Monday, February 15, 2021

You’re Not Lazy — But Your Boss Wants You to Think You Are
BYCHUCK MCKEEVER

So many of us feel exhausted and inadequate, lacking joy in our work and beating ourselves up over our supposed laziness. But we’re not lazy — we just live under an economic system that wants to wring more and more work out of us.


In their new book Laziness Does Not Exist, social psychologist Dr Devon Price seeks to explain to readers that their exhaustion, their feelings of inadequacy, and their lack of joy in their work are not born of their own moral failings, but are the inevitable consequences of living and working under capitalism. (Sam Solomon / Unsplash)


Review of Laziness Does Not Exist, by Devon Price (Atria Books, 2021).

In George Saunders’ 2017 novel Lincoln in the Bardo, Abraham Lincoln’s son Willie has died and exists in a sort of purgatory alongside the souls of others who, like Willie, do not know or cannot admit that they are dead. The story culminates with Willie’s realization, having witnessed his own funeral and his father’s life-altering grief, that he has died. His brave refusal to hide from that fact ultimately sets him and all the other souls in limbo free.


You are not sick, [Willie] said.

Stop talking, Mr. Vollman said. You will kindly stop talking at once.

There is a name for what ails us, [Willie] said. Do you not know it? Do you really not know it? …Dead, the boy said. Everyone, we are dead!”

In the world of Willie Lincoln and the other tortured souls conjured by Saunders, it is only by recognizing and naming their condition that they can free themselves. If they can’t name what ails them, they will be stuck in an eternal, hopeless present.

For many workers under capitalism, the problem is the same. We lack the name for what ails us, believing ourselves temporarily stuck instead of perpetually exploited. Without being able to name and confront what ails us, we lack the first fundamental tool for freeing ourselves. Attempts to explain this problem to people have filled libraries’ worth of Marxist texts and serve as the raison d’ĂȘtre for publications like this one. Where you’d be less likely to find any such explanation is the self-help section of your local bookstore.

That has changed with Laziness Does Not Exist, in which social psychologist Dr Devon Price seeks to explain to readers that their exhaustion, their feelings of inadequacy, and their lack of joy in their work are not born of their own moral failings, but are the inevitable consequences of living and working under capitalism. Self-help books, as a rule, exist to preach to readers that they can and should be doing more: more work, more exercise, more self-care, more self-advocacy. Our lives can be transformed, these books tell us, by making better individual choices.


Price takes a different approach, positing that the entire logic of self-help is backward. We aren’t miserable because we aren’t working hard enough at happiness, we’re miserable because we’re all working too hard at everything. What’s more, no one seems to believe it, including ourselves.

Price focuses specifically on one aspect of this phenomenon, what they call the “Laziness Lie.” According to Price, the Laziness Lie has three central tenets: our worth is our productivity, we cannot trust our own feelings and limits, and there is always more we could be doing.

We internalize this logic to such a degree that we learn to believe that “our skills and talents don’t really belong to us; they exist to be used. If we don’t gladly give our time, our talents, and even our lives to others, we aren’t heroic or good.” And we’re certainly more fireable.



















In 1883, Paul Lafargue, Karl Marx's son-in-law, wrote The Right to Be Lazy, a political pamphlet that argued for liberation from the obligation to work


The Birth of “Laziness”


Where does this belief system come from? Price (who, full disclosure, I have corresponded with about the ideas in the book over the years with but never met) traces the Laziness Lie across American history, unpacking its roots in the Christianity of the country’s settlers and its utility in rationalizing slavery, indentured servitude, and child labor. By the time of the industrial revolution, Price writes, “Laziness had officially become not only a personal failing but a social ill to be defeated — and it has remained that way ever since.”

It seems fitting that the United States just inaugurated a president who campaigned in part on the idea that millennials deserve no empathy for their generation’s immiseration, and who shut down a pointed political question from a town hall attendee by challenging him to a pushup contest. Obviously, the idea that struggling people deserve no sympathy is bullshit. That our new president scoffs at the people ruined by a debt crisis he helped engineer over a long, pro-banking Senate career is just extra cruelty sprinkled on top. But even the savviest Biden-hating socialist is not immune to the ways these attitudes seep into our lives and our attitudes toward ourselves and others.

