A+ R A-

Julianne Malveaux

Our Jobless Recovery

E-mail Print PDF

(NNPA) Our economy generated about 431,000 jobs last month. Good news? Only if you don’t count the fact that more than 400,000 of the jobs were temporary jobs connected to collecting data for the Census. Those jobs won’t last for long and when the dust clears the current 9.7 percent unemployment rate, down from 9.9 percent a month ago, is likely to rise again.

Still, those who are desperate for good news are clinging to the fact that there are more jobs out there.

What they don’t understand is that people are looking for something more than a few months of work here and there. Nearly seven million Americans have been out of work for more than half a year. What has this done to their finances?

Of course the situation is worse for African-Americans, even though Black unemployment dropped from 16.5 to 15.5 percent last month. The 15.5 percent is a modest estimate of what is really happening.

The U6 number in the Bureau of Labor Statistics Employment Situation report includes discouraged workers, those working part time that really want full time work and others peripherally connected to the labor market. That number dropped last month from 17.1 to 16.6 percent for the overall population. While the BLS does not report the number for African Americans, using the same relationships, the African-American U6 number is at least 25.6 percent. That means that one in four African Americans is jobless!

This jobless recovery means that some economists are willing and able to have conversations about the way the economy is turning around, even as only a few people feel the impact of the turnaround? Some of the numbers do look good, but the numbers that matter – the unemployment rate numbers, are stuck. How can the economy recover without generating jobs and what does this mean in the long run? We should all be apprehensive about public policy that does not embrace job creation, because at the basis of economic viability is an individual’s ability to earn and spend.

Without jobs, that just won’t happen.

As an economist, my focus on the labor market is usually about work and pay.

Several experiences in the last few months have forced me to focus, also, on the human consequences of high unemployment, including the mental health consequences of being jobless in a culture that says that what you do is who you are. I met a woman who had been downsized from her job at 61.

She told me, despondently, that she would probably never work again because of her age. Her aura was one of someone battered and lifeless. She asked me, a stranger, why her company could have done that to her. Part of me wanted to ask if she ever read the headlines. Part of me wanted to give her a hug.

A young White man who is a 2009 graduate of a prestigious college delivered my room service, just a few days ago. Personable and positive, he shared, as we talked, that he worked about 20 hours a week at the hotel. His major is communications, but after sending out more than 100 resumes and tapes, he has no jobs offers.

So he is waiting tables, delivering room service, keeping his chin up, and quietly dying. He said he could hardly bear to look at his dad, a man who had invested in his education. “I’m still living at home,” he told me. “I should be out doing things.”

This crisis knows no race or gender, but African-Americans are being hit harder than most. Public policy has to address this. It is unconsciounable that we should talk economic recovery while people are not working, while people are suffering. And we have to consider the many ways our society pains because of joblessness. There is a malaise that has infected our society because of this high unemployment. Our mental and emotional health has been affected by this unemployment. And we are all to quiet about it because we don’t know what to do next. Here is what we must do – we must push our legislators to address high unemployment. And we must protect the long term unemployed by extending their long-term benefits. A jobless recovery is no recovery, but instead it is a joke.

Julianne Malveaux is president of Bennett College for Women.

Financial Reform – The Devil's in the Details

E-mail Print PDF

(NNPA) - Late last week, the United States Senate passed a financial reform bill by a vote of 59-39. Two Democrats crossed party lines, as did four Republicans to come up with the result. Now, the House, which has already passed financial reform legislation, and the Senate, will have to reconcile their versions of the bill.

Now is the time for consumer advocates and others to counter the aggressive lobbying that will be done by banks and the auto industry to minimize the effects of legislation. This may also be an opportunity for the Congressional Black Caucus to raise its voice on the side of the many consumers who have been damaged by this financial crisis. While legislation is not meant to look backwards, but instead forward to prevent future crises, the CBC are among those who advocate for the least and the left out. Their perspective on financial regulation is badly needed.

The House would create a consumer protection agency that is freestanding; the Senate would house the agency inside the Federal Reserve Bank. In some ways having the Fed run consumer protection is like having the fox patrol the chicken coop. Isn’t this the same Fed that was part and parcel of the 2008 financial meltdown, the same Fed (then led by Alan Greenspan) that turned a blind eye to predatory and sub-prime lending and the market distortions that emerged from the packaging of substandard loan paper?

