State Of The Union Speech Mop-Up

The Daily Escape:

Morrow Bay, CA – March 2024 photo by Slocoastpix

(This is most likely the only column this week, as Wrongo is working on an outside project.)

Today let’s cover a few disparate topics that are about clean-up from the Biden State of the Union address. The Hollywood Reporter reports on Biden’s viewership ratings with this headline:

“The 2024 State of the Union address drew a larger TV audience than the 2023 address.”

Biden’s speech averaged 32.23 million viewers across 14 broadcast and cable outlets, almost 5 million more viewers than the 2023 State of the Union. Viewership rose on all of the largest outlets by about 18%.  More:

“The vast majority of viewers — 28.47 million — watched the State of the Union on the big four broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC) and the three largest cable news outlets (CNN, Fox News and MSNBC). All seven outlets drew a bigger audience than they did for last year’s address.”

So much for viewer apathy. One big surprise to Wrongo is that Fox News led with 5.84 million viewers, beating out the 5.24 million for ABC, which had the largest viewership among the broadcast networks. NBC’s 4.47 million viewers finished third, followed by MSNBC at 4.43 million, (its largest audience ever for a State of the Union).

Why would Fox have more viewers when their network demographics skew far more to the Right than the others? Did they tune in hoping to see a Biden senior moment?

Second, Sen. Katie Britt (R-Jesus) lied in her rebuttal for the GOP.

Third, Umir Haque’s newsletter, the issue has some good insights that Wrongo hasn’t seen elsewhere. About leadership: (emphasis, parenthesis and brackets by Wrongo)

“We recently discussed the difference between occupying a leadership position—and being accepted as a leader. This Biden’s been hid[den] away by the Democratic machine….Those roaring, electrified [people attending the speech)? Those surging positivity ratings? That’s…going from merely occupying the position, to being accepted as a leader.”

More:

“Biden quietly proposed something very much like a new America. A new American social contract. The ideas came so fast and furious that they were almost easy to miss, sandwiched between philosophy and persuasion.”

More:

“…most State of the Unions aren’t like that. They’re pretty boring because Presidents tout their accomplishments. They’re backwards looking…sort of performance reviews….This one really was…profoundly different.”

Haque who lives in the UK, says that the ideas Biden put forth, are very popular in Europe:

  • Taxing billionaires, which is part of a new movement, arising mostly in Europe, to reduce inequality, by having a global tax on the ultra-rich.
  • Taxing executive compensation on salaries over $1 million by making them no longer tax deductible. This is also linked to recent moves by European nations to make economies more equal again.
  • Giving home buyers tax credits. This is a first step towards fixing America’s badly broken housing market…..many European nations are trying to fix that through incentives like this.
  • Lowering drug prices. One of Biden’s most revolutionary policy ideas was to let the government negotiate prices for many more drugs—this is a big deal, because of course Americans are ripped off incredibly badly by their version of “healthcare.” This would bring the US in line with other Western nations.

More: (brackets by Wrongo)

“if you read between the lines….Biden [is] recognizing how badly broken many aspects of the American social contract [are] —healthcare, housing, inequality, salaries, taxes—and how all that adds up to an incredibly precarious life even [if you are] at or above the median [income].”

More:

“Taxing billionaires, limiting salaries, intervening in broken markets, giving people actual support—none of these are ideas we associate in the slightest with…American politics. They’re the stuff of social democracy, and Biden’s setting out a sort of lightweight…social democratic vision. It’s not quite one fully, but what it does…is begin to put America on the path to becoming one, like the rest of the Western world.”

This sets a clear distinction between the Parties in 2024. Democrats since Bill Clinton have not had a clear definition of what they stand for: What do they stand for? What’s their overarching idea? Are they after a just society, and a good life for all Americans?

This theory of the good life, the just society, and how they’re linked now has Biden championing a politics that isn’t simply another version of “life’s about winners and losers”. Haque thinks this is an incredibly important evolution in US politics.

Will Biden’s move leftward bring enough votes to win in November? We have to hope it will. Conservative Republican Peter Wehner in the NYT reminds us that there’s just 34 weeks to the election:

“The next 34 weeks are among the more consequential in the life of this nation. Mr. Trump was a clear danger in 2016; he’s much more of a danger now. The former president is more vengeful, more bitter and more unstable than he was, which is saying something…..He’s already shown he’ll overturn an election, support a violent insurrection and even allow his vice president to be hanged. There’s nothing he won’t do. It’s up to the rest of us to keep him from doing it.”

It’s time on this Monday morning, to wake up America! IF he gets to run the country, Trump will act like a juvenile delinquent, flipping over as many of the cafeteria lunch tables as he can. In a nutshell, that’s his MAGA platform. And like the Zombie Apocalypse come to life, sooner or later all Republicans who hold public office will endorse him.

The rest of us have to put aside our ideological differences and support Biden. To help you wake up watch and listen to The Clash perform “(White Man) in Hammersmith Palais” from their 1979 album “The Clash”. This is far from their best, but it’s on point for today’s column:

This song is from a time when the youth began to realize that sticking together was actually a better idea than allowing themselves to be divided. That has to come back.

Sample Lyric:

White youth, black youth
Better find another solution
Why not phone up Robin Hood
And ask him for some wealth distribution

Facebooklinkedinrss

35% of Americans Meet The Criteria To Be Middle Class.

The Daily Escape:

Stoney Brook Grist Mill, Brewster, MA – February 2024 photo by Michael Kerouac

Wrongo and Ms. Right spent Sunday with one of our daughters and son-in-law. We spoke about the Ezra Klein op-ed in the NYT about why Biden should step aside. One of Klein’s points is that in presidential campaigns, the candidate is always the campaign’s biggest asset, and that Biden isn’t being used by Democrats as if he is their biggest asset.

Elsewhere, some pundits are saying that the Democrats need to forget campaigning on policy: Dems always try to find things people like and tell them they’re going to help them — and after that, show them the candidate’s character, biography, and qualifications for office.

Instead, the Republicans campaign by appealing more to emotion than intellect, using a negative message to develop enthusiasm.

While Wrongo is happy that Dems want to campaign again on an anti-Trump message, he still thinks policy is the right way to appeal to at least two types of voters: Those who rarely vote, and those who voted Democratic last time but are less enthusiastic this time. These voters think our political system hasn’t produced results for them, and they’re looking for promises to change that in order to get their votes.

While we keep touting Biden’s economic performance, Wrongo recently found a very important poll taken last November by the WaPo that asked Americans how they defined being in the middle class:

“About 9 in 10 US adults said that six individual indicators of financial security and stability were necessary parts of being middle class….Smaller majorities thought other milestones, such as homeownership and a job with paid sick leave, were necessary.”

