For many families in the United States, hunger can be a daily struggle. According to Feeding America, in 2015, about 13 percent of households were food insecure. In total, 42.2 million Americans lived in food insecure households, including 13.1 million children. There are also concerns that many lower-income Americans are overweight or obese–there is plenty of scientific evidence to suggest that low-income children are more likely to be overweight or obese than children in higher-income households. One concept that gets talked about a lot when it comes to hunger and health in the United States is the idea of a “food desert.” But what is a food desert, where are they, and what impact do they have on food insecurity?

What Exactly is a Food Desert?

While there are a number of different definitions that can be applied to the concept of a food desert, it’s generally defined as an area in which it is difficult to find fresh fruit, vegetables, and other “whole” foods that when combined, contribute to a well-balanced diet. In many cases, nearby supermarkets aren’t easily accessible by public transportation, and oftentimes, the residents don’t have access to cars. Essentially, a food desert just means an area in which it is difficult to come by wholesome and nutritious food.

Food deserts are usually located in lower-income areas, often neighborhoods in which most residents are people of color. According to the Food Empowerment Project, a non-profit that works to provide food to low income areas, wealthy areas have almost three times as many supermarkets as lower-income areas. And neighborhoods that are predominately white have four times as many supermarkets as majority black neighborhoods.

What’s a Food Swamp?

In addition to the concept of a food desert, you may hear the term “food swamp” thrown around occasionally. A food swamp is usually defined as an area where there is access to healthy food, but there is easier access to unhealthy foods, like junk food and fast food.

The concepts of food desert and swamp are closely related. In fact, there are arguments that “food swamp” is a more accurate term than food desert altogether, because many lower-income neighborhoods have plenty of fast food restaurants and convenience stores that carry unhealthy foods.

Where Are Food Deserts Located? 

There are multiple measures that can be used to determine whether or not a place is a “food desert.”

Redfin, for example, determined food deserts by calculating the percentage of people in a given city who can walk to a grocery store within five minutes. Using those metrics applied to 2014 data, the five American cities with the lowest percentage of people who can walk to a grocery store in five minutes are, in this order: Indianapolis at 5 percent; Oklahoma City at 5 percent, Charlotte at 6 percent, Tuscon at 6 percent, and Albuquerque at 7 percent. In contrast, the five American cities with the highest percentage of food access within five minutes were New York City at 72 percent, San Francisco at 59 percent, Philadelphia at 57 percent, Boston at 45 percent, and Washington D.C. at 41 percent.

That’s not to say that all food deserts exist in cities. In fact, rural areas are hard hit as well, although they need to be classified slightly differently. The metric usually applied to rural food deserts is if there’s no grocery store within 10 miles of a high-population area. In some rural areas, this is exacerbated by population shifts, as more people are moving to urban and suburban areas. When people move out of an area, grocery stores close, sometimes creating food deserts.

And certain areas are harder hit than others–for example, many Native American reservations fall under the definition of food deserts. Navajo Nation is almost 30,000 square miles, but only has 10 grocery stores. A study conducted by the Diné Policy Institute concluded that “a majority of participants from the communities represented in this study travel at least 155 miles round trip, while others regularly drive up to 240 miles to access foods.”

In 2011, the United States Department of Agriculture created an online, interactive map tool that measures food deserts across the country. The tool uses the following definition to measure what a food desert is:

A food desert is a low-income census tract where either a substantial number or share of residents has low access to a supermarket or large grocery store. ‘Low income’ tracts are defined as those where at least 20 percent of the people have income at or below the federal poverty levels for family size, or where median family income for the tract is at or below 80 percent of the surrounding area’s median family income. Tracts qualify as ‘low access’ tracts if at least 500 persons or 33 percent of their population live more than a mile from a supermarket or large grocery store (for rural census tracts, the distance is more than 10 miles).

According to then-Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, the tool is intended to:

Help policy makers, community planners, researchers, and other professionals identify communities where public-private intervention can help make fresh, healthy, and affordable food more readily available to residents. With this and other Web tools, USDA is continuing to support federal government efforts to present complex sets of data in creative, accessible online format.

You can check out the tool for yourself here.

How Can the Problem of Food Deserts Be Solved?

There have been a lot of proposed solutions for food deserts. One prominent figure working to eliminate food deserts is former First Lady Michelle Obama, who made it one of the primary focuses of her activism. The Obama Administration put forth the solution of funding and equipping grocery stores in low-income neighborhoods, as well as providing financing for other options for healthy food, like farmers markets and co-ops.

There have been other, more unique solutions proposed as well. In some places, volunteers work to transport healthy food that would otherwise be disposed of from grocery stores in other areas. Some areas have taken to promoting urban farming and community gardens to combat food deserts. There are also efforts to put healthier, whole foods into already-existing institutions, like introducing more produce options into convenience stores and neighborhood corner shops.

Do Food Deserts Actually Need to be “Solved?”

There are also questions of whether food deserts are actually the issue, or at the very least the whole issue. There’s an argument to be made that obesity and poor nutrition aren’t necessarily caused by a lack of access to whole food, but rather issues with people’s shopping and eating habits.

Some research indicates that the increased presence of supermarkets in food deserts doesn’t do much to improve the shopping choices that locals make. In addition to a lack of education about nutrition, other factors go into play, like convenience, habit, the fact that unhealthy food is sometimes the cheapest, and strong advertising pushes from junk food producers.

As a result, some efforts to counter food deserts have focused on improving nutrition education. For example, there is a preschool in Memphis, Tennessee, that works with its students, many of whom live in food desert areas, to teach them the importance of a healthy diet from a young age.

Conclusion

Food deserts are such a fluid concept that it’s difficult to pinpoint exactly what they are, where they are, and what exactly they mean for the American population. Some argue that food deserts are a myth, and that our concentration should be focused on providing more nutrition education, not more choices of shopping venues. But one thing that is certain is that the rates of hunger and obesity in the United States–one of the richest countries in the world–are downright unacceptable, and food deserts are one concept that will continue to be brought up to combat those concerning trends.

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 What is a Food Desert? appeared first on Law Street.

Studying life expectancy allows us to understand what factors help people live longer and how changes in conditions affect people’s lives. Recent research shows how life expectancy varies among different groups of Americans, sparking some important questions about future policy decisions. While life expectancy has increased overall over the past several decades, those gains tend to vary widely among certain groups. This research has implications on a range of issues from public health and inequality to Social Security. 

Read on to find out more about the current U.S. life expectancy, how it has changed over time, and how American lifespans compare to those of people in other countries, particularly other advanced nations.

How long do People Live?

The most common way to measure how long people live on average is through life expectancy, which is the amount of time in years a newborn baby is likely to live based on current conditions and health trends. The average life expectancy at birth for Americans as of 2014 was 79.68 years, meaning a child born in 2014 in the United States could be expected to live to that age. While this provides a baseline, the numbers can be further divided among a variety of demographics, which tell a more in-depth story.

Life expectancies tend to vary among different groups, particularly when categorized by race, sex, and income levels. In the case of race, there is a wide disparity between black and white Americans. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report in 2009 found that the average life expectancy for black Americans was 75 years old, which was the same as it was for white Americans back in 1979. According to the CDC, the reasons for this disparity are higher rates of cancer, diabetes, homicide, heart disease, and perinatal conditions. Racial disparities are considerably larger when you further divide by education. Some of the largest gaps in life expectancy exist between white Americans with more than 16 years of education and black Americans with fewer than 12. One dynamic keeping this gap from becoming even larger is the much higher rate of suicide for whites.