The Federal Reserve theoretically already deals with regulation around credit cards and mortgages and to date they’ve not done a good job. What will change when they now have a consumer protection agency? Hearings, anyone?

The House would exempt auto dealers from regulation, but the Senate would not. Why should auto dealers get a special break? Some say that we need people to buy autos to stimulate economic recovery. Shouldn’t they buy autos on fair terms? The lobbyists are lining up to make the case for auto dealers, but who is lining up for consumers?

This financial regulation reform makes it clear that the people have little power to affect legislation when lobbyists are involved. Too many are so happy that this financial reform legislation has been passed in both houses that they won’t look closely at the details or at reconciliation.

If we looked closely enough we might find that payday lenders, you know those folks who charge interest rates that veer into the triple digits, were able to stop a proposed provision of financial reform that would limit the number of payday loans (so called because you are borrowing against your paycheck) one individual could get.

The payday loan industry ran an astroturf campaign to stop a provision North Carolina Senator Kay Hagan introduced to limit payday loans to six (!) at a time. Consumers are worse off because the Hagan provisions were not included in the legislation.

Indeed, the final version of this legislation may be ready by the end of June. The House and the Senate aren’t too far apart on their provisions, which makes reconciliation easy. But neither the House nor the Senate has gone far enough in regulating derivatives, though both require derivatives to be traded publicly, and to be collateralized. This will stop the speculative nature of derivates, except for the fact that the House provides lots of exemptions to derivative clearinghouse rules. Washington Senator Maria Cantwell (D) opposed Senate legislation because she said it had too many loopholes for derivative trading.

Banks got off easy in this legislation. They are still allowed to do proprietary trading, or to speculate with their own money. But their money is really shareholder money, so who protects the shareholder? Indeed, banking lobbies are likely to tweak the compromise legislation so that financial reform regulations are less onerous to banks. Yet less onerous regulation is what caused the financial services industry to seek a $700 billion bailout from the federal government.

Congress will be rushing to get back to their districts this summer, what with contentious mid-term elections to deal with in November. We can’t let their haste weaken legislation that is already far from ideal. Most Republicans have opposed financial reform regulations on the grounds that this legislation simply expands the role of government and increases the size of the bureaucracy. The Obama Administration will have to take a forceful role in ensuring that the haste to pass financial reform regulations does not gloss over important details.

And, most importantly, consumer protection must be a cornerstone of this legislation. Both the House and Senate bills are a step in the right direction. Still, the devil is really in the details on financial reform legislation, and negotiations that take place in this next month will be critical to the success of meaningful financial reform.

 

Mo'nique’s Oscar – Victory and Setback

E-mail Print PDF

The comedienne, talk show host and actress Mo’nique has become just the fifth African- American woman to win an Oscar. Her portrayal of Mary Jones, the revolting and depraved mother of Precious, was arguably masterful, and she now joins Hattie McDaniel (who played a maid), Halle Berry (who played a sexstarved fool), Whoopi Goldberg (who played a medium in Ghost), and Jennifer Hudson (who played a singer).

I mention the roles that African- American women played to win their Oscars because the roles African- American women get in Hollywood are too frequently stereotypical, and it is these stereotypical performances that are often lifted up. While I am glad for Mo’nique’s victory, I did not relish the Precious story of welfare pathology making it to the screen. Why not more positive roles for African- American women?

Sandra Bullock, for example, won Best Actress for her role in The Blind Side. She played a White mother who took a Black child into her home and helped him reach football stardom. Why no roles like that for Black women?

While The Blind Side is based on a true story, there are countless true stories of African-American women who take in relatives or other people’s children and move mountains for them. This might send the wrong message about Black women, though. It might suggest that we believe that it takes a village to raise a child, instead of highlighting the bestial way that Mary Jones treated Precious.

I know, I know, it’s all about the Benjamins, and those who have the power to “green light” films don’t think that people will go see a movie with positive depictions of African-American people. Precious, for all its pathology, didn’t have an easy time getting produced and, indeed, has twelve producers, including Oprah Winfrey and Tyler Perry, who helped promote the film. The movie had a small, $10 million, production budget, and has earned only about $50 million, recouping production costs, but underscoring the modest level of resources available for this movie.