They also asked how many of those markers of being in the middle class people said they had achieved, and the results are a staggering rejection of how well the US economy is working for many people:

“Just over a third of Americans met all six markers of a middle-class lifestyle. While about 9 in 10 Americans had health insurance, only three-quarters had health insurance and a steady job. With each added measure of financial security, more Americans slipped away from the middle-class ideal.”

Let’s get into the findings. Here’s the WaPo chart about what factors Americans think it takes to be in the middle class:

It’s arbitrary to pick six, but they were the most frequently mentioned. A secure job. The ability to save. To afford an emergency. Paying the bills without worrying. Healthcare. Retirement. It’s a sensible list. And in the poll, huge majorities agreed those are the key criteria for a middle class life.

The Very Big Problem with this is that when the WaPo asked the same respondents if they had the ability to meet those criteria, the numbers are startling. Here’s the second WaPo chart:

Just 35% of people say that they meet the criteria that almost everyone, (~90%) agree should make someone middle class. If that’s true, America needs to redefine “middle” class. The majority in this survey did not have the financial security associated with being in the middle class. More from WaPo:

“The most common barrier was a comfortable retirement, something that about half of middle-income Americans over 35 felt they were on track to achieve.”

Think about what this research is really showing us. America no longer has a middle class. While ~90% of people agree on what a middle class life is, only a minority can afford it. This means we have a “phantom” middle class: Americans want to be middle class, but only a minority of them are. So what class does that make the majority?

What this research appears to show is that America is building something more like a permanent underclass.

Acknowledging this issue would be a great starting point for Biden to gain traction with low propensity voters and with the Gen X and younger voters who make up most of the low enthusiasm cohort of Democratic voters.

As Anat Shenker-Osorio puts it:

“Democrats rely on polling to take the temperature; Republicans use polling to change it.”

This time around the Democrats need to emulate Republicans who work at moving the needle instead of chasing it. And this middle class problem is an issue that will move the needle.

Fortune Magazine’s Tiffani Potesta writes that Gen Xers personify the problem of middle class life:  (emphasis by Wrongo)

“Gen Xers expect to keep working longer than they planned–and will be the first generation to go into retirement with less financial security than their parents and grandparents.”

Gen X will be the first to reach retirement under a new paradigm: the widespread move from Defined Benefit plans to Defined Contribution or 401(k) plans in the US. This is a barely cited yet fundamental societal change that shifted the responsibility to save for retirement from employers to individual employees. More:

“…the numbers do not add up: Gen Xers reported that on average they will need roughly $1.1 million in savings to retire comfortably, yet they expect to stop working with only about $660,000 saved–a savings gap of around $450,000.”

Still more:

“According to a report from the National Institute on Retirement Security, the average account balance in 2020 for private retirement accounts among working Gen Xers was $129,994. This is woefully short of the amount of savings most of us will need to be secure in retirement.”

What’s worse is that the median account balance was scarier: $10,000–and 40% have zero savings.

For a society to be staring at the next few generations not being able to retire and not to be members of the middle class is very troubling, particularly in terms of what’s likely to happen if that’s the case. Losing our middle class is almost a sure path to autocracy, possibly through the rise of fascism and/or authoritarianism.

Biden and the Democrats need to acknowledge these problems are real and pledge to do everything possible to return America to having a true, bell-curve shaped middle class. They can run generally against Trump as “order vs. chaos”, but Trump is running on “America’s decline”, which includes the financial insecurity of millions of Americans. Biden needs to call that out specifically, along with ideas on how to fix the problem. That would make financial insecurity an issue for Democrats equal to abortion, something that targets a specific group and encourages them to get to the polls in November.

If Bernie Sanders isn’t too old to rage against economic insecurity, then Biden is old enough to do the same.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Why People Say The Economy Is Terrible

The Daily Escape:

First snow, Doubling Point Lighthouse, Kennebec River, ME – December 2023 photo by Rick Berk Photography

Wrongo may have stumbled upon the reason why people say the economy is bad when so many economists say it isn’t. From a LendingClub report from last May: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“For some Americans, earning a six-figure income doesn’t guarantee a comfortable lifestyle….many Americans are struggling to make ends meet — with 61% of those surveyed saying they feel stretched too thin, and 49% of those earning $100,000 or more saying they’re living paycheck to paycheck.”

This ties together with other information, some of which comes from the issue, who reported this from the Aspen Institute: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“Though routinely positive cash flow is the starting point for financial stability, it remains largely out of reach for many Americans. Even before the fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly half (46.5%) of households reported that their income did not exceed their spending over the course of a year. For households with annual income of less than $30,000, this number increases to three in five (61.5%).”

Now there may be many reasons why people spend beyond their means. Some seem to be unable to defer gratification until there’s money in the bank, so they buy on credit. There was a $48.5 billion jump in spending from September to October 2023. For others who make less than a living wage, the problem isn’t one of choice, it’s existential.

The searing takeaway from the above is that negative personal cashflow was a problem even before the post-Covid inflation drove prices through the roof in America. The Aspen Institute provides this handy chart showing how individuals build financial security:

Financial security starts with having a routinely positive cashflow. But, nearly 50% of Americans today aren’t cash flow positive (see quote above), while 49% of people earning more than $100k are living paycheck to paycheck.

This dovetails with Wrongo’s Monday column which showed that “Nearly 3 in 10 Americans say they have had to forgo seeing a doctor in the past year due to costs.” If you’re one of the 7.5% of uninsured Americans, and have money in your checking account that isn’t going to necessities, you can definitely go to the doctor.

Aspen has another chart that shows the breakdown of who lives paycheck to paycheck by income levels:

Seventy-four percent of those making less than $50k are living paycheck to paycheck, and while the percentage gets smaller as annual income rises, it’s still 48.7% for people making more than $100k, in an economy where the median income is around $54K!  FYI, the percentage of Americans who make $50k or less is 37.8%.

More from LendingClub: (brackets and emphasis by Wrongo)

“The share of consumers in the US earning over $100,000 per year who live paycheck to paycheck increased 7 percentage points in April year over year. High-income consumers are particularly likely to live in urban areas, at 36%, and these tendencies toward higher incomes…[don’t] prevent almost 70% of urban dwellers from saying they live paycheck to paycheck.

It’s hard not to conclude that the majority of Americans are currently experiencing dire financial conditions, including many who live with negative cashflow. When your cashflow is negative, you either cut back, borrow or sell assets. For most people selling assets isn’t a real choice. So while some cut back, the majority borrow to make ends meet. According to the issue, the:

“…highest risk, and most expensive forms of debt are now growing fastest. Payday loans, online insta-loans, and so forth. That means that people are exhausting the more mundane forms of debt—credit cards, bank loans, government loans, etcetera.”

This squares with a report by Achieve, a personal debt management firm, that shows:

“In the first nine months of 2023, the average monthly participation in debt resolution programs increased by 119% compared to 2020, even though the average earnings rose by approximately 37% during the same period.”

