Skip to main content

Economics Daily Digest by the Roosevelt Institute banner

By Rachel Goldfarb, originally published on Next New Deal

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

There Is Still Hope For Net Neutrality, Telecommunications Policy Expert Says (The Kathleen Dunn Show)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Crawford says that in order to save net neutrality, the Federal Communications Commission needs political cover from advocacy groups that support reclassifying the Internet as a traditional telecommunications service.

States Cutting Weeks of Aid to the Jobless (NYT)

Annie Lowrey reports on the effects of extensive cuts to unemployment insurance in North Carolina, where benefits have been limited to 20 weeks since July. The state has seen a significant drop in the unemployment rate, but that comes with a drop in labor force participation.

Raising the Minimum is the Bare Minimum (TAP)

Harold Meyerson argues that raising the minimum wage won't do enough to reverse the stagnation of wages for 90 percent of workers. That would only be the first step in reversing the redistribution of wealth from labor to capital and the growing problem of inequality.

Millions Of People Are Quitting Their Jobs Every Month. That's Good News. (NPR)

Quoctrung Bui praises the slowly-rising quit rate as a sign of economic recovery, because people don't quit if they don't have another job or feel they can get one. He points out that incoming Federal Reserve chairwoman Janet Yellen has noted the importance of this statistic as well.

“Everything Amazon did had the underlying tone of fear” (Salon)

Josh Eidelson takes an inside look at the failed attempt to unionize machinists at an Amazon warehouse in Delaware. He discusses the campaign with the union's spokesperson, who claims that Amazon intimidated workers and made them fear for their jobs.

What If We Just Got Rid of All the Money in Political Campaigns? (Pacific Standard)

Seth Masket considers this question using data on state-level public campaign financing systems, which offer incentives for candidates to forgo private fundraising. One of the biggest upsides is that candidates can spend more time with all voters, not just funders.

New on Next New Deal

The Right Takes Aim at Public Sector Unions in a New Supreme Court Case

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch writes that Harris v. Quinn is part of a larger effort by the right to undermine progressive power bases. The case challenges public sector unions' ability to collect dues, without which the unions can't do much to support workers.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Economics on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 08:48 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  how good will i be without the internet ? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    net neutrality is my lifeline. honestly.
    i can't imagine not having access.
    i can't envision anyone not having access.
    we all need each other.

    TRAILHEAD of accountability for Bush-2 Crimes? -- Addington's Perpwalk.

    by greenbird on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 09:36:23 PM PST

  •  Net Neutrality, you reversed the point (0+ / 0-)

    that in order to save net neutrality, the Federal Communications Commission needs political cover from advocacy groups that support are against reclassifying the Internet as a traditional telecommunications service.

    fact does not require fiction for balance (proudly a DFH)

    by mollyd on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 11:35:53 PM PST

  •  Harold Myerson's piece is spot-on. The meager (0+ / 0-)

    economic steps politicians (the good ones) are trying to take are nowhere near enough to create a sane, sustainable, or fair economy.  A $10 minimum wage and an extension of Unemployment Insurance are woefully minimal.  It's $400/week.  Try living on that.

    Myerson has some good suggestions for systemic fixes that would tilt the field away from capital and towards working people.

  •  On the Union Dues Case (0+ / 0-)

    Sometimes, this Court surprises you (like on Obamacare),...until you look closer at the ruling.  Even on Obamacare, the Court ruled in such a way that benefits the Powers that Be.  Obamacare is a boon for insurance companies.

    On this Union dues case, I just can't see the Court missing a chance like this - especially since another Dem Presidency (at least somewhat likely), would almost certainly tilt the balance of ideology on the Court.  I said before the VRA ruling, there is no way the Right misses this chance to stick a knife in the VRA, and they didn't.

    That is why, despite the fact that Scalia was actually sympathetic to the Unions in his questioning, I think they'll find some way to rule that in essence makes it much harder for Unions to collect dues.  They seem to have Kennedy, and the other two are automatic.  Roberts is a corporatist of the highest order.  I just can't see Scalia letting this hanging curveball get by the plate.

  •  loosing net nuetrality (0+ / 0-)

    Is a major issue to me because of the fact that the internet access gives me better access to services under the ADA.(Americans with disabilities act.)

    If my ISP decides to throttle or block services that I can only get access to online due to my disabilities, that others can get access to in other ways, but I can't (like over the phone due to hearing loss)  Is discrimination under the ADA definition of equal access to goods and services.

    and recently I believe their was a case regarding the ADA and internet access for disabled which favored the ADA access rights

    without high speed access it would significantly hinder my level of access vs a non disabled who can get the same services in other ways I am unable too due to disabilities.  If I can not hear a rep over the phone for a business then I need access to their sometimes bloated website to get the information and services.  With  a slowed connection or blocked all together I would be left out all together or at a  much reduced level of access to goods and services than the non disabled.(non disabled can call over the phone to bypass blockage)

    From the information stand point I am home bound for the most part where non disabled are free to come and go to get services and information without interference from a corporation.  so how is it fair to me to have restricted access while a non disabled gets unrestricted access from a format I can not use(via physically going there) (where I have to use internet to do the same)

    net neutrality and high speed internet has gone a long way to make life more inclusive for us disabled Americans at an overall lower cost than physically changing every structure in society to permit access to goods and services etc. net neutrality broadband allows high resolution video for sign-language communication which is much faster than tty, It is more on par with the speed of verbal speech used by hearing people.  What happens when MY ISP decides to throttle the website that allows high speed video (bandwidth intensive) that is used by deaf people ?( I don't think the judges even considered this in their verizon ruling.... The discrimination that this is going to lead too)

    To me gutting net neutrality from a disabled point of view is equivalent to locking me in a cage and throwing a blanket over the cage so I can not participate,

    So what comes first "civil rights of a severely discriminated protected class" or the "bottom line for corporations"??

    I am not playing victim here, I am stating what actually happens because I should have the same level of access in a format that works with my impairments to as closely match the level of access as non disabled. and for that to happen I NEED broadband access "I paid for" not being impeded by big business.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site