When conservative Ohio Governor and former Lehman Brothers executive 
John Kasich feels compelled to remind his fellow conservatives that upon
 entering Heaven, “Saint Peter is probably not going to ask you much 
about what you did about keeping government small. But he is going to 
ask you what you did for the poor,” you know poverty has reached center 
stage.
From the homilies of Pope Francis, to New York City Mayor Bill de 
Blasio's (pictured) inauguration speech, poverty and its close cousin 
inequality are playing starring roles in the current political 
discourse.  The President’s 2015 budget proposal, released earlier this 
month, calls for a significant increase in federal spending on 
anti-poverty programs, and while these proposals are likely DOA in the 
Republican-controlled House, Democrats across the land have promised to 
campaign on the issue leading up to the 2014 midterm races.  This year, 
then, appears little different from much of 2013: the spotlight on 
poverty shows no sign of dimming.
Amid all the discussions are familiar calls to raise the minimum 
wage, buttress the food stamp program, and expand health insurance to 
the nation's needy.  Yet absent from the conversation is a proven and 
powerful way to reduce poverty: strengthening the labor movement.  
Historically, unions have played a vital role in supporting the most 
vulnerable, despite the fact that very few union members were then, or 
are now, themselves poor.  Cross-nationally, countries with powerful 
labor movements have lower poverty rates.   And, in the U.S., recent 
research by the sociologists David Brady, Regina Baker, and Ryan 
Finnigan finds that states with strong unions tend to do a better job 
reducing the number of Americans living “on the outskirts of hope,” as 
President Johnson memorably characterized the issue.

How
 have unions reduced poverty?  Both directly and indirectly.  Directly, 
by helping to double the wage levels in industries as varied as textiles
 in New England, California canneries, and department stores in the 
nation’s largest cities, as the historian Nelson Lichtenstein has found.
 Prior to their organization, wages for bottom-rung occupations in these
 industries were extremely low. Likewise, maritime work was once brutal,
 disorganized, and temporary – until unions successfully signed up 
thousands of port employees along much of America’s coastline.
But unions are not simply economic organizations.  They are political
 ones too, and through their political efforts unions have consistently 
championed poverty-fighting policies, indirectly helping low-wage 
Americans.  Take food stamps, a program whose funding was recently cut 
by Congress.  Current controversies surrounding food stamps are nothing 
new.  During the course of its existence, many lawmakers have lambasted 
the program as overly generous and in need of reform. Key segments of 
the labor movement have intervened against these efforts, repeatedly, 
during decades of attacks from budget-cutting politicians. During the 
mid-1970s, for example, organized labor took to the courts to fight for 
the program’s solvency: Over 50 labor unions joined various other 
organizations and sued the federal government over proposed cuts to food
 stamps. Half a decade later, unions would threaten court action again.
READ: MSBNC's Ned Resnikoff responds with "For Labor To Succeed, It Has To Be Disruptive"
Or take the minimum wage.  As I explore in my book, unions have been 
pressuring elected officials for over half a century first to establish 
and then to raise the minimum wage, although not all their battles 
proved successful.  Legendary labor leader George Meany once castigated 
President Jimmy Carter for failing to accede to union demands to 
increase the minimum wage to $3.00/hour.  Meany claimed to the New York 
Times in 1977 that Carter’s intransigence was “a bitter disappointment 
to everyone who looked to this Administration for economic justice for 
the poor.” More recently, the campaigns to increase wage floors in 
states and localities across the country have been heavily underwritten 
by labor unions.
Finally take New York City's new mayor, Bill de Blasio, who in his 
inaugural address promised to “take dead aim at the Tale of Two Cities,”
 by combating inequality and lifting up those at the bottom of society. 
 If not for the Working Families Party (WFP), a party funded and 
co-founded by some of New York’s still-powerful unions, de Blasio’s 
political ambition may have been stillborn. His 2009 campaign for public
 advocate was managed by the WFP, and the party considers him a 
longstanding ally.  As documented by Harold Meyerson in the American 
Prospect, whatever successes the mayor may have in narrowing the yawning
 income and wealth gaps in the city will also be due to the WFP:  The 
new mayor has the party to thank for the 20 allies that comprise the 
“Progressive Caucus” on the city council.
While organized labor remains strong in New York, it has been 
devastated elsewhere.  Nationally, private sector organization rates 
have plummeted from approximately 35 percent to 5 percent.  Public 
sector unions are fighting rearguard battles even in such traditional 
labor strongholds as Wisconsin and Illinois.
We recently celebrated the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty.   
One clear lesson of the last half century is that if you take away 
unions you lose the financial and organizational resources behind 
various efforts to support the poor.  Quite possibly, you lose New 
York’s new mayor.  Over the next 50 years, winning the new War on 
Poverty will require a mix of creative policy initiatives, many of them 
now being touted by politicians across the ideological spectrum.  But it
 will also require something almost nobody is discussing: a revitalized 
labor movement.
Adapted from What Unions No Longer Do
 by Jake Rosenfeld. Copyright © 2014 by the President and Fellows of 
Harvard College. Reprinted by permission of Harvard University Press. 
All Rights Reserved.
Jake Rosenfeld is an Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Washington, co-director of the Scholars Strategy Network Northwest
 (SSN-NW), and a faculty affiliate of the Center for Studies in 
Demography and Ecology (CSDE), the West Coast Poverty Center (WCPC) and 
the Harry Bridges Center for Labor Studies. He received his PhD in 
Sociology from Princeton University in 2007. For more information, 
please see www.jakerosenfeld.net.
 
Warren Chamberlain How can we ever win the war on poverty if we have not clearly defined what poverty is yet?
ReplyDeleteJct: I have. You create your own poverty (shortage of money, shortage of goods is scarcity) the moment you sign a mort-gage death-gamble contract promising the return more than thbey just printed and loaned you. It's you or your neighbor who goes under, musical chairs with money, usury, the Big Sin of the Bible. That's the root cause of money shortage, automatic poverty by contract.
http://johnturmel.com/bankmath.htm explains with algebra, exponential functions, differential equations, Taylor and Laurent Series, Laplace and Fourier Transforms, Boolean algebra and Control Systems how you can't pay 11 (Principal + Interest) when they only created 10 (Principal)!