Capitalism demands that we function in a constant state of “speed up” at work, needing to cram ever more into the waking hours of our days regardless of our actual efficiency or productivity. What Price calls the “Laziness Lie” is really this demand for “speed up” taken to its inevitable extreme, such that it permeates all aspects of one’s life on or off the clock.Self-help doesn’t just perpetuate capitalist ideology by peddling the myth that every individual is capable of and responsible for changing their own conditions. It does so by insisting that our very human desire to live for something other than work is simply a challenge to be overcome.

We repeat and reify the logic of our bosses in our own lives through social media and other avenues where the “hustle” is expected to be never-ending, even at home. Influencer culture, in Price’s view, has amplified the “Laziness Lie”: our meals must be Instagram-worthy, our living spaces minimalist and tidy, our bodies well-toned and well-dressed. As a result we treat fatness, tackiness, nonconformity, and other seeming imperfections as contemptible rather than default states of being.

Perversely, this phenomenon can even absorb its apparent opposite. No influencer’s Instagram grid is complete without a smattering of confessional posts. Look y’all, today was a hard day, I’m blessed by this life but it’s not as glamorous as it seems. Just gotta keep smiling… These humanizing offerings don’t dismantle the logic of hustle culture, they reinforce it — because the implicit conclusion to each of them is …and I’m still getting up and doing it every day, so why aren’t you?

The ceaseless demands put upon us by our own belief in this pernicious myth — and the attendant expectations of being an open and available friend, a politically and socially conscious member of society, a generous and committed romantic partner, and so forth — combine to put a crushing weight on just about everyone who works for a living.

Price relates anecdotes and data about the ways that particular populations, such as people with mental illnesses, are compoundingly harmed by our societal contempt for laziness. But their analysis also includes the harm done to those with no particularly remarkable barriers who still don’t rise to the occasion as students or employees or voters. In other words, the laziness myth hurts the vast majority of us.
Laziness Is Fake, Disenfranchisement Is Real

It is disenfranchisement, not laziness, Price argues, that makes even relatively healthy people step back from challenges and check out from the world. If we don’t see the point of our schoolwork or any meaning in the jobs we’ve considered applying to, we’re not likely to complete those tasks.

If we don’t vote even when shamed by others about doing our civic duty, we’re not too lazy to bother, we probably had to work that day and didn’t have the energy to go stand in line at the polls for a few extra hours (to say nothing of the pitiful options on offer, though Price doesn’t mention that).

On top of all this, most other people we know are going through some version of these problems, too, meaning that the exhausting demands on our time don’t end when our professional or academic obligations do. We need help, and so do our friends and family, and we’re all using each other for it.(
Ben Blennerhassett / Unsplash)

A more explicitly socialist text would probably unpack these same phenomena as products of capitalist alienation, not just a general form of disenfranchisement. But Price has not leaned on the most obvious layers of the working class to make the bulk of their argument (though retail workers, health care workers, and bartenders do appear in their interviews).

Instead we get a diverse cross-section of people whose time is not their own, from people experiencing homelessness to overwhelmed grad students to semi-professional streamers to working moms still wondering if they can “have it all.”

While the stories and conditions vary, a single thread runs through them all: no one has really escaped the self-loathing and other harmful behaviors we have absorbed as we try to work and survive in a capitalist society. Price correctly describes the normalization of overwork as a public health crisis, and their interviews bear out this diagnosis — marriages, bright futures, and, in the case of one memorable interviewee who was so overworked that he began vomiting blood, internal organs all get damaged by workers’ inability to say no to the demands of a capitalist society.

In this regard, Laziness is something like a fox in the henhouse: Price tells readers that we are not alone in feeling profoundly ill-used and sick because of the demands of our economy and culture, and makes their radical arguments broadly appealing by casting such a wide net in their interview pool. (It also doesn’t hurt that the book’s title is ambiguous enough to disguise its intent. Were your boss to see you reading it, she might think you a particularly motivated employee looking for tips on how to quit slacking.)
Collective Action, Not “Self-Help”

This trick of Laziness — to exist as an anti-capitalist manifesto posing as a self-help book — gives Price a tough needle to thread. Self-help books are by nature dedicated to improving, well, the self. But the full-scale societal transformation required to liberate the overworked world from capitalism can only come through sustained, organized mass action.

Price is clearly aware of this contradiction, as one of the book’s currents is that precious few individuals are capable of maintaining anything resembling a decent life under the demands of capitalism, much less saving the world.

