Newsy Stuff
2018 – The Year of the Complicated Suburb, Amanda Kolson Hurley, CityLab
In the past several years, a much more complex picture has emerged—one of Asian and Latino “ethnoburbs,” rising suburban poverty, and Baby Boomers stuck in their split-levels. 2018 really drove home the lesson of when Americans say they live in the suburbs (as most do), the suburbia they describe are vastly different kinds of places where people of every stripe live, work, pray, vote, and vie to control their communities’ future.
A century and a half after Frederick Law Olmsted laid out one of the first planned American suburbs in Riverside, Illinois, and seven decades after the builders Levitt & Sons broke ground on the ur-tract ’burb of Levittown, New York, we haven’t fully mapped the contours of modern suburbia—not just who lives there and why, but the role that suburbs play in politics and society.
“A continuum of densities” correlates closely to suburban politics. Rural-suburban areas are strongly Republican; urban-suburban places are overwhelmingly Democratic. But sparse and dense suburbs are more divided—and these were the battleground of the 2018 election. On November 6, Democrats picked up at least 22 seats in sparse- and dense-suburban districts. A suburbanite is now twice as likely to be represented in Congress by a Democrat as by a Republican.
Deciding who we throw away, Cassady Fendlay, Medium
“When millions of us showed up to march, there was a prevailing feeling among women of color, especially black women, that the white women who were showing up to march were not really ready to be allies in this fight. They brought signs with fiery quotes from black feminists and reminded us that the suffragettes didn’t want to march with Black women, didn’t care about their right to vote. The image of activist Angela Peeples, looking cynical with a lollipop and a sign about the 53% of white women who voted for Trump, went viral for its perfect encapsulation of this uneasy suspicion of the “well-meaning” white women.
This moment, with Alyssa Milano, is exactly the type of thing black women were expecting. Alyssa is acting in accordance with the tradition of white women who use the labor of women of color when it’s convenient for them, and then use their power to trash those women when it becomes more expedient. Without being invited to speak at all, Alyssa brought up a 7-month-old controversy in an attempt to force women of color to do exactly what she wants them to do. Yet these things weren’t a problem for her last month, when she was posting pictures of herself in D.C. protesting Kavanaugh at demonstrations organized in large part by Women’s March.”
The Year of the YIMBY, Kriston Capps, CityLab
A few weeks ago, Minneapolis made zoning history when its city council endorsed a comprehensive plan that would enable denser housing development across the city. Elements of the Minneapolis 2040 plan still need to be passed into law, so it falls short of an outright ban on single-family housing, as both supporters and critics have described it. But it’s still the most progressive legislative push by any city yet to face up to the affordable housing crisis, and it’s turning heads in Philadelphia, Dallas, Seattle, and other cities.
“Such an ambitious, large-scale overhaul of zoning rules is practically unheard of in U.S. cities, where single-family neighborhoods with their rows of houses set behind landscaped front yards have typically been off the table during discussions of citywide ‘Smart Growth’ and affordable housing,” reads the Los Angeles Times editorial board’s green-with-envy endorsement.
Differences Bernie Sanders versus Elizabeth Warren, David Dayen
I happen to like Elizabeth Warren more so than I do Bernie Sanders. So, if this comes off in a manner favoring Warren, I apologize. As Dayen notes, “Warren and Sanders are hardly identical progressives. They have different approaches to empowering the working class. In the simple terms, Warren wants to organize markets to benefit workers and consumers. Sanders wants to overhaul those markets and take the private sector out of it. This divide, and where Warren or Sanders’s putative rivals position themselves on it, will determine the future of the Democratic Party for the next decade or more.”
The differences I think you can pick up in the New Republic article I linked to so I will not try to detail them here. Again, as Dayen notes the two progressives are on a collision course and could conceivably split the Democratic vote. In Michigan alone during the 2016 election, it accounted for the state voting for a Repub candidate (first time since 1990), low voter turnout, and a historical high vote for Communist and Libertarian candidates. The same occurred in Wisconsin. Pennsylvania is another state which goes Dem in national elections even though pundits cast doubt upon how it will go.
Watch ‘House Hunters’ to Understand Segregation Natalie Y. Moore, CityLab
House Hunters is on in my home as it is a source of entertainment. Other than the Flip or Flop now divorced couple (she remarried [to keep you up to date]), you can expect to see this at night. I kid my wife about both as it is more like watching the soaps and the dialogues sounds too contrived. Who knew, you could redo a complete bathroom for $5,000 and it always takes 7-weeks to remodel the most ancient of homes? Then too the economics of these shows has given rise to a series of other taunting couples searching for homes or flipping houses just as quick as they can. I guess there is money in those shows.
