Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
122241910
label
[06/11/1997 - 09/06/2000]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
122241910
contentType
document
title
[06/11/1997 - 09/06/2000]
citationUrl
collections
Presidential Electronic Mail from the Automated Records Management System (ARMS)
Automated Records Management System (ARMS) Email from the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) Bucket
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
122241910
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-26444786-20160531F-017-007-2018
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
b10024944d727810
ocrText
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001. email
To [email protected], from Nora Gordon, re: Hello [partial] (1
11/02/1998
b(6)
page)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Automated Records Management System [Email]
CEA ([Living Wage])
OA/Box Number: 950000
FOLDER TITLE:
[06/11/1997 - 09/06/2000]
2016-0531-F
bg128
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - |44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - 15 U.S.C. 552(b)]
PI National Security Classified Information |(a)(1) of the PRA|
b(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office |(a)(2) of the PRA|
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA
an agency |(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA|
financial information |(a)(4) of the PRAJ
h(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA|
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy |(a)(6) of the PRA
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes |(b)(7) of the FOIA|
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
ARMS Email SystemRECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(owner-welfarem-
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWNJ
CREATION DATE/TIME:11-JUN-1997 17:43:33.00
SUBJECT: National Jobs Vacancy Survey
TO: Cynthia K. Gustafson@eop ( Cynthia K. Gustafson@eop [ CEA
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
The National Jobs for All Coalition has issued the following action alert
urging congress to establish a national job vacancy survey. Please contact
the NJAC directly if you have questions. Contact information for the NJAC
is near the bottom of this message.
Jackie Chu, IWPR
ACTION ALERT!!
>
WHERE ARE THE JOBS FOR WELFARE RECIPIENTS?
URGE CONGRESS TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL JOB VACANCY SURVEY
WELFARE TO WORK? Are there enough jobs for welfare recipients who
are
now expected to go to work? Do those jobs pay living wages? Are they
>
located where welfare recipients live and can be expected to work?
>
The truth is, no one can answer these questions with certainty. The
V
Bureau of Labor Statistics collects data on the number and
>
characteristics of unemployed persons, and on the number and
>
characteristics of occupied jobs, but not on the number of vacant
jobs
>
employers are trying to fill.
V
BUT ISN'T UNEMPLOYMENT AT THE LOWEST IT'S BEEN IN 23 YEARS?
V
Job vacancy surveys conducted in the past in selected areas of the
>
country have shown that even when unemployment rates are
comparatively
>
low, there are still several times as many job seekers as available
>
jobs. It is also true that the official unemployment rate
notoriously
>
understates the number of persons needing work. At present, there
are
V
nearly 16 million people who want full time jobs and don't have them
>
or are working part-time because they can't get full-time work.
>
Welfare "reform" will force several million more people to join this
>
scramble for work. We believe a JOB VACANCY SURVEY would show that
>
there really are not enough jobs to meet this need. This means that
V
it is harsh and unrealistic to implement the work requirements in the
new welfare law.
DO AVAILABLE JOBS PAY LIVING WAGES? No one can say for certain.
Just
as we don't know how many vacant jobs there are and where they are,
we
don't know what wages these jobs pay. What we do know is that
finding
work does not guarantee a living wage. In this supposedly "booming"
economy, there are nearly 17 million people who work full-time all
year and nonetheless earn less than the poverty level for a family of
four. A job vacancy survey could tell us whether job opportunities
will permit people on welfare to escape poverty, or merely add to the
million of Americans, who, even when they find work, can't support
their families.
THE CONGRESSIONAL PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS IS TRYING TO BUILD SUPPORT FOR
>
LEGISLATION ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL JOB VACANCY SURVEY. Such a
survey
would only cost about $12 million each time it is conducted. That's
not much, but Congress won't ask unless people like you speak up. A
>
JOB VACANCY SURVEY could achieve the following goals: 1. give a
better
indication of inflationary pressures (misfit between skills and
available jobs) than unemployment data; 2. guide young people in
education and career planning; and c. force the government to face
the
fact that there are not enough jobs to go around and that it must
ensure JOBS FOR ALL or adequate income support to all who lack the
money to support themselves and their families. Succeeding in this
JOB VACANCY SURVEY initiative would be a small but important step
forward in the movement for JOBS FOR ALL at decent wages.
HERE'S HOW YOU CAN HELP:
1. Contact the Members of Congress from your state that are the
attached list. These are members of the House Ways and Means
Committee, and the Senate Finance Committee.
2. Ask to speak to the legislative assistant who handles the member's
work on appropriations and/or labor and workforce issues. (In
addition, you may also want to speak to the legislative assistant who
works on welfare reform issues.)
3. Urge the Representative or Senator to work with other members of
Congress and the Department of Labor to get funds appropriated for
regular "job vacancy surveys" by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Tell the legislative assistant why you think the people in your
community would benefit from having more accurate information on job
vacancies. Encourage them to work with the Bureau of Labor
Statistics
>
and the appropriate Congressional committees to find funding for the
>
survey. Ask the legislative assistant to follow up by reporting back
to you on what action their office will take on this issue. If they
want more information on the details of the job vacancy proposal,
>
encourage them to contact Bill Grady of Rep. George E. Brown, Jr.'s
>
office at (202) 225-6161.
>
After contacting target members, you may also want to contact other
>
members of Congress from your state c/o the Congressional
switchboard,
>
202-224-3121. You may write to Senators at: U.S. Senate, Washington,
>
DC 20510, and Representatives at: House of Representatives,
>
Washington, DC 20515.
>
Email addresses for Senators are available from:
>
http://www.senate.gov/senator/index.html
>
and for House members from:
>
http://www.earthlaw.org/Activist/houseadd.htm
>
4. Let NJFAC know what response you got from the members of Congress
that represent your state, by reporting back to us c/o the phone, fax
>
and e-mail address below.
5. Distribute this action alert to other organizations in your
>
community and encourage them to contact members of Congress about
this
>
issue. Reach out to the media with op-eds and letters to the
editor.
>
Write to NJFAC to receive a copy of the our "Fair Work and Welfare"
>
packet of articles (suggested donation $5), which you can distribute
>
to local columnists, newspaper editorial boards, and opinion leaders.
