The Pronk Pops Show 1314, Septeber 6, 3019, Story 1: Hurricane Dorian Increased Speed to 15 MPH with Top Winds of 90 MPH, Going North East, Moving On and Downgraded to Category 1 Hurricane  — Videos — Story 2: Only 130,000 Jobs Created in August, U-3 Unemployment Rate 3.7%, Civilian Labor Participation Rate Rises To 63.3% Still Way Below The 66% to 67% Labor Participation Rate of The Late 1990s and Early 2000s — Economic Real Gross Domestic Product Growth Rate Still Below U.S. Historical of Average of 3.0 to 3.5% — Federal Reserve Should Cut Fed Funds Rate By .25% in September — No Recession Until 2021 — Prediction: Trump Reelected in Landslide Victory as American People Reject Radical Extremist Democratic Socialist (REDS) Promises In Favor of Trump Promised Kept — Videos — Story 3: Universal Basic Income or Graduated Fair Tax Less With $1000 Monthly Tax Prebate — Videos

Posted on September 6, 2019. Filed under: 2020 Democrat Candidates, 2020 President Candidates, 2020 Republican Candidates, Addiction, Addiction, American History, Applications, Banking System, Blogroll, Books, Bribery, Bribes, Cartoons, Communications, Computers, Congress, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Currencies, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Economics, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, First Amendment, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Hardware, Health, Health Care, Health Care Insurance, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Labor Economics, Legal Immigration, Life, Media, Medicare, Mental Illness, Monetary Policy, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, Progressives, Psychology, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Rule of Law, Senate, Servers, Social Sciences, Social Security, Software, Tax Policy, Trade Policy, U.S. Dollar, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, War, Wealth, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1314 September 6, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1313 August 28, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1312 August 27, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1311 August 26, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1310 August 21, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1309 August 20, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1308 August 19, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1307 August 15, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1306 August 14, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1305 August 12, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1304 August 8, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1303 August 7, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1302 August 6, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1301 August 5, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1300 August 1, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1299 July 31, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1298 July 30, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1297 July 29, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1296 July 25, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1295 July 24, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1294 July 23, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1293 July 22, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1292 July 18, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1291 July 17, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1290 July 16, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1289 July 15, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1288 July 11, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1287 July 10, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1286 July 9, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1285 July 8, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1284 July 2, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1283 July 1, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1282 June 27, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1281 June 26, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1280 June 25, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1279 June 24, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1278 June 20, 2019 

Pronk Pops Show 1277 June 19, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1276 June 18, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1275 June 17, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1274 June 13, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1273 June 12, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1272 June 11, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1271 June 10, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1270 June 6, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1269 June 5, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1268 June 3, 2019

cone graphic

 

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

See the source imageSee the source image

Image result for cartoon universal basic income

See the source image

See the source image

Image result for cartoon universal basic income

See the source image

 

Story 1: Hurricane Dorian Increased Speed to 15 MPH with Top Winds of 90 MPH, Going North East, Moving On and Downgraded to Category 1 Hurricane  — Videos

UPDATAED September 7, 2019

The latest: A Saturday, September 7, map shows how Dorian is expected to move along New England, hitting Maine, Massachusetts, Nova Scotia and then Newfoundland, over the weekend

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

UPDATED September 5-6, 2019

Tropical weather forecast & Dorian evening update: Sept. 6, 2019

Bodies everywhere’: Harrowing account of Bahamas after Dorian

Hurricane Dorian: Witnessing Bahamas aftermath shows ‘historic tragedy’ | ITV News

Hurricane Dorian NC: Storm now just off of Wilmington, tracking the timeline of the storm

Dorian Passes Charleston, Flooding And Power Outages Major Concern | NBC News

Timeline of Hurricane Dorian thus far

The 2 PM Advisory on Hurricane Dorian has been released

Tropical weather forecast & Dorian midday update: Sept. 3, 2019

Hurricane Dorian stalls off Florida coast

Erosion still major concern for South Florida beaches due to Hurricane Dorian

Hurricane Dorian 5 a.m. advisory Sept. 3

Florida locals hunker down despite Hurricane Dorian evacuation order

Hurricane Dorian: How a survivor in Bahamas escaped

 

Slow-crawling Dorian a new kind of threat

Issam AHMED

AFP
Hurricane Dorian broke into the record books on Sunday when its maximum sustained winds of 185 mph (300 kph) tied it in second place with 1998's Gilbert and 2005's Wilma as the most powerful Atlantic storm since 1950
Hurricane Dorian broke into the record books on Sunday when its maximum sustained winds of 185 mph (300 kph) tied it in second place with 1998’s Gilbert and 2005’s Wilma as the most powerful Atlantic storm since 1950 (AFP Photo/NOAA)
More

 After devastating the Bahamas, Dorian is continuing its long crawl toward the southeast US with slightly weakened winds.

So what has made this relatively small hurricane so destructive?

– Packing a punch –

Hurricane Dorian stormed into the record books on Sunday when its maximum sustained winds of 185 miles (300 kilometers) per hour tied it in second place with 1998’s Gilbert and 2005’s Wilma as the most powerful Atlantic hurricane since 1950, according to Colorado State University’s Tropical Meteorology Project.

First place is still held by 1980’s Allen, which had maximum sustained winds of 190 mph.

Dorian is also the strongest hurricane on record to make landfall in the Bahamas by pressure.

From its peak as a Category 5 on the Saffir-Simpson wind scale, it has weakened to a Category 2 storm, but the US National Hurricane Center (NHC) has warned Americans to not take it lightly.

That’s because wind speed is only one of a number of factors that make hurricanes destructive, including the storm surge and rainfall potential, as well as how long it stalls over one spot.

Dorian stalked the Bahamas for a highly unusual 18 hours, during which time it dumped in excess of 24 inches (60 cm) of rainfall, according to NASA data.

The archipelago’s northernmost island also experienced storm surges estimated by the NHC at 10- to 15-foot (3m to 4.5m) above tide levels. At least five people have so far been reported killed, though the toll is expected to rise.

– Hurricanes that stall –

While over the Bahamas, Dorian’s forward motion was at times just one mile per hour, heightening its destruction and making it harder for forecasters to predict its future path.

Kristy Dahl, a climate scientist with US advocacy group the Union of Concerned Scientists, told AFP hurricanes that stall for a long time are becoming more common, and recent studies show the phenomenon could be linked to man-made climate change.

The temperature contrast between the planet’s higher and lower latitudes is the main driver of wind. Scientists suspect that because the Arctic regions are warming faster than those at the equator, global atmospheric circulation is also falling.

Before Dorian, Harvey loitered in Texas in 2017, while Florence stalled over North Carolina last September.

A study by NASA and NOAA scientists published in June found that between 1944 and 2017, the average forward speed of hurricanes decreased by 17 percent, from 11.5 mph, to 9.6 mph.

– Climate change supercharging storms –

While the science linking climate change and hurricane stalling is cutting-edge and still under discussion, there is a far more broad consensus on the other ways that global warming is supercharging storms.

The overall number of hurricanes is not increasing, but more are going on to become powerful Category 4 and 5 storms.

There are three main factors, according to Dahl. First, the excess heat from global warming has primarily been absorbed by the oceans, meaning that storms pass over warmer water carrying more potential energy that translates into rainfall and stronger winds.

“The warming has been even more pronounced in the Atlantic Ocean, which has warmed by about 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit (0.3 degrees Celsius) per decade since the 1970s,” Dahl wrote in a blog post.

Secondly, rising sea levels make the storm surges higher and more extensive. And thirdly, warmer air holds more moisture — an example of which was seen during Hurricane Harvey, which dumped 60 inches of rainfall.

A study by US federal researchers published in the influential journal Nature in February identified another trend: hurricanes are increasingly undergoing “rapid intensification” over a short period of time, with the scientists linking the phenomenon to man-made climate change.

Dorian also rapidly intensified not once but twice over this weekend.

“The percentage of Atlantic hurricanes that have experienced rapid intensification has tripled since the 1980s, it’s not something that we can explain by natural climate variability,” said Dahl.

https://news.yahoo.com/slow-crawling-dorian-kind-threat-201113535.html

 

Evacuations, States of Emergency Issued for States in Hurricane Dorian’s Path

Hurricane Dorian is expected to hit Florida Tuesday with 120 mph winds and unrelenting rain.

Dorian to Hit Florida, Carolinas as Category 3

A road is flooded during the passing of Hurricane Dorian in Freeport, Grand Bahama, Bahamas.

Hurricane Dorian has already devastated the Bahamas, where it made landfall as a Category 5 storm with winds of 180 mph.(AP PHOTO/TIM AYLEN)

HURRICANE DORIAN IS forecast to hit the United States as a Category 3 hurricane Tuesday, making landfall over Florida.

Dorian is packing 120 mph winds as it moves northwestward from the Bahamas to the east coast of Florida, where it is expected to hit with life-threatening storm surges and dangerous winds. It is projected to strike the east coasts of Florida, Georgia and South Carolina, and the risk of similar conditions is increasing for North Carolina.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis ordered mandatory evacuations for 11 counties, and voluntary evacuations are in place for an additional five. Eighty-five shelters have been opened and almost 200,000 free WiFi hotspots have been established to enable communication, according to the governor’s office.

Additionally, Florida has 819,000 gallons of water and 1.8 million meals ready for distribution with a request to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for an additional 9 million liters of water and 6.5 million meals. More than 4,500 Florida Guardsman have been deployed, and 21 Urban Search and Rescue Task Forces are being prepared.

Hurricane Dorian has already devastated the Bahamas, where it made landfall as a Category 5 storm with winds of 180 mph. The slow-moving system has lingered over the islands, bringing rain, violent winds, dangerous flooding and catastrophic damage.

Bahamian Prime Minister Hubert Minnis said authorities have confirmed five deaths and that many more people are “in serious distress” amid the “historic tragedy.”

After Florida, Dorian is expected to move northward, hitting Georgia and South Carolina on Thursday, where hurricane watches are in effect, according to the hurricane center.tional Guardsman for storm preparation and response. Emergency shelters are being established, and Kemp ordered mandatory evacuations for six counties, the governor’s office reported. A state of emergency is in effect for a dozen counties.

In South Carolina, Gov. Henry McMaster declared a state of emergency and ordered mandatory evacuations for residents in eight counties, the governor’s office said.

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-09-03/evacuations-states-of-emergency-issued-for-states-in-hurricane-dorians-path

Terrifying moment screaming group is swept away in raging Bahamas floodwaters as Hurricane Dorian pounds the Caribbean island, leaves five dead and moves ‘dangerously close’ to the Florida shore as thousands evacuate and Disney World shuts early

  • Dorian is expected to move towards Florida today with 110mph winds, storm surges and possible tornadoes 
  • Thousands have fled their homes and boarded up shops and houses, with 9,500 people staying in shelters
  • The hurricane is not currently predicted to hit land but ‘only a small deviation’ could send it into the mainland 

Terrifying video shows the moment a screaming group of people desperately swim through raging floodwaters to safety as Hurricane Dorian passed over the Bahamas.

Four people are seen being swept away by the fast-moving water in the Abaco Islands on Sunday.

As they continue to struggle against the current, they grab onto downed trees in an attempt to help one another to safety.

As they make their way out of the floodwaters, a rope appears to be keeping them together. In the video, which was obtained by ABC News, a man is then seen helping the group out of the water using the rope.

The Coast Guard was deployed to Andros Island, where they evacuated residents from the Marsh Harbour Clinic to Nassau International Airport on Monday.

Four Jayhawk aircrews completed five medical evacuations of 19 people, ranging in ages from children to elderly, in various medical conditions.

The Coast Guard continued its search in the Bahamas, where five people have been killed by Hurricane Dorian, early Tuesday morning.

Scroll down for video  

Terrifying video shows the moment a screaming group of people (pictured) desperately swim through raging floodwaters to safety as Hurricane Dorian passed over the Bahamas

Terrifying video shows the moment a screaming group of people (pictured) desperately swim through raging floodwaters to safety as Hurricane Dorian passed over the Bahamas

Four people are seen being swept away by the fast-moving water in the Abaco Islands on Sunday. As they continue to struggle against the current, they grab onto downed trees (pictured) in an attempt to help one another to safety

Four people are seen being swept away by the fast-moving water in the Abaco Islands on Sunday. As they continue to struggle against the current, they grab onto downed trees (pictured) in an attempt to help one another to safety

As they make their way out of the floodwaters, a rope appears to be keeping them together. In the video, which was obtained by ABC News, a man is then seen helping the group out of the water using the rope

As they make their way out of the floodwaters, a rope appears to be keeping them together. In the video, which was obtained by ABC News, a man is then seen helping the group out of the water using the rope

On Tuesday morning, United Nations officials estimated that more than 60,000 people in the northwest Bahamas will need food following the devastation left by Dorian.

A spokesman for the UN World Food Program said that a team is ready to help the Bahamian government assess storm damage and prioritize needs.

Herve Verhoosel said preliminary calculations show that 45,700 people on Grand Bahama island may need food, along with another 14,500 in the neighboring Abaco islands.

Meanwhile, a spokesman for the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies says some 62,000 people also will need access to clean drinking water.

The Royal Family shared their condolences to the victims of Hurricane Dorian in a statement shared on Instagram

The Royal Family shared their condolences to the victims of Hurricane Dorian in a statement shared on Instagram

Matthew Cochrane says about 45 per cent of homes in Grand Bahama and Abaco were severely damaged or destroyed and the organization will help 20,000 of the most vulnerable people, including a large Haitian community.

Bahamas Health Minister Duane Sands said Dorian devastated the health infrastructure in Grand Bahama island and massive flooding has rendered the main hospital unusable.

He said Tuesday that the storm caused severe damage in the neighboring Abaco islands and he hopes to send an advanced medical team there soon.

Sands said the main hospital in Marsh Harbor is intact and sheltering 400 people but needs food, water, medicine and surgical supplies.

He also said crews are trying to airlift between five and seven end-stage kidney failure patients from Abaco who haven’t received dialysis since Friday.

The Royal Family shared their condolences to the victims of Hurricane Dorian in a statement that was shared on Instagram.

‘Prince Philip and I have been shocked and saddened to learn of the devastation caused by Hurricane Dorian, and we send our sincere condolences to the families and friends of those who have lost their lives following this terrible storm,’ a message from Queen Elizabeth II reads.

‘At this very difficult time, my thoughts and prayers are with those who have seen their homes and property destroyed, and I also send my gratitude to the emergency services and volunteers who are supporting the rescue and recovery effort,’ the statement concluded.

Florida is now bracing for the impact of Hurricane Dorian on Tuesday as gusty winds and heavy rain start to hit the US coast.

The Coast Guard was deployed to Andros Island, where they evacuated residents people from the Marsh Harbour Clinic (pictured) to Nassau International Airport on Monday. Four Jayhawk aircrews completed five medical evacuations of 19 people, ranging in ages from children to elderly, in various medical conditions

The Coast Guard was deployed to Andros Island, where they evacuated residents people from the Marsh Harbour Clinic (pictured) to Nassau International Airport on Monday. Four Jayhawk aircrews completed five medical evacuations of 19 people, ranging in ages from children to elderly, in various medical conditions

The NHC said Dorian's maximum sustained winds decreased to near 110mph, but it's expected to remain a powerful hurricane during the next few days

The NHC said Dorian’s maximum sustained winds decreased to near 110mph, but it’s expected to remain a powerful hurricane during the next few days

Thousands have been ordered to flee their homes and more than 9,500 people have taken cover in shelters across the state with many shops and houses boarded up

Thousands have been ordered to flee their homes and more than 9,500 people have taken cover in shelters across the state with many shops and houses boarded up

hurricane and could cause highly dangerous storm surges even if it does not make landfall on the US coast

Although Dorian has weakened, it remains a menacing Category 2 hurricane that could cause highly dangerous storm surges even if it does not make landfall on the US coast

While the storm is expected to stay offshore, experts have warned that 'only a small deviation' would be needed to bring it towards the mainland

While the storm is expected to stay offshore, experts have warned that ‘only a small deviation’ would be needed to bring it towards the mainland

 

This satellite image shows the devastation from the floods brought on by Hurricane Dorian on Grand Bahama

This satellite image shows the devastation from the floods brought on by Hurricane Dorian on Grand Bahama

Shortly after 11am on Tuesday, forecasters said Dorian had weakened to a Category 2 hurricane that could still cause highly dangerous storm surges even if it does not make landfall on the US coast.

The NHC said Dorian’s maximum sustained winds decreased to near 110mph, but it’s expected to remain a powerful hurricane during the next few days.

While the storm is expected to stay offshore, experts have warned that ‘only a small deviation’ would be needed to bring it towards the mainland.

Today Disney World announced it was closing early, shutting its doors at 3pm amid fears that Orlando could come into Dorian’s path if it veers off course.

‘We are closely monitoring the progress of the storm and are making operational adjustments as needed,’ the attraction’s website said.

Orlando International Airport is also closed.

‘This storm at this magnitude could really cause massive destruction. Do not put your life in jeopardy by staying behind when you have a chance to get out,’ warned Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.

Trees blow in the wind on Cocoa Beach in Florida as a woman stopped to take a picture Monday night ahead of Hurricane Dorian

Trees blow in the wind on Cocoa Beach in Florida as a woman stopped to take a picture Monday night ahead of Hurricane Dorian

A woman shields her face from the wind, rain and blowing sand whipped up by Hurricane Dorian as she walked on Cocoa Beach in Florida on Monday

A woman shields her face from the wind, rain and blowing sand whipped up by Hurricane Dorian as she walked on Cocoa Beach in Florida on Monday

The hurricane is seen in a satellite image with the state of Florida marked. The storm stalled over the Bahamas but is set to move towards the US coast later Tuesday

The hurricane is seen in a satellite image with the state of Florida marked. The storm stalled over the Bahamas but is set to move towards the US coast later Tuesday

The National Hurricane Center shared a photo mapping out Hurricane Dorian’s possible path, with the storm reaching Florida on Tuesday

Florida Senator Rick Scott wrote on Twitter that ‘a slight wobble west’ would bring the storm ‘on shore with devastating consequences’.

‘If you’re in an evacuation zone, get out NOW. We can rebuild your home. We can’t rebuild your life,’ he said.

Dorian was due to move towards Florida Monday night but instead stalled over the Bahamas.

The National Hurricane Center (NHC) now predicts the ‘extremely dangerous’ storm will ‘move dangerously close to the Florida east coast late today through Wednesday evening’.

More than 1,300 flights have been cancelled already with another 1,600 scrapped on Tuesday, many involving Orlando, Fort Lauderdale and Miami airports.

Port Everglades, a seaport which is home to several major cruise lines, was also shut.

Today a hurricane watch was in effect for Florida’s East Coast from Deerfield Beach north to South Santee River in South Carolina.

Businesses are boarded up near Fort Pierce Jetty Park in Florida, with graffiti on one shutter saying: 'Go away Dorian'

Businesses are boarded up near Fort Pierce Jetty Park in Florida, with graffiti on one shutter saying: ‘Go away Dorian’

Kacy Carvajal holds her friend's daughter, two-year-old Emily Castaneda, as they check in to an evacuation shelter at the Vero Beach High School Freshman Learning Center in Florida on Monday

Kacy Carvajal holds her friend’s daughter, two-year-old Emily Castaneda, as they check in to an evacuation shelter at the Vero Beach High School Freshman Learning Center in Florida on Monday

Juna Beach residents Anneka (left), 8, and sister, Breanna, 10, right, along with their mother, Leah Hanza, center, get a close look at the waves crashing against the Juno Beach Pier as the hurricane crawls towards Florida

Juna Beach residents Anneka (left), 8, and sister, Breanna, 10, right, along with their mother, Leah Hanza, center, get a close look at the waves crashing against the Juno Beach Pier as the hurricane crawls towards Florida

Hurricane Dorian caused evacuations in numerous areas of Florida, including in Palm Beach where President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago club is located. A photo of the resort just days before the storm

A photo of Mar-a-Lago from Tuesday shows a storm surge brought on by Hurricane Dorian

A storm surge watch was extended northward to South Santee River in South Carolina. Lake Okeechobee was under a tropical storm watch.

The evacuation zone includes some areas in Palm Beach County, home to President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort. A photo showed the storm shutters covering the doors and windows of Mar-a-Lago.

In southern Florida’s Port Saint Lucie – a low-income area where mobile home parks stood all-but emptied of their residents – Dan Peatle, 78, fled his retirement community to take shelter in a hotel.

‘It makes me sick. I don’t like it,’ he said.

‘I’ve been through seven or eight of them since I’ve been in Florida, since ’73. And, they’re all the same, you know. Tear everything up, put it back together. But, I chose to live here so I might as well live with it, you know.’

Shop windows are seen boarded up in Deerfield Beach, Florida, with the storm set to move towards the US mainland today

Shop windows are seen boarded up in Deerfield Beach, Florida, with the storm set to move towards the US mainland today

A lifeguard tower is seen on the shore under gloomy skies at Las Olas Beach in Fort Lauderdale yesterday, only two beachgoers visible in the water

A lifeguard tower is seen on the shore under gloomy skies at Las Olas Beach in Fort Lauderdale yesterday, only two beachgoers visible in the water

A sign tells motorists that Port Everglades, where several major cruise lines are docked, is closed due to the hurricane

Homes on the Intracoastal Waterway are seen with their hurricane shutters up as Hurricane Dorian approaches in Boca Raton

More than 9,500 people have taken cover in 121 shelters in Florida, according to the state’s Division of Emergency Management.

Among them is 30-year-old Stefanie Passieux, who took shelter along with her two children and mother.

‘I came yesterday, as soon as it opened. They said we were in a state of emergency so I came,’ she said. ‘My dad is staying with the cats, but we left. He never leaves. He doesn’t do shelters.’

Further up the coast, some 830,000 people were ordered to evacuate in South Carolina with all lanes of Interstate 26 out of Charleston reversed on Monday to allow motorists to head inland.

Georgia has also ordered mandatory evacuations on its Atlantic coast.

North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper warned his state that it could see heavy rain, winds and floods later in the week.

His Virginia counterpart Ralph Northam declared a state of emergency yesterday although state officials are yet to order any evacuations.

Beachegoers are seen on the shore under dark and gloomy skies at Las Olas Beach in Fort Lauderdale on Monday

People walk the shoreline of Juno Beach near the pier under high gust winds as Hurricane Dorian crawled toward Florida

Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Scale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Scale
Category Wind speeds
Five ≥70 m/s, ≥137 knots
≥157 mph, ≥252 km/h
Four 58–70 m/s, 113–136 knots
130–156 mph, 209–251 km/h
Three 50–58 m/s, 96–112 knots
111–129 mph, 178–208 km/h
Two 43–49 m/s, 83–95 knots
96–110 mph, 154–177 km/h
One 33–42 m/s, 64–82 knots
74–95 mph, 119–153 km/h
Related classifications
Tropical
storm
18–32 m/s, 34–63 knots
39–73 mph, 63–118 km/h
Tropical
depression
≤17 m/s, ≤33 knots
≤38 mph, ≤62 km/h

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saffir%E2%80%93Simpson_Hurricane_Scale

Story 2: Only 130,000 Jobs Created in August, U-3 Unemployment Rate 3.7%, Civilian Labor Participation Rate Rises To 63.3% Still Way Below The 66% to 67% Labor Participation Rate of The Late 1990s and Early 2000s — Economic Real Gross Domestic Product Growth Rate Still Below U.S. Historical of Average of 3.0 to 3.5% — Federal Reserve Should Cut Fed Funds Rate By .25% in September — No Recession Until 2021 — Prediction: Trump Reelected in Landslide Victory as American People Reject Radical Extremist Democratic Socialist (REDS) Promises In Favor of Trump Promises Kept — Videos —

 

See the source image

See the source image

 

See the source image

See the source image

White House advisor Larry Kudlow on August’s weak jobs number

Economists break down August’s weak jobs report

Strategist: Pay attention to the market reaction to the August jobs report

There’s a lot to like in the August jobs report, CIO says

Issues in farming go much deeper than trade tensions, says Senator Mike Braun

Record 157,878,000 Employed in August; Record Low Unemployment Rate for Blacks

By Susan Jones | September 6, 2019 | 8:44 AM EDT

(Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)

(CNSNews.com) – The number of people employed in the United States hit a record 157,878,000 in August, the 21st record set under President Donald Trump, according to the employment report released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

That’s an increase of 590,000 from the record 157,228,000 employed in July.

The unemployment rate held steady at 3.7 percent. For blacks, the unemployment rate dropped to a record low of 5.5 percent last month. And for Hispanics, the unemployment rate was 4.2 percent in August, which ties the record low set earlier this year.

In August, the civilian noninstitutional population in the United States was 259,432,000. That included all people 16 and older who did not live in an institution (such as a prison, nursing home or long-term care hospital). Of that civilian noninstutional population, 163,922,000 were in the labor force, meaning that they either had a job or were actively seeking one during the last month.

That boosted the labor force participation rate to 63.2 percent, which matches the Trump-era high set this past January and February. That’s a 0.2 percent gain from the 63.0 percent in July.

Of the 163,922,000 who were in the labor force, 6,044,000 were unemployed, which put the unemployment rate at 3.7 percent for a third straight month.

Among the major worker groups, BLS said, the unemployment rates for adult men (3.4 percent), adult women (3.3 percent), teenagers (12.6 percent), Whites (3.4 percent), Blacks (5.5 percent), Asians (2.8 percent), and Hispanics (4.2 percent) showed little or no change in August, although — as noted above — it’s never been better for blacks and Hispanics.

The economy added 130,000 jobs in August, boosted by employment gains  in the federal government, largely reflecting the hiring of temporary workers for the 2020 Census, BLS said. Notable job gains also occurred in health care and financial activities.

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for June was revised down by 15,000 to +178,000, and the change for July was revised down by 5,000 to +159,000. With these revisions, employment gains in June and July combined were 20,000 less than previously reported.

After revisions, job gains have averaged 156,000 per month over the last 3 months.

According to an August 21 update from the Congressional Budget Office:

Strong demand for goods and services over the past several years boosted the demand for labor and caused labor market conditions to strengthen steadily.

The labor market carried momentum from 2018 into the first half of 2019 and is expected to continue to grow at a healthy, albeit slower, pace over the next several years.

In CBO’s projections, the unemployment rate averages 3.7 percent in 2019 and 2020 and then steadily rises to 4.6 percent by the end of 2023 as output growth slows. Employment rose above its potential, or maximum sustainable, level in 2018 and is expected to remain above its potential level over the entire 2019–2023 period.

The labor force participation rate among prime-age workers (those between the ages of 25 and 54) has rebounded since 2015, adding about 1.5 million workers to the labor force and offsetting downward pressure on labor force participation from the retirement of baby boomers (those born between 1945 and 1960). The labor force participation rate is projected to remain stable through 2020 before falling gradually toward its long-run trend.

Wage growth has accelerated and become increasingly broad-based in recent years, with low-wage earners experiencing particularly robust gains in their hourly wages. In CBO’s projections, wage growth picks up further before slowing in 2021.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/record-157878000-employed-august-21st-record-under-trump

Here’s where the jobs are — in one chart

Civilian Labor Force Level

163,922,000

 

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id:           LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status:  Civilian labor force
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over

Download:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1999 139003 138967 138730 138959 139107 139329 139439 139430 139622 139771 140025 140177
2000 142267(1) 142456 142434 142751 142388 142591 142278 142514 142518 142622 142962 143248
2001 143800 143701 143924 143569 143318 143357 143654 143284 143989 144086 144240 144305
2002 143883 144653 144481 144725 144938 144808 144803 145009 145552 145314 145041 145066
2003 145937(1) 146100 146022 146474 146500 147056 146485 146445 146530 146716 147000 146729
2004 146842(1) 146709 146944 146850 147065 147460 147692 147564 147415 147793 148162 148059
2005 148029(1) 148364 148391 148926 149261 149238 149432 149779 149954 150001 150065 150030
2006 150214(1) 150641 150813 150881 151069 151354 151377 151716 151662 152041 152406 152732
2007 153144(1) 152983 153051 152435 152670 153041 153054 152749 153414 153183 153835 153918
2008 154063(1) 153653 153908 153769 154303 154313 154469 154641 154570 154876 154639 154655
2009 154210(1) 154538 154133 154509 154747 154716 154502 154307 153827 153784 153878 153111
2010 153484(1) 153694 153954 154622 154091 153616 153691 154086 153975 153635 154125 153650
2011 153263(1) 153214 153376 153543 153479 153346 153288 153760 154131 153961 154128 153995
2012 154381(1) 154671 154749 154545 154866 155083 154948 154763 155160 155554 155338 155628
2013 155763(1) 155312 155005 155394 155536 155749 155599 155605 155687 154673 155265 155182
2014 155352(1) 155483 156028 155369 155684 155707 156007 156130 156040 156417 156494 156332
2015 157053(1) 156663 156626 157017 157616 157014 157008 157165 156745 157188 157502 158080
2016 158371(1) 158705 159079 158891 158700 158899 159150 159582 159810 159768 159629 159779
2017 159693(1) 159854 160036 160169 159910 160124 160383 160706 161190 160436 160626 160636
2018 161123(1) 161900 161646 161551 161667 162129 162209 161802 162055 162694 162821 163240
2019 163229(1) 163184 162960 162470 162646 162981 163351 163922
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

 Labor Force Participation Rate

63.2%

Series Id:           LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status:  Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over

Download:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1999 67.2 67.2 67.0 67.1 67.1 67.1 67.1 67.0 67.0 67.0 67.1 67.1
2000 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.1 67.1 66.9 66.9 66.9 66.8 66.9 67.0
2001 67.2 67.1 67.2 66.9 66.7 66.7 66.8 66.5 66.8 66.7 66.7 66.7
2002 66.5 66.8 66.6 66.7 66.7 66.6 66.5 66.6 66.7 66.6 66.4 66.3
2003 66.4 66.4 66.3 66.4 66.4 66.5 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 65.9
2004 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 66.0 66.1 66.1 66.0 65.8 65.9 66.0 65.9
2005 65.8 65.9 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0
2006 66.0 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.3 66.4
2007 66.4 66.3 66.2 65.9 66.0 66.0 66.0 65.8 66.0 65.8 66.0 66.0
2008 66.2 66.0 66.1 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 65.8
2009 65.7 65.8 65.6 65.7 65.7 65.7 65.5 65.4 65.1 65.0 65.0 64.6
2010 64.8 64.9 64.9 65.2 64.9 64.6 64.6 64.7 64.6 64.4 64.6 64.3
2011 64.2 64.1 64.2 64.2 64.1 64.0 64.0 64.1 64.2 64.1 64.1 64.0
2012 63.7 63.8 63.8 63.7 63.7 63.8 63.7 63.5 63.6 63.8 63.6 63.7
2013 63.7 63.4 63.3 63.4 63.4 63.4 63.3 63.3 63.2 62.8 63.0 62.9
2014 62.9 62.9 63.1 62.8 62.9 62.8 62.9 62.9 62.8 62.9 62.9 62.8
2015 62.9 62.7 62.6 62.7 62.9 62.6 62.6 62.6 62.4 62.5 62.6 62.7
2016 62.7 62.8 62.9 62.8 62.7 62.7 62.8 62.9 62.9 62.8 62.7 62.7
2017 62.9 62.9 62.9 62.9 62.8 62.8 62.9 62.9 63.1 62.7 62.8 62.7
2018 62.7 63.0 62.9 62.8 62.8 62.9 62.9 62.7 62.7 62.9 62.9 63.1
2019 63.2 63.2 63.0 62.8 62.8 62.9 63.0 63.2

 Employment Level

157,878,000

Series Id:           LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status:  Employed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over

Download:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1999 133027 132856 132947 132955 133311 133378 133414 133591 133707 133993 134309 134523
2000 136559(1) 136598 136701 137270 136630 136940 136531 136662 136893 137088 137322 137614
2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417(1) 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472(1) 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125
2005 140245(1) 140385 140654 141254 141609 141714 142026 142434 142401 142548 142499 142752
2006 143150(1) 143457 143741 143761 144089 144353 144202 144625 144815 145314 145534 145970
2007 146028(1) 146057 146320 145586 145903 146063 145905 145682 146244 145946 146595 146273
2008 146378(1) 146156 146086 146132 145908 145737 145532 145203 145076 144802 144100 143369
2009 142152(1) 141640 140707 140656 140248 140009 139901 139492 138818 138432 138659 138013
2010 138438(1) 138581 138751 139297 139241 139141 139179 139438 139396 139119 139044 139301
2011 139250(1) 139394 139639 139586 139624 139384 139524 139942 140183 140368 140826 140902
2012 141584(1) 141858 142036 141899 142206 142391 142292 142291 143044 143431 143333 143330
2013 143292(1) 143362 143316 143635 143882 143999 144264 144326 144418 143537 144479 144778
2014 145150(1) 145134 145648 145667 145825 146247 146399 146530 146778 147427 147404 147615
2015 148150(1) 148053 148122 148491 148802 148765 148815 149175 148853 149270 149506 150164
2016 150622(1) 150934 151146 150963 151074 151104 151450 151766 151877 151949 152150 152276
2017 152128(1) 152417 152958 153150 152920 153176 153456 153591 154399 153847 153945 154065
2018 154482(1) 155213 155160 155216 155539 155592 155964 155604 156069 156582 156803 156945
2019 156694(1) 156949 156748 156645 156758 157005 157288 157878
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

