Rural areas offer some stability in shaky job market

 

Bill Knight column for 10-22, 23 or 24, 2020

Rural communities had about 900,000 fewer jobs this August than August of 2019, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). However, the outlook is improving from earlier this year, and rural America is holding on to jobs better than urban or suburban areas.

Besides the number of jobs, the average jobless rates also are better in rural areas than metro areas.

BLS’ October Local Area Unemployment Statistics/ County Level report showed 12-month declines of jobs in rural areas of 6.4% in July and 4.3% in August. That's not good, of course, but it’s improving in the midst of the pandemic.

Urban and suburban areas between August 2019 and August 2020 showed job losses of 8% and 6.9%, respectively.

Nationally, data released Oct. 15 showed 898,000 new unemployment claims in the week ending Oct. 10, seasonally adjusted. That marked 30 consecutive weeks of 800,000-plus claims – since mid-March. More than 27 million people have used state or federal aid through mid-October (almost 18% of the labor force, according to Press Associates, Inc., and as state jobless benefits ran out, as well as the $600 weekly federal supplements, many have been forced to seek Illinois’ 20 weeks of extended benefits.

In downstate Illinois, a sampling of 10 counties showed seven mostly rural counties lost jobs between August 2019 and August 2020, but not as bad as the national average job loss of 6.4% then. The three that saw worse job loss than the country was the metro area of Peoria, Tazewell and Woodford Counties:

The percentage declines in numbers of jobs were 8% in Peoria, 7.9% in Tazewell and 7.7% in Woodford. Reporting fewer job losses were Fulton (3.7%), Henderson (0.1%), Henry (4.6%), Knox (4.2%), Livingston (2.3%), McDonough (2.5%), and Warren (0.7%).

“With the last round of federal unemployment bonuses running out in mid-September and no further stimulus plan in sight, the unemployment numbers for especially impacted industries remain volatile,” says Casey Peterson, Director of Rural Outreach and Development with the Greater Peoria Economic Development Council.

Peterson sees cities that benefit from travelers and hotel business being particularly vulnerable during the pandemic.

“Larger metro areas reliant on hospitality and tourism continue to fare much worse overall,” he says. “Coronavirus has given rural communities with access to natural resources like state parks and recreation areas an opportunity to diversify their economic outlook. With people from all walks of life doing their best to follow guidelines but also wanting to get out of the house, the outdoors are a natural draw for those looking to enjoy the fall weather.”

The COVID-19 pandemic has slowed other types of recreation, especially if the activities are distant destinations requiring air travel. Six of the top 10 job declines among rural counties depend on such recreation: Mono County, Calif.; San Juan County, Wash.; Denali Borough, Alaska; Skagway City, Alaska; Teton County, Wyo.; and Dickinson County, Iowa. However, hometown recreation, sight-seeing close by, and brief breaks from “stay-cations” help rural economies, and jobs.

“Since the start of the pandemic, we've seen surging demand nationwide for safe, close-to-home spaces where people can be active outside,” said Ryan Chao, President of the national Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, last week.

Also, farm country is somewhat protected from many negative job trends.

“Our [downstate Illinois] region echoes national trends in employment numbers by industry,” says Peterson, with the Greater Peoria EDC. “Counties and communities that are heavily reliant on agriculture have generally fared better as far as employment goes. The USDA and the $23.5 billion Farm Bill passed in March played a major stabilizing role.”

Amy Davis, the Economic Development Director in Elmwood, pop. 2,000, agrees, adding, “Agricultural jobs are less influenced by things like a pandemic because once the crop is in the ground, harvest is inevitable and all of the individuals who are part of that and anything down the line from there are needed. Worst-case scenario is fewer hands doing the same work but again most farming operations that I see locally are already running very efficiently.  That doesn't mean the market will be kind, but the work still needs to be done.”

Looking at the fair tax debate

 

Bill Knight column for 10-19, 20 or 21

All the windbags unleashing the derecho blowing through media and mailboxes about the “fair tax” are picturing consequences for Illinoisans that are somewhere between winning the lottery and losing your home.