This is not a book designed to teach downtrodden Americans how to throw off the yoke of their exploiters, though Price does repeatedly plug collective workplace action and unionization as tools. Rather, Laziness Does Not exist tells its readers, perhaps for the first time in their lives, that they are being exploited, and there is a name for what ails them: capitalism. And while the book’s prescriptions for dismantling entire systems are thin, it is a useful compendium of anecdotes, insights, and data that might help more people survive under those systems.

“Sometimes,” Price opines, “the best thing good people can do is hunker down, care for one another, and survive.” Plain survival is not enough to change the world. But changing the world requires that masses of people understand their conditions more fully and have the time and energy to fight.Self-help books are by nature dedicated to improving, well, the self. But the full-scale societal transformation required to liberate the overworked world from capitalism can only come through sustained, organized mass action.

This is a drastic departure from the usual offerings in the self-help section, which often start in the same place — What you feel about your situation is okay to feel — but head in the opposite direction — and here’s how to push past those feelings to go produce, earn, and do more!

Self-help doesn’t just perpetuate capitalist ideology by peddling the myth that every individual is capable of and responsible for changing their own conditions. It does so by insisting that our very human desire to live for something other than work is simply a challenge to be overcome.

Contrast Price’s book with two recent self-help bestsellers by Rachel Hollis, Girl, Wash Your Face and Girl, Stop Apologizing, in which the author “encourages, entertains, and even kicks a little butt, all to convince you to do whatever it takes to get real… Because you really can live with passion and hustle.”


She “identifies the excuses to let go of, the behaviors to adopt, and the skills to acquire on the path to growth, confidence, and believing in yourself.” Hollis isn’t teaching her readers that their feelings and experiences matter simply because they are human beings with emotional needs, but that they matter because they can be catalogued for use or disposal in service of one’s ambition.

The ultimate irony of Laziness is that it could actually be a useful tool for employers, as it contains reams of research on the ways that making people work less actually makes them work better — if not on their boss’s terms, at least on workers’ own. Abolishing overwork and other abusive practices might increase many companies’ productivity, and certainly employee longevity.

But overwork is not just about profit or productivity, it’s about control. Companies are incentivized to own as much of an employee’s time as possible for what they’re paid, whether by extending the salaried work week into nights and weekends or reducing the break time of hourly wage-earners.

Laziness Does Not Exist is the rare self-help book that understands the basic truth that the majority of our problems are not of our individual making, and therefore cannot be solved individually. Accordingly, Price does not promise tools for salvation, but tools for survival, and permission to forgive oneself for not being able to change the world alone.

There can be no real “self-help” without collective work to understand and dismantle the system under which we all labor. Like Lincoln in the Bardo’s dead, we must be able to name what ails us before we can get free. It’s capitalism, not laziness.

  

















Why Cable News Hates Medicare for All
BY LUKE SAVAGE  

JACOBIN
02.06.2021

From last year’s Democratic primaries to this year’s Biden agenda, TV news coverage of the health care debate is outrageously skewed against single-payer reform. To understand why, we need look no further than their business model
.
Bernie Sanders speaks while Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg listen during the Democratic presidential debate at the Fox Theatre on July 30, 2019 in Detroit, Michigan. (Justin Sullivan / Getty Images)

If you watched any number of last year’s Democratic primary debates, there’s a good chance you noticed one of their most overt and recurring patterns: namely, a near total hostility toward the idea of a universal, single-payer health care system.

At times, this hostility could be almost baroque, with one voice or another invariably shouting it from the TV screen any time the subject of health care was broached. This extended not only to most of the candidates themselves (Bernie Sanders being the sole contender to unequivocally champion Medicare for All) but also to the panelists and commentators featured on the cable networks that hosted the debates. As Sanders himself pointed out during a Detroit event hosted by CNN, even the ad breaks generally offered no solace to those hoping for even a momentary cessation of the barrage: health insurance and pharmaceutical companies seizing every opportunity to bombard viewers with misleading industry agitprop about the breathtaking wonders of profit-driven health care.

On its face, the existence of this advertising effort likely surprised no one. Wherever their politics happen to sit, and whether they sympathize or not, most Americans probably grasp the idea of an industry using ad space to protect its business model. Even the hostility toward Medicare for All then expressed (and still expressed) by many Democratic politicians has a fairly straightforward explanation: a whopping majority of voters, after all, favor campaign finance reform and believe donations from corporations and special interests have a direct influence on the decisions those running for office make. It requires no great leap of the imagination to understand that politicians raising funds from figures in the very industry threatened by a particular policy aren’t going to be its most vocal champions.

