California, Poorest/Richest State in the Nation

California currently has more than 600,000 millionaires and 85 billionaires in the Forbes 400 list, far more than any other state in the nation. At the same time, California is now the poorest state in the nation, with the highest percentage of residents living at or below the poverty level. According to the Census Bureau, 23.5% (8.7 million Californians) are living in poverty. Florida is number 2 at 19.5%.

These numbers reflect a revision in how the Census Bureau measures poverty. In the past, it looked solely at income versus food costs. Under this system, the poverty rate would be only 16%. Under the new system, it now considers income plus assistance programs (e.g., food stamps, welfare) versus tax rate, childcare, housing and medical costs, in addition to food expenses, providing a much more realistic (though still incomplete) picture of families’ financial challenges.

Nearly 50% of California’s children live in or “perilously close” to poverty according to the newer metric, probably the single biggest reason for the state’s low test scores. True poverty rates are further obscured by the arbitrary and absurdly low federal threshold of $23,021 for a family of four. Considering that average monthly rents are $1552 in Los Angeles, $1431 in San Diego, $1938 in San Jose and $2106 in San Francisco, families must spend between $17,172 and $25,272 per year just to place a roof over their heads.

It is not just that better methods are providing a more accurate measure of poverty. The recession has also contributed to a dramatic increase in poverty. Between 2008 and 2011, for example, poverty rose 12% in Los Angeles County to 24.3%, and rose even more in some of the state’s rural counties. Conditions have grown so bad that California has seen negative migration patterns for the past eight years, according to the WSWS. A combination of low unemployment rates in Mexico (roughly half of California’s in recent years) and increased militarization of the border and deportations (a record 400,000 in 2012) has significantly reduced migration from Mexico. This has led to labor shortages in the state’s agriculture sector, with some farmers opting to let unpicked produce rot rather than increasing wages to attract domestic employees, since the former increases sales prices and profits, while the latter only cuts into profits.

While the state’s economy “recovers,” job growth has been primarily in low-wage service jobs. Thus many formerly unemployed are now earning far less than they did prior to the recession, contributing to the ranks of the working poor. Cuts to social programs has placed further downward pressure on living standards and contributed to the growing number of poor Californians under the new measurement system.

Recovery for the Rich, Hunger for Half of All Children

Huck/Konopacki Labor Cartoons

The stock exchange tells us nothing about the real economy or, more importantly, the economic reality for 90-99% of Americans. But a big crash does tell us that the rich are getting spooked.

They called it a correction, which might seem euphemistic for something that seems so catastrophic. Yet it is, in fact, a correction, because the value of stocks had been inflated due to the huge amounts of cash pumped into the banks and financial houses and large corporations and the exuberance of the wealthy in light of their continued tax cuts and success in shrinking government.

The value of stocks was certainly no indication that anyone else was doing well. And the crash is no catastrophe for the rich, at least not in the sense one might think. They will continue to be rich. They will not have to cut back on luxury items or even staples, like most of us have. They have no worries about losing their homes to foreclosures or their jobs. But they are worried about the possible collapse of the European economy as a result of defaults in Spain, Italy or Greece. They are also worried about sluggish domestic growth, which is ironic since they have caused this problem by prohibiting any government spending and by immiserating the public to the point that we either cannot afford to spend or are scared to. The debt reduction deal virtually guarantees a double dip recession, or at least a continuation of the status quo, as it forces the poor and the working and middle classes to bail out the state at the same time they are struggling with job loss, declining wages, increasing healthcare costs and possibly losing their homes.

The stock exchange tells us nothing about the real economy or, more importantly, the economic reality for 90-99% of Americans. But a big crash does tell us that the rich are getting spooked.

They call it a correction, which might seem euphemistic for something that seems so catastrophic. Yet it is, in fact, a correction, because the value of stocks had been inflated due to the huge amounts of cash pumped into the banks and financial houses and large corporations and the exuberance of the wealthy in light of their continued tax cuts and success in shrinking government. The crash merely brings their value back down to something more realistic.