>
NATIONAL JOBS FOR ALL COALITION
>
475 Riverside Drive, Suite 832
>
New York, NY 10115
>
(212) 870-3449 Fax: (212) 870-3341
email: [email protected]
>
V
State Member of Congress
Phone
>
AK Sen. Frank H. Murkowski R
202-224-6665
V
AZ Rep. J.D. Hayworth - R
202-225-2190
>
CA Rep. Bill Thomas - R
202-225-2915
>
CA Rep. Wally Herger - R
202-225-3076
V
CA Rep. Fortney Pete Stark - D
202-225-5065
V
CA Rep. Robert T. Matsui -D
202-225-7163
>
CA Rep. Xavier Becerra -D
202-225-6235
>
CT Rep. Nancy L. Johnson - R
202-225-4476
V
CT Rep. Barbara B. Kennelly -D
202-225-2265
>
DE Sen. William V. Roth, Jr., Chair - R 202-224-2441
>
FL Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr., Sub-Chair - R 202-225-3026
>
FL Rep. Karen L. Thurman -D
202-225-1002
>
FL Sen. Connie Mack - R
202-224-5274
>
FL Sen. Bob Graham - -D
202-224-3041
>
GA Rep. Mac Collins - R
202-225-5901
> GA Rep. John Lewis -D
202-225-3801
>
IA Rep. Jim Nussle - R
202-225-2911
>
IA Sen. Charles E. Grassley - R
202-224-3744
>
IL Rep. Philip M. Crane - R
202-225-3711
>
IL Rep. Jerry Weller - R
202-225-3635
>
IL Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun -D
202-224-2854
>
KY Rep. Jim Bunning - R
202-225-3465
>
LA Rep. Jim McCrery - R
202-225-2777
>
LA Rep. William J. Jefferson - D
202-225-6636
>
LA Sen. John B. Breaux (RM) - D
202-224-4623
>
MA Rep. Richard E. Neal -D
202-225-5601
>
MD Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin - D
202-225-4016
>
MI Rep. Dave Camp - R
202-225-3561
>
MI Rep. Sander Levin (RM) -D
202-225-4961
>
MN Rep. Jim Ramstad - R
202-225-2871
>
MO Rep. Kenny Hulshof - R
202-225-2956
>
MS Sen. Trent Lott - R
202-224-6253
>
MT Sen. Max Baucus -D
202-224-2651
>
ND Sen. Kent Conrad - -D
202-224-2043
>
NE Rep. Jon Christensen - R
202-225-4155
>
NE Sen. Bob Kerrey - -D
202-224-6551
>
NV Rep. John Ensign - R
202-225-5965
>
NV Sen. Richard Bryan - D
202-224-6244
>
NY Rep. Amo Houghton - R
202-225-3161
>
NY Rep. Charles B. Rangel (RM) -D
202-225-4365
>
NY Rep. Michael R. McNulty - D
202-225-5076
>
NY Sen. Alfonse M. D'Amato - R
202-224-6542
>
NY Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan - D
202-224-4451
>
OH Rep. Rob Portman - R
202-225-3164
>
OK Rep. Wes Watkins - R
202-225-4565
>
OK Sen. Don Nickles - R
202-224-5754
>
PA Rep. Philip S.English - R
202-225-5406
>
PA Rep. William J. Coyne - D
202-225-2301
>
RI Sen. John H. Chafee, Sub-Chair - R
202-224-2961
>
TN Rep. John S. Tanner - D
202-225-4714
>
TX Rep. Sam Johnson - R
202-225-4201
V
TX Sen. Phil Gramm - R
202-224-2934
V
TX Rep. Bill Archer, Chair - R
202-225-2571
>
UT Sen. Orrin G. Hatch - R
202-224-5251
>
VT Sen. James Jeffords - R
202-224-5141
>
WA Rep. Jennifer Dunn - R
202-225-7761
>
WA Rep. Jim McDermott - D
202-225-3106
V
WI Rep. Gerald D. Kleczka - D
202-225-4572
V
WV Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV - D
202-224-6472
>
V
V
V
Jackie Chu, Research Associate
Institute For Women's Policy Research
1400 20th Street, N.W., Suite 104
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202)785-1921 Tel
(202)833-4362 Fax
e-mail: [email protected]
http://www.iwpr.org
ATTACHMENT 1
ATT CREATION TIME/DATE: 0 00:00:00.00
TEXT:
RFC-822-headers:
Received: from conversion.pmdf.eop.gov by PMDF.EOP.GOV (PMDF V5.0-4 #6879)
id <[email protected]> for [email protected]; Wed,
11 Jun 1997 17:27:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from storm.eop.gov (storm.eop.gov)
by PMDF.EOP.GOV (PMDF V5.0-4 #6879) id <[email protected]> for
[email protected]; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 17:27:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from atlanta.american.edu ([147.9.1.6])
by STORM.EOP.GOV (PMDF V5.1-7 #6879)
with ESMTP id <[email protected]> for [email protected];
Wed, 11 Jun 1997 17:27:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from atlanta (atlanta.american.edu [147.9.1.6])
by atlanta.american.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA23167; Wed,
11 Jun 1997 13:16:06 -0400
Received: from AMERICAN.EDU by AMERICAN.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c)
with spool id 6605768 for [email protected]; Wed,
11 Jun 1997 13:15:54 -0400
Received: from carthage.american.edu (carthage.american.edu [147.9.1.7])
by atlanta.american.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA30581 for
<[email protected]>; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 13:05:03 -0400
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by carthage.american.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5)
id NAA09698 for [email protected]; Wed,
11 Jun 1997 13:04:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from www.iwpr.org (www.iwpr.org [199.34.33.194])
by carthage.american.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA24606 for
<[email protected]>; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 13:04:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from LOCALNAME (dyn001220.belt.digex.net [199.125.237.204])
by www.iwpr.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA00463 for
<[email protected]>; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 13:04:13 -0400
X-Sender: [email protected]
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
END ATTACHMENT
1
ARMS Email SystemRECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(owner-welfaren
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWN]
CREATION DATE/TIME:14-JUN-1997 02:46:39.00
SUBJECT: Jobs Now Coalition
TO: Cynthia K. Gustafson@eop Cynthia K. Gustafson@eop [CEA])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Does anyone have information on research being conducted by the Minnesota
Jobs
Now Coalition? They were referenced on 5/28 in the Detroit Metro Times:
"...the Minnesota Jobs Now Coalition, a St. Paul group which is conducting
research on single mothers on welfare, estimates that typical welfare
recipients
need at least $8,000 in support services before they have a chance at
landing a
job that pays a living wage. The most successful programs in Minnesota
spend up
to $20,000 per person, reports the Coalition."
I would like more information on these numbers. Can anyone help?
F.Y.I.
The Institute for Alternative Journalism (@60 alternative newspapers
nationally)
has a web page that with stories on how welfare reform is affecting their
communities. The web site is www.alternet.org
Colette Scrimger
Michigan League for Human Services
[email protected]
517-487-5436
Connect Mail Sent: June 13, 1997
6:44 am PDT Item: R00pvdl
ATTACHMENT 1
ATT CREATION TIME/DATE: 00:00:00.00
TEXT:
RFC-822-headers:
Received: from conversion.pmdf.eop.gov by PMDF.EOP.GOV (PMDF V5.0-4 #6879)
id <[email protected]> for [email protected]; Sat,
14 Jun 1997 02:44:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from storm.eop.gov (storm.eop.gov)
by PMDF.EOP.GOV (PMDF V5.0-4 #6879) id <[email protected]> for
[email protected]; Sat, 14 Jun 1997 02:44:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from atlanta.american.edu ([147.9.1.6])
by STORM.EOP.GOV (PMDF V5.1-7 #6879)
with ESMTP id <[email protected]>: for [email protected];
Sat, 14 Jun 1997 02:44:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from atlanta (atlanta.american.edu [147.9.1.6])
by atlanta.american.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA22177; Fri,
13 Jun 1997 09:46:18 -0400
Received: from AMERICAN.EDU by AMERICAN.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c)
with spool id 6692379 for [email protected]; Fri,
13 Jun 1997 09:46:11 -0400
Received: from dresden.american.edu (dresden.american.edu [147.9.1.3])
by atlanta.american.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA50536 for
<[email protected]>; Fri, 13 Jun 1997 09:46:01 -0400
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by dresden.american.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5)
id JAA34108 for [email protected]; Fri,
13 Jun 1997 09:45:36 -0400
Received: from ns.connectinc.com (ns.connectinc.com [204.162.147.2])
by dresden.american.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA32820 for
<[email protected]>; Fri, 13 Jun 1997 09:45:34 -0400
Received: from franklin.connectinc.com by ns.connectinc.com
(8.7.1/ConnectInc-RELAY.1) id NAA12631; Fri, 13 Jun 1997 13:47:52 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from sword.connectinc.com by franklin.connectinc.com
(8.7.1/ConnectInc-iRELAY.1) id NAA06935; Fri, 13 Jun 1997 13:48:05 +0000 (GMT)
Received: by sword.connectinc.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA06606; Fri,
13 Jun 1997 06:47:38 -0700
END ATTACHMENT
1
ARMS Email SystemRECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(owner-welfarem-
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY UNKNOWN])
CREATION DATE/TIME:20-JUN-1997 01:23:08.00
SUBJECT: Re: Jobs Now Coalition
TO: Cynthia K. Gustafson@eop ( Cynthia K. Gustafson@eop CEA
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
>Does anyone have information on research being conducted by the Minnesota
Jobs
>Now Coalition? They were referenced on 5/28 in the Detroit Metro Times:
>"...the Minnesota Jobs Now Coalition, a St. Paul group which is conducting
>research on single mothers on welfare, estimates that typical welfare
>recipients
>need at least $8,000 in support services before they have a chance at
>landing a
>job that pays a living wage. The most successful programs in Minnesota
>spend up
>to $20,000 per person, reports the Coalition."