This is what arguably makes the hostility directed toward Medicare for All by figures at the cable networks themselves the most insidious of all. Consider the following question, posed to Sanders during the Detroit debate by CNN’s Jake Tapper:


Let’s start the debate with the number-one issue for Democratic voters, health care. And Senator Sanders, let’s start with you. You support Medicare for All, which would eventually take private health insurance away for more than 150 million Americans in exchange for government-sponsored health care for everyone.

Despite his attempt at a somewhat balanced framing, and whether he realized it or not, Tapper was essentially regurgitating a talking point seeded by the insurance industry and its lobbyists (just take it from former Cigna-executive-turned-whistleblower Wendell Potter). Regardless, a question from a journalist tends to carry a lot more weight than a TV ad or even a spiel from a warm-and-fuzzy-sounding liberal politician.

We can’t know, obviously, how Tapper genuinely feels about the issue or even what role he played in writing the question. Given the near total uniformity of hostility to Medicare for All expressed on large cable networks, it’s far less relevant than the disjuncture between the perspectives they tend to showcase and majority public opinion — which consistently favors the creation of a universal, single-payer model.

The existence of media bubbles, of course, is one obvious explanation: exorbitantly well-paid and often politically insular communities of pundits and cable hosts inhabiting a completely different socioeconomic reality and being far better served by the current health care system than most Americans. To really understand why cable networks were so hostile toward Medicare for All throughout the Democratic primaries (and why they almost certainly will be for the foreseeable future), however, we have to ultimately look at their business model. Consider the following point made by Institute for New Economic Thinking executive director Rob Johnson during a recent interview when asked about Medicare for All:


Public opinion polls show more than 70 percent of the population is in favor of Medicare for All. It’s not the population that doesn’t want it, and they’re the ultimate voters. It’s vested interests and the struggle that has to do with the relationship between money-raising campaign war chests and the probability of re-election and what you might call the refractory influence of the mainstream media, where pharmaceutical companies in particular and insurance companies as well are very big advertisers. [emphasis added]

Concise though it is, Johnson’s remark is fairly close to a comprehensive explanation of why Medicare for All remains so marginal throughout the political class, despite the overwhelming popular support it boasts. What he calls the “refractory influence” of the mainstream media is arguably the most crucial factor involved: given the dependence of large networks on health insurance and pharma companies for advertising revenue, it’s really no wonder the astroturfed effort to discredit socialized medicine enjoys something approaching full-spectrum dominance on cable TV. As Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman wrote in their famous study Manufacturing Consent: “The power of advertisers over television programming stems from the simple fact that they buy and pay for programs — they are the ‘patrons’ who provide the media subsidy.”

CNN’s Detroit debate is a case in point; the network was demanding at least $300,000 from companies advertising, with a single thirty-second spot costing an estimated $110,000 — and groups like the so-called Partnership for America’s Health Care Future (in practice, a front for various corporate interests), filled out many of the slots. Regardless of how anchors or hosts think about an issue like health care, the networks’ basic model essentially precludes meaningful critique of the status quo by design. As long as it persists, don’t expect to see the public interest or popular opinion reflected anywhere on cable TV.

Medicare for All the 'Only Way Forward,' Concludes Lancet Panel in Study Detailing Death and Misery Inflicted by Trump


"Trump's disastrous actions compounded longstanding failures in health policy in the USA. We know what it will take to create a healthy society. We just need the political will to do it."



Members of National Nurses United observe a moment of silence for nurses who died from Covid-19 while demonstrating in Lafayette Park across from the White House on May 7, 2020 in Washington, D.C.

Members of National Nurses United observe a moment of silence for nurses who died from Covid-19 while demonstrating in Lafayette Park across from the White House on May 7, 2020 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

A panel of policy experts and medical professionals convened to examine the healthcare legacy of Donald Trump concluded in a detailed report released Thursday morning that the former president's sweeping regulatory rollbacks and full-scale assault on America's already decimated public health infrastructure severely undermined the nation's fight against Covid-19 and caused tens of thousands of preventable deaths.

Described as the first comprehensive look at the consequences of the former president's four years of corporate-friendly privatization efforts, deep cuts to public health programs, and abandonment of international cooperation in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, the new study by the Lancet Commission on Public Policy and Health in the Trump Era argues that while the Republican's tenure was in some ways uniquely destructive, his agenda built upon years of "damaging neoliberal policies" pursued by his predecessors.

