Service

PBS: The Postal Service

Smithsonian: 197o Postal Strike

Time: How Healthcare Expenses Cost Us Saturday Postal Delivery

USPS: Despite Revenue Growth and Record Productivity, Postal Service Loses $5 Billion in 2013 Fiscal Year

USPS: U.S. Postal Service Reports Revenue Increase, $5.5 Billion Loss in Fiscal 2014

Washington Post: Postal Service Gets Approval for a Temporary Increase in Stamp Prices

Washington Post: USPS Cen’t Keep Rate Increase Forever, Court Rules

Editor’s note: A previous version of this article stated that the Post Office was created by the founding farmers in 1972; it was created in 1872.

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The USPS Deficit Crisis: What’s the Plan? appeared first on Law Street.

Laying eyes upon it for the first time, I was ashamed of myself for the image I had conjured up previously. Learning about the Grand Canyon, I envisioned a very large crack in the Earth with a river at the bottom. That sounds impressive, and I was happy to have the opportunity to come visit in person. But when I finally arrived, I was blown away by how, well, grand the Grand Canyon really is. It’s not just a crevice, but a complex. The snaking Colorado River has carved an unprecedented masterpiece into the Southwestern landscape, a transcendental experience for one’s eyes. From the top of the Canyon, the faint whisper of the wind provides joy to one’s ears as well, and from the bottom of the Canyon, riding the Colorado River, the soaring red and orange towers instill in one’s heart a sense of timelessness. But all these emotional evocations may be under threat by the poisonous sight of commercialism and the droning sounds of machines, as a proposal to build a tramway down the Canyon, complete with shops and restaurants, is gaining strength.

The Grand Canyon Escalade is a proposal for a slew of hotels, restaurants, and shops, the epicenter of which is a gondola that would take visitors to the bottom of the Canyon where they can patronize a restaurant, Indian cultural center, and a riverwalk. Especially considering that the base of the tram would not technically be in the Grand Canyon Park, but on Navajo land, some members of that tribe are excited for the proposal and its potential to generate jobs and revenue for the Nation. It would be a productive collaboration between the Navajo people, developers, and the government, all of which may profit from the project.

Yet the proposed site for the base of the tram is at a place called the Confluence, where the Colorado River is met by a smaller tributary, aptly named the Little Colorado. For many Navajo, this place is sacred. They come here to pray, seek spiritual peace, and connect with their ancestors. Building a noisy, gaudy eyesore here would literally be sacrilege; desecration of a temple. Furthermore one must not forget that there are other Native tribes who have been living in the area for millennia, such as the Hopi, who also have religious connections to the site. Their voices are stifled in this debate, as the Navajo are the ones who control the area.

The debate teeters back and forth. Some say that it would ruin the aesthetics, others that it would not be visible from the nearest lookout point. Some say that it would damage the ecosystem, others that the area is already popular among hikers and rafters. Most of all, as previously mentioned, some say that it would economically benefit the Navajo, others that it infringes on existing Navajo practice.

The Colorado continues to carve the Canyon to this day. Courtesy of Hut Slut via Flickr.

How might this tram affect the ways that we think about and experience the Grand Canyon? Defenders have argued that it would enable tourists to experience the Canyon in new ways, and open up opportunities for people for whom the Canyon might otherwise be inaccessible. But there are already ways for people who are not hikers or rafters in peak physical condition to experience the Canyon. If you can stomach the smell, you can ride a mule to the bottom. If you are not phased by the surprisingly high rate of crashes, you can take a helicopter ride through. And of course, the Rim trails are paved and wide enough to accommodate wheelchairs.

A mule train on the Canyon trails. Courtesy of Al_HikesAZ via Flickr.

Casually riding a tram would detract from the experience of the Canyon, not add to it. I would love to see what the world looks like at the summit of Mount Everest. But nobody specifically dreams of simply standing at the top, right? In fact, most climbers only spend a few minutes there. The whole point is to climb the mountain. That is the real challenge and experience of Mount Everest, and that is what makes standing at the top so rewarding, valuable, and coveted. Imagine if there was a tram on which you could ride to the summit? Or a specially designed helicopter or plane that could drop you down on the top? It would certainly be a pretty view, but the experience would be hollow. You would not have earned your right to stand there. As it is, there has been much debate and criticism over the last 20 years regarding the commercialization of climbing Mount Everest. As long as you have the money to spare–about $65,000–any hack can hire a guide and crew who will attempt to get him to the summit. It is this respect and reverence for nature that continues to dwindle in the face of technology and modernization that we must endeavor to preserve.

Throughout modern human history, and particularly since the Industrial Revolution, we have sought to “tame nature,” to regulate, control, master, and rise above it. This has proven to have severe environmental and social consequences.Of late, there have been attempts to reemphasize aesthetics and naturally occurring phenomena. The Grand Canyon fits squarely into this issue. It is a complicated structure that should not necessarily be accessible from all vantage points. We can see and experience it to a very substantial degree but, like Mount Everest, the very inaccessibility, danger, and mystery is what provides it with its mystique and appeal. It is these things that allow it to be a Grand Canyon, and not a tourist-laden crack in the Earth with a river at the bottom.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tramway and Restaurants in the Grand Canyon? Stop the Escalade appeared first on Law Street.

India has long been an important nation on the international stage; its massive population and rapidly growing economy have the potential to propel it forward even further. While there have been ebbs and flows–the recent recession strongly impacted the sub-continent–things may be looking up. There’s a new Prime Minister and India is on the rise yet again. Read on to learn about India’s growth, the relationships it has with other nations, and the challenges that the country will face in coming years.

A Look Into the Past

Like China and Mesopotamia, India is often considered one of the birthplaces of civilization. The first civilization in India was founded over five thousand years ago. Since then, India saw the rise and fall of countless empires, invading forces, and ideas. Buddhism and Hinduism were also founded in India; and Islam, when it reached the area in the eighth century, came to exert a powerful influence, as well.

The story of modern India however, picks up at the beginning of the eighteenth century, when the declining Mughal Empire was conquered piecemeal by the British East India Company. The British outcompeted their French rivals and bit by bit took over the sub-continent. Yet British rule was not to last either, with a large-scale mutiny in the middle of the nineteenth century hinting at the rise of Indian nationalism.

This came to fruition after years of protest that featured leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi when India finally achieved independence in 1947. This independence, however, did not come about smoothly. The same year India became independent, it also broke into two separate nations, Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan. As many as 12.5 million people migrated to one country or the other depending on their religion. Up to one million people died in the ensuing chaos.

Rise of Modern India

After the end of colonial rule, India initially adopted a planned economic approach. The idea was to increase consumer savings, which would then lead to greater investment in the economy and growth. The plan was to create a prosperous India that was financed by its own economy and not beholden to outside forces.

While the plan had some success, however, growth remained limited in India at an average of four percent annually in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. The plan was also plagued by unbridled population growth and inequality. The proverbial corner was turned beginning in the late 80s and early 90s when the economy was finally opened up. Growth shot up to over 6.5 percent annually, while the service sector in particular began to take off.

Move to a Market Economy

The key to the turn-around for India economically was when it moved from a series of five-year plans, as part of a planned economy adopted from its then-ally, the Soviet Union, to a market economy, which is similar to those of Western nations. Originally India adopted a socialist model as the means to improve its economy. This meant most industry, licensing, and investment infrastructure was controlled by the government. The whole idea behind this logic was to build strong home-grown industries in India, and in the process prevent the inequality notorious in capitalist societies from spreading there.

The planned economy proved ineffective. This was mainly due to low growth rates and the failure to generate high savings rates. In fact the state, far from succeeding in building up savings, actually began running up higher and higher deficits as its programs proved ineffective. Thus, spurred by this ineffectiveness and a rise of the price of oil as a result of the first gulf war which nearly caused the country to default, India made a change. The government did a complete 180, reducing state control and planning, liberalizing trade and investment, and reducing the deficit.

Following the success from the 1990s and with continued reforms, the Indian economy continued to hum along in the first decade of the 2000s, averaging greater than six percent growth annually. Rapid growth stalled, however, as it did in much of the rest of the world, following the Great Recession.

The reason that India was hit so hard was because of a failure to further liberalize policy concerning labor, energy, land reform, and infrastructure improvement. Namely the issue was in many ways the same that had been affecting India during its planned economy, despite the reforms the country had enacted in the past two decades. First labor laws were still very restrictive so it made it hard for people to move around in search of jobs.  Secondly, the infrastructure was not adequately developed in India so that its manufacturers could easily export their products. Third, the country was still plagued by shortages in essential goods, such as energy. This was all compounded by the government’s vain effort to prop up the country’s currency, the Rupee.  Not only has this led to a higher deficit, but also inflation, which eats away at people’s savings and makes them poorer. This led to growth rates closer to four or five percent during the recession.

After the Recession

Nevertheless, India’s economy has rebounded in the last two years and in 2014 outpaced China for the first time. This was due to several improvements. First, both the manufacturing and financial sectors improved dramatically. In addition, new Prime Minister Modi and other political leaders have worked diligently to reduce debt. Lastly, the drop in the price of oil has dramatically helped India, as most of its import deficits were due to the importation of oil to fuel its growing need.

While India has seemingly regained its status as a rapidly growing emerging market, this also comes with caveats. First, the growth figures that show it outpacing China had to be recalculated due to some errors, so many economists are treating them with skepticism. Secondly, according to a New York Times study from 2011-2012, 30 percent of Indians still live in extreme poverty, which translates approximately to 363 million people. That is more people than live in the United States. Thus, although India may recoup its status as a major, up-and-coming economy, there is still room for improvement. The following video gives an outlook on the impact reforms could have on India’s economy.

India’s Friends and Enemies

Pakistan

When discussing international concerns for India, the discussion always starts with Pakistan. The two nations were founded at the same time when British rule in India ended; however, the division of the two countries was plagued by extreme violence and a persistently strong feeling of animosity. The situation has in no way improved by the three wars and ongoing proxy war being waged over Kashmir. The conflict in Kashmir stems back to the separation of India and Pakistan.

At the time of independence, there were 562 princely kingdoms that were independent from either country and could choose which one they wanted to join. Both countries therefore were eager to recruit these principalities–Kashmir was one of the most coveted. Pakistan seemed to have the upper hand, as 70 percent of the population was Muslim; however, at the time, the ruler was Hindu so India claimed the area on that argument and still occupies it to this day. Aside from the direct conflicts there, Pakistan has also waged a guerrilla campaign to free the territory from India and incorporate it into the Muslim state of Pakistan.

On top of all that, both countries possess nuclear weapons and flaunt their capabilities, an example of which was the corresponding nuclear tests during the 90s. The video below provides a summary of the two nations’ conflict.

Nonetheless, hopes for thawed relations came when Prime Minister Modi was elected last year–one of his campaign promises was to improve relations between the two countries; however, lately Modi’s speeches have been full of aggressive rhetoric and the Pakistani military continues to support anti-India terror groups so change has yet to come. An example of this is when he suggested Pakistan was, “waging a proxy war” in Kashmir. He has also canceled several meetings with Pakistani officials, including one potential rendezvous at the United Nations.

China

India’s other major neighbor in Asia is China. Like Pakistan, India also fought a brief war with China in 1962 and has since maintained a relatively tense border with the country in the Himalayas. Tthe relationship with China has steadily improved in other areas as the countries have signed a number of trade agreements. The relationship was tested in 2013 with a Chinese incursion into Indian territory; however, no apparent serious harm came of it.

The lack of consternation may be rooted in how the countries view each other. In India, China is seen as a chief rival and also a source of emulation economically. For China, which is stronger militarily and economically, India is not regarded as much of a rival.

United States

Like its relationship with both Pakistan and China, India’s relationship with the U.S. is complicated. The countries originally shared strong ties, with the U.S. aiding India during the conflict with China. Relations were strained following America’s decision to side with Pakistan in its 1971 war with India. Things were further exacerbated by an arms treaty signed between India and the USSR and India’s testing of nuclear weapons in the 70s.