>[ would like more information on these numbers. Can anyone help?
>
Forwarded from <http://www.mtn.org/justice/jobgap.htm>. An address and
phone # follow.
Begin Fwd Web Page
The Job Gap Study, 1995
Is Minnesota creating enough jobs that pay livable wages? What is a
livable wage? These questions have been the focus of a series of studies
conducted by the Jobs Now Coalition.
Although the state has both low unemployment and high job growth, more
and more working people cannot buy basic necessities - food, heat,
housing, and health care. Inadequacy of income is not measured by the
unemployment rate.
The Job Gap Study provides a new framework for looking at the labor
market. It examines the number of jobs actually available to those
seeking work and identifies the amount of income that is generated by
these jobs.
Summary of Phase One
Phase One focuses on the ratio of job seekers to livable wage job
openings. After examining data on jobs and wages from 1990 to 1993, the
Job Gap Study finds:
*
Jobs that pay a livable wage make up about 48 percent of all
Minnesota
jobs. The number of livable wage jobs has grown by only 2.2 percent
compared to overall employment growth of 4.9 percent.
*
There are an average 2.7 new job seekers for each job opening.
*
There are an average of 6.0 new job seekers for each livable-wage
job.
*
There are an average of 31 new job seekers for each livable wage
job
opening that requires one year or less of training.
Job Seekers
*
New entrants to the labor force who are looking for work.
*
Persons experiencing unemployment during the year, excluding those
who
are laid off and are likely to be recalled, as well as those looking
only for part-time jobs.
*
Public-assistance recipients who are "able to work" but are not
currently in the workforce.
Total Job Openings
*
Openings that occur because of job growth or because of workers
leaving
their jobs for any reason except to move from one employer to another in
the same occupation.
Net Job Openings
*
Openings that occur as a result of growth and the number of persons
leaving an occupation and not expected to return. Net job opening
differs from total job openings in that it estimates the number of
openings available to newly trained or retrained workers after openings
are filled from the existing supply of qualified employees.
Livable Wages
*
Wages that cover the cost of food, shelter, clothing, and
transportation. The $20,000 figure was adopted from a variety of
sources. Researchers calculated the total 1993 income needed to net
$20,000 after federal and state income taxes and Social Security taxes.
The calculations were made for a one-parent household with two children.
A gross income of $21,250 was necessary to net $20,000. The livable-wage
level is $409 per week or $10.23 per hour, assuming a 40-hour workweek.
Phase Three of the Study
Phase Three: A Profile of Jobs is the third of four reports. By looking
more closely at the industry, occupation, skill and wage characteristics
of Minnesota jobs, Phase Three provides further support for the major
finding of Phase One: that even though the state's overall job growth re
mains impressive, not enough of the new jobs that are being created pay
a livable wage. A closer look at the kinds of jobs being added to the
economy will also help explain why, in spite of a falling unemployment
rate, there can be an increase in the number of working poor
Minnesotans.
Major Findings of Phase Three
*
About 60 percent of private sector jobs paid below the livable wage
definition of $409 a week. The median weekly wage for Minnesota private
sector jobs in 1993 was $321.
*
Between 1992 and 1993 there were over one-half million new hires by
private sector firms in Minnesota, but only 17 percent of them paid
above the livable wage figure. The median wage for these jobs was $176
per week, or $9,152 annually.
*
One of every four jobs in the state is in the fast-growing services
industry sector. 54 percent of the net growth in jobs between 1990 and
1993 occurred in the services industries. The median wage for jobs in
the services industry in 1993 was $246.
*
Of the 20 industries that grew at the fastest rate during this
period,
only 5 have median wages above the livable wage.
*
Service occupations accounted for 23 percent of new jobs between
1990
and 1993; but they accounted for only 3 percent of the additional
livable wage jobs. Only 19 percent of service occupations are livable
wage jobs.
*
Training is important, but it does not create higher wage jobs.
About
two thirds of Minnesota high school graduates enroll in some form of
post-secondary education, but only 43 percent of the jobs added between
1990 and 1993 required more than a year of vocational preparation.
The complete Phase Three Study (approx. 25 pages) is available from the
JOBS NOW Coalition at a cost of $5.00 each. Contact:
JOBS NOW Coalition
46 East 4th St.
818 Minnesota Building
St. Paul, MN 55101
Phone: (612) 290-0240 Fax: (612) 290-0162
Lucy
<[email protected]>
ATTACHMENT 1
ATT CREATION TIME/DATE: 0 00:00:00.00
TEXT:
RFC-822-headers:
Received: from conversion.pmdf.eop.gov by PMDF.EOP.GOV (PMDF V5.0-4 #6879)
id <[email protected]> for [email protected]; Fri,
20 Jun 1997 00:46:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from storm.eop.gov (storm.eop.gov)
by PMDF.EOP.GOV (PMDF V5.0-4 #6879) id <[email protected]> for
[email protected]; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 00:45:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from atlanta.american.edu ([147.9.1.6])
by STORM.EOP.GOV (PMDF V5.1-7 #6879)
with ESMTP id <[email protected]> for [email protected];
Fri, 20 Jun 1997 00:45:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from atlanta (atlanta.american.edu [147.9.1.6])
by atlanta.american.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA25460; Thu,
19 Jun 1997 23:09:42 -0400
Received: from AMERICAN.EDU by AMERICAN.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c)
with spool id 6431627 for [email protected]; Thu,
19 Jun 1997 23:09:30 -0400
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by atlanta.american.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5)
id WAA43162 for [email protected]; Thu,
19 Jun 1997 22:56:35 -0400
Received: from orion.means.net (orion.means.net [206.9.64.100])
by atlanta.american.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA14980 for
<[email protected]>; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 22:56:27 -0400
Received: from [206.9.100.10] (Franklin-7.dialup.means.net [206.9.100.10])
by orion.means.net (8.8.5/8.8.3) with ESMTP id WAA03830 for
<WELFAREM-L%[email protected]> Thu, 19 Jun 1997 22:01:26 -0500 (CDT)
END ATTACHMENT I
ARMS Email SystemRECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY (owner-welfaren
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[ UNKNOWN])
CREATION DATE/TIME:24-JUN-1997 13:37:59.00
SUBJECT: Re: welfare reform studies
TO: Cynthia K. Gustafson@eop ( Cynthia K. Gustafson@eop CEA ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
I cannot tell you how happy I am that others are interested in the role of
data collection by nonprofits (and other agencies) in welfare reform.