The value of stocks was certainly no indication that anyone else was doing well. And the crash is no catastrophe for the rich, at least not in the sense one might think. They will continue to be rich. They will not have to cut back on luxury items or even staples, like most of us have. They have no worries about losing their homes to foreclosures or their jobs. But they are worried about the possible collapse of the European economy as a result of defaults in Spain, Italy or Greece. They are also worried about sluggish domestic growth, which is ironic since they have caused it by prohibiting any government spending and by immiserating the public to the point that we either cannot afford to spend or are scared to. The debt reduction deal virtually guarantees a double dip recession, or at least a continuation of the status quo, as it forces the poor and the working and middle classes to bail out the state at the same time they are struggling with job loss, declining wages, increasing healthcare costs and possibly losing their homes.

Meanwhile, employment is at an anemic 58% overall and much lower for African Americans and Hispanics. This is in marked contrast to the official (and misleading) unemployment statistics of 9-11%. “Unemployment” only counts people who have worked and are currently looking for work, thus ignoring single mothers and teenagers entering the workforce for the first time, as well as the millions of Americans who have simply given up looking, since there is so little available.

58% employed means that 42% of adult Americans are not working. Most of them are also not earning, which begs the question: How are they surviving?

The answer: by the skin of their teeth. Not only is it taking longer to find a job now than it did during the Great Depression, but poverty and hunger are also reaching record levels. The number of people on food stamps has also reached record levels. In March 2009, the number of people on food stamps reached record levels at 31 million. Now, we’re at 45.8 million. And even this figure is deceptive as only about 67% of the eligible people actually apply, according to the OB Rag.

(From the OB Rag)

 Great Recession and Schools

Anyone who reads this blog has seen plenty of evidence that poverty is the primary influence on academic achievement. Obviously, with a protracted recession, we will be seeing this reflected in our own students. Many of us are already seeing the effects. I have had an increased number of homeless students and students telling me that they cannot afford basic supplies because of financial insecurity at home. I’m also seeing the effects in terms of declining high school readiness and academic skills and increased stress and anxiety among my students.

One thing that is seldom discussed is that children make up a large chunk of those who receive food stamps. According to the OB Rag, in 2009, when the last USDA survey was done, 48% of all SNAP participants were children, while a 2009 study (Estimating the Risk of Food Stamp Use and Impoverishment During Childhood) figured that 49% of all children will receive food-stamp benefits sometime before they are 20 years old. Thus, an increase in food stamp use means an increase in childhood poverty and a decrease in childhood health and academic success.

Students Occupy Ohio State to Kick Sodexo Sweat Shop Off Campus

Nine activists, including seven students, were arrested at Ohio State University on Monday as they occupied the offices of university president Gordon Gee (see the United Students Against Sweatshops website). They are among over one hundred activists who were protesting the relationship between OSU and the industrial cafeteria giant Sodexo. The protest was organized by the OSU chapter of United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS), according to The Lantern.com. The arrestees were charged with criminal trespassing.

Angus Johnston, at the Student Activism website, said that USAS has organized almost a dozen campus protests across the nation recently, including one at Western Washington University, which forced the university to break ties with Sodexo.

ASUS wants OSU to sever its 15-year deal with Sodexo to provide concessions at their athletics facilities. The ASUS website says that the contract is worth over $100 million. OSU students were particularly outraged after OSU’s President Gee denied responsibility for severe abuses of Sodexo’s workers at OSU stadiums. The ASUS website says that Sodexo employees at OSU have reported sub-poverty wages, sexual harassment, racist hiring practices, an inadequate sick leave policy and sweatshop-like working conditions. Gee’s attitude should come as no surprise, considering he is a millionaire, himself, and the highest-paid public university president in the country.

Sodexo is guilty of labor abuses across the globe. Trans Africa Forum and Human Rights Watch reported that Sodexo employees in Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Guinea, Morocco and the U.S. often suffer poverty wages, high rates of workplace injuries, and risk of dismissal for union organizing. In Colombia, Sodexo served contaminated food to its own employees, giving 60 of them food poisoning. Sodexo is guilty of union busting in the U.S., as well as taking kickbacks from suppliers, like Kelloggs.