"While the wealthy have thrived, most Americans have lost ground, both economically and medically. The Biden administration must reboot democracy and implement the progressive social and health policies needed to put the country on the road to better health."
—Dr. Steffie Woolhandler

"The disturbing truth is that many of President Trump's policies do not represent a radical break with the past but have merely accelerated the decades-long trend of lagging life expectancy that reflects deep and long-standing flaws in U.S. economic, health, and social policy," reads the report, the product of years of research by dozens of leading health experts from the U.S., U.K., and Canada.

The 49-page assessment notes that while Trump and his GOP allies failed in their effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, the number of U.S. residents without health insurance coverage soared by 2.3 million during the former president's first three years in office largely due to his assault on Medicaid, a program that has long been in the crosshairs of Republican lawmakers.

"Over the past four years," the report notes, "the Trump administration gradually advanced its market-based agenda, including efforts to divert funds from the Veterans Health Administration (VA) to purchase private care for veterans and, most prominently, by pushing forward the creeping privatization of Medicare that started with the Reagan administration."

The Trump administration's sprawling attack on America's public health programs helped set the stage for the White House's disastrous response to the coronavirus pandemic, which hit the nation after many of the former president's healthcare rollbacks had taken their toll, leaving millions of additional Americans vulnerable to the virus and its widespread economic consequences. As of this writing, the virus has killed more than 471,000 people in the U.S.

"Instead of galvanizing the U.S. populace to fight the pandemic," the report states, "President Trump publicly dismissed its threat (despite privately acknowledging it), discouraged action as infection spread, and eschewed international cooperation. His refusal to develop a national strategy worsened shortages of personal protective equipment and diagnostic tests."

Stressing that the Trump administration impacted public health through a variety of means, the Lancet panel's study estimates that the former president's gutting of environmental regulations was responsible for 22,000 excess deaths in 2019 alone.

Trump's massive tax cuts for the rich and corporations, moreover, contributed to decades of soaring income and wealth inequality, a trend that has further stratified U.S. society and left large segments of the population unable to afford the basic necessities of life—including adequate healthcare, food, and housing. The commission also pointed to the president's racism, xenophobia, and attacks on women's reproductive rights as immensely damaging to U.S. public health.

Beginning to undo some of the devastation inflicted by Trump and those who laid the groundwork for his ascendancy will require much more than a return to a status quo under which tens of millions were uninsured, hungry, and poor, the experts behind the study argue.

"Trump's disastrous actions compounded longstanding failures in health policy in the USA," said panel member Dr. Kevin Grumbach, Hellman Endowed Professor and Chair of the Department of Family and Community Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. "We know what it will take to create a healthy society. We just need the political will to do it."

Among the panel's list of policy recommendations is Medicare for All, a system that would "cover all residents under a single, federally financed plan providing comprehensive coverage" at a lower cost than the current fragmented, for-profit system. President Joe Biden opposes Medicare for All and has instead proposed more incremental reforms like a public option, an approach the commission warns would leave many with "onerous  co-pays... and deductibles, and millions of people would remain uninsured."

"Our ICU is the last stop for many patients harmed by Trump's disdain for facts, science, and compassion," commission member Dr. Adam Gaffney, a pulmonary and critical care specialist at Cambridge Health Alliance and Harvard Medical School, said in a statement. "But decades of health care inequality, privatization, and profiteering set the stage for these tragedies. Our commission has concluded that single-payer, Medicare for All reform is the only way forward."

The commission's list of policy recommendations also includes:

  • Repealing Trump's tax cuts and raising taxes on the wealthy;
  • Slashing military spending;
  • Passage of a Green New Deal ending subsidies to the fossil fuel industry;
  • Reversing cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other public health agencies;
  • Making school meals free and universal;
  • Raising the federal minimum wage; and
  • Eliminating "patents, trade agreement restrictions, and treaties that impede global access to vital generic drugs."

"Americans' health was deteriorating even as our economy was booming," said Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program and a distinguished professor of public health at City University of New York at Hunter College.

"This unprecedented decoupling of health from national wealth signals that our society is sick," added Woolhandler, a co-chair of the Lancet commission. "While the wealthy have thrived, most Americans have lost ground, both economically and medically. The Biden administration must reboot democracy and implement the progressive social and health policies needed to put the country on the road to better health."