Colorado Women's Employment and Education (CWEE) is a Denver based
non-profit whose mission is to help low income single parents transition
from welfare to work. Our training is short term, fast track, with
program components including: basic skills; 'obstacle' assessment and
resolution (housing, child care, legal problems, individual counseling,
domestic violence support, etc...); extensive skills and career
assessment; labor market research; computer training (MS Office); job
placement; and follow-up. Training lasts approximately 12 weeks if the
computer classes are taken by the participant. Job placement takes from 1
to 6 weeks normally.
In 1995 we received a grant from teh Urban Institute to create and
implement a program evaluation component, which we did. We are unaware of
any other nonprofits in the field doing their own program evaluation but
would love to create relationships with anyone else out there undertaking
a similar task! We have bounced around the idea of starting an evaluation
task force of some sort.
We have collected data on over 200 program participants over the
last 18 months. Our 'research' design is a sort of one-group pre-post
test (non-experimental) design, and we collect data from the time of
orientation, throughout the course of their time at CWEE and one year into
work. We mainly utilize the data to evaluate our program, not the program
participants, to ensure ethics and to provide focus to staff. We call
our evaluation project an 'evaluation, impact and response' model - a
feedback loop for staff based on participant feedback and performance.
We are currently seeking funding, as the Urban Institute is not funding
the small grants projects any longer.
Please contact me by e-mail, snail mail, phone or fax if you have
questions, knowledge to share or ideas for us:
Joni Zisman
Evaluation Specialist
CWEE
1111 Osage Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80204
voice (303) 892-8444 x362
fax (303) 892-8375
e-mail [email protected]
Thanks for posting this message!
> Rather, if someone has information answering the questions below, why not
> respond to the entire group. I am interested and would bet that others
are as
> well.
>
> -Ben Reames
>
Center for What Works, NYC
>
> From: welfare reform research on behalf of Jay Taylor
>
Sent: Monday, June 23, 1997 3:48 PM
> To: [email protected]
>
Subject:
welfare reform studies
>
>
I'm posting this for a colleague who is trying to find out the
> extent to which state agencies and nonprofits are tracking welfare
> recipients who leave the rolls.
>
We are aware of work being done in Massachussetts. But who else
is
> study the key issues involving welfare reform outcomes, such as:
> - how much money are former recipients making, and how many hours are
they
> working?
> - how long are they keeping the jobs?
> - how are they and their children faring?
> - are they earning a living wage?
> - how many times have they changed jobs?
>
I've seen messages from time to from organizations that are
starting
> tracking projects. We want to know how extensive this is.
>
Is anybody keeping track of the studies? Who is offering grants
to
>
study welfare reform outcomes?
V
Any help would be appreciated.
V
V
[email protected]
V
>
V
> Jay Taylor
> Reporter
> P.O. Box 1333
> The State paper
> Columbia, S.C. 29201
> (803) 771-8549
> fax: (803) 771-8430, 8480
V
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT I
ATT CREATION TIME/DATE: 0 00:00:00.00
TEXT:
RFC-822-headers:
Received: from conversion.pmdf.eop.gov by PMDF.EOP.GOV (PMDF V5.0-4 #6879)
id <[email protected]> for [email protected]; Tue,
24 Jun 1997 13:31:56-0500 (EST)
Received: from storm.eop.gov (storm.eop.gov)
by PMDF.EOP.GOV (PMDF V5.0-4 #6879) id <[email protected]> for
[email protected]; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 13:31:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from atlanta.american.edu ([147.9.1.6])
by STORM.EOP.GOV (PMDF V5.1-7 #6879)
with ESMTP id <[email protected]> for [email protected];
Tue, 24 Jun 1997 13:31:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from atlanta (atlanta.american.edu [147.9.1.6])
by atlanta.american.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA46693; Tue,
24 Jun 1997 11:25:44 -0400
Received: from AMERICAN.EDU by AMERICAN.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c)
with spool id 6328352 for [email protected]; Tue,
24 Jun 1997 11:25:30 -0400
Received: from carthage.american.edu (carthage.american.edu [147.9.1.7])
by atlanta.american.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA25226 for
<[email protected]>; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 11:15:02 -0400
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by carthage.american.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5)
id LAA22501 for [email protected]; Tue,
24 Jun 1997 11:14:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ouray.cudenver.edu ([email protected] [132.194.10.9])
by carthage.american.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA13259 for
<[email protected]>; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 11:14:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by ouray.cudenver.edu (5.65/DEC-OSF/1.2) id AA29300; Tue,
24 Jun 1997 09:16:21 -0600
END ATTACHMENT 1
ARMS Email SystemRECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY (owner-welfaren
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[1 UNKNOWN])
CREATION DATE/TIME:24-JUN-1997 14:10:29.00
SUBJECT: Re: welfare reform studies
TO: Cynthia K. Gustafson@eop Cynthia K. Gustafson@eop [ CEA
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
In response to Jay's message, Mathematica Policy Research is looking at
some of these issues. Specifically, Mathematica is evaluating the
Postemployment Services Demonstration, an experiment operating in
Chicago, San Antonio, Portland, and Riverside, CA. Nearly 5,000 welfare
recipients who found jobs were enrolled in the experiment, which focused
on keeping them employed.
Mathematica surveyed 1,200 of the participants a year after they found
jobs to get information about a variety of issues related to their job
experiences and job retention. If you're interested in more information,
please visit Mathematica's home page at http://www.mathematica-mpr.com.
Look under "Hot Topics," "Testing Ways to Keep Welfare Recipients
Employed." You can also call the project director, Anu Rangarajan, at
609-936-2765 or e-mail her at [email protected]/.
>From: Jay Taylor[SMTP:[email protected]
>Sent: Monday, June 23, 1997 3:48 PM
>To: [email protected]
>Subject:
welfare reform studies
>
>
I'm posting this for a colleague who is trying to find out the
>extent to which state agencies and nonprofits are tracking welfare
>recipients who leave the rolls.
V
We are aware of work being done in Massachussetts. But who else is
>study the key issues involving welfare reform outcomes, such as:
>. how much money are former recipients making, and how many hours are they
>working?
>- how long are they keeping the jobs?
>- how are they and their children faring?
>- are they earning a living wage?
>- how many times have they changed jobs?
V
I've seen messages from time to from organizations that are
starting
>tracking projects. We want to know how extensive this is.
>
Is anybody keeping track of the studies? Who is offering grants to
>study welfare reform outcomes?
>
Any help would be appreciated.