Relations seemed to be improving in the 1990s as India opened up its economy and moved to a free market approach. But once again ties between the nations weakened in 1998 when India again tested nuclear weapons, which drew condemnation and sanctions from the U.S. The sanctions were quickly repealed though and the two nations became close once more over a commitment to combat terrorism. The two sides have continued to grow closer since then, signing everything from trade to weapons agreements. In 2013 an Indian delegate was arrested for committing visa fraud, causing major waves. The two sides have seemed to yet again overcome this hiccup though, following the president’s recent trip to India where he reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to friendship.

The relationship with the U.S. also seems likely to continue to improve, despite numerous setbacks, many of which were over nuclear policy that now seem settled. While the U.S. may want to utilize India against a rising China, the two sides also value each other as trade partners. The relationship is further enhanced by the U.S.’s further distancing itself from Pakistan.

Domestic Concerns for India

While India navigates the dangerous game of international politics, it has internal issues to consider, as well. First and foremost is the status of women. While seemingly no country in the world can boast of total equality between men and woman, the situation is especially bad in India. While some women may enjoy access to lucrative lifestyles, there is a virtually systemic oppression of women in education, marriage, and the economy. A grisly example was the gang-rape of a woman by six men in Delhi in 2013 that resulted in the woman’s death. While four of the men were eventually sentenced to death, their crime highlighted a culture where women are often blamed for rape and where the courts are slow to act.

Women, of course, are not the only group to be institutionally marginalized in India. The caste system has existed for a long time. In this system people are born into and can expect to rise no further than a particular caste or class, which is often associated with some type of profession. While some efforts have succeeded at down-playing caste origins in jobs, castes still play a large role in social interactions and romantic relationships.

The persistence of discrimination, both against women and people of lower classes, speaks to the issue of inequality in the country. According to a report from the United Nations – Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific (UNESCAP), income inequality actually increased in India from the 1990s to late 2000s.

India’s population is the second largest in the world at more than 1.2 billion people. With birth rates still outpacing death rates, that number is only going to continue to increase until it is expected to plateau in 2050. The population of India is also expected to surpass that of China for the world’s largest along the way, in 2025. All these extra people mean more food, housing, and jobs for a country that is already hard pressed to generate them at current levels. The accompanying video highlights the issues with poverty in India.

Domestically, though changes have been made incrementally, the sweeping changes necessary to fix many of India’s societal ills seem unlikely. As the infamous Delhi rape trial showed, while courts can be forced into action when thrust into the spotlight, they have been very slow to protect women. This also speaks to a problem of institutionalized marginalization for a large chunk of society, which has lasted for many years and thus is unlikely to simply go away now. Couple these issues with continued population explosion and the poverty that haunts India is likely to continue. Particularly with inequality rising and wealth being consolidated into the hands of the elites, much as it is in western nations.

Conclusion

After initially struggling following independence, India has enjoyed strong recent growth. While that growth was threatened by the great recession, India was able to pull through and even outpace China, if the numbers are to be believed. Going forward, Asia’s other potential superpower has many issues to deal with. Internationally, serious issues still exist concerning the relationship between India and Pakistan. India’s relationship with Asia’s affirmed rising super power is also in question as India moves closer to fellow democracy in the United States, while China seemingly drifts closer to fellow autocrat Russia.

Domestically it is more of the same, with concern over the economy dominating. Yet other issues also exist, namely an entrenched class system and the low status of women. Thus, while India has come very far, there is still a long way to go. Therefore while it is still possible for India to act on its superpower potential and one day rival China as Asia’s premier power, reforms and improvements are likely required along the way.

Resources

Primary 

Indian Embassy: U.S.-India Relations

Additional

Forbes: India Growth Now Beats China

Diplomat: India and Pakistan: A Debilitating Relationship

National Interest: China and India: The End of Cold Peace?

Council on Foreign Relations: Timeline U.S.-India Relations

Centre for Economic Policy Research: India’s Growth in the 2000s: Four Facts

Economist: How India Got Its Funk

BBC News: India Growth Figures Baffle Economists

The New York Times: Setting a High Bar for Poverty in India

Asia Society: India-Pakistan Relations: A 50-Year History

Saarthak: Women’s Situation in India

World Post: India Gang Rape Case: Four Men Sentenced to Death

Economist: Why Caste Still Matters in India

Financial Express: Income Inequality: Poor-Rich Gap Growing in India, Asia-Pacific

International Business Times: Partition of India and Pakistan: The Rape of Women on an Epic, Historic Scale

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post India: A Superpower on the Rise? appeared first on Law Street.

The pageantry and anticipation surrounding the Olympic Games has subsided recently. The mismanagement by certain host countries (Greece and Russia among others) has had a sobering effect on future host-candidates. In other words, countries are still down to party at your place, they just don’t welcome you coming over and ruining their expensive city.

And no city makes headlines for being unwelcoming quite like Boston. Last Thursday, America’s bid city held its first community meeting on the 2024 Olympics at Suffolk Law School. The organization No Boston Olympics–a grassroots coalition that has seemingly summoned the hospitality of Louise Day Hicks–was a vocal participant at the meeting. Essentially, No Boston Olympics feels the cost of hosting the 2024 Games would financially cripple the city, and everyone within the blast radius would foot the bill via taxes. The group makes a strong point: spending lots of money often sucks. But like other groups of contrarian fiscal hawks (see: Tea Party), they don’t see the entire picture.

The truth is, the success of the Olympic Games usually depends on who’s hosting. Greece, a country whose debt is becoming as famous as its Baklava, has not rebounded from hosting the 2004 Olympic Games.  Russia, which is having difficulty financing its own imperialistic urges, is now also struggling to pay off the 2014 Sochi Olympic Games.

On the flip side, the 2008 Summer Olympics turned a profit in Beijing. The 2012 Games in London, which were not cheap, could generate up to £40 billion in economic growth for England by 2020. Are those examples too foreign for you? The good ol’ US of A turned a profit after the ’96 games in Atlanta. As we did for the ’84 games in Los Angeles and then again for the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics in 2002.  Don’t we have faith that an Olympics in Boston would follow the lead of England or prior American Olympics rather than those games in Greece and Russia?

Here are a couple of reasons why Boston could be a good spot. The CEO of the 2002 Salt Lake games–Mitt Romney–lives in the area, and Boston is where his venture capital firm is headquartered. Not only is he local, but he also could have some free time on his hands! This is not a joke. Speaking of saviors for winter sports, do you know who else calls greater Boston home? Bob Kraft, the Patriots owner who privately financed his new stadium and turned a moribund afterthought into a four-time Super Bowl winning machine. He’s also been fingered as an adviser for the 2024 bid. Another big name is Red Sox owner John Henry, who was one of the few people who made millions during the 2008 recession and has already approved of Olympic use for Fenway Park.

This really isn’t a coincidence. There are many people in Boston who manage money well and who know the business of sports. It’s also densely populated, connected by a major subway system, and has vacant college housing during the summer. You get the point. Now let’s hear some counter-points courtesy of Boston.com’s coverage of the committee meeting.

1. “Members of Boston Homeless Solidarity Committee questioned why  . . . a cure for AIDS couldn’t get the resources and attention that an Olympic bid might.” (You can host the Olympics when you cure AIDS. Deal, fat cats?)
2. “At one point during Mandredi and Blauwet’s presentation, they showed a rendering of the proposed beach volleyball stadium on Boston Common. That idea drew hissing.” (Boston Common is for ice skating and for smoking pot in between Emerson classes. Not beach volleyball.  GAWT IT? If Boston wins the bid, don’t be surprised if there’s a spinoff protest for this particular issue. #NAWTOWAHCAWMIN)

Being frugal about local resources is understandable. People want the T (subway) fixed. People want better infrastructure. And people want these things completed quickly, without being too expensive. Well you know what could potentially make that happen? The Olympics. This isn’t that novel of an idea. If the International Olympic Committee and the United States are pushing for a smooth, seamless Olympics, you’ll probably get outside funding to fix some of your local problems. Romney got $3 million from the federal government specifically to help extend Salt Lake City’s light rail for its Olympics. In fact, for the last three American Olympics the federal government has spent $1.4 billion to improve the host cities’ transportation and infrastructure, a figure that will increase considering the government knows how inflation works. This money comes in addition to the millions that these cities receive from outside investors and through corporate sponsorship.

I realize many in Boston still suffer from a Big Dig hangover. That mega-engineering project spiraled out of control and the debt won’t be paid until 2038. But one bad investment–and its badness is debatable–shouldn’t stop the city from taking some financial risks in the future. The list of potential hosts is getting smaller, which means the IOC will soon be forced to scale down the costs involved in hosting the Olympics, which means the possibility of profit could be even greater. So while this may not be an obvious opportunity for Boston, maybe we should fully evaluate the idea[r] before calling in the militia. I mean, who doesn’t love a pahty, kid?

Andrew Blancato

The post Boston Olympics Backlash Filled With Cowardice and Stupidity appeared first on Law Street.

If you have bought something from any store that does not sell products made in the United States, be it a local small business or a corporate giant like Walmart, the transportation of products that you bought was likely governed by a law known as the Jones Act. Find out what the Jones Act is and why people are fighting to repeal it.

What does the Jones Act do?

The Jones Act requires that all merchandise transported between two ports within the jurisdiction of the United States be carried by a U.S.-flagged vessel that was built in America, is owned by an American citizen, and crewed by American merchant mariners. This act not only encompasses inland bodies of water, such as the Great Lakes or the Mississippi River, but also extends to areas beyond the continent including the states of Alaska and Hawaii, as well as the territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa.

Also called the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, it was put into place in the same year and has been updated over the decades with its last update in 2006. The Jones Act supplies the United States with the following:

• $14 billion in annual economic output and 84,000 jobs in U.S. shipyards.
• 70,000 jobs working on or with Jones Act vessels, including shipyards and those who crew the ships.

The S.S. United States. Image courtesy of Stewart Clamen via Flickr.

A merchant marine is a civilian sailor whose ships can be used by the United States in the event of war. A historic example of a ship that was part of the merchant marine is the S.S. United States, pictured above. She was designed that in the event that the Cold War heated up, the United States could be quickly turned into a troopship; however, she never had to be called to serve in this function.

What is the debate over the Jones Act?

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) introduced an amendment to the Keystone XL Pipeline bill on January 13, 2015 that would repeal the Jones Act.

The two camps that are involved are those that wish to see McCain’s amendment to scrap the Jones Act pass and those that wish to see it fail so that the Jones Act remains law. For those who do not support the Jones Act, they see it as an antiquated law that is hindering economic growth in territories that are under United States jurisdiction, as well as the two states that are not part of mainland America. They also state that the United States has too few ships that qualify under the Jones Act to make it cost effective. On the flip side, those who support the Jones Act state that the act promotes economic growth for the shipping industry and that scrapping the act would cost a lot of jobs. Furthermore they state that scrapping the act would allow foreign ships to sail up America’s waterways, which could pose a national security hazard.

Concerns if the Jones Act is Scrapped

There could be a loss of jobs due to the closing of ship building and maintenance. There are also worries that there could be a loss of transportation for armed forces, which would negatively impact future conflicts in which the United States becomes embroiled. To give an example from a previous conflict, during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than 90 percent of all needed material was moved to the war zones via water transportation.

Supporters of the Jones Act also worry about the loss of border security, as ships from all nations, even those who are hostile against us, could have access to inland rivers such as the Mississippi.

Arguments for Eliminating the Jones Act

Opponents of the Jones Act highlight the possible decreases in the cost of living in the territories, Alaska, and Hawaii, though this benefit could be offset by increase in prices to foreign shipping companies. It is thought that repealing the Jones Act could benefit the American economy, as it may be cheaper to build ships elsewhere. It additionally will increase competition in the shipping industry, also thought to be a benefit to the economy.