 Employment-Population Ratio

60.9%

Series Id:           LNS12300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Employment-Population Ratio
Labor force status:  Employment-population ratio
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1999 64.4 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.3 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.3 64.4 64.4
2000 64.6 64.6 64.6 64.7 64.4 64.5 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.3 64.4
2001 64.4 64.3 64.3 64.0 63.8 63.7 63.7 63.2 63.5 63.2 63.0 62.9
2002 62.7 63.0 62.8 62.7 62.9 62.7 62.7 62.7 63.0 62.7 62.5 62.4
2003 62.5 62.5 62.4 62.4 62.3 62.3 62.1 62.1 62.0 62.1 62.3 62.2
2004 62.3 62.3 62.2 62.3 62.3 62.4 62.5 62.4 62.3 62.3 62.5 62.4
2005 62.4 62.4 62.4 62.7 62.8 62.7 62.8 62.9 62.8 62.8 62.7 62.8
2006 62.9 63.0 63.1 63.0 63.1 63.1 63.0 63.1 63.1 63.3 63.3 63.4
2007 63.3 63.3 63.3 63.0 63.0 63.0 62.9 62.7 62.9 62.7 62.9 62.7
2008 62.9 62.8 62.7 62.7 62.5 62.4 62.2 62.0 61.9 61.7 61.4 61.0
2009 60.6 60.3 59.9 59.8 59.6 59.4 59.3 59.1 58.7 58.5 58.6 58.3
2010 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.7 58.6 58.5 58.5 58.6 58.5 58.3 58.2 58.3
2011 58.3 58.4 58.4 58.4 58.3 58.2 58.2 58.3 58.4 58.4 58.6 58.6
2012 58.4 58.5 58.5 58.4 58.5 58.6 58.5 58.4 58.7 58.8 58.7 58.7
2013 58.6 58.6 58.5 58.6 58.6 58.6 58.7 58.7 58.7 58.3 58.6 58.7
2014 58.8 58.7 58.9 58.9 58.9 59.0 59.0 59.0 59.1 59.3 59.2 59.3
2015 59.3 59.2 59.2 59.3 59.4 59.3 59.3 59.4 59.2 59.3 59.4 59.6
2016 59.7 59.8 59.8 59.7 59.7 59.6 59.7 59.8 59.8 59.7 59.8 59.8
2017 59.9 59.9 60.1 60.2 60.0 60.1 60.1 60.1 60.4 60.2 60.1 60.2
2018 60.2 60.4 60.4 60.3 60.4 60.4 60.5 60.3 60.4 60.6 60.6 60.6
2019 60.7 60.7 60.6 60.6 60.6 60.6 60.7 60.9

 

Unemployment Level

6,044,000

 

Series Id:           LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status:  Unemployed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1999 5976 6111 5783 6004 5796 5951 6025 5838 5915 5778 5716 5653
2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7064 7184 7072 7120 6980 7001 7175 7091 6847 6727 6872 6762
2007 7116 6927 6731 6850 6766 6979 7149 7067 7170 7237 7240 7645
2008 7685 7497 7822 7637 8395 8575 8937 9438 9494 10074 10538 11286
2009 12058 12898 13426 13853 14499 14707 14601 14814 15009 15352 15219 15098
2010 15046 15113 15202 15325 14849 14474 14512 14648 14579 14516 15081 14348
2011 14013 13820 13737 13957 13855 13962 13763 13818 13948 13594 13302 13093
2012 12797 12813 12713 12646 12660 12692 12656 12471 12115 12124 12005 12298
2013 12471 11950 11689 11760 11654 11751 11335 11279 11270 11136 10787 10404
2014 10202 10349 10380 9702 9859 9460 9608 9599 9262 8990 9090 8717
2015 8903 8610 8504 8526 8814 8249 8194 7990 7892 7918 7995 7916
2016 7749 7771 7932 7928 7626 7795 7700 7817 7933 7819 7480 7503
2017 7565 7437 7078 7019 6991 6948 6927 7115 6791 6588 6682 6572
2018 6641 6687 6486 6335 6128 6537 6245 6197 5986 6112 6018 6294
2019 6535 6235 6211 5824 5888 5975 6063 6044

 

U-3 Unemployment Rate

3.7%

 

Series Id:           LNS14000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over

 

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1999 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.0
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3
2009 7.8 8.3 8.7 9.0 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9
2010 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.8 9.3
2011 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.8 8.6 8.5
2012 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.9
2013 8.0 7.7 7.5 7.6 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.2 6.9 6.7
2014 6.6 6.7 6.7 6.2 6.3 6.1 6.2 6.1 5.9 5.7 5.8 5.6
2015 5.7 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.6 5.3 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 5.1 5.0
2016 4.9 4.9 5.0 5.0 4.8 4.9 4.8 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.7 4.7
2017 4.7 4.7 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.1
2018 4.1 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.8 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.8 3.7 3.9
2019 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.7

 

Not In Labor Force

95,510,000

 

Series Id:           LNS15000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Not in Labor Force
Labor force status:  Not in labor force
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1999 67715 67906 68306 68277 68320 68304 68390 68609 68642 68712 68641 68655
2000 69142 69120 69338 69267 69853 69876 70398 70401 70645 70782 70579 70488
2001 70088 70409 70381 70956 71414 71592 71526 72136 71676 71817 71876 72010
2002 72623 72010 72343 72281 72260 72600 72827 72856 72554 73026 73508 73675
2003 73960 74015 74295 74066 74268 73958 74767 75062 75249 75324 75280 75780
2004 75319 75648 75606 75907 75903 75735 75730 76113 76526 76399 76259 76581
2005 76808 76677 76846 76514 76409 76673 76721 76642 76739 76958 77138 77394
2006 77339 77122 77161 77318 77359 77317 77535 77451 77757 77634 77499 77376
2007 77506 77851 77982 78818 78810 78671 78904 79461 79047 79532 79105 79238
2008 78554 79156 79087 79429 79102 79314 79395 79466 79790 79736 80189 80380
2009 80529 80374 80953 80762 80705 80938 81367 81780 82495 82766 82865 83813
2010 83349 83304 83206 82707 83409 84075 84199 84014 84347 84895 84590 85240
2011 85441 85637 85623 85603 85834 86144 86383 86111 85940 86308 86312 86589
2012 87888 87765 87855 88239 88100 88073 88405 88803 88613 88429 88836 88722
2013 88900 89516 89990 89780 89827 89803 90156 90355 90481 91708 91302 91563
2014 91563 91603 91230 92070 91938 92107 92016 92099 92406 92240 92350 92695
2015 92671 93237 93454 93249 92839 93649 93868 93931 94580 94353 94245 93856
2016 94026 93872 93689 94077 94475 94498 94470 94272 94281 94553 94911 94963
2017 94389 94392 94378 94419 94857 94833 94769 94651 94372 95330 95323 95473
2018 95657 95033 95451 95721 95787 95513 95633 96264 96235 95821 95886 95649
2019 95010 95208 95577 96223 96215 96057 95874 95510

 

 

 

 

The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.

The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.

 

Public Commentary on Unemployment

Unemployment Data Series   subcription required(Subscription required.)  View  Download Excel CSV File   Last Updated: September 6th, 2019

The ShadowStats Alternate Unemployment Rate for August 2019 is 21.2%.

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

 

Employment Situation Summary

Transmission of material in this news release is embargoed until	      USDL-19-1573
8:30 a.m. (EDT) Friday, September 6, 2019

Technical information: 
 Household data:	(202) 691-6378  *  cpsinfo@bls.gov  *  www.bls.gov/cps
 Establishment data:	(202) 691-6555  *  cesinfo@bls.gov  *  www.bls.gov/ces

Media contact:		(202) 691-5902  *  PressOffice@bls.gov

	
                  THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- AUGUST 2019


Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 130,000 in August, and the unemployment
rate was unchanged at 3.7 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported
today. Employment in federal government rose, largely reflecting the hiring of
temporary workers for the 2020 Census. Notable job gains also occurred in health
care and financial activities, while mining lost jobs. 

This news release presents statistics from two monthly surveys. The household
survey measures labor force status, including unemployment, by demographic
characteristics. The establishment survey measures nonfarm employment, hours, and
earnings by industry. For more information about the concepts and statistical
methodology used in these two surveys, see the Technical Note.

Household Survey Data

In August, the unemployment rate was 3.7 percent for the third month in a row,
and the number of unemployed persons was essentially unchanged at 6.0 million.
(See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (3.4 percent),
adult women (3.3 percent), teenagers (12.6 percent), Whites (3.4 percent), Blacks
(5.5 percent), Asians (2.8 percent), and Hispanics (4.2 percent) showed little or
no change in August. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little
changed at 1.2 million in August and accounted for 20.6 percent of the unemployed.
(See table A-12.)

The labor force participation rate edged up to 63.2 percent in August but has shown
little change, on net, thus far this year. The employment-population ratio, at 60.9
percent, also edged up over the month and is up by 0.6 percentage point over the year.
(See table A-1.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to
as involuntary part-time workers) increased by 397,000 to 4.4 million in August; this
increase follows a decline of similar magnitude in July. These individuals, who would
have preferred full-time employment, were working part time because their hours had
been reduced or they were unable to find full-time jobs. (See table A-8.)

In August, 1.6 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, little
different from a year earlier. (Data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals
were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for
a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because
they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 467,000 discouraged workers in August,
about unchanged from a year earlier. (Data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged
workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are
available for them. The remaining 1.1 million persons marginally attached to the
labor force in August had not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance
or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 130,000 in August. Job growth has averaged
158,000 per month thus far this year, below the average monthly gain of 223,000 in 2018.
In August, employment in federal government rose, largely reflecting the hiring of
temporary workers for the 2020 Census. Private-sector employment was up by 96,000, with
notable job gains in health care and financial activities and a job loss in mining.
(See table B-1.)

In August, employment in federal government increased by 28,000. The gain was mostly
due to the hiring of 25,000 temporary workers to prepare for the 2020 Census.

Health care added 24,000 jobs over the month and 392,000 over the past 12 months. In
August, employment continued to trend up in ambulatory health care services (+12,000)
and in hospitals (+9,000). 

In August, financial activities employment rose by 15,000, with nearly half of the gain
occurring in insurance carriers and related activities (+7,000). Financial activities
has added 111,000 jobs over the year. 

Employment in professional and business services continued to trend up in August (+37,000).
Within the industry, employment increased by 10,000 both in computer systems design and
related services and in management of companies and enterprises. Monthly job gains in
professional and business services have averaged 34,000 thus far in 2019, below the
average monthly gain of 47,000 in 2018. 
 
Social assistance employment continued on an upward trend in August (+13,000). Within
the industry, individual and family services added 17,000 jobs. Social assistance has
added 100,000 jobs in the last 6 months.

Mining employment declined by 6,000 in August, with nearly all of the loss in support
activities for mining (-5,000).  

Retail trade employment changed little in August (-11,000). General merchandise stores
lost 15,000 jobs over the month and 80,000 jobs over the year. Building material and
garden supply stores added 9,000 jobs over the month.

Employment showed little change over the month in construction, manufacturing, transportation
and warehousing, and leisure and hospitality. Job growth in these industries has moderated
thus far in 2019 compared with 2018.

In August, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by
11 cents to $28.11, following 9-cent gains in both June and July. Over the past 12 months,
average hourly earnings have increased by 3.2 percent. In August, average hourly earnings
of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees rose by 11 cents to $23.59.
(See tables B-3 and B-8.) 
 
The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls increased by 0.1 hour
to 34.4 hours in August. In manufacturing, the average workweek increased by 0.2 hour to
40.6 hours, and overtime declined by 0.1 hour to 3.2 hours. The average workweek of private-
sector production and nonsupervisory employees increased by 0.1 hour to 33.6 hours. 
(See tables B-2 and B-7.) 
 
The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for June was revised down by 15,000 from
+193,000 to +178,000, and the change for July was revised down by 5,000 from +164,000 to
+159,000. With these revisions, employment gains in June and July combined were 20,000
less than previously reported. (Monthly revisions result from additional reports received
from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the
recalculation of seasonal factors.) After revisions, job gains have averaged 156,000 per
month over the last 3 months. 

_____________
The Employment Situation for September is scheduled to be released on Friday,
October 4, 2019, at 8:30 a.m. (EDT).



The PDF version of the news release

News release charts

Supplemental Files Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Last Modified Date: September 06, 2019 

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

HOUSEHOLD DATA
Summary table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
Category Aug.
2018
June
2019
July
2019
Aug.
2019
Change from:
July
2019-
Aug.
2019

Employment status

Civilian noninstitutional population

258,066 259,037 259,225 259,432 207

Civilian labor force

161,802 162,981 163,351 163,922 571

Participation rate

62.7 62.9 63.0 63.2 0.2

Employed

155,604 157,005 157,288 157,878 590

Employment-population ratio

60.3 60.6 60.7 60.9 0.2

Unemployed

6,197 5,975 6,063 6,044 -19

Unemployment rate

3.8 3.7 3.7 3.7 0.0

Not in labor force

96,264 96,057 95,874 95,510 -364

Unemployment rates

Total, 16 years and over

3.8 3.7 3.7 3.7 0.0

Adult men (20 years and over)

3.5 3.3 3.4 3.4 0.0

Adult women (20 years and over)

3.5 3.3 3.4 3.3 -0.1

Teenagers (16 to 19 years)

12.7 12.7 12.8 12.6 -0.2

White

3.4 3.3 3.3 3.4 0.1

Black or African American

6.3 6.0 6.0 5.5 -0.5

Asian

3.0 2.1 2.8 2.8 0.0

Hispanic or Latino ethnicity

4.7 4.3 4.5 4.2 -0.3

Total, 25 years and over

3.2 3.0 3.0 2.9 -0.1

Less than a high school diploma

5.7 5.3 5.1 5.4 0.3

High school graduates, no college

3.9 3.9 3.6 3.6 0.0

Some college or associate degree

3.5 3.0 3.2 3.1 -0.1

Bachelor’s degree and higher

2.0 2.1 2.2 2.1 -0.1

Reason for unemployment

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs

2,868 2,736 2,798 2,876 78

Job leavers

866 888 833 781 -52

Reentrants

1,864 1,868 1,810 1,801 -9

New entrants

586 541 595 574 -21

Duration of unemployment

Less than 5 weeks

2,199 1,961 2,201 2,207 6

5 to 14 weeks

1,722 1,830 1,797 1,757 -40

15 to 26 weeks

927 769 905 835 -70

27 weeks and over

1,320 1,414 1,166 1,243 77

Employed persons at work part time

Part time for economic reasons

4,368 4,347 3,984 4,381 397

Slack work or business conditions

2,581 2,707 2,385 2,678 293

Could only find part-time work

1,377 1,337 1,364 1,351 -13

Part time for noneconomic reasons

21,803 21,524 21,437 21,697 260

Persons not in the labor force (not seasonally adjusted)

Marginally attached to the labor force

1,443 1,571 1,478 1,564

Discouraged workers

434 425 368 467

– Over-the-month changes are not displayed for not seasonally adjusted data.
NOTE: Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Detail for the seasonally adjusted data shown in this table will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal adjustment of the various series. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

Table of Contents

Last Modified Date: September 06, 2019 

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm

 

Story 3: Universal Basic Income or Graduated Fair Tax Less With $1000 Monthly Tax Prebate — Videos

See the source image

See the source image

Universal Basic Income Explained – Free Money for Everybody? UBI

A Selfish Argument for Making the World a Better Place – Egoistic Altruism

Emergence – How Stupid Things Become Smart Together

Must make universal basic income ‘right of citizenship’ in US: 2020 hopeful Yang

Joe Rogan Experience #1245 – Andrew Yang

Andrew Yang Talks Universal Basic Income, Benefitting From Tech, His Run For President + More

Presidential candidate Andrew Yang talks A.I. and a universal basic income

Andrew Yang: A wealth tax is not the way to go

The colossal problem with universal basic income | Douglas Rushkoff

Why we should give everyone a basic income | Rutger Bregman | TEDxMaastricht

A Universal Income needs a focus on citizen responsibility | Raf Manji | TEDxChristchurch

Why would you oppose Universal Basic Income?

Why the World’s Richest Say a Universal Basic Income is Good Policy!

Universal Basic Income: A pipe dream

Universal Basic Income – Life After Automation

Jordan Peterson on Universal Basic Income.. ‘Money ISN’T the Problem!’

Jordan Peterson: How would life change with Universal Basic Income?

Jordan Peterson on Universal Basic Income – Joe Rogan

Switzerland Votes Against Guaranteed-Income Proposal

Switzerland Might Guarantee A $2800 Monthly Income for All Adults | The Rubin Report

Why everyone should have a basic income | Guy Standing | TEDxKlagenfurt

Exclusive: The Activist Behind Switzerland’s Referendum for Guaranteed Income

Ben Shapiro’s Problem with Universal Basic Income | Joe Rogan

The Universal Basic Income Is The Safety Net Of The Future

The Stream – The basic income experiment

Can universal basic income actually work?

Why we shouldn’t have to work just to survive | Jonny Ross-Tatam | TEDxUniversityofEdinburgh

A Universal Income needs a focus on citizen responsibility | Raf Manji | TEDxChristchurch

How the future of work is not “Jobs” | Rudy Karsan | TEDxCalgary

Is universal basic income working? We went to Finland to find out | CNBC Reports

What Pisses Me Off About Universal Basic Income (UBI)

Universal Basic Income Explained – Free Money for Everybody? UBI

The future we’re building — and boring | Elon Musk

A renaissance — the coming end of human work | Kevin Surace | TEDxOrangeCoast

Jobs of the future and how we can prepare for them | Avinash Meetoo | TEDxALC

AI & The Future of Work | Volker Hirsch | TEDxManchester

Milton Friedman 1991

Milton Friedman – Whats wrong with welfare? (Q&A)

Milton Friedman Speaks: Is Tax Reform Possible? (B1231) – Full Video

Milton Friedman – Why Tax Reform Is Impossible

PAY IT BACKWARDS: The Federal Budget Surplus with Milton Friedman

See the source image

See the source image

 

Why everyone is talking about free cash handouts—an explainer on universal basic income

11:42
Elon Musk and Andrew Yang support Universal Basic Income — here’s what it…

The idea of free cash for all may seem too good to be true, but a growing number of high-profile people — from Democratic presidential hopeful Andrew Yang to tech billionaire Elon Musk — say universal basic income, or UBI, may become a reality.

And the rest of America is becoming more interested, too: Google searches for the term “universal basic income” have multiplied as much as 50 times between 2015 and 2019.

So what is UBI? Here’s a primer.

What is UBI?

Universal basic income refers to regular cash payments made to a given population (such as adult U.S. citizens, for example) with minimal or no requirements for receiving the money, in order to increase people’s income, according to the International Monetary Fund.

Beyond that, however, there is often disagreement about what constitutes UBI.

”[T]here is no established common understanding” of UBI, according to economists Maura Francese and Delphine Prady. And therefore, “very different income-support programs are often labeled ‘universal basic income,’ even when they have little in common or do not aim at the same goal.”

However, common variances on the basic tenet include whether cash handouts replace or supplement existing social welfare programs, whether payments are distributed to a household or individual, who foots the bill and how often the payments are distributed.

Why is everybody talking about UBI now?

There are two main conditions fueling the emergence of UBI as a serious topic over the last few years.

The first is fears that automation will put millions of people out of work, leaving them with little or no income.

“There is a pretty good chance we end up with a universal basic income, or something like that, due to automation,” SpaceX and Tesla boss Elon Musk told CNBC in 2016. “Yeah, I am not sure what else one would do. I think that is what would happen.”

0:00
Elon Musk: Robots will take your jobs, government will have to pay your wage

This is Andrew Yang’s thinking too. Yang, a 44-year-old entrepreneur running for the Democratic presidential nomination, has made UBI the foundation of his 2020 campaign platform. His plan, which he calls the “Freedom Dividend,” is for the federal government to give all U.S. citizens ages 18 and over $1,000 per month.

Fellow Democratic hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders said in 2015 he is “absolutely sympathetic to that approach,” and former Vice President Joe Biden said in 2018 he would consider a UBI as a last resort. Republicans are more likely to be against UBI.

Americans, however, are split on whether they would support universal basic income as a solution for those whose jobs are replaced by robots: 48% support and 52% do not, according to a February 2018 Gallup survey.

There is also debate as to whether robots will actually take people’s jobs: A 2017 McKinsey & Company report estimates as much as one-third of the U.S. workforce may need to learn new skills and find a new job because of automation by 2030, while a 2017 report from Gartner says artificial intelligence will create more jobs than it eliminates.

The other major situation motivating the current conversation about UBI is America’s extreme and growing wealth inequality. Some see cash payments as a way to help even the playing field.

CNBC Andrew Yang
Andrew Yang in his campaign headquarters in February 2019.
CNBC Make It

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, for one, falls into this camp.

“Every generation expands its definition of equality. Now it’s time for our generation to define a new social contract …. We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure everyone has a cushion to try new ideas,” Zuckerberg said in his 2017 Harvard commencement speech. After all, he said, it was because he had a financial safety net from his dentist father that he felt free to try something as risky as turning Facebook into a business.

The wave of interest in UBI is also inspiring a smattering of experiments and pilot studies with UBI in the U.S.

The once-bankrupt town of Stockton, California, initiated an 18-month experiment in February, distributing monthly checks for $500 to 130 randomly selected Stockton residents to mitigate poverty and inequality. Michael Tubbs, the town’s now 28-year-old mayor, decided on the program after reading Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s 1967 book, “Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?” In the book, King writes: ”… the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income.”

And one of the country’s top start-up accelerators’ research arm, Y Combinator Research, has run small-scale tests in Oakland, California, to test and improve procedures ahead of a larger-scale program. In that program, 1,000 randomly selected individuals across two as-yet-undisclosed states will receive $1,000 per month for three years to study the impact of the cash transfer.

Who pays?

That depends on who you talk to.

Hillary Clinton seriously considered running her 2016 campaign for president on a platform built with UBI. But she couldn’t figure out a reasonable way to pay for it.

“Unfortunately, we couldn’t make the numbers work,” Clinton wrote in her campaign memoir, “What Happened.” “To provide a meaningful dividend each year to every citizen, you’d have to raise enormous sums of money, and that would either mean a lot of new taxes or cannibalizing other important programs. We decided it was exciting but not realistic….”

Others believe there is a solution.

Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, a UBI supporter, says a guaranteed basic income should be paid for by the wealthiest 1% of society, according to his book, “Fair Shot: Rethinking Inequality and How We Earn.”

Chris Hughes

@chrishughes

Recurring cash payments, directly to the people who need it most, are a proven tool to beat back against the rising tide of . Discover how a can help lift 20 million people out of poverty overnight at http://fairshotbook.com .

Embedded video

20 people are talking about this

And Yang proposes to pay for UBI by implementing a value-added tax, or VAT, of 10% on goods and services a company produces. “Because our economy is so vast, this would generate between $700 and $800 billion in revenue,” he said on Reddit in 2018. Indeed, Eric Toder of the Washington, D.C.-based Tax Policy Center told CNBC Make It in 2018 that such a VAT in the United States could raise anywhere from $500 billion to $1 trillion, depending on how broadly the tax is applied.

One thing is certain, however: It would cost a lot.

“A truly universal UBI would be enormously expensive,” say Hilary Hoynes and Jesse Rothstein, economics and public policy professors at the University of California at Berkeley. “The kinds of UBIs often discussed would cost nearly double current total spending on the ‘big three’ programs (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid),” according to their working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research in February. They also say these social welfare programs would still be needed even with UBI.

Will it work?

Critics say universal basic income is too expensive, that it gives people incentive to be unproductive, that it’s bad for people’s self-worth and that there are more efficient ways to spend government money to help those who can’t support themselves.

“Just giving $1,000 to everybody in itself is not the right solution” if helping those who need it most in society is the goal, Thomas Piketty, an economist and professor at the Paris School of Economics, told CNBC Make It at Columbia University in March.

And Ian Goldin, a professor of globalization and development at the University of Oxford, argued in the Financial Times that “individuals gain not only income, but meaning, status, skills, networks and friendships through work. Delinking income and work, while rewarding people for staying at home, is what lies behind social decay.”

Nobel laureate in economics Joseph Stiglitz told CNBC in April, “I think there’s a certain dignity from work. Some of my younger students say, ‘Oh there could be a lot of dignity from meditation and from other ways of spending time.’ But I think for most people there will be a real desire to work,” Stiglitz says.

As far as the data goes, it’s mixed.

Some of the news seems positive. For example, left-leaning think tank Roosevelt Institute says a $1,000-a-month payment would actually grow the economy by $2.5 trillion by 2025 if it was paid for by increasing the federal deficit; however, increasing taxes would have no net benefit to the economy.

And some small UBI use cases seem to show that cash handouts help those who receive them in some ways — alleviating emotional stress and helping individuals pay their bills. However, it is not a silver bullet for unemployment.

Joseph Stiglitz on inequality, automation and UBI

For instance, preliminary results of a two-year experiment in Finland that gave 2,000 unemployed people 560 euros ($638) a month show that, for the first year of the study, 2017, those getting cash payments reported improved well-being. However, there was no effect on employment status. Results for employment status in 2018, the second year of the study, are not yet available.

A basic income pilot program in Ontario, Canada, launched in April 2017 with a plan to distribute varying monthly payments to more than 4,000 people living on incomes less than $34,000 Canadian (or about $25,925 U.S.) for up to three years via tax credits. In July, the government of Ontario announced it would shut down the program (due to the cost and a change in government leadership), and in August, it said that payments would run through March. But the advocacy group Basic Income Canada Network got some feedback. Responses from 424 participants indicated the payments gave them increased personal agency, relief from anxiety, increased social connection and the ability to invest in things like education and job-hunting.

Then there are the residents of Alaska, who receive a yearly dividend from the Alaska Permanent Fund, which was launched in 1982 to pass along oil profits to future generations. In 2018, the payment was $1,600. Alaskans reportedly use the money for everything from heating oil and clothing to medical emergencies, travel and student loan payments. And a 2018 study of Alaskans suggests that “a universal and permanent cash transfer does not significantly decrease aggregate employment.”

Mark Zuckerberg: Alaska’s cash handout program “provides some good lessons for the rest of the country”

Correction: This article has been revised to reflect that Andrew Yang expanded his “Freedom Dividend” to include all U.S. citizens ages 18 and over and to reflect that Google Trends data shows the term “universal basic income” has been searched 50 times more in 2019 as it was in 2015.

See also:

Elon Musk: Robots will take your jobs, government will have to pay your wage

This California city’s 27-year-old mayor will give residents $500 free cash per month

Billionaire Mark Cuban: One of the ‘most patriotic’ things you can do is get ‘obnoxiously rich’

Universal Basic Income, Its Pros and Cons With Examples

Should Everyone Get a Guaranteed Income?

A universal basic income is a government guarantee that each citizen receives a minimum income. It is also called a citizen’s income, guaranteed minimum income, or basic income.

 

The Purpose of Universal Basic Income

In 1967, Martin Luther King Jr. said a guaranteed income would abolish poverty. That means reducing income inequality as well.

Economist Milton Friedman proposed a negative income tax. The poor would receive a tax credit if their income fell below a minimum level. It would be equivalent to the tax payment for the families earning above the minimum level.
In 2018, Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes outlined his plan in his book “Fair Shot.” He argues that U.S. workers, students, and caregivers making $50,000 or less a year should receive a guaranteed income of $500 a month. “Cash is the best thing you can do to improve health outcomes, education outcomes and lift people out of poverty,” Hughes said.
Hughes’ guaranteed income is financed by taxes on the top 1 percent. It would work through a modernization of the earned income tax credit.

To Hughes, it’s the only solution to an economy where “a small group of people are getting very, very wealthy while everyone else is struggling to make ends meet.” Hughes said automation and globalization have destroyed the employment market. It’s created a lot of part-time, contract, and temporary jobs. But those positions aren’t enough to provide a decent standard of living.

Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates agree. They argue that automation has fundamentally changed the structure of the U.S. economy. Sir Richard Branson said a guaranteed income is inevitable. Artificial intelligence will take too many jobs from people. Elon Musk said robotics will take away most people’s jobs, so a universal income is the only solution.
  • Workers could afford to wait for a better job or better wages.
  • People would have the freedom to return to school or stay home to care for a relative.
  • The “poverty trap” would be removed from traditional welfare programs.
  • Citizens could have simple, straightforward financial assistance that minimizes bureaucracy.
  • The government would spend less to administer the program than with traditional welfare.
  • Payments would help young couples start families in countries with low birth rates.
  • The payments could help stabilize the economy during recessionary periods.

Cons

  • Inflation could be triggered because of the increase in demand for goods and services.
  • There won’t be an increased standard of living in the long run because of inflated prices.
  • A reduced program with smaller payments won’t make a real difference to poverty-stricken families.
  • Free income may disincentivize people to get jobs, and make work seem optional.
  • Free income could perpetuate the falling labor force participation rate.
  • It would be difficult especially in the US to get legislation passed because of stiff opposition to handouts for the unemployed.

 

Detailed Advantages

An unconditional basic income would enable workers to wait for a better job or negotiate better wages. They could improve their marketability by going back to school. They could even quit their job to care for a relative.

Current welfare programs are also complicated for administrators and recipients. A simple cash payment would cut down on bureaucracy. It would replace housing vouchers, food stamps, and other programs.
The simplicity of the program means it would also cost governments less. Cash payments that went to everyone would eliminate costly income-verification paperwork. Conservative Utah Senator Mike Lee told the Heritage Foundation, “There’s no reason the federal government should maintain 79 different means-tested programs.” Only applicants with low incomes qualify for means-tested programs.
Some countries are concerned about falling birth rates. A guaranteed income would give young couples the confidence they need to start a family. It would also provide workers the confidence to bid up wages. From a macro viewpoint, it would give society a much-needed ballast during a recession.

 

Detailed Disadvantages

If everyone suddenly received a basic income, it would create inflation. Most would immediately spend the extra cash, driving up demand. Retailers would order more, and manufacturers would try to produce more. But if they couldn’t increase supply, they would raise prices. Higher prices would soon make the basics unaffordable to those at the bottom of the income pyramid. In the long run, a guaranteed income would not raise their standard of living.

A guaranteed income that’s enough to eliminate poverty would be too expensive. In 2012, there were 179 million working-age adults. It would cost $2.14 trillion to pay each of them $11,945 (the poverty level) each year. But it would replace existing welfare programs that cost $1 trillion a year. So it would add $1.2 trillion to the deficit, or 7.5 percent of the total economic output that year.
To save money, some programs would not pay as much. But research shows that payments of a few hundred dollars aren’t enough to make a real difference in the lives of the poverty-stricken.
If everyone received a free income, it could remove the incentive to work hard. Oren Cass, a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, says it would make work seem optional. Many recipients might prefer to live on the free income rather than get a job. They would not acquire work skills or a good resume. It could prevent them from ever getting a good job in a competitive environment. It could reduce an already-falling labor force participation rate.
Lastly, such a plan would be difficult to get passed in the United States. Most people are opposed to handouts to those who don’t work. For that reason, many already oppose welfare and even unemployment benefits. Even raising the U.S. minimum wage has been difficult, despite the widespread belief that hard workers should be rewarded.

 

Guaranteed Income History in the U.S.

In 1968, President Johnson’s administration launched a test of the negative income tax in New Jersey. It found that welfare recipients received a higher payment from that program than they did from the standard income tax. A higher-paying program was tested in Seattle and Denver.

Results showed reduced incentive to work. It also broke up families, since husbands and wives no longer had to remain together for financial reasons. The administrative costs were very high for both programs.
The earned income tax credit is a form of guaranteed income. It provides a percentage tax credit for every dollar of earned income up to a maximum credit. Since the credit increases along with income, it promotes the incentive to work. But as the income reaches a maximum level, the tax credit phases out and decreases. That creates a disincentive to earn more. A 1990 study revealed that 40 percent of benefits were paid to families who weren’t eligible for the EITC.

 

Current Examples in the U.S. and Other Countries

Alaska has had a guaranteed income program since 1982. The Alaska Permanent Fund pays each resident an average of $1,200 a year out of oil revenues. Almost three-fourths of recipients save it for emergencies.

In 2017, the Hawaii state legislature passed a bill declaring that everyone is entitled to basic financial security. It directed the government to develop a solution, which may include a guaranteed income.
In Oakland, California, the seed accelerator Y Combinator will pay 100 families between $1,000 to $2,000 a month.
Stockton, California, is planning a two-year pilot program for fall 2018. It would give $500 a month to 100 local families. It hopes to keep families together, and away from payday lenders, pawn shops, and gangs.
Chicago, Illinois, is considering a pilot to give 1,000 families $500 a month.
Canada is experimenting with a basic income program. It will give 4,000 Ontario residents living in poverty C$17,000 a year or C$24,000/couple. They can only keep half of their income from any jobs they have.
In 2017, Finland began a two-year experiment. It gave 2,000 unemployed people 560 euros a month for two years, even if they found work. The recipients said it reduced stress. It also gave them more incentive to find a good job or start their own business. The Finnish government was supposed to extend the trial to employed workers in 2018. Researchers wanted to see if that would help them get better jobs, as well. But the Finnish government scrapped the expansion before it began. It is exploring other social welfare programs instead.
A pilot program in Utrecht, Holland, pays 250 people 960 euros a month.
In 2017, Kenya announced a 12 year pilot to benefit 6,000 villagers. They will receive a $22 monthly payment on their smart phone equivalent. It will double some residents’ income. They must remain in their town. MIT economist Abhijit Banerjee will monitor the results.
Scotland is funding research into a program that pays every citizen for life. Retirees would receive 150 pounds a week. Working adults would get 100 pounds and children under 16 would be paid 50 pounds a week.
Taiwan may vote on a basic income. Younger people have left rural areas in search of decent wages. Some have even left the country to look for work. A guaranteed income might keep them from emigrating. It would also help the senior citizens left behind who live in poverty. The country only spends 5 percent of its gross domestic product on welfare programs. The average for developed countries is 22 percent.
Under the proposal, the government would pay NT$6,304 per month for children under 18 and NT$12,608 per month for adults. It would cost NT$3.4 trillion, or 19 percent of GDP. To fund it, Taiwan would levy a 31 percent tax on earnings above NT$840,000 per year. As a result, the program would raise the incomes of two-thirds of the population. The richer third would lose NT$710 billion.
In 2016, Switzerland voted against universal income. The government proposed paying every resident 2,500 Swiss francs per month.
Economists Kalle Moene and Debraj Ray propose a payment system tied to a country’s economic output. They suggest 10 to 12 percent of GDP go directly to the universal income payments. The benefit is it would automatically rise with national prosperity and inflation.
It’s too soon to tell if these pilot programs will work. The universal income’s simplicity makes it an attractive alternative to welfare programs. But its proponents haven’t suggested solutions to its several potential issues.

https://www.thebalance.com/universal-basic-income-4160668

Stanford scholar explores pros, cons of ‘basic income’

Stanford historian Jennifer Burns said that while political challenges exist to implement a “universal basic income,” this type of measure would protect workers and families against the fluidity of today’s workplace and employment worlds.

Given the flux of American politics right now, an idea like “universal basic income” could gain political traction, a Stanford historian says.

Stanford scholar Jennifer Burns, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and an associate professor of history in the Stanford School of Humanities and Sciences, says such a program could help protect workers who hit rock bottom in an age of technological disruption.

A basic income – also called basic income guarantee, universal basic income or basic living stipend – is a program in which citizens of a country receive a regular sum of money from the government. Tech leaders Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg have floated the idea, and the city of Chicago is considering such a proposal as a way to reduce the disruptions of automation in the workforce.