V
Please respond to Tony Pugh or to me. Tony is at:
>
[email protected]
>
>
>Jay Taylor
>Reporter
>P.O. Box 1333
>The State paper
>Columbia, S.C. 29201
>(803) 771-8549
>fax: (803) 771-8430, 8480
>[email protected]
ATTACHMENT 1
ATT CREATION TIME/DATE: 0 00:00:00.00
TEXT:
RFC-822-headers:
Received: from conversion.pmdf.eop.gov by PMDF.EOP.GOV (PMDF V5.0-4 #6879)
id <[email protected]> for [email protected]; Tue,
24 Jun 1997 14:06:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from storm.eop.gov (storm.eop.gov)
by PMDF.EOP.GOV (PMDF V5.0-4 #6879) id <[email protected]> for
[email protected]; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 14:06:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from atlanta.american.edu ([147.9.1.6])
by STORM.EOP.GOV (PMDF V5.1-7 #6879)
with ESMTP id <[email protected]> for [email protected];
Tue, 24 Jun 1997 14:06:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from atlanta (atlanta.american.edu [147.9.1.6])
by atlanta.american.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA19271; Tue,
24 Jun 1997 12:24:43 -0400
Received: from AMERICAN.EDU by AMERICAN.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c)
with spool id 6330384 for [email protected]; Tue,
24 Jun 1997 12:24:33 -0400
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by atlanta.american.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5)
id MAA33693 for [email protected]; Tue,
24 Jun 1997 12:13:40 -0400
Received: from mpr5.MATHINC (smtp.mathpr.com [38.233.146.17])
by atlanta.american.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA44184 for
<[email protected]>; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 12:13:38 -0400
Received: by mpr5.MATHINC with SMTP
(Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63)
id <[email protected]>; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 12:14:39 -0400
END ATTACHMENT 1
ARMS Email SystemRECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(owner-welfarem-
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY UNKNOWN])
CREATION DATE/TIME:24-JUN-1997 15:15:29.00
SUBJECT: Re: welfare reform studies
TO: Cynthia K. Gustafson@eop Cynthia K. Gustafson@eop [ CEA 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
The Research Forum on Children, Families, and the New Federalism is
tracking large and multi-state studies on welfare reform and devolution.
We are in the process of developing a database and website that
summarize these studies according to a number of topics-- sites studied,
methods used, policy/program components evaluated, outcomes assessed,
findings and expected dates for future reports/findings. The database
will include studies in development, being fielded or recently
completed.
The database should be functional by August and the web site publicly
accessible by September or October.
Sue Pearlmutter's right- this is a big question with a long answer.
Part of the complexity of studying welfare reform is that conditions
differ in every state, and even in some counties. Also, there no single
organization overseeing all of this research or ensuring that
researchers in different states/cities are asking comparable questions
or using comparable designs and measures. Thus, it is quite difficult to
make generalizations that apply to the national level (we hope that our
database will enable us to make some of these generalizations. Part of
our mission is to work to improve coordination between these and future
studies.).
Here are some of the organizations conducting large and/or multiple
studies. These projects include experimental design/impact studies,
quasi-experimental design, process studies, implementation studies,
"contextual" or background information and the development of large data
sets.
Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation
MDRC is conducting appx. 12 studies, ranging from single state/single
program to multi-city and multi-state.
(212) 532 3400
http://www.mdrc.org/
Urban Institute
Urban Institute is conducting a very large study of welfare reform, and
they have a comprehensive website. Their study has three major
components- a publicly accessible database that compiles many existing
data sources in addition to some of their own data; case studies in 12
or 13 states focusing on policy development and implementation; and a
survey of appx. 50,000 families with oversampling of low income
families.
http://newfederalism.urban.org/
Abt Associates is conducting appx. 7 evaluations in different
states and of different programs. (617) 492-7100
Mathematica Policy Institute is also doing appx. 3 studies.
http://www.mathinc.com/
Center for Law and Social Policy
CLASP is tracking policy changes, legislation and regulations related to
welfare, child care, child support and Medicaid in each state under
their "State Policy Documentation Project"
(202) 328-5140
http://epn.org/clasp.html
There are many other large studies not listed here (but in our database)
and even more smaller scale studies.
Is there a particular subject, location or type of study that you are
interested in? Let me know, and I may be able to point you in the right
direction.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.
Ellen C. Berrey
Program Coordinator
The Research Forum on Children, Families and the New Federalism
at the National Center for Children in Poverty (NCCP)
154 Haven Avenue
New York, NY 10032
phone: 212 304 7132
fax: 212 544 4200
email: [email protected]
Jay Taylor wrote:
V
V
I'm posting this for a colleague who is trying to find out the
> extent to which state agencies and nonprofits are tracking welfare
> recipients who leave the rolls.
>
We are aware of work being done in Massachussetts. But who else
is
> study the key issues involving welfare reform outcomes, such as:
> - how much money are former recipients making, and how many hours are
they
> working?
> - how long are they keeping the jobs?
> - how are they and their children faring?
> - are they earning a living wage?
> - how many times have they changed jobs?
>
I've seen messages from time to from organizations that are
starting
> tracking projects. We want to know how extensive this is.
>
Is anybody keeping track of the studies? Who is offering grants
to
> study welfare reform outcomes?
>
Any help would be appreciated.
>
Please respond to Tony Pugh or to me. Tony is at:
>
[email protected]
>
> Jay Taylor
> Reporter
> P.O. Box 1333
> The State paper
> Columbia, S.C. 29201
> (803) 771-8549
> fax: (803) 771-8430, 8480
> [email protected]
ATTACHMENT 1
ATT CREATION TIME/DATE: 0 00:00:00.00
TEXT:
RFC-822-headers:
Received: from conversion.pmdf.eop.gov by PMDF.EOP.GOV (PMDF V5.0-4 #6879)
id <[email protected]> for [email protected]; Tue,
24 Jun 1997 15:07:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from storm.eop.gov (storm.eop.gov)
by PMDF.EOP.GOV (PMDF V5.0-4 #6879) id <[email protected]> for
[email protected]; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 15:07:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from atlanta.american.edu ([147.9.1.6])
by STORM.EOP.GOV (PMDF V5.1-7 #6879)
with ESMTP id <[email protected]> for [email protected];
Tue, 24 Jun 1997 15:07:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from atlanta (atlanta.american.edu [147.9.1.6])
by atlanta.american.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA34388; Tue,
24 Jun 1997 13:14:32 -0400
Received: from AMERICAN.EDU by AMERICAN.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c)
with spool id 6332385 for [email protected]; Tue,
24 Jun 1997 13:14:24 -0400
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by atlanta.american.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5)
id NAA30725 for [email protected]; Tue,
24 Jun 1997 13:14:05 -0400
Received: from mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu
(mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.35.143])
by atlanta.american.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAB30969 for
<[email protected]>; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 13:14:03 -0400
Received: from 154hav3.columbia.edu ([156.111.208.158])
by mailrelay1.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA12987 for
<[email protected]>; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 13:14:02 -0400 (EDT)
Organization: The Research Forum on Children, Families and the New Federalism
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I; 16bit)
END ATTACHMENT 1
ARMS Email SystemRECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(owner-welfarem
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY UNKNOWN])
CREATION DATE/TIME:24-JUN-1997 08:02:47.00
SUBJECT: welfare reform studies
TO: Cynthia K. Gustafson@eop ( Cynthia K. Gustafson@eop [ CEA ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
I'm posting this for a colleague who is trying to find out the
extent to which state agencies and nonprofits are tracking welfare
recipients who leave the rolls.
We are aware of work being done in Massachussetts. But who else is
study the key issues involving welfare reform outcomes, such as:
- how much money are former recipients making, and how many hours are they
working?
- how long are they keeping the jobs?
- how are they and their children faring?
- are they earning a living wage?
- how many times have they changed jobs?
I've seen messages from time to from organizations that are
starting
tracking projects. We want to know how extensive this is.
Is anybody keeping track of the studies? Who is offering grants to
study welfare reform outcomes?
Any help would be appreciated.