It rankles that an image of the fat, Black, slovenly welfare cheat is lifted up even at a time when public assistance rolls have been drastically cut, despite our economy. The myth of the welfare queen, strongly promoted by President Ronald Reagan when he was governor of California, reinforced in 1996 when President Bill Clinton supported “welfare reform (I called it deform) legislation, is one of the ugly urban legends that seems to shape perceptions of African-American women. And ain’t I a woman, Sojourner Truth might say. Aren’t there positive dramatic roles for African-American women in Hollywood? To be sure, every character in Precious is not a negative stereotype. Mariah Carey’s role as a social worker was a pitch perfect depiction of an overworked and somewhat harried helping professional with too large a caseload. Paula Patton plays teacher Miss Blu Rain in a way that reminded me of my best teachers, those who went the extra mile. There are other characters with redeeming social value in the movie, but there would have to be given the pervasive degeneracy of Mary Jones.

I would love to see someone green light the story of Madame C.J. Walker, our nation’s first Black woman millionaire.

There’s some glamour there, and some drama! What about the story of Ida B. Wells, who had to flee the state of Tennessee because of her anti-lynching writing. In a contemporary context, why not tell the story of Cathy Liggins Hughes, the millionaire owner of Radio One who slept in her studio because she couldn’t afford rent and the cost of station operations. These are dramatic stories, but they fly in the face of the stereotypes that were replete in Precious.

I don’t begrudge Mo’nique her Oscar.

She took the material she was given and she worked it. She made Mary Jones a repulsive character with absolutely no redeeming social value. I am simply frustrated that these are the only kinds of roles that Hollywood offers African- American women, the only kinds of roles that Oscar chooses to lift up. I am frustrated that some may consider Mary Jones’ bestiality as typical, not atypical of African-American women.

When African-American women’s characters in film are more reflective of our reality, and when these characters’ performances are lifted up by Oscar, then we will have come a long way, baby. Until then, Mo’nique’s victory is her laudable personal success. It is a Black community setback.

The Meaning of the Jobs Meeting

E-mail Print PDF

It was good to see the photo of NAACP President Ben Jealous and National Urban League President Marc Morial leave the White House, snow hip deep, after they met with President Barack Obama to talk about the ways the unemployment crisis is affecting African-Americans.

It was unfortunate that Dr. Dorothy I. Height, who at 97 doesn’t let much stop her, wasn’t able to make the meeting because of the weather. It was puzzling to see the National Action Network’s Rev. Al Sharpton included in the meeting, as I’m not sure that the NAN has done work on employment and unemployment, though Sharpton has been an effective spokesman on race matters.

Still, the NAN is not an organization of the stature of the NAACP or Urban League. If another leader might have been included, it should have been the Rev. Jesse Jackson, leader of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, or a labor leader like Bill Lucy of AFSCME and the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists. And it is unfortunate that Dr. Height could not send an NCNW representative so that African-American women would be represented in the conversation.

I quibble. I’m glad the meeting took place.

After indicating that he is the President of “all” Americans, I wondered whether President Obama would ever meet with African-American leaders. I do hope they shared the devastating impact unemployment has had on the African- American community. Our unemployment rate is not 9.7 percent, as the overall rate is. It is not the 16.7 percent that is officially reported. According to my own calculations, the Black unemployment rate is at least 28.7 percent. Would such a rate be acceptable if “all” Americans were experiencing it? The visual of Black leaders leaving the White House reminded me of the tortured history of African- Americans with White House leaders. In the nineteenth century, only two African-Americans visited the White House in a non-service capacity. President Lincoln signed Sojourner Truth’s autograph book when she visited the White House, and President Roosevelt Hayes invited Frederick Douglass to the White House for a conversation.

President Theodore Roosevelt had Booker T. Washington as a dinner guest on October 16, 1901. This is the first time that an African-American had dinner in the White House, and it was the last time, during Roosevelt’s term, that an African-American was invited to dinner.

Booker T. had the opportunity, on other occasions, to visit the White House, and several African-American leaders were invited to receptions, but it was not until the latter part of the twentieth century that African Americans were regular dinner guests at the White House. Imagine the irony, then, that now an African- American woman, Desiree Rodgers, is the gatekeeper who draws up lists of White House guests.

President Woodrow Wilson, for all his academic acumen, was extremely hostile to African American people. History does not record a regular presence of African-Americans until the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose wife, Eleanor Roosevelt, was an outspoken opponent of racism. She invited Marian Anderson to entertain at the White House, and was at least partly responsible for her historic concert at Constitution Hall.

