One thing that the presidential contenders are not discussing on the campaign trail is the changing nature of work. There was a time when you got a job, put in your 40 years and then retired with a gold watch and a pension. Those days are long gone.
Today, companies are under too much pressure to be profitable and competitive abroad, which has resulted in layoffs, downsizing, outsourcing and in the increased use of temporary employees.
Having watched the experiences of their parents and older siblings many of our country’s 70 million Gen Y employees, born between 1979 and 1994, don’t even consider tying their careers to one employer. Consequently these younger workers change jobs about every two years and are not afraid to freelance.
They are also less likely than their predecessors to receive health or retirement benefits. In our knowledge-based economy more Americans can expect to work for themselves or in partnerships.
So shouldn’t the Presidential candidates be talking about developing a safety net for the Free Agent Nation?
Ten years ago writer Daniel H. Pink introduced the concept of "Free Agent Nation" in Fast Company magazine. According to Pink, free agents a.k.a. consultants, freelancers, temps, independent consultants and solopreneurs were abandoning corporate America for self-employment.
In December 2004 the Small Business Association released the report, Self- Employed Business Rates in the United States: 1979-2003, which indicated that women, Black Americans and Latinos had the highest increases in self-employment rates.
Women often choose self-employment as a way to better balance work and family responsibilities. Other workers strike out on their own when they realize that they are not going to advance any farther in their company. Some folks make the leap simply because they want more autonomy over lives and their livelihoods.
In a good economy people willfully jump off the corporate ship while in a bad one they are frequently shoved.
Increasingly involuntary free agents are indistinguishable from traditional employees: they go to physical sites and work for a set number of hours each week.
However whether the worker is an administrative assistant, personal trainer, adjunct professor or software engineer her employer is designating her as an "independent contractor," rather than as an employee. Just like most low-wage employees, skilled free agents now have jobs that provide salaries, but no sick days, holiday pay or health insurance.
With 47 million Americans without health insurance, health care reform is a hot topic for the 2008 Presidential election. 80 percent of uninsured Americans are employed and the largest portion of them earn between $25,000 and $75,000 annually. But are any of the candidates talking about health care for citizens of the Free Agent Nation?
Since employer-based health benefits remain predominate, free agents frequently are unable to obtain health coverage—it’s either too expensive or they can’t find an insurer willing to cover them.
Democratic Presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama is specific in his health care reform proposal about providing self-employed workers with insurance and the "portability" of his plan as people move from job to job.
In comparison, Sen. Clinton’s health care plan seems to be based more on the existing employer-based health care system. She talks about small businesses but not specifically about the self-employed.
In his health care plan, Republican Sen. John McCain moves away from employer-based health care by giving all citizens greater flexibility to form groups to obtain health insurance. Rather than assessing the merits of the candidates’ health care plans, these examples merely illustrate the extent that the candidates are addressing a practical issue associated with our evolving economy.
It goes without saying that states should crack down on employers who try to save money by intentionally mis-categorizing their workers as independent contractors. However closing that loophole will not bring back the millions of so-called "middle class" jobs with benefits that were lost to outsourcing, technology and obsolescence.
In the near future, a leaner and perhaps meaner United States will require that more Americans not only be responsible for obtaining their own health insurance, but also for saving for their own retirements—pensions and social security are on their last legs.
With more free agents in the workplace, politicians should be re-thinking an array of issues, including eligibility for unemployment insurance and how work histories are evaluated to determine creditworthiness. However for now it is most important that Presidential candidates articulate their ideas for a new social contract.
In this brave new world, how do they plan to protect our most vulnerable citizens--- the working poor, the sick and the elderly who may have neither the financial means nor the education to successfully navigate this rugged and more individualist terrain?