Sex also plays a role in how long the average person can expect to live. In 2012, the average life expectancy for a male in the United States was 76.4 years and 81.2 years for women. This gap is not uncommon, however, as women tend to live longer than men for a number of reasons. One such reason is that women generally engage in less risky behavior and suffer fewer car accidents. These numbers hold even though more baby boys are actually born than baby girls, although that is mostly the result of female embryos having slightly higher rates of miscarriage than male embryos.

A third major factor that relates to life expectancy is income. In a recent study based on data from 2001 to 2014, researchers found that the average life expectancy for the richest men in the United States is approximately 87 years, which is about 15 years longer than the poorest. To put that in a clearer context, rich men in the United States live longer than men in any other country, while poor men live, on average, the same number of years as men in countries like Sudan and Pakistan. The numbers are similar among wealthy women who have an average life expectancy of 89 years old, 10 years longer than women in the lowest income group. Although researchers have not drawn a causal line between life expectancy and income to explain what drives this gap, a clear correlation exists between the two.

The accompanying video summarizes the study’s findings:

The numbers can also be parsed further. Although the rates for the richest men and women vary little depending upon the geographical area, the same is not true for the poor. On average, low-income people live shorter lives in the middle of the country compared to those who live in rich coastal cities. The study’s authors note that most of the geographical differences may be behavior-related and potentially explained by factors like rates of smoking and obesity. They also note that in wealthy cities with high levels of education and public spending, those at the bottom of the income scale tend to live longer than their counterparts in less affluent cities.

Changes in Life Expectancy

Life expectancy in the United States has changed dramatically over time. For example, in the 1930s, when Social Security was first introduced, the average man only lived to be 58 years old and the average woman 62 years old. Ironically, the retirement age for Social Security was set at 65. Another important consequence of the gap in life expectancy for the rich and poor is its effect on economic inequality and Social Security. As wealthy people live longer, they also receive more in Social Security benefits because they get additional payments over the course of their lives. Depending on how large the gap is, wealthy people may end up taking out a larger share of what they contributed relative to their income, which could reduce the progressivity of the Social Security program. This gap also has important consequences for the debate about retirement age, which many argue is necessary to keep the program funded as baby boomers retire.

While life expectancy has changed a lot over the past several decades, it has affected different groups in distinct ways. The clearest explanation comes in the same three characteristics mentioned earlier: sex, race, and income. In this instance, sex and race tend to blend together. Traditionally, white women have lived the longest, however, a recent study found that life expectancy for white women actually went down by a month. While this group still lives longest by far, the number has shrunk slightly due to a combination of factors, including rising suicide, drug overdose, and liver disease often caused by alcoholism. While white people, in general, suffer from these problems more than other groups, women have been particularly susceptible. This dip in life expectancy is actually the first one since totals have been calculated and happens at a time when other health concerns such as strokes and heart disease are causing fewer deaths.

The video below looks at this unexpected change:

While white women saw a reduction in life expectancy, several other groups saw an increase. Namely, black males and Hispanics of both sexes are expected to live longer. The third group, made up of white males and black females, saw no change in their life expectancy. Aside from sex and race, income level’s influence on life expectancy also changed. In the case of income, the richest people in America have gained three years in life expectancy from 2001-2014, while life expectancy for the poorest Americans did not change.

The United States Compared to the Rest of the World

Reliable data for life expectancy covers a relatively short time in history. In fact, for the United Kingdom, the country with the farthest reaching information, rates only go back to the 191h century. In the U.K., and virtually every other country, life expectancy was very short in the early 1800s, averaging between 30 and 40 years old; in South Korea and India, it was as low as 23. However, as healthcare and science improved, especially regarding infant mortality, life expectancy rose dramatically across the globe around the beginning of the 20th century.

This rapid improvement occurred in the United States as well, but the U.S. average of 79.68 years currently ranks 43rd relative to the rest of the world. Although countries with longer life expectancies may not be as large and diverse as the United States, it is important to ask why–for such a rich country–the U.S. life expectancy is relatively low, particularly compared to other developed nations.

The answer, according to the CDC, is threefold: drug overdose, gun violence, and car crashes. These three categories lead to injuries that account for roughly half of the deaths for men and a fifth for women in the United States. Americans, on average, live two years fewer than people in similarly developed countries. The effects of these, particularly drug overdoses, have been most acutely felt among middle-aged white Americans. Another important factor that contributes to America’s lower life expectancy is smoking tobacco. Many people in the United States started smoking earlier and in larger numbers than in other places.

Another major factor affecting life expectancy and keeping the United States behind other developed countries is the infant mortality rate. The infant mortality rate “compares the number of deaths of infants under one-year-old in a given year per 1,000 live births in the same year.” The infant mortality rate for the United States is 5.87. Although that is historically low, it is less impressive compared to other countries–the United States has the 167th highest rate out of 224 countries, and is a far cry from most other developed nations that average between two and four. Like life expectancy in general, infant mortality rates are also affected by things such as race and income with more affluent and white babies at a much lower risk of death than lower-income and black babies.

Conclusion

There is no conclusive way to say exactly how long a person will live, but life expectancy provides an effective measure to see how certain factors contribute to longevity. In the United States, these numbers have been broken down further to take into account the differences across a wide range of demographics. In general, the most recent data was positive, with groups either staying where they are or seeing life expectancy gains, except for a few cases. However, even these modest gains still leave the United States behind many other developed nations. The reasons for this shortcoming are manifold, ranging from high infant mortality rates to smoking tobacco. Regardless of the results, though, life expectancy can provide people with a good baseline for how long they might live and what factors contribute to longevity.

Resources

The World Bank: Life Expectancy at Birth

Infoplease: Life Expectancy for Countries, 2015

The Journal of the American Medical Association: The Association Between Income and Life Expectancy in the United States, 2001-2014

Social Security Administration: Life Expectancy for Social Security

The Washington Post: The Stunning–and Expanding–Gap in Life Expectancy Between the Rich and Poor

CNN: White Women’s Life Expectancy Shrinks a Bit

NPR: Life Expectancy Drops For White Women, Increases For Black Men

CNN: Why Americans Don’t Live as Long as Europeans

Population Reference Bureau: Smoking-Related Deaths Keep U.S. Life Expectancy Below Other wealthy Countries

Central Intelligence Agency: World Factbook

Our World in Data: Life Expectancy

USA Today: Life Expectancy in the USA Hits a Record High

Population Education: Why Are More Baby Boys Born Than Girls

USA Today: Infant Mortality Rates hits Record Low, Although Racial Disparities Persist

Business Insider: Huge Racial Gap in Life Expectancy

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 What Explains Life Expectancy in the United States? appeared first on Law Street.

Older generations love to disparage Millennials, calling them lazy and self-absorbed, while Millennials shoot back saying that older generations don’t realize how good they had it when the economy worked for them (and we do so with memes because we’re more tech-savvy). These feuding stereotypes and generalizations will continue, but a recent analysis puts the generation gap in more concrete terms. According to a new report from the Guardian, Millennials have been the victims of a “30-year economic betrayal.”

Using exclusive data from the Luxembourg Income Study, the Guardian found that across many developed countries, the Millennial generation has been at a distinct disadvantage relative to past generations. In its analysis sponsored by the Joseph Roundtree Reform Trust, the Guardian looked at income data for eight of the largest developed countries in the world–the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, and Australia.