A $15 Minimum Wage Would Be Life-Changing for Workers and Save the US Billions per Year


Beyond the working families who will get a raise, every single American taxpayer has a stake in raising the minimum wage.


Published on Monday, February 15, 2021 
by
Business Insider
Chefiatou Tokou chants during a Labor Day march in Boston on Sep. 4, 2017. (Photo: Craig F. Walker/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)

Chefiatou Tokou chants during a Labor Day march in Boston on Sep. 4, 2017. (Photo: Craig F. Walker/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)

Last month, Congress reintroduced the Raise the Wage Act, legislation to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour and give 32 million working people a much-needed raise. Increasing the minimum wage is an urgent, necessary step that President Joe Biden and Congress must take to combat the nation's pandemic-induced economic crises.

A $15 minimum wage would be life-changing for many workers and their families — it could mean the difference between poverty and being able to put food on table, building a savings account, or investing in their children's future.

Raise the minimum wage, lower the dependency on safety nets 

Beyond the working families who will get a raise, every single American taxpayer has a stake in raising the minimum wage. When corporations like McDonald's pay poverty wages, workers often turn to public safety net programs to make ends meet. Our recent study finds that families of half of the workers who would receive a pay increase under the proposed $15 minimum wage bill in Congress are enrolled in one or more public safety net programs, at a cost of $107 billion a year. 

Some lawmakers, including Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders, are calling on Congress to employ a process known as budget reconciliation, which allows legislation that changes government spending or revenues to pass by a simple majority vote, not subject to a filibuster.

Our study on the public cost of low wages supports Sanders' contention that raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour could have a measurable savings to the federal budget — a key consideration in determining whether the legislation meets the criteria for moving through the reconciliation process. This is backed up by new research finding that a $15 minimum wage could save the federal budget of at least $65 billion per year.

The federal minimum wage has stalled at $7.25 an hour since 2009 – the longest-ever period without an increase since the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed in 1938. A $15 minimum wage would bring savings to our safety net system — funds that can be redirected to other essential needs. As we look at recovery from pandemic-related unemployment and recessions, it is especially important that cash-strapped states are able to target public funds for maximum community benefit. 

In our study, we look at working families in the 42 states that have not passed a $15 minimum wage law. Two-thirds of fast-food workers, half of childcare workers, and three out of five homecare workers in these states are paid so little that their families rely on public assistance. 

These are workers like Taiwanna Milligan, a McDonald's worker from Charleston. Taiwanna is raising three children — her son, who has sickle cell disease, and her niece and nephew — on a paltry $8.25 hourly wage from McDonald's, stitching together safety net programs like Medicaid and food stamps to make ends meet. 

Compounded by wage stagnation is the economic and racial inequality the pandemic has laid bare. Many low-wage workers — disproportionately women and workers of color — are in service occupations and are more likely to rely on public transportation for their commute. They work every day to meet our essential needs while placing themselves and their families at a higher risk for COVID-19 exposure. Corporations have not increased pay to compensate for the increased hazards workers face. 

Raising the minimum wage is an important step in addressing this racial inequality exacerbated by the pandemic. A new study finds that minimum wage increases help advance racial equity. Other research shows additional positive effects, such as reducing child poverty and neglect, and improving children's health and adult mental health. The effects will also bring budget savings.

A $15 minimum wage would begin to lift up our nation's working families at a time when they desperately need the most help. When workers and their families benefit, so does our entire community. 

The unprecedented health and economic crisis we're in today demands a bold plan and swift action. President Biden was right when he exhorted, "A crisis of deep human suffering is in plain sight, and there's no time to waste. We have to act and we have to act now."

Ken Jacobs is an economist and the Chair of the UC Berkeley Labor Center.


The Fight for a $15 Minimum Wage Is a Fight for Racial Justice

Democrats need to stop playing games and use their majorities to pass a $15 minimum wage right now—we can't wait any longer.


 Published on Saturday, February 13, 2021

"Hundreds of people are dying a day from poverty. Many of them are low-wage workers, tipped workers, people getting sick unnecessarily. Meanwhile, tens of millions of people still lack healthcare," said Rev. William Barber. (Photo: Mike Brown/Getty Images)

Sixty-two million people in the United States make less than $15 an hour. And here’s the truth: the fight to raise the minimum wage to a living wage of $15 is as important as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. For Black people, it’s taken us 400 years to get to $7.25 an hour. We can’t wait any longer. People in Appalachia can’t wait any longer. Poor white people, brown people, we cannot wait any longer. And we won’t be silent anymore.

