Only a quarter of the 59 labs that handle the world's deadliest pathogens have top-level biosecurity, experts warn. They fear lax rules could lead to another pandemic.

sankel@businessinsider.com (Sophia Ankel) 12 hrs ago

Virologists Lisa Oestereich (R) and Toni Rieger work in the new Biological Security Level 4 laboratory of the Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine (BNI) in Hamburg, Germany, on January 25, 2013. Christian Charisius/picture alliance via Getty Images

There are 59 biosafety level 4 labs (BSL-4) in the world, but only a few scored high on safety.

A new report revealed only a quarter of countries with these labs have high biosecurity scores.

The labs are where researchers work with the most dangerous pathogens on the planet.

Only around a quarter of countries with biosafety level 4 labs - where researchers work with the world's deadliest pathogens - have high biosecurity scores, according to a new report.

As US intelligence agencies are investigating the possibility that COVID-19 leaked from China's Wuhan Institute of Virology, more questions are being raised about the safety and security of similar such labs around the world.

Gregory Koblentz, an associate professor of biodefence at George Mason University, and Filippa Lentzos at King's College London recently mapped out all of these facilities using open-source research. Their findings can be found here.

Read more: How DNA-testing startup Helix became one of the nation's leading coronavirus tracking labs

According to their report, there are at least 59 maximum BSL-4 labs that are currently in operation, under construction, or planned around the world. They span 23 countries, including the UK, US, China, and India.

The largest concentration of BSL-4 labs is in Europe (25) while North America and Asia have roughly equal numbers, with 14 and 13 respectively. Three-quarters of the labs are based in urban centers.

But only about one-quarter of the countries with BSL-4 labs received high scores for biosafety and biosecurity as measured by the Global Health Security Index, the report found.

"Our study also revealed that there was significant room for improvement in the policies in place to ensure that these labs were operated safely, securely and responsibly," Koblentz and Lentzos wrote in the Guardian.

"The vast majority of countries with BSL-4 labs do not conduct oversight of the type of gain-of-function research that has been a central feature in the debate on COVID-19's origin, as potentially responsible for the possible leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology," they added.

The report has some experts worried that lax controls and regulations at some locations could lead to another pandemic.

"The larger the number of institutions and the larger the number of individuals with access to these dangerous agents, the greater the risk," Richard Ebright, a professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University, told the Financial Times. "Accidents and leaks already happen in very large numbers, especially in places that have weaker biosafety standards."

"We need to strengthen biosafety and biosecurity rules around the world" Ebright added.

BSL-4 labs are built so that researchers can safely work with pathogens that can cause serious diseases and for which no treatment or vaccine exists. Researchers working there are highly trained and must wear personal protective equipment.

To date, more than 176 million cases of coronavirus have been reported worldwide, according to a tracker by Johns Hopkins University. More than 3.8 million people have died.
Read the original article on Business Insider

OUTSOURCING FAILS
The US is scrambling to send promised vaccines abroad after the production plant that ruined millions of J&J vaccines may have tainted AstraZeneca shots

salarshani@businessinsider.com (Sarah Al-Arshani) 

A person receives the AstraZeneca vaccine in Bologna, Italy on March 19, 2021. Michele Lapini/Getty Images

Emergent BioSolutions in Baltimore ruined at least 15 million Johnson & Johnson vaccines earlier this year.

100 million AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines from the facility are under safety review.

The US is scrambling to send vaccines from other manufacturers abroad, The New York Times reported.

The US is working to replace vaccines meant to be sent to other nations after problems at a production plant ruined AstraZeneca shots promised by the Biden administration, The New York Times reported.

More than 100 million AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines made at Emergent BioSolutions in Baltimore are being reviewed to see if they're safe to use after several issues at the plant. If, after vetting by the Food and Drug Administration, the shots are deemed safe they will be shipped abroad.

In April, Biden promised 60 million of AstraZeneca's vaccine, all that it had produced at the time, and then added another 20 million vaccines from other manufacturers in May. Altogether, the administration said it would share 80 million doses by the end of June.