Repealing the Jones Act

Prior Attempts to Repeal

McCain has attempted to repeal the act before. In 2010 with support from co-sponsor and fellow Republican Senator James Risch of Idaho, McCain put forward a bill similar to the current amendment; however, S3525, the Open America’s Waters Act, died in committee, meaning that it never got past a small group of senators who debated its merits. As a result, the 2010 version had no chance to make it to the Senate floor to be debated upon by the whole of the Senate.

Current Fight to Repeal

McCain is the leader of the current charge to repeal the Jones Act, stating when he filed the amendment that he has “long advocated for a full repeal of The Jones Act, an antiquated law that has for too long hindered free trade, made U.S. industry less competitive and raised prices for American consumers.”

Who Else is on Board to Repeal?

The main group in favor of repealing the Jones Act is the Heritage Foundation. Chief among the Heritage Foundation’s touted benefits from repeal is having better access to requisition foreign ships to fill in gaps that United States shipping cannot fill, and the cost savings and economic gain that small islands under United States control would experience. The group also cites a report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which found that it costs an estimated $3,063 to ship a 20-foot container of household and commercial goods from the East Coast of the United States to Puerto Rico while the same shipment costs $1,504 to the nearby Dominican Republic city of Santo Domingo and $1,687 to Kingston, Jamaica. While the New York Fed does not go so far as to call for the removal of the Jones Act, it  does point out that the act is often cited as a factor that raises business costs.

Lawmakers from Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, and Guam are also major proponents of the Jones Act’s repeal. Their main complaint with the amendment is that repealing it would help to make the cost of living cheaper for the affected states and territories. According to Hawaiian State Senator Sam Slom it costs about $790 to ship a 40-foot container from Los Angeles to Shanghai, but it costs $8,700 to ship the same container from Los Angeles to Honolulu. This means that it costs 11 times more money to ship something to some domestic locations than international ones. They feel that if the Jones Act is repealed, the cost of living would decrease as residents would not have to spend as much money to get goods, be they from mainland America or from a foreign nation.

Support for the Jones Act

While a single leader in support of the Jones Act has not fully been identified at this point–the amendment is still in committee–Representative Duncan Hunter (D-CA) and Representative Steve Scalise (R-LA) were strong defenders of the act in the past when it was brought under question in 2014. Their actions helped to enact legislation last December that reaffirmed the Jones Act. The legislation also called a strong commercial shipbuilding industry particularly important as Federal budget cuts may reduce the number of newly constructed military vessels

The American Maritime Partnership (AMP) opposes the amendment on the grounds that it would gut America’s shipbuilding industry and outsource U.S. Naval shipbuilding to foreign builders, which would cost hundreds of thousands of family-wage jobs across this country.

The United States Navy and United States Navy League also opposed the amendment on the grounds that:

For decades, U.S. merchant mariners have provided essential support for the U.S. Navy during times of war and national crisis.  Repealing the Jones Act would remove that support at a time when we are fighting two wars and facing a continuing threat from international terrorism.

The Navy League added that repealing the Jones Act would hinder the commercial maritime industry that is vital to the United States of America.

Finally, the Lexington Institute stated in an article that America has always had a special relationship with water. The institute goes on to state that adversaries of the United States recognize the advantage conferred on the United States by its military preeminence on the seas and are working assiduously to deny it access to that domain and that to prevent that the country needs a Navy that is second to none. In order to maintain it, the Lexington Institute asserts that American shipyards are vital.

Conclusion

The Jones Act has been a major part of America’s merchant marine infrastructure for decades. While there are currently many arguments about the efficacy of keeping the Jones Act in place, the fight certainly isn’t over. However, the benefits of keeping this document have been shown to be beneficial to the United States both in terms of economically and national security, and changing the law may be more harmful than good.

Resources

Primary

Department of Transportation Maritime Administration: Maritime Statistics

Additional

AP: Hawaii, Alaska, Territories Team Up on Jones Act 

Heritage Foundation: Sink the Jones Act

American Maritime Partnership: Congress Reaffirms Support for Jones Act

Maritime Executive: US Navy Opposes Congressional Efforts to Repeal Jones Act 

American Maritime Partnership: McCain Amendment to Eliminate U.S. Shipbuilding Would Outsource US Jobs and Security

Marine Link: AMP Opposes Amendment to Eliminate U.S. Shipbuilding

American Maritime Partnership: Jones Act Truth Squad

Chris Schultz

Chris Schultz is a Midwestern country boy who is a graduate of Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa and holds a bachelors degree in History. He is interested in learning about the various ocean liners that have sailed the world’s waters along with a variety of other topics. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Jones Act: Outdated or Vital? appeared first on Law Street.

Recently, Governor Andrew Cuomo officially announced that New York State will ban fracking. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a process of extracting natural gas that involves injecting water, sand, and a combination of chemicals underground on site in order to fracture the shale rock and release the gas. A highly controversial topic, Cuomo’s decision was controversial as well–he was met with both praise and criticism from a highly divided demographic. However, the move to ban fracking is a strongly defensible choice, and the arguments against the ban do not hold up well under scrutiny.

For example, natural gas has been lauded as a solution to American foreign oil dependence. In the wake of ongoing turbulent relationships with the Middle East and oil rich nations therein, many suggest that the large deposits of natural gas within the borders of the United States is a possible means of alleviating the country’s need to import oil from them. But is such a complex plan of developing an elaborate and brand new energy industry the most logical solution to problems in international relations? Rather than go about this process in order to avoid dealing with these tense situations, why not attempt more diplomacy in hopes of alleviating them? Oil and natural gas aside, it would not be such a bad thing to genuinely pursue better relationships with Middle East countries. Hiding behind the energy industry as an excuse is not a sustainable argument.

Others argue that natural gas is cleaner than oil. Natural gas emissions byproducts are lower and less damaging than those of oil, and it is of a substantial energy density so as to sufficiently provide power to our machines and devices. However we should not be tempted by the quick, convenient, and immediate solution. It will still cause problems and will run out eventually. This argument comes back to renewable energy. There is plenty of potential and increased economic accessibility to renewable energy, which is cleaner than natural gas and will not run out. Thinking purely in terms of energy requirements, we do not need natural gas.

Aside from geopolitics and national scale energy needs, some tie natural gas and fracking directly to the benefit of people on the ground. There is an American cultural identity tied into coal and mining towns. It is a widely applicable occupation, providing employment to individuals and income for families. Coal mining is a means of asserting ones identity, and has often been passed down through generations. Fracking is a technology intensive process demanding expertise and consequently cannot be undertaken by anybody. Arguments that fracking provides economic opportunities for towns in which shale is located are shaky. Unlike coal, where the industry arrives on site and hires locals to pursue the mining, fracking companies often bring in outside workers to extract the gas; the residents of the town rarely benefit from the boom.

A fracking site. Courtesy of Casey Hugelfink via Flickr.

Some people of a financially minded nature have suggested that the moratorium represents a transfer of economic resources from farmers to environmentalists. Residents of southern New York State are now unable to receive royalties from resource development and gas mining. Tim Worstall, the author of a fiscally conservative Forbes Magazine article on the topic, suggests that the environmentalists are being granted their desires and benefits at a cost which is the loss of acquisition of desires and benefits for the people who could receive money for fracking on their land. He proposes a hypothetical situation that in order to maintain a balanced public policy, environmentalists should literally pay homeowners their losses for not fracking. He is of strong opinion that this would be met with high resistance, in demonstration of his point that this process is unfair.

No doubt this scenario represents a substantial portion of the controversy over fracking. However the author is thinking of benefits and losses purely from an economic standpoint. On the one occasion that he might be considering the state of the environment, he refers to environmentalists’ interest in preventing fracking in “the fair state of New York”. In this sense it is an aesthetic issue. Interestingly enough, there is little in the way of aesthetic damage when it comes to fracking, although it does turn small farm towns into industrial sties. Then there is the catastrophic side effect of increased likelihood of earthquakes. However, environmentalists’ resistance to fracking is very much motivated by human health concerns. The primary problem with fracking is that the myriad of chemicals injected into the rock seeps into the groundwater. This can be damaging to the human body when consumed, potentially causing neurological disorders, birth defects and cancers, and is most visibly linked to flaming faucets. The volume of chemicals is so high that water can literally catch fire. The documentary Gasland delves further into these issues and additional dangers of the industry and refineries. Here is a trailer:

Flaming faucets and contaminated drinking water are most common for homeowners in close proximity to the fracking site. Namely, those on whose land the fracking will take place. Here is a major cost for which the author of the Forbes article does not account.

Produced water is the mix of chemicals, metals, and carcinogens that comes up during the fracking process. In some New York counties, produced water has been used as a de-icer, sprinkled across roadways throughout the winter. Then it runs off into streams and waterways. This is dangerous for fish and local wildlife that live nearby, as well as for humans who drink that water. This increases the range of contamination from near to the fracking site to across the entire state. It is a misuse of a substance that should not exist in the first place.

Considering the long list of potential alternatives for meeting our energy needs, we do not need natural gas. Furthermore, considering all the problems associated with the current method of extracting it, we certainly do not need fracking.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is the New York Fracking Moratorium a Good Thing? appeared first on Law Street.

As anyone who drives a lot–or has a TV, reads the paper, or just generally pays attention–knows, the price of gas has gone down recently. Way down! More specifically the price of Brent crude oil, a major global type, dipped below $60 a barrel Tuesday for the first time in more than five years. That means the price of crude oil has dropped by more than $50 a barrel since its peak, which was just in June. Additionally, nationwide the average price of a gallon of gas has dropped from a high of $3.70 in April 2014 to the current low of $2.53. There are several reasons for this drop; there are also numerous issues that have already begun to arise from the drop in price and many more potential problems if the price of oil remains low or falls even further.

Why is the Price of Oil Falling?

First, the obvious questions: why are oil prices suddenly dropping and why is it happening so rapidly? To answer these queries one must look into account, supply, and demand.

Too Much Supply

First is supply. Specifically, there is too much oil out there, or at least that’s the perception. This buildup is the result of several actors overproducing when the market is not ready to absorb their goods.

• OPEC: OPEC stands for the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. OPEC is an intergovernmental organization aimed at fixing oil prices of its member countries to ensure each has a fair and stable market for its product. The organization is made up of countries from South America, North Africa, and the Middle East. OPEC gained its greatest notoriety, and also put its fairness into question, with two embargoes in the 1970s that dramatically increased prices at the time. In a surprising about face however, in late November 2014, members elected to continue production at current levels. Why would OPEC elect to continue producing at high rates when basic economic wisdom called for a smaller supply? First, several members of OPEC have only just recently been able to ramp production back up to earlier levels. Libya, for example, was in a long struggle with rebels before it recently was able to reopen two key ports critical for oil exportation. Saudi Arabia was already burned before by trying to reduce supply to match demand back in the 1980s. Instead of keeping prices high it saw a significant loss in market share.
• U.S. Energy Boom: OPEC members increasingly have to tangle with the United States. While reports vary on which country is ranked where, the United States is unquestionably the world leader in energy production when natural gas and bio-fuels are included along with oil manufacturing. Biofuels and natural gas aside, the United States still ranks second in oil production behind Saudi Arabia, it being responsible for approximately 12 percent of the world’s output. The reason for the spike in American production is the now well documented shale boom that transformed places like North Dakota into energy and job hot spots. The video below details some of the pros and cons of the U.S. oil boom.

• Other Players: Along with OPEC and the United States there are several other major players in the Oil Industry. Chief among them is Russia, which sits closely behind at number three on the world’s production list. Russia is incredibly dependent on its energy sector, which generates up to 50 percent of the funds necessary to underwrite its budget. Along with Russia there are a few other non-OPEC countries, namely China, Canada, Brazil and Mexico.