Misleading or exaggerated predictions concerning the ballot initiative to amend the state constitution to enact a graduated income tax (a “fair tax”) seem to be intended to either confuse us to reject something in our own interest or stampede us to blindly OK the measure like the Walking Dead scuffling into polling places.

On November 3, voters will decide whether to permit a graduated income tax that has the wealthiest pay proportionally higher rates. If 60% of people voting on the question vote yes (or more than 50% of all voters who cast ballots in the election), it would take effect January 1.

Today, we all pay an income-tax rate of 4.95%, a millionaire or a McDonald’s cashier. A fair tax would raise the rate for people making more than $250,000/year, keep it the same for taxpayers reporting $100,000 to $250,000/year, and lower it for everyone else, according to rates approved in June 2019. Currently, the lowest-earning one-fifth of Illinoisans pays 14.4% of its income in state and local taxes, reports the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), a nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank. That contrasts with the highest-earning 1% of the population, which pays 7.4%.

Sure, paying taxes isn’t fun, but many taxpayers view it less as punishment than an investment in roads, public safety, water, libraries, schools and programs for our communities – all as vital to the economy as business inventories.

And the state has a $6.2 billion budget deficit.

But some seem to imply a fair tax is all we need to ensure sunshine, lollipops and rainbows, plus an ample supply of puppy dogs, bin-busting crops, good gas mileage and an END TO 2020.

Reality Check: Cuts in spending may be necessary, too. True, the legislature in the last 20 years has cut public safety 21%, human services 29% and higher education 52%, state records show. But the General Assembly may have to make more hard choices. The difficulty, of course, will be which expenditures, and too often decisions derive from political preferences, not social priorities.

However, if a graduated tax had been used since 2000, it would have generated some $50 billion from the state’s top earners, according to an analysis by the New York Times.

What we need is a time machine to warn the Past. Alas…

We can peer into the future, though. According to Illinois Department of Revenue data, the fair tax’s impact on residents of a sampling of Illinois counties shows 99.42% of Fulton taxpayers would pay the same or less than now; 99.49% in Henderson, 99.00% in Henry, 99.09% in Knox, 98.91% in Livingston, 99.12% in McDonough, 97,32% in Peoria, 98.35% in Tazewell, 99.18% in Warren, and 97.48% in Woodford.

(To see how you’d be affected, go online to www2.illinois.gov/sites/gov/fairtax/Pages/default.aspx).

Also, a graduated tax system isn’t radical. The federal government, the District of Columbia and 32 states including Iowa, Missouri and Wisconsin all use a graduated tax.

In Illinois, opposition from wealthy individuals and influential business groups claim the fair tax would give lawmakers new powers to tax retirees, small businesses or the middle class; or give Springfield a “blank check” to spend without any accountability; or force businesses to leave Illinois.

Wait a doggoned minute.

The nonpartisan Better Government Association says, “Only a small share of Illinois 1.2 million small businesses would be affected by the tax plan – only those earning more than $250,000.”

Also, of course, lawmakers could raise taxes now, as they did in 2011.

As for causing an exodus, the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability reported that people don’t leave Illinois due to taxes. Instead, these migrants mostly cite a new job or job transfer, being closer to family, or housing reasons.

The leading advocate for retirees, AARP, has endorsed the fair tax.

“We believe changing to a graduated income-tax structure is a step in the right direction to fix our budget mess,” said Lori Hendren, associate state director of AARP Illinois. “The way protects older Americans but not taxing retirement incomes. Only the wealthiest will pay more.”

The fair tax may not be an easy or simple solution to the state’s fiscal problems, but the ballot question may have a simple answer after all.

Be prepared: Supreme Court to get more extreme

 

Bill Knight column for 10-15, 16 or 17, 2020

As Amy Coney Barrett appears before the Senate this week, we’re reminded that elections matter.

Donald Trump’s 2016’s victory let him appoint three Supreme Court justices – as well as “packing the court” by filling judiciary vacancies left open when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stonewalled President Obama’s appointments.