It gets worse:

“In 2023, the typical household income of individuals enrolled in debt resolution programs was $59,900, which is a notable increase from $43,598 three years prior.”

Americans are earning 37% more but are still struggling with debt. Not a pretty picture to take before the voters.

Meanwhile, Democrats still are touting how “strong” the economy is. The aggregate numbers hide terrible personal experiences that are happening out of sight of our politicians and surprisingly, our economists. However, it’s clear from the polls that few Americans are buying that message apart from the true believers, the media and pundits.

The disconnect between economic data and the lived experience of average people needs to be addressed by Biden and the Democrats. If nothing is done to at least acknowledge the actual problems of many Americans specifically, their negative personal cashflow, these angry folks will certainly tilt toward giving Trump another chance.

Let’s give the issue the last word:

“What is this? What do we call it when the majority of people can’t make ends meet, as in, they’re literally spending more than they make, because they don’t make enough to live a stable or secure life?

Today the averages are hiding a truth: that a near-majority of American citizens are financially underwater. These are big numbers. The Census Bureau says as of now, 258.3 million Americans are adults. And the Aspen Institute says that 46.5% of them can’t make ends meet. That’s 120 million of us that are going deeper in debt every month.

That can only happen when those at the very top are skimming off more than 100% of the growth in the economy. This suggests that Biden et al need to run on policy that will help the majority of voters, not simply the moneyed people who finance political campaigns.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Suicides Hit A Record

The Daily Escape:

San Juan river cuts through monocline ridge, UT – November 2023 drone photo by Hilary Bralove. It is believed by many that the Navajo people based their rug and basket weaving patterns on what they saw in these geologic formations.

The temporary truce in the Israel/Hamas war is over. Reprobate Congresscritter George Santos (R-NY) was ousted from the House, and former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor died. She was the swing vote in the Bush v. Gore case that stopped the Florida recount and handed the 2000 presidential election to GW Bush. This was the first time that Republicans realized that if they controlled the Court, they could fix elections.

But on a pretty Saturday in southern New England, let’s turn our attention to a news article that hasn’t gotten much interest. From the issue, we learn that:

“More people died from suicide in the United States last year than any other year on record, dating to at least 1941, according to provisional data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

They quote the Kaiser Family Foundation who measure the suicide deaths per 100,000 of population: (brackets by Wrongo)

“Suicide deaths are increasing fastest among people of color, younger individuals, and people who live in rural areas. Between 2011 and 2021, suicide death rates increased substantially among people of color, with the highest increase among AIAN people [American Indian and Alaska Native people]  (70% increase, from 16.5 to 28.1 per 100,000), followed by Black (58% increase, from 5.5 to 8.7 per 100,000), and Hispanic (39% increase, 5.7 to 7.9 per 100,000) people….The suicide death rate also increased in adolescents (48% increase, from 4.4 to 6.5 per 100,000) and young adults (39% increase, from 13.0 to 18.1 per 100,000) between 2011 and 2021….”

Suicide rates are up by nearly 50% in adolescents over the last decade, while suicides among Black people are up by almost 60%. These aren’t trends, they’re explosive changes. What we’re seeing in the data is our world in chaos.

Wrongo often says that American life has fallen apart over the past 30 years. People struggle to pay their bills; many do that by accumulating debt. For some, that struggle turns them to embrace demagogues, people who scapegoat innocents, or promise to take their rights away, robbing them of  their personhood.

When we see suicide rising particularly among groups who struggle the most for their existence, it says that something has gone terribly wrong with the American model. And in the suicide statistics, there is confirmation that our nearly Darwinian model is what’s wrong. Adolescents and minorities aren’t committing suicide at these rates because they can’t get therapy, but because they feel as if there’s little or no future for them. Sadly, they are told by many pundits and politicians that everything’s fine.

Perhaps this partially explains why Biden seems to be doing so badly in polls of young voters.

As one of the commenters at the issue says:

“It shouldn’t be ‘The pursuit of happiness’ it should be ‘The amelioration of misery’. Being free to pursue happiness when there isn’t enough…left to go around doesn’t do ‘We the people’ any good.”

So, it’s time to forget about Santos, Kissinger and Hamas for a few minutes. Tune in to your Saturday Soother, where we try to get distance from the news for long enough to be able to handle whatever’s coming next.

Here on the Fields of Wrong, we’ve completed our fall clean-up and now it’s on to putting up the deer fencing that protects the bushes around the Mansion. The tree is up and illuminated, and the first members of our family are coming to see it today.

While it’s a beautiful day in the northeast, it makes sense for you to stay indoors for now. Start by brewing up a mug of “The Antidote” coffee ($19.50/12oz.) from Apocalypse Coffee in Melbourne, FL. Now grab a comfy chair by a south facing window and watch and listen to Schubert’s “Serenade”. Written two years before his death, it’s a perfect example of the melancholic music Schubert was so well known for:

 

Facebooklinkedinrss

Democrats Need New Messaging

The Daily Escape:

Cholla Cactus at sunrise, Joshua Tree NP – November 2023 photo by Michelle Strong

Yesterday’s column described how confusing current polling data is with less than a year to go before the 2024 presidential election. We can easily overdose on polls, but in general, they seem to be pointing toward a very difficult re-election for Biden.

At the risk of contributing to the OD, here’s another example of terrible poll for Biden. It comes from Democratic stalwarts Democracy Corps, run by James Carville and Stanley Greenberg:

“President Biden trails Donald Trump by 5 points in the battleground states and loses at least another point when we include the independent candidates who get 17% of the vote. Biden is trying to win these states where three quarters believe the country is on the wrong track and 48% say, “I will never vote for Biden.”

What to make of all this? Wrongo thinks it’s time to take a different approach to the Democrat’s messaging. Let’s start with a quick look at the NYT’s David Leonhardt’s new book, “Ours Was the Shining Future”. Leonhardt’s most striking contention is based on a study of census and income tax data by the Harvard economist Raj Chetty: Where once the great majority of Americans could hope to earn more than their parents, now only half are likely to. From The Atlantic:

“Of Americans born in 1940, 92% went on to earn more than their parents; among those born in 1980, just 50% did. Over the course of a few decades, the chances of achieving the American dream went from a near-guarantee to a coin flip.”

As we said yesterday, the American Dream is fading. Leonhardt says that the Democrats have largely abandoned fighting for basic economic improvements for the working class. Some of the defining progressive triumphs of the 20th century, from labor victories by unions and Social Security under FDR to the Great Society programs of LBJ, were milestones in securing a voting majority. More from The Atlantic:

“Ronald Reagan took office promising to restore growth by paring back government, slashing taxes on the rich and corporations…gutting business regulations and antitrust enforcement. The idea…was that a rising tide would lift all boats. Instead, inequality soared while living standards stagnated and life expectancy fell behind…peer countries.”