Less Demand

Clearly then, higher supply is impacting world oil prices, but it is not alone. Equally as important is demand. After all, you can make as much of something as you like, but if no one wants it you are never going to make any money. So it is, in a sense, with oil.

A major decline in demand has occurred in two generally reliable regions–Asia and Europe–but specifically in Germany and China, due to economic slowdowns. In other key places such as the United States, similar sags in demand have been seen, but for different reasons. In the U.S., use of gasoline by companies plummeted following the financial crisis and has never returned to pre-crisis levels. Additionally, after numerous experiences being burned by unstable prices America has shifted away from high gas consumption toward more efficient technology like hybrids.

What It Means Now

Bad News

So what does this all mean then? For some countries this drop in oil prices is very bad. Russia in particular has a lot to lose with plunging oil prices. As alluded to earlier, up to 50 percent of its economy is dependent on oil prices and those prices have plummeted. As a result, Russia’s currency–the Ruble–has recently collapsed, losing a massive amount of value in just a couple of days. The collapse, coupled with western sanctions over Ukraine, is threatening to send Russia into a recession. The big question then is whether Russians are still willing to support Putin’s tactics when their standard of living starts to decline?

Other countries such as some of the members of OPEC also have a lot to lose as a result of the crisis. Like Russia, much of their budgets are predicated on their oil revenue. Thus countries like Iran and Nigeria that had relied on oil prices at much higher rates to maintain a sound budget now find themselves being forced to make cuts or face deficits–and even potentially defaults. It is even worse for another member: Venezuela.

Venezuela, despite having huge oil reserves, is facing an impending crisis that could be even worse than Russia’s. At least in Russia’s case it has reserve currency and little debt. Venezuela on the other hand has neither and was already dealing with shortages of other goods earlier this year. This situation has the makings of a powder keg. Some of these countries may also have to consider giving up stipends or canceling social programs funded by oil production. Some of these programs were instrumental in countries like Saudi Arabia potentially avoiding Arab Spring-style uprisings. The video below touches on the problems dropping oil prices imposes on Russia and Venezuela.

Mixed News

What about the United States? As mentioned earlier it has recently become either the biggest or second biggest producer of oil itself. What would a prolonged drop in the price of oil mean to the stars and stripes? Well, as is often the case, the United States may provide the most difficult answer. In certain ways this is a good thing. For example, Americans spending less on gas have more money to spend on other consumer goods, which could help spur faster economic growth.

Conversely, lowered prices could also mean some firms could no longer compete in the market. Many have speculated that lowered prices could dampen the U.S. oil boom currently taking place. In fact in has been widely circulated that OPEC’s decision to keep production high is basically a stare down between it and the United States where one side will eventually be forced to lower production to artificially inflate prices to stay in business. Additionally, employment is a major concern. Lost jobs here could be especially painful as they account for many of the jobs created since the recession.

 Conclusion

At the end of the day it is still unclear what will be the long term results of the drop in oil prices. In fact, as of right now it is still unclear how long these drops will be maintained at all; however, as the price continues to plunge and producers continue to forge ahead it seems fair to at least speculate. Really it’s just amazing that after all the war and talk of renewables globally that the world finds itself on such a precipice again concerning the familiar black gold. It seems then for now the impact of oil’s price drop will be left, much like its value is calculated, up to speculation.

Resources

Primary 

Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries: Brief History

Additional

Finances Online: Top 10 Oil Producing Countries in the World: Where’s the Greatest Petroleum Domination

USA Today: Eight Countries that Win and Lose Big from Oil Plunge

Vox: Why Oil Prices Keep Falling and Throwing the World Into Turmoil

USA Today: Russia’s Ruble in Free Fall Amid Panic

CNBC: Ticking Time Bombs: Where Oil’s Fall is Dangerous

Sovereign Investor The Hidden Cost of Oil

Foreign Policy: Can OPEC Kill the US Oil Boom?

Forbes: Oil & Gas Boom 2014: Jobs, Economic Growth and Security

CNN: Oil Plunge Takes Prices Below $55 A Barrel

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The High Cost of Falling Oil Prices appeared first on Law Street.

At the recent Zhuhai Air Show, China unveiled a new stealth fighter jet that one day has the potential to rival the United States’ own F-35. This came just days before President Obama was to travel to China to meet with its leaders as part of the larger APEC summit. While the significance of the timing of this display is debatable, it unquestionably shows China is determined to steadily improve and modernize its military arsenal. The question that remains is why? Is China’s path aimed at some future point at which it will surpass the United States as the world’s pre-eminent world power, both economically and militarily? If the answer to this question is yes–or even if it is no–does this then make China a military threat to the United States?

China and the U.S.: Positions in the Global Hierarchy

It’s the Economy

To begin to answer this question it is necessary to start by looking at these countries’ economies and in particular their economic growth. There are an infinite number of economic measures available to argue which economy in the world is the strongest; however, one of the most traditional and commonly accepted is Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In this regard, America has enjoyed dominance for decades going all the way back to the end of World War II. Today even in a supposedly more multipolar world, the GDP of the US economy, nearly $17 trillion in 2013, dwarfs that of any other nation and almost doubles the second place country, China.

Nonetheless, while the United States enjoys the largest GDP its rate of growth is much smaller than China’s. Since 1978, when it moved from a centrally planned to a market based economy, China’s yearly GDP growth has averaged nearly 10 percent. The United States during this time has experienced annual growth rates of 2 to 3 percent.

This figure excludes many factors, notably the fact that as a larger economy it is harder for the U.S. to grow at a rate equal to that of China. This issue has actually started to affect China as well as its recent growth has slipped to the 7 to 8 percent range as it seeks to curb several glaring social issues. Moreover, while China’s economy is growing faster and one day may pass the U.S. economy based strictly on total GDP, the average GDP per person is much lower in China than the United States. Regardless of the metrics though, why is economic might so important in determining whether China is a military threat to the United States?

China and U.S.: Military Spending

The United States Spends More (A Lot More)

A successful economy often goes hand in hand with a powerful military. Such is the case in the United States. As has been well documented, military spending by the United States far surpasses that of any other country. In fact, the edge in military spending by the United States far outstrips its edge economically by any measure. In 2013 for example, the United States spent an estimated $619 billion on military expenditures. This is more than three times what the second-place country spent in that same time period.

That second country on the list is–you guessed it–China again. In 2013 China spent $171.4 billion itself on military expenditures. While the United States again is overwhelmingly outspending China, it is critical to look at the growth rates, not just the overall total. As China’s economy continues to grow, so does its potential military capability.

China is Spending More Lately

In 2013, the U.S. actually saw a significant decline in military spending as a result of not only the ending of its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also due to the sequester. In contrast, China actually increased its budget in the same year between 7.4 and 10.7 percent. In 2014, it is reported that China will increase its budget again by an additional 12.2 percent. While this still does not make China equal to the United States, it suggests a desire by China to project its power further beyond its borders. The video below provides a more in-depth explanation.

China and U.S.: Their Relationship

Long and Intricate 

While China’s military capability is increasing this does not automatically make it a threat to the United States, instead it is also important to consider the relationship between the two nations. Historically this could be characterized best as complicated. The video below highlights the complex connection.

The United States has long had a relationship with China, almost from its inception. China was an important market following the Revolutionary War when it was shut out of many other places due to animosity emanating from England. American missionaries also flocked to China and Chinese immigrants came in waves to the United States and were instrumental in constructing the railway network, among other things. Things started going downhill, however, near the end of the nineteenth century during the rise of Imperialism worldwide. In 1882 the U.S. passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which was aimed at curbing Chinese immigration.

Additionally, in 1899 the U.S. provided men and weapons to help put down the Boxer Rebellion in which Chinese citizens attempted to expel foreigners who they viewed as exploitative of their country. The United States did advocate the Open Door Policy, initiated in the late nineteenth century, that prevented the literal break-up of China; however, the motive for that can be seen as greed as much as humanitarianism in that the U.S. wanted to keep China as an open market to which it had access.

The relationship improved again during the lead up to and for the duration of World War II as the United States provided supplies and men to China in its fight against Imperial Japan. Later during the conflict China also served as a launching point for American attacks against Japan. The bond the countries had hammered out during the war seemed to be set in stone when the United States worked to get China to become one of the five permanent members of the Security Council. Once again however, the relationship frayed with the communist takeover of China and with Chinese soldiers actually engaging U.S. troops during the Korean War. At one point the situation was so bad that nuclear war seemed to be a possibility. Relations stayed frozen until President Nixon famously opened up dialogue between the two countries in the 1970s.

Since Nixon’s thawing the two nations have maintained a strong economic relationship. In 2014, China was the United States’ second most valuable trading partner and the United States was China’s top partner. The two sides also recently agreed for the first time to a major environmental pact that is scheduled to cap China’s emissions in 2030 and cut US emissions by 25 percent by 2025. Still though while the U.S. and China are working in concert, many issues remain between the two nations that could potentially lead to conflict, namely human rights abuses and continued Chinese attempts to steal American technological secrets.

Other Considerations

The Price of Friendship

While the complicated relationship between China and the United States may not make China a military threat, the relationship China has with its neighbors in Asia certainly has that potential. Currently China is attempting to exert its newfound power throughout the region. This has led to two separate crises in two separate seas. The one problem in both cases, with Japan in the East China Sea and several Asian countries in the South China Sea, is over control of the seas. Specifically it is over who controls the resources under those seas, particularly the large amount of oil. The video below gives a glimpse of what exactly the issue is.

The reason why all this could lead to China becoming a military threat is because the United States has defensive military treaties with both Taiwan and Japan. Thus if these two nations or others that also have military commitments from the United States were to come into direct physical conflict with China, the United States would be required to come to their aid militarily. The United States could always refuse to honor these obligations, but then that would lead to a loss of credibility.

End of the Pax Americana 

Such a loss of credibility may actually already have occurred. Specifically by failing to honor the security commitment to Ukraine and the failure to punish Syria for crossing Obama’s Red line against the use of chemical weapons, hostile countries may now have their doubts concerning American power, or at the very least its commitment.

Not only has this seemingly emboldened countries like Russia, it may also lead other countries with differing political goals such as China to determine the time is ripe for them to assert their own power as well, without the former fear of American retaliation. This may also signal the end of an unofficial era, defined as the Pax Americana or American Peace. During this period dating from the end of World War II, the United States was able to assert its global ambitions due to its military strength.

To Russia With Love

Another potential challenge to the system, crafted by the United States, comes in the form of China’s growing economic relationship with Russia, which has been both a long term and recent nemesis of the United States. While the U.S. and its European allies sanction Russia for its involvement in the unrest in Ukraine, China was agreeing to a $400 billion energy deal that could undermine the sanctions already in place.

China’s Nuclear Card

Even if China were not emboldened by a perceived American decline, it still has the potential to be a threat to the United States or any other state on this planet because of its nuclear stockpile. While China has long maintained its policy of no First Use concerning nuclear weapons, recent improvements in its arsenal may signal its intent to shrink the nuclear capability gap between the United States and itself.

Conclusion

Fool Me Once Shame on You, Fool Me Twice…

Aside from all the spending and rhetoric, good and bad, many still believe that China cannot be a threat to the United States militarily for one major reason: China and the U.S. are each other’s most important trading partners. But this argument has been made before. In one such case it was argued that Germany and France, which prior to WWI were economically independent, would not go to war. This was proven wrong of course and the two sides soon engaged in one of the bloodiest conflicts in human history.

Thus in time China could very possibly become a military threat to the United States with its quickly growing economy and military budget; however, the amount of dialogue and trade between the two countries could just as easily lead to a peaceful and prosperous relationship well into the future. For now only time will tell.