The report’s striking conclusions illustrate the extent to which a range of factors have deeply hurt Millennials’ economic prospects, the report finds:

A combination of debt, joblessness, globalization, demographics and rising house prices is depressing the incomes and prospects of millions of young people across the developed world, resulting in unprecedented inequality between generations.

Using a massive dataset, the Guardian puts the economic disadvantages of the Millennial generation in context. The consequences of decades-long economic trends, Millennials are at a unique disadvantage relative to previous generations.

So how are all of these trends manifesting themselves? Well, if you’re a Millennial you probably already know. We’re more likely to rent than own our own home, and a much higher percentage of Millennials live at home relative to past generations. Among the countries that the Guardian looked at, just over 25 percent of Millennials currently live at home, including 10 percent of men aged 30 to 34. In 1999, less than 20 percent of those aged 20 to 34 in Generation X lived at home. And important life milestones like homeownership, marriage, and childbearing are put off by Millennials for economic reasons.

Findings from a New York Fed report further explain the way economic circumstances have shaped the lives of Millennials. The researchers note how the relationship between housing prices, student debt, and local economic growth helps explain why more Millennials are living together. And they found a strong connection between the cost of education and its related debt to the likelihood that young adults will live with their parents.

Looking at relative incomes paints an even starker picture. For example, the Guardian finds that adults aged 20 to 24 in the United States have 31 percent less disposable income when adjusted for inflation relative to the same age group back in 1979. At the same time, the disposable incomes of adults aged 50 to 54 have actually increased by more than 32 percent. Put another way, the 20 to 24 age group has seen its disposable income fall by $3,389 in real terms while the 50 to 54 age group has seen theirs increase by $5,176 relative to 1979. The disadvantages of Millennials hold true relative to other age groups and to the national average. For more details check out the Guardian’s visualization.

So what exactly is to blame for the new burden placed on the younger generation? Based on the available evidence, there seem to be several different factors that contributed to the current situation. As globalization increases, so too does competition for jobs. Real estate prices have also made it particularly difficult for Millennials to buy homes or even move out of their parents’ house. The growing importance of a college degree has landed many Millennials in a significant amount of debt before they even begin their careers. While getting a degree may pay off in the form of higher income later in life, debt burdens early on can delay economic independence. While Baby Boomers like to lament the fact that their kids still live at home, the underlying cause is likely economic and not a lack of motivation.

Past generations may not have intentionally made life difficult for Millennials, but it’s also becoming clear that they could have done more to help, particularly as their wellbeing increased. As Jim Tankersly at the Washington Post points out, Baby Boomers were born into a period of sustained economic growth and have benefitted tremendously from it. But at the same time they did little to reduce the burden for future generations. As the ratio of national debt to GDP reaches unprecedented levels, inaction on climate change continues, and the cost of the social safety net rises, Millennials will need to foot the bill.

This is particularly stark in certain countries–as the Guardian finds, “for the first time in France, recent pensioners generated more disposable income than families headed by a person under 50. In Italy the average under-35 became poorer than average pensioners under 80.”

Taken together, decades-long economic trends have made life difficult for many people in the developed world, but the burden has also disproportionately hit Millennials as other generations benefit. While it may be difficult to look to past generations and lay blame, it’s also fair to question whether they could have done more to prevent their children from paying such a high price.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The “Economic Betrayal” Hurting Millennials appeared first on Law Street.

This is the first article in a two-part series about Lee Drutman’s plan for political reform. Click here to read the introduction. The second part gives a more in-depth look at his policy proposals and their potential consequences. 

In a recent paper, Lee Drutman, a Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation’s Political Reform program and professor at John Hopkins University, proposes a bold new plan to end government dysfunction. While he sees several structural issues with the American political system, he remains skeptical of the populist calls for reform, which are generally criticized as being utopian and unrealistic. Drutman’s ideas for reform are certainly interesting and worthy of discussion, but the context in which he talks about reform is equally as important.

Most, including Drutman, believe that significant structural reforms are needed to help get the government working again, but it’s worth questioning whether a populist upheaval is necessary. More to the point: do we need a political revolution?

Click here to read Lee Drutman’s paper, “Political Dynamism: A New Approach to Making Government Work Again”

Realism and Reform

Before laying out his proposals, Drutman first identifies the inherent challenge involved with reforming the American style of democracy–balancing a government of the people, by the people, and for the people with the need for expert policymakers. He notes that both of these principles, which he calls majority rule and technocracy, have their drawbacks and benefits. It is clearly important to have citizens involved in the government, but at the same time is is important to be realistic about their ability to act as informed voters. Most people don’t have the time to become an expert on every topic, which is why we have a representative democracy in the first place. But experts themselves can get too caught up in policies while losing touch with the needs of the American people. A balance would bring people into the political system to help them choose and empower the proper experts and policy entrepreneurs.

Most liberal visions of reform involve restraining the influence of lobbyists, interest groups, and money in order to end what many see as corruption and return politics to the people. On the conservative side is the desire to reduce the scope of government so that corrupt politicians can’t serve themselves. But Drutman sees both these visions as utopian and unrealistic.

Trying to remove interest groups and big business from the equation has proven to be nearly impossible, and doing so may even impede those who wish to lobby in the public interest. Getting rid of career politicians and stripping Congress of its resources only leads to inefficiency and cutting out “career politicians” makes it harder to create good policy.

Rather than seeking to limit the influence of outside interests or cut government resources, Drutman argues that reforms should try to empower from within. Instead of limiting the amount of dealmaking, maybe we should make more deals, but with everyone sitting at the table. As Drutman puts it, “The answer, in short, is more politics.”

An Uphill Battle

Drutman argues that his plan is the most realistic approach to fix politics, but the existence of polarization and inequality–the very same issues he seeks to resolve–makes his plan all the more challenging to accomplish. But that remains the case with any sort of reform, or in Congress’s current case, passing legislation to begin with.

After discussing the paper on Tuesday, Drutman revealed why he remains hopeful that Congress might consider a change. “You see this over and over again, when members of Congress retire the thing that they complain about is, ‘I spent all of my time raising money and it was no fun’,” he said. New programs like donor matching could actually make Congressmen enjoy their jobs more and feel better about their work. While it remains a tall order, doing so could be in the self-interest of politicians.

Click here to read the second part of the series that focuses on Drutman’s solutions.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Do We Need a Political Revolution? appeared first on Law Street.

This is the second article in a two-part series about Lee Drutman’s plan for political reform. Click here to read the introduction. The first part looks at the debate between realism and reform and why Drutman sees his vision as the most practical approach. 

In his recent paper, Lee Drutman outlines three specific areas of the government that are in dire need of reform–namely, elections, lobbying, and Congressional structure. While Drutman acknowledges that his reforms may not solve all of America’s problems, they provide an important starting point to help make the government more dynamic and capable of responding to new challenges. Read on to see an overview of his plans to fix government dysfunction and empower public interest policymaking.

Click here to read Lee Drutman’s paper, “Political Dynamism: A New Approach to Making Government Work Again”

Reforming Elections

Drutman’s most ambitious reforms focus on Congressional elections and policies that can help increase voter participation and decrease the barriers for new viewpoints to enter the mainstream. To do so, he calls for two specific changes: creating multimember districts and a small donor matching program.