[First published on NewsOne.com]
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Race and Gender in Presidential Politics
Sen. Obama routed Hillary Clinton yesterday in the Potomac Primaries winning in Maryland, Virginia and The District of Columbia. Clintonites continue to moan that the press is using kid gloves with Obama, instead of the steel toed shoes that they supposedly are using on Hillary. Some feminists are now reviving stale diatribes about sexism being more pernicious than racism. Unlike the past, when Black women---too busy doing other things basically ignored these uninformed statements, a battle is brewing between 2nd Wave feminists and 3rd Wave Black feminists who understand the complex ways that race and gender intersect and impact Black women's lives.
Last month feminist icon Gloria Steinem wrote an Op-Ed in the New York Times titled, Women are Never Front-Runners that suggests that Sen. Barack Obama is getting a pass because he's Black, while Sen. Hillary Clinton is getting slammed because she's a woman. The reason why so many Black woman shy away from the feminist label is because there is still a reluctance among many White feminists to acknowledge that gender discrimination is no more or no less oppressive than racism. Oppression is oppression. If Clinton is losing, it's not because she's a woman---it's because she's a woman who lugging about major luggage---White Water, her Tammy Wynette impression when Monica Lewinsky surfaced and her failed health care initiative. She's a woman who should tell her husband to chill and get a hobby---but she needs him to lean on. Unlike other talented women who have created their own professional identities separate from their husbands, Clinton's 35 years of experience is little more than her appropriating time that she was the "first lady" of Arkansas and the United States. So like so many White women before her, her power came from being the wife of a power White man. That not changes, it's more of the same.
On a recent edition of Democracy Now, Princeton Professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell goes toe to toe with Steinem. Harris-Lacewell in a bang up performance takes Steinmen to task for promoting the same ol' "sexism is worst than racism" dichotomy and tells it like it is about Clinton's run for the Presidency.
To hear or see the exchange on the program Race and Gender in Presidential Politics
Hillary's Scarlett O'Hara Act: Why some of us aren't falling for it.
By Melissa Harris-Lacewell
TheRoot.com
Feb. 8, 2008--There's been a lot of talk about women and their choices since Super Tuesday, when African American women overwhelmingly voted for Sen. Barack Obama, while white women picked Sen. Hillary Clinton. Some pundits automatically concluded that "race trumped gender" among black women. I hate this analysis because it relegates black women to junior-partner status in political struggles. It is not that simple. A lot of people have tried to gently explain the divide, so I'm just going to put this out there: Sister voters have a beef with white women like Clinton that is both racial and gendered. It is not about choosing race; it is about rejecting Hillary's Scarlett O'Hara act.
Black women voters are rejecting Hillary Clinton because her ascendance is not a liberating symbol. Her tears are not moving. Her voice does not resonate. Throughout history, privileged white women, attached at the hip to their husband's power and influence, have been complicit in black women's oppression. Many African American women are simply refusing to play Mammy to Hillary.
Read the rest of the article at Hillary's Scarlett O' Hara Act
Melissa Harris-Lacewell is is associate professor of politics and African American studies at Princeton University.
Last month feminist icon Gloria Steinem wrote an Op-Ed in the New York Times titled, Women are Never Front-Runners that suggests that Sen. Barack Obama is getting a pass because he's Black, while Sen. Hillary Clinton is getting slammed because she's a woman. The reason why so many Black woman shy away from the feminist label is because there is still a reluctance among many White feminists to acknowledge that gender discrimination is no more or no less oppressive than racism. Oppression is oppression. If Clinton is losing, it's not because she's a woman---it's because she's a woman who lugging about major luggage---White Water, her Tammy Wynette impression when Monica Lewinsky surfaced and her failed health care initiative. She's a woman who should tell her husband to chill and get a hobby---but she needs him to lean on. Unlike other talented women who have created their own professional identities separate from their husbands, Clinton's 35 years of experience is little more than her appropriating time that she was the "first lady" of Arkansas and the United States. So like so many White women before her, her power came from being the wife of a power White man. That not changes, it's more of the same.
On a recent edition of Democracy Now, Princeton Professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell goes toe to toe with Steinem. Harris-Lacewell in a bang up performance takes Steinmen to task for promoting the same ol' "sexism is worst than racism" dichotomy and tells it like it is about Clinton's run for the Presidency.