Last week, Biden's administration also pledged to share 500 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine.

Sources familiar with discussions on the shipment told The Times that officials are working to replace the tens of millions of AstraZeneca shots that were a part of the donation with others from Pfizer and BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson. Though they may need the manufacturers' permission, The Times notes.

AstraZeneca is not currently authorized for use in the US, as the company did not apply for emergency authorization. Pfizer and BioNTech, Johnson & Johnson, and Moderna's shots all have emergency authorization in the US.

More than 176 million people in the US have already received at least one dose, which is over 53% of the entire population, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Emergent BioSolutions also ruined at least 15 million doses of Johnson & Johnson's COVID-19 vaccine earlier this year, due to human error when employees mixed up ingredients for the J&J and AstraZeneca vaccines.

Additionally, the plant had several "systemic failures" including a report by the FDA that said some staff at the plant failed to shower or change their clothes that may have contaminated the J&J doses.

Emergent BioSolutions did not respond to Insider's request for comment at the time of publication.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Appeals court panel orders review of EPA decision in Alaska

JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — A split federal appeals court panel has sent back for further legal review a 2019 decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to withdraw proposed restrictions on large-scale mining in Alaska's Bristol Bay region.

A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sent the matter back to a lower court to determine whether the agency's action “was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or contrary to law.” The appeals court panel expresses “no view on that question," the decision dated Thursday stated.

The EPA during the Obama administration proposed but never finalized restrictions on large-scale mining in response to the Pebble Mine project.

In 2019, during the Trump administration, the agency withdrew the proposed restrictions, removing what it called an “outdated, preemptive proposed veto of the Pebble Mine” and allowing the project to be vetted through the permitting process.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers last fall rejected a key permit for the proposed copper and gold mine. Pebble's developer, the Pebble Limited Partnership, is appealing that decision.

Trout Unlimited and other groups sued over the EPA's 2019 decision. U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Gleason last year dismissed the case and determined the agency's action was not reviewable. That ruling led to the appeal.

Nelli Williams, Alaska director for Trout Unlimited, in a statement called the ruling “an important step toward providing immediate Clean Water Act safeguards for Bristol Bay.”

Mike Heatwole, a Pebble partnership spokesperson, said the ruling means the case “will be subject to further review by the district court.”

Exxon, union try new approach to resolve increasingly bitter dispute


HOUSTON (Reuters) - Exxon Mobil Corp and the United Steelworkers union (USW) hope to break an increasingly bitter dispute over a Texas refinery contract next week by taking a different approach of sending one negotiator each to contract talks instead of a whole team, company and union officials said on Friday.

Exxon seven weeks ago locked out 650 union workers at its Beaumont, Texas, refinery and lubricants plant after failing to reach agreement on a new contract. On Thursday, negotiators met for only the second time since the lockout but failed to make any headway and stopped talks after about two hours.

Talks have turned fractious. The union has accused Exxon of trying to dissolve seniority provisions, colluding to break the union and falsely claiming the union's seniority terms are unique.

After Exxon tweeted the job-seniority terms it wanted were no different than those at the company's Baytown, Texas, refinery, local 13-2001 union President Ricky Brooks called the tweet "factually untrue."

Exxon said the USW has failed to negotiate seriously on its proposal. "We expect the union to come prepared to bargain in good faith," the company said ahead of Thursday's talks.

The USW has filed a complaint with the U.S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) claiming Exxon violated labor laws by improperly monitoring employees and used company resources to launch an effort to dissolve the union.

An employee has circulated information to gain support for a petition to decertify the USW local that represents Beaumont workers, according to the NLRB complaint. Exxon told employees seeking information to contact its human resources department or the NLRB. A vote can be called if 30% of covered employees sign a petition and file it with the NLRB.

"We continue to meet and bargain in good faith with the union," said Exxon spokeswoman Julie King. "The company has at all times acted lawfully and will continue to do so."