Resources

Primary

World Bank: Gross Domestic Product 2013

World Bank: China Overview

Census: Foreign Trade

Additional

Heritage Foundation: The Complicated History of US Relations with China

Trading Economics: Countries Spending the Most on the Military

CNN: Just How Good is China’s New Stealth Fighter

Council on Foreign Relations: Trends in US Military Spending

The New York Times: China Announces 12.2 % Increase in Military Budget

China Daily: Top 10 Trading Partners of the Chinese Mainland

Guardian: US and China Strike Deal on Carbon Cuts in Push For Global Climate Change Pact

World Affairs Journal: Conflicting Claims: China, Japan, Taiwan on Edge

Atlantic: The End of Pax Americana: How Western Decline Became Inevitable

National Interest: West Concerned about Russia and China Economic Ties

Diplomat: Could China’s Nuclear Strategy Evolve?

National Interest: Should America Fear China’s Nuclear Weapons

UCSD: Trading on Preconceptions

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post China as a Military Threat: What Does It Mean for the U.S.? appeared first on Law Street.

For the second year in a row, Detroit, Michigan and Irvine, California are the Most Dangerous and Safest cities in the America, respectively. Law Street’s comprehensive analysis of the FBI’s latest Uniform Crime Report allowed us to rank the safest and the most dangerous big cities in the United States.

Click here to see the Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities with populations over 200,000.

Click here to see the Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities with populations under 200,000.

Click here to see the Top 10 Safest Cities with populations over 200,000.

Detroit has a violent crime rate of 2,072 per 100,000 people; Irvine has a violent crime rate of 48 per 100,000 people. Looking at those statistics alone begs the question: how could two sizable cities in the same country be so radically different?

At the end of the day it comes down to pretty much one thing: the economy. While there are significantly more factors that need to be taken into consideration when trying to figure out why one city is so crime-ridden and another so relatively safe, a lot of it boils down to the economy.

Detroit currently has an unemployment rate of 14.9 percent; Irvine’s is about 4 percent. Keep in mind that the national unemployment rate has dropped to 5.8 percent, which means that while Irvine is doing pretty well, Detroit is doing very, very poorly. In Detroit, 38.1 percent of the population is below the poverty line, in Irvine it’s just 11.4 percent.

In some ways, it seems that the two cities are from two different times in American history. Detroit was once a booming manufacturing city, home of the auto industry. But the problem is that it was really only the home of the auto industry. And when it first took on that characteristic, the process required way more people to make a car than it does now. There’s also the issue of foreign automakers surpassing American brands, and the 2008 financial collapse. Long, sad story short, Detroit has not been able to subsist on just one industry for a very long time, and it shows.

Compare that to Irvine, which in many ways is the epitome of the way our economy looks now. It’s smack dab in the middle of Southern California’s answer to Silicon Valley, with a heavy concentration on technology and startup culture. Irvine is a city that has taken advantage of the new industries providing jobs in the American market, much like Detroit did, but half a century later.

Detroit’s downfall is more troubling than just the economic woes–when the city started to decline and see mass unemployment, many of those who had the resources to do so got out. Over the last decade, Detroit’s population has fallen by approximately a quarter. It’s turned into a vicious cycle–people who have the resources to leave Detroit do so because of its poor economic condition and crime. Those with financial resources leaving make the city’s economy and budget problems worse, and they can’t pay for the kind of revitalization Detroit would need, or a police force to get the crime under control. So more people leave, and the cycle continues.

Put very simply,  Irvine is safer because it has the money coming in to be that way. In addition to its regular police force, the multiple universities located within city limits have their own police forces, leading to even more of a focus on safety. There are a lot of things that separate Detroit and Irvine, and makes one clock in as the most dangerous city in the country and the other the safest. At the end of the day one of the most convincing is the economy.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Detroit is the Most Dangerous City in America, Irvine the Safest appeared first on Law Street.

My house rumbles and shakes as the cargo trains thunder down the rail that is less that 500 yards away. Although the necessity of turning up the volume on my TV is not much more than a nuisance, the fact that I sleep within the blast zone of a highly combustible material being transported in an inept and accident-prone manner is highly unnerving. Despite the speed of aircraft or the capacity of cargo ships, railroads remain the most efficient medium for transporting goods. That does not mean, though, that they are a flawless medium. In fact, when dealing with the transportation of crude oil, they and the system on which they operate are horrifically flawed.

Fracking in North Dakota yields a crude oil that is shipped in trains across the country and down the Hudson River. In the New York portion, the rail runs literally right along the river’s edge. The particular form of crude coming from these fields can turn into an explosive fire should the trains derail, giving this transportation system the name “bomb trains”. The American Petroleum Institute disputes this claim, though. The issue is compounded by the fact that it is being transported in outdated cars, called DOT-111s, which have thin hulls and are prone to puncture. In the last several years, oil train derailments have spilled millions of gallons and resulted in deaths, notably in Quebec last year.

Apparently the Transportation Department has been looking into the DOT-111 situation for several years now, but a surge in oil production in the North Dakota Bakken shale region has resulted in an immediate demand for large scale transport. There are not enough pipelines to accommodate this volume, so it is being sent along in trains, dubbed a “virtual pipeline.” Furthermore, the existing oil trains were not originally intended to move this type of oil at this level of intensity, thus the dangers. While safer designs are in the proposal stage, many of the existing cars are too old to be retrofitted with the new features and would have to be replaced all together. This is problematic, Jad Mouawad of The New York Times points out, because the transition period would mean that there are fewer cars on the rails and the oil demands would be difficult to meet.

Also sorely lacking is an emergency response plan. Should a disaster occur, sufficient measures are not currently in place either to mitigate the consequences of a spill or to effectively address the human welfare. Not only would lives be endangered, but a spill would gravely threaten the drinkability of the water for both locals and the eight million residents of New York City, as well as the wellbeing of the river’s biodiversity. In a flash, a spill could undo everything that the Hudson conservation organization Riverkeeper has spent the last half century trying to accomplish.

A bird struggles amidst an oil spill near Crimea, courtesy of Marine Photobank/Igor Golubenkov via Flickr

The lack of safety precautions is not the fault of emergency workers, but the Transportation Authority and oil industries themselves. The latter needs to be more open as to when trains are running through what areas, and what is the nature of their cargo. Last month, Orange County, New York joined neighbors Rockland and Ulster in calling for a full environmental review of the potential impacts of the increased oil shipments, a ban on DOT-111s, and an exploration of alternative means of transporting the oil. Embodying the philosophies of Riverkeeper, these actions criticize the secretive nature of the oil industry and demand the release of data to the public. By empowering the people with information, appropriate measures can be taken.

One town in North Jersey took things a step further, staging a protest and calling for a moratorium on the oil trains until safety standards are met. As previously mentioned, the trains run through my own hometown and neighboring ones in Bergen County, New Jersey pass through a very built up and densely populated region; a disaster in this area would be catastrophic and unquestionably deadly.

One must be cautious when performing a review of potential environmental impacts, as the method can be manipulated so as to be favorable to one party over another. The mayor of Albany recently accused the Department of Environmental Conservation of segmentation, an illegal action under the Environmental Quality Review Act. This process enables the review of a project in individual groups, not as an overall whole. In so doing, environmental impacts can be overlooked or miscast. This has allowed oil companies to enlarge or change their transportation permits time and again without raising any red flags. Ecosystems are large and complex; an issue in one arena will affect, often in an unforeseen manner, aspects of another. Further, humans are tightly intertwined with their surrounding environments. The issue must be looked at in its entirety in order to properly assess the dynamics of the dangers and their potential consequences.

The interrelatedness of people, policy, and environment with regard to this issue extends widely. The overemphasis on oil shipments is creating a backlog in other industries. Millions of dollars are lost and countless jobs are endangered as North Dakota farmers, the longtime mainstay of the economy there, are unable to ship their grain products across the country. A cascade effect follows; food companies are pressured to put out their products in light of delayed shipments, occasionally resulting in lower supply and higher prices. Exportation economics suffer as well, as these rails send grains to the Pacific Northwest to be shipped to Asia, and down the very same routes in New York State to be sent to Europe. In the long run, grain will be a more reliable product than oil. Companies are too short sighted and capitalize on the spike, with wide ranging and ever worsening consequences.

While the increased production, transportation, and use of oil is frustrating enough for those who would rather see progress in the field of renewable energy, the fact that it is compounded by a massive threat to local ecosystems and human welfare is outrageous and unacceptable. This issue is more than a concern over energy policy; it is making the use of fossil fuels an environmental and human threat in manners that go beyond emissions and pollution. The dangers must be effectively addressed, and soon.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The New Black Death: Oil Trains and Insufficient Safety Regulations appeared first on Law Street.

A new concept is sweeping the United States, one that many of our peer countries have had for years: paid sick leave. Yesterday, Governor Jerry Brown of California signed a law requiring most employers in the state to provide at least three paid sick days per year to their workers. While some American cities have already created similar laws, and the state of Connecticut has paid sick days in place for businesses that fall under certain requirements, California makes history as the first state to sign such an inclusive bill with regard to this benefit.

The idea is pretty simple — sickness is unpredictable. And sometimes people who have already used their vacation days, or simply can’t afford to take a day off, ever, get sick. When those people who can’t take a day off from work get sick, they not only most likely prolong their own illness, but also open up those they work with to sickness as well.

California’s law, although passed after Connecticut’s, is certainly more inclusive. Connecticut’s law, passed earlier this year, applies only to businesses with 50 employees or more. Manufacturers and certain types of tax-exempt organizations, regardless of the number of employees, aren’t required to follow the law. Day workers, non-hourly workers, and salaried employees also aren’t included — although that may be because salaried workers are often given sick days anyway. Connecticut’s law does, however, allow workers to accrue up to five sick days and while it was a unique and ground-breaking step, California’s law is significantly more far-reaching.

California’s law, on the other hand, applies to almost all employees, allowing them to acquire one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked. Assembleywoman Lorena Gonzalez explained the motivation behind the more inclusive law, saying:

We become the first state in the nation to guarantee paid sick days for every single private-sector worker in the state — no matter what industry they work in, no matter if they are part-time or seasonal, and regardless of the size of their employer. This means more than 6.5 million more workers in this state will be able to take up to three days off when they or their child is sick without fearing the loss of income, hours or their job.

Paid sick time off is an especially notable issue to examine because of the incredibly fast way in which it became a conversation in the United States. Less than 10 years ago, there were really no laws requiring paid time off for workers; now two different states have passed statewide laws to that effect, and many other cities require paid time off as well now.

The main argument against paid sick days is that it will hurt the economy, but we have pretty convincing evidence to show that simply isn’t the case. The Connecticut economy has reported no dramatic negative changes due to the implementation of the paid sick day law. Some cities, such as Seattle, Washington, have also reported seeing no economic downturn after the law was passed; Seattle has actually seen economic growth.

And given that extending paid sick days to the vast majority of employees doesn’t lead to any economic issues, the full humanitarian benefits of the law really can be realized. As Governor Brown put it when he signed the bill into law:

Whether you’re a dishwasher in San Diego or a store clerk in Oakland, this bill frees you of having to choose between your family’s health and your job. Make no mistake, California is putting its workers first.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Congrats California Workers: Paid Sick Days are Coming Your Way appeared first on Law Street.

I’m going to take a break from feminist issues today and discuss something that is, literally, life or death: America’s horrible healthcare costs.

Recently, just as I had my first run-in with military dress codes, I also got to experience a military doctor’s office. I went in for a physical exam, waited maybe ten minutes all around, and ended up leaving without having to pay a cent for the appointment or prescriptions. The only thought on my mind was: why can’t everyone’s health care be this great?

Outside of the United States, healthcare is that great in several countries. Just last summer while studying abroad in London, my friend rushed herself to the hospital thinking her appendix was bursting. Turned out to be just a pulled muscle, but an ER visit didn’t cost her a pence — and she wasn’t even a citizen!