To hear or see the exchange on the program Race and Gender in Presidential Politics
Hillary's Scarlett O'Hara Act: Why some of us aren't falling for it.
By Melissa Harris-Lacewell
TheRoot.com
Feb. 8, 2008--There's been a lot of talk about women and their choices since Super Tuesday, when African American women overwhelmingly voted for Sen. Barack Obama, while white women picked Sen. Hillary Clinton. Some pundits automatically concluded that "race trumped gender" among black women. I hate this analysis because it relegates black women to junior-partner status in political struggles. It is not that simple. A lot of people have tried to gently explain the divide, so I'm just going to put this out there: Sister voters have a beef with white women like Clinton that is both racial and gendered. It is not about choosing race; it is about rejecting Hillary's Scarlett O'Hara act.
Black women voters are rejecting Hillary Clinton because her ascendance is not a liberating symbol. Her tears are not moving. Her voice does not resonate. Throughout history, privileged white women, attached at the hip to their husband's power and influence, have been complicit in black women's oppression. Many African American women are simply refusing to play Mammy to Hillary.
Read the rest of the article at Hillary's Scarlett O' Hara Act
Melissa Harris-Lacewell is is associate professor of politics and African American studies at Princeton University.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
The Cost of Campaign 2008
I stumbled upon a brief commentary that Naomi Klein, author of No Logo and The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, published in the " A Million Ways to Save the World" section of O magazine (August 2007 issue). She makes some points that should be seriously considered in terms of the ability of candidates to be responsive to average joe and jane citizens.
"Almost two years ago before the elections, Hillary Clinton's campaign had already raised $26 million dollars. Barack Obama had $25 million. With the 2008 president race set to cost $1 billion, the likely result is a government that protects the interests of the wealthy but leaves the pressing issues faced by working families unaddressed. If it cost less to run for office, Americas could have leaders who first debt was to the people who gave them their votes, not those who slipped them the funds to buy TV ads. To change the we world, we need politicians who are free to respond to the public will. That means we must demand a discount on elections."
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, overall about $718 million dollars was spent by all Presidential candidates in 2004. However as of December 2007 (almost a year before the election), Presidential candidates had already spent about $481 million dollars. For the sake of comparison, in 1976 the total campaign spending for the Presidency was about $70 million dollars.
"Almost two years ago before the elections, Hillary Clinton's campaign had already raised $26 million dollars. Barack Obama had $25 million. With the 2008 president race set to cost $1 billion, the likely result is a government that protects the interests of the wealthy but leaves the pressing issues faced by working families unaddressed. If it cost less to run for office, Americas could have leaders who first debt was to the people who gave them their votes, not those who slipped them the funds to buy TV ads. To change the we world, we need politicians who are free to respond to the public will. That means we must demand a discount on elections."
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, overall about $718 million dollars was spent by all Presidential candidates in 2004. However as of December 2007 (almost a year before the election), Presidential candidates had already spent about $481 million dollars. For the sake of comparison, in 1976 the total campaign spending for the Presidency was about $70 million dollars.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Yes We Can!
I watched a documentary about Bayard Rustin the other day. I teared up as I watched the determination of Black Americans to fight to be treated as humans, as equals. They walked a year in Mississippi, endured lynchings, beatings, hoses and dogs and they gathered on the mall in Washington to be heard and to be counted.
The ability of Obama to stand strong and dignified...in the face of naysayers and race baiters is a testament to the ability of Black Americans to not only survive but to thrive....Yes We Can! No Excuses.
The ability of Obama to stand strong and dignified...in the face of naysayers and race baiters is a testament to the ability of Black Americans to not only survive but to thrive....Yes We Can! No Excuses.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Adoption and Who's On Top-
I am in the midst of editing an anthology on motherhood. It suffices to say that I was tired of reading motherhood books that while interesting, did not touch on the issues that that were of concern to my peers and friends such as raising intellect and conscious children of color; negotiating the privilege that our educations and incomes afford us; or dealing with the notion that we are among the invisible working poor; and trying to balance nurturing ourselves, our marriages/relationships while also trying to raise healthy and happy children.