President Roosevelt also had a “kitchen cabinet” of African- American advisors that included NAACP President Walter White, economist Robert Weaver (the first African-American to serve on a Presidential cabinet, as Secretary of HUD under President Lyndon B. Johnson), and Mary McLeod Bethune, who was Roosevelt’s special advisor on Minority Affairs.

One might think that with an African- American man in the White House, there is no need for African- American leaders to clamor for regular attention from this President. But African-American leaders should not take President Obama for granted and assume that, because of his race, he will pay special attention to Black issues. He should not. Instead, African-American leaders must be as insistent with this President as they would with any other. And indeed, they must look back to the history of the kitchen cabinet to develop a relationship with President Obama that provides him with regular input about African- American issues, just as he is gaining information about labor issues, women’s issues, gay and lesbian issues, Latino issues, and other issues. All of these groups, I believe, have had meetings with our President. Why not African- Americans?

Hopefully, last week’s meeting will be the first of many. And, hopefully, beyond meetings, work must be done both to lower the unemployment rate and close the black/white unemployment gap.

Dr. Julianne Malveaux is President of Bennett College for Women in Greensboro, N.C. She can be reached at presbennett@bennett.edu

Rebuilding Haiti from the Earthquake and From Benign Neglect

E-mail Print PDF

On Monday when many commemorated the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, United States troops were headed to Haiti to keep order and to provide the humanitarian aid that is desperately needed after the devastation of a 7.0 earthquake. President Barack Obama has pledged $100 million of US aid, and other countries are pledging aid as well. People are sending supplies, and some of them are getting through. And, through their cell phones, people have given more than $4 million for Haitian relief. One does not have to wonder what Dr. Martin Luther King would say about Haiti. In a speech at Lincoln University in 1961, he spoke to our connectedness, “All life is interrelated. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. As long as there is poverty in the world, no man can be totally rich even if he has a billion dollars.”

We are diminished by the tragedy in Haiti, but the fact is that we have been diminished by Haiti for decades. The earthquake’s tragedy compounds the poverty of a nation that has been utterly neglected by the world. There is no infrastructure in Haiti, little ability to bounce back from a crisis. There is scant government, a law enforcement system that is helpless in the face of gangs, and a poverty that affects most of the country. If this were any other nation in the world, there would have been intervention and humanitarian aid a long time ago. But Haitian slaves beat the French back in 1804, more than two hundred years ago, and they have not been forgiven for it since.

The United States has had an unreasonable policy on Haiti, allowing Cuban refuges, but not Haitian ones, here in the 1980s and 1990s, building concentration camps for those who dared escape from that country’s economic challenges. We have offered a few dollars, but only a few, in humanitarian aid, and at times have actually withheld support to determine “democratic” outcomes, as if starving people should be bribed to embrace an elusive democracy. While the earthquake that killed more than 50,000 people and displaced three million can be called an “act of God”, the weak infrastructure exacerbated the damage the earthquake caused. If we are honest, we in the United States must say that some of the blood that was spilled in Haiti is on our hands.

What must we do now? First of all, we clearly must provide as much humanitarian assistance as we can to offer immediate relief to displaced and starving Haitian people. Our next priority, however, must be to assist with infrastructure planning and development for our neighbors in this small island nation. We have used the Monroe doctrine to intervene in Haiti and in other places in our hemisphere in the past. Now, let’s use the Monroe doctrine to make a positive difference in Haiti.

Former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, the artist and activist Wyclef Jean, Institute of the Black World leader Dr. Ron Daniels and so many others have an interest in the growth and development of Haiti. President Clinton’s charity is among those that are funneling dollars and supplies to the island. Imagine that these diverse brains sat around a table, with Haitian brothers and sisters and strategize ways that Haiti can thrive. Perhaps former President Aristede could be part of such discussions, if only because of his strong connection with the poor in Haiti, a connection that his successor seems not to have nurtured. Indeed, it has been interesting that President Preval has had low visibility as the world has responded to the crisis in Haiti. President Obama deserves credit for his quick response to Haiti. So do many others – Doctors without Borders, the International Red Cross, Wyclef’s organization, and more. It will take more than the distribution of bottled water, highenergy and high-energy biscuits to rescue Haiti, more than the clearing of rubble and the keeping of order. Haiti needs help rebuilding, not only from the earthquake, but also from decades of benign neglect.

Julianne Malveaux is President of Bennett College for Women in Greensboro, North Carolina.

Page 25 of 25

Quantcast

BVN National News Wire