Today, a child born in Norway or the UK has a far better chance of out-earning their parents than one born in the US. More context from The Atlantic: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“From the 1930s until the late ’60s, Democrats dominated national politics. They used their power to pass…progressive legislation that transformed the American economy. But their coalition, which included southern Dixiecrats as well as northern liberals, fractured after…Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Richard Nixon’s “southern strategy” exploited that rift and changed the electoral map. Since then, no Democratic presidential candidate has won a majority of the white vote.”

The Atlantic makes another great point: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“The civil-rights revolution also changed white Americans’ economic attitudes. In 1956, 65% of white people said they believed the government ought to guarantee a job to anyone who wanted one and to provide a minimum standard of living. By 1964, that number had sunk to 35%.”

America’s mid-century economy could have created growth and equality, but racial suppression and racial progress led to where we remain today.

Leonhardt argues that what Thomas Piketty called the “Brahmin left” must stop demonizing working-class people who do not share its views on cultural issues such as abortion, immigration, affirmative action and patriotism. From Leonhardt:

“A less self-righteous and more tolerant left could build what successfully increased access to the American Dream in the past: a broad grass-roots movement focused on core economic issues such as strengthening unions, improving wages and working conditions, raising corporate taxes, and decreasing corporate concentration.”

Can the Dems adapt both their priorities and messaging to meet people where they are today?

The priorities must change first. What would it take to establish the right priorities for the future? Stripping away the wedge issues that confuse and divide us, America’s priorities should be Health, Education, Retirement and Environment (“HERE”). It’s an acronym that sells itself: “Vote Here”.

(hat tip to friend of the blog, Rene S. for the HERE concept.)

Wrongo hears from young family members and others that all of the HERE elements are causing very real concerns. Affordable health care coverage still falls short. Regarding education, college costs barely seem to be worth shouldering the huge debt burdens that come with it.

Most young people think that they have no real way to save for retirement early in their careers when there’s the most bang for the buck. They also feel that Social Security won’t be there for them. From the NYT:

“In a Nationwide Retirement Institute survey, 45% of adults younger than 27 said they didn’t believe they would receive any money from the program.”

Today, only about 10% of Americans working in the private sector participate in a defined-benefit pension plan, while roughly 50% contribute to 401(k)-type, defined-contribution plans.

Finally, people today feel that their elders have created an existential environmental threat that will be tossed into their laps. A problem for which there may not be a solution.

As Leonhardt argues, these HERE problems should have always been priorities for Democrats. But for decades, the Party hasn’t been willing to pay today’s political price for a long term gain in voter loyalty. That is, until Biden started working on them in 2020.

But every media outlet continues to harp on inflation and the national debt. Much of what would be helpful in creating a HERE focus as a priority for Democrats depends at least somewhat on government spending. No one can argue that our national debt is high. It is arguable whether it can safely go higher or if it must be reigned in at current levels.

To help you think about that, we collected $4.5 trillion in taxes in 2022, down half a $trillion vs. what we collected in 2021. Estimates are that the Trump tax cuts cost about $350 billion in lost revenue/year.

Looking at tax collections as a percentage of GDP, it’s less than 17% in the US, well below our historical average of 19.5%. There are arguments to keep taxes low, but if you compare the US percentage to other nations, Germany has a ratio of 24%, while the UK’s is 27% and Australia’s is 30%.

If we raised our tax revenue to 24% of GDP, which is where Germany is now, we would eliminate the US deficit.

There’s a great deal of tension in the electorate between perception and reality. And it’s not caused by partisanship: Democrats and independents are also exhibiting a disconnect, too.

Democrats have to return to being the party of FDR and LBJ. They need to adopt the HERE priorities and build programs around them.

Facebooklinkedinrss

How Can America Handle The Costs Of Elder Care?

The Daily Escape:

The start of US Highway 6, outside of Bishop, CA – September 2023 photo by Steve Wolfe

(There will be no Saturday Soother this week. Wrongo is on the road.)

Millions of older Americans from the Silent Generation and the Baby Boomers are facing a dilemma as they “age in place.” They must figure out how to pay for increasingly complex medical care. The NYT quotes Richard W. Johnson, director of the program on retirement policy at the Urban Institute:

“People are exposed to the possibility of depleting almost all their wealth….”

The prospect of dying broke is an imminent threat for the Boomers. About 10,000 of them turn 65 every day between now and 2030. They’re expecting to live into their 80s and 90s at the same time as the price tag for long-term care (LTC) is exploding. Currently LTC expense is outpacing inflation and approaching a half-trillion dollars a year, according to federal researchers.

By 2050, the population of Americans 65 and older is projected to increase by more than 50% to 86 million. The number of people 85 or older will nearly triple to 19 million. The Times has a chart of how many of those who need long-term care will die broke:

Some older Americans have prepared for this possible future by purchasing LTC insurance back when it was still affordable. Since then they’ve paid the monthly premiums, even as those premiums continued to rise. But this isn’t the norm. Many adults have no plan at all or assume that Medicare, which kicks in at age 65, will cover their health costs. But Medicare doesn’t cover the kind of long-term daily care, whether in the home or in a full-time nursing facility, that millions of elderly Americans require.

For that, you either pay out-of-pocket or you spend down your assets until you have less than $2,000 in assets in order to qualify for Medicaid. Remember that Medicaid provides health care, including home health care, to more than 80 million low-income Americans.

And even if you qualify, the waiting list for home care assistance for those on Medicaid tops 800,000 people and has an average wait time of more than three years.

Here is a snapshot of how long-term care is paid for in the US:

Governments provide 71.4% of the total. The largest non-government source is people who pay out-of-pocket, and private insurance is becoming increasingly expensive. More from the NYT:

“The boomer generation is jogging and cycling into retirement, equipped with hip and knee replacements that have slowed their aging. And they are loath to enter the institutional setting of a nursing home. But they face major expenses for the in-between years: falling along a spectrum between good health and needing round-the-clock care in a nursing home.”

That has led them to enter assisted-living centers run by for-profit companies and private equity funds. The NYT says that about 850,000 people aged 65 or older now live in these facilities and when in them,  they are largely ineligible for federal funds. Some facilities provide only basics like help getting dressed and taking medication while others offer luxury amenities like day trips, gourmet meals, and spas.

In either case, the bills can be staggering. More:

“Half of the nation’s assisted-living facilities cost at least $54,000 a year, according to Genworth, a long-term care insurer. That rises substantially in many metropolitan areas with lofty real estate prices. Specialized settings, like locked memory care units for those with dementia, can cost twice as much.”

Home care is costly, too. According to Genworth, agencies charge about $27 an hour for a home health aide. Hiring someone who spends six or seven hours a day cleaning and helping an older person get out of bed or take medications can add up to $60,000 a year.