Jennifer Burns, associate professor of history, says a universal basic income program could help protect workers who have hit rock bottom.(Image credit: Courtesy Jennifer Burns)

Burns researches and writes about 20th-century American intellectual, political, and cultural history and is currently writing a book about the economist Milton Friedman, who supported the idea of a universal income.

 

What would be the benefits of a universal basic income if it were to become a reality?

The most attractive aspect of universal basic income, or UBI, is that it can serve to underwrite market participation, in contrast to other welfare programs that essentially require people to not be employed to receive the benefit. Some programs even require participants to have essentially zero assets in order to qualify. In effect, the programs kick in when people have hit rock bottom, rather than trying to prevent them from getting there in the first place.

 

What are the best arguments against a universal basic income?

The best argument against UBI is feasibility. You may be surprised I do not mention cost. If one multiplies the popular figure for an annual UBI – typically $12,000 a year – by the population of the United States, you get an eye-popping figure of over $3 trillion. The figure varies depending on whether children are included and at what benefit level. However, if you set this against current taxes and transfers, and conceptualize the UBI as a benefit that can be taxed for higher earners, the costs come down significantly.

The real challenge is political. First, there is significant bias against unconditional transfer programs. Most welfare programs in the United States are tied in some way to employment; for example, think of Social Security. Building popular support for a program that breaks this connection between welfare and work will require political leadership of the highest order. And then there is the enormous hurdle of integrating a UBI with the extant institutional and bureaucratic structure of the federal state. For these reasons, we may see a UBI on the state level first.

 

What did Milton Friedman think of the idea of a universal basic income?

Although he didn’t call it a UBI, the idea of a minimum income was the earliest policy proposal Friedman came up with. In his papers, I was astounded to find his first proposal for what he called “a minimum standard of living” written in 1939. This is when he was completely unknown as an economist, although he was clearly already thinking big.  Eventually, he revised it into a proposal for a negative income tax, which was enacted through the earned income tax credit, or EITC, a policy still in place today. The EITC is considered a highly successful program, with well-documented benefits for children in particular. Scholars have also found it serves to increase workforce participation among recipients.

Although he has a reputation as a radical libertarian, Friedman believed there was a clear role for the state in society. In particular, he believed there would always be persons who could not compete effectively in a market economy. He also recognized the role of luck in life, even calling the memoir he wrote with his wife, Rose, Two Lucky People. Whether it was temporary assistance or long-term support, Friedman saw a place for welfare. But Friedman was a great believer in the power of choice. Rather than give poor people specific benefits – food stamps, for example – he favored giving people cash that they could then bring into the marketplace and use to exercise individual choice.

 

Wouldn’t people stop working if they got “free money”?

That’s another common response to the idea of UBI. In most scenarios, the grant would not be enough to forsake paid employment altogether. The idea is that when combined with paid income, a UBI would lift the living standard of even low-skilled, low-income workers. This is why the EITC has been so effective. However, families could pool grants, perhaps enabling several members to leave the workforce altogether. This possibility has proven a point of interest both to conservatives, who point out that current welfare programs often incentivize fathers to live apart from their children, and progressives who want to provide cash benefits to mothers and others providing family care.

Milton Friedman had an interesting take on this issue. William F. Buckley asked him if he wasn’t worried about people taking the money and neglecting their children, etc. Friedman responded: “If we give them the money, we will strengthen their responsibility.” He seemed to be making a point that more recent social science research has fleshed out. Poverty, scholars have found, actually makes it harder to be responsible, to plan, to think about the future. When you are focused on getting enough to eat, or making rent, you don’t have many psychological resources left over to focus on anything else. And, when you can’t pay a traffic fine or afford safe housing, all the other foundations of a good life like steady employment and getting your children an education can also be out of reach.

 

What does the future hold for universal basic income in the U.S.?

If the future of UBI can be gauged from media interest, its future is bright. Also, the idea has attracted an enormous number of high-level supporters. Particularly in Silicon Valley, it’s a genuine fad, attracting adherents from entrepreneurs and tech leaders like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk.

There are two challenges ahead. The first is to spread the basic idea so that it continues to move from fringe to mainstream. The second is to build it into a workable policy with a political base. Given the fluidity of American politics right now, it could be the perfect moment for a policy that is at once utopian, bipartisan and deeply rooted in American thought.

Stanford scholar explores pros, cons of ‘basic income’

California City Experiments With Universal Basic Income

STOCKTON, Calif. (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang wants to give cash to every American each month.

View all (10)

Susie Garza has never heard of Yang. But since February, she’s been getting $500 a month from a nonprofit in Stockton, California, as part of an experiment that offers something unusual in presidential politics: a trial run of a campaign promise, highlighting the benefits and challenges in real time.

Garza can spend the money however she wants. She uses $150 of it to pay for her cellphone and another $100 or so to pay off her dog’s veterinarian bills. She spends the rest on her two grandsons now that she can afford to buy them birthday presents online and let them get the big bag of chips at the 7-Eleven.

“I’ve never been able to do that. I thought it was just the coolest thing,” said Garza, who is unemployed and previously was addicted to drugs, though she said she has been sober for 18 years following a stint in prison. “I like it because I feel more independent, like I’m in charge. I really have something that’s my own.”

Garza is part of an experiment testing the impact of “universal basic income,” an old idea getting new life thanks to the 2020 presidential race, although Stockton’s project is an independent one and has no connection to any presidential race.

Yang, a tech entrepreneur, has anchored his longshot bid with a proposal to give $1,000 in cash to every American, saying the payments will shield workers from the pain of certain job losses caused by automation. The idea has helped him win unexpected support and even muscle out some better-known candidates from the debate stages. His proposal isn’t too far off from one by U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris, one of the top contenders for the Democratic nomination, who has a proposal to give up to $500 a month to working families.

Stockton, once known as the foreclosure capital of the country and for one of the nation’s largest municipal bankruptcies, is a step ahead of both candidates. In February, the city launched the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration, a pilot program spearheaded by a new mayor and financed in part by the nonprofit led by Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes. The city chose 125 people who live in census tracts at or below the city’s median household income of $46,033. They get the money on a debit card on the 15th of each month.

“I think poverty is immoral, I think it is antiquated and I think it shouldn’t exist,” said Michael Tubbs, the city’s 29-year-old Democratic mayor.

Tubbs’ personal story includes a cousin who was killed, a father who is in prison and a mother who, as a teenager, raised him with the help of multiple jobs. He found his way to Stanford and public service, where he persuaded his beleaguered city to sign on to a provocative new idea: guaranteed cash.

Stockton residents, who have elected Republican mayors for 16 out of the last 22 years, were skeptical, worried about encouraging people not to work. Tubbs said he calmed their fears by noting the money came from private donations, not taxpayer dollars.

“I would tell people all that time that would be upset or would call angry, I would say, well, I’m just as angry as you are, but I’m angry about the problem. I’m not angry about possible solutions,” Tubbs said.

A team of researchers is monitoring the participants. Their chief interest is not finances but happiness. They are using what they call a “mattering scale” to measure how much people feel like they matter to society.

“Do people notice you are there? Those things are correlated to health and well-being,” said Stacia Martin-West, a researcher at the University of Tennessee who is working on the program along with Amy Castro-Baker at the University of Pennsylvania.

The money has made Jovan Bravo happier. The 31-year-old Stockton native and construction worker is married and has three children, ages 13, 8 and 4. He said he didn’t see enough of his children when he worked six days a week to pay the bills.

That changed when he started getting $500 a month. Now he only works one Saturday a month. He uses the other Saturdays to take his kids to the amusement park and ride bikes with them in the park.

“It’s made a huge difference,” he said. “Just being able to spend more time with the wife and kids, it brings us closer together.”

Stockton officials do not release the names of the program participants. They arrange interviews with journalists only for those who volunteer to discuss their experiences.

The idea of a guaranteed income dates back to at least the 18th century and has crossed ideological and cultural lines.

In the 1960s and 1970s, Republicans Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney oversaw four guaranteed-income experiments scattered across the country when Rumsfeld, later a defense secretary, was director of President Richard Nixon’s Office of Economic Opportunity and Cheney, the future vice president, was his deputy.

The program had some hiccups, including a woman who spent all the money on alcohol and a man who went into debt buying expensive furniture for his government-subsidized apartment, according to a 1970 New York Times story. But the experiment concluded that the money did not stop people from working and led Nixon to propose expanding the program, which ultimately did not pass Congress.

Since then, other studies have reached similar results. A 2018 study in Alaska, where residents have gotten a share of the state’s oil revenue every year since 1982, found the money has not shrunk the state’s labor force. The same was found in a 2010 UCLA study in North Carolina, where the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians has shared casino revenue with its members since the mid-1990s.

The latest momentum comes with the help of the technology industry, which is grappling with how to prepare for the job losses likely to come with automation and artificial intelligence.

The tech connection has drawn criticism from left-leaning labor unions skeptical of the industry’s motives.

“We think the future of work should be defined by working people, not tech billionaires,” said Steve Smith, spokesman for the California Labor Federation, a group of 1,200 unions and a reliable ally for some of the state’s most liberal policies. “If there are no jobs available, you are pretty much stuck with your $1,000 a month check while the CEO of the tech company that automated you out of a job is being paid a billion dollars a year.”

Other critics note that the programs can chip away at the social safety net. Yang’s plan requires recipients to decline food stamps and some other government assistance.

There’s also the question of how to pay for it.

Stockton’s program, giving 125 people $500 per month for 18 months, will cost just over $1.1 million. Harris’ plan, which covers working families making up to $100,000 annually, would cost about $275 billion per year, according to the Tax Policy Center. To pay for it, she says she would repeal some of the 2017 GOP tax cuts and impose new taxes on corporations.

Yang’s plan, which covers every adult in the United States, would cost $2.8 trillion per year. He would impose a new tax on businesses’ goods and services while shrinking some other government assistance programs. Representatives for Yang and Harris did not respond to interview requests.

The Stockton experiment runs through July 2020. Researchers expect to release their first round of data this fall, when the presidential campaigns are preparing for the Iowa caucuses and state primaries.

Tubbs says he already sees success in making the city a focal point in the discussion about the future of capitalism and the U.S. economy. But once the experiment is over, he’s not sure what’s next. He says guaranteed income would need to be much bigger — at least statewide — to really have an impact.

Garza does not know what’s next for her, either. She relies on her husband for most things, and he recently lost his job. The extra $500 a month was so helpful, it left her wondering how she was lucky enough to get it — a question she posed to the program’s director.

“She goes, ‘Because you’re blessed,'” Garza said. “And I just left it at that.”

https://hosted.ap.org/article/758f8d90cb664ba5bca303f93e46da3a/california-buzzy-campaign-idea-gets-test-run

Fighting technological unemployment

With advanced technology taking over more and more blue and white collar jobs, UBI would act as a sort of security net for the millions of people who will be left jobless by the tech revolution. Research shows that the longer you are unemployed, the longer it takes to find employment. If the jobless had a small source of income to help them back on their feet, they could find new jobs and start contributing to the economy sooner.

Ending abuse

Those who suffer domestic abuse, mainly women, become trapped in violent situations because they don’t have the means to leave them. UBI would make leaving an abusive partner easy, and would unleash the potential of countless people trapped by domestic violence.

Supporting unpaid care workers

Those with ill or differently abled relatives are often forced to quit their jobs and look after them full-time. UBI would allow care-workers to support themselves, encouraging care work and taking pressure off public services that provide care to the sick and elderly.

Expanding the middle class

The economic growth of high-income countries is making the rich richer, but having very little effect on the working classes. The research of economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty showed that “the bottom half of earners went from making 20 percent of overall income in 1979 to just 13 percent in 2014. The top 1 percent, on the other hand, have gone from making 11 percent to 20 percent. The pie has gotten vastly bigger, and the richest families have reaped bigger and bigger pieces from it.” UBI would help balance this inequality and expand the ever-shrinking middle class.

Ending poverty

Advocates for UBI believe that in some of the richest countries in the world, no one should be too poor to live. UBI would bring everyone’s income above the poverty line.

Eliminating the need for social security

There exist countless governmental organisations responsible for helping those in poverty, handing out unemployment benefits, food stamps, subsidised housing, etc. UBI would cut a country’s spending by eliminating these organisations.

Discouraging low wages

UBI would give employees bargaining power. As Annie Lowrey says, “why take a crummy job for 7.25 an hour when you have a guaranteed 1,000 dollars a month to fall back on?”

Think of it like Monopoly

Most people intuitively think that jobs lead to money, but the reality is that money actually leads to jobs. Without money, you cannot build a life that will get you a job. In order to get a job, you need to have a house with a shower, a set of clothes, money for transport, money for food, etc. If you want to contribute to the economy on an even greater scale and start your own business, you’ll need even more money. In the game Monopoly, everyone starts off with a little bit of money – without it, the game wouldn’t work and no one would be able to become rich or successful. UBI is like Monopoly – everyone starts off with a little bit of money, and uses it to fuel a thriving economy.

Successful implementation of UBI would mean improvements in food security, stress, mental health, physical health, housing, education, and employment.

Universal Basic Income

What are the possible disadvantages of Universal Basic Income?

Motivation to work

The biggest concern is that UBI would incite millions of workers to stop working. If people aren’t working, there is less taxable income. However, people may choose to stop working for reasons that benefit society as a whole, like getting a better education or caring for an elderly relative.

Cost

The cost of implementing UBI in the United States is estimated to be about 3.9 trillion per year. The idea is that UBI would take pressure off health services and make social security institutions redundant, but this is still a high cost.

Inequality

Some wonder if it is really fair to give the same amount of money to those born into poverty as multi-millionaires. Does Bill Gates really need extra money each month? Some believe that a certain accumulation of wealth should show you have out-grown UBI.

Philosophical counterarguments

Is money a birthright? Capitalist countries are built on the ideological foundation that money is something we earn – UBI would completely change this. Some believe that community service should be a requirement for receiving UBI.

Case Studies

Iran 

In 2010, the government of Iran ran a UBI trial, giving citizens transfers of 29 percent of the median income each month. Poverty and inequality were reduced, and there was no sign of large amounts of people leaving the labour market. In fact, people used it to invest in their businesses, encouraging the growth of small enterprises.

Canada 

A UBI trial in Manitoba, Canada, showed a modest reduction in workers, along with fewer hospitalisations and mental health diagnoses.

In her new book, Give People Money, Annie Lowrey speaks to experts around the world about Universal Basic Income, the simple idea to solve inequality and revolutionise our lives.

https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2018/universal-basic-income-pros-cons/

Basic income

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

On 4 October 2013, Swiss activists from Generation Grundeinkommen organized a performance in Bern in which roughly 8 million coins, one coin representing one person out of Switzerland’s population, were dumped on a public square. This was done in celebration of the successful collection of more than 125,000 signatures, forcing the government to hold a referendum in 2016 on whether or not to incorporate the concept of basic income in the federal constitution. The measure did not pass, with 76.9% voting against changing the federal constitution to support basic income.[1]

Basic income, also called universal basic incomecitizen’s incomecitizen’s basic income in the United Kingdom, basic income guarantee in the United States and Canada, or basic living stipend or universal demogrant, is a periodic payment delivered to all on an individual basis without means test or work requirement.[2] The incomes would be:

  • Unconditional: A basic income would vary with age, but with no other conditions. Everyone of the same age would receive the same basic income, whatever their gender, employment status, family structure, contribution to society, housing costs, or anything else.
  • Automatic: Someone’s basic income would be automatically paid weekly or monthly into a bank account or similar.
  • Non-withdrawable: Basic incomes would not be means-tested. Whether someone’s earnings increase, decrease, or stay the same, their basic income will not change.
  • Individual: Basic incomes would be paid on an individual basis and not on the basis of a couple or household.
  • As a right: Every legal resident would receive a basic income, subject to a minimum period of legal residency and continuing residency for most of the year.[3]

Basic income can be implemented nationally, regionally or locally. An unconditional income that is sufficient to meet a person’s basic needs (at or above the poverty line) is sometimes called a full basic income while if it is less than that amount, it is sometimes called partial. A welfare system with some characteristics similar to those of a basic income is a negative income tax in which the government stipend is gradually reduced with higher labour income. Some welfare systems are sometimes regarded as steps on the way to a basic income, but because they have conditionalities attached they are not basic incomes. If they raise household incomes to specified minima they are called guaranteed minimum income systems. For example, Bolsa Família in Brazil is restricted to poor families and the children are obligated to attend school.[4]

Several political discussions are related to the basic income debate. Examples include the debates regarding robotization, artificial intelligence (AI), and the future of work. A key issue in these debates is whether robotisation and AI will significantly reduce the number of available jobs. Basic income often comes up as a proposal in these discussions.

Contents

History

The idea of a state-run basic Income dates back to the early 16th century, when Sir Thomas More‘s Utopia depicted a society in which every person receives a guaranteed income.[5] In the late 18th century, English radical Thomas Spence and American revolutionary Thomas Paine both declared their support for a welfare system that guaranteed all citizens a certain income. Nineteenth-century debate on basic income was limited, but during the early part of the 20th century a basic income called a “state bonus” was widely discussed, and in 1946 the United Kingdom implemented unconditional family allowances for the second and subsequent children of every family. In the 1960s and 1970s, the United States and Canada conducted several experiments with negative income taxation, a related welfare system. From the 1980s and onward, the debate in Europe took off more broadly and since then it has expanded to many countries around the world. A few countries have implemented large-scale welfare systems that have some similarities to basic income, such as Bolsa Família in Brazil. From 2008 onward, several experiments with basic income and related systems have taken place.

Governments can contribute to individual and household income maintenance strategies in three ways:

  1. The government can establish a minimum income guarantee and not allow income to fall below levels set for various household types, maintaining these levels by paying means-tested benefits.
  2. Social insurance can pay benefits in the case of sickness, unemployment, or old age, on the basis of contributions paid
  3. Universal unconditional payments, such as the United Kingdom’s Child Benefit for children.[6]

In more detail:

  1. A means-tested benefit that raises a household’s income to a guaranteed minimum level is unlike a basic income in that income delivered under a system of guaranteed minimum income is reduced proportionally as other sources of income increase whereas income received from a basic income is constant regardless of other sources of income. Johannes Ludovicus Vives (1492–1540), for example, proposed that the municipal government should be responsible for securing a subsistence minimum to all its residents “not on grounds of justice but for the sake of a more effective exercise of morally required charity”. However, Vives also argued that to qualify for poor relief the recipient must “deserve the help he or she gets by proving his or her willingness to work”.[7]
  2. The first to develop the idea of a social insurance was Marquis de Condorcet (1743–1794). After playing a prominent role in the French Revolution, he was imprisoned and sentenced to death. While in prison, he wrote the Esquisse d’un tableau historique des progrès de l’esprit humain (published posthumously by his widow in 1795), whose last chapter described his vision of a social insurance and how it could reduce inequality, insecurity and poverty. Condorcet mentioned, very briefly, the idea of a benefit to all children old enough to start working by themselves and to start up a family of their own. He is not known to have said or written anything else on this proposal, but his close friend and fellow member of the Constitutional Convention Thomas Paine (1737–1809) developed the idea much further, a couple of years after Condorcet’s death.
  3. The first social movement for Basic Income developed around 1920 in the United Kingdom. Its proponents included Bertrand Russell, Dennis Milner (with his wife Mabel) and C. H. Douglas.
  • Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) argued for a new social model that combined the advantages of socialism and anarchism, and that basic income should be a vital component in that new society.
  • Dennis and Mabel Milner, a Quaker married couple in the Labour Party, published a short pamphlet entitled “Scheme for a State Bonus” (1918) that argued for the “introduction of an income paid unconditionally on a weekly basis to all citizens of the United Kingdom”. They considered it a moral right for everyone to have the means to subsistence, and thus it should not be conditional on work or willingness to work.
  • C. H. Douglas was an engineer who became concerned that most British citizens could not afford to buy the goods that were produced, despite the rising productivity in British industry. His solution to this paradox was a new social system he called social credit, a combination of monetary reform and basic income.

In 1944 and 1945, the Beveridge Committee led by the British economist William Beveridge developed a proposal for a comprehensive new welfare system of social insurance, means-tested benefits and unconditional allowances for children. Committee member Lady Rhys-Williams argued that the incomes for adults should be more like a basic income. She was also the first to develop the negative income tax model.[8][9] Her son Brandon Rhys Williams proposed a basic income to a parliamentary committee in 1982 and soon after that in 1984 the Basic Income Research Group, now the Citizen’s Basic Income Trust, began to conduct and disseminate research on basic income.[10]

In the 1960s and 1970s, some welfare debates in the United States and Canada included discussions of basic income. Six pilot projects were also conducted with the negative income tax. Then President Richard Nixon once even proposed a negative income tax in a bill to the Congress, but Congress eventually only approved a guaranteed minimum income for the elderly and the disabled, not for all citizens, thus:[11]

Nixon proposed more ambitious programs than he enacted, including the National Health Insurance Partnership Program, which promoted health maintenance organizations (HMOs). He also proposed a massive overhaul of federal welfare programs. The centerpiece of Nixon’s welfare reform was the replacement of much of the welfare system with a negative income tax, a favorite proposal of conservative economist Milton Friedman. The purpose of the negative income tax was to provide both a safety net for the poor and a financial incentive for welfare recipients to work.

[11]

In the late 1970s and the 1980s, basic income was more or less forgotten in the United States, but it started to gain some traction in Europe. Basic Income European Network, later renamed to Basic Income Earth Network, was founded in 1986 and started to arrange international conferences every two years.[2] From the 1980s, some people outside party politics and universities took interest. In West Germany, groups of unemployed people took a stance for the reform.[12]

From 2010 onwards, Basic Income again became an active topic in many countries. Basic income is currently discussed from a variety of perspectives—including in the context of ongoing automation and robotisation, often with the argument that these trends mean less paid work in the future, which would create a need for a new welfare model. Several countries are planning for local or regional experiments with basic income or related welfare systems. For example, experiments in Canada, Finland, India and Namibia have received international media attention. The first and only national referendum about basic income was held in Switzerland in 2016. The result was a rejection of the basic income proposal by a vote of 76.9% to 23.1%.

Perspectives in the basic income debate

Automation

The debates about basic income and automation are closely linked. For example, Mark Zuckerberg argues that the increase in automation creates a greater need for basic income. Concerns about automation have prompted many in the high-technology industry to argue for basic income as an implication of their business models. Presidential candidate and non-profit founder Andrew Yang states automation causing the loss of 4 million manufacturing jobs in the midwest, resulting in the election of Donald Trump[13] Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk came out in support of basic income and Andrew Yang due to automation and AI.[14]

Many technologists believe that automation, among other things, is creating technological unemployment. Journalist Nathan Schneider first highlighted the turn of the “tech elite” to these ideas with an article in Vice magazine which cited Marc AndreessenSam AltmanPeter Diamandis and others.[15][16][17] Some studies about automation and jobs validate these concerns. In a report to the Congress, the White House estimated that a worker earning less than $20 an hour in 2010 would eventually lose their job to a machine with 83% probability. Even workers earning as much as $40 an hour faced a probability of 31%.[16] With a rising unemployment rate, poor communities would become more impoverished worldwide. Proponents of universal basic income argue that it could solve many world problems like high work stress and could create more opportunities and efficient and effective work. In a study in Dauphin, Manitoba, only 13% of labor decreased from a much higher expected number.[18] In a study in several Indian villages, basic income in the region raised the education rate of young people by 25%.[19]

Besides technological unemployment, some tech-industry experts worry that automation would destabilize the labor market or increase economic inequality. One example is Chris Hughes, co-founder of both Facebook and Economic Security Project. Automation has been happening for hundreds of years and while it has not permanently reduced the employment rate, it has constantly caused employment instability. It displaces workers who spend their lives learning skills that become outmoded and forces them into unskilled labor. Paul Vallée, a Canadian tech-entrepreneur and CEO of Pythian, argues that automation is at least as likely to increase poverty and reduce social mobility as it is to create ever-increasing unemployment rate. At the 2016 North American Basic Income Guarantee Congress in Winnipeg, Vallée examined slavery as a historical example of a period in which capital (African slaves) could do the same things that paid labor (poor whites) could do. He found that slavery did not cause massive unemployment among poor whites, but instead it increased economic inequality and lowered social mobility.[20]

Bad behavior

Some worry that some people would spend a basic income on alcohol and other drugs.[21][22] However, studies of the impact of direct cash transfer programs provide evidence to the contrary. A 2014 World Bank review of 30 scientific studies concludes: “Concerns about the use of cash transfers for alcohol and tobacco consumption are unfounded”.[23]

Basic income as a part of a post-capitalistic economic system

Harry Shutt proposed basic income and other measures to make all or most enterprises collective rather than private. These measures would create a post-capitalist economic system.[24]

Erik Olin Wright characterizes basic income as a project for reforming capitalism into an economic system by empowering labor in relation to capital, granting labor greater bargaining power with employers in labor markets which can gradually de-commodify labor by decoupling work from income. This would allow for an expansion in scope of the social economy by granting citizens greater means to pursue activities (such as the pursuit of art) that do not yield strong financial returns.[25]

James Meade advocated for a social dividend scheme funded by publicly owned productive assets.[26] Russell argued for a basic income alongside public ownership as a means of shortening the average working day and achieving full employment.[27]

Economists and sociologists have advocated for a form of basic income as a way to distribute economic profits of publicly owned enterprises to benefit the entire population, also referred to as a social dividend, where the basic income payment represents the return to each citizen on the capital owned by society. These systems would be directly financed from returns on publicly owned assets and are featured as major components of many models of market socialism.[28]

Guy Standing has proposed financing a social dividend from a democratically-accountable sovereign wealth fund built up primarily from the proceeds of a levy on rentier income derived from ownership or control of assets—physical, financial and intellectual.[29][30]

Herman Daly, considered as one of the founders of ecologism, argued primarily for a zero growth economy within the ecological limits of the planet. To have such a green and sustainable economy, including basic economic welfare and security to all people, he wrote a lot about the need for structural reforms of the capitalistic system, including basic income, monetary reform, land value tax, trade reforms and higher eco-taxes (taxes on pollution and carbon dioxide). For him, basic income was part of a larger structural change of the economic system towards a more green and sustainable system.

Different ideological arguments

  • Georgist views: geolibertarians seek to synthesize propertarian libertarianism and a geoist (or Georgist) philosophy of land as unowned commons or equally owned by all people, citing the classical economic distinction between unimproved land and private property. The rental value of land is produced by the labors of the community and, as such, rightly belongs to the community at large and not solely to the landholder. A land value tax (LVT) is levied as an annual fee for exclusive access to a section of earth which is collected and redistributed to the community either through public goods, such as public security or a court system, or in the form of a basic guaranteed income called a citizen’s dividend. Geolibertarians view the LVT as a single tax to replace all other methods of taxation which are deemed unjust violations of the non-aggression principle.
  • Conservative views: support for basic income has been expressed by several people associated with conservative political views. While adherents of such views generally favor minimization or abolition of the public provision of welfare services, some have cited basic income as a viable strategy to reduce the amount of bureaucratic administration that is prevalent in many contemporary welfare systems. Others have contended that it could also act as a form of compensation for fiat currency inflation.[31][32][33]
  • Feminist views: feminist views on basic income are loosely divided into two opposing views. One view supports basic income as a means of guaranteeing minimum financial independence for women and of recognizing women’s unpaid work in the home. The opposing feminist view opposes basic income as something that might discourage women from participation in the workforce—reinforcing traditional gender roles of women belonging in the private area and men in the public area.[34][35]

Economic critique

In 2016, the IGM Economic Experts panel at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business was asked if “Granting every American citizen over 21-years old a universal basic income of $13,000 a year — financed by eliminating all transfer programs (including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, housing subsidies, household welfare payments, and farm and corporate subsidies) — would be better policy than the status quo”, 58 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed, 19 percent were uncertain and 2 percent agreed. Cost was an issue for those who disagreed as well as a lack of optimization in the structure proposed. Daron Acemoglu, Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, expressed these doubts in the survey: “Current US status quo is horrible. A more efficient and generous social safety net is needed. But UBI is expensive and not generous enough”.[36] Eric Maskin has stated that “a minimum income makes sense, but not at the cost of eliminating Social Security and Medicare”.[37] Simeon Djankov, professor at the London School of Economics, argues the costs of a generous system are prohibitive.[38]

Another critique comes from the far-left. Douglas Rushkoff, a professor of Media Theory and Digital Economics at the City University of New York, suggests that universal basic income is another way that “obviates the need for people to consider true alternatives to living lives as passive consumers”. He sees it as a sophisticated way for corporations to get richer on the expense of public money.[39]

Economic growth

Some proponents have argued that basic income can increase economic growth because it would sustain people while they invest in education to get interesting and well-paid jobs.[40][21] However, there is also a discussion of basic income within the degrowth movement, which argues against economic growth.[41]

Employment

One argument against basic income is that if people have free and unconditional money, they would “get lazy” and not work as much.[42][43][44] Critics argue that less work means less tax revenue and hence less money for the state and cities to fund public projects. The degree of any disincentive to employment because of basic income would likely depend on how generous the basic income was.

Some studies have looked at employment levels during the experiments with basic income and negative income tax and similar systems. In the negative income tax-experiments in United States in the 1970s, for example, there was a five percent decline in the hours worked. The work reduction was largest for second earners in two-earner households and weakest for the main earner. The reduction in hours was higher when the benefit was higher. Participants in these experiments knew that the experiment was limited in time.[43]

In the Mincome experiment in rural Dauphin, Manitoba also in the 1970s, there were also slight reductions in hours worked during the experiment. However, the only two groups who worked significantly less were new mothers and teenagers working to support their families. New mothers spent this time with their infant children, and working teenagers put significant additional time into their schooling.[45] Under Mincome, “[t]he reduction of work effort was modest: about one per cent for men, three per cent for wives, and five per cent for unmarried women”.[46]

A recent study of the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend—the largest scale universal basic income program in the United States which has run since 1976—seems to show this belief is untrue. The researchers—Damon Jones from the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy and Ioana Marinescu from the University of Pennsylvania School of Public Policy and Practice—maintain that although there is a small decrease in work by recipients due to reasons like those in the Manitoba experiment, there has been a 17 percent increase in part-time jobs. The authors theorize that employment remained steady, because the extra income that let people buy more also increased demand for service jobs. This finding is consistent with the economic data of the time. No effect was seen when it came to jobs in manufacturing, which produce exports. Essentially, the authors argue, macro-economic effects of higher spending supported overall employment. To use an illustrative but hypothetical example, someone who uses the dividend to help with car payments can cut back on hours working as a cashier at a local grocery store. Because more people are spending more, the store must replace the worker who started working less. Meanwhile, distribution of the dividend doesn’t affect the international demand for oil and the jobs connected to it.[47][48] Jones and Marinescu found instead that the larger scale of the program is what allows it to work and not dissuade people out of the work force.

Another study that contradicted such decline in work incentive was a pilot project implemented in 2008 and 2009 in the Namibian village of Omitara. The study found that economic activity actually increased, particularly through the launch of small businesses, and reinforcement of the local market by increasing households’ buying power.[49] However, the residents of Omitara were described as suffering “dehumanising levels of poverty” before the introduction of the pilot, and as such the project’s relevance to potential implementations in developed economies is unknown.[50]

James Meade states that a return to full employment can only be achieved if, among other things, workers offer their services at a low enough price that the required wage for unskilled labor would be too low to generate a socially desirable distribution of income. He therefore concludes that a “citizen’s income” is necessary to achieve full employment without suffering stagnant or negative growth in wages.[51]

If there is a disincentive to employment because of basic income, the magnitude of such a disincentive may depend on how generous the basic income was. Some campaigners in Switzerland have suggested a level that would be only just liveable, arguing that people would want to supplement it.[52]

Tim Worstall, a writer, blogger and Senior Fellow of the Adam Smith Institute,[53] has argued that traditional welfare schemes create a disincentive to work because such schemes typically cause people to lose benefits at around the same rate that their income rises (a form of welfare trap where the marginal tax rate is 100 percent). He has asserted that this particular disincentive is not a property shared by basic income since the rate of increase is positive at all incomes.[54]

Freedom

Philippe Van Parijs has argued that basic income at the highest sustainable level is needed to support real freedom, or the freedom to do whatever one “might want to do”.[55] By this, Van Parijs means that all people should be free to use the resources of the Earth and the “external assets” people make out of them to do whatever they want. Money is like an access ticket to use those resources, and so to make people equally free to do what they want with world assets, the government should give each individual as many such access tickets as possible—that is, the highest sustainable basic income.

Karl Widerquist and others have proposed a theory of freedom in which basic income is needed to protect the power to refuse work[56] which can be summarized as follows. If the resources necessary to an individual’s survival are controlled by another group, that individual has no reasonable choice other than to do whatever the resource-controlling group demands. Before the establishment of governments and landlords, individuals had direct access to the resources they needed to survive. Today, resources necessary for the production of food, shelter and clothing have been privatized in such a way that some have gotten a share and others have not.

Therefore, the argument goes that the owners of those resources owe compensation back to non-owners, sufficient at least for them to purchase the resources or goods necessary to sustain their basic needs. This redistribution must be unconditional because people can consider themselves free only if they are not forced to spend all their time doing the bidding of others simply to provide basic necessities to themselves and their families.[21] Under this argument, personal, political and religious freedom are worth little without the power to say no. In this view, basic income provides an economic freedom which—combined with political freedom, freedom of belief and personal freedom—establish each individual’s status as a free person.