Most campaign finance reform agendas focus on either overturning the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which allowed unlimited political spending from corporations and interests groups in the form of Super Pacs and independent expenditures, or passing a constitutional amendment with the same goal, both of which are unlikely. Instead, Drutman argues that we shouldn’t focus on restricting influence, rather we should seek to make it more equal with donor matching. Not only will matching promote more contact between candidates and voters, it will lower the barriers for new candidates to run for office, no longer restricted to people with fundraising connections.

Drutman’s plan for small donor matching is based on a program implemented in New York City, where donations under a certain amount receive a 6-to-1 match using public funds. The goal of the program is to put the influence of small donors on the same level as wealthy donors and increase candidates’ communication with voters. In his paper, Drutman provides a powerful illustration of how matching could lead to change:

Under the current system, members of Congress know if they go to a lobbyist-hosted fundraiser, they can pull in $10,000—enough to make it worth their time. By contrast, under the matching proposal, if a constituent can get 30 friends to each pledge $50, that’s $1,500. Then, with the 6-to-1 match, that’s another $9,000, bringing the total up to $10,500—better than the D.C. fundraiser.

In doing so, candidates would be much more interested in actually spending time with voters rather than big donors, as the financial benefits would be much more similar. In fact, existing donor matching and public financing projects have had that effect. In research on New York’s matching program, the Brennan Center for Justice concluded,

The city’s public financing system gives candidates an incentive to reach out to a broader and more diverse array of constituents to fund their campaigns. In so doing, the city’s public financing system appears to have achieved one of its key goals—strengthening the connections between public officials and their constituents.

While it is fair to criticize Drutman’s plan for not changing the role of Super Pacs and independent expenditures, which can take even larger donations, his plan would significantly impact campaign level fundraising.

The change to multimember districts is probably the most significant of Drutman’s proposed changes, but it could have a profound impact on political polarization. One of the biggest issues Drutman sees with our current electoral system is the fact that it has become largely uncompetitive–very few districts are contested in House elections and Senate elections, which involve voters across a state, are only marginally better. This leads him to conclude, “The United States is increasingly becoming two one-party nations, instead of a two-party nation,” meaning that both parties are largely safe within the areas that they currently control based on the natural placement of voters. There is little geographic overlap between voters in both parties.

Drutman’s idea of multimember districts is largely based on work from FairVote, a nonpartisan group seeking to increase the representativeness and fairness in American elections. According to FairVote, ranked choice voting for multi-winner elections would be an American form of proportional representation where any candidates who earn a minimum number of votes is elected. For voters, ranked choice voting is pretty simple–they rank as many candidates as they want in terms of their preference. Counting votes is a little more complicated, but it essentially ensures that all votes are properly distributed to pick the winners, eliminated wasted votes. For more details on the process behind it, you can watch Minnesota Public Radio’s explanatory video.

With a multimember district system that uses ranked choice voting, existing districts would expand to elect multiple representatives at once. When combined with small donor matching, multimember districts could allow a much wider range of potential candidates. The change may also allow for the rise of third party candidates who could not win in a winner-take-all style election, but could reach a vote threshold in larger, multimember districts.

Reforming Influence

Much like his plans to help alleviate issues with campaign finance, Drutman argues that in order to reform lobbying and influence in politics, we need to empower citizens and general welfare organizations. He focuses on expanding the role and resources of these general-interest welfare groups by creating a similar 6-to-1 matching program for “citizen lobbying” organizations. Drutman cites the balance of spending on lobbying, which overwhelmingly comes from businesses and their trade associations. In fact, there are very few groups that represent a wide range of public interest issues.

Drutman’s matching program would help direct money to rebalance lobbying spending and ensure that businesses aren’t the only interests represented on certain issues. Drutman also calls public defender style system for lobbying where public lobbyists would lobby on behalf of underrepresented constituencies in order to ensure that multiple viewpoints are always heard. While his reforms to the lobbying system are arguably his vaguest proposals, the general goal of ensuring that business interests are not the only people at the table when it comes to lobbying could have a notable impact on public policy and, importantly, the public’s perception of political influence.

Reforming Congressional Staffing and Organization

When it comes to Congress, Drutman sees two changes that would empower representatives to create new coalitions and develop better policies that serve the general welfare. First, Drutman would increase the funding available to Congressmen to pay their staff. On its face, this might seem like a ridiculous position–why would we simply want to pay staffers more money? But upon further review, Drutman argues that providing more resources to Congress is the best way to make it resist outside influence.

Drutman and Steve Teles wrote an article in Washington Monthly last year in which they introduced a new way to think about lobbying reform. The central idea behind this vision is, “Instead of trying to weaken the pressure of corporate money in Washington, let’s try strengthening Congress’s capacity to resist it.” By increasing staff salaries, Congress will lessen the influence of the so-called “revolving door,” where staffers work on Capitol Hill for a couple years and then move on to the more lucrative lobbying sector. As Drutman puts it, “Congress has become a farm league for K st.” But if staffers are able to earn more while working for Congress they will be less interested in going to work for big business.

Moreover, by limiting staff turnover and providing additional resources to policymakers, expert lobbyists will have less importance in the policy drafting process. Drutman, an expert on lobbying who wrote a book on the subject, argues that business of lobbying can often be misunderstood. Rather than simply providing campaign donations to Congressmen in order to get their desired policies enacted into law, the role of a lobbyist is more about providing expert advice to Congress. If Congress had more expertise of its own, the need for help from lobbyists would decrease significantly, particularly on arcane issues that directly impact big businesses. In a Q&A with Melinda Henneberger, the Editor-in-Cheif of Roll Call, Drutman laid out the alternatives:

Look, policy is going to get written–do you want it to be written by lobbiests who mostly represent the biggest companies and the wealtheist industries who are not particularly interested in the general welfare. Or do you want it written by staffers who work for democratically accountable members.

A prime example might be the case of financial regulation, where in certain cases lobbyists are essentially writing some of the legislation used the regulation the interests they represent.

Finally, Drutman says that Congress needs to be reorganized in order to prevent the top-down influence of the party leadership. He proposes a new way to decentralize power in Congress by empowering committees and subcommittees. Doing so would create new space for dealmaking and new crosscutting coalitions based on policy goals rather than partisanship. It will also encourage participation from a much wider range of representatives who could bring new viewpoints.

Will it work?

The major policy proposals endorsed by Drutman will clearly change the current state of politics, but it’s still worth questioning whether they will meet his ambitious goals of reducing political polarization and inequality. It is impossible to say for sure whether these policies will solve all of our problems in terms of equity and representation, and Drutman himself concedes that reforms are needed in other areas of the political system, but these policies make those goals more approachable. The underlying objective in each of Drutman’s reform proposals is to increase what he calls “political dynamism,” or the ability of Congress to effectively respond to new challenges with policies that promote the public interest.

Rather than espousing a utopian vision of politics or a narrowly tailored set of policy goals to restrict the outside influence, Drutman wants to realign policymaking to support common goals. He seeks to make government more accountable to each and every citizen while ensuring that Congress has the necessary expertise to govern effectively. So yes, it’s fair to question whether this will fix everything, but if the status quo is the alternative, taking steps to bring experts and the public into the policy process is certainly a laudable goal.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Bold Plan to Fix Government Dysfunction appeared first on Law Street.