As the author points out in one episode, “a couple, both in their 20s, paid $1 million for a home in a tony (stylish) North Shore suburb with no backyard . . . insane.) Naturally, we viewers are not privy to the Hunters’ bank statements or financial portfolios, although a few Twitter parody accounts take note.”
I guess if you are born halfway up the ladder, you have a much bigger head start in life than many others of which minorities make up a substantial part. The chances of you slipping backwards on the ladder lessen dependent upon where you are on it. The Center for American Progress in “Understanding Mobility in America” discusses the impact of intergenerational mobility and the degree to which the economic success of children is independent of the economic status of their parents. There is a vast racial wealth and income gap which finds that a U.S. family earning the median black household income of $39,466 would be able to afford fewer than half of all homes listed for sale last year in 17 of the country’s 50 largest markets. The show is a reminder of the impact of US policy towards minorities.
SCOTUS Takes up Electoral Map Disputes, Lawrence Hurley, US News
Partisan gerrymandering is becoming more extreme with the use of precision computer modeling to the point that it has begun to warp democracy in certain states by subverting the will of voters.
June 2018 and SCOTUS failed to issue definitive rulings in cases from Wisconsin and Maryland which election reformers hoped would prompt the high court to crack down on partisan gerrymandering.
In the case in North Carolina, Democratic voters accused the state’s Republican-led legislature of drawing U.S. House of Representatives districts in 2016 in a way that disadvantaged Democratic candidates in violation of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law. A lower court sided with the Democratic voters.
In order to assure reasonable Congressional Districts to eliminate packing and the deliberate construing of boundaries to give one party an advantage over the other, the Congressional Districts will still have to be gerrymandered as they are too large.
Dollar Stores Tanvi Misra, CityLab
“While dollar stores sometimes fill a need in cash-strapped communities, growing evidence suggests these stores are not merely a byproduct of economic distress,” the authors of the brief write. “They’re a cause of it.”
Like Walmart before them, these retailers present themselves as creators of jobs and sources of low-cost goods and food in “left-behind “areas—both urban and rural. The 2008 recession bolstered their numbers, simultaneously restricting the resurgence of traditional grocery stores and swelling the potential customer base. Middle-class shoppers started frequenting these stores. In 2009, the New York Times picked up on the trend: “Those once-dowdy chains that lured shoppers by selling some or all of their merchandise for $1 are suddenly hot.”
Restaurants are Scrambling for Cheap Labor, Leslie Patton, Bloomberg
In 2019, it is expected fewer teens will be in the workforce reducing the number of job seekers for low-wage work. Due to the shortage they are helping raise the pay rates needed to woo those who are. Minimum wage increases for lower-skilled workers at companies such as Amazon.com, Walmart, and Target have made it more difficult for restaurants to compete for talent and forcing them to try everything from social media campaigns to quarterly bonuses to entice applicants. “The last 18 to 24 months, it’s been very competitive, no matter what time of year.”
Bjorn Erland, vice president for people and experience at Yum Brands Inc.’s Taco Bell chain. “I don’t think it’s going to ease up much just because the holidays are over.”
Why Not Hold Regular Union Representation Elections? , Andrew Strom, On Labor
Citing polls (NLRB) showing many non-union workers would like to have a union at their workplace, each year only a tiny fraction of workers get a chance to choose whether or not they want union representation.
When the Obama NLRB modernized the Board’s election rules and eliminated some unnecessary delays, employers characterized the result as “ambush elections.” The companies insisted they would no longer have enough time to wage their anti-union campaigns.
The NLRB found substantial evidence that employers are generally aware of union organizing drives long before an election petition is filed. A solution as Samuel Estreicher and Michael Oswalt have previously suggested and to give even more notice is to hold regularly schedule representation elections the same way we regularly schedule elections for political office. There is no magic number to how often the elections should take place, but every three years might be optimal. The elections would occur both at unionized and non-union facilities.
[missing headline — missing nearly everywhere, nearly all the time]
US economy down to 6% labor union density — nobody ever talks about it, least of all does anything about it.
Labor unions on this side of the pond have been illegally scrubbed out of existence by intense pressure on any vestige of organizing by intensely interested management on the one hand — and virtually non-existent (many say laughable, management surely laughs) legal penalties on the other.
Lost union density doesn’t only cost the average person economic welfare but exponentially cuts their political power. Think of almost any issue from health care to, well, any of the issues listed above, and heavy union density would ensure things came out the right way. We would have the same money to buy our government (back) and all the votes. Think Germany.
No need to man the barriers and storm the streets (French style). Just forget about organizing versus a management that has become too skilled at scrunching labor. Forget about heavy law enforcement against a management that has gotten too skilled at scrunching labor, too.