Gender equality

The Scottish economist Ailsa McKay has argued that basic income is a way to promote gender equality.[57][58] She noted in 2001 that “social policy reform should take account of all gender inequalities and not just those relating to the traditional labor market” and that “the citizens’ basic income model can be a tool for promoting gender-neutral social citizenship rights”.[57]

Poverty reduction

Advocates of basic income often argue that it has the potential to reduce or even eradicate poverty.[59]

According to a randomized controlled study in the Rarieda District of Kenya run by the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) on the Give Directly program, the impact of an uncondition was that for every $1,000 disbursed, there was a $270 increase in earnings, a $430 increase in assets, and a $330 increase in nutrition spending, with a 0% effect on alcohol or tobacco spending.[60]

Milton Friedman, a renowned economist, supported UBI, reasoning that it would help to reduce poverty. He said:

The virtue of [a negative income tax] is precisely that it treats everyone the same way. […] [T]here’s none of this unfortunate discrimination among people.[61]

Martin Luther King Jr. was also an advocate of UBI, as he believed that a basic income was a necessity that would help to reduce poverty, regardless of race, religion or social class. In King’s last book before his assassination Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?, he said:

I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective — the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income.[62]

Reduction of medical costs

The Canadian Medical Association passed a motion in 2015 in clear support of basic income and for basic income trials in Canada.[63]

British journalist Paul Mason has stated that universal basic income would probably reduce the high medical costs associated with diseases of poverty. According to Mason, stress, diseases like high blood pressure, type II diabetes and the like would probably become less common.[64]

Transparency and administrative efficiency

Basic income is potentially a much simpler and more transparent welfare system than welfare states currently use.[65] Instead of separate welfare programs (including unemployment insurance, child support, pensions, disability, housing support) it could be one income, or it could be a basic payment that welfare programs could add to.[66] This could require less paperwork and bureaucracy to check eligibility. The lack of means test or similar bureaucracy would allow for saving on social welfare which could be put towards the grant. The Basic Income Earth Network claims that basic income costs less than current means-tested social welfare benefits, and has proposed an implementation that it claims is financially viable.[67][68]

A real world example of how basic income is being implemented to save money can be seen in the program that is being conducted by the Netherlands in a few cities. The city councillor for the city of Nijmegen, Lisa Westerveld had this to say in an interview – “In Nijmegen we get £88m to give to people on welfare, but it costs £15m a year for the civil servants running the bureaucracy of the current system”.[69] Her view is also shared by Dutch historian and author Rutger Bregman who believes the Netherlands welfare system is flawed and also economist Loek Groot who believes the country welfare system wastes too much money. Outcomes of this program will be analysed by eminent economist Loek Groot, a professor at the University of Utrecht who hopes to learn if a guaranteed income might be a more effective approach.[70] However, other proponents argue for adding basic income to existing welfare grants, rather than replacing them.

Wage slavery and alienation

Frances Fox Piven argues that an income guarantee would benefit all workers by liberating them from the anxiety that results from the “tyranny of wage slavery” and provide opportunities for people to pursue different occupations and develop untapped potentials for creativity.[71] André Gorz saw basic income as a necessary adaptation to the increasing automation of work, yet basic income also enables workers to overcome alienation in work and life and to increase their amount of leisure time.[72]

These arguments imply that a universal basic income, or UBI, would give people enough freedom to pursue work that is satisfactory or interesting even if that work does not pay enough to sustain their everyday living. One example is that of Nelle Harper Lee, who lived as a single woman in New York City in the 1950s, writing in her free time and supporting herself by working part-time as an airline clerk. She had written several long stories, but achieved no success of note. One Christmas in the late fifties, a generous friend gave her a year’s wages as a gift with the note: “You have one year off from your job to write whatever you please. Merry Christmas”. A year later, Lee had produced a draft of To Kill a Mockingbird, a novel that subsequently won the Pulitzer Prize.[73][74] Most proponents of UBI argue that the net creative output from even a small percentage of basic income subscribers would be a significant contributor to human productivity, one that might be lost if these people are not given the opportunity to pursue work that is interesting to them.

Welfare trap

The welfare trap or poverty trap is a proposed problem with means-tested welfare. Recipients of means-tested welfare may be implicitly encouraged to remain on welfare due to economic penalties for transitioning off of welfare. These penalties include loss of welfare and possibly higher tax rates. Opponents claim that this creates a harsh marginal tax for those rising out of poverty. A 2013 Cato Institute study claimed that workers could accumulate more wealth from the welfare system than they could from a minimum wage job in at least nine European countries. In three of them, namely Austria, Croatia and Denmark, the marginal tax rate was nearly 100%.[75][76]

Proponents of universal basic income claim that it could eliminate welfare traps by removing conditions to receive such an income, but large-scale experiments have not yet produced clear results.[77]

Pilot programs and experiments

Omitara, one of the two poor villages in Namibia where a local basic income was tested in 2008–2009

Since the 1960s and in particular after 2010, there has been a number of so-called basic income pilots. Among them the following:

  • Experiments with negative income tax in United States and Canada in the 1960s and 1970s.
  • The province of Manitoba, Canada, experimented with Mincome, a basic guaranteed income in the 1970s.[78]
  • The basic income grant in Namibia, launched in 2008 and ended in 2009.[79]
  • An independent pilot implemented in São Paulo, Brazil.[80]
  • Basic income trials in several villages in India,[81] whose government has proposed a guaranteed basic income for all citizens.[82]
  • The GiveDirectly experiment in Nairobi, Kenya—the biggest and longest basic income pilot as of 2017.[83]
  • An experiment in the city of Utrecht in the Netherlands, launched in early 2017, that is testing different rates of aid.[82]
  • A three-year basic income pilot that the Ontario provincial governmentCanada, launched in the cities of HamiltonThunder Bay and Lindsay in July 2017.[84] Although called basic income, it was only made available to those with a low income and funding would be removed if they obtained employment,[85] making it more related to the current welfare system than actual basic income. The pilot project was cancelled on 31 July 2018 by the newly elected Progressive Conservative government under Ontario Premier Doug Ford.
  • A two-year pilot the Finnish government began in January 2017 which involves 2,000 subjects[86][87] In April 2018, the Finnish government rejected a request for funds to extend and expand the program from Kela (Finland’s social security agency).[88]
  • A project called Eight in a village in Fort Portal, Uganda, that a nonprofit organization launched in January 2017 which provides income for 56 adults and 88 children through mobile money.[89]

Examples of payments with similarities

Alaska Permanent Fund

The Permanent Fund of Alaska in the United States provides a kind of basic income based on the oil and gas revenues of the state to nearly all state residents, however the payment is not high enough to cover basic expenses and is not a fixed, guaranteed amount. For these reasons it is not considered a basic income.

During his 2020 presidential campaign, founder of the nonprofit Venture for America (VFA) Andrew Yang used the Alaska Permanent Fund as evidence that Republicans can be convinced to implement a dividend. The entrepreneur and philanthropist claims it has improved children’s health, created thousands of jobs, and decreased income inequality.[90]

During her 2016 presidential campaign, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton considered including a policy similar to the Alaska Permanent Fund called Alaska for America as part of her platform after reading Peter Barnes‘s book on the subject With Liberty and Dividends for All. Ultimately, Clinton decided not to, stating in her 2016 presidential election memoir What Happened: “Unfortunately, we couldn’t make the numbers work”.[91] However, Clinton also said in retrospect: “I wonder now whether we should have thrown caution to the wind and embraced ‘Alaska for America’ as a long-term goal and figured out the details later”, considering that former Republican Treasury Secretaries James Baker and Henry Paulson have also proposed a similar nationwide policy.[92][93]

Quasi-UBI programs

  • Old age pension is a payment which in some countries is guaranteed to all citizens above a certain age. The only difference from Basic Income is that it is restricted to people over a certain age.
  • Child benefit – A similar program to old pensions but is restricted to children, or more precisely it is given to parents for each child they have. It is also like Basic Income except that is restricted to children.
  • Conditional Cash Transfer – This is also a regular payment given to families, however it is only given to the poor and is usually dependent on basic conditions such as sending their children to school or having them vaccinated. Programs include Bolsa Familia in Brazil and a similar program in México.
  • Guaranteed Minimum Income – Despite the name, this differs from a Basic Income in that it is restricted only to those in search of work. Example programs are unemployment benefit in the UK and RSA in France.

Bolsa Família is a large social welfare program in Brazil that provides money to many poor families in the country. The system is related to basic income, but has more conditions, like asking the recipients to keep their children in school until graduation. Brazilian Senator Eduardo Suplicy championed a law that ultimately passed in 2004 that declared Bolsa Família a first step towards a national basic income. However, the program has not yet been expanded in that direction.

Rythu Bandhu scheme, is a welfare scheme started on 10 May 2018 aimed towards helping farmers that is being implemented by the state of Telangana in India where each farmland owner gets a fixed amount of money ₹4000 per acre twice a year for rabi and kharif harvests. A budget allocation of ₹12,000 crores($138 billion at the time of conversion) was made in 2018–2019 state budget, the scheme offers a financial help of ₹8,000 per year to each farmer (two crops) and there is no cap on money disbursed to number of acres of land owned and it does not discriminate between rich or poor land owners.[94] The Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has been monitoring the program and is doing a study they have yet to published, but their preliminary results already show promising results in getting farmers funding they need to invest in farming—procuring fertilizers, seeds, pesticides and other inputs—which serves the purpose of the scheme. The first phase of the survey concluded that 85% of farmers received cheques for amounts ranging from ₹1,000 to ₹20,000 for farm land comprising less than an acre to about five acres and about 10% of farmers received cheques for amounts above ₹20,000 to ₹50,000 and only 1% of farmers got amounts more than ₹50,000. The spending pattern revealed that a large chunk, 28.5% of farmers opted to buy seed, about 18% spent the money on fertilizer, 15.4% on new agricultural assets, including farm equipment, 8.6% on pesticides and some used it to engage farm labor and only 4.4% of beneficiaries said they utilized it for household consumption and a minuscule percentage for repayment of loans.[95] The scheme received a high satisfaction rate of 92% from farmers since other forms of capital investment like welfare or loans had many strings attached to it and would not reach the farmers before the cropping season starts, many other states and countries are following the development of the program to see if they can implement it for their farmers. Since farmers worldwide are facing many difficulties and in a lot of countries it has become unprofitable, governments are either proving subsidies, welfare or loans, but this a new type of program that is considered as an embryonic UBI or quasi-UBI to replace traditional systems of agricultural support.[96]

Citizen Capitalism is a supplemental income program proposed by the legal scholar Lynn Stout and her co-authors Tamara Belinfanti and Sergio Gramitto in their book Citizen Capitalism: How A Universal Fund Can Provide Influence and Income to All which was published in 2019. In the book, Stout and her co-authors propose the building of a not-for-profit universal fund composed of shares donated by corporations and philanthropic individuals in which every American would receive one share. These shares could not be sold, bequeathed, donated, or borrowed against, but each “citizen shareholder” would receive an even portion of the net dividends paid out by shares in the fund, therefore contributing to the amelioration of income inequality. Each shareholder would also receive additional influence in the form of a vote (corresponding to their shares in the fund), providing in theory for a significantly expanded degree of citizen engagement in the role that public corporations play in American society.[97]

Basic income in crypto currencies and as part of social media apps

Nimses is a concept that offers universal basic income to every member of its system.[98] The idea of Nimses consists of time-based currency called Nim (1 nim = 1 minute of life). Every person in Nimses receives nims that can be spent on different goods and services. This concept was initially adopted in Eastern Europe.[99]

Electroneum is a cryptocurrency project which uses a mobile application to pay users.[100] The first KYC/AML compliant cryptocurrency, Electroneum enables users to mine[101] using their mobile phone through a simulated mining system. The system pays up to $3.00 per month to its users, with the goal of enabling the world’s unbanked population with financial freedom.[102] The cryptocurrency can currently be used to purchase mobile top-ups from the South African telecommunications company The Unlimited[103] as well as to transact with any business that has integrated the Electroneum API, or directly between individuals.

National debates

Basic Income is debated in many countries. There have also been several basic income experiments held in various countries such as Namibia, Kenya and Canada as discussed elsewhere on this page. The policy was discussed by the Indian Ministry of Finance in an economic survey in 2017,[104] and a green paper was commissioned on the topic by the Government of Ireland in 2002.[105] There are also a number of countries such as Ireland and Mexico that have programs with elements reminiscent of UBI such as child benefitold age pensions or conditional cash transfers, but these are usually not discussed in relation to Basic Income. So far no country has introduced an unconditional basic income as law.

Public opinion

Support for a universal basic income varies widely across Europe, as shown by a recent wave of the European Social Survey. A high share of the population tends to support the scheme in southern and central eastern european union countries, while support tends to be lower in western european countries such as France and Germany, and even lower in Scandinavian countries such as Norway and Sweden. Individuals who face greater economic insecurity, for instance because of low income and unemployment tend to be more supportive of a basic income [106]

Petitions, polls and referendums

  • 2008: an official petition for basic income was started in Germany by Susanne Wiest.[107] The petition was accepted and Susanne Wiest was invited for a hearing at the German parliament’s Commission of Petitions. After the hearing, the petition was closed as “unrealizable”.[108]
  • 2013–2014: a European Citizens’ Initiative collected 280,000 signatures demanding that the European Commission studies the concept of an unconditional basic income.[109]
  • 2015: a citizen’s initiative in Spain received 185,000 signatures, short of the required number to mandate that parliament discuss the proposal.[110]
  • 2016: the world’s first universal basic income referendum in Switzerland on 5 June 2016 was rejected with a 76.9 percent majority.[1][111] Also in 2016, a poll showed that 58 percent of the European people are aware of basic income and 65 percent would vote in favor of the idea.[112]
  • 2017: Politico/Morning Consult asked 1,994 American people about their opinions on several political issues. One question addressed attitudes towards a national basic income in the United States. 43 percent either “strongly supported” or “somewhat supported” the idea.[113]

Prominent advocates

Prominent contemporary advocates include Economics Nobel Prize winners Peter Diamond and Christopher Pissarides,[114] tech investor and engineer Elon Musk,[115] political philosopher Philippe Van Parijs,[116] Yanis Varoufakis, former finance minister of Greece,[117] Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook[118][119] and entrepreneur and non-profit founder Andrew Yang, who is running for the Democratic nomination for the 2020 United States presidential election on a platform of instituting a universal basic income called The Freedom Dividend.[120]

Prominent critics

See also

References …

External links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

Who Really Stands to Win from Universal Basic Income?

It has enthusiasts on both the left and the right. Maybe that’s the giveaway.

In 1795, a group of magistrates gathered in the English village of Speenhamland to try to solve a social crisis brought on by the rising price of grain. The challenge was an increase in poverty, even among the employed. The social system at the time, which came to be known as Elizabethan Poor Law, divided indigent adults into three groups: those who could work, those who could not, and those—the “idle poor”—who seemed not to want to. The able and disabled received work or aid through local parishes. The idle poor were forced into labor or rounded up and beaten for being bums. As grain prices increased, the parishes became overwhelmed with supplicants. Terrorizing idle people turned into a vast, unmanageable task.

The magistrates at Speenhamland devised a way of offering families measured help. Household incomes were topped up to cover the cost of living. A man got enough to buy three gallon loaves a week (about eight and a half pounds of bread), plus a loaf and a half for every other member of his household. This meant that a couple with three children could bring home the equivalent of more than twenty-five pounds a week—a lot of bread. The plan let men receive a living wage by working for small payments or by not working at all.

Economics is at heart a narrative art, a frame across which data points are woven into stories about how the world should work. As the Speenhamland system took hold and spread across England, it turned into a parable of caution. The population nearly doubled. Thomas Malthus posited that the poverty subsidies allowed couples to rear families before their actual earnings allowed it. His contemporary David Ricardo complained that the Speenhamland model was a prosperity drain, inviting “imprudence, by offering it a portion of the wages of prudence and industry.” Karl Marx attacked the system years later, in “Das Kapital,” suggesting that it had kept labor wages low, while Karl Polanyi, the economic historian, cast Speenhamland as the original sin of industrial capitalism, making lower classes irrelevant to the labor market just as new production mechanisms were being built. When the Speenhamland system ended, in 1834, people were plunged into a labor machine in which they had no role or say. The commission that repealed the system replaced it with Dickensian workhouses—a corrective, at the opposite extreme, for a program that everyone agreed had failed.

In 1969, Richard Nixon was preparing a radical new poverty-alleviation program when an adviser sent him a memo of material about the Speenhamland experiment. The story freaked Nixon out in a way that only Nixon could be freaked out, and although his specific anxiety was allayed, related concerns lingered. According to Daniel P. Moynihan, another Nixon adviser, who, in 1973, published a book about the effort, Speenhamland was the beginning of a push that led the President’s program, the Family Assistance Plan, toward a work requirement—an element that he had not included until then.

Nixon had originally intended that every poor family of four in America with zero income would receive sixteen hundred dollars a year (the equivalent of about eleven thousand dollars today), plus food stamps; the supplement would fade out as earnings increased. He sought to be the President to lift the lower classes. The plan died in the Senate, under both Republican and Democratic opposition, and the only thing to survive was Nixon’s late-breaking, Speenhamland-inspired fear of being seen to indulge the idle poor. By the end of his Administration, a previously obscure concept called moral hazard—the idea that people behave more profligately when they’re shielded from consequences—had become a guiding doctrine of the right. A work requirement stuck around, first in the earned-income tax credit, and then in Bill Clinton’s welfare reforms. The core of Nixon’s plan—what Moynihan, in “The Politics of a Guaranteed Income,” called “a quantum leap in social policy”—was buried among his more flamboyant flops.

Recently, a resurrection has occurred. Guaranteed income, reconceived as basic income, is gaining support across the spectrum, from libertarians to labor leaders. Some see the system as a clean, crisp way of replacing gnarled government bureaucracy. Others view it as a stay against harsh economic pressures now on the horizon. The questions that surround it are the same ones that Nixon faced half a century ago. Will the public stand for such a bold measure—and, if so, could it ever work?

Give People Money: How a Universal Basic Income Would End Poverty, Revolutionize Work, and Remake the World” (Crown), by the economic journalist Annie Lowrey, is the latest book to argue that a program in this family is a sane solution to the era’s socioeconomic woes. Lowrey is a policy person. She is interested in working from the concept down. “The way things are is really the way we choose for them to be,” she writes. Her conscientiously reported book assesses the widespread effects that money and a bit of hope could buy.

A universal basic income, or U.B.I., is a fixed income that every adult—rich or poor, working or idle—automatically receives from government. Unlike today’s means-tested or earned benefits, payments are usually the same size, and arrive without request. Depending on who designs a given system, they might replace all existing governmental assistance programs or complement them, as a wider safety net. “A UBI is a lesson and an ideal, not just an economic policy,” Lowrey writes. The ideal is that a society, as a first priority, should look out for its people’s survival; the lesson is that possibly it can do so without unequal redistributive plans.

VIDEO FROM THE NEW YORKER

Crossword Puzzles with a Side of Millennial Socialism

People generally have a visceral reaction to the idea of a universal basic income. For many, a government check to boost good times or to guard against starvation in bad ones seems like an obviously humane measure. Others find such payments monstrous, a model of waste and unearned rewards. In principle, a government fixes the basic income at a level to allow subsistence but also to encourage enterprise and effort for the enjoyment of more prosperity. In the U.S., its supporters generally propose a figure somewhere around a thousand dollars a month: enough to live on—somewhere in America, at least—but not nearly enough to live on well.

“So basically you’re a dog now.”

Recent interest in U.B.I. has been widespread but wary. Last year, Finland launched a pilot version of basic income; this spring, the government decided not to extend the program beyond this year, signalling doubt. Other trials continue. Pilots have run in Canada, the Netherlands, Scotland, and Iran. Since 2017, the startup incubator Y Combinator has funded a multiyear pilot in Oakland, California. The municipal government of Stockton, an ag-industrial city east of San Francisco, is about to test a program that gives low-income residents five hundred dollars a month. Last year, Stanford launched a Basic Income Lab to pursue, as it were, basic research.

One cause of the program’s especial popularity in Northern California is also a reason for the urgency of its appeal: it is a futurist reply to the darker side of technological efficiency. Robots, we are told, will drive us from our jobs. The more this happens, the more existing workforce safety nets will be strained. In “Raising the Floor: How a Universal Basic Income Can Renew Our Economy and Rebuild the American Dream” (2016), the labor leader Andy Stern nominates U.B.I. as the right response to technological unemployment. Stern, a lifetime labor guy, is a former president of the two-million-member Service Employees International Union. But he thinks that the rise of robots and the general gig-ification of jobs will “marginalize the role of collective bargaining,” so he has made a strategic turn to prepare for a disempowered working class. “You go into an Apple store and you see the future,” he quotes an economist saying. “The future of the labor force is all in those smart college-educated people with the T-shirts whose job is to be a retail clerk.” (This presumes that people will frequent brick-and-mortar shops in the first place.)

By Lowrey’s assessment, the existing system “would falter and fail if confronted with vast inequality and tidal waves of joblessness.” But is a U.B.I. fiscally sustainable? It’s unclear. Lowrey runs many numbers but declines to pin most of them down. She thinks a U.B.I. in the United States should be a thousand dollars monthly. This means $3.9 trillion a year, close to the current expenditure of the entire federal government. To pay, Lowrey proposes new taxes on income, carbon, estates, pollution, and the like. But she is also curiously sanguine about costs, on the premise that few major initiatives balance out on the federal books: “The Bush tax cuts were not ‘paid for.’ The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not ‘paid for.’ ” When the country wants to launch a big project, she insists, the double joints and stretchy tendons of a giant, globalized economy come into play.

This open planning won’t exactly soothe the cautious. A big reason for chariness with a U.B.I. is that, so far, the program lives in people’s heads, untried on a national scale. Then again, by the same mark, the model couldn’t be called under-thunk. The academic counterpart to Lowrey’s journalistic book is Philippe Van Parijs and Yannick Vanderborght’s recent “Basic Income: A Radical Proposal for a Free Society and a Sane Economy” (Harvard), a meticulously comprehensive, frequently persuasive accounting of U.B.I.’s superiority by measures economic, philosophical, and pragmatic. Like Lowrey, they see basic income as a sound social program and a corrective “hope”: not a perfect system, but better than anything else.

Traditionally, a challenge for means-tested aid is that it must determine who is most deserving—a vestige of the old Elizabethan system. Often, there’s a moralizing edge. Current programs, Lowrey points out, favor the working poor over the jobless. Race or racism plays into the way that certain policies are shaped, and bureaucratic requirements for getting help can be arcane and onerously cumulative. Who will certify the employee status of a guy who’s living on the streets? How can you get disability aid if you can’t afford the doctor who will certify you as disabled? With a universal income, just deserts don’t seem at issue. Everybody gets a basic chance.

Observers often are squeamish about that proposition. Junkies, alcoholics, scam artists: Do we really want to hand these people monthly checks? In 2010, a team of researchers began giving two-hundred-dollar payments to addicts and criminals in Liberian slums. The researchers found that the money, far from being squandered on vice, went largely to subsistence and legitimate enterprise. Such results, echoed in other studies, suggest that some of the most beneficial applications of a U.B.I. may be in struggling economies abroad.

Like many students of the strategy, Lowrey points to Kenya, where she reported on a U.B.I. pilot in a small village. (She won’t say which, for fear of making it a target for thieves—a concern worth counting as significant.) The pilot is run by a nonprofit called GiveDirectly, and is heavily funded through Silicon Valley; in that respect, it’s a study in effective philanthropy, not a new model of society. But the results are encouraging. Before GiveDirectly sent everyone the equivalent of twenty-two U.S. dollars a month (delivered through a mobile app), Village X had dirt roads, no home electricity, and what Lowrey genteelly calls an “open defecation” model for some families. Now, by her account, the village is a bubbling pot of enterprise, as residents whose days used to be about survival save, budget, and plan. (The payments will continue until 2028.)

A widow tells her, “I’ll deal with three things first urgently: the pit latrine that I need to construct, the part of my house that has been damaged by termites, and the livestock pen that needs reinforcement, so the hyena gets nothing from me on his prowls.” A heavy-drinking deadbeat buys a motorbike for a taxi business, sells soap, buys two cows, and opens a barbershop. His work income quadruples. He boasts to Lowrey of his new life.

Purely as a kind of foreign aid, Lowrey suggests, a basic income is better than donated goods (boxes of shoes, mosquito nets), because cash can go to any use. The Indian government’s chief economic adviser tells her that, with a U.B.I. of about a hundred U.S. dollars a year, India, where a third of the world’s extreme poor live, could bring its poverty rates from twenty-two per cent to less than one per cent. Those figures are stunning. But India is in the midst of major bureaucratic change. Would there be any chance of a U.B.I. finding a foothold in the entrenched U.S. political climate?

Advocates have noted that the idea, generally formulated, has bipartisan support. Charles Murray, the conservative welfare critic, was an early enthusiast. His book “In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State” (2006) called for a U.B.I. of ten thousand dollars a year, plus catastrophic health insurance, to replace existing social programs, including Social Security. Rather than fester for years under the mismanaging claws of Big Government, he thought, money could flow directly to individual recipients. “The UBI lowers the rate of involuntary poverty to zero for everyone who has any capacity to work or any capacity to get along with other people,” Murray declared.

But although politically dissimilar people may support a U.B.I., the reasons for their support differ, and so do the ways they set the numbers. A rising group of thinkers on the left, including David Graeber and Nick Srnicek, tout a generous version of U.B.I. both as a safety net and as a way to free people from lives spent rowing overmanaged corporate galleons. Business centrists and Silicon Valley types appreciate it as a way to manage industry side effects—such as low labor costs and the displacement of workers by apps and A.I.—without impeding growth. In “The War on Normal People: The Truth About America’s Disappearing Jobs and Why Universal Basic Income Is Our Future” (Hachette), Andrew Yang, the Venture for America founder who has already filed for Presidential candidacy in 2020, recommends the model as a way to bypass kludgy governmental systems. He imagines it paired with something he calls “human capitalism.” “For example, a journalist who uncovered a particular source of waste, an artist who beautified a city, or a hacker who strengthened our power grid could be rewarded with Social Credits,” he explains. “Most of the technologists and young people I know would be beyond pumped to work on these problems.”

Many of the super-rich are also super-pumped about the universal basic income. Elon Musk has said it will be “necessary.” Sir Richard Branson speaks of “the sense of self-esteem that universal basic income could provide to people.” What’s the appeal for the plutocracy? For one thing, the system offers a hard budget line: you set the income figure, press start, go home. No new programs, no new rules. It also alleviates moral debt: because there is a floor for everyone, the wealthy can feel less guilt as they gain more wealth. Finally, the U.B.I. fits with a certain idea of meritocracy. If everybody gets a strong boost off the blocks, the winners of the economic race—the ultra-affluent—can believe that they got there by their industry or acumen. Of course the very rich appreciate the U.B.I.; it dovetails with a narrative that casts their wealth as a reward.

Anotable exception is Chris Hughes, who, in “Fair Shot: Rethinking Inequality and How We Earn” (St. Martin’s), seeks to shed the idea that special skills brought him success. Hughes, who is helping to fund the Stockton U.B.I. experiment, was part of the dorm-room crew that founded Facebook. By his late twenties, when the company went public, he was worth around five hundred million dollars. Before the I.P.O., he worked for Barack Obama’s first Presidential campaign; afterward, he bought a majority stake in The New Republic, mismanaged it so brazenly as to prompt a huge staff exodus, then sold it. He’s forthright about his failures, and he’s diffident about his putative triumphs. “Fair Shot” tells an interesting success story, because its author has doubts about how he succeeded. It’s “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” if Charlie said “Why me?” and Wonka shrugged.

Hughes’s book is divided between policy and memoir. When he was growing up, in suburban North Carolina, he writes, his mom clipped coupons and he went to an after-school program with mostly nonwhite kids. He dreamed of a bigger life, and applied to top high schools. Andover offered financial aid, but not enough. He called up its admissions office and pleaded for more. Once there, Hughes felt poor, and sought validation in schoolwork. This led him to Harvard, where he ended up rooming with three guys he didn’t know too well, including Mark Zuckerberg.

Hughes had no technical knowledge. But he was there when Facebook was being set up, and he could talk and write, so he was put in charge of its early P.R. On graduating, he found himself leading Facebook’s communications and marketing and watching venture capitalists invest “jaw-dropping” sums. It bemused him. “I didn’t feel like some kind of genius, and while Mark was smart and talented, so were many of the other people I went to college with,” he writes.

Hughes searches for points of exception that explain why he, not someone else from another middle-middle-class family, ended up with half a billion dollars and a speaking circuit out of the gate. His scramble to get into Andover, for one thing, seems central. But should the randomness of this early ambition—which, even if it doesn’t have to do with resources, does reflect community information transfer—really determine who’s in with a chance? Hughes thinks these individual zaps of opportunity have a large-scale correlate: the very economic setup that made him and his roommates super-rich. “In a winner-take-all world, a small group of people get outsized returns as a result of early actions they take,” he writes. Massive tech companies such as Facebook have been possible because of deregulation, financialization, tax cuts, and lowered tariffs rolled out, he thinks, at a cost to ordinary people since the nineteen-seventies.

“Is the flight completely full, extremely full, or very full?”

The solution, Hughes has decided, is a modest basic income: five hundred dollars a month for every adult in a household making less than about fifty thousand dollars. He sees it as a boost to the current system, and argues that the money can be found by closing tax exemptions for the ultra-wealthy—“people like me.”

Six thousand dollars a year is not a lot of money. But Hughes believes that a light padding is enough. He describes receiving his first big payout from Facebook—a hundred thousand dollars—and realizing that if he set aside a five-per-cent return each year he could count on a lifelong annual income of at least five thousand dollars, no matter what. It was a little, but it meant a lot. “The further you get from subsistence, the easier it is to ask fundamental questions like: What do I want, and how do I get it?” he writes. The covetable entity that the Andover kids of his youth possessed wasn’t actually wealth. Their crucial asset was the assurance of choice.

Framing basic income in terms of choice, not money, helps to clarify both its opportunities and its limits. On the immediate level, one might wonder whether Hughes’s proposal of five hundred dollars a month is really enough to boost one’s existential swagger. That number, he says, would lift twenty million people over the poverty line, but any three-hundred-billion-dollar program should. More to the point are Hughes’s qualms about a universal basic income—or even a lower-middle basic income, like his—replacing means-tested aid. (“Trading in benefits earmarked for the poor for a benefit like guaranteed income, which is designed to provide financial stability to the middle class and the poor alike, would be regressive,” he says.) Why spray so much money over people doing fine, he wonders, when you could direct cash as needed?

One answer is that it makes the program palatable to those who cannot stomach anything resembling government handouts. A wide range of people stand to benefit from a cushion: any worker with an abusive boss is free to take the basic wage and leave. By certain measures, in fact, giving everyone a flat check naturally rebalances opportunities for choice. A thousand bucks handed to a multimillionaire means almost nothing, but it’s significant for a middle-income person, and for a poor person it could open up the world.

Skeptics might point out that what was meant to be a floor can easily become a ceiling. This was Marx’s complaint about Speenhamland: a society with a basic income has no pressure to pay employees a good wage, because the bottom constraint, subsistence, has fallen away. We see such an effect already in the gig economy, where companies pay paltry wages by claiming that their endeavors are flexible and part-time and that workers surely have subsistence income from elsewhere.

Supporters of the U.B.I. frequently counter that the raised floor will lift other things. If workers are no longer compelled to take any available job to put food on the table, supporters say, work must be worth their while. Certainly, this will be true for highly undesirable jobs: the latrine cleaner can expect a pay bump and an engraved pen. But for jobs whose appeal goes beyond the paycheck—in other words, most middle-class jobs—the pressures are less clear. Competitive, prestigious industries often pay entry- to mid-level employees meagrely, because they can; ambitious people are so keen for a spot on the ladder that they accept modest wages. And, since that is an easier concession for the children and intimates of the moneyed classes, influential fields can fill up with fancy people. This is not a problem that the U.B.I. would solve. If anything, paychecks in desirable jobs would be free to shrink to honorarium size, and choice opportunity would again redound to the rich, for whom the shrinkage would not mean very much.

In that sense, what’s at issue with U.B.I. isn’t actually the movement of money but the privileging of interests—not who is served but who’s best served. An illuminating parallel is free college. One criticism of Bernie Sanders’s no-tuition plan, in 2016, was that many American families could afford at least part of a tuition. With no fees to pay, that money would be freed to fund enrichments: painting lessons, private tutoring, investments, trips to rescue orphans and pandas, and other things with which well-resourced people set the groundwork for an upward-spiralling bourgeois life. Especially among the small subset of colleges that have competitive admissions—the sector of the education market which, today, serves most reliably as an elevator toward class, influence, and long-term employment access—those who truly have no cash for college would still be starting from behind. Opportunity would be better equalized, at least while other things in America remain very unequal, by meting out financial aid as kids actually need it.

Hughes was one such kid, of course, and then he stepped into a jet stream leading from Harvard Yard to the cover of a business magazine. Now he is part of the one per cent, which means that his son is seventy-seven times as likely to end up in the Ivy League as his counterpart from the bottom fifth in the income distribution. These effects relate to what’s often called “structural inequality.” Since, his story suggests, they have little to do with the details of Hughes’s childhood finances and a lot to do with the decades-long diversion of profit from workers to shareholders, any program to protect the workforce in the long term must go deeper than just redisbursing cash or benefits. Such a solution would need to privilege public interests, not just public awards. It may even require what many U.B.I. fans hate: a rejiggering of regulation. Simply lifting the minimum-income level leaves the largest, most defining foundations of inequality intact.

The realization that a universal basic income is useful but insufficient for the country’s long-term socioeconomic health—that you can’t just wind up a machine and let it run—may cause attrition among some supporters who admire the model precisely because it seems to mean that no one will have to deal with stuff like this again. It may also dampen the scheme’s sunny political prospects, since a healthy U.B.I. would have to be seated among other reforms, the sum of which would not be cost- or interest-neutral. This doesn’t mean that it’s not a practical idea. It means only that it’s not a magic spell.

Or perhaps the difference could be split. A couple of years ago, the Dutch professional thought leader Rutger Bregman championed universal basic income in his popular book “Utopia for Realists”—a title that reflects the volume’s tone. Bregman, who studied history, hoped that we could abolish poverty, border control, and the forty-hour workweek. (He prefers fifteen.) He pointed out that G.D.P. is a questionable metric of prosperity, since it doesn’t reflect health, clean air, and other attributes that now define First World success. His interest in a basic income was meant to synthesize the wishful and the practical; like many supporters, he touted it as a matter of both categorical principle and maximized good, and tried to make these virtues square. The effort brought him back to Speenhamland, whose reputation as a failure Bregman called, flatly, “bogus.”

According to Bregman’s analysis, accounts of Speenhamland’s disastrousness were based on a single report by the commission empowered to replace it. The report was “largely fabricated,” Bregman writes. The era’s population growth was attributable not to irresponsible family planning, as Malthus thought, but to an excess of responsibility—children, once they reached working age, were lucrative earners for a household—plus declining rates of infant mortality. (Parallel population explosions happened in Ireland and Scotland, where the Speenhamland system was not in effect.) Wages were low during Speenhamland, but, the historian Walter I. Trattner has noted, they were nearly as low before Speenhamland, and the extra falloff followed the adoption of the mechanical thresher, which obviated an entire class of jobs.