Very few people are satisfied with politics nowadays. Polarization seems to have put Congress in a constant state of gridlock while inequality reaches unprecedented levels. The cycle of wealth and influence also appears to be self-reinforcing as the wealthy are able to influence the government to help protect their advantage. As a result, people have lost nearly all of their faith in public institutions–approval of Congress has reached new lows and people are more disaffected than ever before.

Lee Drutman, Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation and professor at John Hopkins University, makes the case for what America really needs: reform. At an event hosted at the New America Foundation’s offices in Washington, D.C., Drutman presented a paper titled, “Political Dynamism: A New Approach to Making Government Work Again.” At the event, Drutman made the case for reform and outlined his bold plan to make government work in an era of political polarization and growing inequality.

Rather than upend the whole system, he calls for evidence-based proposals to realign it in with the common good and end government dysfunction. Rather than cut out the influence of interests groups and big business, maybe we need to establish balance–put people and general welfare interests groups on the same level as corporations.

Click here to read Drutman’s paper titled, “Political Dynamism: A New Approach to Making Government Work Again.”

The event left me with a question, and some answers–check out the two parts:

Part I: Do We Need a Political Revolution?

Part II: Lee Drutman’s Bold Plan to Fix Government Dysfunction

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Government is Broken, Can We Fix it? appeared first on Law Street.

I am so immensely tired of the 2016 election cycle so far. It’s been a fascinating election, with so many things to cover and horrible gaffes to make fun of, but I constantly think to myself: “How is not even Super Tuesday yet?” Luckily, we have a beautiful, gratuitously violent, and weirdly relevant distraction on the way, in the form of the new trailer for the third installment in the “Purge” franchise: “The Purge: Election Year.”

I remember seeing “The Purge” trailers for the first installment in 2013, and at first I was less than enthralled. The premise is interesting, but one that has probably popped up in hundreds of amateur horror novels: imagine if we lived in a version of America where, for 12 hours once a year, all laws vanished. People could do whatever they want–whether that means looting, general debauchery, or in this case, murder. There are some restrictions–certain types of weapons like bazookas and rocket launchers can’t be used–but other than that, it’s a murder-y free-for-all. The first movie, “The Purge” was pretty successful, and there were some references to the role that income inequality plays in those who are murdered during the purge, but I wouldn’t necessarily call it stellar social commentary.

But then, last year, “The Purge: Anarchy” came out, and that’s when things started to get interesting, because it went past many of the normal horror movie tropes. The second movie focused more on the fact that the purge is basically a way to kill people of low socio-economic classes en  masse. It features Frank Grillo as the ominously named “Sergeant,” a renegade cop who protects a bunch of people who end up caught up in the purge. It’s still a silly, totally gross horror movie with lots of creepy people in masks, but it’s a silly, totally gross horror movie with lots of creepy people in masks that starts to create a compelling totalitarian universe for its viewers.

And now we have the newest movie coming out this summer: “The Purge: Election Year.” Frank Grillo comes back as the “Sergeant,” in a nice attempt at continuity. But instead of a renegade cop looking to avenge the son he lost during an earlier purge, he’s the head bodyguard for Senator Charlene Rowan. (Rowan is played by Elizabeth Mitchell, a.k.a. Juliet from “Lost,” which really just makes me even more pathetically excited about this entire thing.) In “Election Year,” Rowan is attempting to run for President in the hopes of putting an end to the purge, so of course, everything goes horribly wrong and people try to kill her during that year’s purge. Like “Anarchy,” it appears that the third installment will focus a bit more on the macro level sociopolitical concept of a purge than the original movie.

At the end of the day, “The Purge” franchise is as frivolous as it is bloody, but there’s something refreshingly ballsy about creating “The Purge: Election Year” during an…election year. As the country battles over who to vote for, a post-apocalyptic parallel in which politics are literally life and death is strangely compelling. Come July, when this movie actually comes out, I’m sure we’ll be experiencing just as much election fatigue, and I’m not sure about you, but I’m thinking this will be a fun distraction.

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 “The Purge: Election Year” is the Ridiculous Distraction We all Need from 2016 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.

The middle class has been many things to many people, but more evidence indicates that it continues to get smaller. Many view the middle class as a key component to the American identity and a driver of economic expansion over the past several decades. For politicians, it is the group they campaign on helping the most in an increasingly contentious election.

But the middle class is shrinking–according to a recent Pew Research Center report, for the first time since the 1970s the middle class does not make up the majority of people in the United States. Read on to see how the all-important cohort is changing with the times, how it developed, what is rising to fill its place, and why all of this matters to the United States going forward.

What does the Middle Class Look like Today?

The first step in evaluating the middle class is to determine who actually meets that qualification. Unfortunately, there is no universally-agreed upon definition for the middle class. To categorize Americans, experts have looked at a variety of factors including demographics, income level, wealth, what people consume, and even their personal aspirations, but no standard has been agreed upon.

The Pew Research Center study focused on income, defining the middle class as those who earn two-thirds to two times the median income in the United States. Pew then adjusts its statistics for household size, using a three-person household as the benchmark. Those that fall in the lower-income bracket have an adjusted household income of $31,000 dollars or less per year. Americans who makes more than $188,000 annually are considered upper-income. At the edges of these groups are two more distinctions, dubbed “lower-middle income” and “upper-middle income.” The lower-middle group is defined as earning between $31,000 and $42,000 per year. On the other side, the upper-middle group’s income ranges from $126,000 to $188,000 per year. Those in between that range make up the middle-class.

As the demographics of the United States have changed over the past 40 years, so has the makeup of the middle class. For one, the middle-class today is far more educated than ever before. The proportion of people with at least some college experience increased and those with a high school diploma or less plummetted. Looking at trends over the past several decades, college-educated adults are currently much more likely to be in upper-income than in the past. While college-educated adults managed to maintain their economic status, those with less education fared much worse. As Pew points out, “Among the various demographic groups examined, adults with no more than a high school diploma lost the most ground economically.”

The middle class has also gotten older, much like the country at large, with a smaller proportion of people 44 years of age and younger and a greater percentage of people 45 and older. The middle class has also diversified, with Asian, black, and Hispanic populations taking on a bigger percentage of the pie. In the same vein, foreign-born citizens’ share of the middle class has also increased. The following video looks at the difficulty in defining the middle class:

Why the Middle Matters

The definition of what the middle class is is contested, but so is whether or not the middle class even matters.

Inequality and the Middle Class

One of the most widely discussed trends in recent years is the growing wealth gap between upper-income Americans and the rest of the country. The problem is not necessarily that the rich are getting richer, but whether they are doing so disproportionately and at the expense of the economy and everyone else.

Some argue that inequality is the result of actions by the federal government, namely through decreasing tax rates for the wealthy starting during the Reagan administration. Others contend that the effects of tax decreases are not nearly enough to account for the massive disparity that exists today. While many debate the exact causes of this inequality, its effects on the middle-class are important.

Several studies show that developing a strong middle class is the ideal recipe for economic success. This is true for several reasons, which the Center for American progress outlined in a recent report. One is that a strong middle class means more access to education and subsequently better trained human capital. Second, a stronger middle class creates a larger and more stable market for demand, especially in relation to a small elite that can only consume so much. Third, a strong middle class is a hotbed for the next generation of innovators; job growth comes primarily from expanding small businesses, not large corporations. Finally, a powerful middle class demands the necessary political and social goods required to improve an economy–from infrastructure to fair regulations that may be overlooked when politicians cater only to a small elite.