So what’s wrong with American health care? For a country whose citizens claim it to be number one, we are way behind on things that really matter. According to the World Health Organization, America ranks thirty-fifth in life expectancy and thirty-seventh in healthcare systems.

Yikes.

Why are we so low in the rankings? The answer is not simple.

American healthcare costs are alarmingly higher than in other developed countries. An MRI in the U.S. averages $1,121, while in the Netherlands it’s only $319. Need an angiogram? That’ll be $914, but you could have gotten it for $35 in Canada! Are you on the drug Lipitor? Then you know it’s around $124 a month — it costs $6 a month in New Zealand. Some may argue that we are wealthier than these countries, so it makes sense that we would spend a bit more. Sure, but the amount the United States spends on health care is way above what it should be.

Then there is the argument that countries with free health care pay more in taxes. False. The average U.S. citizen pays more in taxes toward public health care than the United Kingdom, Canada, and a whole list of other countries with free health care.

Some blame insurance. American citizens not having health insurance was a factor in rising healthcare costs, yes. Those who didn’t have it still needed care, then went bankrupt from trying to pay for it, so our tax money ended up paying for it. The Affordable Care Act has alleviated some of the problem, but it is still being fought over in congress.

Still others point to over-utilization and malpractice spending, saying that Americans simply go to the doctor more and therefore spend more, but there is no data to support that either. Plus, who would want to go to the doctor more than they need to, especially when a doctor’s visit will soon cost more than a car?

None of these issues is the one thing that has skyrocketed our health care spending. In fact, all of them are to blame. Therefore, there will be no simple solution. Reaching a fix is made harder by the fact that the topic of health care is gridlocked in our government. Republicans block Democrats because they’re not Republican, and vice versa.

A lot of people like to gripe about Obamacare.

Half of Congress even decided to throw a hissy fit over not getting their way on the subject, and shut down the government. Sure, the Affordable Care Act might not be perfect, but at least it’s something. Those people most vehemently opposing it aren’t offering up any better solutions. Until both parties can get over their pride, sit down and say “what is going to be best, and cost less, for the American people?” healthcare costs will continue to be higher than they need to be.

My opinion? Healthcare should be free and easily accessible for everyone. Period.

Data and statistics for this post came from the WHO website and this article from The New York Times.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Debunking Common Myths About American Healthcare Costs appeared first on Law Street.

While venturing out toward the stars may be the final frontier, the vast depths of the Earth’s oceans remain largely hidden from view and knowledge. The incredible diversity and sheer volume of life in the seas is staggering to the human mind, and consequently we have developed certain egregious impressions about the oceans and what they may provide for the needs of modern civilization. Some seem to feel that the oceans are sources of infinite resources for global fisheries. They are so big and teeming with life; surely there is more than we could possibly consume. This misnomer is compounded by increases in the technological efficiency of fishing, as well as the fact that oceans serve as common pool resources; many nations and parties may share, or compete for, their portion of fish yields.

Global wild fish stocks have been declining for a long time. In his seminal paper The Tragedy of the Commons, Garrett Hardin argued that the economic forces that define our approaches to use of common pool resources are not sustainable in the long run. Namely, an individual acting in the logical manner so as to maximize his share of the resources is acting against the better interest of the whole group, because every individual is doing this and ultimately everyone will suffer. This concern has plagued high seas fishing for centuries, and continues to worsen as the efficiency and rate of fishing increases. Perhaps one of the most tangible and unsettling consequences of these dynamics is the collapse of the Northwest Atlantic cod fishery in 1992, after an epic 500-year run that shaped the economic, social, and cultural development of Europe’s early North American colonies.

The cod fishing town of Portugal Cove in Newfoundland, 1908, courtesy of Musee McCord Museum via Flickr

That is to say, there are consequences other than economics and conservation when dealing with unsustainable fishing. After so many hundreds of years, the Newfoundland locals had developed cultural identities around fishing. From fishermen to transporters, to salesmen in the markets, fishing played a substantial role in their ways of life and manners of self identification. How do the residents think of themselves, their place in society, and what do they actually do with themselves now that the fishery has collapsed? These are concerns that can crop up anywhere that natural resources are strained.

Another incorrect assumption about fishing and the oceans is that anything that might go wrong there or, our actions there in general, bear no consequences to ourselves and society. This might stem from the simple fact that we do not live in the oceans, and so we do not often see with our own eyes ecological collapse there. However it is clear, as exemplified by the Newfoundland cod fishery, that the fate of the seas and their biodiversity is tightly tied to our own state of affairs.

In light of these problematic developments, a new practice has been gaining ground. Aquaculture is the process of raising fish or shrimp in tanks on land. The most important result of supplying seafood in this manner is that it takes pressure off wildlife. There are many other advantages too, as Hiroko Tabuchi explains in a New York Times article. Fish farmers tend to already have environmentally and socially conscious motivations for doing what they do, and so it is uncommon that one’s plate of farm-raised fish will contain harmful chemicals. Furthermore, it reduces the need to import certain fish species, which may be caught by way of slave labor on fishing boats in the South Pacific. Finally, it produces local jobs while promoting economic self sufficiency.

A fish farm tank, courtesy of Bytemarks via Flickr

The Atlantic cod fishery is not the only one to have failed. Eighty-five percent of marine fish stocks are considered either fully exploited or overfished, and more than one in five fisheries has collapsed. In addition to the environmental consequences herein, it is becoming more and more difficult for fishermen to make ends meet. As their daily catches go down in volume, they yield declining pay, endangering their jobs and the financial stability of their families. As the national economy and job markets of Chile waver, for example, they have been turning to large-scale aquaculture. Having safeguarded existing jobs, produced over 100,000 more, and served as a major source of exportation, AquaChile is setting an example that is sure to be followed around the world.

How do consumer behaviors and cultural identities figure into this system? Tabuchi suggests that some people might have an aversion to eating fish raised on a farm. Somehow, it does not seem natural; real fish must be wild and from the oceans in order to be fresh and appetizing. This is a simple mental barrier that can be overcome in time. Fishing is one of civilization’s oldest practices; it will require patience and continued exposure to this new system. In addition, fish farming provides new opportunities with regard to cultural development. Just as the Newfoundland fishermen produced an identity and way of life around their jobs, so too can fish farmers. Therefore, a larger embrace of aquaculture would yield more than just the jobs themselves. Even before the days of Westward expansion Americans have taken pride in farmers. This action carries cultural baggage, tying itself to wholesome values, hard work, and individual enterprise. Thus there is something appealing to consumers in purchasing locally farmed products, and supporting the hardworking farmers. This set of relationships can certainly apply to seafood farmers in time as well.

Aquaculture also benefits other marine wildlife. World Wildlife writer Julian Smith explains that “Healthy ocean ecosystems are more resilient to emerging threats such as warming water temperatures and ocean acidification.” In addition, it has a “ripple effect,” benefiting other marine life such as sea birds, sea turtles, dolphins, and seals. This raises another point of interest: salmon populations in Oregon had been declining for years as a result of dam construction on the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Recently, they have been rebounding, drawing tens of thousands of birds who intend to feed on them. Local officials feel threatened by the competition for salmon, and have considered shooting the birds. The National Audubon Society cried out in protest, suggesting measures such as shooing the birds or drawing them elsewhere. Felicity Barringer of The New York Times suggested that this situation is different from people’s fights with wolves and coyotes, who raided their chicken farms, for example. While that series of episodes was still shameful, as those predators were endangered by human defensive hunting, this situation involves killing a wild predator that is competing with humans for a wild prey. Aquaculture could alleviate this competition, as humans consume more farm-raised fish, leaving the wild salmon for the birds and removing the presumed necessity of shooting them.

Cormorants of the Pacific Northwest, courtesy of Brocken Inaglory via Wikipedia

If we continue on our current course, the future of fish and the oceans themselves will be further jeopardized. In our ongoing quest for sustainable societies, aquaculture provides a partial answer and opens many new doors.

—

Franklin R. Halprin (@FHalprin) holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image couresty of [CAUT via Flickr]

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Aquaculture: Farm the Fish to Save the Seas appeared first on Law Street.

The five-foot high tires were insufficient to prevent the specially designed bus from jostling about as it turned off the road and toward the Columbia Ice Field in Alberta, Canada. The massive carpet of ice expanded in all directions upon disembarkation, as I walked about the sheet that was hundreds of feet thick and thousands of years old. A small stream of water meandered by. It was water only recently thawed; water that had frozen before industrialization and heavy increases in air pollution. I cupped my hands in the crystal and cold flow and sipped. It was perfect. I was eight years old, enthralled, and officially a nature lover.

The Columbia Ice Field Snow Coach, courtesy of Leonard G. via Wikipedia

Four years later we returned to the Canadian Rockies to immerse ourselves in the wilderness once more, without any doubt that we would pay a visit to the Columbia Field. The bus again turned off the road, but this time onto an expanse of grey rock. We were in the same location as last time, but the glacier was not there. It still existed, but was far in the distance. In only a few years it had melted substantially, retreating into the mountains. I was 12 years old, horrified, and officially an environmental activist.

Glaciers are the most visible manifestation of climate change. Photographer James Balog utilized this concept in an attempt to bring to the forefront the urgency of the issue. In his project Extreme Ice Survey, he and his crew mounted 25 cameras to take snapshots of glacial activity every daylight hour for three years, yielding distressing results as to the rapidity of glacial melting. The project was documented in the 2012 film Chasing Ice.

Some argue that the situation is not so severe, as glaciers ebb and flow with the seasons. The guide at the Columbia Ice Field related that the sheet rises 50 feet in the winter and melts 80 feet in the summer. Therefore, while it does grow in the cold months, there is an overall trend of recession. Further, many glaciers consistently recede regardless of season.

A study in the Yukon from 1958-2008, Chasing Ice explains, tracked 1,400 glaciers in the region. Over the course of the half century, four grew, 300 disappeared entirely, and the other 1,096 shrunk. Though they are powerful symbols of environmentalism and conservation, these figures do not solely embody a concern for saving the glaciers. Despite the fact that they are often portrayed in tandem with other champions of conservation, such as polar bears and their struggles to survive in the face of melting ice sheets, the issues at hand are a microcosm of the challenges of mitigating the causes and repairing the consequences of human-induced climate change.

A recent article in the Alaska Dispatch News explored the potential effects of climate change on said state’s tourism industry. The U.S. Forest Service in Juneau has expressed concern over the shrinkage of several notable glaciers as they withdraw from the line of sight at lookout points, reducing the number of annual visitors. Furthermore, the author relates, a study suggested that melting permafrost might increase the region’s susceptibility to invasive species and shorten ski seasons.

The study attempts to take an optimistic angle in the face of these ominous developments, suggesting that the extended summer cruise season and concept of “last chance to see it” are about to create a short-lived boom in the tourism industry there. These are very shallow cheers. A “last chance” promotion is not financially sustainable for the long term of tourism, and more importantly, it is not an acceptable response to the threats to the environment there. Nor is it acceptable to sit back and allow unnatural change to occur, capitalize on the new reality, and allow the old state of things to disappear and be destroyed. While Alaska is beautiful in the fair weather and expanded opportunities for a summertime vacation there are enticing, that is not what the place was originally like before substantial human intervention. There are plenty of locations across the globe to which one can venture for a summer retreat; Alaska should be visited for what it was, and for what it ought to remain.

A cruise ship docked in Ketchikan, AK, courtesy of blmiers2 via Flickr

What Alaska was, and ought to remain, has figured substantially in American cultural identity and early manifestations of the conservation movement. In 1879, John Muir made his first trip to the wild lands. Many followed in his footsteps, including an expedition in 1899 on which a crew of scientists noted how deforestation, clear cutting, over fishing, and animal slaughtering were already stripping Alaska of its natural resources. One of the scientists later published a study arguing that the mining activities there, as the Yukon Gold Rush was in full swing, were not sustainable in the long run; Alaska’s economic future, he prophesied, lay in wilderness (eco) tourism. Furthermore, as historian Douglas Brinkley relates, Muir believed that the more people saw of Alaska’s frozen wonders, the more likely they were to become conservationists.