It’s worse for people with dementia because they need more services. The number who are developing dementia has soared, as have their needs. Five million to seven million Americans over age 65 have dementia, and that’s expected to grow to nearly 12 million by 2040.

The financial threat posed by dementia also weighs heavily on adult children who in many cases become guardians of aged parents. The Times included this chart:

The reality is that families go broke either caring for, or finding care for their loved ones. The alternative: Women in the family give up their lives and jobs to care for their family members instead, which worsens the gender wage gap.

The NYT article makes it clear that older Americans receive far less government support than their peers in other countries. The “why” question is easily answered: It’s a combination of the concerted effort for any public support to be demonized as “welfare”. It’s also partly the result of our failed experiment with long term care insurance. The politicians’ idea was that “the market” would take care of it, so government help for retirees could be limited to Medicaid-paid nursing homes.

But, the LTC insurance industry has largely imploded. Insurers had little experience with the product and grossly overestimated the lapse rates. If a policyholder stops paying, the insurer gets to keep the money and use it to provide services to everyone remaining in the pool. The surprise was that very few people stopped paying. A second miscalculation was that people who held these policies were living longer than forecasted. Longer life equaled higher and larger payouts (insurers also benefit when customers die before they’ve used up all the policy benefits).

A final factor is the rising levels of dementia described above.

And since demand for support outside of family members exceeds the supply of beds, nursing homes and assisted living facilities that aren’t terrible want residents to join during the independent living phase (which requires very little care, so those fees subsidize intensive nursing home care). Many of these facilities require a $400,000-$500,000 buy-in, which may not be refundable at death, even if the resident is current on their monthly fees.

There’s got to be a better way. Medicaid can’t be the only option to pay for LTC. Congress needs to establish a better system for middle-class Americans to finance LTC.

How we handle the growing costs of long-term care is just another reminder that we get LITTLE for our tax dollars beyond a giant military. Americans are responsible for their own medical care, childcare, college tuition, retirement and nursing home care. Some or all of which are provided in other rich countries.

This is a loudly ticking time bomb, and the demographics of the problem won’t change for decades. And yet, the Republicans seem bent on making it worse. They’re actively trying to bring about their dream of privatizing Social Security and Medicare.

Wake up America! We have real problems to solve.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Can Biden’s Union Roots Help Him In 2024?

The Daily Escape:

Red Mountain, San Juan Mountains, CO – September 2023 photo by Daniel Forster Photography

The “the biggest auto strike in generations” got under way last week, with 150,000 US autoworkers, including employees at Ford, Stellantis and General Motors walking off the job after contract negotiations failed to reach a deal. This strike, coupled with the likely government shutdown at the end of the month, will precipitate a very dangerous moment for the Biden administration.

From The Guardian:

“The United Auto Workers (UAW) union says workers have never been fully compensated for the sacrifices they made after the 2008-09 financial crisis, when they agreed to a raft of cuts to save the industry. The carmakers received huge bailouts and soon returned to record profits.”

The WaPo had a good article asking workers why they are striking. Most cited inflation and fairness:

“We’re not making enough money” said Petrun Williams, a 58 year-old Ford repairman. “People should be able to buy their own houses, but right now it’s not possible.”

This is going to be a difficult problem to tackle, because GM, Ford, and Stellantis are wildly inefficient giant bureaucracies with cost structures optimized to make $75,000 trucks, and their move into Electric Vehicles will take a lot of money and time before it pays off.

But the Biden administration isn’t necessarily helping: (Brackets by Wrongo)

“…Biden…is in a tough spot with the United Auto Workers….Through its industrial policies,…[Biden]…is giving away billions to automakers through production tax credits and loans, while supporting the transition to electric vehicles through consumer rebates and funds for charging infrastructure. Biden has promised that those incentives will lead not only to carbon emissions reductions but also good-paying union jobs.”

But the UAW leadership isn’t buying it. As the UAW goes on strike, their members don’t necessarily support Biden, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they support Trump either. Politico asked striking members if Biden had done enough to prevent the strike. They talked to Garry Quirk, the president of the local UAW union in Kokomo, IA:

“I don’t know what he’s done…Ask him. I don’t think he knows what he’s done. Seriously. I’m not trying to be mean.”

Quirk wasn’t freelancing: Fain and the union haven’t yet endorsed Biden’s reelection, throwing into doubt Biden’s standing in autoworker-heavy communities. But Politico reported that Biden had spoken that day with UAW president Shawn Fain and auto company CEOs. The chair of Biden’s Council of Economic Advisers said this week that Biden had been very much engaged.

But his efforts didn’t resonate with union member Denny Butler:

“Historically, man, if you didn’t vote Democrat years ago, and you were in the union, sometimes you got your ass kicked…I’m telling you what, the Democratic Party is not what it was 20, 30 years ago.”

So this is another Politico story about Obama voters becoming Trump voters and not looking back.

What Biden is fighting is the sense that the Democratic Party has not been truly on the side of union workers for a long time. It is true that today the Democrats are more on the side of unions. Neoliberalism is not nearly as powerful in the Democratic Party as it was during Obama’s time, or earlier.

But perceptions can be sticky. Clinton, Carter, and Obama (especially in the first term) all promoted corporate policies over the unions. Workers got screwed as factories closed, and no one offered much to workers beyond retraining programs that they didn’t want, and for the most part, didn’t lead to better jobs.

If you said that Republicans (including Mitt Romney) were no better, you’re correct. But today’s Republican Party offers a way to channel anger and resentment. Union members can opt for the GOP path even if the GOP doesn’t have the union’s interests in mind.

Despite Obama (and Biden) saving autoworker jobs through the 2009 auto bailout, they did little to hold the auto companies accountable. They allowed the expansion of two-tiered wage rates that the union is still fighting during the current strike.

The perception is that the UAW shrank and sacrificed, while the auto industry leadership got richer.  Biden absolutely cares about unions, but he’s fighting against decades of belief that the Democrats aren’t what they used to be.

And no matter what Biden does, it’s going to be hard to get by that perception. There’s a mixture of anger and nostalgia that sticks in the minds of people who don’t really pay attention to the details of politics. Let’s take a look at the price of cars over the last ten years:

The Big Three automakers reported $21 billion in profits in just the first six months of 2023. Despite these enormous gains, the companies have cried poverty in response to union demands for wage increases that would make up for decades of pay stagnation. Worse, during the last year, the Big Three automakers have authorized $5 billion in stock buybacks, effectively giving those dollars to shareholders instead of to autoworkers.

The Economist had an excellent observation (paywalled):

“Late last year I took a trip…in a shiny new vehicle, Ford’s electric F-150. The car is in some ways an avatar for today’s Democratic Party. Joe Biden’s administration likes things that are made in America by union labor. It also wants to speed up the transition away from fossil fuels. The F-150 car ticks both boxes. It is also a high-end item that markets itself as a vehicle for working Americans.”