The Middle Class in Politics

In light of this growing inequality, it’s important to ask: does the middle class still matter? While terminology on the campaign trail may be changing, the middle class as an issue and the middle class as a group remain at the heart of American politics. Politicians from both parties have made courting the middle class essential to their electoral success–every 2016 candidate from Bernie Sanders to Rand Paul is working for the support of this elusive group. The question then is why, given that people with higher incomes are more likely to vote than those with lower incomes and the middle class is shrinking. The real reason why the middle class seemingly gets such an out-sized share of attention may have to do with how it formed and what it means to American ideals.

Origins of the American Class System

In the United States there originally existed two main groups of people, the proverbial haves and have-nots, an entrenched elite and everyone else. Beginning in the 19th century, however, this began to change as members of the lower class began to split into two separate spheres. In one sphere was the traditional manual laborer, or the working class. In the other was a new group, which would become the middle class. While manual workers moved from the farm into the factories, the burgeoning middle class worked white-collar jobs as clerks and small business owners.

In the process, these middle-class workers became better educated and skilled, which allowed them to rely more on ability and less on social networks. Thus, they were able to develop an individual identity while the working class was not. Additionally, they no longer had to rely on large social networks to achieve significant gains, which the working class did through means such as unions and strikes. Along with severing close community ties, the developing middle class also began buying homes, experienced shifts in gender norms, and managed to provide a better education for their children. This group, along with the working class, experienced a huge boom following the end of WWII. However, like any rush, it was short-lived and beginning in the 1970s the middle class began to stagnate.

Rise of the Margins

What started as stagnation has eventually led to decline. Since 1971, the middle class has shrunk from 61 percent of the population in 1971 to 50 percent this year. This decline has been gradual with no single defining moment. The people exiting the middle class, however, had to go somewhere and coinciding with this group’s reduction is a rise in people at the margins, in the low and high-income brackets. According to the Pew Research Center study, the percentage of Americans living in the lower income bracket rose from 16 percent in 1970 to 20 percent in 2015, the higher income group rose from 4 to 9 percent. While these two groups have grown at similar rates the amount of national income going to the upper income group has increased dramatically more, from 29 percent in 1970 to 49 percent in 2015. The video below highlights the plight of the middle class:

Aside from shrinking, the middle class has lost a significant amount of its wealth. Since 2000, this group has lost 4 percent of its median income. Additionally, due in large part to the housing-related effects of the recession, the wealth of the middle class has dropped an additional 28 percent. Those among the middle class who saw the biggest losses since the 1970s were Hispanics, people with only high school diplomas, young adults, and men. However, the changes within this cohort were not bad for everyone, as the elderly, women, blacks, whites, and married couples saw their positions improve.

Social Mobility

The changes within and outside of the middle class have not been the same for everyone. The main concern, however, is not so much whether you are in the middle class now, but whether can you reach or even surpass it. In the United States there has long existed the notion that through hard work, education, and possibly luck you can move up the class ladder; this concept is known as social mobility. More exactly, social mobility is the “movement of individuals, families, or groups through a system of social hierarchy or stratification.” If a person changes positions, typically by switching jobs, but does not change their class, that’s called horizontal mobility. If the changing role also leads to a change in class, either up or down, it’s vertical mobility. While the belief in social mobility remains strong, how realistic is it in the United States today?

Unfortunately, a recent study paints a troubling picture. As the Atlantic notes, the study found that roughly one-half of parental income advantage is passed on to children. The impact actually increases as people get wealthier, growing to two-thirds. What this means is that if someone has rich parents he or she is much more likely to be financially successful as well. This effect is greater for men and married couples than women and single people. Put simply, as the middle class is shrinking, the chances of improving one’s economic status also decreases.

Conclusion

While politicians continue to focus on helping middle-class voters, the number of people who fit that description, as well as their wealth and income, continue to shrink. Exactly what is driving this decline remains a subject of debate, but most argue that it is a combination of factors. The middle-class has been a culturally and economically important group for the United States for over a century, but as it shrinks its significance may fade. Recent economic changes identified by the Pew Research Center report highlight the importance of education to the American economy and the middle class. While people with college degrees maintain their economic status, those with less education have not fared nearly as well.

While the two major parties have debated the best course of action to take in fixing the middle as it has declined since the early 1970s, it is hard to argue that the middle does not matter. Not only has it been shown to be the engine of a growing and prosperous economy but it increasingly symbolizes the nation as a whole. Perhaps it would be prudent to address the challenges facing this all-important American bedrock before it is gone.

Resources

Primary

Pew Research Center: The American Middle Class is Losing Ground

Additional

Education Action: Social Class in the United States A Brief History

The Atlantic: America is Even Less Socially Mobile Than Most Economists Thought

CNN Money: What is middle class, anyway?

Pacific Standard: The IMF Confirms That ‘Trickle Down’ Economics Is, Indeed, a Joke

Center for American Progress: Middle-Class Series

New York Times: Middle Class is Disappearing, at Least from Vocabulary of Possible 2016 Contenders

Al Jazeera America: Most Americans Don’t Vote in Elections

The Atlantic: 60 Years of American Economic History, Told in 1 Graph

Encyclopedia Britannica: Social Mobility

NPR: The Middle-Class Took Off 100 years Ago…Thanks to Henry Ford?

Encyclopedia Britannica: Social Class

“

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 Middle Class is Shrinking: Why Does it Matter? 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.

Higher education is the most important aspect to economic prosperity. Colleges and universities prepare future leaders who will drive national and global economies. As globalization is not a new phenomenon, but an established process, education ties together countries via investments, banking systems, technology, and travel. As a result, the quality of education is on the agenda in many countries across the globe.

President Obama’s college rating system is a highly debated topic across the country, with policymakers and educators casting concerns over its shortcomings and dangers. The current administration has already introduced reform programs in health care and immigration, which were controversial at best; its plan to reform education is no different. It’s an all-encompassing reform that can play out either way. Read on to learn more about the benefits, shortcomings, and possible consequences of Obama’s college rating system.

Do other governments rank colleges?

Colleges and universities across the globe have long been rated by their governments in the hope of establishing the best educational value. Originally, independent agencies or non-profit organizations played the leading role in this task. Later, governments began to regulate and assess higher education. The United States is not the first country to take steps to ensure quality control in education. For example:

• Finland created the Higher Education Evaluation Council.
• Australia came out with the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency.
• The European Union has its U-Map.
• Britain assembled an online tool to showcase university statistics and measure college performance.

Some initiatives are more successful than others, but all reflect the need to provide meaningful tools for students and governments to compare educational value. Following the global trend, Obama’s college rating system is an attempt to ensure quality of learning and accountability on the part of educational institutions in the United States.

Why would Obama want to rank colleges?

There are generally three main reasons why the current administration feels the need to address the educational sector, and, specifically, to establish the college rating system: rising student debt, inequality, and falling graduation rates. The picture is rather bleak. The majority of the prospective student body cannot afford college without taking out loans. In addition, there are few jobs available, especially for recent graduates. As a result, some default on their debt, while others struggle for decades to pay back their loans. Unfortunately, not only do colleges charge a lot of money for education, the quality of learning is deteriorating as well.

Rising Student Debt

As more students continue to borrow money from the government to pay for their higher education, the number of those who fail to find a job after graduation and to pay back their loans has increased dramatically over the last decade. According to a recent study, 60 percent of four-year college students graduate with an average $26,500 in debt. In addition, tuition increases every year, prompting concerns over the affordability of higher education. The same study estimates a 231 percent public college tuition increase and a 153 percent private college increase over the last 30 years.