Speenhamland does offer a lesson, in other words, but it is not the one most widely taught. In “The Failed Welfare Revolution” (2008), the sociologist Brian Steensland suggests that, if Nixon’s Family Assistance Plan had passed, conservative policy might have evolved along a different path. George H. W. Bush, then a congressman, supported the guaranteed-income scheme. So did Donald Rumsfeld. From the late sixties into the seventies, he and Dick Cheney helped run trials on thirteen hundred families to see how much a modest financial top-up discouraged them from working. The falloff was smaller than expected, and the researchers were pleased. We might hope that, with Speenhamland’s false myths finally cleared, the United States will do better going forward. But our aptitude for managing the future is no stronger than our skill at making sense out of the past. ♦

This article appears in the print edition of the July 9 & 16, 2018, issue, with the headline “Take the Money and Run.”

 

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download  Shows 1310-1314

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download  Shows 1300-1309

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1291-1299

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1282-1290

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1276-1281

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1267-1275

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1266

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1256-1265

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1246-1255

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1236-1245

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1229-1235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1218-1128

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1210-1217

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1202-1209

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1197-1201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1190-1196

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1182-1189

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1174-1181

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1168-1173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1159-1167

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1158

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 1152, October 5, 2018, Breaking Story 1: A Profile in Courage: Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine Makes Outstanding Historic Speech in Support of Judge Brett Kavanuagh — Democrat Senator of West Virginia Will Vote Yes — Kavanugh Confirmation Vote Saturday — Associate Justice Kavanaugh — Videos — Story 2: 3.7% U-3 Unemployment Rate Lowest  Since December 1969 — Labor Participation Rate of 62,7% Well Below Normal 66-67% Range in Clinton and Bush Years — Only 134,000 Non farm Payroll Jobs Created in September With Upward Revision of August to 270,000 Jobs Created — Videos — Story 3: The Coming Construction Boom in The United States? — Videos

Posted on October 8, 2018. Filed under: Addiction, American History, Banking System, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribes, Cartoons, Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy, Congress, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Deep State, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Free Trade, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, High Crimes, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Housing, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Legal Immigration, Lying, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Rule of Law, Scandals, Senate, Sexual Harrasment, Social Networking, Spying, Success, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Tax Fraud, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, United States of America, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1152 October 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1151 October 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1150 October 3, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1149, October 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1148, September 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1147, September 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1146, September 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1145, September 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1144, September 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1143, September 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1142, September 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1141, September 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1140, September 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1139, September 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1138, September 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1137, September 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1136, September 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1135, September 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1134, September 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1133, August 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1132, August 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1131, August 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1130, August 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1129, August 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1128, August 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1127, August 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1126, August 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1125, August 15, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1124, August 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1123, August 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1122, August 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1121, August 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1120, August 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1119, August 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1118, August 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1117, July 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1116, July 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1115, July 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1114, July 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1113, July 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1112, July 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1111, July 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1110, July 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1109, July 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1108, July 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1107, July 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1106, July 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1105, July 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1104, July 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1103, July 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1102, JUly 3, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1101, July 2, 2018

Republican Senator Susan Collins will vote ‘yes’ for Brett Kavanaugh

See the source imageSee the source image

See the source image

 

 Breaking Story 1: A Profile in Courage: Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine Makes Outstanding Historic Speech in Support of Judge Brett Kavanuagh — Democrat Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia Will Vote Yes — Kavanugh Confirmation Vote Saturday — Associate Justice Kavanaugh of Supreme Court of United States — Videos —

Sen. Susan Collins Will Vote to Confirm Judge Kavanaugh

Senator Susan Collins: ‘I Will Vote To Confim Judge Brett Kavanaugh’ | NBC News

Susan Collins EXPLOSIVE Speech on Senate Vote to Confirm Kavanaugh Announces FINAL Decision

Lindsey Graham: Susan Collins saved the Senate

Hannity: Collins bravely restored common sense to Senate

Only Senators Murkowski & Collins Can Stop Kavanaugh

WSJ: Friend of Ford felt pressured to revisit statement

 

Ingraham: The Democrats’ phony victim play

Juanita Broaddrick on Chelsea Clinton’s Kavanaugh comments

‘Never Been So Disgusted’ With DC Politics: Boothe Rips Dems for ‘Weaponizing’ Kavanaugh Allegations

Senator Susan Collins Faces Massive Opposition If She Votes To Confirm Kavanaugh | AM Joy | MSNBC

Senator Susan Collins Says Brett Kavanaugh Sees Roe V. Wade As ‘Settled Law’ | NBC News

Senator Joe Manchin to vote ‘yes’ on Kavanaugh

Protesters shout down Democrat voting for Kavanaugh

Manchin Meets with Kavanaugh

WATCH: Protester Confronts Dem Sen. Manchin Over Possible Kavanaugh Support

How did reporters get Dr. Christine Ford’s story?

Ingraham: The Democrats’ desperate salvage operation

Sen. Lindsey Graham: FBI report very good for Kavanaugh

Diamond and Silk: Kavanaugh needs to be confirmed

RACHEL MITCHELL BOMBSHELL REPORT ON DR. FORD

Retired agent who gave Ford polygraph test shares insight

Christine Blasey Ford, Brett Kavanaugh: Most memorable moments from their testimonies

Christine Blasey Ford’s opening remarks at Kavanaugh hearing: ‘I believed he was going to rape me’

Watch Rachel Mitchell’s complete questioning of Christine Blasey Ford, without interruptions

Sens. Susan Collins and Joe Manchin will vote for Brett Kavanaugh, effectively ensuring his Supreme Court confirmation

  • Republican Sen. Susan Collins on Friday says she will vote to confirm Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, ending months of speculation from the crucial swing senator.
  • Minutes after Collins’ speech concluded, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., said that he, too, would vote for Kavanaugh.
  • Collins revealed her decision Friday afternoon, hours after a key procedural vote in the confirmation process.

Republican Senator Susan Collins will vote ‘yes’ for Brett Kavanaugh

Republican Senator Susan Collins will vote ‘yes’ on Brett Kavanaugh  

Republican Sen. Susan Collins on Friday said she would vote to confirm Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, ending months of speculation from the crucial swing senator.

“Mr. President, I will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh,” Collins said at the very end of a nearly 45-minute long speech on the Senate floor.

Minutes after Collins’ speech concluded, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., said that he, too, would vote for Kavanaugh.

“Based on all of the information I have available to me, including the recently completed FBI report, I have found Judge Kavanaugh to be a qualified jurist who will follow the Constitution and determine cases based on the legal findings before him,” Manchin said in a statement.

“I had to deal with the facts I had in front of me,” Manchin told reporters over shouts of “Shame!” from protesters in the hallway.

Collins revealed her decision Friday afternoon, hours after a key procedural vote in the confirmation process.

Collins voted to advance Kavanaugh’s nomination in the 51-49 vote, which saw divisions largely along party lines. The only exceptions were Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who voted no, and Manchin, who voted yes.

“I believe he is a good man,” Murkowski said afterward. “It just may be that, in my view, he’s not the right man for the court at this time.”

Collins’ remarks on the Senate floor Friday afternoon, scheduled for 3:05 p.m. ET, were initially delayed after protesters began shouting in the Senate gallery, chanting “Vote No! Show up for Maine women!”

She began her lengthy speech by tearing into the hyper-politicized nomination process, calling it a “caricature of a gutter-level political campaign.”

She also distanced herself in the speech from the partisan cloud hanging over Kavanaugh.

“I’ve never considered the president’s identity or party when evaluating Supreme Court nominations,” she said, noting that she had voted for nominees appointed by presidents of both major parties.

Collins has held her decision on Kavanaugh’s candidacy close to the vest throughout the nomination process. But she has not always kept silent on her opinion of the judge and the other political leaders involved in the process.

How Brett Kavanaugh could be helping Florida Gov. Rick Scott in the 2018 elections

How Brett Kavanaugh could be helping Florida Gov. Rick Scott in the 2018 elections  

Her view of Kavanaugh appeared to lean in his favor in August after her one-on-one meeting with the appellate judge. The moderate senator from Maine, who is pro-choice, told reporters that Kavanaugh assured that he viewed Roe v. Wade — the perennially controversial abortion ruling — as “settled law.”

But after Kavanaugh was accused of past sexual misconduct by multiple women in mid-September, Collins was circumspect. “I don’t know enough to make a judgment at this point,” she told reporters at the time.

And she criticized President Donald Trump after he mocked one of Kavanaugh’s accusers, Christine Blasey Ford, at a rally following her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Trump’s derisive imitation of the testimony was “just plain wrong,” Collins said.

Kavanaugh has categorically denied the allegations against him.

In her Senate speech Friday, Collins also devoted significant time to discussing the sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh, including an in-depth evaluation of the evidence and the witnesses who came forward to testify for and against the judge.

“Every person, man or woman, who makes a charge of sexual assault deserves to be heard and treated with respect,” she said. “The #MeToo movement is real. It matters. It is needed, and long overdue.”

She concluded, however, that the allegations failed to meet the proper standard of evidence, and “therefore I do not believe that these charges can fairly prevent Judge Kavanaugh from serving on the court.”

Collins was careful to frame her argument respectfully regarding Ford. But she rejected another accusation by Julie Swetnick, who alleged in a bombshell declaration that Kavanaugh and others were involved in spiking girls’ drinks in the early 1980s to make it easier for them to be raped.

“That such an allegation can find its way into the Supreme Court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of innocence is so ingrained” in U.S. institutions, Collins said.

Swetnick’s lawyer, Michael Avenatti, excoriated Collins in a phone call with CNBC.

“I have no idea what she is talking about and evidently neither does she,” Avenatti said. “My client submitted a sworn declaration, we submitted a second written declaration from a corroborating witness, we had additionally five other witness to provide to the FBI, we repeatedly asked to meet with the FBI, to no avail. How the hell did Susan Collins make a credibility determination related to my client’s allegations when she never did any investigation whatsoever?”

Avenatti said he and his client are “exploring our options.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/05/gop-swing-vote-sen-susan-collins-will-vote-for-brett-kavanaugh.html

Read Susan Collins’s Historic Floor Speech on Brett Kavanaugh

 

The Fear Driving Conservative Support for Kavanaugh
PETER BEINART

Since that time we have seen special-interest groups whip their followers into a frenzy by spreading misrepresentations and outright falsehoods about Judge Kavanaugh’s judicial record. Over-the-top rhetoric and distortions of his record and testimonies at his first hearing produced short-lived headlines, which although debunked hours later, continued to live on and be spread through social media. Interest groups have also spent an unprecedented amount of dark money opposing this nomination. Our Supreme Court confirmation process has been in steady decline for more than 30 years. One can only hope that the Kavanaugh nomination is where the process has finally hit rock bottom.

Susan Collins’s standard of proof on sexual assault

Against this backdrop, it is up to each individual senator to decide what the Constitution’s advice-and-consent duty means. Informed by Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist 76, I have interpreted this to mean that the president has brought discretion to consider a nominee’s philosophy, whereas my duty as a Senator is to focus on the nominee’s qualifications as long as that nominee’s philosophy is within the mainstream of judicial thought. I have always opposed litmus tests for judicial nominees with respect to their personal views or politics, but I fully expect them to be able to put aside any and all personal preferences in deciding the cases that come before them. I’ve never considered the president’s identity or party when evaluating Supreme Court nominations. As a result, I voted in favor of Justices Roberts and Alito, who were nominated by President Bush, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan nominated by President Obama. And Justice Gorsuch, who was nominated by President Trump. So I began my evaluation of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination by reviewing his 12-year record on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, including his more than 300 opinions and his many speeches and law review articles. 19 attorneys, including lawyers from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service briefed me many times each week and assisted me in evaluating the judge’s extensive record. I met with Judge Kavanaugh for more than two hours in my office. I listened carefully to the testimony at the committee hearings. I spoke with people who knew him personally, such as Condoleezza Rice and many others. And I talked with Judge Kavanaugh a second time by phone for another hour to ask him very specific additional questions. I also have met with thousands of my constituents, both advocates and many opponents regarding Judge Kavanaugh.

Trump played the long game on Kavanaugh.

One concern that I frequently heard was that the judge would be likely to eliminate the Affordable Care Act’s vital protections for people with preexisting conditions. I disagree with this contention. In a dissent in 7 Sky v. Holder, Judge Kavanaugh rejected a challenge to the ACA on narrow procedural grounds, preserving the law in full. Many experts have said that his dissent informed Justice Roberts’ opinion upholding the ACA at the Supreme Court. Furthermore, Judge Kavanaugh’s approach toward the doctrine of severability is narrow when a part of a statute is challenged on constitutional ground, he has argued for severing the invalid clause as surgically as possible while allowing the overall law to remain in tact. This was his approach and his dissent in a case that involved a challenge to the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In his dissent, Judge Kavanaugh argued for, quote, “severing any problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact,” end quote. Given the current challenges to the ACA, proponents, including myself of protections for people with preexisting conditions should want a justice who would take just this kind of approach.

Another assertion that I’ve heard often is that Judge Kavanaugh cannot be trusted if a case involving alleged wrongdoing by the president were to come before the court. The basis for this argument seems to be two-fold. First, Judge Kavanaugh has written that he believes Congress should enact legislation to protect presidents from criminal prosecution or civil liability while in office. Mr. President, I believe opponents missed the mark on this issue. The fact that Judge Kavanaugh offered this legislative proposal suggests that he believes that the president does not have such protection currently. Second, there are some who argue that given the current special counsel investigation, President Trump should not even be allowed to nominate a justice. That argument ignores our recent history. President Clinton in 1993 nominated Justice Ginsburg after the Whitewater investigation was already underway, and she was confirmed 96-3. The next year, just three months after independent counsel Robert Fisk was named to lead the Whitewater investigation, President Clinton nominated Justice Breyer. He was confirmed 87-9.

Supreme Court Justices have not hesitated to rule against the presidents who have nominated them. Perhaps most notably in the United States v. Nixon, three Nixon appointees who heard the case joined the unanimous opinion against him. Judge Kavanaugh has been unequivocal in his belief that no president is above the law. He has stated that Marbury v. Madison, Youngstown Steel v. Sawyer, and the United States v. Nixon are three of the four greatest Supreme Court cases in history. What do they have in common? Each of them is a case where Congress served as a check on presidential power. And I would note that the fourth case that Judge Kavanaugh has pointed to as the greatest in history was Brown v. The Board of Education. One Kavanaugh decision illustrates the point about the check on presidential power directly. He wrote the opinion in Hamdan v. The United States, a case that challenges the Bush administration’s military commission prosecution of an associate of Osama Bin Laden. This conviction was very important to the Bush administration, but Judge Kavanaugh, who had been appointed to the DC circuit by President Bush and had worked in President Bush’s White House, ruled that the conviction was unlawful. As he explained during the hearing, quote, “We don’t make decisions based on who people are or their policy preferences or the moment. We base decisions on the law,” end quote.

Others I’ve met with have expressed concerns that Justice Kennedy’s retirement threatens the right of same-sex couples to marry, yet Judge Kavanaugh described the Obergefell decision, which legalized same-gender marriages, as an important landmark precedent. He also cited Justice Kennedy’s recent Masterpiece Cake Shop opinion for the Court’s majority stating that, quote, “the days of treating gay and lesbian americans or gay and lesbian couples as second-class citizens who are inferior in dignity and worth are over in the Supreme Court,” end quote. Others have suggested that the judge holds extreme views on birth control. In one case Judge Kavanaugh incurred the disfavor of both sides of the political spectrum for seeking to ensure the availability of contraceptive services for women while minimizing the involvement of employers with religious objections. Although his critics frequently overlook this point, Judge Kavanaugh’s dissent rejected arguments that the government did not have a compelling interest in facilitating access to contraception. In fact, he wrote that the Supreme Court precedent strongly suggested that there was a compelling interest in facilitating access to birth control.

There has also been considerable focus on the future of abortion rights based on the concern that Judge Kavanaugh would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade. Protecting this right is important to me. To my knowledge, Judge Kavanaugh is the first Supreme Court nominee to express the view that precedent is not merely a practice and tradition but rooted in Article 3 of our Constitution itself. He believes that precedent is not just a judicial policy, it is constitutionally dictated to pay attention and pay heed to rules of precedent. In other words, precedent isn’t a goal or an aspiration, it is a constitutional tenet that has to be followed, except in the most extraordinary circumstances. The judge further explained that precedent provides stability, predictability, reliance and fairness.

Does ‘settled law’ mean Kavanaugh will uphold Roe v. Wade?

There are, of course, rare and extraordinary times where the Supreme Court would rightly overturn a precedent. The most famous example was when the Supreme Court in Brown v. The Board of Education overruled Plessy v. Ferguson, correcting a grievously wrong decision, to use the judge’s term, allowing racial inequality. But someone who believes that the importance of precedent has been rooted in the Constitution would follow long established precedent, except in those rare circumstances where a decision is grievously wrong or deeply inconsistent with the law. Those are Judge Kavanaugh’s phrases. As the judge asserted to me, a long-established precedent is not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded or overlooked. Its roots in the Constitution give the concept of stare decisis greater weight such that the precedent can’t be trimmed or narrowed simply because a judge might want to on a whim. In short, his views on honoring precedent would preclude attempts to do by stealth that which one has committed not to do overtly. Noting that Roe v. Wade was decided 35 years ago and reaffirmed 19 years later in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, I asked Judge Kavanaugh whether the passage of time is relevant to following precedent. He said decisions become part of our legal framework with the passage of time and that honoring precedent is essential to maintaining public confidence.

Our discussion then turned to the right of privacy on which the Supreme Court relied in Griswold v. Connecticut, a case that struck down the law banning the use and sale of contraceptives. Griswold established the legal foundation that led to Roe eight years later. In describing Griswold as settled law, Judge Kavanaugh observed that it was the correct application of two cases from the 1920s, Myers and Pierce, that are not seriously challenged by anyone today. Finally, in his testimony he noted repeatedly that Roe had been upheld by Planned Parenthood v. Casey, describing it as precedent on precedent. When I asked him would it be sufficient to overturn a long established precedent if five current justices believed that it was wrongly decided, he emphatically said no. Opponents frequently cite then-candidate Donald Trump’s campaign pledge to nominate only judges who would overturn Roe. The republican platform for all presidential campaigns has included this pledge since at least 1980. During this time Republican presidents have appointed Justices O’Connor, Souter and Kennedy to the Supreme Court. These are the very three justices, Republican president-appointed justices, who authored the Casey decision, which reaffirmed Roe. Furthermore, pro-choice groups vigorously opposed each of these justices nominations. Incredibly they even circulated buttons with the slogan “Stop Souter or Women Will Die.” Just two years later, Justice Souter co-authored the Casey opinion reaffirming a woman’s right to choose. Suffice it to say prominent advocacy organizations have been wrong.

Bribery, crowdfunding, and the strange case of Senator Susan Collins

These same interest groups have speculated that Judge Kavanaugh was selected to do the bidding of conservative ideologues despite his record of judicial independence. I asked the judge point blank whether he had made any commitments or pledges to anyone at the White House, to Federalist Society or any outside group on how he would decide cases. He unequivocally assured me he had not. Judge Kavanaugh has received rave reviews for his 12-year track record as a judge, including for his judicial temperament. The American Bar Association gave him its highest possible rating. Its standing committee on the federal judiciary conducted an extraordinarily thorough assessment, soliciting input from almost 500 people, including his judicial colleagues. The ABA concluded that his integrity, judicial temperament and professional confidence met the highest standards.

Lisa Blatt, who has argued more cases before the Supreme Court than any other woman in history testified, quote, “By any objective measure, Judge Kavanaugh is clearly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. His opinions are invariably thoughtful and fair.” Ms. Blatt, who clerked for him, is an ardent admirer of Justice Ginsburg, and who is an unapologetic defender of a woman’s right to choose, says that Judge Kavanaugh fits within the main stream of legal thought. She also observed that Judge Kavanaugh is remarkably committed to promoting women in the legal profession. That Judge Kavanaugh is more of a centrist than some of his critics maintain is reflected in the fact that he and Chief Judge Merrick Garland voted the same way in 93 percent of the cases that they heard together. Indeed Chief Judge Garland joined in more than 96 percent of the majority opinions authored by Judge Kavanaugh, dissenting only once.

Despite all this, Kavanaugh’s record, and listening to 32 hours of his testimony, the Senate’s advice and consent role was thrown into a tailspin following the allegations of sexual assault by Professor Christine Blasey Ford. The confirmation process now involves evaluating whether or not Judge Kavanaugh committed sexual assault and lied about it to the Judiciary Committee. Some argue that, because this is a lifetime appointment to our highest courts, public interest requires that doubts be resolved against the nominee. Others see the public interest as abiding to our longest tradition of affording to those accused of misconduct a presumption of innocence. In cases in which the facts are unclear, they would argue that the question should be resolved in favor of the nominee.

Did the Democrats mishandle the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh?

Mr. President, I understand both viewpoints. This debate is complicated further by the fact that the Senate confirmation process is not a trial. But certain fundamental legal principles about due process, the presumption of innocence and fairness do bear on my thinking and I cannot abandon them. In evaluating any given claim of misconduct, we will be ill-served in the long run if we abandon the presumption of innocence and fairness, tempting though it may be. We must always remember that it is when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy. The presumption of innocence is relevant to the advice and consent function when an accusation departs from a nominee’s otherwise exemplary record. I worry that departing from this presumption could lead to a lack of public faith in the judiciary and would be hugely damaging to the confirmation process moving forward.

Mitch McConnell’s legacy is riding on Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

Some of the allegations levied against Judge Kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of innocence is so important. I am thinking in particular not of the allegations raised by Professor Ford, but of the allegation that when he was a teenager, Judge Kavanaugh drugged multiple girls and used their weakened state to facilitate gang rape. This outlandish allegation was put forth without any credible supporting evidence and simply parroted public statements of others. That such an allegation can find its way into the Supreme Court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of innocence is so ingrained in our American consciousness.

Mr. President, I listened carefully to Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony before the Judiciary Committee. I found her testimony to be sincere, painful and compelling. I believe that she is a survivor of a sexual assault and that this trauma has upended her life. Nevertheless, the four witnesses she named could not corroborate any of the events of that evening gathering where she says the assault occurred. None of the individuals Professor Ford says were at the party has any recollection at all of that night. Judge Kavanaugh forcefully denied the allegations under penalty of perjury. Mark Judge denied under penalty of felony that he had witnessed an assault. PJ Smyth, another person allegedly at the party, denied that he was there under penalty of felony. Professor Ford’s lifelong friend, Leland Keyser, indicated that under penalty of felony she does not remember that party. And Ms. Keyser went further. She indicated that not only does she not remember a night like that, but also that she does not even know Brett Kavanaugh.

The FBI investigation didn’t go very far by design.

In addition to the lack of corroborating evidence, we also learned some facts that raised more questions. For instance, since these allegations have become public, Professor Ford testified that not a single person has contacted her to say I was at the party that night. Furthermore, the professor testified that although she does not remember how she got home that evening, she knew that because of the distance she would have needed a ride, yet not a single person has come forward to say that they were the one who drove her home or were in the car with her that night. And Professor Ford also indicated that, even though she left that small gathering of six or so people abruptly and without saying good-bye, and distraught, none of them called her the next day or ever to ask why she left, is she okay, not even her closest friend Ms. Keyser. Mr. President, the Constitution does not provide guidance on how we are supposed to evaluate these competing claims. It leaves that decision up to each senator. This is not a criminal trial, and I do not believe that the claims such as these need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, fairness would dictate that the claims at least should meet a threshold of more likely than not as our standard. The facts presented do not mean that Professor Ford was not sexually assaulted that night or at some other time, but they do lead me to conclude that the allegations fail to meet the more likely than not standard. Therefore, I do not believe that these charges can fairly prevent Judge Kavanaugh from serving on the court.

The most striking thing about Trump’s mockery of Christine Blasey Ford

Let me emphasize that my approach to this question should not be misconstrued as suggesting that unwanted sexual contact of any nature is not a serious problem in this country. To the contrary, if any good at all has come from this ugly confirmation process, it has been to create an awareness that we have underestimated the pervasiveness of this terrible problem. I have been alarmed and disturbed, however, by some who have suggested that unless Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination is rejected, the Senate is somehow condoning sexual assault. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every person, man or woman, who makes a charge of sexual assault deserves to be heard and treated with respect. The MeToo movement is real. It matters. It is needed and it is long overdue. We know that rape and sexual assault are less likely to be reported to the police than other forms of assault. On average, an estimated 211,000 rapes and sexual assaults go unreported every year. We must listen to survivors, and every day we must seek to stop the criminal behavior that has hurt so many. We owe this to ourselves, our children and generations to come.

Since the hearing I have listened to many survivors of sexual assault. Many were total strangers who told me their heart-wrenching stories for the first time in their lives. Some were friends that I had known for decades, yet with the exception of one woman who had confided in me years ago, I had no idea that they had been the victims of sexual attacks. I am grateful for their courage and their willingness to come forward, and I hope that in heightening public awareness, they have also lightened the burden that they have been quietly bearing for so many years. To them I pledge to do all that I can to ensure that their daughters and granddaughters never share their experiences. Over the past few weeks I have been emphatic that the Senate has an obligation to investigate and evaluate the serious allegations of sexual assault. I called for and supported the additional hearing to hear from both Professor Ford and Judge Kavanaugh. I also pushed for and supported the FBI’s supplemental background investigation. This was the right thing to do.

Christine Ford never sought the spotlight. She indicated that she was terrified to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and she has shunned attention since then. She seemed completely unaware of Chairman Grassley’s offer to allow her to testify confidentially in California. Watching her, Mr. President, I could not help but feel that some people who wanted to engineer the defeat of this nomination cared little, if at all, for her well-being. Professor Ford testified that a very limited number of people had access to her letter, yet that letter found its way into the public domain. She testified that she never gave permission for that very private letter to be released and yet here we are. We are in the middle of a fight that she never sought, arguing about claims that she wanted to raise confidentially.

Now, one theory I’ve heard espoused repeatedly is that our colleague, Senator Feinstein leaked Professor Ford’s letter at the 11th hour to derail this process. I want to state this very clearly. I know Senator Dianne Feinstein extremely well and I believe that she would never do that. I knew that to be the case before she ever stated that at the hearing. She is a person of integrity and I stand by her. I have also heard some argue that the chairman of the committee somehow treated Professor Ford unfairly. Nothing could be further from the truth. Chairman Grassley, along with his excellent staff, treated Professor Ford with compassion and respect throughout the entire process. And that is the way the Senator from Iowa has conducted himself throughout a lifetime dedicated to public service.

But the fact remains, Mr. President, someone leaked this letter against Professor Ford’s express wishes. I suspect, regrettably, that we will never know for certain who did it. To that leaker who I hope is listening now, let me say that what you did was unconscionable. You have taken a survivor who was not only entitled to your respect but also trusted you to protect her and you have sacrificed her well being in a misguided attempt to win whatever political crusade you think you are fighting. My only hope is that your callous act has turned this process into such a dysfunctional circus that it will cause the Senate and indeed all Americans to reconsider how we evaluate Supreme Court nominees. If that happens, then the appalling lack of compassion you afforded Professor Ford will at least have some unintended positive consequences.

Mr. President, the politically charged atmosphere surrounding this nomination has reached a fever pitch, even before these allegations were known, and it has been challenging even then to separate fact from fiction. We live in a time of such great disunity, as the bitter fight over this nomination both in the Senate and among the public clearly demonstrates. It is not merely a case of differing groups having different opinions. It is a case of people bearing extreme ill will toward those who disagree with them. In our intense focus on our differences, we have forgotten the common values that bind us together as Americans. When some of our best minds are seeking to develop even more sophisticated algorithms designed to link us to websites that only reinforce and cater to our views, we can only expect our differences to intensify. This would have alarmed the drafters of our Constitution, who were acutely aware that different values and interests could prevent Americans from becoming and remaining a single people. Indeed, of the six objectives they invoked in the preamble to the Constitution the one that they put first was the formation of a more perfect union. Their vision of a more perfect union does not exist today. And if anything, we appear to be moving farther away from it. It is particularly worrisome that the Supreme Court, the institution that most Americans see as the principle guardian of our shared Constitutional heritage is viewed as part of the problem through a political lens.

Mr. President, we’ve heard a lot of charges and counter-charges about Judge Kavanaugh. But as those who have known him best have attested, he has been an exemplary public servant, judge, teacher, coach, husband and father. Despite the turbulent, bitter fight surrounding his nomination, my fervent hope is that Brett Kavanaugh will work to lessen the divisions in the Supreme Court so that we have far fewer 5-4 decisions and so that public confidence in our judiciary and our highest court is restored. Mr. President, I will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh. Thank you, Mr. President.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/10/why-susan-collins-voting-brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court/572341/

Story 2: 3.7% U-3 Unemployment Rate Lowest  Since December 1969 — Labor Participation Rate of 62,7% Well Below Normal 66-67% Range in Clinton and Bush Years — Only 134,000 Non farm Payroll Jobs Created in September With Upward Revision of August to 270,000 Jobs Created — Videos

Still a skills gap in US job market?

Santelli Exchange: Lazear on the jobs report and rising interest rates

Larry Kudlow: It’s a very good jobs picture

Fed’s Williams on Jobs Report, Neutral Rate, Inflation

Jobs Report: Unemployment At 3.7%, Lowest Since 1969 | Morning Joe | MSNBC

 

 

Employment Situation Summary

Transmission of material in this news release is embargoed until	                              USDL-18-1586
8:30 a.m. (EDT) Friday, October 5, 2018

Technical information: 
 Household data:	(202) 691-6378  *  cpsinfo@bls.gov  *  www.bls.gov/cps
 Establishment data:	(202) 691-6555  *  cesinfo@bls.gov  *  www.bls.gov/ces

Media contact:	        (202) 691-5902  *  PressOffice@bls.gov


                        THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- SEPTEMBER 2018


The unemployment rate declined to 3.7 percent in September, and total nonfarm payroll employment increased 
by 134,000, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job gains occurred in professional and 
business services, in health care, and in transportation and warehousing.


    _________________________________________________________________________________________________
   |                                                                                                 |
   |                                   Hurricane Florence                                            |
   |                                                                                                 |
   |   Hurricane Florence affected parts of the East Coast during the September reference periods    |
   |   for the establishment and household surveys. Response rates for the two surveys were within   |
   |   normal ranges. For information on how severe weather can affect employment and hours data,    |
   |   see Question 8 in the Frequently Asked Questions section of this news release.                |
   |                                                                                                 |
   |   BLS will release the state estimates of employment and unemployment on October 19, 2018, at   |
   |   10:00 a.m. (EDT).                                                                             |
   |_________________________________________________________________________________________________|


Household Survey Data

The unemployment rate declined by 0.2 percentage point to 3.7 percent in September, and the number of 
unemployed persons decreased by 270,000 to 6.0 million. Over the year, the unemployment rate and the 
number of unemployed persons declined by 0.5 percentage point and 795,000, respectively. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult women (3.3 percent) and Whites (3.3 
percent) declined in September. The jobless rates for adult men (3.4 percent), teenagers (12.8 percent), 
Blacks (6.0 percent), Asians (3.5 percent), and Hispanics (4.5 percent) showed little or no change over 
the month. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little changed at 1.4 million
over the month; these individuals accounted for 22.9 percent of the unemployed. (See table A-12.)

In September, the labor force participation rate remained at 62.7 percent, and the employment-population 
ratio, at 60.4 percent, was little changed. (See table A-1.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-
time workers) increased by 263,000 to 4.6 million in September. These individuals, who would have 
preferred full-time employment, were working part time because their hours had been reduced or they were 
unable to find full-time jobs. (See table A-8.)

In September, 1.6 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, essentially unchanged from 
a year earlier. (Data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted 
and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not 
counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See 
table A-16.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 383,000 discouraged workers in September, about unchanged from a 
year earlier. (Data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking 
for work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.2 million persons marginally 
attached to the labor force in September had not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance 
or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 134,000 in September, compared with an average monthly gain of 
201,000 over the prior 12 months. In September, job gains occurred in professional and business services, 
in health care, and in transportation and warehousing. (See table B-1.) 

Employment in professional and business services increased by 54,000 in September and has risen by 560,000 
over the year. 

Health care employment rose by 26,000 in September. Hospitals added 12,000 jobs, and employment in 
ambulatory health care services continued to trend up (+10,000). Over the year, health care employment has 
increased by 302,000. 

In September, employment in transportation and warehousing rose by 24,000. Job gains occurred in 
warehousing and storage (+8,000) and in couriers and messengers (+5,000). Over the year, employment in 
transportation and warehousing has increased by 174,000. 

Construction employment continued to trend up in September (+23,000). The industry has added 315,000 jobs 
over the past 12 months.

Employment in manufacturing continued to trend up in September (+18,000), reflecting a gain in durable 
goods industries. Over the year, manufacturing has added 278,000 jobs, with about four-fifths of the gain 
in the durable goods component. 

Within mining, employment in support activities for mining rose by 6,000 over the month and by 53,000 over 
the year. 

Employment in leisure and hospitality was little changed over the month (-17,000). Prior to September, 
employment in the industry had been on a modest upward trend. Some of the weakness in this industry in 
September may reflect the impact of Hurricane Florence. 

Employment showed little or no change over the month in other major industries, including wholesale trade, 
retail trade, information, financial activities, and government. 

The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls remained unchanged at 34.5 hours in 
September. In manufacturing, the workweek edged down by 0.1 hour to 40.8 hours, and overtime edged down by 
0.1 hour to 3.4 hours. The average workweek for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm 
payrolls was unchanged at 33.7 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)

In September, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 8 cents to 
$27.24. Over the year, average hourly earnings have increased by 73 cents, or 2.8 percent. Average hourly 
earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees increased by 6 cents to $22.81 in 
September. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for July was revised up from +147,000 to +165,000, and the 
change for August was revised up from +201,000 to +270,000. With these revisions, employment gains in July 
and August combined were 87,000 more than previously reported. (Monthly revisions result from additional 
reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the 
recalculation of seasonal factors.) After revisions, job gains have averaged 190,000 per month over the 
last 3 months.

_____________
The Employment Situation for October is scheduled to be released on Friday, November 2, 2018, at 8:30 a.m. 
(EDT).