More:

“That’s a bit like the Democratic Party too…with each passing election Democrats lose votes among actual working-class Americans and gain them with college-educated ones (some of whom can actually afford a $75,000 truck).”

More:

“When we talked to a…UAW…representative near Detroit, it became clear the unionized workers are lukewarm on the green transition. Electric vehicles are less labor-intensive than cars powered by internal combustion, which is bad for the UAW members. In fact that is one reason why the union went on strike today. College-educated liberals, on the other hand, like electric vehicles a lot.”

Apparently union members see the problem much more clearly than the Biden Administration.

There could be a settlement reached between the unions and the companies at any moment, but it feels like this will be a protracted situation: If the UAW workers get the 40% pay increase they are asking for, they probably would learn to accept electric vehicles. Don’t hold your breath.

Biden’s relationship with America’s unions is deep and personal, but the next few months are really about his political strategy. And they’re an example of how the Democrats are always trying to balance competing aims.

Time to wake up America! Will Biden continue pursuing his environmental policies and risk losing even more support among working-class Americans? Or will he pump the brakes on environmentalism and alienate upscale Democrats? Biden won only 33% of white, non-college voters in 2020, so maybe that’s where his opportunity to expand his base in 2024 lies. But does Biden really have a path to take back more non-college voters?

To help you wake up, watch and listen to a recent version of the union anthem “Solidarity Forever”, written by Ralph Chaplin in 1915. Although it was written for the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), the AFL–CIO have adopted the song as their own. Here it is sung in the Wisconsin capitol building in September 2011, by demonstrators who opposed then Governor Scott Walker’s “Wisconsin Budget Repair bill.”

The bill proposed to alleviate the state’s budget shortfall by taking away the ability of public sector unions to bargain collectively over pensions and health care, as well as ending automatic union dues collection by the state. Walker stated that without the cuts, thousands of state workers would have to be laid off.  After two days of arrests for “holding signs” on the first floor of the Wisconsin State Capitol, the Solidarity Sing Along took to the rotunda in joyful defiance:

The law passed and remains in effect today.

Facebooklinkedinrss

The Economic Value Of College Is Collapsing

The Daily Escape:

Thor’s Hammer, Queen’s Garden Trail, Zion NP, UT – September 2023 photo by Michelle Strong

We all believe that college graduates make, on average, a lot more money than high school graduates. Economists call the gap that exists between the incomes of college graduates and high school graduates the college wage premium.

But, Paul Campos points out that in recent decades the growth in the college wage premium has been largely caused by declining wages for high school graduates, because wages for college graduates have been almost completely stagnant. For example, here is the Congressional Research Service’s (CRS) median hourly wage in 1979 and 2019, (40 years apart) for someone with a Bachelors degree (in 2019 dollars):

1979: $26.42

2019: $28.85

But it’s worse than that: Over the last 20 years of that 40 year period, the median hourly compensation of people with four-year college degrees increased by a total of $0.31, or 31 cents, just over a penny per year.

From Campos:

“The flip side of all this is that wages have declined for people who have gone to college but either not gotten a degree, or not gotten more than a two-year associate’s degree, falling from $22.86 in 1979 to $20.00 in 2019. And the decline has been even sharper for those with high school diplomas or less — thus driving up the “degree premium” for several decades’ worth of college graduates whose own compensation has not actually gone up, even as the cost of their degrees has gone through the roof.”

Here’s a chart from the CRS:

For both high school and no high school diploma categories, wages have fallen in absolute terms. So as college costs have risen, the college wage premium has stayed about the same because wages for the less educated have fallen dramatically.

As the NYT explains, the college wage premium has one important limitation:

“…It can tell you how much college graduates earn, but it doesn’t take into account how much they owe — or how much they spent on college in the first place.”

The NYT explains how a group of economists devised another way to look at the relative value of a college education: The college wealth premium. The wealth premium is the measure of how much more wealth college graduates can expect to accumulate as opposed to those with no more than a high school degree: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“Then the researchers looked at the wealth premium, and a different picture emerged. Older white college graduates, those born before 1980, were, as you might expect, a lot wealthier than their white peers who had only a high school degree. On average, they had accumulated two or three times as much wealth as high school grads of the same race and generation. But younger white college graduates — those born in the 1980s — had only a bit more wealth than white high school graduates born in the same decade, and that small advantage was projected to remain small throughout their lives.”

More: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“When the researchers looked at young Americans who had gone on to get a postgraduate degree, the situation was even more dire. ‘Among families whose head is of any race or ethnicity born in the 1980s and holding a postgraduate degree, the wealth premium is … indistinguishable from zero,’ the authors concluded. ‘Our results suggest that college and postgraduate education may be failing some recent graduates as a financial investment.’”

This means that Millennials with college degrees are earning a good bit more than those without, but they aren’t accumulating any more wealth. We all know why:

“The likely culprit…was cost: the rising expense of college and the student debt that often goes along with it. Carrying debt obviously diminishes your net worth through simple subtraction, but it can also prevent you from taking important wealth-generating steps as a young adult, like buying a house or starting a small business.”

Since 1992, the sticker price has almost doubled for four-year private colleges and more than doubled for four-year public colleges, even after adjusting for inflation. Over the last 15 years, more young Americans have borrowed to cover those rising costs. From the NYT:

“In 2007, total student debt stood at $500 billion. Today it is $1.6 trillion….Among student borrowers who opened their loans between 2010 and 2019, more than half now owe more than what they originally borrowed.

When you factor debt into the equation, the financial benefit of a college education begins to look very different. The NYT reports on Douglas Webber of the Federal Reserve, who found that the premium now varies much more than it used to:

“The “downside risk” to enrolling in college, he argues, has become “nontrivial.”

When you look at Webber’s data, higher education is a financial gamble that can still sometimes produce a big windfall, but it can also bring financial disaster:

“If your tuition is free and you can be absolutely certain that you’re going to graduate within six years, then you enter college with a 96% chance that your gamble is going to pay off, meaning that your lifetime earnings will be greater than those of a typical high school graduate.”

But going to college isn’t free. If you’re paying $25,000 a year in tuition and expenses, Webber calculates that your chance of coming out ahead drops to about 66%. At $50,000 a year in college costs, your odds are no better than a coin flip: Maybe you’ll wind up with more than the typical high school grad, but you’re just as likely to wind up with less.

Americans can count, so they are aware that college education has become a financial gamble. They understand that going into high five-figures of debt (that doesn’t go away in bankruptcy) in order to earn a 5-figure salary doesn’t make a lot of sense.