Watch the short documentary below for more information on the increasing costs of tuition and deteriorating value of education in America.

Inequality

Inequality in education is a direct consequence of high tuition. Students whose families cannot afford to pay tuition for their higher education generally have two choices. They can either take out loans from the government, which often lead to decades-long debt, or they can start working low-paying jobs right after high school. Those are two extremes, of course, as some students receive scholarships or combine loans and jobs; however, even if a student qualifies for scholarships based on merit, he won’t necessarily be able to pay the full remaining tuition. Not only does this scenario exclude bright-but-poor students from receiving high-quality education, but it prompts many of them to take out multiple loans that they may not be able to repay.

Watch the shocking video below to understand the realities behind wealth inequality in the United States.

Low Graduation Rates

The number of students who fail to complete their studies has increased throughout the last decade. As of 2013, the United States ranks 13 out of 34 countries measured for college attainment. The Chronicle of Higher Education provides in-depth data and analysis on graduation rates across the country, which vary greatly by the type of the higher educational establishment and its location. Click here to read its most recent overview.

Low graduation rates prompt concerns that the overall quality of learning is deteriorating, even though the quality of learning cannot be measured by graduation rates alone. Students drop out of college for many reasons: financial difficulties, family issues, transfers, or simply because they are taking a break. The current administration, however, believes that colleges need to make sure their students are making progress toward a degree, especially those who receive financial aid.

So, how will rating colleges fix these problems?

Using the college rating system, the Obama Administration hopes to reduce student debt, provide more access and opportunities to low-income students, and improve higher educational standards. The president’s plan is to use these ratings as a mechanism of accountability and transparency. Before taking out a loan, students will have access to information on loan default rates, employment outcomes, and anticipated monthly payments after graduation. If students can make informed decisions, it should help to reduce loan debt. Also, the government will provide more federal funds for those colleges that keep their prices low and improve quality. It should help to quell inequality of access to higher education and raise the value of learning.

What does the college rating system look like?

The Postsecondary Institution Ratings System (PIRS) is a part of the Obama Administration’s effort to provide more transparency and accountability in higher education. The government is planning to fully implement PIRS by the 2015-2016 academic year.

College Scorecard

PIRS is essentially folded into one tool, the College Scorecard, already available online through the College Affordability and Transparency Center. It’s very easy to use, and requires only basic computer skills and internet access. The College Scorecard is still in the process of development; for now it provides information on costs, graduation rates, loan default rates, and median borrowing. The Department of Education is still working on obtaining data on the average income of former undergraduate students. The College Scorecard also provides information on changes in an institution’s cost, making it possible to see if tuition has gone up or down over a certain period of time. In addition, students and their families can search by area of interest, college location, and type of college.

Watch the video below for a detailed guide on how to navigate the College Scorecard.

What does it measure?

PIRS measures three main factors: access, affordability, and outcome. All three can be matched to inequality, debt concerns, and learning quality as the above-cited reasons for establishing such a system in the first place.

• Access comes from the percentage of students who receive Pell Grants, in an effort to obtain some knowledge on how equal or unequal higher educational institutions are.
• Affordability looks at average tuition, available scholarships, and student loan default information, thus looking at debt concerns.
• Outcome measures how many people graduate, how many pursue advanced degrees, and the average income of students after graduation.

In addition to being an information hub for prospective students, the president is planning to seek legislation to allocate financial aid to those institutions that obtain high ratings on PIRS. The current administration emphasizes that before the government designates its funds according to this mechanism, the college rating system should be well established, taking into consideration all of the concerns from university administrators across the country.

In order to receive more financial aid via grants and loans, higher education institutions will have to provide the best value and improve on their performance, hence helping students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

What is the Obama Administration hoping to achieve?

The Obama Administration hopes to achieve greater accountability and transparency in higher education, especially with regard to the quality of educational institutions, student debt, and income after graduation. The system is meant to empower students and their families to make informed decisions when choosing a college or university to attend.

The president also plans to use the college rating system to aid policymakers who are allocating financial aid to higher educational institutions. It’s believed that such financial incentives will prompt colleges to improve their overall performance. The goal is to keep colleges accountable and transparent, rewarding those who will keep prices down and improve educational value.

The overall goal of the current administration is to decrease student debt and to increase access to higher education for low income students, improving quality of learning along the way.

What do critics say?

Obama’s college rating system is not without its critics who continue to debate its shortcomings and possible negative outcomes. Educational administrators, researchers, and policymakers across the country are troubled with what they see as a rather simplistic approach to rating schools, as well as reliability and validity of the data used, and predicting negative consequences for higher education.

Data and Measurement Problems

To assemble the College Scorecard System, the government obtained data from its own Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). It’s a self-reported data collection mechanism that provides information on first-time and full-time students who seek undergraduate or certificate degrees. It is evident that only a limited population group is measured, completely excluding part-time and transfer students. One of the main concerns here is that PIRS counts transfer students as “drop outs,” which essentially can produce faulty graduation rates.

In addition, as IPEDS is a self-reported tool, there is a danger of missing data elements that can be unevenly distributed depending on data collection practices and the diligence of college officials. The data on loan default rates is also concerning, as it can double-count those students who take out multiple loans.

Some experts and researchers believe that PIRS is based on faulty assumptions. The lack of validity and reliability of the data used can misguide students and their families when they are choosing which college to enroll at. The measurements are also not comprehensive, which can lead to misuse of data and produce inaccuracies in college ratings.

Simplistic Approach

PIRS has also been blamed for being rather simplistic in determining the value of colleges and universities across the country. The critique is centered on the notion that some colleges cannot keep their price tags down as they depend on state funding. One study draws parallels between community colleges in California and Florida on one side and New Hampshire and Vermont on the other. The first two are generously supported by state funds, while the latter two have much lower funding from the state. It’s clear that California and Florida community colleges are able to keep their tuition low, and New Hampshire and Vermont are forced to raise theirs.

Healthcare prices and other external factors can greatly influence tuition rates.. The danger is that those colleges that cannot keep their prices low, even if it’s not their call, will suffer the consequences. They can be punished by receiving no or significantly less funds from the federal government via grants and loans. As a result, with already low state funding and an inability to receive aid from the federal budget, they will be forced to raise their prices even more.

The college rating system also doesn’t provide a distinction between program-specific and institution-wide performance. PIRS measures only the aggregated performance of colleges, failing to recognize successes of specific departments. For example, the criminal justice department at Rutgers University is considered to have one of the most comprehensive curriculums for students who want to work in this field. At the same time, other departments at Rutgers are considered less strong. Because PIRS uses an aggregated performance mechanism, there is a possibility that Rutgers University will receive a low rating on its scorecard. As a result, fewer prospective students will enroll in the criminal justice program, which, in reality, is very strong.

Wage Differences

As was mentioned earlier, the College Scorecard will contain information on post-graduation employment. This data will be released from the Internal Revenue Service and Social Security Administration and forwarded to the Department of Education for further analysis. The main concern here is the disproportionality of wages across professions. For example, business executives and doctors earn higher wages compared to teachers and social workers. Colleges that specialize in liberal arts and the social sciences can be at a disadvantage compared to science and technology-centered schools. Thus, certain higher education institutions can receive low ratings just because of the occupations of their graduates.