Please respond to Tony Pugh or to me. Tony is at:
[email protected]
Jay Taylor
Reporter
P.O. Box 1333
The State paper
Columbia, S.C. 29201
(803) 771-8549
fax: (803) 771-8430, 8480
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT
1
ATT CREATION TIME/DATE: 0 00:00:00.00
TEXT:
RFC-822-headers:
Received: from conversion.pmdf.eop.gov by PMDF.EOP.GOV (PMDF V5.0-4 #6879)
id <[email protected]> for [email protected]; Mon,
23 Jun 1997 18:11:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from storm.eop.gov (storm.eop.gov)
by PMDF.EOP.GOV (PMDF V5.0-4 #6879) id <[email protected]> for
[email protected]; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 18:11:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from atlanta.american.edu ([147.9.1.6])
by STORM.EOP.GOV (PMDF V5.1-7 #6879)
with ESMTP id <[email protected]> for [email protected];
Mon, 23 Jun 1997 18:10:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from atlanta (atlanta.american.edu [147.9.1.6])
by atlanta.american.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA42380; Mon,
23 Jun 1997 16:04:35 -0400
Received: from AMERICAN.EDU by AMERICAN.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c)
with spool id 6338724 for [email protected]; Mon,
23 Jun 1997 16:04:30 -0400
Received: from carthage.american.edu (carthage.american.edu [147.9.1.7])
by atlanta.american.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA38141 for
<[email protected]>; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 15:49:00 -0400
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by carthage.american.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5)
id PAA17130 for [email protected]; Mon,
23 Jun 1997 15:48:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail.scsn.net (scsn.net [206.25.246.12])
by carthage.american.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA24362 for
<[email protected]>; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 15:48:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from jtaylor ([208.133.153.6])
by mail.scsn.net (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID#
0-32322U5000L100S10000) with SMTP id AAA124 for <[email protected]>;
Mon, 23 Jun 1997 15:40:05 -0400
X-Sender: [email protected]
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
END ATTACHMENT 1
ARMS Email SystemRECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Sanders D. Korenman ( CN=Sanders D. Korenman/OU=CEA/O=EOP [CEA])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 1-JUL-1997 08:13:07.00
SUBJECT: Re: CBI21: Defense Report on HR 1050, A Living Wage, Jobs For All Act
TO: Collin Brown III ( CN=Collin Brown III/OU=OMB/O=EOP @ EOP [ OMB ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
I have no comment on the letter from from General Counsel Judith A. Miller
to Hon. Floyd D. Spence, Chairman of the Committee on National Security.
ARMS Email SystemRECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Sanders D. Korenman ( CN=Sanders D. Korenman/OU=CEA/O=EOP [ CEA ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 9-DEC-1997 15:35:48.00
SUBJECT: Re: Does anyone know anything more about this "new study"?
TO: Cynthia A. Rice ( CN=Cynthia A. Rice/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
The "living wage" studies are insane.
It used to be that a living wage was defined as something like $7 per
hour. We have that if you include a $5.15 minimum wage and the 40% EITC
for a parent with two kids. So as long as day care costs are subsidized
or low, this is pretty good and far better than the average AFDC amount.
But I have seen more recent "living wage" studies that claim one needs 15
dollars an hour or more. That is higher than the average non-supervisory
wage. Even if we accept this wage as a "living wage", which I do not, the
issue in that case has nothing to do with welfare reform.
ARMS Email SystemRECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Cynthia A. Rice ( CN=Cynthia A. Rice/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 9-DEC-1997 15:00:51.00
SUBJECT: Re: Does anyone know anything more about this "new study"?
TO: Cynthia A. Rice ( CN=Cynthia A. Rice/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Karen Tramontano ( CN=Karen Tramontano/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Sky Gallegos (CN=Sky Gallegos/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Sanders D. Korenman ( CN=Sanders D. Korenman/OU=CEA/O=EOP @ EOP [ CEA 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Andrea Kane (CN=Andrea Kane/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Elena Kagan ( CN=Elena Kagan/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Emily Bromberg ( CN=Emily Bromberg/OU=WHO/O=EOP @ EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Maria J. Hanratty (CN=Maria J. Hanratty/OU=CEA/O=EOP @ EOP [ CEA )
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Emil E. Parker (CN=Emil E. Parker/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Diana Fortuna ( CN=Diana Fortuna/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [ OPD 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Bruce N. Reed ( CN=Bruce N. Reed/OU=OPD/O=EOP @ EOP [OPD])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
These statistics are way off, but here's some new info about their claims--
The Seattle Times, December 08, 1997
SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. DI; MONDAY MEMO
LENGTH: 110 words
HEADLINE: WELFARE TO WORK FORCE? ODDS AGAINST IT
BODY:
A workers' rights organization plans to stage gatherings in Seattle and
other
cities Wednesday to draw attention to discouraging new statistics about
moving
welfare recipients into the work force.
The study "Welfare Reform: The Jobs Aren't There," due out today from
the
national group Jobs With Justice, indicates no job exists for one of every
two
welfare recipients trying to get off public aid.
It also says the odds are 97 to 1 that a welfare worker can find a job
paying
a "living wage."
Cynthia A. Rice
12/09/97 02:51:37 PM
Record Type: Record
To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc:
Subject: Does anyone know anything more about this "new study"?
I'm trying to track it down.
Forwarded by Cynthia A. Rice/OPD/EOP on 12/09/97
02:51 PM
Robin J. Bachman
12/09/97 02:42:44 PM
Record Type: Record
To: Cynthia A. Rice/OPD/EOP
cc:
Subject: Did you see this?
From today's McCurry briefing:
Q On welfare, there's a new study out today that says
that jobs exist for only about half of the displaced welfare workers
and there are protests being planned tomorrow in 50 states. Does the
President have any plans or ideas to find jobs for these displaced
workers?
MR. MCCURRY: We've been working ceaselessly on that, as
you know. From the efforts that we've made to encourage a response
by the private sector to the works that we're doing with state
governments to assure that there are services, training, placement
services available -- there's a considerable amount of effort both in
the public sector and the private sector to get the kind of response
we need and we need -- we have an economy, remember, that's now
created almost 14 million jobs in the last five years, so the jobs
are there. Matching people who we're formerly dependent on welfare
to the job opportunities that exist has to be part of the effort, but
also encouraging private sector employees to take a chance on someone
who has been welfare-dependent has been a major part of the
President's effort. He's worked on this, done lots of events. I
think you've all been at some of those events.
Q
Does that mean that he's done everything he can and
it's up to the private sector now?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, he's has not done everything he can
because he plans to do more and has been doing a great deal to
stimulate that kind of response. We've been working on this I think
-- I don't think anyone can challenge the notion that the President
has devoted a considerable amount of time to making sure that this
transition that has to occur in our economy away from a model of
dependency through the cycle of welfare that existed prior to reform
-- we've made it clear that we've got to change the whole culture and
the ethic of how employers and those who are welfare-dependent
approach their own responsibilities as we implement welfare reform.
Message Sent
To:
Bruce N. Reed/OPD/EOP
Elena Kagan/OPD/EOP
Diana Fortuna/OPD/EOP
Andrea Kane/OPD/EOP
Emil E. Parker/OPD/EOP
Sanders D. Korenman/CEA/EOP
Maria J. Hanratty/CEA/EOP
Sky Gallegos/WHO/EOP
Emily Bromberg/WHO/EOP
Karen Tramontano/WHO/EOP
ARMS Email SystemRECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Robert F. Schoeni ( CN=Robert F. Schoeni/OU=CEA/O=EOP [ CEA 1)
CREATION DATE/TIME:28-AUG-1998 13:05:37.00
SUBJECT:
TO: Andrew R. Feldman ( CN=Andrew R. Feldman/OU=CEA/O=EOP @ EOP [CEA])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Andy, can you get copies of these off the web? Thanks.