The PDF version of the news release

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

HOUSEHOLD DATA
Summary table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
Category Sept.
2017
July
2018
Aug.
2018
Sept.
2018
Change from:
Aug.
2018-
Sept.
2018

Employment status

Civilian noninstitutional population

255,562 257,843 258,066 258,290 224

Civilian labor force

161,082 162,245 161,776 161,926 150

Participation rate

63.0 62.9 62.7 62.7 0.0

Employed

154,324 155,965 155,542 155,962 420

Employment-population ratio

60.4 60.5 60.3 60.4 0.1

Unemployed

6,759 6,280 6,234 5,964 -270

Unemployment rate

4.2 3.9 3.9 3.7 -0.2

Not in labor force

94,480 95,598 96,290 96,364 74

Unemployment rates

Total, 16 years and over

4.2 3.9 3.9 3.7 -0.2

Adult men (20 years and over)

3.8 3.4 3.5 3.4 -0.1

Adult women (20 years and over)

3.9 3.7 3.6 3.3 -0.3

Teenagers (16 to 19 years)

13.0 13.1 12.8 12.8 0.0

White

3.7 3.4 3.4 3.3 -0.1

Black or African American

7.0 6.6 6.3 6.0 -0.3

Asian

3.6 3.1 3.0 3.5 0.5

Hispanic or Latino ethnicity

5.1 4.5 4.7 4.5 -0.2

Total, 25 years and over

3.5 3.2 3.2 3.0 -0.2

Less than a high school diploma

6.7 5.1 5.7 5.5 -0.2

High school graduates, no college

4.3 4.0 3.9 3.7 -0.2

Some college or associate degree

3.6 3.2 3.5 3.2 -0.3

Bachelor’s degree and higher

2.2 2.2 2.1 2.0 -0.1

Reason for unemployment

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs

3,316 3,017 2,875 2,796 -79

Job leavers

737 844 862 730 -132

Reentrants

2,068 1,799 1,846 1,877 31

New entrants

663 591 584 586 2

Duration of unemployment

Less than 5 weeks

2,223 2,091 2,208 2,065 -143

5 to 14 weeks

1,879 1,820 1,720 1,720 0

15 to 26 weeks

962 971 923 861 -62

27 weeks and over

1,733 1,435 1,332 1,384 52

Employed persons at work part time

Part time for economic reasons

5,148 4,567 4,379 4,642 263

Slack work or business conditions

3,098 2,877 2,551 2,782 231

Could only find part-time work

1,725 1,431 1,365 1,447 82

Part time for noneconomic reasons

20,951 21,532 21,781 21,464 -317

Persons not in the labor force (not seasonally adjusted)

Marginally attached to the labor force

1,569 1,498 1,443 1,577

Discouraged workers

421 512 434 383

– Over-the-month changes are not displayed for not seasonally adjusted data.
NOTE: Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Detail for the seasonally adjusted data shown in this table will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal adjustment of the various series. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm

Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted

ESTABLISHMENT DATA
Summary table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted
Category Sept.
2017
July
2018
Aug.
2018(P)
Sept.
2018(P)

EMPLOYMENT BY SELECTED INDUSTRY
(Over-the-month change, in thousands)

Total nonfarm

14 165 270 134

Total private

16 137 254 121

Goods-producing

15 41 37 46

Mining and logging

0 0 6 5

Construction

9 19 26 23

Manufacturing

6 22 5 18

Durable goods(1)

5 21 5 17

Motor vehicles and parts

-2.4 -1.0 1.6 -0.4

Nondurable goods

1 1 0 1

Private service-providing

1 96 217 75

Wholesale trade

7.6 10.3 21.3 4.4

Retail trade

1.8 2.0 11.5 -20.0

Transportation and warehousing

25.4 8.2 21.3 23.8

Utilities

0.4 -3.0 0.6 0.1

Information

-8 1 -3 0

Financial activities

8 3 12 13

Professional and business services(1)

27 39 65 54

Temporary help services

10.5 10.3 12.4 10.6

Education and health services(1)

14 36 58 18

Health care and social assistance

10.2 33.0 42.4 29.8

Leisure and hospitality

-75 13 21 -17

Other services

0 -13 9 -1

Government

-2 28 16 13

(3-month average change, in thousands)

Total nonfarm

142 214 214 190

Total private

137 196 194 171

WOMEN AND PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES
AS A PERCENT OF ALL EMPLOYEES(2)

Total nonfarm women employees

49.5 49.7 49.7 49.7

Total private women employees

48.1 48.3 48.3 48.3

Total private production and nonsupervisory employees

82.4 82.4 82.4 82.4

HOURS AND EARNINGS
ALL EMPLOYEES

Total private

Average weekly hours

34.3 34.5 34.5 34.5

Average hourly earnings

$26.51 $27.07 $27.16 $27.24

Average weekly earnings

$909.29 $933.92 $937.02 $939.78

Index of aggregate weekly hours (2007=100)(3)

107.3 109.7 110.0 110.1

Over-the-month percent change

-0.3 -0.2 0.3 0.1

Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2007=100)(4)

136.0 142.0 142.8 143.3

Over-the-month percent change

0.2 0.1 0.6 0.4

DIFFUSION INDEX
(Over 1-month span)(5)

Total private (258 industries)

57.0 59.7 63.6 60.9

Manufacturing (76 industries)

54.6 59.9 61.8 62.5

Footnotes
(1) Includes other industries, not shown separately.
(2) Data relate to production employees in mining and logging and manufacturing, construction employees in construction, and nonsupervisory employees in the service-providing industries.
(3) The indexes of aggregate weekly hours are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate hours by the corresponding annual average aggregate hours.
(4) The indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate weekly payrolls by the corresponding annual average aggregate weekly payrolls.
(5) Figures are the percent of industries with employment increasing plus one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing employment.
(P) Preliminary

NOTE: Data have been revised to reflect March 2017 benchmark levels and updated seasonal adjustment factors.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.b.htm

Story 3: The Coming Construction Boom — Videos

Rebuilding America’s pool of construction workers

Construction industry is struggling to fill high-paying jobs

Challenges Builders Face With New Construction – Matthew Gardner

There’s a construction worker shortage across the country

Texas schools focus on training students to fill a construction worker shortage

Looking for a JOB in Construction ? NYC ? OSHA 10, Flagman . Young People watch this video

Looking for a job in construction ? Part 2 . Young people watch this video. OSHA 10

Learning Construction

Future construction workers at Folsom Women’s Facility

10 Surprisingly High Paying Jobs

Construction hiring is booming — and there still are plenty of available jobs

he U.S. shed 2.3 million construction jobs as the housing bubble burst, and has only regained about 1.85 million

By DREARIQUIER

Getty Images
An employee welds pipe at Pioneer Pipe in Marietta, Ohio

One of the brightest spots in recent employment reports has been construction hiring.

Employers added a net new 23,000 construction jobs in September, the Labor Department said Friday, and the number of people working in the industry was 315,000 higher compared to a year earlier.

But there are still construction jobs open – and the pay and perks aren’t bad. At the end of July, there were 273,000 open construction jobs, according to a separate Labor Department report.

“The construction industry added workers and increased pay in the past year at rates higher than the overall economy,” said Ken Simonson, the chief economist for the Associated General Contractors of America, a trade group. “However, the pool of unemployed workers with construction experience has nearly evaporated.”

In September, average hourly earnings for construction workers was $30.18, higher than the $27.24 earned by all workers.

The construction hiring spree of the last five years marks the second-strongest such stretch on record, economist Ed Zarenski wrote on Twitter Friday.

Ed Zarenski@EdZarenski

Construction jobs up 214k year-to-date, up more than 300k compared to Sep2017. We are in the midst of the 2nd strongest 5yr growth period for constr jobs ever recorded. added 1.4mil jobs Sep’13-Sep’18 vs 1.5mil for 5yrs 1996-2000.https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag23.htm 

The numbers for residential construction are smaller – but that trajectory is roughly the same. Still, industry groups continue to say it’s hard to find help, and qualified workers can name their price.

At the School of Concrete and Construction Management at Nashville-based Middle Tennessee State University, there were nearly six jobs open for each graduate of the program, and the average starting salary for graduates was $52,000. For all workers at all stages of professional life, the average pay in the area is $58,000 in the Nashville metro area, according to government data. While most graduates of the program take jobs in large construction firms, many choose to start their own companies, according to a spokesperson.

The Nashville housing market is one of the hottest in the country – but it’s not the only place where there’s a great need for workers – and residential construction is just one piece of the industry.

What’s more, despite the recent hiring boom, the industry still hasn’t gotten back to pre-recession levels, Zarenski noted. Only 1.85 million construction jobs have been gained since 2011 – but 2.3 million were lost as the bubble burst.

Where Are All the Builders?

Construction costs are climbing and production is lagging, in part because there aren’t enough workers to go around.

By Andrew Soergel Senior ReporterJune 15, 2018, at 6:00 a.m.
U.S. News & World Report

Where Are All the Builders?

Through the first quarter of 2018, employers have been looking to fill an average of nearly 225,000 construction jobs each month, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. (MICHAEL S. WILLIAMSON/THE WASHINGTON POST/GETTY IMAGES)

THE UNITED STATES HAS A building problem.

The country that paved one of the most expansive highway and transportation systems on the planet, that festooned a riverside between Maryland and Virginia with ornate marble and sandstone statues, columns and monuments in the creation of the nation’s capital, that introduced architectural marvels to the world ranging from the Golden Gate Bridge to the Empire State Building to the Space Needle, is now dogged by an ailing construction industry.

A common thread has waylaid the building of a much-anticipated senior community in Oro Valley, Arizona, forced Exxon Mobil to retool the construction of what would be the world’s largest ethylene plant in San Patricio County, Texas, and spurred Home Depot into investing $50 million into skills training programs over the next 10 years: there simply aren’t enough construction workers to keep up with demand.

“For better or worse, business is good for us. They’re beating down the door,” says Tyson Conrad, the president and founder of Tampa-based Goliath Construction Consulting, which serves as a national recruiting and consultation outfit geared specifically toward the construction sector. “We’re in a place now where you have a booming economy and booming construction industry and lack of manpower. So people have gotten creative and desperate, essentially.”

Conrad works with clients across the country, many of whom seem to be telling the same story. With the economy chugging along through what is now its second-longest recovery to date and with demand for more affordable housing options as high as it’s been in years, Americans’ desire for new homes, buildings and facilities is through the roof.

But there simply aren’t enough skilled builders around to complete the work. Through the first quarter of 2018, employers have been looking to fill an average of nearly 225,000 construction jobs each month, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That average was eclipsed in only one year going back to 2000, when the BLS first began tracking the data – and that year was 2007, at the tail end of the U.S. housing boom.

The labor shortage is so acute that 91 percent of more than 2,700 contractors, construction managers, builders and trade contractors surveyed in the latest Commercial Construction Indexreported having a difficult or moderately difficult time finding skilled workers.

“Among the contractors expressing concern about worker skill levels, more than one-third (37 percent) believe the problem has worsened in the last six months, and almost half (47 percent) believe it will continue to worsen in the next six months,” according to the report.

That shortage hasn’t been a terrible thing for those already in the industry, as their pay has skyrocketed in tandem with their demand. Wages of production and nonsupervisory construction employees – which excludes managers, sales personnel and accounting staff associated with the industry – climbed 3.6 percent between May 2017 and May 2018. That’s comfortably larger than the 2.8 percent wage gain production and nonsupervisory employees across the economy enjoyed over the same window.

A recent blog post from Aaron Terrazas, an economic research director at Zillow, identified even more drastic gains among residential construction workers, in particular. Such employees closed out April with a 5 percent annual wage gain, nearly double the 2.9 percent uptick for all of the economy’s private-sector workers.

“These days they’re making a killing,” Conrad says, telling the story of a client’s son who at 23 years old is making around $75,000 annually as a foreman. “For so long, it was seen that if you worked with a hard hat, you didn’t make a lot of money and you were a dummy. I can tell you that is contrary to everything that is reality.”

Construction wage growth isn’t necessarily expected to be exponential – the BLS last year estimated the top 10 percent of construction workers earned an annual wage of roughly $63,000, with top-tier construction managers bringing in nearly $160,000. But Conrad says demand for workers has created attractive options in the industry, particularly for young workers as the more established individuals phase out of the workforce.

Those in the construction industry are, on average, slightly older than workers in the rest of the economy, with a median age of 42.6. Only 1.8 percent of the industry’s workers are between 16 and 19 years old, while fewer than 9.4 percent are younger than 25. Both percentages are shy of national averages for all industries, suggesting a larger-than-normal share of construction workers are on the older side.

Conrad says he’s concerned by the fact that young people don’t seem to be embracing the industry in the same way that they used to. He partly blames budget cuts to shop and skills development opportunities in high schools while also pointing out the negative stigma he believes trade professions developed over time.

“There was a huge push in the ’90s and even in the early 2000s that if you were going to be successful, you needed to go to college. And that was the only way. And you add to that the Baby Boomers all migrating out of the workforce now – you’ve got a trifecta of major issues,” he says. “You have few people going in, a lot of people going out.”

He also points to a downtick in immigration as a driving factor in the skilled construction worker shortage. A recent industry analysis spearheaded by Natalia Siniavskaia, the assistant vice president of housing policy research at the National Association of Home Builders, found that immigrants constitute roughly 30 percent of the construction industry. In states such as California and Texas, that share sits north of 40 percent.

“Over the last two administrations, the last one and this one, we’ve seen significant drops in undocumented workers coming into the country,” Conrad says, noting that this trend has in some cases left construction employers in a bind.

In order to solve the construction shortage with domestic workers, officials and educators throughout the country have made efforts to get students more excited and more involved in working with their hands, hoping to foster a new generation of builders to help address today’s shortfall.

“I think there was a mentality here for awhile that we had to send our kids to college,” says David Curry, director of career and technical education at the Milton Hershey School in Hershey, Pennsylvania. “We want our students to find success. For certain students, that doesn’t mean sitting in a classroom for four more years.”

At the Milton Hershey School, Curry stresses a “learning by doing” approach that allows students to get hands-on experience in their field of choice. The institution – founded in 1909 as the Hershey Industrial School by chocolatier Milton Hershey and his wife, Catherine – functions as a boarding school catering specifically to low-income students. It offers traditional academic coursework as well as specialized training in one of 11 career pathways for more senior students.

For students in the school’s construction and carpentry pathway, that means personally building houses in the nearby community from the ground up.

“At the start of their junior year, the house was nonexistent. It was a patch of dirt. They have been involved in every phase of the building of this house,” Curry says, noting that this year’s crop of seniors just finished the 52nd home Milton Hershey students have constructed in the area. “In their junior class, they came out and built the rafters and walled it and roofed it. They’ve spent most of their senior year working on the interior of the house. They work alongside our instructional trade professionals we have here at the school.”

Curry says the school has experienced staff members on hand to help guide the students, though it will occasionally reach out to trade workers in the community to fill gaps in their expertise. He says the school doesn’t have a painter on hand, for example, so that work will be subcontracted.

“The entire goal of this is not for our staff to build this house. At the end of the day, it’s the kids who are building the house,” Curry says. “Obviously, kids make mistakes at times, and it becomes a learning experience. But we’re not going to hand a house to a family and not have it be what it’s supposed to be.”

Four graduating seniors plan to enroll in a local technical school to continue their skills development, though Curry says interest in the construction and carpentry program is rising. Two freshmen signed up for the concentration last year, he said, while 17 jumped into it this year.

The school is relatively unique in the fact that it is supported in part by a significant endowment that was left behind after Milton Hershey’s death – so it can afford the equipment and tools necessary for students to gain such hands-on experience. But Curry says he hopes other schools are able to increase awareness of and support for trade and construction programs going forward. The jobs, he says, are certainly available.

“There’s a huge growth in opportunities nationally in trade areas,” Curry says. “Oftentimes these are kids that know they want to do that and they want to go directly into that field, either to a two-year school or directly to work. … This is designed to make sure they’re prepared for what they’ll see in the real world.”

https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2018-06-15/the-us-construction-industry-is-booming-but-where-are-the-builders

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1152

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 1104, July 9, 2018, Story 1: Bureau of Labor Statistics June’s Jobs Report –413,000 Enter The Labor Force Resulting in .2% Increase of Labor Participation Rate to 62.9% and .1% Increase in U-3 Unemployment Rate to 4.0% — Videos — Story 2: President Trump Selects His Nominee For Supreme Court Justice at 9 P.M. Monday and The Winner is? Brett Kavanaugh But My Favorite Amy Barrett — Mother of Seven — Democrats Immediately Start Throwing Rocks At Outstanding Nomination! — Videos — Story 3: Hillary Clinton Running For President in 2020? — Make My Day — Run Hillary Run — Videos

Posted on July 9, 2018. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Candidates, Assault, Banking System, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Bribes, Budgetary Policy, Canada, Cartoons, China, College, Communications, Computers, Congress, Countries, Crime, Culture, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, European Union, Extortion, Fiscal Policy, Germany, High Crimes, House of Representatives, Labor Economics, Monetary Policy, Public Corruption, Senate, Tax Policy, Trade Policy, Treason, United States of America | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

 Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1104, July 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1103, July 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1102, JUly 3, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1101, July 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1100, June 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1099, June 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1098, June 25, 2018 

Pronk Pops Show 1097, June 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1096, June 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1095, June 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1094, June 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1093, June 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1092, June 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1091, June 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1090, June 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1089, June 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1088, June 6, 2018 

Pronk Pops Show 1087, June 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1086, May 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1085, May 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1084, May 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1083, May 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1082, May 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1081, May 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1080, May 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1079, May 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1078, May 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1077, May 15, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1076, May 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1075, May 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1073, May 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1072, May 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1071, May 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1070, May 3, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1069, May 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1068, April 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1067, April 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1066, April 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1065, April 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1064, April 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1063, April 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1062, April 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1061, April 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1060, April 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1059, April 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1058, April 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1057, April 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1056, April 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1055, April 2, 2018

See the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

 

 

Story 1: Bureau of Labor Statistics June’s Jobs Report –413,000 Enter The Labor Force Resulting in .2% Increase of Labor Participation Rate to 62.9% and .1% Increase in U-3 Unemployment Rate to 4.0% — Videos —

News Wrap: U.S. added 213,000 new jobs in June, Labor Department reports

Stocks rally on jobs report as new poll says America’s best days are ahead

Understanding BLS Employment Projections

Civilian Labor Force Level

162,140,000

 

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

 

Series Id:           LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status:  Civilian labor force
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over

Download:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 142267(1) 142456 142434 142751 142388 142591 142278 142514 142518 142622 142962 143248
2001 143800 143701 143924 143569 143318 143357 143654 143284 143989 144086 144240 144305
2002 143883 144653 144481 144725 144938 144808 144803 145009 145552 145314 145041 145066
2003 145937(1) 146100 146022 146474 146500 147056 146485 146445 146530 146716 147000 146729
2004 146842(1) 146709 146944 146850 147065 147460 147692 147564 147415 147793 148162 148059
2005 148029(1) 148364 148391 148926 149261 149238 149432 149779 149954 150001 150065 150030
2006 150214(1) 150641 150813 150881 151069 151354 151377 151716 151662 152041 152406 152732
2007 153144(1) 152983 153051 152435 152670 153041 153054 152749 153414 153183 153835 153918
2008 154063(1) 153653 153908 153769 154303 154313 154469 154641 154570 154876 154639 154655
2009 154210(1) 154538 154133 154509 154747 154716 154502 154307 153827 153784 153878 153111
2010 153484(1) 153694 153954 154622 154091 153616 153691 154086 153975 153635 154125 153650
2011 153263(1) 153214 153376 153543 153479 153346 153288 153760 154131 153961 154128 153995
2012 154381(1) 154671 154749 154545 154866 155083 154948 154763 155160 155554 155338 155628
2013 155763(1) 155312 155005 155394 155536 155749 155599 155605 155687 154673 155265 155182
2014 155357(1) 155526 156108 155404 155564 155742 156011 156124 156019 156383 156455 156301
2015 157063(1) 156734 156754 157051 157449 157071 157035 157132 156700 157138 157435 158043
2016 158387(1) 158811 159253 158919 158512 158976 159207 159514 159734 159700 159544 159736
2017 159718(1) 159997 160235 160181 159729 160214 160467 160598 161082 160371 160533 160597
2018 161115(1) 161921 161763 161527 161539 162140
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

 

Labor Force Participation Rate

62.9%

 

Series Id:           LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status:  Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over

Download:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.1 67.1 66.9 66.9 66.9 66.8 66.9 67.0
2001 67.2 67.1 67.2 66.9 66.7 66.7 66.8 66.5 66.8 66.7 66.7 66.7
2002 66.5 66.8 66.6 66.7 66.7 66.6 66.5 66.6 66.7 66.6 66.4 66.3
2003 66.4 66.4 66.3 66.4 66.4 66.5 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 65.9
2004 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 66.0 66.1 66.1 66.0 65.8 65.9 66.0 65.9
2005 65.8 65.9 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0
2006 66.0 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.3 66.4
2007 66.4 66.3 66.2 65.9 66.0 66.0 66.0 65.8 66.0 65.8 66.0 66.0
2008 66.2 66.0 66.1 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 65.8
2009 65.7 65.8 65.6 65.7 65.7 65.7 65.5 65.4 65.1 65.0 65.0 64.6
2010 64.8 64.9 64.9 65.2 64.9 64.6 64.6 64.7 64.6 64.4 64.6 64.3
2011 64.2 64.1 64.2 64.2 64.1 64.0 64.0 64.1 64.2 64.1 64.1 64.0
2012 63.7 63.8 63.8 63.7 63.7 63.8 63.7 63.5 63.6 63.8 63.6 63.7
2013 63.7 63.4 63.3 63.4 63.4 63.4 63.3 63.3 63.2 62.8 63.0 62.9
2014 62.9 62.9 63.1 62.8 62.8 62.8 62.9 62.9 62.8 62.9 62.9 62.8
2015 62.9 62.7 62.7 62.8 62.9 62.7 62.6 62.6 62.3 62.5 62.5 62.7
2016 62.8 62.9 63.0 62.8 62.6 62.7 62.8 62.8 62.9 62.8 62.7 62.7
2017 62.9 62.9 63.0 62.9 62.7 62.8 62.9 62.9 63.0 62.7 62.7 62.7
2018 62.7 63.0 62.9 62.8 62.7 62.9

 

Employment Level

155,576,000

Series Id:           LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status:  Employed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over

Download:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 136559(1) 136598 136701 137270 136630 136940 136531 136662 136893 137088 137322 137614
2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417(1) 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472(1) 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125
2005 140245(1) 140385 140654 141254 141609 141714 142026 142434 142401 142548 142499 142752
2006 143150(1) 143457 143741 143761 144089 144353 144202 144625 144815 145314 145534 145970
2007 146028(1) 146057 146320 145586 145903 146063 145905 145682 146244 145946 146595 146273
2008 146378(1) 146156 146086 146132 145908 145737 145532 145203 145076 144802 144100 143369
2009 142152(1) 141640 140707 140656 140248 140009 139901 139492 138818 138432 138659 138013
2010 138438(1) 138581 138751 139297 139241 139141 139179 139438 139396 139119 139044 139301
2011 139250(1) 139394 139639 139586 139624 139384 139524 139942 140183 140368 140826 140902
2012 141584(1) 141858 142036 141899 142206 142391 142292 142291 143044 143431 143333 143330
2013 143292(1) 143362 143316 143635 143882 143999 144264 144326 144418 143537 144479 144778
2014 145122(1) 145161 145673 145680 145825 146267 146401 146522 146752 147411 147391 147597
2015 148113(1) 148100 148175 148505 148788 148806 148830 149136 148810 149254 149486 150135
2016 150576(1) 151005 151229 150978 151048 151164 151484 151687 151815 151939 152126 152233
2017 152076(1) 152511 153064 153161 152892 153250 153511 153471 154324 153846 153917 154021
2018 154430(1) 155215 155178 155181 155474 155576
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

Employment-Population Ratio

60.4%

Series Id:           LNS12300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Employment-Population Ratio
Labor force status:  Employment-population ratio
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over

Download:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 64.6 64.6 64.6 64.7 64.4 64.5 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.3 64.4
2001 64.4 64.3 64.3 64.0 63.8 63.7 63.7 63.2 63.5 63.2 63.0 62.9
2002 62.7 63.0 62.8 62.7 62.9 62.7 62.7 62.7 63.0 62.7 62.5 62.4
2003 62.5 62.5 62.4 62.4 62.3 62.3 62.1 62.1 62.0 62.1 62.3 62.2
2004 62.3 62.3 62.2 62.3 62.3 62.4 62.5 62.4 62.3 62.3 62.5 62.4
2005 62.4 62.4 62.4 62.7 62.8 62.7 62.8 62.9 62.8 62.8 62.7 62.8
2006 62.9 63.0 63.1 63.0 63.1 63.1 63.0 63.1 63.1 63.3 63.3 63.4
2007 63.3 63.3 63.3 63.0 63.0 63.0 62.9 62.7 62.9 62.7 62.9 62.7
2008 62.9 62.8 62.7 62.7 62.5 62.4 62.2 62.0 61.9 61.7 61.4 61.0
2009 60.6 60.3 59.9 59.8 59.6 59.4 59.3 59.1 58.7 58.5 58.6 58.3
2010 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.7 58.6 58.5 58.5 58.6 58.5 58.3 58.2 58.3
2011 58.3 58.4 58.4 58.4 58.3 58.2 58.2 58.3 58.4 58.4 58.6 58.6
2012 58.4 58.5 58.5 58.4 58.5 58.6 58.5 58.4 58.7 58.8 58.7 58.7
2013 58.6 58.6 58.5 58.6 58.6 58.6 58.7 58.7 58.7 58.3 58.6 58.7
2014 58.8 58.7 58.9 58.9 58.9 59.0 59.0 59.0 59.1 59.3 59.2 59.3
2015 59.3 59.3 59.3 59.3 59.4 59.4 59.3 59.4 59.2 59.3 59.4 59.6
2016 59.7 59.8 59.8 59.7 59.7 59.7 59.7 59.8 59.7 59.7 59.8 59.8
2017 59.9 60.0 60.2 60.2 60.0 60.1 60.2 60.1 60.4 60.2 60.1 60.1
2018 60.1 60.4 60.4 60.3 60.4 60.4

Unemployment Level

6,564,000

Series Id:           LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status:  Unemployed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7064 7184 7072 7120 6980 7001 7175 7091 6847 6727 6872 6762
2007 7116 6927 6731 6850 6766 6979 7149 7067 7170 7237 7240 7645
2008 7685 7497 7822 7637 8395 8575 8937 9438 9494 10074 10538 11286
2009 12058 12898 13426 13853 14499 14707 14601 14814 15009 15352 15219 15098
2010 15046 15113 15202 15325 14849 14474 14512 14648 14579 14516 15081 14348
2011 14013 13820 13737 13957 13855 13962 13763 13818 13948 13594 13302 13093
2012 12797 12813 12713 12646 12660 12692 12656 12471 12115 12124 12005 12298
2013 12471 11950 11689 11760 11654 11751 11335 11279 11270 11136 10787 10404
2014 10235 10365 10435 9724 9740 9474 9610 9602 9266 8972 9064 8704
2015 8951 8634 8578 8546 8662 8265 8206 7996 7891 7884 7948 7907
2016 7811 7806 8024 7942 7465 7812 7723 7827 7919 7761 7419 7502
2017 7642 7486 7171 7021 6837 6964 6956 7127 6759 6524 6616 6576
2018 6684 6706 6585 6346 6065 6564

 

 

U-3 Unemployment Rate

4.0%

Series Id:           LNS14000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3
2009 7.8 8.3 8.7 9.0 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9
2010 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.8 9.3
2011 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.8 8.6 8.5
2012 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.9
2013 8.0 7.7 7.5 7.6 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.2 6.9 6.7
2014 6.6 6.7 6.7 6.3 6.3 6.1 6.2 6.2 5.9 5.7 5.8 5.6
2015 5.7 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.5 5.3 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
2016 4.9 4.9 5.0 5.0 4.7 4.9 4.9 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.6 4.7
2017 4.8 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.1
2018 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.9 3.8 4.0

 

Average Weeks Unemployed

21.2

 

Series Id:           LNS13008275
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Average Weeks Unemployed
Labor force status:  Unemployed
Type of data:        Number of weeks
Age:                 16 years and over

 

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 13.1 12.6 12.7 12.4 12.6 12.3 13.4 12.9 12.2 12.7 12.4 12.5
2001 12.7 12.8 12.8 12.4 12.1 12.7 12.9 13.3 13.2 13.3 14.3 14.5
2002 14.7 15.0 15.4 16.3 16.8 16.9 16.9 16.5 17.6 17.8 17.6 18.5
2003 18.5 18.5 18.1 19.4 19.0 19.9 19.7 19.2 19.5 19.3 19.9 19.8
2004 19.9 20.1 19.8 19.6 19.8 20.5 18.8 18.8 19.4 19.5 19.7 19.4
2005 19.5 19.1 19.5 19.6 18.6 17.9 17.6 18.4 17.9 17.9 17.5 17.5
2006 16.9 17.8 17.1 16.7 17.1 16.6 17.1 17.1 17.1 16.3 16.2 16.1
2007 16.3 16.7 17.8 16.9 16.6 16.5 17.2 17.0 16.3 17.0 17.3 16.6
2008 17.5 16.9 16.5 16.9 16.6 17.1 17.0 17.7 18.6 19.9 18.9 19.9
2009 19.8 20.2 20.9 21.7 22.4 23.9 25.1 25.3 26.6 27.5 28.9 29.7
2010 30.3 29.8 31.6 33.3 34.0 34.5 33.9 33.7 33.4 34.0 33.9 34.7
2011 37.2 37.4 39.1 38.7 39.6 39.9 40.7 40.5 40.4 38.7 40.2 40.4
2012 40.2 39.7 39.3 39.2 39.6 40.3 39.3 39.6 39.8 39.6 39.0 37.6
2013 35.6 36.4 37.0 36.5 36.8 36.4 37.3 37.6 37.4 35.1 36.6 36.5
2014 35.3 36.4 35.3 34.9 34.2 33.9 32.7 32.0 31.9 32.4 32.8 32.6
2015 32.2 31.1 30.5 30.8 30.5 28.3 28.2 28.3 26.0 27.6 27.9 27.7
2016 29.4 29.0 28.4 28.1 26.7 28.0 28.0 27.3 27.0 26.6 25.9 25.9
2017 25.3 25.1 25.4 24.3 24.8 24.9 25.0 24.3 26.6 25.8 25.2 23.6
2018 24.1 22.9 24.1 23.1 21.3 21.2

Unemployment Level – New Entrants

578,000

Series Id:                  LNS13023569
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:               (Seas) Unemployment Level - New Entrants
Labor force status:         Unemployed
Type of data:               Number in thousands
Age:                        16 years and over
Unemployed entrant status:  New entrants

Download:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 394 420 429 406 466 427 433 499 415 402 419 490
2001 444 396 378 457 468 467 448 485 473 481 495 515
2002 484 507 538 527 497 549 545 612 536 479 591 535
2003 599 584 630 635 630 661 669 652 686 636 593 693
2004 676 666 631 652 718 649 702 704 695 734 700 702
2005 621 753 712 764 710 650 630 626 607 638 673 633
2006 616 711 636 591 517 646 639 646 612 572 591 586
2007 622 599 615 620 530 640 602 588 668 696 678 679
2008 677 656 704 625 797 786 835 821 815 819 763 803
2009 775 999 872 901 965 1001 1004 1085 1153 1102 1330 1241
2010 1195 1192 1146 1187 1202 1174 1208 1278 1217 1277 1275 1306
2011 1342 1287 1287 1305 1227 1242 1281 1254 1378 1287 1277 1282
2012 1260 1367 1388 1376 1358 1325 1303 1257 1260 1301 1333 1291
2013 1272 1253 1295 1302 1272 1246 1259 1289 1207 1221 1154 1199
2014 1165 1214 1156 1085 1064 1036 1098 1050 1103 1074 1044 973
2015 1020 944 804 876 967 905 834 842 840 826 854 866
2016 814 831 762 854 879 889 820 862 803 802 726 791
2017 803 765 769 707 658 680 697 653 663 626 697 581
2018 645 704 625 623 571 578

 

Not in Labor Force

95,502,000   

Series Id:           LNS15000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Not in Labor Force
Labor force status:  Not in labor force
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over

 

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 69142 69120 69338 69267 69853 69876 70398 70401 70645 70782 70579 70488
2001 70088 70409 70381 70956 71414 71592 71526 72136 71676 71817 71876 72010
2002 72623 72010 72343 72281 72260 72600 72827 72856 72554 73026 73508 73675
2003 73960 74015 74295 74066 74268 73958 74767 75062 75249 75324 75280 75780
2004 75319 75648 75606 75907 75903 75735 75730 76113 76526 76399 76259 76581
2005 76808 76677 76846 76514 76409 76673 76721 76642 76739 76958 77138 77394
2006 77339 77122 77161 77318 77359 77317 77535 77451 77757 77634 77499 77376
2007 77506 77851 77982 78818 78810 78671 78904 79461 79047 79532 79105 79238
2008 78554 79156 79087 79429 79102 79314 79395 79466 79790 79736 80189 80380
2009 80529 80374 80953 80762 80705 80938 81367 81780 82495 82766 82865 83813
2010 83349 83304 83206 82707 83409 84075 84199 84014 84347 84895 84590 85240
2011 85441 85637 85623 85603 85834 86144 86383 86111 85940 86308 86312 86589
2012 87888 87765 87855 88239 88100 88073 88405 88803 88613 88429 88836 88722
2013 88900 89516 89990 89780 89827 89803 90156 90355 90481 91708 91302 91563
2014 91557 91559 91150 92036 92058 92072 92012 92105 92428 92274 92390 92726
2015 92660 93165 93326 93214 93006 93592 93841 93963 94625 94403 94312 93893
2016 94010 93766 93515 94049 94662 94421 94413 94340 94357 94621 94996 95006
2017 94364 94248 94179 94407 95038 94743 94684 94759 94480 95395 95416 95512
2018 95665 95012 95335 95745 95915 95502

     U-6 Unemployment Rate

7.8%

 

 

Series Id:           LNS13327709
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers
Labor force status:  Aggregated totals unemployed
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over
Percent/rates:       Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached

Download:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 7.1 7.2 7.1 6.9 7.1 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.0 6.8 7.1 6.9
2001 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.9 7.8 8.1 8.7 9.3 9.4 9.6
2002 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8
2003 10.0 10.2 10.0 10.2 10.1 10.3 10.3 10.1 10.4 10.2 10.0 9.8
2004 9.9 9.7 10.0 9.6 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.7 9.4 9.2
2005 9.3 9.3 9.1 8.9 8.9 9.0 8.8 8.9 9.0 8.7 8.7 8.6
2006 8.4 8.4 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.4 8.5 8.4 8.0 8.2 8.1 7.9
2007 8.4 8.2 8.0 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.8
2008 9.2 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.7 10.1 10.5 10.8 11.0 11.8 12.6 13.6
2009 14.2 15.2 15.8 15.9 16.5 16.5 16.4 16.7 16.7 17.1 17.1 17.1
2010 16.7 17.0 17.1 17.1 16.6 16.4 16.4 16.5 16.8 16.6 16.9 16.6
2011 16.2 16.0 15.9 16.1 15.8 16.1 15.9 16.1 16.4 15.8 15.5 15.2
2012 15.2 15.0 14.5 14.6 14.7 14.8 14.8 14.6 14.8 14.4 14.4 14.4
2013 14.6 14.4 13.8 14.0 13.8 14.2 13.8 13.6 13.5 13.6 13.1 13.1
2014 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.3 12.1 12.0 12.1 11.9 11.7 11.5 11.4 11.2
2015 11.3 11.0 10.9 10.9 10.8 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.0 9.8 9.9 9.9
2016 9.9 9.7 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.5 9.7 9.6 9.7 9.6 9.3 9.1
2017 9.4 9.2 8.8 8.6 8.4 8.5 8.5 8.6 8.3 8.0 8.0 8.1
2018 8.2 8.2 8.0 7.8 7.6 7.8

 

Employment Situation Summary

Transmission of material in this news release is embargoed until             USDL-18-1110
8:30 a.m. (EDT) Friday, July 6, 2018

Technical information:
 Household data:      (202) 691-6378  *  cpsinfo@bls.gov  *  www.bls.gov/cps
 Establishment data:  (202) 691-6555  *  cesinfo@bls.gov  *  www.bls.gov/ces

Media contact:        (202) 691-5902  *  PressOffice@bls.gov


                            THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- JUNE 2018


Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 213,000 in June, and the unemployment rate
rose to 4.0 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job growth
occurred in professional and business services, manufacturing, and health care, while
retail trade lost jobs.