Sodexo is the largest supplier of school lunches in the U.S. Sodexo, made more than $1 billion in profits in 2009, an 8.1% increase over the year before, much of it from school lunches. Despite their huge profits, many Sodexo employees in the U.S. made only $7.50 per hour, qualifying them for food stamps, and making their kids eligible for free school lunches. Additionally, two-thirds of their non-managerial employees lack health coverage.

America Eats Its Young

Huck/Konopacki Labor Cartoons

A new report released by the Economic Policy Institute (and reported in the WSWS) said that the jobless rate for young workers in the U.S. is the highest since records started to be tracked in 1948. To make matters worse, there is virtually no safety net for youth. Unemployment insurance is only available to those who have already been working and who lost their jobs, not for people trying to enter the workforce for the first time.

The unemployment rate for young people ages 16-24 not attending school has roughly doubled since 2007. While the official unemployment rate was 9.6% in 2010, the rate for 16-24-year olds was at 18.4%. Recent high school graduates have been hardest hit with an unemployment rate of 22.5%. However, even recent college graduates are struggling, with their unemployment rate more than double that of college graduates who are 25 or older. The situation is even bleaker for youth of color. The unemployment rate for 16-24-year old high school graduates is 22.8% for Hispanic youth and 31.8% for African-Americans.

                                                                                                                      

Not only are younger workers having a tough time finding work, over half of all college graduates also have at least $20,000 in debt. Furthermore, youth are ineligible for most of the social safety net programs that are available to struggling families. Welfare is only applicable to parents with children and, like unemployment insurance, has work requirements. Another safety net program, the Earn Income Tax Credit, also requires employment.

Contrary to the propaganda of the Obama Administration, the high unemployment rate for young workers is not due to their lack of education. U.S. businesses have been making record profits, so the money for hiring is there. However, they are not hiring. They have pushed up productivity to unprecedented levels by downsizing and speeding up, squeezing more work out of fewer employees. Rather than giving these highly productive workers a raise, they have pocketed the profits and created a growing army of surplus labor, so desperate for an income that they are willing to work for less, accept non-unionized jobs, and even scab on unionized workers. It is in the bosses’ interests to maintain this army of unemployed workers to help drive down wages and weaken unions.

In contrast, it is in the interests of labor and youth activists to organize among the unemployed, especially the young, something that is not happening. Historically, the unions have accepted the ruling class lies that other workers are their enemies, perpetuating racist, sexist and nationalist antagonisms. A similar situation looms today, with a potential scapegoating of youth, blaming them for job losses or declining wages. Rather, labor and other activists need to proactively organize workers and unemployed, alike, to resist the escalating class war against the rest of us.

Lunch Law Lards Commodity Food Producers, Does Little to Fight Obesity

Image by fsgm

On Monday, President Obama signed the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act, providing an additional $4.5 billion to the school lunch program over the next ten years. Obama praised the bill as a rare example of bipartisan cooperation, which should have alerted everyone that it was really just a big giveaway to corporate America.

The bill’s supporters believe that it will provide kids with more access to whole grains and fresh fruits and vegetables. It allows the USDA to set nutritional standards for all food, whether in cafeterias or vending machines, paving the way for the ultimate elimination of candy and other junk food at schools. It will also expand free school meals to an additional 115,000 low income students.

Much Ado About Nothing

Chidorian

While these are all good things, they are unlikely to happen. The legislation only provides a paltry six cent increase for each meal served, just enough to spread a few whole grains decoratively around students’ plates. Schools will be allowed to raise prices for students who can afford it, but there is no guarantee that students will be willing to pay more for a plate of “healthy” food, especially if it is still mass produced and heavily processed swill. Even if the more privileged students do pay more, schools still won’t be able to afford to hire sufficient cooks to prepare fresh meals on site, and will continue to rely on a few underpaid servers to hand out prefabricated meals produced by corporate giants like Sodexo and Marriott.

The pathetic six cents per meal subsidy will only be provided to schools that implement the new stricter nutrition guidelines. Considering that schools were already losing money on federally subsidized school lunches, even when resorting to prefabricated corporate factory foods, how will an additional six cents allow them to provide fresh fruits and vegetables? It’s unlikely that many schools will take advantage of the new program without making cuts elsewhere.