These two concepts formed powerful components of Teddy Roosevelt’s platform and presidential objectives. He agreed with the naturalist William H. Dall in seeing Alaska as “…having ecological, moral, scientific, and spiritual values that would help reserve the frontier spirit.” Regardless of truth or falsehood, the frontier mythos and concepts of rugged individualism played important roles in American identity. By the early 1900s, Manifest Destiny had brought the United States border to the Pacific Coast; Alaska was dubbed the final frontier. The wilderness, presumably so vital in the development of values and Americana, had to be preserved here if American culture was to survive. Enabling people to get in touch with nature would, as writer and environmentalist Aldo Leopold stated, “build receptivity for ecosystems in human thinking.”

Teddy Roosevelt (left) and John Muir (right) in Yosemite National Park, CA. Courtesy of Library of Congress via Wikipedia.

The growing awareness and value systems resulting from human contact with nature helped in the latter’s preservation, and continues to do so to this day. It worked for me; the spiritual beauty of the glacier inspired an appreciation in my heart for the natural world and its right to survive. In order to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, it must endure in order to inspire people and societies to maintain it. The current tourism industry in Alaska must remain focused on the real environments and benefits of the North. Establishing national parks to protect lands has helped in the past, as the main threats to the environment were direct human activities such as logging. Now, the threats are more varied in source and wider in scope. It will take many actions on multiple fronts to retain an interest in the locale and take the necessary steps to maintain the state of things there. The glaciers and tundra of Alaska and the Arctic are not a desolate wasteland, but places of great aesthetic value to be admired in their own right.

As John Muir wrote:

“Though the storm beaten ground it is growing on is nearly half a mile high, the glacier centuries ago flowed over it as a river flows over a boulder; but out of all the cold darkness and glacial crushing and grinding comes this warm, abounding beauty and life to teach us that what we in our faithless ignorance and fear call destruction is creation finer and finer.”

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Climate Change, Melting Glaciers, and the Future of Alaskan Tourism appeared first on Law Street.

Deep within the heart of the notoriously dangerous and underdeveloped city of Paterson, New Jersey, lies a scenic waterfall of historical and environmental significance.

In 1778, Alexander Hamilton picnicked in the vicinity and was impressed with the power of the Passaic River and its Great Falls. The brilliant and foresighted founding father envisaged water as a source of power for the industries of the new and developing nation. Hamilton’s work, including founding an organization called the Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures, did in fact result in the river and waterfall providing power for the region, including the newly founded city of Paterson, which it continues to do to this day.

Alexander Hamilton: Paterson’s founder and the Great Fall’s promoter. Courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin

The Paterson Great Falls area is supervised by the National Park Service and the US Department of the Interior. Many people have not heard of this all, much less the fact that it is a national park. Granted, one might not visualize this place alongside Niagara Falls, the Grand Canyon, or Old Faithful; however, this is not a consequence of its inferiority or failure to provide for its visitors a transcendental experience in nature. Rather, the National Park Service, and We, the People, have forgotten about it and let it languish.

One can be easily misled by the high quality literature received upon arrival. An NPS map delineates the site along with trails and overlooks. Another references an audio guided walking tour around the park and other local points of interest. None of these things is a particularly viable option for the curious tourist or visiting family. The trails have fallen into a state of disrepair, or are completely closed for renovations, the completion dates of which are vague. The limited angles by which one can view the falls do not effectively convey their beauty. Furthermore, in order to get there one must wade through an accumulation of trash on the grassy area. At one point, I picked up and threw out a deflated balloon. This was particularly frustrating because of the dangers these items pose to local animals; a hedgehog scampered by shortly thereafter.

Minimal access in the park. Courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin

On the day I attended, there happened to be a decent number of people present because a small lecture was scheduled. It had recently been the anniversary of the infamous duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr, and so some people came out to hear the historic tale. Otherwise, I am told by some associates who had explored the park on an average day, the place tends to be relatively vacant. The brochure map indicated a visitor center across the street; I figured it would be productive to look into it and acquire more information. All I found, though, was an empty parking lot and building with no signs or indicators. Was this it? There was no evidence in any of the literature, nor at this building itself, that the center was under renovation or closed. Upon further research at home, I discerned that this empty building was in fact the Great Falls Historic District Cultural Center and its overhaul should be completed later this summer.

The Great Falls Historic District Cultural Center. Courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin

It is a disgrace in its own right that this historically and environmentally significant location has fallen into such a state of disrepair, under-appreciation, and under-attendance, but there are economic and social factors at play here as well. While there are many complex reasons why the city of Paterson is in such poor condition, the Great Falls provide an untapped opportunity to inject some life into the local sector. Fostering tourism via the Falls could provide a source of income to the Paterson economy. While there are many other issues that must be addressed in order to truly lift the city out of its current situation, the Falls are an easy starting point. This would also provide incentive to refurbish the locale and other points of interest, creating a self reinforcing system. As it stands, the streetwise tourist is not likely to wander around the streets of Paterson listening to an audio tour; improving the park experience and improving the local quality of life go hand in hand.

Paterson is a prime example of the social and economic ramifications of deindustrialization. There is a plethora of abandoned buildings and vacant streets, which are breeding grounds for violence, gang activity, and drug use. Aside from the fact that many people do not know of the Falls, finding one’s way there and back is relatively stressful. Once arrived, one is deterred from truly experiencing everything the site could and should offer. Rather, one is distracted by the abysmal infrastructural and human conditions that abound. These are all things that surely reduce the number of annual visitors. If many people wanted to come, the city would find more motivation to improve; if the city found more motivation to improve, many more people might want to come. However, the city of Paterson is not wholly responsible or to blame, as the Falls are a national park and the initial spark must be provided by the federal government.

A typical sight in the Great Falls vicinity. Courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin

We must understand that the quality of our environments and the quality of our lives are intertwined. Nature is not something that only exists “out there,” but is right in our backyards. It is all around around us and is a part of us as much as we are a part of it. This nation has a culturally motivated value system that has to do with preservation of natural spaces. The Paterson Great Falls is a gem that needs polishing. It is a beautiful site that we ought to appreciate and for which we should be grateful. Revamping this gift of nature would not be just for its own aesthetic sake. A quality national park site would have a direct effect on the local conditions and continued potential for growth and improvement in the city and region.

—

Franklin R. Halprin (@FHalprin) holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Franklin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Franklin R. Halprin]

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A National Park That’s a National Disgrace appeared first on Law Street.

Law Street writer Anneliese Mahoney recently reported on Airbnb’s developing legal problems and how, frankly, they just cannot catch a break despite their ever-expanding market and wild success. Airbnb has been in a constant legal battle with New York dating back as far as 2010 and continuing well into 2014 (check out: here and here). The trend continued with Portland banning the company’s operations from all residential areas, though the city is now easing those restrictions. There were also issues in Los Angeles and the state of Michigan — truly, the list goes on and on. Now that we’re well into 2014, has Airbnb’s luck changed? The answer is unequivocally no.

As of April 29, 2014, San Francisco joined the legal battle grounds with a potential city ballot initiative against the home-sharing service. Backed by housing activist, Calvin Welch, former Planning Commissioner, Doug Engmann, and PR professional, Dale Carlson, the proposal calls for the following:

1. Creation of a public mandatory registry of all residents who rent out short-term space.
2. Evidence of landlord or homeowner permission to rent.
3. The right of any citizen to file a complaint against an Airbnb rental, go to court, and receive 30 percent in fines or back taxes as a result, along with compensation for their attorney fees.

The most controversial (and little bit scary) part of the proposal is the ability to financially reward residents for actively spying on reporting neighboring hosts who are not in compliance with these rules. While this section of the proposal may not make it to the ballot, let’s call a spade a spade and recognize that they are calling for Airbnb bounty hunters. In the midst of all these legal scuffles, it appears that the ‘share-economy’ company has yet to lose its stride and will continue to introduce new policies to disrupt the hospitality market.

Ashley Powell (@danceAPdance)

Click here to read the original post published November 6, 2013.

One of the big travel trends right now is a site called AirBnB.com. The company was founded in 2008, and the idea is pretty unique. Essentially, it allows people from cities all over the world to rent out rooms, apartments, houses, or even their couches to visitors. The relative costs are beneficial for both the travelers and the hosts, and AirBnB ensures that both sides involved in the transaction have been properly vetted and approved. Customers are also allowed to leave reviews at places they have stayed, creating a community of recommendations and verified great places to rent. This isn’t really even a new idea; in theory, it’s like hosting a friend of a friend in town for a few days in your home. The only difference is that instead of meeting your houseguest through a friend, you connected through the Internet.

Since 2008, AirBnB has hosted over 8.5 million guests, and this innovative online economy does not seem like it will slow down anytime soon. The business is fairly rewarding. According to an interview in the New York Times, a woman in Brooklyn made about $90,000 renting out two bedrooms in her house. AirBnB overall is very lucrative in the state of New York. Over the last three years, the top 100 hosts in New York have grossed a collective $54 million.

The state of New York is less enamored with the idea, and is instead pursuing legal action against the company. There are a few reasons why certain aspects of AirBnB may be illegal. One issue is that by using AirBnB, tourists are not booking hotel rooms. Included in the price of a hotel room is tax, part of which goes to the state. New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is arguing that the AirBnB industry has cost New York millions in tax dollars. Last Friday, his office delivered a subpoena to AirBnB requiring that they disclose the names, locations, and revenue of all of the hosts in the state of New York. The AG’s office claim that they’re not going after the occasional renter, they’re going after those 100 or so hosts that grossed $54 million. A spokesperson for the office, stated, “we began this process in the hopes of collaborating with Airbnb to recover millions of dollars in unpaid taxes and to stop the abuse of Airbnb’s site by operators of illegal hotels. Airbnb isn’t standing up for average New Yorkers who rent out their apartments from time to time — Airbnb is standing up for highly profitable, illegal businesses that make up a huge chunk of its corporate revenue.”

AirBnB disagrees–they have filed a motion in the New York Supreme Court to challenge the subpoena. They claim that Schneiderman doesn’t have any actual evidence of wrongdoing on the site.

There’s also the question of the legality of AirBnB in regards to lease and zoning laws in New York. For example, it is usually legal to rent out your space for less than 30 days, but only if you are home. Some AirBnB hosts are home while their guests occupy an extra bedroom, but many others rent out extra apartments that they lease, or their own apartments while they are out of town for whatever reason. Rules about having guests are not generic—many are contingent on individual leases, bylaws, or building regulations. For example, some buildings may allow guests, but if they stay more than a few weeks, they need to be registered. Some buildings don’t allow the transfer or loaning of the key fobs that allow entrance into the lobby. There are a wide range of rules that govern housing in New York City and other major metro areas, but most do have some constraints on private short-term rentals of property. The chances are that most of the hosts on AirBnB aren’t breaking the law. But the AirBnB moguls in New York City might want to watch out, because this battle could get ugly.

[New York Times]

Anneliese Mahoney (@amahoney8672)

Featured image courtesy of [OuiShare via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Latest AirBnB Backlash: San Fran May Offer Cash to Snitch on Neighbors appeared first on Law Street.

One of the big travel trends right now is a site called AirBnB.com. The company was founded in 2008, and the idea is pretty unique. Essentially, it allows people from cities all over the world to rent out rooms, apartments, houses, or even their couches to visitors. The relative costs are beneficial for both the travelers and the hosts, and AirBnB ensures that both sides involved in the transaction have been properly vetted and approved. Customers are also allowed to leave reviews at places they have stayed, creating a community of recommendations and verified great places to rent. This isn’t really even a new idea; in theory, it’s like hosting a friend of a friend in town for a few days in your home. The only difference is that instead of meeting your houseguest through a friend, you connected through the Internet.