One of the topics that has come to light in the process is adoption. While it's fairly well accepted that White babies are the most desireable and older, Black boys the least...I was somewhat taken aback at how parents are also categorized. Young, married affluent couples are at the top of the "wanted" list while older and working class are near the bottom. Gay women fair better than gay men, but not by much if they are out lesbians. The willingness of a family to open their home to a child seems to get factored somewhere way down the list...even being overweight can be a liability to getting a child. No wonder so many people continue to hightail it abroad to adopt.
From a practical matter I can understand that there would be a hesitancy to place children with a family that is destitute. It also makes sense that placement organizations want parents to have a reasonable chance of seeing the child through adulthood. However under the best circumstances fortunes go bust and people can die suddenly.
Personally I would prefer that adoptive parents be subject to psychological testing than means testing. There are indeed wealthy nuts---so maybe the reason why someone wants to adopt should be scrutinized more than the applicant's finances. I am also a little bothered by the issue of age. Given that people are living longer and healthier lives maybe it's time to raise the bar a lit. Someone who I know has been turned down as an adoptive parent because at 45 is deemed too old. This is someone who very well educated, married, has a geniune love for children, has been a community activist for years and has a strong faith. Although doctors will help a 50 year old woman have a child through medical technology, a 45 year old woman is considered too old to care for baby? She and her husband can go through private adoption, but the likelihood that a Black baby is coming from that path is a little slim.
For centuries, Black folks have taken in the children of friends, relatives and neighbors and cared for them as their own. However while this informal adoption has its merits, it also has its limitations--namely since the person is not the child's legal guardian the caretaker--whether is aunt, uncle, grandmother or neighbor is not eligible for a range of social services to support them and the child.
I am not an expert on adoption---it's an area that I intend to do some research on. However given the large number of children, particularly Black children who are languishing in foster care, perhaps it is time to look at ways to not only expand the criteria for eligible parents but also make the adoption process easier and emotionally draining.
One of the topics that has come to light in the process is adoption. While it's fairly well accepted that White babies are the most desireable and older, Black boys the least...I was somewhat taken aback at how parents are also categorized. Young, married affluent couples are at the top of the "wanted" list while older and working class are near the bottom. Gay women fair better than gay men, but not by much if they are out lesbians. The willingness of a family to open their home to a child seems to get factored somewhere way down the list...even being overweight can be a liability to getting a child. No wonder so many people continue to hightail it abroad to adopt.
From a practical matter I can understand that there would be a hesitancy to place children with a family that is destitute. It also makes sense that placement organizations want parents to have a reasonable chance of seeing the child through adulthood. However under the best circumstances fortunes go bust and people can die suddenly.
Personally I would prefer that adoptive parents be subject to psychological testing than means testing. There are indeed wealthy nuts---so maybe the reason why someone wants to adopt should be scrutinized more than the applicant's finances. I am also a little bothered by the issue of age. Given that people are living longer and healthier lives maybe it's time to raise the bar a lit. Someone who I know has been turned down as an adoptive parent because at 45 is deemed too old. This is someone who very well educated, married, has a geniune love for children, has been a community activist for years and has a strong faith. Although doctors will help a 50 year old woman have a child through medical technology, a 45 year old woman is considered too old to care for baby? She and her husband can go through private adoption, but the likelihood that a Black baby is coming from that path is a little slim.
For centuries, Black folks have taken in the children of friends, relatives and neighbors and cared for them as their own. However while this informal adoption has its merits, it also has its limitations--namely since the person is not the child's legal guardian the caretaker--whether is aunt, uncle, grandmother or neighbor is not eligible for a range of social services to support them and the child.