In another sign of tensions, the USW this month filed a federal lawsuit in Houston claiming Exxon refused to accept an arbitrator's decision involving two workers.

The lawsuit asked the U.S. court to enforce a ruling calling for two union workers fired from its Baytown refinery to be reinstated and given back pay.

(Reporting by Erwin Seba in Houston; Editing by Gary McWilliams and Matthew Lewis)

Mexico accepts U.S. request to probe Tridonex autoparts plant for labor abuses

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Mexican officials said on Saturday they would look into alleged worker rights violations at the Tridonex autoparts factory in northern Mexico, after the U.S. government requested a review under the terms of a new trade pact.

Commuter buses are parked outside the Tridonex auto-parts plant, owned by Philadelphia-based Cardone Industries, in Matamoros (MURDER CITY/FREE TRADE ZONE)

The complaint from the U.S. Trade Representative's office (USTR) last week marked the second time the United States has flagged potential labor abuses in Mexico under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which replaced NAFTA. 

(WE CALL IT NAFTATOO)

Mexican officials said they have accepted the U.S. request for a review of Tridonex in the border city of Matamoros to determine if workers had the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining.

"The Economy Ministry, in coordination with the Labor Ministry and other involved parties, will review the case to determine with legal elements and facts if there exists or not a denial of the referenced labor rights," the ministries said in a statement.

Mexican authorities have until July 24 to submit their findings to U.S. counterparts, the statement added.

Cardone Industries Inc, the Philadelphia-based parent company of Tridonex, has said that the allegations are inaccurate and that it respects worker rights.

General Motors Co has also come under scrutiny in Mexico after the USTR in May filed a USMCA complaint against the company's pickup truck plant in Guanajuato state over possible rights abuses during a union contract vote.

(Reporting by Daina Beth Solomon; editing by Diane Craft)

IT'S WHAT ALBERTA OIL PATCH WORKERS MAKE
60% of millennials earning over $100,000 say they're living paycheck to paycheck

hhoffower@businessinsider.com (Hillary Hoffower)

 

Provided by Business Insider High-earning millennials are stretching their paychecks. Edward Berthelot/Getty Images

60% of millennials earning over $100,000 say they're living paycheck to paycheck in a new survey.

Some of these millennials - known as HENRYs - prefer a comfortable, expensive lifestyle.

But $100,000 also doesn't go that far in today's economy.

High-earning millennials are feeling broke.

Sixty percent of millennials raking in over $100,000 a year say they're living paycheck to paycheck, according to a new survey by PYMNTS and lending company LendingClub which analyzed economic data and census-balanced surveys of over 28,000 Americans.

It found that the more than half (54%) Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. And nearly 40% of high-earners - those making more than $100,000 annually - say they live that way.

That means high-earning millennials aren't the only ones feeling stretched thin, but they feel that way more than their six-figure making peers. Living on constrained budgets may therefore have less to do with income and more to do with expenses, the report says.

That's partly due to lifestyle choices. Many of these millennials are likely HENRYs - short for high earner, not rich yet. The acronym that was invented back in 2003, but has come to characterize a certain group of 30-something six-figure earners who struggle to balance their spending and savings habits.

HENRYs typically fall victim to lifestyle creep, when one increases their standard of living to match a rise in discretionary income. They prefer a comfortable and often expensive lifestyle that leaves them living paycheck to paycheck.

Read more: Here's why so many millennials making 6-figure salaries still feel broke

Video: From $0 income to a $97,000 salary, here's how this CEO spends his money (CNBC)

A $100,000 salary isn't what it was

The economy is also a huge factor behind six-figure-earning millennials feel so broke.

As the report reads, "Living paycheck to paycheck sometimes carries connotations of barely scraping by and of poverty. The reality of a paycheck-to-paycheck lifestyle in the United States today is much more complex, and the current economic environment has made it even more complicated."

It cited the example of a college-educated 35-year-old earning more than $100,000 while juggling a mortgage, student-loan debt, and a child, which could leave them with little savings for big purchases or unexpected emergencies.