Americans might endure the GOP hypocrisy of rushing confirmation three weeks before voting (in 2016 – eight months before that election – the Senate wouldn’t consider Obama’s nominee), and accept Barrett’s arrival. But we better plan for a Right-wing Roberts Court.

Chief Justice John Roberts already is the second-most pro-business justice (after Samuel Alito) from 1946 to 2011, according to a study by Appellate Judge Richard Posner and law professors Lee Epstein and William Landes.

Roberts’ influence has shown in cases involving forced arbitration, campaign finance, voting rights, gerrymandering/redistricting, and workers sharing costs for union representation. After the latter case, “Janus” (which started with anti-union forces in Illinois), Justice Elena Kagan said there were no reasons for overruling the issue’s precedent, established in 1977 in “Abood.” She wrote, “The majority has overruled ‘Abood’ for no exceptional or special reason. It has overruled ‘Abood’ because it wanted to.”

Advocates for reversing precedents are often “originalists” who interpret the Constitution as they claim Founders intended, letting them upend whatever they can justify doesn’t fit the colonial point of view.

If originalism prevailed in the last century, discrimination would be legal, contraceptives illegal, poll taxes would prevent the poor from voting, and workers would be prohibited from unionizing. (Originalism arguably could apply the 2nd Amendment only to muskets, or limit citizenship to white, male property owners.)

Rutgers University law professor James Gray Pope told In These Times magazine that “the big-picture point here is that throughout the whole range of issues that affect the working class, the Supreme Court is going to be in a fundamentally reactionary posture.”

AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka said, “In John Roberts’s America, corporations have more rights than people. You can’t draft them. You can’t put them in jail. They have limited liability and, in many cases, don’t pay taxes. It is now easier to bust a union than form one. Too many politicians are choosing their constituents, not the other way around. Collective action and civil rights, the very foundations of a healthy democracy, are being whittled away.”

Similar decisions overturning precedents probably lie ahead if Barrett takes the open seat.

Unlike Ginsburg – a champion for the Affordable Care Act, workers’ rights, women’s rights, and the right to vote – Barrett also is an originalist.

Although Barrett is a Catholic (belonging to an unusual Catholic group, People of Praise, in which she considers herself a “handmaid” to a male hierarchy), she doesn’t have unified support from her Church.

Sister Simone Campbell, director of NETWORK lobby for Catholic social justice, said, “I know that Judge Barrett shares my faith, but her past words and actions prove that she does not hold all life to be sacred. President Trump appears to be courting the Catholic vote. As a Catholic Sister, let me be clear: Catholics will not be bought off by a predetermined vote against ‘Roe v. Wade.’ It is insulting to act as if my faith boils down to one issue. Catholics cannot support judges or politicians who blatantly ignore the breadth of Catholic Social Teaching on women’s rights, voting rights, immigrant’s rights, health care, environmental protections, and so much more.”

Registered Nurse Bonnie Castillo, director of National Nurses United, said Barrett’s “record on racial and age discrimination and immigration rights is equally troubling.”

Rebecca Dixon, director of the National Employment Law Project, added, “Judge Barrett has proven she puts the wealthy and powerful first, and [the] record shows that if confirmed, she would only further entrench the anti-worker, pro-corporation slant of this Supreme Court.”

So, as professor Pope said, “Politics are key,” conceding that “that’s an area that’s fraught right now with the gerrymandering opinion, the voter ID rulings, and Citizens United guaranteeing the right of money to skew the political process. All of those things are going to make it very difficult.”

However, he recalled the late 1800s and early 1900s (the “Lochner era,” for a case overturning New York’s law limiting a day’s work to 10 hours), when the Supreme Court frequently invalidated federal and state laws.

“Around the Lochner era, a lot of people were denied the right to vote, including not only African Americans in the South, but also poor whites in the South, and women,” Pope said. “So the democratic process was skewed then as well. Ultimately, what was crucial was mass resistance.”

We’re reminded, too, of Curtis Mayfield’s lyric: “People get ready. There’s a train comin’.”