Household Survey Data

The unemployment rate rose by 0.2 percentage point to 4.0 percent in June, and the
number of unemployed persons increased by 499,000 to 6.6 million. A year earlier, the
jobless rate was 4.3 percent, and the number of unemployed persons was 7.0 million.
(See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (3.7 percent), adult
women (3.7 percent), and Asians (3.2 percent) increased in June. The jobless rate for
teenagers (12.6 percent), Whites (3.5 percent), Blacks (6.5 percent), and Hispanics
(4.6 percent) showed little or no change over the month. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

Among the unemployed, the number of job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs
increased by 211,000 in June to 3.1 million, and the number of reentrants to the labor
force rose by 204,000 to 2.1 million. (Reentrants are persons who previously worked but
were not in the labor force prior to beginning their job search.) (See table A-11.) 

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) increased by
289,000 in June to 1.5 million. These individuals accounted for 23.0 percent of the
unemployed. (See table A-12.)

In June, the civilian labor force grew by 601,000. The labor force participation rate
edged up by 0.2 percentage point over the month to 62.9 percent but has shown no clear
trend thus far this year. (See table A-1.) 

The employment-population ratio, at 60.4 percent, was unchanged in June and has
essentially been flat since February. (See table A-1.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to
as involuntary part-time workers) was little changed in June at 4.7 million. These
individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part time
because their hours had been reduced or they were unable to find full-time jobs.
(See table A-8.)

In June, 1.4 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, little
different from a year earlier. (Data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals
were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for
a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because
they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 359,000 discouraged workers in June, down
by 155,000 from a year earlier. (Data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged
workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are
available for them. The remaining 1.1 million persons marginally attached to the
labor force in June had not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance
or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 213,000 in June and has grown by 2.4
million over the last 12 months. Over the month, job gains occurred in professional
and business services, manufacturing, and health care, while employment in retail
trade declined. (See table B-1.)

Employment in professional and business services increased by 50,000 in June and has
risen by 521,000 over the year.

Manufacturing added 36,000 jobs in June. Durable goods manufacturing accounted for
nearly all of the increase, including job gains in fabricated metal products (+7,000),
computer and electronic products (+5,000), and primary metals (+3,000). Motor vehicles
and parts also added jobs over the month (+12,000), after declining by 8,000 in May.
Over the past year, manufacturing has added 285,000 jobs.

Employment in health care rose by 25,000 in June and has increased by 309,000 over the
year. Hospitals added 11,000 jobs over the month, and employment in ambulatory health
care services continued to trend up (+14,000).

Construction employment continued to trend up in June (+13,000) and has increased by
282,000 over the year.

Mining employment continued on an upward trend in June (+5,000). The industry has
added 95,000 jobs since a recent low point in October 2016, almost entirely in support
activities for mining.

In June, retail trade lost 22,000 jobs, largely offsetting a gain in May (+25,000).

Employment showed little or no change over the month in other major industries,
including wholesale trade, transportation and warehousing, information, financial
activities, leisure and hospitality, and government.

The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at
34.5 hours in June. In manufacturing, the workweek edged up by 0.1 hour to 40.9 hours,
and overtime edged up by 0.1 hour to 3.5 hours. The average workweek for production
and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls remained at 33.8 hours.
(See tables B-2 and B-7.)

In June, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by
5 cents to $26.98. Over the year, average hourly earnings have increased by 72 cents,
or 2.7 percent. Average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory
employees increased by 4 cents to $22.62 in June. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for April was revised up from +159,000
to +175,000, and the change for May was revised up from +223,000 to +244,000. With
these revisions, employment gains in April and May combined were 37,000 more than
previously reported. (Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from
businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the
recalculation of seasonal factors.) After revisions, job gains have averaged 211,000
per month over the last 3 months.

_____________
The Employment Situation for July is scheduled to be released on Friday, August 3, 2018,
at 8:30 a.m. (EDT).


 _______________________________________________________________________________________
|                                                                                       |
|    2018 Preliminary Benchmark Revision to the Establishment Survey Data will be       |
|                            Released on August 22, 2018                                |
|                                                                                       |
|Each year, the establishment survey estimates are benchmarked to comprehensive counts  |
|of employment from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) for the month   |
|of March. These counts are derived from state unemployment insurance (UI) tax records  |
|that nearly all employers are required to file. On August 22, 2018, at 10:00 a.m.      |
|(EDT), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) will release the preliminary estimate of   |
|the upcoming annual benchmark revision. This is the same day the first-quarter 2018    |
|data from QCEW will be issued. Preliminary benchmark revisions for all major industry  |
|sectors, as well as total nonfarm and total private levels, will be available on the   |
|BLS website at www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesprelbmk.htm.                                  |
|                                                                                       |
|The final benchmark revision will be issued with the publication of the January 2019   |
|Employment Situation news release in February 2019.                                    |
|_______________________________________________________________________________________|



 

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

HOUSEHOLD DATA
Summary table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
Category June
2017
Apr.
2018
May
2018
June
2018
Change from:
May
2018-
June
2018

Employment status

Civilian noninstitutional population

254,957 257,272 257,454 257,642 188

Civilian labor force

160,214 161,527 161,539 162,140 601

Participation rate

62.8 62.8 62.7 62.9 0.2

Employed

153,250 155,181 155,474 155,576 102

Employment-population ratio

60.1 60.3 60.4 60.4 0.0

Unemployed

6,964 6,346 6,065 6,564 499

Unemployment rate

4.3 3.9 3.8 4.0 0.2

Not in labor force

94,743 95,745 95,915 95,502 -413

Unemployment rates

Total, 16 years and over

4.3 3.9 3.8 4.0 0.2

Adult men (20 years and over)

4.0 3.7 3.5 3.7 0.2

Adult women (20 years and over)

4.0 3.5 3.3 3.7 0.4

Teenagers (16 to 19 years)

13.3 12.9 12.8 12.6 -0.2

White

3.8 3.6 3.5 3.5 0.0

Black or African American

7.1 6.6 5.9 6.5 0.6

Asian

3.6 2.8 2.1 3.2 1.1

Hispanic or Latino ethnicity

4.8 4.8 4.9 4.6 -0.3

Total, 25 years and over

3.6 3.3 3.0 3.3 0.3

Less than a high school diploma

6.5 5.9 5.4 5.5 0.1

High school graduates, no college

4.6 4.3 3.9 4.2 0.3

Some college or associate degree

3.8 3.5 3.2 3.3 0.1

Bachelor’s degree and higher

2.3 2.1 2.0 2.3 0.3

Reason for unemployment

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs

3,447 2,958 2,854 3,065 211

Job leavers

816 815 852 811 -41

Reentrants

2,055 2,009 1,882 2,086 204

New entrants

680 623 571 578 7

Duration of unemployment

Less than 5 weeks

2,301 2,115 2,034 2,227 193

5 to 14 weeks

1,942 2,017 1,945 1,882 -63

15 to 26 weeks

937 1,036 977 836 -141

27 weeks and over

1,715 1,293 1,189 1,478 289

Employed persons at work part time

Part time for economic reasons

5,264 4,985 4,948 4,743 -205

Slack work or business conditions

3,263 2,994 3,004 3,042 38

Could only find part-time work

1,711 1,586 1,480 1,447 -33

Part time for noneconomic reasons

20,813 21,258 21,095 21,304 209

Persons not in the labor force (not seasonally adjusted)

Marginally attached to the labor force

1,582 1,362 1,455 1,437

Discouraged workers

514 408 378 359

– Over-the-month changes are not displayed for not seasonally adjusted data.
NOTE: Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Detail for the seasonally adjusted data shown in this table will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal adjustment of the various series. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm

Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted

ESTABLISHMENT DATA
Summary table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted
Category June
2017
Apr.
2018
May
2018(P)
June
2018(P)

EMPLOYMENT BY SELECTED INDUSTRY
(Over-the-month change, in thousands)

Total nonfarm

239 175 244 213

Total private

220 174 239 202

Goods-producing

35 52 51 53

Mining and logging

5 8 3 4

Construction

16 16 29 13

Manufacturing

14 28 19 36

Durable goods(1)

14 22 13 32

Motor vehicles and parts

1.6 1.2 -8.0 12.0

Nondurable goods

0 6 6 4

Private service-providing

185 122 188 149

Wholesale trade

11.1 -9.8 5.7 2.9

Retail trade

3.4 -2.4 25.1 -21.6

Transportation and warehousing

7.2 2.4 17.6 15.4

Utilities

0.7 1.3 -1.4 -0.3

Information

2 3 0 0

Financial activities

15 3 17 8

Professional and business services(1)

40 59 43 50

Temporary help services

13.2 17.8 -4.7 9.3

Education and health services(1)

56 38 40 54

Health care and social assistance

53.5 32.3 34.9 34.7

Leisure and hospitality

35 14 28 25

Other services

14 14 13 16

Government

19 1 5 11

(3-month average change, in thousands)

Total nonfarm

190 218 191 211

Total private

186 216 189 205

WOMEN AND PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES
AS A PERCENT OF ALL EMPLOYEES(2)

Total nonfarm women employees

49.5 49.6 49.6 49.7

Total private women employees

48.1 48.2 48.2 48.3

Total private production and nonsupervisory employees

82.4 82.4 82.4 82.4

HOURS AND EARNINGS
ALL EMPLOYEES

Total private

Average weekly hours

34.4 34.5 34.5 34.5

Average hourly earnings

$26.26 $26.86 $26.93 $26.98

Average weekly earnings

$903.34 $926.67 $929.09 $930.81

Index of aggregate weekly hours (2007=100)(3)

107.3 109.2 109.4 109.6

Over-the-month percent change

0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2

Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2007=100)(4)

134.6 140.2 140.9 141.4

Over-the-month percent change

0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4

DIFFUSION INDEX
(Over 1-month span)(5)

Total private (258 industries)

65.3 62.4 69.8 65.5

Manufacturing (76 industries)

59.2 62.5 66.4 65.8

Footnotes
(1) Includes other industries, not shown separately.
(2) Data relate to production employees in mining and logging and manufacturing, construction employees in construction, and nonsupervisory employees in the service-providing industries.
(3) The indexes of aggregate weekly hours are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate hours by the corresponding annual average aggregate hours.
(4) The indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate weekly payrolls by the corresponding annual average aggregate weekly payrolls.
(5) Figures are the percent of industries with employment increasing plus one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing employment.
(P) Preliminary

NOTE: Data have been revised to reflect March 2017 benchmark levels and updated seasonal adjustment factors.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.b.htm

Story 2: President Trump Selects His Nominee For Supreme Court Justice at 9 P.M. Monday and The Winner is? Brett Kavanaugh But My Favorite Amy Barrett — Mother of Seven — Democrats Immediately Start Throwing Rocks At Outstanding Nomination! — Videos —

Kavanaugh: I am deeply honored to fill Kennedy’s seat

Hannity: Left will take extreme measures to malign Kavanaugh

Laura Ingraham Angle – LIVE FULL SCREEN – Fox News Live Stream – 7/9/2018

Tucker Carlson Tonight 7/9/2018

 BREAKING: President Trump announces Judge Brett Kavanaugh as his Supreme Court pick

President Trump Announces the Nominee for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FszugidxkWY]

Napolitano on Trump to Announce Supreme Court Pick Tonight

Senate fight awaits Trump’s Supreme Court pick

Leonard Leo hails Trump’s transparency on Supreme Court pick

Judge Napolitano on Trump’s SCOTUS pick: Titanic battle below the radar

Americans and Fake News Media More Often Than Not Simply Don’t Know What They’re Talking About

 

The Latest on President Donald Trump’s nomination of a Supreme Court justice (all times local):

9:30 p.m.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says that Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a “superb” Supreme Court pick and that senators should “put partisanship aside” in considering him.

President Donald Trump announced Kavanaugh’s nomination Monday evening.

Democrats are already lining up against Kavanaugh as too conservative. But McConnell says senators should give him “the fairness, respect, and seriousness that a Supreme Court nomination ought to command.”

McConnell says Kavanaugh believes judges should ignore their personal and political views and simply “interpret our laws as they are written.”

The Kentucky Republican faces a challenge in winning Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

Republicans hold a mere 50-49 Senate majority, with the prolonged absence of the ailing Arizona GOP Sen. John McCain. The defection of one Republican would kill the nomination unless at least one Democrat votes yes.

President Donald Trump is nominating influential conservative Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court as he seeks to shift the nation’s highest court further to the right. (July 9)

___

9:25 p.m.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh says he is “humbled” and “deeply honored” to have been selected by President Donald Trump for the Supreme Court.

Kavanaugh told the president Monday night as he took the microphone to accept his nomination that he was “grateful to you” and “humbled by your confidence in me.”

He also says he is “deeply honored” to be nominated to fill the seat of retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, for whom he clerked.

Kavanaugh says that if he’s confirmed, he “will keep an open mind in every case” and “always strive to preserve the Constitution of the United States and the American rule of law.”

He also thanked his parents and talked about his young daughters, whose basketball teams he coaches. He says his daughters’ teammates call him “Coach K.”

___

9:20 p.m.

The Senate’s top Democrat says President Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court puts abortion rights and health care protections for women “on the judicial chopping block.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer says by picking Kavanaugh, Trump is delivering on his pledge to “punish” women for their choices.

He says he will fight the nomination “with everything I have.” He’s urging people to make their voices heard, an indirect reference to voicing their objections to senators.

Schumer says if Kavanaugh is confirmed, “women’s reproductive rights would be in the hands of five men on the Supreme Court.”

Schumer and other Democrats have cited campaign statements Trump made to assert that any of the candidates Trump mulled would oppose abortion rights and the Obama-era health care law.

___

9:15 p.m.

President Donald Trump has introduced his Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh as “a judge’s judge” and cited his “proven commitment to equal justice under the law.”

Trump announced Kavanaugh as his pick Monday night on prime-time television.

The 53-year-old Kavanaugh is a longtime fixture of the Republican establishment. He has been a judge on the federal appeals court in Washington since 2006. He also was a key aide to Kenneth Starr during the investigation of President Bill Clinton. Kavanaugh also worked in the White House during George W. Bush’s presidency.

Trump says Kavanaugh has “impeccable credentials and unsurpassed qualifications.”

Trump made the announcement in the East Room of the White House and rousing applause broke out as Kavanaugh entered with his wife and two daughters.

___

9:10 p.m.

President Donald Trump made his final decision to nominate Judge Brett Kavanaugh on Sunday night.

A senior White House official says Trump called Kavanaugh on Sunday evening to inform him that he was his choice to be nominated to the Supreme Court.

On Monday, Trump phoned Justice Anthony Kennedy to inform him that his former law clerk would be nominated to fill his seat. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell also received a heads-up from the president. The president briefed Senate Republicans at the White House Monday evening shortly before making the public announcement.

The official says Trump decided on Kavanaugh because of his large body of jurisprudence cited by other courts, describing him as a judge that other judges read.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions.

— Associated Press writer Zeke Miller contributed

___

9:05 p.m.

President Donald Trump is nominating influential conservative Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court as he seeks to shift the nation’s highest court further to the right.

Trump chose the 53-year-old federal appellate judge for the seat opened up by the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy. Kavanaugh would be less receptive to abortion and gay rights than Kennedy was.

Kavanaugh is Trump’s second high court pick after Justice Neil Gorsuch. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch served as law clerks to Kennedy at the same time early in their legal careers.

Kavanaugh is a longtime fixture of the Republican legal establishment. He has been a judge on the federal appeals court in Washington since 2006. He also was a key aide to Kenneth Starr during his investigation of President Bill Clinton and worked in the White House during George W. Bush’s presidency.

___

9 p.m.

A senior White House official says President Donald Trump intends to nominate influential conservative judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court as he seeks to shift the balance of the court further to the right.

Trump plans to announce Monday that he has selected the 53-year-old federal appellate judge for the seat opened up by the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy. The official spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of the official announcement.

Kavanaugh is a longtime fixture of the Republican legal establishment. He has been a judge on the federal appeals court in Washington since 2006. He also was a key aide to Kenneth Starr during his investigation of President Bill Clinton and worked in the White House during George W. Bush’s presidency.

— By Associated Press writer Zeke Miller

___

8:55 p.m.

A senior White House official says President Donald Trump intends to nominate influential conservative judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court as he seeks to shift the balance of the court further to the right. Trump plans to announce Monday that he has selected the 53-year-old federal appellate judge for the seat opened up by the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy. The official spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of the official announcement.

— By Associated Press writer Zeke Miller

___

6:55 p.m.

Sen. Orrin Hatch says he has spoken with President Donald Trump about his nominee to the Supreme Court and doesn’t believe he’s going to pick Amy Coney Barrett.

The Utah Republican said Monday of Barrett: “I don’t think she’s going to be the one who’s chosen this time.”

The senator had stumped publicly for her and called her an outstanding judge. But the president in recent days seemed to narrow his shortlist for the court down to two other appellate judges, Brett Kavanaugh and Thomas Hardiman.

Hatch demurred when asked by reporters whether Trump is nominating Kavanaugh.

He says: “I’m pretty sure who it’s going to be, so I don’t want to give something up.”

Trump is announcing his selection Monday night.

___

6:25 p.m.

Is there a Supreme Court sign in these tea leaves?

A D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ 2-1 opinion issued Monday is raising speculation that Judge Brett Kavanaugh is President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.

Here’s why: Kavanaugh’s court rarely issues opinions on Monday. But if Kavanaugh is Trump’s choice, he likely would step away from pending cases. In the case decided Monday that had to do with attorneys’ fees, there would be no majority if Kavanaugh were to withdraw.

Trump is set to announce his choice Monday night.

Mike Sacks, a reporter for the Fox television affiliate in New York and a self-described lapsed lawyer, was among the first to make the connection on Twitter.

___

4:35 p.m.

Three Democratic senators sure to face tremendous pressure over whether to back President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee have been invited to Monday’s White House announcement of the pick. But Indiana’s Joe Donnelly, North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp and West Virginia’s Joe Manchin all say they won’t attend.

All face tough re-election races this November in states Trump won easily in 2016.

All three states lean heavily Republican. But nearly all Senate Democrats and many Democratic voters are expected to oppose Trump’s nominee. They say the person would likely take strongly conservative views on issues like abortion and health care.

The White House would love to have the Democrats’ votes for confirmation. Issuing the invitations makes the lawmakers choose between humoring voters who think they should be bipartisan and others who feel they shouldn’t condone Trump’s pick.

___

4:10 p.m.

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas says Republicans know they’re in for a contentious battle to confirm President Donald Trump’s nominee to serve on the Supreme Court, but “won’t back down from the fight.”

Cornyn, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, says it’s “extremely disappointing” that some Democrats have made clear they’ll oppose the nominee even before the president announces his choice.

Cornyn says Democrats have pledged to stop the nominee at all costs, but “we will see President Trump’s nominee confirmed on a timely basis.”

Cornyn spoke shortly after Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said any of Trump’s likely nominees poses a threat to the Affordable Care Act and a woman’s right to have an abortion.

Senators are trying to frame the debate before Trump’s 9 p.m. announcement.

___

3:30 p.m.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer says a weekend move by the Trump administration to undercut the Affordable Care Act is another reason for senators to closely scrutinize the president’s Supreme Court nominee.

With little warning, the Republican administration announced it is freezing payments under an “Obamacare” program that protects insurers with sicker patients from financial losses. If the decision is made permanent, it would lead to higher premiums.

Schumer says the administration’s action highlights the stakes for senators. Trump is announcing his pick to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy on Monday night.

He says, “Because President Trump has said repeatedly that he would nominate judges to overturn the ACA, the Supreme Court vacancy is only further putting health care front and center, raising the stakes for maintaining these vital health care protections.”

___

1:55 p.m.

Former Sen. Jon Kyl will guide President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee through the Senate confirmation process.

White House spokesman Raj Shah says the Arizona Republican “has agreed to serve as the Sherpa for the President’s nominee to the Supreme Court.”

Kyl, a former member of Republican leadership, served on the Senate Judiciary Committee before retiring from the Senate in January 2013. He works for Washington-based lobbying firm Covington & Burling.

The White House hopes Kyl’s close ties to Senate Republicans will help smooth the path for Trump’s eventual selection to win confirmation. Trump is set to announce his pick for the vacancy left by retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy at 9 p.m. Monday.

Former New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte served as the ‘sherpa’ for Justice Neil Gorsuch in 2017.

___

1:15 p.m.

President Donald Trump has yet to announce his pick for Supreme Court, but Democratic Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania — up for re-election — says he’ll be opposed.

Casey says the list of judges Trump has used to find a Supreme Court nominee is the “fruit of a corrupt process straight from the D.C. swamp.” He cites involvement of the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in drafting the list.

The Democratic senator is up for re-election this year in a state Trump won in 2016. The race is not expected to be competitive.

Bob Salera, a campaign spokesman for Senate Republicans, said Casey has “given up any pretense of being a moderate voice” by opposing Trump’s nominee sight unseen.

Casey says he is “pro-life,” but regularly sides with supporters of abortion rights in Senate votes.

___

10:25 a.m.

The conservative Judicial Crisis Network is set to launch a $1.4 million ad buy on behalf of President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.

Trump is expected to reveal his pick at 9 p.m. Monday. When the announcement is made, the campaign will kick off. It will feature cable and digital advertising in states including Alabama, Indiana, North Dakota and West Virginia.

The campaign will include a biographical ad about the nominee.

The group started advertising after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement. The new ad brings their total investment to $2.4 million. They will also launch a website with information on the nominee

___

6 a.m.

President Donald Trump is going down to the wire as he makes his choice on a replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. But he says with his final four options “you can’t go wrong.”

Trump spoke to reporters Sunday afternoon as he concluded a weekend in New Jersey spent deliberating his decision at his private golf club. Trump insisted he still hadn’t locked down his decision, which he wants to keep under wraps until a 9 p.m. Monday announcement from the White House.

While Trump didn’t name the four, top contenders for the role have included federal appeals judges Brett Kavanaugh, Raymond Kethledge, Amy Coney Barrett and Thomas Hardiman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh

Brett Kavanaugh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Brett Kavanaugh
Judge Brett Kavanaugh.jpg
Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Assumed office
May 30, 2006
Appointed by George W. Bush
Preceded by Laurence Silberman
White House Staff Secretary
In office
June 6, 2003 – May 30, 2006
President George W. Bush
Preceded by Harriet Miers
Succeeded by Raul F. Yanes
Personal details
Born Brett Michael Kavanaugh
February 12, 1965 (age 53)
Washington, D.C., U.S.
Political party Republican
Spouse(s) Ashley Estes (m. 2004)
Education Yale University (BAJD)

Brett Michael Kavanaugh (born February 12, 1965) is a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He was Staff Secretary in the Executive Office of the President of the United States under President George W. Bush.

A protégé of Kenneth Starr, Kavanaugh played a lead role in drafting the Starr report, which urged the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.[1] Kavanaugh led the investigation into the suicide of Clinton aide Vincent Foster. After the 2000 U.S. presidential election, in which Kavanaugh worked for the George W. Bush campaign in the Florida recount, Kavanaugh joined Bush’s staff, where he led the Administration’s effort to identify and confirm judicial nominees.[2]

Kavanaugh was nominated to the D.C. Appeals Court by Bush in 2003. His confirmation hearings were contentious and stalled for three years over charges of partisanship. Kavanaugh was ultimately confirmed in May 2006 after a series of negotiations between Democratic and Republican senators.[3][4][5]

Following Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy‘s retirement, effective July 31, 2018, Kavanaugh was nominated by President Trump on July 9, 2018, to fill the vacancy.[6][7]

Early life

Kavanaugh was born on February 12, 1965 in Washington, D.C., and raised in BethesdaMaryland, the son of Martha Gamble (Murphy) and Everett Edward Kavanaugh, Jr.[8][9] His mother served as a Maryland state Circuit Court Judge from 1995 to 2001.[10] He is a Roman Catholic and graduated from the Georgetown Preparatory School.

After graduating from Georgetown Prep, Kavanaugh attended Yale University and graduated with a Bachelor of Artscum laude, in 1987. At Yale, he joined the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity. He then attended Yale Law School, and graduated with a Juris Doctor in 1990. At Yale Law, he served as Notes Editor of the Yale Law Journal. He is married to Ashley Estes, a native of AbileneTexas, who formerly served as Personal Secretary to the President in the White House at the same time as her future husband. They have two daughters, Margaret and Liza.

Kavanaugh first worked as a law clerk for Judge Walter King Stapleton of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and Judge Alex Kozinski of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[11]Kavanaugh then earned a one-year fellowship with the Solicitor General of the United StatesKen Starr.[11] Kavanaugh next clerked for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.[11]

Office of the Independent Counsel

After his Supreme Court clerkship, Kavanaugh worked for Starr again, now as an Associate Counsel in the Office of Independent Counsel, where he handled a number of the novel constitutional and legal issues presented during that investigation and was a principal author of the Starr Report to Congress on the Monica LewinskyBill Clinton and Vincent Foster investigation.[12] There, Kavanaugh argued on broad grounds for the impeachment of Bill Clinton.[13] Kavanaugh was later a partner at the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis.[11] In Swidler & Berlin v. United States (1998), Kavanaugh argued his first and only case before the Supreme Court when he asked it to disregard attorney–client privilege in relation to the investigation of Foster’s death.[14] The Supreme Court rejected Kavanaugh’s arguments by a vote of 6–3.[15]

Bush White House

After George W. Bush became president in 2001, Kavanaugh served for two years as Senior Associate Counsel and Associate Counsel to the President.[11] In that capacity, he worked on the numerous constitutional, legal, and ethical issues handled by that office. Starting in 2003, he served as Assistant to the President and as the White House Staff Secretary.[11] In that capacity, he was responsible for coordinating all documents to and from the president.

D.C. Circuit nomination and confirmation

Kavanaugh sworn in by Justice Kennedy as President Bush and Kavanaugh’s wife, Ashley, look on.

President George W. Bush first nominated Kavanaugh to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on July 25, 2003, to a vacancy created by Judge Laurence Silberman, who took senior status in November 2000.[16] Kavanaugh’s nomination was stalled in the Senate for nearly three years. Democratic Senators accused him of being too partisan, with Senator Dick Durbin calling him the “Forrest Gump of Republican politics.”[17]

The United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary recommended confirmation on a 10–8 party-line vote on May 11, 2006, and Kavanaugh was thereafter confirmed to the court[18][19][20] by the U.S. Senate on May 26, 2006 by a vote of 57–36. On June 1, 2006, he was sworn in by Justice Anthony Kennedy, for whom he had previously clerked, during a special Rose Garden ceremony at the White House.[21] Kavanaugh was the fourth judge nominated to the D.C. Circuit by Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate. Kavanaugh began hearing cases on September 11, 2006 and had his formal investiture on September 27 at the Prettyman Courthouse. His first published opinion was released on November 17, 2006. He authored the opinion of the court for a unanimous three-judge panel in the case of National Fuel Gas Supply Corp. v. FERC.

Accusations of misleading Senate committee

In July 2007, Democratic Senators Patrick Leahy and Dick Durbin accused Kavanaugh of “misleading” the Senate committee during his nomination stemming from the Bush White House detention policy.[22]

Opinions

Judge Kavanaugh in 2016

Abortion

Kavanugh has stated that he considers Roe v. Wade binding under stare decisis and would seek to uphold it,[23] but has also ruled in favor of some restrictions for abortion.[24][25][26]

In May 2006, Kavanaugh stated he “would follow Roe v. Wade faithfully and fully” and that the issue of the legality of abortion has already “been decided by the Supreme Court.”[23] During the hearing, he stated that a right to an abortion has been found “many times”, citing Planned Parenthood v. Casey.[23]

In October 2017, Kavanaugh joined an unsigned divided panel opinion which found that the Office of Refugee Resettlement could prevent an unaccompanied minor in its custody from obtaining an abortion.[26] Days later, the en banc D.C. Circuit reversed that judgment, with Kavanaugh now dissenting.[24] The D.C. Circuit’s opinion was then itself vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Garza v. Hargan (2018).[25]

Affordable Care Act

In November 2011, Kavanaugh dissented when the D.C. Circuit upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), arguing that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case.[27][28] In 2014, Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment when the en banc D.C. Circuit found that the Free Speech Clause did not forbid the government from requiring meatpackers to include a country of origin label on their products.[29][30] After a unanimous panel found that the ACA did not violate the Constitution’s Origination Clause in Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services (2014), Kavanaugh wrote a lengthy dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc.[31][32]

Economics and environmental regulation

After Kavanaugh wrote for a divided panel striking down a Clean Air Act regulation, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed 6–2 in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. (2014).[33][34] Kavanaugh dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc of a unanimous panel opinion upholding the agency’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and a fractured Supreme Court reversed 5 to 4 in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency (2014).[35][36] After Judge Kavanaugh dissented from a per curiam decisionallowing the agency to disregard cost–benefit analysis, the Supreme Court reversed 5–4 in Michigan v. EPA (2015).[37][38]

In 2015, Kavanaugh found that those directly regulated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) could challenge the constitutionality of its design.[39][40] In October 2016, Kavanaugh wrote for a divided panel finding that the CFPB’s design was unconstitutional, and made the CFPB Director removable by the President of the United States.[41][42] In January 2018, the en banc D.C. Circuit reversed that judgment by a vote of 7–3, over the dissent of Kavanaugh.[43][44]

Terrorism

In 2014, Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment when the en banc circuit found that Ali al-Bahlul could be retroactively convicted of war crimes, provided existing statute already made it a crime “because it does not alter the definition of the crime, the defenses or the punishment”.[45][46] In October 2016, Kavanaugh wrote the plurality opinion when the en banc circuit found al-Bahlul could be convicted by a military commission even if his offenses are not internationally recognized as war crimes under the law of war.[47][48]

In Meshal v. Higgenbotham (2016), Kavanaugh concurred when the divided panel threw out a claim by an American that he had been disappeared by the FBI in a Kenyan black site.[49][50]

Scholarship

In 2009, Kavanaugh wrote an article for the Minnesota Law Review where he argued that U.S. Presidents should be exempt from “time-consuming and distracting” lawsuits and investigations, which “would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis.”[51] This article garnered attention in 2018 when Kavanaugh was considered among leading candidates to be nominated to the Supreme Court by President Donald Trump, whose 2016 presidential campaign is the subject of an ongoing federal probe by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.[51]

When reviewing a book on statutory interpretation by Second Circuit Chief Judge Robert Katzmann, Kavanaugh observed that judges often cannot agree on a statute if its text is ambiguous.[52] To remedy this, Kavanaugh encouraged judges to first seek the “best reading” of the statute, through “interpreting the words of the statute” as well as the context of the statute as a whole, and only then apply other interpretive techniques that may justify an interpretation that differs from the “best meaning” such as constitutional avoidancelegislative history, and Chevron deference.[52]

Statistical projections

Several academic studies that have attempted to measure judges based on their ideology or “Scalia-ness” have included Kavanaugh.

One study “derived ideology scores for the D.C. Circuit judges based on lawyers’ (who practiced before these judges) perceptions of the judges’ political preferences,” with Kavanaugh ranked as the fifth most conservative judge on the court.[53] The same study praised Kavanaugh’s “ability to toe a moderate line while ruling predominantly conservatively,” as well as “his moderately conservative behavior and his high level of agreement with the other judges on the circuit.”[53] The study further observed that “[c]ompared to the recent addition of Justice Gorsuch to the Supreme Court . . . Judge Kavanaugh uses less originalist and textualist language in his opinions although he is well-versed in statutory interpretation.”[53]

FiveThirtyEight used Judicial Common Space scores, which are based not off of a judge’s behavior, but rather the ideology scores of either home state senators or the appointing president, to find that Kavanaugh would likely be more conservative than Justices Alito and Gorsuch, but less conservative than Justice Thomas, if placed on the Supreme Court.[54] The Washington Post’s statistical projections predicted that all of Trump’s announced candidates were “largely statistically indistinguishable” and estimating that Kavanaugh would place ideologically between Justices Gorsuch and Alito.[55]

Supreme Court nomination

According to the New York Times, on July 2, 2018, Kavanaugh was one of four circuit judges to receive a personal 45 minute interview by President Donald Trump to replace Justice Kennedy. On July 9, President Trump nominated Kavanaugh for a seat on the Supreme Court.[56]

See also

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh

 

Thomas Hardiman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Thomas M. Hardiman
JudgeThomasHardiman.pdf
Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Assumed office
April 2, 2007
Appointed by George W. Bush
Preceded by Richard Lowell Nygaard
Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
In office
October 27, 2003 – April 5, 2007
Appointed by George W. Bush
Preceded by William Lloyd Standish
Succeeded by Cathy Bissoon
Personal details
Born Thomas Michael Hardiman
July 8, 1965 (age 53)
WinchesterMassachusetts, U.S.
Political party Republican
Education University of Notre Dame (BA)
Georgetown Law (JD)

Thomas Michael Hardiman (born July 8, 1965) is a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Nominated by President George W. Bush, he began active service on April 2, 2007 and maintains chambers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He was previously a United States District Judge.