The generation is facing an affordability crisis. Income increases simply have not kept up with an exponential increase in living costs, and the pandemic hasn't helped matters by throwing job loss and pay cuts into the mix.

The cost of education has also more than doubled since the 1970s, leaving many millennials racked with student debt. Priya Malani, the founder of Stash Wealth, a financial firm that works with HENRYs, previously told Insider that 40% of her clients had student loans - they owe $80,000 on average.

As a byproduct of this increased cost in living, the middle class has been shrinking. Pew Research Center defines the US middle class as people earning two-thirds to twice the median household income, earning about $48,500 to $145,500 in 2018, per most recent data available.

That means a six-figure salary is no longer what it used to be. In today's economy, $100,000 is considered middle class in the US.

Read the original article on Business Insider

NO UNION? DIRECT ACTION GETS THE GOODS

A McDonald's worker reportedly quit their job by posting an angry sign at a local drive-thru, as the 'rage-quitting' trend continues to rise

ztayeb@businessinsider.com (Zahra Tayeb) 

 The sign was apparently posted in Louisville, Kentucky. Twitter/Great Ape Dad

A McDonald's employee reportedly resigned by posting an angry note in a local drive-thru.

The worker apparently hated the job so much, they closed up shop early Saturday night.

The note captures the trend of employees 'rage-quitting their jobs in a tightening labor market.

A McDonald's employee who worked at a branch in Louisville, Kentucky, apparently quit their job by posting a sign at a drive-through on Saturday night.

A photo of the sign read: "We are closed because I am quitting and I hate this job." It was shared on Twitter by a user, Great Ape Dad, who spotted the posting the following morning.

He later explained in a follow-up tweet that the sign was stuck up by a night shift manager who had "suddenly quit" the night before and closed up shop early, Today reported.

Great Ape Dad told Today he was en route to pick up the new BTS meal for his wife, when he came across the note. "I took a picture, uploaded it to Twitter, not thinking much of anything about it," he said. "And much to my surprise, it's had quite a success."

Apparently, employees were unaware of the note until he pointed it out to them.

"I used to work in the service industry myself," the user added. "I think that people are just frustrated, especially the working-class people who are there in the front line … things that are in a boiling point where I can definitely see where someone on a Saturday night that doesn't want to be working the drive-thru - wants to just call it quits."

McDonald's did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment on this story.

US employees are increasingly "rage-quitting" their jobs as a tightening labor market means that companies must reckon with the often unfavorable conditions and low pay they are offering.

Frustrated employees are often choosing to depart their roles, rather than wait around and hope things will change.

In an interview with Insider's Áine Cain, a former employee at Dollar General rage-quit her job in the springtime of 2021, after finding her drowning in an increasingly fraught work environment.

"By the time you get down to that lowly stay-at-home mom that just wanted a part-time job - who is earning less than a hundred dollars a week because she's making $7.25 an hour and only working 10 hours a week - it's not worth it," the employee told Insider.

Read the original article on Business Insider

A MINIMUM WAGE IS NOT A LIVING WAGE

An Amazon worker says she's homeless because she can't afford NYC rent with the $19 she's paid per hour: Report

tsonnemaker@insider.com (Tyler Sonnemaker) 22 hrs ago

Amazon has touted its $15 minimum wage and pushed for increases at the national level.

But Vice reported that a worker in New York City making $19.30 per hour still can't afford rent.

The woman says she lives in her car in the company's parking lot and struggles to make ends meet.

An Amazon employee who works at the company's warehouse on Staten Island in New York City says she lives in her car in the building's parking lot because she can't afford rent in the city with the $19.30 she makes per hour, Vice News reported Friday.

The woman, Natalie Monarrez, has been homeless since 2019 after struggling to find affordable permanent housing while working for two other Amazon warehouses in New Jersey that paid her even less, according to Vice.

"Jeff Bezos donates to homeless shelters for tax write-offs and PR. He needs to know that some of his own workers (without family or a second income) can't afford rent," Monarrez told Vice.