Conclusion

Both data problems and the simplicity of the rating system lead to concerns about the future of the higher education sector. Will it produce the desired results or lead to negative consequences?Obama’s college rating system can improve the performance of teachers and learning practices for students; it can decrease student loan defaults and tuition prices; and it can even become an all-encompassing tool of accountability and financial aid disbursement. At the same time, it can further stratify the educational system, widening the gap between exclusive private and second-rate public colleges and universities and hurt liberal arts schools or those with already low state funding. Despite its limitations, PIRS is a starting point on a long journey in developing higher standards, reducing costs, and fostering accountability in colleges and universities across the country.

Resources

Primary

The White House: Fact Sheet on the President’s Plan to Make College More Affordable: A Better Bargain for the Middle Class

The White House: Education at a Glance

The College Affordability and Transparency Center: College Scorecard 

U-Map: The European Classification of Higher Education Institutions

Australian Government: Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency

UNISTATS: Course Assistant

 Additional

American Council on Education:  Rankings, Institutional Behavior, and College and University Choice. 

Chronicle of Higher Education: Graduation Rates by State

Chronicle of Higher Education: Has Higher Education Lost Control Over Quality?

The New York Times: Colleges Rattled as Obama Seeks Rating System

The New York Times: On Bus Tour, Obama Seeks to Shame Colleges Into Easing Costs

MoneyBox: How Bad Is the Job Market for the College Class of 2014?

U.S. News: Report: U.S. Drops in High School, College Grad Rates

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama’s College Rating System: Will it Fix Our Higher Education Problems? appeared first on Law Street.

Folks, today marks the one-year anniversary of Hurricane Sandy.

Last year, on October 28^th, I walked to a nearby pub called Onieals to grab dinner for me and my wife (then fiancée). Onieals has the best burgers in Hoboken, and I figured it would be our last opportunity to eat meat for awhile.

The storm was supposed to roll in that night. As I walked the three blocks to pick up our order, it was dark, cold, and cloudy, the wind biting sharply against my sweater. The streets were eerily empty. Back at home, we had stocked up on cases of bottled water and plenty of non-perishable food. The whole town waited with baited breath for the worst.

Finally made it to the grocery store to stock up. No more bread. Who needs bread anyway? Too many carbs. #Sandy pic.twitter.com/lF8iJPBG

— Casper Andreas (@CasperAndreas1) October 28, 2012

As it turns out, the storm didn’t hit until the next day. From morning until night on the 29^th, my wife and I watched the local news, our heat cranked up, making the most of our final electricity-filled hours. We watched as the storm submerged Atlantic City, working its way up the coast. Rain pelted our windows. The lights stayed on.

Until they didn’t. Around 9 p.m., I took a peek out of our bedroom window, hearing screams from outside. The streets were empty. All was well.

Then, ten minutes later, when the screams got louder, I looked again. All of a sudden, there was three feet of water in the street, and rising. Our car was floating. Our apartment building—and all the buildings around us—became an island in a sea of gasoline-tinged floodwaters. The lights went out. My wife and I huddled in bed, trying to block out the screams of thousands of car alarms blaring outside. It sounded like the end of the world.

Morning came, and the water was higher. Firemen paddled through the streets on inflatable boats, looking for people to rescue. I called out to them from our open window, asking if there were any evacuation orders. No, they told me, stay where you are. It took my wife and I days just to get out of our third-floor apartment—the flood waters filled the first floor of our building, along with an array of garbage it had washed in, blocking our exit.

Taken by yours truly, from our apartment window.

On day three, the waters in our neighborhood had drained. Stir crazy, we went outside to survey our destroyed car. We took a walk through the town, detouring around the areas that still hadn’t drained. Every basement and ground floor apartment in town was destroyed. Every car was totaled. Abandoned ambulances floated in the middle of flooded streets, signaling failed rescue attempts.

Once again, taken by yours truly.

FEMA set up camp downtown, and volunteers from around the world gathered to help. Wealthier residents, who paid to live on higher ground, offered their newly recovered electricity to the public, stringing power strips out of their front windows. They served hot food and drinks while strangers—including us—charged their phones at their front doors.

My wife and I had no power for 8 days. We lost our car. Our apartment was so cold, we spent most of our time huddled together, napping under mountains of blankets, trying to ignore the visibility of our breath. When the heat came back on, we both nearly cried for joy.

That was a year ago, and we were pretty lucky. Tons of other Hoboken residents lost everything. Our families in southern New Jersey lost a lot of things too. And those epic photos you’ve seen of the destroyed boardwalks along the Jersey Shore? That’s where we grew up. Things still aren’t quite the same.

Since the storm, I like to joke that we’ve all come down with PTSD—Post Traumatic Sandy Disorder. Nowadays, we all sleep with a flashlight on the nightstand, with an extra tank of gas in the garage, with a zillion spare batteries in the fridge. The sound of car alarms still makes me want to hide under the covers. And the word hurricane strikes a new kind of fear into our hearts.

But the fact is, while we were all deeply affected by Hurricane Sandy, memorializations of tragedies like these tend to gloss over the realities of wealth inequality and marginalization. I’ve stumbled across countless stories detailing the destruction of the storm, and the resilience of communities who are rebuilding and bouncing back. But that ability to bounce back isn’t the same for everyone.

I’ve written before about how women, queers, and people of color are more likely to struggle with poverty. So, let’s take a wild guess as to who was hit hardest by a storm like this, and who would have the most difficulty recovering afterwards?

In Hoboken, it was easy to see. This city is basically a tiny microcosm—it’s an incredibly small town geographically, but it’s filled to the brim with people, spatially divided by race and socioeconomic class.

The projects and low-income housing options are located in the lowest section of town—that means that the poorest people experienced the worst flooding, and went without power for the longest period of time. By contrast, there’s a whole other neighborhood that’s filled with multimillion-dollar condos—unsurprisingly, their elevated position meant they experienced the least flooding, and lost power for all of (maybe) 24 hours.

Not to mention, early childhood education programs and local emergency healthcare—all crucial services for the economically disadvantaged—were completely destroyed in the storm. These facilities were closed unceremoniously, and no alternatives were provided. Many of them have only just reopened, if they’ve managed to do so at all. Add that to the reality that many of the folks affected by these closings could have easily lost their cars, homes, and jobs in the storm, and you’ve got a situation that’s overwhelmingly difficult to get out of.

A destroyed Hoboken basement apartment, next door to our building.

My wife and I were lucky. We lost plenty, but neither of our jobs were destroyed in the storm, we had good insurance coverage, and a healthy savings account. We had the economic resources and infrastructure to rebuild our lives post-Sandy, and these days, things are pretty much back to normal.

But we’re white, college-educated, working to middle-class women. We have a certain level of privilege that tipped the scales in our favor. Not everyone has that. And as a result, not everyone could bounce back from this storm as well as we did.

So this Halloween season, while you’re reading all of these post-Sandy retrospectives in the news, think critically about who the storm affected and how. Is there something you can do to help those who haven’t been able to bounce back—and who, likely, haven’t been featured in the upbeat, restore the shore narrative?

Because when economic disadvantage is a problem before a tragedy like this happens, it’s not always so easy to pick up the pieces afterwards.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) 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.

Images courtesy of [Hannah R. Winsten]

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 Post Traumatic Sandy Disorder – One Year Later appeared first on Law Street.