In 2009, 70% of that year’s high school graduates went to college. In the fall of 2010, there were more than 18 million US undergraduates. It’s been falling ever since, dipping below 15.5 million undergrads in 2021. The percentage going straight to college is now 62%.

This tracks polling. In 2019, the percentage of young adults who said that a college degree is very important fell to 41% from 74%. About one-third of Americans now say they have a lot of confidence in higher education. Among Gen Z, 45% say that a high school diploma is all you need today to “ensure financial security.” And almost half of American parents say they’d prefer that their children not enroll in a four-year college.

But, education is an essential pillar of our democracy. The rejection of higher education by so many should be extremely concerning for the future of our nation. You should read the NYT article. Here are Wrongo’s conclusions:

  • Colleges and universities are pricing themselves out of the market. Pigs get fat; hogs get slaughtered.
  • Turning higher education into a revenue-maximizing enterprise for the benefit of these institutions is a social disaster.
  • Higher education’s leadership has zero accountability for their role in making a college education so expensive.
Facebooklinkedinrss

Homeschoolers Want Your Tax Dollars

The Daily Escape:

Rich Mountain Fire Tower, Marshall, NC – August 2023 photo by Michael Morris. This photo has a painterly quality to it.

Americans’ interest in homeschooling has soared in recent years. Migrating from mainstream education to homeschooling tracks with the rising fears among parents that schools are failing their children.

For parents frustrated with their child’s public school education, the pandemic provided another reason to give homeschooling a try. Homeschooling has become a significant element in education in the US. According to the National Home Education Research Institute (NHERI), there are 3.7 million homeschooled students in the US, about 6.7% of the school-age children in K-12. The popularity of homeschooling is growing rapidly, with an annual growth rate of 10.1% between 2016 and 2021.

Home schooling is legal in all 50 states, with the highest number of homeschoolers in North Carolina, Florida, and Georgia. About 10% of states have strict laws regulating homeschooling: New York, Vermont, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania. Another 18 states have no to low regulation, while 11 states provide complete freedom to parents regarding homeschooling. In New Jersey, parents do not have to let anyone know about their decision to homeschool their children. They don’t even have to produce any kind of proof at any time, explaining that their kids were homeschooled. Here’s a view of homeschooling regulation in the US:

Source: HSLDA

In many states, there is little oversight of homeschooling. And for many, what regulations do exist were adopted in the 1980s, when homeschooling was almost exclusively provided by a family member at home. Now, with the number of homeschool students soaring, much of the educating is now being provided by third parties.

The WaPo reports that there is an emergence of “microschools” provided by for-profit companies, such as Prenda which provide online courses and syllabi to the microschools. Last year, Prenda served about 2,000 students across several states by connecting homeschool families with microschools that host students, often but not exclusively in homes. The local educator is called a “guide” for students who study math and reading online while depending on the “guide” for other subjects. Families pay Prenda $2,199 per year, plus additional fees set by the guides, which can range from $2,800 to $8,000 per child although there is often a multi-child discount.

Many similar options to Prenda are transforming home schooling in America. More from WaPo:

“Demand is surging: Hundreds of thousands of children have begun homeschooling in the last three years, an unprecedented spike that generated a huge new market. In New Hampshire, for instance, the number of homeschoolers doubled during the pandemic, and even today it remains 40% above pre-covid totals.”

More:

“For many years, homeschooling has conjured images of parents and children working together at the kitchen table. The new world of homeschooling often looks very different: pods, co-ops, microschools and hybrid schools, often outside the home, as well as real-time and recorded virtual instruction. For a growing number of students, education now exists somewhere on a continuum between school and home, in person and online, professional and amateur.”

Still more:

“Microschools sometimes provide all-day supervision, allowing parents to work full time while sending their children to “home school.” Hybrid schools let students split their days between school and home. Co-ops, once entirely parent run, might employ a professional educator.”

All of this is adding to the conundrum of how K-12 education is financed in the US. The WaPo says that about a dozen states allow families to use taxpayer funds for home-school expenses. Education Savings Accounts, or ESAs, direct thousands of dollars to families that opt out of public school, whether the destination is a private school or their own homes.

Nonprofits, including school-choice advocates, are directing millions of dollars in charitable giving toward homeschool organizations, linking two powerful but traditionally separate movements into one interest group that seeks to move taxpayer money away from the local public school system into private hands.

In the past, homeschoolers and school-choice activists didn’t see themselves as aligned. The latter group wanted taxpayer money to pay for charter, private and religious schools, whereas homeschoolers looked to limit any government involvement.

But since the pandemic, they found themselves in common cause. Historically, homeschool advocates have been wary of any government money or involvement, for fear it would lead to rules and regulations.

But many school-choice advocates incorporate support for homeschoolers into their advocacy work, including for school vouchers that give these families tax dollars to pay education costs. Where they used to be a defensive constituency, today they have become partners.

And venture capitalists have invested tens of millions of dollars in new businesses to serve what they see as a growing, and potentially huge market. One entrant is Outschool, an online marketplace for classes, which has raised $255 million since 2015. This year, Outschool has delivered 500,000 live learning sessions to more than 150,000 students globally.

WaPo says Prenda has raised about $45 million. Primer, another microschool company formed to serve homeschoolers, has raised about $19 million, though its campuses are becoming more like tiny private schools, an example of the fuzzy line between traditional and home schooling. WaPo spoke to Michael Moe, founder of GSV, a venture capital firm in the Silicon Valley, who has invested in several education technology start-ups: (brackets by Wrongo)

“The mega trend of [school] choice is wildly important to us…All these shifts create opportunities for companies providing solutions that allow parents and communities to take more control of the learning.”

That’s “venture capitalspeak” for more privatizing of the commons in search of higher financial returns.

Vouchers that once paid only for tuition at private and parochial school can now, in some places, be used for homeschoolers. Most sweeping are Education Savings Accounts, or ESAs, which allow families to claim state tax dollars to use at their own discretion for any education expense.

This increasingly means taxpayer money is following the student out of the public school. It flows to whatever a family chooses. That can include things like Prenda’s fees, online classes or home-school curriculum, as well as tuition at private schools.

In Detroit, a program called Engaged Detroit , is a cooperative that’s part of a network specifically to serve Black families looking for schooling options in response to the pandemic. Among Engaged Detroit’s backers is the VELA Education Fund, which has made more than 2,400 grants totaling more than $28 million since 2019. VELA’s primary funders are longtime advocates for school choice: the Walton Family Foundation and the Charles Koch foundation, Stand Together.

There are pluses and minuses to homeschooling. There are situations where it’s appropriate to homeschool, but the loose oversight and lack of expertise might mean that some homeschooled kids are going to be at risk. When parents say they don’t trust the trained/educated teachers in their public school, but instead want their kids to get the viewpoints of only one or two specific people, the kids are entering a small world. Later in life, they’ll have to adjust to a larger reality.