The low-wage workers, tipped workers, people making less than $15 were already in a kind of depression before the Covid-19 pandemic hit. This is deadly. Hundreds of people are dying a day from poverty. Many of them are low-wage workers, tipped workers, people getting sick unnecessarily. Meanwhile, tens of millions of people still lack healthcare. 

"We cannot get this close and then fall back. We say to President Biden, to Democrats, to Republicans, to senators, to all of them: don't turn your back on the $15 an hour minimum wage."

When it comes to the $15 minimum wage, some politicians say they’re worried about small businesses. But we have to ask them, have they voted for universal healthcare for everybody? Because if they were really worried about small businesses and their costs, they would pass universal healthcare so that small businesses didn’t have to pay that money to cover their workers. If they were really worried about these businesses, they would pay people a living wage. Because guess what? The people with living wages are going to spend that money, and guess where they’re going to spend it? Back in the businesses. 

We cannot get this close and then fall back. We say to President Biden, to Democrats, to Republicans, to senators, to all of them: don’t turn your back on the $15 an hour minimum wage. Listen: 55% of poor, low-wealth people voted for this current ticket. That’s the mandate. The mandate is in the people who voted, not in the back slapping of senators and congresspeople. It’s the people who voted. And if we turn our backs now, it will hurt 62 million poor, low-wealth people who have literally kept this economy alive, who were the first to have to go to jobs, first to get infected, first to get sick, first to die. We cannot be the last to get relief and the last to get treated and paid properly. Protect us, respect us, and pay us. 

The truth of the matter is, there can be no domestic tranquility without the establishment of justice. That’s not what Rev. William Barber says — it’s what the Constitution says. The establishment of justice precedes domestic tranquility. And you can only hold domestic tranquility when you promote the general welfare of all people. 

Now, some argue that a $15 wage can’t pass through budget reconciliation. That’s nothing but an excuse. The fact of the matter is, when Republicans wanted to pass tax cuts and cut welfare, they used reconciliation. One time, when the parliamentarian gave them the wrong answer, they fired the parliamentarian, and got another parliamentarian to give them the right answer. So there’s one set of rules that apply for corporations, and there’s another set of rules when it comes to poor and low-wealth people. And that’s why we’re saying to Democrats: Don’t play the reconciliation game. It only takes a simple majority of 51 votes to overturn what the parliamentarian says. Let’s be real about this. People turned out to vote and it’s time for this to happen.

"We have to act like we have one shot on this. Tomorrow is not promised. It's time to push, through every non-violent tool we have."

Back during the New Deal, people said to President Roosevelt that the minimum wage was going to break to the country. You know what Roosevelt said to them? He said any business that doesn’t want to pay people the minimum wage does not belong in America. He said you don’t have a right to exist in this country if you don’t want to pay people a basic minimum wage. 

Fifty-seven years ago, Martin Luther King Jr. called for a $2 an hour minimum wage, which would be over $15 today. A few weeks ago, all the politicians were saying, let’s follow Dr. King. Let’s hear Dr. King’s message of love. Well you can’t hear the message of love without hearing the love and the justice connected together. To go backwards on this would be morally indefensible, constitutionally inconsistent and economically insane. 

We cannot address racial equity if we do not address the minimum wage of $15. There’s no such thing as racial equity when you just address police reform and prisons but you don’t address the issue of economic justice. And if you address economic justice, guess what? It helps Black people, and white people, and brown people, and Latino people. It helps everybody. Everybody in, nobody out. 

When people regardless of their race, their color, their creed, their sexuality, their disability, come together to fight to change the narrative, to demand, and to vote — this is the coalition that the aristocracy and the greedy always fear. My grandmama used to say, ​Work while it is day, because the night comes.” She got that out of the Bible. And Isaiah 10 says, ​Woe unto those who legislate evil and rob the poor of their rights, who make women and children their prey.” 

We have to act like we have one shot on this. Tomorrow is not promised. It’s time to push, through every non-violent tool we have. We know that in every battle, if we fight, we win — and if we don’t fight, we can’t win. 

Let’s go forward together, not one step back.

This piece is adapted from remarks made at a Poor People’s Campaign Moral Monday event on February 8.

Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II

Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II is national president and senior lecturer of Repairers of the Breach. His books include: "The Third Reconstruction: How A Moral Movement is Overcoming the Politics of Division and Fear" (2016), "Revive Us Again: Vision and Action in Moral Organizing" (2018) and "We Are Called to Be a Movement" (2020). Follow him on Twitter: @RevDrBarber

SOCIALISE BIG PHARMA

Big Pharma Must Share Their Vaccine Knowledge and Technology With the World—Now

To stop the global pandemic, rich countries need to stop hoarding vaccines.


Published on Monday, February 15, 2021 
by
Howard University Hospital staff members received Covid-19 vaccination doses on December 15, 2020 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

Howard University Hospital staff members received Covid-19 vaccination doses on December 15, 2020 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

Just over a year ago, the world looked on in shock as the Chinese city of Wuhan imposed the first coronavirus lockdown. Since then, people around the world have made extraordinary sacrifices and have shown great solidarity in containing the spread of the virus.

Yet, when it comes to rolling out vaccines, the world's political leaders seem to have forgotten that we are all in it together.

The European Union has in recent weeks been engaged in a dispute with vaccine makers after AstraZeneca admitted it was expecting a major shortfall in production, and has been accused of prioritizing deliveries to the UK. In response, European officials have introduced temporary export restrictions on vaccines produced in its territories, giving member states the option of limiting exports outside the EU to countries like the UK, the United States and even South Africa.

On the surface, this may look like a fight over contractual commitments gone awry, but it reveals a much uglier truth: Wealthy countries are locked in a self-defeating and ultimately avoidable zero-sum game over vaccine supplies. And it is a game that poorer countries will inevitably lose—to the cost of us all.

Rich countries have ordered enough doses to vaccinate their populations three times over, while 9 in 10 people in nearly 70 poorer countries are unlikely to be vaccinated at all this year. This is according to analysis in December 2020 by the People's Vaccine Alliance, a group of organizations including Amnesty International campaigning for free and fair distribution of vaccines.

We know that when it comes to Covid infection and prevalence, nobody is safe until we are all safe. But the efforts of almost every rich country to snatch up vaccines reminds us of wealthy travelers paying for speedy boarding at the airport. They might be seated first, but the plane will only take off to its Covid-free destination once all the passengers —both rich and poor—are on board.
 
While Europeans are right to be concerned about what this dispute might mean for their access to a vaccine, we need to remember that this is a concern shared by everyone across the world.
 

The situation in South Africa underscores exactly why the world can't afford to engage in this everyone-for-themselves approach. As new variants of Covid-19 emerge, including a new strain identified by South African scientists that appears to be more contagious than the original strain, the stakes have become even higher for ensuring rapid and equitable delivery of vaccines.

"The European Union has pre-financed the development of the vaccine and the production and wants to see the return," say EU officials, with the bloc having invested €2.7 billion (about $3.3 billion) into research and development of several vaccines. However, many South Africans have also contributed by participating in trials to test the vaccines precisely because they thought this might be their only chance of receiving one.
 
Mtshaba Mzwamadoda, who is from a township in the south of Cape Town, told the New York Times that he was signing up to be in Johnson & Johnson's clinical trials because he believed this was his only chance. "The people at the top, they're going to get the vaccine, the people who have power."
 
Getting the vaccine to the world's poorest will require an approach based on solidarity rather than competition, with governments and companies working together to boost global supply rather than fight over it.
 
There are some glimmers of hope: The recent news that companies including Pfizer, Sanofi, GSK and Curevac have struck deals with each other to produce more vaccines shows that progress can be made together. But these deals are just a drop in the bucket. Meeting the scale of the global challenge will mean taking such collaboration to a whole new level.
 
The EU can start by dropping its opposition to measures proposed by India and South Africa at the World Trade Organization, which would waive intellectual property protections for life-saving products used to tackle Covid-19. The proposal would facilitate technology transfers so that Covid-19 medical products, including vaccines, could be produced more quickly and affordably by manufacturers around the world.
 
With both rich and poor countries alike now struggling for supply, these proposals are a no-brainer for rapidly scaling up vaccine production so that everyone can benefit.
Pharmaceutical companies must fulfil their human rights responsibilities too, which is why Amnesty International is campaigning for companies, including AstraZeneca, Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, to share their knowledge and technology so that everyone in the world will have a fair shot at a vaccine.
 
So far, neither governments nor companies have been willing to truly work together on the scale that we need. But if we want to come out of this global crisis together, sooner and with our consciences intact, then that must change.

Stephen Cockburn is head of economic and social justice at Amnesty International. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own.