In my school district, the food is so horrendous that few students were buying it. However, our district had negotiated a deal with Marriott guaranteeing them a profit, which they weren’t making, obligating the school district to pay the difference. In an attempt to save themselves money, the district required schools to implement a brunch period, forcing us to change our bell schedules and cut several minutes of instructional time from each class, in hopes that kids would purchase more.

Robbing Peter to Pay for Paul?

Half the funding for the lunch bill is set to come from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which will provide kids a few cents more per meal at school, while reducing the amount of food stamps their parents would get to feed them at home. President Obama promised to replace the money taken from SNAP from some yet unspecified source. However, in this time of budget slashing and Republican rancor, he is unlikely to make good on this promise. If he fails to secure the funding, school may become the only place where poor kids get to eat. At home they can watch their parents starve.

Opening the Larder to Corporate Plunder

Both the First Lady’s organization, Let’s Move, and the new federal lunch law, were heavily backed by the largest food processing and factory farming groups in the country who hoped to win some of the $4.5 billion of taxpayer dollars allocated in the new legislation. Simply signing on as a supporter is great PR, as it allows these companies look like cheerleaders for children’s health while they continue to push their heavily salted, larded and sugared junk. The tactic is known as “cause marketing.” Joan Chow, chief marketing officer of ConAgra, a big supporter (and potential beneficiary) of the bill, said “We’ve found that consumers feel better about brands that they believe in.”

The biggest benefit to food corporations, however, is that the USDA has 18 months to determine the final nutrition standards, giving their lobbyists plenty of time to haggle, manipulate and massage the new rules to their liking.

Sodexo picket by SEIU Local 1

The school lunch program was already big business, even before this legislation. The largest supplier of school lunches, Sodexo, made more than $1 billion in profits last year, an 8.1% increase over the year before, much of it from school lunches. The new bill virtually ensures that more federal bucks will pass their way. Despite their huge profits, many Sodexo employees made only $7.50 per hour, qualifying them for SNAP (if there is any of it left), and making their kids eligible for free school lunches. Additionally, two-thirds of their non-managerial employees lack health coverage.

Other supporters of the legislation included the American Fruit and Vegetable Processors and Growers Coalition, ConAgra, Domino’s Pizza, International Dairy Foods Association, Mars Inc., Nestle USA, Coca-Cola, and Tyson Foods.

Fighting Obesity?

Proponents, especially the First Lady, claimed that the bill would fight obesity, a laughable notion considering the bill does nothing to increase kids’ physical activity during the school day. On the contrary, schools across the country have been reducing physical education due to budget cuts and the need to provide more academic support classes to help kids pass their numerous state and federal standardized exams. If the First Lady and congress truly care about making schools healthier, they need to abolish NCLB and provide sufficient funding so schools can retain PE teachers and provide students with at least 30 minutes of aerobic exercise daily.

The bill also fails to address why kids today are eating so much junk food. It’s not just that parents and schools are ignorant or irresponsible. The fact is that junk food is much cheaper and easier to obtain by overworked, stressed out parents. One reason for this is that government subsidies make it much more profitable to process corn and other commodity foods into unhealthy products that are much cheaper than healthier alternatives.

The Big Ag Deception

In reality, it is an illusion. That 2 liter bottle of coke seems like a good deal, but it is artificially cheap because the high fructose corn syrup came from subsidized corn, paid for out of our tax dollars. We are actually paying twice for that coke, once in the form of a smaller paycheck and again when we actually purchase the bottle at the am/pm.

A more expedient strategy for reducing obesity is to end the subsidies for big factory farms. As long as we subsidize corn and other commodity foods, growers and processers will be encouraged to produce highly processed, sugary, salty and fatty foods. The money saved could be used to help pay for healthier school lunches.

Another effective solution is to heavily tax junk foods, like we do tobacco. This would not only bring in revenues that could be used to improve the quality of school lunches, but it would also reduce consumption of junk food outside of school, with much greater impact on obesity. Higher taxes mean higher prices, forcing people to think twice about their purchases. The tobacco tax has been particularly effective at reducing consumption by children and a junk food tax would likely have a similar effect.