Since 2008, AirBnB has hosted over 8.5 million guests, and this innovative online economy does not seem like it will slow down anytime soon. The business is fairly rewarding. According to an interview in the New York Times, a woman in Brooklyn made about $90,000 renting out two bedrooms in her house. AirBnB overall is very lucrative in the state of New York. Over the last three years, the top 100 hosts in New York have grossed a collective $54 million.

The state of New York is less enamored with the idea, and is instead pursuing legal action against the company. There are a few reasons why certain aspects of AirBnB may be illegal. One issue is that by using AirBnB, tourists are not booking hotel rooms. Included in the price of a hotel room is tax, part of which goes to the state. New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is arguing that the AirBnB industry has cost New York millions in tax dollars. Last Friday, his office delivered a subpoena to AirBnB requiring that they disclose the names, locations, and revenue of all of the hosts in the state of New York. The AG’s office claim that they’re not going after the occasional renter, they’re going after those 100 or so hosts that grossed $54 million. A spokesperson for the office, stated, “we began this process in the hopes of collaborating with Airbnb to recover millions of dollars in unpaid taxes and to stop the abuse of Airbnb’s site by operators of illegal hotels. Airbnb isn’t standing up for average New Yorkers who rent out their apartments from time to time — Airbnb is standing up for highly profitable, illegal businesses that make up a huge chunk of its corporate revenue.”

AirBnB disagrees–they have filed a motion in the New York Supreme Court to challenge the subpoena. They claim that Schneiderman doesn’t have any actual evidence of wrongdoing on the site.

There’s also the question of the legality of AirBnB in regards to lease and zoning laws in New York. For example, it is usually legal to rent out your space for less than 30 days, but only if you are home. Some AirBnB hosts are home while their guests occupy an extra bedroom, but many others rent out extra apartments that they lease, or their own apartments while they are out of town for whatever reason. Rules about having guests are not generic—many are contingent on individual leases, bylaws, or building regulations. For example, some buildings may allow guests, but if they stay more than a few weeks, they need to be registered. Some buildings don’t allow the transfer or loaning of the key fobs that allow entrance into the lobby. There are a wide range of rules that govern housing in New York City and other major metro areas, but most do have some constraints on private short-term rentals of property. The chances are that most of the hosts on AirBnB aren’t breaking the law. But the AirBnB moguls in New York City might want to watch out, because this battle could get ugly.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Allen Skyy via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post AirBnB Locked in Battle with New York Attorney General appeared first on Law Street.

Coming off the heels of an economic recession, and in a job climate that is increasingly tenuous, there are various reasons why people apply for jobs that are: (i) seemingly beneath their skill level; (ii) not in line with their prior positions; or (iii) in brand new fields.  These reasons, to be further discussed below, should not become the sole reason to one’s consideration for a position.  Instead, it is an invitation for serious dialogue about careers vs. jobs, long-term vs. short- term goals, and attempting to achieve some semblance of a balanced life.  The frustrations that I, and others similarly situated, experience on a daily basis are indicative of a still-fragile economy, and a dialogue among this generation will serve as a catalyst for solution.

Where to begin? Well, let’s say that there was a 21-year old college senior who wanted to be a politician.  Let’s say that, because of real financial concerns, this 21-year old took a job at a defense law firm as a paralegal.  He didn’t take the job because he wanted to be a corporate lawyer, though.  Instead, the firm paid $15,000 more than a job he was offered as a political aide for a state representative.  Because of financial concerns, the 21-year old chose the job he applied for on a whim instead of the job that he was passionate about.  This dispassion led the now 24-year old to apply to law school, because that was the thing to do.  The 24-year old applies, gets accepted, moves to a different city, and eventually matriculates at a law school with an amazing reputation, both locally and nationally.  The 24-year old realizes on the third day that law school was a terrible decision, but believes that quitting is an inappropriate option.  The law student performs decently well in law school, along the way obtaining some of the most coveted internships that a law student can desire.  The student graduates law school at 27, and accepts the truth that the law will never be the professional area in which he truly thrives.  Indeed, he would be a decent attorney at best.  Never great, never game changing, never truly special.  Recognizing that mediocrity is akin to professional suicide, the 27-year old law graduate attempts to reintegrate himself into the working world, and is attempting to find his way among the plethora of options before him.  Surely, he says, with my pedigree, employers will be knocking down my door!  He applies to jobs in all of the fields in which he has experience: politics, policy, communications, marketing, sales, event planning, grassroots campaigning, and yes, the law.

He waits…

He waits longer…

He waits even longer.

And in the hours, days, weeks, and months that pass since the initial foray into a job hunt, he sees an unnerving number of rejection letters and emails clutter both his physical mailbox and inbox.

“What,” he asks, “am I doing wrong?”

How I feel about the job search.

Nothing.

The employers do not see it like that, though. Here’s what they say:

Mr. Davidson:

Thank you for your application.  After carefully reviewing your resume, we see that you possess skills that are above the call of duty for the aforementioned position.  These skills, while impressive, do not fall in line with our goals in filling this position.  As such, we have decided to go in a different direction.  Your resume and professional history, however, are extremely impressive, and we have no doubt that your valuable skills will best be utilized elsewhere.

OR

Mr. Davidson:

Thank you for applying to the position of ___________.  We thank you for your time in submitting your resume and cover letter to us, but we have unfortunately decided that you will not be chosen for the next round of interviews.  Indeed, among the many factors we considered why someone with your resume is applying for a job like this?  Our position is that we need someone who could potentially grow with our organization, and do not desire a transient employee who will use this position until something more specially tailored presents itself.

Those are two actual examples of correspondence that I have received during my job search.  Telephone calls are even more blunt and dismissive.

Out of sheer frustration, and in an attempt to educate those in a position to hire, I’ve thought of reasons why overqualification is not always the best reason to reject someone.  In fact, sometimes it’s lazy.

(1)  I’m overqualified, but I’m also dispassionate at best, and indifferent at worst, with my present line of work.  I’ve always thought that I could be successful in [your field], but pursued other endeavors for fear of [financial concerns, societal pressure, etc.].  I think that an entry-level position could further the initial experience I have, while also sharpening the dormant skills I gained years ago in a similar position.

(2)  I’m overqualified, but I am also busy with a passion project, or a family, or attempting to reconnect with my long-lost social life.  This position may be less demanding or less-senior than a previous position, but I know that I will value the extra time I have and use it wisely.

(3)  I’m overqualified, but this is a new venture, and I don’t want to be the party taking the reigns.  I don’t want to be the person on whom the bulk of the responsibility falls.  I want to learn, and I want to learn from you, a respected expert in your field.

(4)  I’m overqualified, but I have long-term goals, and improving my skills in this particular area will make me more well-rounded for if and when I choose to pursue those goals.  I.e., if I want to be a politician and am seeking employment in a public relations firm, it’s because I’m interested in learning about relating to the public.  I want to become a pro at drafting a press release, and learning the art of spinning an issue.

(5)  I’m overqualified, but I’m also unhappy in my current job.  The money I’m making is a nice bonus, however it really just serves as icing on an unappealing cake.  In applying to this position, I’m taking a brave step in personal growth by choosing to be happy.

The reality is that this list could continue forever.  The myriad of possibilities all lead to one truth, though: over-qualification should never be a reason to deny an applicant a position.  At the very least, they should be offered the opportunity to interview and further explain their reasoning for applying.  In my mind, the over-qualification excuse is an overly simplistic, and frankly lazy, way of cutting down the size of an applicant pool.

I recognize that I am not all knowing, though, and I am extremely interested in how others feel.  Please leave comments! If you agree with me, great, but I’m also interested in those who disagree.  That, my friends, is called a dialogue, and as long as we’re respectful and professional we can get to the root of the problem.

So comment below!

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy.

Featured image courtesy of [Gideon Tsang via Flickr]

All Housewives .gifs provided with permission by T. Kyle MacMahon from Reality TV .gifs, because Bravo makes everything less serious.)

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Overqualification is the New “It’s Not Me, It’s You.” appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, the government reopened and raised the debt ceiling. YAY! We don’t all have to worry about getting flushed down the proverbial economic toilet.

At least not for another three months, when Congress has decided to do this all again.

It’s like a quarterly, let’s-freak-everyone-the-fuck-out party.

Awesome. (Not really.)

Anyway! Now that the government has reopened for a little while, some of the nation’s most influential businessmen are speaking out about it. And you know what they’re saying?

Who the hell cares?!

No, but that’s really what they’re saying.

In a recent interview with Jason Calacanis, former Facebook employee and venture-capitalist millionaire Chamath Palihapitiya claimed that the government was pretty much useless—so who gives a crap if it shuts down? According to him, corporations hold the real power in the U.S. these days.

“Companies are transcending power now,” said Palihapitiya. “We are becoming the eminent vehicles for change and influence, and capital structures that matter. If companies shut down, the stock market would collapse. If the government shuts down, nothing happens and we all move on, because it just doesn’t matter.”

This is interesting, folks.

Palihapitiya’s words are both frighteningly true and laughably false, all at the same time.

On the one hand, it’s true that for many of us, life continued as usual, despite the government shutdown. For example, as I interviewed folks last week for a book I’m writing about conservatism in present-day America, many of them had almost zero knowledge about the government shutdown.

Why not?

Because they were busy, and hadn’t been paying much attention to the news. Oh, and because it must not really matter anyway, if the only way they could know about the shutdown was by devoting a portion of their day to catching up with CNN (or Fox News, unfortunately). Their daily lives weren’t affected at all.

But, if Facebook—or some other multi-billion dollar corporation—had suddenly gone belly-up, these folks would know about it. Absolutely. Remember the financial crash of 2008? When the economy flounders, so does everyone else in the United States.

Corporations, whether or not they’re functioning properly, make people pay attention. But a white, domed building filled with a bunch of bickering Congress people? Not so much.

But that doesn’t mean that the government doesn’t matter, as Palihapitiya claims. This government shutdown was relatively short-term, and had it remained closed for a longer period of time, many more people would have felt the burn.

Nonetheless, tons of people were seriously affected. Boatloads of government employees were furloughed without pay, and millions of people who receive some form of government assistance were left out in the cold.

So, when Jason Calacanis tweets about how little the government shutdown matters—echoing the same sentiments as his interview subject, Palihapitiya—we can just grit our teeth and laugh at the skewed viewpoint of the über-rich.

Is the shutdown proving to many that the government really doesn’t do that much for them? Have you been impacted personally yet? Just asking. (@Jason)

Because honestly, Jason, lots of people were personally impacted by the government shutdown. But they were probably women, or poor, or of color, or all of the above. And you’re none of those things. Your crass assumption that, just because you haven’t been affected then clearly no one has, is hilariously out of touch.

Except it’s not that hilarious, because, let’s face it—you have a ton of power.

While Jason and Palihapitiya might be wrong about the government being inconsequential, they’re right about one thing. Big money corporations matter A LOT. They have the power to make or break our economy, and by extension, to make or break all of our lives. If the economy tanks, we’re all going down with it. At least, those of us who aren’t rich enough to charter a private jet out the mess.

And the lower down we are on the socio-economic ladder, the further we’ll fall if the economy goes to shit. Poor people, women, people of color, queer people, disabled people—the list can go on—will be hit the hardest by a major economic stumble.

So, it’s not really that funny when venture capitalist millionaires prove themselves to be incredibly out of touch. Because they have the power to make or break our economy and our livelihoods. They need to be at least mildly aware of what it’s like down here, in order to keep what’s going on up there from destroying us all.

So, Mark Zuckerberg and friends? Please check your privilege. While you earn your billions, we still need to pay our rent.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Victoria Pickering via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Facebook Pays Your Rent appeared first on Law Street.