In 2017, Hardiman was a finalist to succeed Antonin Scalia as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, alongside eventual nominee Neil M. Gorsuch.[1] The next year, following Justice Anthony Kennedyannouncing his retirement from the Supreme Court, Hardiman was once again considered a front-runner to fill the vacant seat.[2]

Early life and education

Hardiman was born in 1965 in WinchesterMassachusetts, and was raised in Waltham.[3][4] His father, Robert, owned and operated a taxicab and school transportation business and his mother, Judith, was a homemaker and bookkeeper for the family business.[3][4][5]

As a teenager, Hardiman began working part-time as a taxi driver, which he continued to do throughout high school and college.[5][6] In 1983, he graduated from Waltham High School.[7]

He was the first person in his family to graduate from college, receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Notre Dame on an academic scholarship and graduating with honors in 1987.[3][5] He then studied law at Georgetown University Law Center, where he served as an editor of the Georgetown Law Journal[3] and a member of the moot court team,[8] while working at law firms during the summers and academic terms to help pay his tuition.[9] He received a Juris Doctor with honors in 1990.[3][9]

Career prior to the bench

After graduation, Hardiman joined the Washington, D.C. office of the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, where he was an associate in the litigation department from 1989–1992.[3] From 1992–1999, he practiced with the Pittsburgh law firm of Titus & McConomy, first as an associate, and then from 1996–1999 as a partner.[9] From 1999–2003, he was a partner in the litigation department at law firm of Reed Smith, also in Pittsburgh.[3] His practice consisted mainly of civil and white-collar criminal litigation.[10]

Federal bench nominations and confirmations

Hardiman was appointed by President George W. Bush to be a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. He was nominated to that position on April 9, 2003, and confirmed by voice vote on October 22, 2003.[11] He received his commission on October 27, 2003 and took the bench on November 1, 2003.[3]

Hardiman was subsequently nominated to the Third Circuit by President Bush on January 9, 2007, to fill a seat vacated by Judge Richard Lowell Nygaard (who had assumed senior status in 2005).[11] Hardiman was confirmed to that seat by the U.S. Senate by a vote of 95–0 on March 15, 2007. He received his commission on April 2, 2007.[11][12] He was the seventh judge appointed to the Third Circuit by Bush.

Notable rulings

Police and prison powers

In Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders (2010), Hardiman held that a jail policy of strip-searching everyone who is arrested does not violate the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures in the Fourth Amendment.[13] The Supreme Court affirmed this decision in 2012.

In Barkes v. First Correctional Medical, Inc. (2014), Hardiman dissented from a ruling that two Delaware prison officials could be sued for failing to provide adequate suicide prevention protocols after a mentally ill inmate committed suicide. The Supreme Court agreed and unanimously reversed in Taylor v. Barkes.[14]

Capital punishment

Hardiman is a supporter of capital punishment.[15][16]

Criminal sentencing

In United States v. Abbott (2009), Hardiman held that a defendant’s mandatory minimum sentence is not affected by the imposition of another mandatory minimum for a different offense.[17] The Supreme Court affirmed in 2010.

In United States v. Fisher (2007), Hardiman ruled that a judge could find facts to enhance a criminal sentence according to the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof.[18]

Religious freedom

In Busch v. Marple Newtown School District (2008), Hardiman wrote a dissenting opinion in favor of parents who described themselves as Evangelical Christians and were barred from reading from the Bible during a kindergarten “show and tell” presentation. Hardiman wrote that “the school went too far in this case in limiting participation in ‘All About Me’ week to nonreligious perspectives,” which “plainly constituted” discrimination. Hardiman wrote that “the majority’s desire to protect young children from potentially influential speech in the classroom is understandable,” but that students cannot be barred from expressing “what is most important” about themselves.[19]

Gun rights

In United States vs. Barton (2011), Hardiman rejected a challenge to the federal law that bans felons from owning firearms.[20] However, in Binderup v. Attorney General (2016), he held that such a prohibition could cover only dangerous persons who are likely to use firearms for illicit purposes. He wrote “the most cogent principle that can be drawn from traditional limitations on the right to keep and bear arms is that dangerous persons likely to use firearms for illicit purposes were not understood to be protected by the Second Amendment.”[21]

In the 2013 case Drake v. Filko, Hardiman filed a dissenting opinion arguing that the New Jersey requirement that gun owners must show a “justifiable need” to carry a handgun was unconstitutional. Hardiman cited the case District of Columbia v. Heller, writing that based on the Heller ruling, the Second Amendment “protects an inherent right to self-defense.”[22][23]

Free speech

In the 2006 case United States v. Stevens, Hardiman voted to strike down a federal law that criminalized videos depicting animal cruelty.[24]

In the 2010 case Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle, Hardiman ruled that a police officer had qualified immunity because there was no clearly established First Amendment right to videotape police officers during traffic stops.[25]

In the 2013 case B.H. ex rel. Hawk v. Easton Area School District, Hardiman dissented from the court’s holding that a public school violated the First Amendment by banning middle-school students from wearing bracelets inscribed “I [love] boobies!” that were sold by a breast cancer awareness group.[26]

In the 2014 case Lodge No. 5 of Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Philadelphia, Hardiman struck down a city charter provision barring police officers from donating to their union’s political action committee, under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.[27]

Immigration

In the 2010 case Valdiviezo-Galdamez v. Attorney General, Hardiman ruled in favor of a man from Honduras who was seeking asylum in the United States to avoid being recruited into a violent gang.[28]

In the 2015 case Di Li Li v. Attorney General, Hardiman opined that the Board of Immigration Appeals must reopen a case when an asylum seeker from China converted to Christianity and argued that “conditions have worsened over time” for Christians in China.[29]

In the 2017 case Cazun v. Attorney General, Hardiman concurred in the judgment to explain that the Immigration and Nationality Act unambiguously forbids aliens subject to reinstated removal orders from applying for asylum and the court should have held as much without resorting to Chevron deference.[30]

LGBT Community

In Brian D. Prowel v. Wise Business Forms, INC., Hardiman “wrote for the court in allowing a gender-stereotyping claim by a gay man who described himself as “effeminate” to go forward, reversing the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the company where the man worked, and which ultimately fired him”.[31] Hardiman determined that the Mr. Prowel’s case could move forward because he is allowed to argue that he faced discrimination for not conforming to the company’s vision of gender norms.[32]

Commerce

In the 2011 case United States v. Pendleton, a man who sexually molested a 15-year-old boy in Germany was convicted and sentenced in Delaware under the PROTECT Act of 2003. The defendant argued that the PROTECT Act was unconstitutional based on the Foreign Commerce Clause. Hardiman ruled that the PROTECT Act was valid because of an “express connection” to the channels of foreign commerce.[33]

In 2018, Hardiman held for the en banc court in Rotkiske v. Klemm that, contrary to decisions of the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, the statute of limitations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act begins to run when a violation of the Act occurs, not when the violation is later discovered.[34]

Affiliations and recognition

Before becoming a judge, Hardiman was a member of the bars of PennsylvaniaMassachusetts, and the District of Columbia.[3] Since 2013, Hardiman has served as chair of the Committee on Information Technology of the Judicial Conference of the United States.[35][36]As of January 2017, he was a member of the American Law Institute, a master of the Edward M. Sell University of Pittsburgh Chapter of the American Inns of Court, and a fellow in the Academy of Trial Lawyers of Allegheny County.[3][37][better source needed]

In 2010 Hardiman received the Georgetown University Law Center‘s Paul R. Dean Award recognizing distinguished alumni.[3][9]

Personal life

Hardiman married Lori Hardiman (née Zappala), an attorney and real estate professional, in 1992.[38] The Zappala family, which includes Stephen Zappala and Stephen Zappala Sr., are prominent Democrats.[38][5] Hardiman is the father of three children.[39]

As a student, Hardiman participated in an exchange program in Mexico, and he later volunteered with the Ayuda immigration legal aid office in Washington, D.C., representing immigrants.[5]

Hardiman is a board member and former president of Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Pittsburgh.[3]

See also

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hardiman

Raymond Kethledge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Raymond M. Kethledge
Raymond.Kethledge427.jpg
Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Assumed office
July 7, 2008
Appointed by George W. Bush
Preceded by James L. Ryan
Personal details
Born Raymond Michael Kethledge
December 11, 1966 (age 51)
SummitNew Jersey, U.S.
Spouse(s) Jessica Levinson (m. 1993)
Relations Raymond W. Ketchledge(grandfather)
Children 2
Education University of Michigan (BAJD)

Raymond Michael Kethledge (born December 11, 1966) is a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Kethledge appeared on Donald Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees in 2016, and was described by press reports as a finalist in President Trump’s nomination to replace Anthony Kennedy on the court.[1]

Early life and education

Kethledge was born in SummitNew Jersey, the son of Diane and Ray Kethledge.[2][3] His paternal grandfather was Raymond W. Ketchledge, an engineer who invented an acoustically guided torpedo that was used to sink dozens of German U-boats during World War II.[4]

He grew up in Michigan, and has since lived in Michigan, with the exception of the three years he worked in Washington D.C. Kethledge graduated from Birmingham Groves High School in the Birmingham Public School District. He attended the University of Michigan, graduating in 1989 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in history. He then attended the University of Michigan Law School, graduating magna cum laude (and second in his class) with a Juris Doctor in 1993.[5]

Career

After graduating, Kethledge clerked for Sixth Circuit Judge Ralph B. Guy Jr. in 1994 in Ann Arbor, Michigan.[6] After finishing his clerkship, he served as judiciary counsel to Michigan Senator Spencer Abraham from 1995 to 1997. Following that, Kethledge clerked for Supreme Court of the United States Justice Anthony Kennedy in 1997.

After completing his Supreme Court clerkship, Kethledge returned to Michigan in 1998 to join the law firm of Honigman, Miller, Schwartz & Cohn, where he became a partner. In 2001, he joined Ford Motor Company as in-house counsel in the company’s Dearborn headquarters. He later joined Feeney, Kellett, Wienner & Bush as a partner. In 2003, Kethledge co-founded a boutique litigation firm, now known as Bush, Seyferth & Paige, with its office in Troy, Michigan. In addition to his duties as a federal judge, Kethledge teaches a course at the University of Michigan Law School called “Fundamentals of Appellate Practice,” which focuses on the elements of good legal writing.[7]

Federal judicial service

Kethledge was first nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit by President George W. Bush on June 28, 2006, to replace Judge James L. Ryan.[8] From November 2001 to March 2006, Henry Saad had been nominated to the seat, but he had been filibustered by the Senate Democrats and later withdrew. Kethledge’s nomination lapsed when the 109th Congress adjourned in December 2006. Bush again nominated Kethledge on March 19, 2007. However, his nomination stalled for over a year due to opposition from Michigan’s two Democratic Senators, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow.

In April 2008, the Bush administration struck a deal with Levin and Stabenow to break the logjam on judicial nominees to federal courts in Michigan. In exchange for Levin and Stabenow supporting Kethledge’s nomination (and that of United States Attorney Stephen J. Murphy III to a district court position), Bush nominated Democratic Michigan state judge Helene White, a failed former Clinton nominee to the Sixth Circuit who had been married to Levin’s cousin at the time of her first nomination.[9] Soon afterwards, Kethledge, White, and Murphy were granted a joint hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 7, 2008. Kethledge was voted out of committee by voice vote on June 12, 2008. On June 24, 2008, he was confirmed by voice vote, almost exactly two years after his original nomination.[10] He received his commission on July 7, 2008. Kethledge was the eighth judge nominated to the Sixth Circuit by Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate.[11]

In 2014, The Wall Street Journal’s ‘Review & Outlook’ editorial described Kethledge’s ruling in EEOC v. Kaplan as the “Opinion of the Year”.[12] In 2016, in another ‘Review & Outlook’ editorial,[13] the Wall Street Journal cited Kethledge’s opinion in In re United States, 817 F.3d 953 (6th Cir. 2016), saying: “Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, Judge Raymond Kethledge dismantled that argument and excoriated the IRS for stonewalling…” Commentators have noted that Kethledge has “broadly criticized judicial deference and specifically criticized deference to federal agencies under Chevron”[14] and “has set himself apart as a dedicated defender of the Constitution’s structural protections.”[15]

In May 2016, Kethledge was included on President Donald Trump‘s list of potential Supreme Court justices.[16] On July 2, 2018, Kethledge was one of the four circuit judges given a personal 45-minute interview in consideration of the vacancy created by Justice Kennedy’s retirement.[17]

Judge Kethledge’s originalism

In July 2018, conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post endorsing Kethledge for the seat left vacant by Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Anthony Kennedy‘s retirement, declaring that “Kethledge has been faithful for more than a decade to the originalist approach.”[18] In Turner v. United States, 885 F.3d 949, 955 (6th Cir. 2018), Kethledge joined a concurring opinion that argued “faithful adherence to the Constitution and its Amendments requires us to examine their terms as they were commonly understood when the text was adopted and ratified.” In Tyler v. Hillsdale Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 837 F.3d 678, 710 (6th Cir. 2016). Kethledge joined a concurring opinion that quoted District of Columbia v. Heller, declaring that “[w]hat determines the scope of the right to bear arms are the ‘historical justifications’ that gave birth to it.”

Book

In 2017, Kethledge coauthored a book with Michael S. Erwin, a West Point graduate and military veteran.[19] The book, entitled Lead Yourself First: Inspiring Leadership Through Solitude, details how leaders can benefit from solitude. Among the leaders profiled in the book are General James Mattis, Pope John Paul II, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., and many others. Through these profiles, Kethledge illustrates how leaders must identify their first principles “with enough clarity and conviction to hold fast to [them]—even when, inevitably, there are great pressures to yield.” Doing so, Kethledge writes, requires “conviction of purpose, and the moral courage” to choose principle over popularity.[19]

The book has been reviewed on Above The Law,[20] in The Washington Post, [21] and in Publishers Weekly.[22] The Wall Street Journal said the book “makes a compelling argument for the integral relationship between solitude and leadership.”[23]

Notable opinions

The Green Bag Almanac has recognized Judge Kethledge for “exemplary legal writing” in two different years: in 2013 (for Bennett v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance)[24] and in 2017 (for Wayside Church v. Van Buren County).[25]

Major cases

In United States v. Carpenter (2016), Kethledge wrote for the divided court when it found that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution did not require police to get a warrant before obtaining the cell site location information of a mobile phone.[6][26] In June 2018, the Supreme Court reversed that judgment by a vote of 5–4.[6]

In Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community (2012), Kethledge wrote for a unanimous court when it found that tribal sovereign immunity and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act prevented the state from blocking construction of an Indian casino.[6][27] In May 2014, the Supreme Court affirmed that judgment by a vote of 5–4.[28]

In 2008, Kethledge wrote a concurrence when the full en banc circuit agreed with the Ohio Republican Party‘s claim that the Help America Vote Act required the state to match voters’ registrations with other public records.[6][29] In October 2008, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed that judgment in an unsigned opinion.[6][30]

Kethledge recused himself when the en banc circuit found that Michigan voters could not amend their constitution to ban affirmative action.[6] In Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (2014), a plurality of the Supreme Court reversed that judgment by a vote of 6–2.[31]

In June 2017, Kethledge wrote for the en banc circuit when it, by a vote of 9–6, rejected Gary OtteRonald Phillips, and Raymond Tibbetts claims that the method of capital punishment in Ohio violated the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[6][32]

In May 2013, Kethledge wrote for the en banc circuit when it affirmed the death sentence of Marvin Gabrion.[6][33] Gabrion had murdered Rachel Timmerman, a 19-year-old woman who had reported him for raping her. He bound and gagged her, tied her to concrete blocks, and drowned her in a weedy lake. Because he murdered Timmerman in a national forest, Gabrion committed a federal crime and was also eligible for the death penalty even though the surrounding State of Michigan had outlawed that penalty. The United States charged Gabrion with murder. A jury convicted him and imposed the death penalty. On appeal, Gabrion argued that the district court should have allowed him to argue to the jury that a death sentence was unfair because he would have been ineligible for that sentence had he murdered Timmerman in nearby Michigan territory. According to Gabrion, the murder’s location was a “circumstances of the offense” and thus the kind of “mitigating factor” the Eighth Amendment and Federal Death Penalty Act allow a jury to weigh during sentencing. Writing for a majority of the en banc court, Judge Kethledge rejected that challenge. He wrote that not every “circumstance of the offense” is a “mitigating” factor; otherwise, jurors could consider the “moonphase” during sentencing. Kethledge further explained that mitigating evidence is evidence relevant to a “reasoned moral response to the defendant’s background, character, and crime,” and that the murder’s location was not that kind of evidence.

In Bailey v. Callaghan,[34] the Sixth Circuit considered the constitutionality of a Michigan law that made it illegal for public-school employers to use their resources to collect union dues. As a result of the law, unions had to collect their own membership dues from public-school employees. A number of Michigan public-school unions and union members filed suit, alleging that the law was unconstitutional. Judge Kethledge, writing for the majority, disagreed. The law does not violate the First Amendment, Judge Kethledge explained, because the law “does not restrict the unions’ speech at all: they remain free to speak about whatever they wish.” As for the unions’ Equal Protection challenge, Kethledge first observed: “The applicability of rational-basis review is a strong signal that the issue is one for resolution by the democratic process rather than by the courts.” Judge Kethledge then went on to conclude that there is a conceivable legitimate interest in restricting the use of public-school resources. As a result, the law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.[6]

In EEOC v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp., 748 F.3d 749 (6th Cir. 2014), the EEOC alleged that Kaplan’s policy of running credit checks on job applicants had a “disparate impact” on African American applicants. To support its claim, the EEOC hired an expert witness who reviewed an unrepresentative sample of Kaplan job applications and asserted that the credit checks had flagged more African American applicants for scrutiny than white applicants. The purported expert had identified the applicants’ races by tasking “race raters” with “eyeballing” the applicants’ drivers’ license photos. The District Court struck the expert’s analysis as unreliable. On appeal, Judge Kethledge wrote a unanimous opinion affirming. He explained that the EEOC had relied on a “homemade methodology, crafted by a witness with no particular expertise to craft it, administered by persons with no particular expertise to administer it, tested by no one, and accepted only by the witness himself.” The Wall Street Journal’s Editorial Board later commended Judge Kethledge for writing the “Opinion of the Year” and delivering a “sublime” “legal smackdown” that “eviscerated the EEOC like a first-day law student.”

In In re United States, 817 F.3d 953 (6th Cir. 2016), the NorCal Tea Party Patriots filed a class action against the IRS for targeting conservative groups “for mistreatment based on their political views.” The district court ordered the IRS to disclose, among other internal records, the list of the groups it had targeted. Rather than complying with that order, the IRS appealed. In an opinion for the unanimous majority, Judge Kethledge called the allegations “[a]mong the most serious [] a federal court can address” and, according to the Wall Street Journal, “excoriated the IRS for stonewalling during discovery.” Judge Kethledge ordered the IRS to “comply with the district court’s discovery orders . . . without redactions, and without further delay.” And he rebuked the IRS’s attorneys for failing to uphold the Justice Department’s “long and storied tradition of defending the nation’s interest and enforcing its laws—all of them, not just selective ones—in a manner worthy of the Department’s name.” That opinion was also praised by the Wall Street Journal’s Editorial Board.[6]

Other cases

In 2012, in an opinion by Kethledge in Sierra Club v. Korleski,[35] the Sixth Circuit rejected the argument by environmental groups and the federal Environmental Protection Agency that private persons can sue the State of Ohio under the Clean Air Act’s citizen-suit provision to enforce a state-enacted pollution-control plan against minor polluters. The court held, based on Bennett v. Spear,[36] that the citizen-suit provision does not permit a citizen to sue a state for its failure to perform a regulatory duty. Kethledge wrote that, “[i]n construing a statute, the words matter.” And the court overturned its own precedent reaching the opposite conclusion as superseded by Bennett, describing the earlier decision as “a bottle of dubious vintage, whose contents turned to vinegar long ago, and which we need not consume here.”[35]

Also in 2012, in United States v. CTH,[37] a district court found, by a “preponderance” of the evidence, that the defendant had distributed enough heroin to qualify for up to a 60-month maximum sentence rather than a shorter 12-month maximum sentence. Writing for the court, Kethledge confronted the question whether the Due Process Clause required the district court to find the heroin quantity at the higher standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” To resolve the case, Kethledge applied the relevant Supreme Court precedent. He noted that, in In re Winship, the Supreme Court held: “[T]he Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.” And in Apprendi, which rests on Winship, the Supreme Court “held that ‘… such facts’—meaning facts increasing a defendant’s statutory-maximum sentence—‘must be established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Faced with this precedent, Kethledge found the government’s arguments meritless, writing: “The government, for its part, offers no path out of this box canyon of precedent. . . . The government gives us no reason, therefore, not to apply Apprendi’s due-process holding to CTH’s case.” The court thus held that the district court’s drug-quantity finding should have been made beyond a reasonable doubt.

In Waldman v. Stone,[38] the Sixth Circuit held, in an opinion by Kethledge, that bankruptcy courts lack constitutional authority to enter final judgment on a state-law claim brought by a debtor to augment the estate, even where both parties consent to resolution by a bankruptcy court. The Sixth Circuit concluded that to grant final judgment on those claims would be to exercise the judicial power of the United States, which bankruptcy judges may not do because they lack the life tenure and salary protection guaranteed by Article III of the Constitution, and this infringement on the separation of powers cannot be waived by private litigants. The Supreme Court later reached the opposite conclusion in Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, 1353 S. Ct. 1932 (2015), over the dissent of Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas.

In United States v. Bistline, 665 F.3d 758 (6th Cir. 2013), Richard Bistline pled guilty to knowingly possessing child pornography. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, Bistline’s recommended sentence was 63 to 78 months’ imprisonment. The district court rejected that recommendation, however, on the ground that Congress had written the relevant guideline itself, rather than allowing the Sentencing Commission to do so. The court then sentenced Bistline to a single night’s confinement in the courthouse lockup, plus ten years’ supervised release. The Sixth Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Kethledge, vacated that sentence as substantively unreasonable. Judge Kethledge explained that the Commission had the authority to fix criminal penalties only because Congress had given the Commission that authority. Thus, saying that “Congress has encroached too much on the Commission’s authority” was “like saying a Senator has encroached upon the authority of her chief of staff, or a federal judge upon that of his law clerk.” It may be true that Congress had marginalized the Sentencing Commission’s role, Judge Kethledge concluded, but “Congress can marginalize the Commission all it wants: Congress created it.”

In United States v. Hughes, 733 F.3d 642 (6th Cir. 2013), Albert Hughes pled guilty to federal drug charges and was sentenced to the mandatory minimum. The Sixth Circuit later vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing. Before the resentencing could occur, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the applicable mandatory minimum. The district court nevertheless reinstated the same sentence. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. In an opinion by Judge Kethledge, the court held that a crime’s penalty is normally the one on the books when the crime was committed, and Hughes could not point to anything that overcame that presumption. The court also rejected the argument that three other statutory provisions, when read together, created a “background sentencing principle” that the court should follow the latest views of Congress and the Sentencing Commission. Judge Kethledge explained that this argument “has little to do with what the statutes actually say, and more to do, apparently, with one’s perception of their mood or animating purpose.” He continued: “But statutes are not artistic palettes, from which the court can daub different colors until it obtains a desired effect. Statutes are instead law, which are bounded in a meaningful sense by the words that Congress chose in enacting them.”

In In re Dry Max Pampers Litigation, 724 F.3d 713 (6th Cir. 2013), the Sixth Circuit reviewed a class-action settlement agreement that awarded each named plaintiff $1000 per child, awarded class counsel $2.73 million, and “provide[d] the unnamed class members with nothing but nearly worthless injunctive relief.” Judge Kethledge, writing for the majority, rejected the settlement as unfair. He found that the parties’ assertions regarding the value of the settlement to unnamed class members were “premised upon a fictive world, where harried parents of young children clip and retain Pampers UPC codes for years on end, where parents lack the sense (absent intervention by P&G) to call a doctor when their infant displays symptoms like boils and weeping discharge, where those same parents care as acutely as P&G does about every square centimeter of a Pampers box, and where parents regard Pampers.com, rather than Google, as their portal for important information about their children’s health.” As a result, Judge Kethledge explained, “[t]he relief that the settlement provide[d] to unnamed class member [was] illusory. But one fact about this settlement is concrete and indisputable: $2.73 million is $2.73 million.” Judge Kethledge also found that the named plaintiffs were inadequate representatives of the class. “The $1000-per-child payments,” Judge Kethledge concluded, “provided a disincentive for the class members to care about the adequacy of the relief afforded to unnamed class members, and instead encouraged the class representatives ‘to compromise the interest of the class for personal gain.’”

In John B. v. Emkes, 710 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 2013), a federal district court had entered a consent decree governing the steps that Tennessee’s Medicaid Program had to take in order to achieve and maintain compliance with the Medicaid Act. Tennessee later moved to vacate the consent decree largely on the ground that the state was in substantial compliance with the decree’s provisions. The district court granted the motion. In an opinion by Judge Kethledge, the Sixth Circuit affirmed. Judge Kethledge explained that Tennessee was in substantial compliance with all but one part of the decree. He then explained that the failure to comply with that provision did not justify continuing federal control of the state’s Medicaid program. “Consent decrees are not entitlements,” Judge Kethledge wrote; instead, “a decree may remain in force only as long as it continues to remedy a violation of federal law.” And because Tennessee had brought its Medicaid program into compliance with the Medicaid Act, continued enforcement of the decree was not only unnecessary, but improper.

In Shane Group, Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 825 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2016), Blue Cross customers filed a class action alleging that Blue Cross conspired with hospitals throughout Michigan to artificially inflate insurance rates by a total of more than $13 billion. Class Counsel and Blue Cross, however, agreed to settle the claims for only $30 million, largely on the basis of an expert report that the district court had sealed from public view. The district court refused to let the absent class members examine the sealed report and then approved the settlement over their objections and without meaningful scrutiny. Judge Kethledge, writing for a unanimous panel, vacated the settlement agreement and ordered the district court to unseal the substantive filings, restart the objection process, and ensure that the proposed settlement agreement received meaningful scrutiny on remand.

In Wheaton v. McCarthy, 800 F.3d 282 (6th Cir. 2015), the Sixth Circuit held, in an opinion by Judge Kethledge, that an Ohio administrative agency had unreasonably determined that the statutory term “family” did not include a Medicare beneficiary’s live-in spouse. The court noted that some statutory terms “are ambiguous only at the margins, while clearly encompassing a certain core.” Thus, “[t]he term ‘planet’ might be ambiguous as applied to Pluto, but is clear as applied to Jupiter.”

Personal life

Kethledge is married to Jessica Levinson Kethledge, who worked for the Red Cross.[39] They have a son and daughter.[40]

When Kethledge is in northern Michigan, he works in an office he created in a family barn near Lake Huron. The office has a wood stove for heat and a pine desk for a work space.[41] He has spoken publicly about hunting with his son in the Michigan wilderness.[42]

Affiliations

Kethledge was elected to the American Law Institute in 2013[43] and currently serves as an adviser to the Institute’s panel preparing its Restatement of the Law, Consumer Contracts.[44]

Further reading

See also

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Kethledge

Amy Coney Barrett

See the source image

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Amy Coney Barrett
Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Assumed office
November 2, 2017
Appointed by Donald Trump
Preceded by John Daniel Tinder
Personal details
Born Amy Vivian Coney
1972 (age 45–46)
New OrleansLouisiana, U.S.
Education Rhodes College (BA)
Notre Dame Law School (JD)
Academic work
Discipline Jurisprudence
Institutions University of Notre Dame
Website Notre Dame Law Biography

Amy Coney Barrett (born 1972)[1][2] is a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. She was previously a professor of law at Notre Dame Law School and the John M. Olin Fellow in Law at George Washington University Law School.[2][3][4]

Barrett has been included on President Trump’s “shortlist” of potential Supreme Court nominees since 2017. Following the retirement announcement of Anthony Kennedy, she has been mentioned as a possible successor.[5][6]

Education and career

Barrett graduated from St. Mary’s Dominican High School in New Orleans in 1990.[7] In 1994, Barrett graduated magna cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts in English literature from Rhodes College, where she was a Phi Beta Kappa member.[8] In 1997, she graduated Summa Cum Laude from the Notre Dame Law School with a Juris Doctor, where she was executive editor of the Notre Dame Law Review.[9]

After graduation, Barrett served as a law clerk to Judge Laurence Silberman of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[10] She then spent a year as clerk to Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1998–99.[10] From 1999 to 2002, she practiced law at Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin in Washington, D.C.[11][12]

Barrett spent a year as a law and economics fellow at George Washington University before heading to her alma mater, Notre Dame, in 2002 to teach federal courts, constitutional law and statutory interpretation; she was named a Professor of Law in 2010, and, from 2014–17, held the Diane and M.O. Miller Research Chair of Law.[5][8]. Barrett twice received a “distinguished professor of the year” award, in 2010 and 2016.[8] Barrett continues to teach as a sitting judge.[13]

She was a member of the Federalist Society from 2005 to 2006 and 2014 to 2017.[14][8]

Federal judicial service

On May 8, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Barrett to serve as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, to the seat vacated by Judge John Daniel Tinder, who took senior status on February 18, 2015.[15][16]President Barack Obama’s nominee for the vacancy, Myra Selby, was blocked by the Senate due to the opposition of Senator Dan Coats (Republican of Indiana).[17] A hearing on her nomination before the Senate Judiciary Committee was held on September 6, 2017.[18]

During Barrett’s hearing, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein questioned Barrett about whether her Catholic faith would influence her decision-making on the court. Feinstein, concerned about whether Barrett would uphold Roe v. Wade given her Catholic beliefs, stated “the dogma lives loudly within you, and that is a concern”.[19][14][20] Senator Dick Durbin asked “Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?”[21] The subject of Feinstein and other Democrats’ concern was a 1998 article by Barrett where she argued that Catholic judges should in some cases recuse themselves from death penalty cases because of their moral objections to the death penalty.[22][14] Feinstein’s line of questioning was criticized by some observers and legal experts[23][24] while defended by others.[25] The controversy focused on whether lines of questioning violated the U.S. Constitution’s No Religious Test Clause.[21][23][24][25] During her hearing, Barrett said: “It is never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else, on the law.”[23]

On October 5, 2017, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on a party-line basis of 11–9 to recommend Barrett and report her nomination to the full Senate.[26][27] On October 30, 2017, the Senate invoked cloture by a vote of 54–42.[28] The Senate confirmed her with a vote of 55–43 on October 31, 2017, with three democrats – Joe DonnellyTim Kaine, and Joe Manchin – voting for her.[8] She received her commission on November 2, 2017.[2]

Political views

Barrett is affiliated with Faculty for Life, an anti-abortion group at the University of Notre Dame. At an event in 2013 that reflected on the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, she described the decision—in the paraphrase by Notre Dame Magazine—as “creating through judicial fiat a framework of abortion on demand.”[29][30] Barrett also remarked that it was “very unlikely” the court will overturn the core aspect of Roe v. Wade. She went on to say, “The fundamental element, that the woman has a right to choose abortion, will probably stand. . . the controversy right now is about funding. It’s a question of whether abortions will be publicly or privately funded”.[31][32]

In 2015, Barrett signed a joint letter to the Catholic bishop which affirmed the Church’s teachings including “the value of human life from conception to natural death,” and that family and marriage are “founded on the indissoluble commitment of a man and a woman.”[33][34]

Personal life

Amy Vivian Coney married Jesse M. Barrett, an Assistant United States Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana.[35] They have seven children: five biological children and two children adopted from Haiti. Her youngest biological child has special needs.[2][36][37]

Barrett is a practicing Roman Catholic.[14] The New York Times reported that Barrett was a member of a small, tightly knit Charismatic Christian group called People of Praise.[14]

Selected bibliography

See also

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett

 

 

Story 3: Hillary Clinton Running For President in 2020? — Socialist Democrats Will Oppose Clinton– Run Hillary Run — Videos

EXCLUSIVE! Dem Insiders Confirmed Hillary Running For President In 2020

Hillary Clinton On Why She’s Not Running For President Again | Teen Vogue

The Oven Mitt Fashionista #HRC Is Planning to Run Yet Again in 2020 Destroying the #DNC Completely

Is Hillary Clinton looking ahead to the 2020 election?

Clinton 2020? Former campaign manager hints at third run

Tucker takes on Cornel West over Democratic socialism

Why “Democratic” Socialism Doesn’t Work

Yaron Brook Shuts Down Socialist Arguments One By One

Johan Norberg: The Truth about Swedish Socialism

The Swedish model – myths and realities – Johan Norberg

 

Is she back? Talk emerges that Hillary Clinton is plotting her 2020 comeback and prepping to take on Donald Trump a second time

  • Hillary Clinton has ramped her public presence and fundraising appeals 
  • She has been outspoken about President Trump’s ‘zero tolerance’ immigration policy and raised $1.5 million for various groups 
  • Clinton’s next scheduled public appearance is at the third annual Ozy Fest that takes place July 21 and 22 in Central Park 
  • Multiple Democrats have stoked the 2020 speculation fires with talk of challenging Trump in two years 

Hillary Clinton has ramped her public presence and her fundraising appeals in recent weeks, leading to speculation she’s plotting her 2020 comeback and preparing for a rematch with Donald Trump.

The former presidential candidate has been appearing at high-profile events – such as for the Clinton Foundation and at Oxford University – in addition to asking for donations to causes she supports.

The New York Post notes that five times in the last month alone, Clinton let supporters know her super PAC was working against Trump.

She has stayed at the top of her supporters’ in-box, using events-of-the-day – such as her email railing against Trump’s controversial ‘zero tolerance ‘immigration policy earlier this month – to spread her message.

Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton were spotted together on a rare outing together on Saturday. The couple were all smiles as they walked off of a flight at Laguardia Airport

Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton were spotted together on a rare outing together on Saturday. The couple were all smiles as they walked off of a flight at Laguardia Airport

Hillary Clinton has ramped her public presence and her fundraising appeals