Forwarded by Robert F. Schoeni/CEA/EOP on 08/28/98
12:24 PM
Robert Schoeni
08/28/98 12:21:26 PM
Record Type: Record
To: Robert F. Schoeni/CEA/EOP
cc:
Subject:
Forwarded Message
Return-Path:
Received: from mail-oak-3.pilot.net (mail-oak-3.pilot.net
[198.232.147.18]) by mail.rand.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA08042;
Thu, 27 Aug 1998 11:15:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from duncan.ssc.wisc.edu (duncan.ssc.wisc.edu [144.92.190.57])
by mail-oak-3.pilot.net with SMTP id KAA08183; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 10:41:48
-0700 (PDT)
Received: by duncan.ssc.wisc.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/10May96-0433PM)
id AA21888; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 13:13:50 -0500
Received: from [144.92.191.192] by duncan.ssc.wisc.edu;
(5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/10May96-0433PM)
id AA06233; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 13:10:51 -0500
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
X-Sender: [email protected]
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 13:15:12
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
From: Bert Penn
Subject: IRP Abstracts RP 782 and DP 1170
Sender: [email protected]
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Length: 3286
RECENT IRP ABSTRACTS: REPRINTS AND DISCUSSION PAPERS
PLEASE NOTE
PLEASE NOTE
The full text of the newly released Discussion Paper listed
below is now available on the IRP home page on the Web at:
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/irp/
Hard copies of the listed Discussion Papers will be available
within two weeks.
IRP Reprints are available in hard copy only.
RPT 782 Rebecca Maynard, Elisabeth Boehnen, Tom Corbett, Gary Sandefur,
and Jane Mosley
Changing Family Formation Behavior Through Welfare Reform
(Welfare, the Family, and Reproductive Behavior, ed. Robert Moffitt,
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1998, pp. 134 6176)
State and local governments are being called upon to handle some of
society's most vexing and intractable social problems. The empirical
evidence available to support prudent policy making at the subfederal level
is not as extensive as one might expect, given the amount of recent
demonstration and evaluation activity. The basic research needed to guide
future policy improvement entails aggressive study of the innovation and
experimentation associated with PRWORA. We should be proactive in
addressing
evaluation issues and challenges. Surprisingly little was learned about how
past welfare reforms have affected those behaviors considered most
important
to the current reforms. We must learn from that history and do a better job
of exploiting the knowledge development opportunities arising from the
devolution of responsibility for welfare from the federal government to the
states and even to local governments. Whatever social and economic
challenges PRWORA creates, it also opens up an enormous opportunity to
study
behavioral responses to quite major shifts in the incentives created by
various types of welfare policies.
Institute for Research on Poverty
Discussion Paper no. 1170-98
Getting Jobs, Keeping Jobs, and Earning a Living Wage: Can Welfare Reform
Work?
Ariel Kalil
E-mail: [email protected]
Mary E. Corcoran
Sandra K. Danziger
Richard Tolman
Kristin S. Seefeldt
Daniel Rosen
Yunju Nam
Program on Poverty and Social Welfare Policy
University of Michigan
August 1998
Abstract
Most discussions of welfare and work have focused on how demographic
characteristics, schooling, training, and work experience limit welfare
mothers' employment and wages, but they have largely ignored factors such
as
inappropriate workplace behaviors, expectations of discrimination and
harassment, depression, alcoholism, and domestic violence, all of which may
affect welfare mothers and make employment difficult. In this paper we
review the prevalence of these individual-level barriers and argue that
they, in combination with an economy which does not pay low-skill workers
well, are likely to impede employment and self-sufficiency for a large
proportion of welfare mothers. At the end of the review, we summarize the
current state of knowledge about barriers to the employment of welfare
recipients and suggest several ways in which welfare-to-work programs might
address these barriers.
Bert Penn, Publications Coordinator
Institute for Research on Poverty
(608) 262-6359 [email protected]
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/irp/
End of Forwarded Message
Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001. email
To [email protected], from Nora Gordon, re: Hello [partial] (1
11/02/1998
b(6)
page)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Automated Records Management System [Email]
CEA ([Living Wage])
OA/Box Number: 950000
FOLDER TITLE:
[06/11/1997 - 09/06/2000]
2016-0531-F
bg128
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - |44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - 15 U.S.C. 552(b)]
PI National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRAJ
b(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA|
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute |(a)(3) of the PRAJ
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA|
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA)
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information ((b)(4) of the FOIA|
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA|
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy |(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy |(a)(6) of the PRA|
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA|
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions |(b)(8) of the FOIA|
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells ((b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
ARMS Email SystemRECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Nora E. Gordon ( CN=Nora E. Gordon/OU=CEA/O=EOP CEA
CREATION DATE/TIME: 2-NOV-1998 16:07:05.00
SUBJECT: Re: Hello
TO: pauffret ( pauffret @ worldbank.org [ UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
philippe,
the minimum wage argument is the most obvious one: people who
work should earn a living wage (though in this country at least it is far
below a living wage). it assumes that monitoring is possible, and
provides for exceptions. for example, waiters/waitresses who earn tips
are subject to either no minimum wage or a much lower one, i'm not sure
which. camp counselors are exempt, as are some agricultural positions.
at times there has been (or been talk of, don't know for sure) a youth
minimum wage for those under 18. i think without a strong tax system and
the accompanying accountability, it would not be feasible to have a
minimum wage in place.
another type of policy you might want to read up on is targeting
special populations for employment by offering tax credits or deductions
to employers on the wages paid to certain groups. examples in US:
welfare to work tax credit for hiring former welfare (AFDC) recipients,
tax credits in "empowerment zones" for hiring residents of the zone
(distressed areas which meet certain criteria), various incentives for
hiring participants in job training programs. although it is interesting
that some such programs have reported the opposite results from those
desired: once job applicants are identified as AFDC recipients, which is
supposed to attract the employer with the potential subsidy, they are
considered less employable and turned down for jobs. i do not know how
widespread this effect is/was.
maybe something like the post-wwll GI bill in the US, which
provided for higher education for veterans, would be appropriate.
(b)(6)
when do you depart? call me if you want to talk more about any of this.
most of labor economics is just regular supply and demand with jobs and
wages as your variables, so you should never feel like you don't know
anything about labor economics.
(b)(6)
p.s. another potentially important issue there is how unemployment
benefits are structured. this is actually a very interesting labor/public
finance/mechanism design question, with gaming opportunities for workers
and firms all over the place.
ARMS Email SystemRECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Andrew R. Feldman ( CN=Andrew R. Feldman/OU=CEA/O=EOP [ CEA )
CREATION DATE/TIME: 4-NOV-1998 17:41:01.00
SUBJECT: IRP Discussion Paper
TO: akalil ( akalil @ umich.edu @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Ariel et al: I wanted to tell you that I thought your paper "Getting Jobs,
Keeping Jobs, and Earning a Living Wage" was excellent, and that we used
it in conjunction with two other articles (on non-traditional barriers to
employment of welfare recipients) for part of the President's economic
briefing this week.