"Jeff Bezos has no idea that his workers are homeless, especially in New York, and I'm not the only one. I'm hoping executives will agree to pay workers more and that they know older workers have the right to be promoted like everyone else," she added.

While rents in New York City have fallen about 12 percent since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, it remains one of the most expensive places to live in the country. The median asking rent for a one bedroom in New York City in June was about $2500, according to a Zumper analysis.

Amazon did not respond to Insider's request for comment on this story.

Amazon has frequently touted its $15 per hour minimum wage, which it introduced in 2018 following pressure from Sen. Bernie Sanders, as evidence that it treats workers well.

But Bloomberg reported in December that in 68 counties where Amazon opened its largest type of warehouse, average industry pay dropped by 6%, and that a study from the Government Accountability Office found that more than 4,000 Amazon employees are on food stamps in just nine states - trailing only Walmart, McDonald's, and two-dollar store chains. Amazon disputed Bloomberg's analysis, telling the publication that most of its hires come from retail jobs that typically pay less than warehouse jobs.

Amazon has also avoided paying taxes that fund food stamps and other social safety net programs from which its workers benefit.

Despite earning more than $10 billion in annual net income every year since 2018, Amazon paid little or no federal income taxes in those years. Amazon previously told Insider that it "pays all the taxes we are required to pay in the US and every country where we operate."

CEO Jeff Bezos, despite growing his wealth by $127 billion from 2006 to 2018, paid zero federal income taxes in at least two of those years, ProPublica reported.

Amazon has also been plagued by extensive reports over the years of grueling working conditions, injury rates far higher than the industry standard, and labor law violations.

In April, Bezos said that the company was working "to do a better job for our employees" and that it would invest over $300 million in 2021 to make warehouses safer. He added that the company needed "a better vision for how we create value for employees - a vision for their success.

Last year, workers spoke out repeatedly about what they said was Amazon's failure to protect them during the pandemic - and in some cases, faced racially-charged smear campaigns as well as illegal retaliation and terminations.

Following an unsuccessful attempt by Amazon workers in Alabama to unionize, workers at Monarrez's warehouse, which Amazon calls JFK8, have also sought to unionize, led by Chris Smalls, an organizer the company fired in March 2020.

Read the original article on Business Insider

THIRD WORLD USA
Meet 2 Americans who just lost unemployment benefits as thousands of workers are cut off from $300 per week

insider@insider.com (Juliana Kaplan,Joseph Zeballos-Roig)   

Carlos Ponce joins a protest in in Miami Springs, Florida, asking senators to continue unemployment benefits past July 31, 2020. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

As of June 19th, a dozen states have prematurely ended their federal unemployment benefits.

Those $300 weekly benefits weren't set to expire until September, but 25 GOP-led states have opted out.

Workers in Missouri and Alabama, two states where benefits ended, tell Insider they need assistance.

Eight more states are ending their federal unemployment benefits today, June 19th, cutting off between 400,000 and 500,000 people from government aid ahead of their scheduled expiration in September.

Those states are Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming. That means a dozen have pulled out of enhanced unemployment insurance early. At least 13 more will join them in the coming weeks.

It's setting up a premature fiscal cliff for approximately 4 million workers, many of whom were set to receive federal benefits through September. But federal pandemic-era programs also expanded who's eligible to receive benefits, and the duration. That means some Americans won't just lose $300 a week. They'll lose their entire incomes.

Karen Allen, 52, of Missouri, lost all of her benefits last week. "I kind of feel like the rug got jerked out from under me, and now people want to point fingers at me like, well, why don't you go to work at the gas station for $9 an hour?"

She said she doesn't feel like she's above working such a job, but she doesn't want to work part-time with no benefits "and take a chance on dying, basically. I just feel like I'm stuck." She's not alone.
Some states have already ended their benefits

Missouri ending federal unemployment benefits yanked aid for 340,000 people.

Allen, 52, had been collecting unemployment since January 2020, after the staffing firm she worked for closed down her branch in late 2019; she stopped working in November.