If we made union busting a felony and hired 10,000 enforcement agents, management would just laugh. What are going to do: lock away half the entrepreneurial talent in the country in a gulag?
Only one way left to restore the labor union pillar of democracy — add this to the list above, please:
Why Not Hold Union Representation Elections on a Regular Schedule?
Andrew Strom — November 1st, 2017
“Republicans in Congress have already proposed a bill that would require a new election in each [private employer] unionized bargaining unit whenever, through turnover, expansion, or merger, a unit experiences at least 50 percent turnover. While no union would be happy about expending limited resources on regular retention elections, I think it would be hard to turn down a trade that would allow the 93% of workers who are unrepresented to have a chance to opt for unionization on a regular schedule.”
Dennis,
Don’t keep parading this Gop bill as anything other than what it is, almost a total lockout of union representation being formed as a trojan horse.
Let me know when you find a company that has a 50% turnover in personnel that is going to get a majority of those employees to voted for a union. It would kill more unions than form more unions. Also, in those cases where such elections actually were held, it would force unions to spend a lot of money they don’t have, especially those unions in right to work states.
The GOP is responsible for the attacks on unions for decades, this is another one. And anyone pushing this thing is either stupid or anti-union. All cosponsors are Reps, pretty big indication what its purpose is.
EM:
I agree with you the Repubs would use their proposed election requirements to attack unions and further diminish the strength of unions. The concept is sound as long as political interests do not impinge upon its original intent.
Holding regular elections to create unions is a good idea. Restricting those elections to companies that have gone through a 50% turnover is not going to create any unions and would actually help employers kill unions.
EM,
I think you are thinking about a Repub bill that I have not mentioned here. It exists (did last Congress anyway) but I didn’t mention it. ??? Here’s the particulars which I have ready made:
[cut-and-paste]
FIRST, recognize that old fashioned union organizing as we knew it may safely be declared dead (forever!) in this country. Even if we now make union busting a fed felony and hire (tens of?) thousands of fed investigators, what’s to keep millions of business owners and managers from laughing it off, asking: “What are you going to do, lock up all the business know how of the country?”
SECOND, observe Repub: H.R.2723 (115th Congress) — Employee Rights Act
“(2) require union recertification after a turnover in the workforce exceeding 50% of the bargaining unit”
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2723
THIRD, think blue wave Dem modification: H.R.2723 (1/2) — 116th Congress — All Employees Rights Act
“(1) Require union cert/recert/decert elections at all private workplaces — option for one, three or five year cycles, local plurality rules.”
Just read this:
Cross Border Reflections on the Future of Labor Law Reform
“Weiler’s premise was that law mattered greatly to union density and that the Canadian model did a better job of controlling employer resistance to union organizing than did the NLRA. In particular, Weiler noted that most Canadian jurisdictions determined majority employee support for collective bargaining by means of a card-check model, which eliminated much of the opportunity for both lawful and unlawful employer resistance to unionisation. However, Weiler doubted that U.S. employers would ever accept the outcome of a process without elections, so he proposed Canada’s alternative “instant ballot” model for the U.S., which requires a certification vote within a short period after an application for certification.
“Weiler criticized the slow and weak response by the NLRB to employer unfair labor practices (ULP). … ”
“… Here again Weiler was looking to Canada where in most circumstances it is unlawful for employers to permanently replace a striking worker.”
“However, it is also apparent now that the Canadian Wagner model is no panacea for all that ails U.S. labor law. Despite a more favourable legal model, Canadian private sector union density has followed a similar downwards trajectory as the U.S. since Weiler wrote his seminal comparative pieces (Figure 2).”
Now reading — 32 pp but looks very readable:
Protecting Fundamental Labor Rights
Lessons from Canada for the United States
Kris Warner August 2012
http://cepr.net/documents/publications/canada-2012-08.pdf
Dennis,
Your initial post contained a link to the bill. I read it. It is a union killer.
ANd if you follow the link to the bill in your last post and hit cosponsors it will be easy to see why I call it a union buster.
EM,
FWIW, what I linked to was a proposal by one of the top labor lawyers in the country, Andrew Strom, of SEIU 32bj. In any case with only 6% labor union density left in private employment there is nowhere to go but up — as in do this or do nothing.
No, Dennis. You can also go backwards. I am not talking about the author, I am talking about the bill.(though the author gets no credit for being suckered into thinking this could help union membership.
Look how easy it would be for an employer to force an election if he wanted to do so. Then look how easy it would be for an employer to never allow an election if he wanted to. Don’t have a 50% workforce turnover? No election. Don’t have a merger? No election.
It’s a killer.