Wrongo is fully aware of the weaknesses of our public school systems. It’s possible that SOME of these small private schools that they say are “home schools”, are teaching those kids better than some public schools do. So Wrongo is ok if kids learn there. But there should be no problem with requiring these kids to take end-of-year minimum standards tests, proving that they learned the base-level material in each subject.

Without some testing, society has no idea if these kids learned anything. The lack of oversight, particularly in those situations where taxpayer money was diverted to homeschooling, seems well—Wrong.

The literature is clear: Some homeschooled children have attended Ivy League schools and won national spelling bees. Some have also been the victims of child abuse. Some are taught using the classics of ancient Greece, others with Nazi propaganda.

Many parents say home education empowers them to withdraw from schools that fail their children. Or they want to provide instruction that better reflects their personal values. But should the rest of us pay for those individual decisions?

Time to wake up America! Homeschooling may offer certain advantages, but also comes with a set of disadvantages that should also be considered. And it’s clear that those who would privatize K-12 education want to take funding from the public school systems wherever they can.

To help you wake up, listen to Steely Dan’s “My Old School” from their 1973 album “Countdown to Ecstasy”. Steely Dan always used outside musicians, and on the record, they had the late Skunk Baxter on guitar and four (!) saxophones. But Steely Dan didn’t like to tour. Today, we’re going to see a rare video of a Steely Dan live performance on “The Midnight Special” where Skunk had a blistering solo for the song’s finale:

Facebooklinkedinrss

The Problems With Childcare

The Daily Escape:

Sunset with Cosmos flowers, Blue Ridge Mountains, Franklin, NC – August 2023 photo by Amy Barr

Monday’s Wake Up Call is that we’re in the middle of a childcare crisis, one that dates back to WWII. Daycare costs too much, daycare workers don’t earn enough, and many daycares don’t make money and are going out of business.

Today, anyone who has tried shopping for day care knows that it’s a tough marketplace. Care.com, an online platform where people can hire housekeepers, pet caretakers, nannies, and more, publishes a yearly Cost of Care Report to help US families understand the cost of childcare. Their June 2023 report found that on average, US parents spend 27% of their household income on childcare expenses:

 “Households with children make up 40% of the total US population. And with a national family median household income of $91K, child care costs for the typical American family are even more staggering:

– 45% of families earning less than $100K annually will spend more than $18,000 on childcare in 2023, amounting to 18% of their household income (HHI).

-43% of families earning less than $75K will spend more than $18,000, amounting to 24% of their HHI.

-39% of families earning less than $50K per year will spend more than $18,000, amounting to a whopping 36% of their HHI.”

And increasingly, economists are saying that more women would be working if childcare was available. From Axios:

“In a research note about Friday’s jobs report, the chief economist at consulting firm RSM US did something surprising: Instead of talking about rate hikes or soft landings, he made the case for universal child care.”

Axios quotes RSM’s Joe Brusuelas:

“Childcare for kids under the age of 5 is increasingly an issue for more mainstream economists who are concerned about the prospect of long-term labor shortages in the US. Universal childcare is the most realistic way to help expand the labor force at a time when the economy needs workers the most,”

More:

The US needs more workers, and there are more women sitting on the sidelines of the labor market than men.

-Right now, close to 86% of working-age men are employed compared with 75% of women. That’s a record for women, but it’s also far below the rates for men — there’s room to grow.

-Substantial childcare investments, like those proposed in the now defunct Build Back Better bill, could increase mothers’ employment by 7 percentage points, with bigger jumps for low-income families, according to estimates in an NBER paper published last year.”

The underlying problem is the economics of childcare. First, it’s difficult to get information about childcare costs either online or over the phone: Daycares often only share their prices after you have visited their facilities. And many daycares have waitlists stretching from six months to a year.

Economists say that long waitlists are a classic sign that something’s wrong with that particular marketplace. In this case, waitlists indicate that daycare prices are too low. But parents say that the price for daycare is actually too high. NPR reports that the median price in daycare for an infant in a large county in the U.S. is $17,000 a year. Also, more than 60% of families can’t afford the full cost of quality day care.

Meanwhile, daycare owners can barely afford to stay open. NPR interviewed a daycare provider in Iowa who said that salaries are 83% of their monthly budget:

“Five percent goes to their loan payment. 4% is operating expenses, cleaning supplies, snow removal, play kitchens, things like that. Three percent is utilities. Another 3% goes to groceries….And 2% is for their insurance and their building insurance and worker’s comp.”

Along with labor, that equals 100%, meaning the center makes no profit. It’s probable that the daycare owner’s pay is in the 83% labor total, but still it means zero profit. The Iowa daycare pays its staff between $12 to $15 an hour, while the local Chick-Fil-A advertises $16.75/hour to start. The Iowa daycare has a census of 72 kids, which requires 25 staff.

Daycares are required by law to hire a ratio of staff/per child, a higher number than other low-wage industries, like fast foods need. In fast food, labor is about 25% of the total costs, and the volume of sales is in the tens of thousands, not the 72 kids that a wage increase would effect in the Iowa daycare.

Since labor costs are such a  high percentage of total costs in daycare, increasing wages means prices paid by families of children in daycare have to rise drastically to cover the higher costs. Wrongo did a back of the envelope calculation for the Iowa center. If their base pay was $12/hour and it was raised to $15, the average monthly charge for one of the 72 children already in daycare would increase by $360/month, or about 47%!

The broken system is made worse in the US because we don’t have long maternity and paternity leaves.

Funding for childcare that was put in place during the pandemic is set to run out in September. Once we hit that “childcare cliff,” 3.2 million children will lose federal funding. More centers will either have to raise prices, cut staff or shut their doors.

Universal childcare has a tortured history in the US. During World War II, women replaced men in the domestic workforce. But who would take care of the children? The US government answered by enacting the Lanham Act, the first and only universal child care program in American history. An estimated 550,000 to 600,000 children received care through these facilities, which cost parents 50 to 75 cents per child, per day. The program ended in 1946.

Nixon vetoed a universal childcare bill in 1971 that would have created federally-funded public childcare centers across the US because Conservatives argued that the bill was communist and that it would be the end of the American family. A group called Iowans for Moral Education asked “Whose Children? Yours or the State’s?

Time to wake up America! If you don’t want society to help take care of kids, you’re an asshole no matter what reason you give for being against funding. These kids didn’t ask to be here and they have done nothing to deserve not having societal support. If you think you can make America great again by making it harder to take care of kids, you’re wrong.

To help you wake up, watch and listen to a scene from the 2003 film “Daddy Daycare”. In this scene, Charlie (Eddie Murphy) and Kim (Regina King) try to find a good preschool for their son Ben, but it turns out to be impossible. Life’s still like this 20 years later:

Facebooklinkedinrss