But Allen has a rare auto-immune disease. She said that her neurologist told her to lay low during the pandemic and self-quarantine. She was also advised to hold off on getting a vaccine

© Courtesy of Karen Allen Karen Allen. Courtesy of Karen Allen

"Here I am, absolutely willing and able to work. It's just it could kill me," she said. She was hoping that extension of expanded benefits through September would give her some leeway in terms of vaccine or safety progress. She was on Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC), a federal program that expands how many weeks workers can receive benefits. On June 12, that program expired in Missouri.

Video: 4 states cut off unemployment benefits early, others states expected to follow (TODAY) Duration 2:02

Benefits are winding down today in Alabama. Shaina Cruz, 34, will lose all of hers. A graphic designer, Cruz was laid off in March 2020. She said it took about a month-and-a-half for her to start receiving unemployment benefits. She's been on PEUC up until now, and said the benefit cut-off comes at a "horrible" time.

She's facing down eviction at the end of the month - which is also when the federal eviction moratorium is set to end. She already lost her car because she couldn't keep up with payments, and said it's difficult to apply to a job when she has no idea where she'll be in two weeks

.

Courtesy of Shaina Cruz Shaina Cruz. Courtesy of Shaina Cruz

"I'm frustrated with it, just because I feel like the whole reason it's been ended is just because of all these people on Facebook saying, 'Oh, nobody wants to work anymore,'" Cruz said. "And it's like, that's not the case. I would gladly be working. I cried when I lost my job."

Possible legislation on the way

Some lawmakers and advocates have argued that the Department of Labor is obligated to continue paying out PUA, including Sen. Bernie Sanders.

But the Labor Department has concluded that there's likely not much it can do, and the White House has said that states have "every right" to cut off aid in a sharp change of course after defending benefits a month ago.

Some Democrats are eyeing revamping the dilapidated systems as part of Biden's multitrillion-dollar infrastructure package.

"We ought to cut to the bottom line here," Wyden said in an interview. "This highlights the need for a comprehensive unemployment reform package."

"I talk to the administration about these unemployment reforms constantly," he added. He previously suggested he wanted to draft a legislative fix but did not specify if he was still pursuing that measure.

Some are already taking legal action. In Indiana, two law firms have filed a lawsuit against the state for prematurely terminating benefits - and have asked for a preliminary injunction to pause benefits being halted as the case progresses.

But in Alabama, there's no relief on the way.

"I'm still just screwed, basically," Cruz said. "Like I literally have no idea where my family is going. I'm trying to get enough money to rent a storage unit right now just to put all my stuff in."

 Business Insider

NATIONALIZE UI BENEFITS

The US job market is about to turn into a giant science experiment - with millions of Americans as guinea pigs

george@bespokeinvest.com (George Pearkes) 

© Joe Raedle/Getty Images Carlos Ponce joins a protest in in Miami Springs, Florida, asking senators to continue unemployment benefits past July 31, 2020. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Half of US states are cutting off enhanced unemployment benefits over the next few weeks.

This is going to throw millions of Americans into a real-world economic experiment that could hurt many people.

Biden and the federal government could step in, but America's misguided tradition of a hands of federal government is stopping them.

This is an opinion column. The thoughts expressed are those of the author.

Partisan politics, Congress' legislative language, and interest group lobbying are about to turn America's 160 million workers into guinea pigs. We're all about to be part of a huge study on whether unemployment insurance keeps people out of the labor market.

The biggest variable in this 50-state experiment is the new unemployment benefits created during the pandemic. Republican governors in nearly two dozen states are rolling back key benefits that helped people through the downturn: expansions in unemployment insurance to workers not previously covered, increased length of coverage for unemployed workers, and topped-up weekly payments are some of the initiatives

These GOP lawmakers argue that the benefits are no longer needed now that the pandemic is receding and ending them will push Americans back to the labor market. On the other hand, some economists and progressive Democrats argue that the benefits are not generous enough to discourage people from finding work, and that removing them is needlessly cruel to beneficiaries.