I am not an expert on adoption---it's an area that I intend to do some research on. However given the large number of children, particularly Black children who are languishing in foster care, perhaps it is time to look at ways to not only expand the criteria for eligible parents but also make the adoption process easier and emotionally draining.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Obama Wins Big in South Carolina & the Bill and Hill Show Continues
I really wanted to talk about something other than Obama's huge win over Hillary Clinton in South Carolina....but to paraphrase Don Corleone,
"Every time I try to get out it pulls me back in."
Karen Tumulty "Obama's Win Reshapes the Race" in Time magazine stated:
[O]bama's impressive win meant all the more given the nature of politics in South Carolina, a state whose history is fraught with race and class. Some observers wondered if the state's voters were becoming more racially polarized in the final days before the primary. That speculation was fueled by one late McClatchy/MSNBC survey that suggested Obama could expect to receive no more than 10% of the white vote, half of what the same poll had shown only a week before. But Obama instead won about a quarter of the white vote overall, and around half of young white voters, on his way to a commanding 55% of the total vote (Clinton finished second with roughly 27% and Edwards came in third with 18%). The excitement around Obama's candidacy pushed turnout to record levels — a kind of surge, says Obama strategist Cornell Belcher, that "is something only Barack Obama is capable of bringing to the table."
The issue of whether Bill Clinton is a loose cannon who needs to be reigned in was discussed in the New York Times article, "Campaign tries to shift ex-president's disposition after Obama's latest win" by Patrick Healy which reported:
[Y]et some advisers expressed concern that Mr. Clinton might prove difficult to rein in, citing the latest furor over the weekend after he compared Mr. Obama’s victories to Jesse Jackson ’s in 1984 and 1988 on Saturday, though Mr. Jackson did not approach the wide margin of Mr. Obama’s win.
Advisers said Mr. Clinton’s remark was an off-the-cuff reference, but it was debated on the Sunday news shows and in the blogosphere as a possible effort by the Clinton camp to diminish Mr. Obama’s success in South Carolina as simply the result of a black candidate drawing support from a heavily black electorate.
Bill Clinton's outbursts are certainly undignified and will negatively impact his post-president legacy. But what is important right now is that his involvement in Hillary's campaign is turning off voters. Bill is reminding folks about his willingness to triangulate and bend the truth to win. Beside Bill, Hillary looks like the "little woman" standing by her irrational husband. Together Hillary and Bill look, as one listserv poster said, a "2 headed monster from the past that is not welcomed back."
Obama has gotten a strong endorsement from JFK's daughter Caroline Kennedy and endorsements from Senators Ted Kennedy and John Kerry....look to see more. After Bill's diss of the Rev. Jesse Jackson, The Black Establishment needs to re-assess its allegiance to Hillary. One need not be a fan of Jackson's or Obama's to know that Clintonville looks a little shysty...particularly since Hill was trying to get Florida and Michigan delegates included although she originally agreed with the DNC that they not be. BTW, what is the deal with Edwards? He has been left in the dust although he is speaking about a number of issues such as the outsourcing, healthcare, the income gap that impact Black Americans.
What the Clinton camp seems to underestimating is the distaste that folks have from slash and burn politics. I talked to one Black woman in Nevada who said that after this nonsense with the Hill and Bill show that if Hillary is the Democratic nominee she would cross over and vote for McCain (assuming that he's the GOP nominee). This is not the first time that I have heard this exact sentiment. For those unwilling cross party lines, they may just stay home which will aid a GOP victory.
Talk is cheap, but if this anger with the Clintons translates to action in November, the Democratic party and the Clintons will be paying a huge price in the form of a defeat.
Also Check out a hard-hitting commentary about the Clintons from Humanity Critic a blogger at Vibe.com Bill and Hillary Thanks for the Wake-Up Call.
"Every time I try to get out it pulls me back in."