While experimentation within states can generate superior solutions, it can also have its downsides in states that eschew equity. In these cases, federal power is the last line of defense for marginalized people, but Washington has a long history of abandoning them instead of taking a stand.

50 laboratories: a Brandeis legacy

In 1932, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis noted "It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."

This notion that policy experimentation at the state level could land on the right answer faster than top-down public policymaking from Washington has been a popular justification for a light touch from the federal government. The "50 laboratories" theory has also helped social scientists study the effects of policy change by observing the differences between states.

Brandeis' famous quote came in a dissent to a Supreme Court decision which effectively rolled back a state's effort to forge its own path, in this case Oklahoma was attempting to set new regulations on businesses operating in the state. Brandeis disagreed with the majority, which said Oklahoma could not impose its own rules on an ice manufacturer.

Brandeis was the son of an abolitionist Kentucky family and a progressive Boston lawyer, arguably the father of the legal concept of "right to privacy" in the United States and a key anti-corporate voice who supported government intervention against concentrated monopoly power. He played a role in the development of the Federal Reserve and defended workplace and labor law in court.

Brandeis supported the idea that Oklahoma be allowed to regulate an ice manufacturer, but argued for it in a language more consistent with conservative ideals of state sovereignty or business supremacy that has since been co-opted in the popular imagination. No need for federal intervention if a state enacts harmful policy - they'll eventually see the light! This attitude was also visible late in Brandeis' career in several decisions that took teeth out of The New Deal during the Roosevelt Administration.
Progressive passivism in policy

The American system is generally loath to enforce national standards on states. One good example is Medicaid, the country's low-income healthcare system. Instead of being run by the federal government, Medicaid is technically voluntary and administered by states. The federal government only encourages participation in its various programs through substantial funding incentives.

This has left some states to ignore Medicaid programs that could be a huge help to their citizens. As recently as 1981, Arizona did not participate in Medicaid at all and 13 GOP-run states have refused to implement a huge expansion of the program passed in 2010 as part of the Affordable Care Act.

A similar situation is now playing out with the stepped-up funding for unemployment insurance programs administered by states. These new efforts expanded eligibility for unemployment insurance to gig workers, raised payouts, and extended the number of weeks that workers would be eligible for income support.

With labor markets still sorting through the giant shock of COVID, these benefits have been the target of businesses who rely on large pools of low cost labor. Restaurants especially have railed against the payouts, arguing that the benefits are causing a "labor shortage" and raising their labor costs. Service industry groups have lobbied aggressively to kick people out of the UI system so they can get back to their preferred labor market - one where there is a large pool of people who are willing to accept low wages.

Evidence from the JP Morgan Institute and Indeed.com show little evidence that cutting off expanded UI is likely to fuel large increases in labor supply. But that hasn't stopped more than half of the governors in the country from refusing free money from Washington and halting payments to the unemployed in a brutal form of economic shock therapy.

As the various phase-outs of expanded UI roll in over the next few months, we will be able to compare labor market outcomes in states that do or don't phase out benefits. The 50 laboratories will be working away to the benefit of greater labor market understanding. But the small gain of having a few real-world experiments for academics to be able to write papers about pales in comparison to the human cost of culling unemployment insurance.

Biden and Brandeis: birds of a feather

Allowing this sort of experiment - with American workers as the subject - isn't set in stone. The Biden Administration could at least be pitching a fight against this outcome but has so far not stepped into the fray. As noted by Senator Bernie Sanders in May, the text of the CARES Act -which the UI expansion is built on - says the Department of Labor "shall provide" benefits to individuals, which could be interpreted as mandating payments regardless of what states want. But nobody in the administration has tried to force this issue with states refusing payouts.

Both Brandeis and Biden share a belief that the right argument will win out eventually, and that outright exercise of power by the federal government should be used carefully. Their cautious and light touch approach has direct costs that must be acknowledged in an era where exercise of political power on behalf of those without it is a forgotten habit.
Read the original article on Business Insider