Karen Tumulty "Obama's Win Reshapes the Race" in Time magazine stated:
[O]bama's impressive win meant all the more given the nature of politics in South Carolina, a state whose history is fraught with race and class. Some observers wondered if the state's voters were becoming more racially polarized in the final days before the primary. That speculation was fueled by one late McClatchy/MSNBC survey that suggested Obama could expect to receive no more than 10% of the white vote, half of what the same poll had shown only a week before. But Obama instead won about a quarter of the white vote overall, and around half of young white voters, on his way to a commanding 55% of the total vote (Clinton finished second with roughly 27% and Edwards came in third with 18%). The excitement around Obama's candidacy pushed turnout to record levels — a kind of surge, says Obama strategist Cornell Belcher, that "is something only Barack Obama is capable of bringing to the table."
The issue of whether Bill Clinton is a loose cannon who needs to be reigned in was discussed in the New York Times article, "Campaign tries to shift ex-president's disposition after Obama's latest win" by Patrick Healy which reported:
[Y]et some advisers expressed concern that Mr. Clinton might prove difficult to rein in, citing the latest furor over the weekend after he compared Mr. Obama’s victories to Jesse Jackson ’s in 1984 and 1988 on Saturday, though Mr. Jackson did not approach the wide margin of Mr. Obama’s win.
Advisers said Mr. Clinton’s remark was an off-the-cuff reference, but it was debated on the Sunday news shows and in the blogosphere as a possible effort by the Clinton camp to diminish Mr. Obama’s success in South Carolina as simply the result of a black candidate drawing support from a heavily black electorate.
Bill Clinton's outbursts are certainly undignified and will negatively impact his post-president legacy. But what is important right now is that his involvement in Hillary's campaign is turning off voters. Bill is reminding folks about his willingness to triangulate and bend the truth to win. Beside Bill, Hillary looks like the "little woman" standing by her irrational husband. Together Hillary and Bill look, as one listserv poster said, a "2 headed monster from the past that is not welcomed back."
Obama has gotten a strong endorsement from JFK's daughter Caroline Kennedy and endorsements from Senators Ted Kennedy and John Kerry....look to see more. After Bill's diss of the Rev. Jesse Jackson, The Black Establishment needs to re-assess its allegiance to Hillary. One need not be a fan of Jackson's or Obama's to know that Clintonville looks a little shysty...particularly since Hill was trying to get Florida and Michigan delegates included although she originally agreed with the DNC that they not be. BTW, what is the deal with Edwards? He has been left in the dust although he is speaking about a number of issues such as the outsourcing, healthcare, the income gap that impact Black Americans.
What the Clinton camp seems to underestimating is the distaste that folks have from slash and burn politics. I talked to one Black woman in Nevada who said that after this nonsense with the Hill and Bill show that if Hillary is the Democratic nominee she would cross over and vote for McCain (assuming that he's the GOP nominee). This is not the first time that I have heard this exact sentiment. For those unwilling cross party lines, they may just stay home which will aid a GOP victory.
Talk is cheap, but if this anger with the Clintons translates to action in November, the Democratic party and the Clintons will be paying a huge price in the form of a defeat.
Also Check out a hard-hitting commentary about the Clintons from Humanity Critic a blogger at Vibe.com Bill and Hillary Thanks for the Wake-Up Call.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Obama & Clinton--What Photos Reveal
This picture is circulating around the Internet along with the following text:
I realize that some folks are supporting Hillary Clinton and if you are, you still need to read this. To me this photo is a picture of a strong man who, in the face of a setback, is cherishing a moment with the support of astrong woman who is 100% behind him. Together they are making history. This is the America I want to live in. This is what our families should be like and can be like. If this photo moved you the way it moved me, forward it, especially to those in South Carolina and remind them that Hillary is not Bill and to vote for Obama in the South Carolina primaries and on Super Tuesday.
The Obama phenomenon has moved beyond the presidential election and moved into the realm of the public representation of Blackness. Obama is all of the things that a Black person supposedly isn't: brilliant, calm, ambitious, rationale, in love with his wife and committed to his family. He's also a proud Black man who does not need to shout to folks that he's a proud Black man.
When you juxtapose this picture of the Obamas---a vibrant young couple with that of a dozing, old looking Bill Clinton at a MLK, Jr. Memorial....it seems like the choice is between a fresh future and a stale past.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