Andrew Feldman
Council of Economic Advisors
ARMS Email SystemRECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Andrew R. Feldman ( CN=Andrew R. Feldman/OU=CEA/O=EOP [ CEA
CREATION DATE/TIME: 7-APR-1999 17:03:02.00
SUBJECT: Welfare materials
TO: "Melissa A. Clark" <maclark ("Melissa A. Clark" <maclark @ Princeton.EDU> [ UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Melissa, here are some new articles about welfare and poverty (and EITC)
which are worthwhile. If your friend has specific areas of interest not
covered here, he or she should feel free to contact me and I'll tell them
what I know, or find out from the others. Also, let me know if I should
send any of the articles in the mail.
-Andy
INTERESTING BOOKS:
*
Becky's "It Takes a Nation"
*
Kathy Edin's "Making Ends Meet"
*
Susan Mayer's "What Money Can't Buy"
*
Freedman and Gottschalk's "Generating Jobs"
THE NEW WELFARE LANDSCAPE
* Richard Nathan and Thomas Gais (1998) "Implementing the Personal Resp.
Act of 1996," Rockefeller Institute of Gov't. (
http://rockinst.org/publications/FirstLook.html)
*
Also see Urban Institute's web page of papers from the Assessing New
Federalism. The Joint Center's working paper list (
http://www.jcpr.org/wpalpha.html) is also a good source for new research
on a many topics.
CASELOAD DYNAMICS
* Rebecca Blank and Geoffrey Wallace (Sept. 98) "What Goes Up Must Come
Down? Explaining Recent Changes in Public Assistance Caseloads." Joint
Center paper prepared for conference "Welfare Reform and the Macro
Economy". (I can send you this if you don't have it.)
* Becky's "What Causes Public Assistance Caseloads to Grow?" NBER working
paper 6343 (1997).
* By the way, we are going to update the CEA's caseload analysis in the
next few months.
BARRIERS TO WORK
* Ariel Kalil (August 1998) "Getting Jobs, Keeping Jobs, and Earning a
Living Wage: Can Welfare Reform Work?" Program on Poverty and Social
Welfare Policy, U. Mich.
THE EITC
Jeff Liebman (1998) "The Impact of the EITC on Incentives and Income
Distribution" in Tax Policy and the Economy, 12, 83-119.
*
Three articles on the EITC are in the Joint Center's summer 1998 news
letter (http://www.jcpr.org/98summer/). The first is based on Meyer and
Rosenbaum (1998) "Welfare, the EITC, and the Employment of Single
Mothers," Department of Econ, Northwestern U.
* We wrote a short white paper on the EITC in December (
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/CEA/html/eitc.html) which footnotes
other recent EITC articles.
ARMS Email SystemRECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Audrey Choi ( CN=Audrey Choi/OU=CEA/O=EOP [ UNKNOWN ])
CREATION DATE/TIME:14-JUN-1999 20:15:22.00
SUBJECT: meeting on living wage
TO: Cordelia W. Reimers ( CN=Cordelia W. Reimers/OU=CEA/O=EOP @ EOP [ CEA ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Unable to convert ARMS_EXT:[MESSAGE.D86]ARMS218238278.136
To ASCII,
The following is a HEX dump of the file:
ARMS Email SystemRECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Audrey Choi ( CN=Audrey Choi/OU=CEA/O=EOP [ UNKNOWN
CREATION DATE/TIME:15-JUN-1999 15:35:50.00
SUBJECT: Re: meeting on living wage
TO: Cordelia W. Reimers ( CN=Cordelia W. Reimers/OU=CEA/O=EOP @ EOP [ CEA D
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
great. thanks
Cordelia W. Reimers
06/15/99 02:26:55 PM
Record Type: Record
To: Audrey Choi/CEA/EOP
cc:
bcc:
Subject: Re: meeting on living wage
Yes, I can go tomorrow at 2:00 for an hour -- there is a meeting on
UI/paid parental leave at 3:00.
Audrey Choi
06/14/99 08:15:08 PM
Record Type: Record
To: Cordelia W. Reimers/CEA/EOP
cc:
Subject: meeting on living wage
corky, there will be a meeting on thursday at 2 pm in room 248 that we've
been invited to (by NEC) on the miniumum wage/living wage debate. would
you like to go? i thought I would go to it -- please let me know if you'll
be able to as well. thanks much, a
ARMS Email SystemRECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: William G. Dauster ( CN=William G. Dauster/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 2-NOV-1999 14:25:08.00
SUBJECT: Summers-Herman Letter on Lazio Minimum Wage Bill
TO: William G. Dauster ( CN=William G. Dauster/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected][UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ] )
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ CEA 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ] )
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] [email protected] ([email protected] [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ ONDCP ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ OMB ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ OSTP ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ ONDCP ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ OMB ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ CEA ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( ma [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN })
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
[email protected] [email protected] [ UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
The Honorable Bill Archer
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
If H.R. 3081, the "Wage and Employment Growth Act of 1999," were presented
to the President in its current form, we and other senior advisers to the
President would recommend that he veto it.
The President proposed a $1 increase in the minimum wage over two years,
effective January 1, 2000. H.R. 3081 would provide a $1 increase over
three years, effective April 1, 2000. Compared with the President,s
proposal, this would cost a full-time, year-round minimum wage worker
approximately $1,500 over three years.
H.R. 3081 does not contain any revenue offsets for its tax initiatives.
The President has stated repeatedly that, before we consider using
projected surpluses to provide a tax cut or for new spending, we must put
first things first and address the long-term solvency of Social Security
and Medicare.
The bill also would not meet the pay-as-you-go requirements of the Budget
Act, which have helped provide the discipline necessary to bring us from
an era of large and growing budget deficits to the potential for
substantial surpluses. The bill would therefore require an automatic
sequester of mandatory programs, including Medicare.
We also have specific concerns with several tax initiatives in H.R. 3081,
many of which have been expressed to you previously. For example, the
estate tax relief is expensive and provides no benefit to average working
Americans. Moreover, the relief is poorly targeted to its purported
purpose of providing relief for small business owners and family farms.
Rather, the three major provisions -- conversion of the unified credit to
an exemption, repeal of the surtax, and reduction in top marginal rates --
would benefit only the wealthiest estates.
Also, we strongly oppose the pension provisions in the bill that raise the
maximum retirement plan contribution and considered compensation limits
for business owners and executives and weaken the pension
anti-discrimination and top-heavy protections for moderate- and
lower-income workers. The current provisions are regressive, would not
significantly increase plan coverage or national savings, and could lead
to reductions in retirement benefits for moderate- and lower-income
workers. The Administration would like to work with Congress to develop
initiatives, like those proposed in the President,s FY 2000 budget, that
would increase retirement savings for moderate and lower-income workers.
In addition, we strongly oppose the provision in H.R. 3081 for a party in
active litigation that would, in this and other cases, weaken the
Secretary ,S ability to protect workers , pension and health benefits.
Finally, we are concerned with provisions that repeal overtime protections
for three categories of workers. H.R. 3081 would repeal overtime pay
protections for 1.5 million American sales employees. The multi-test
exemption in the bill is complex and would be difficult and burdensome for
employers, affected employees, and DOL to implement. Second, funeral
homes would no longer be required to pay overtime to funeral directors or
embalmers who work more than 40 hours per week. Third, we are concerned
that the bill would deny overtime pay to additional workers in computer
related occupations. In addition, the proposed change in rules for
calculating overtime pay in H.R. 3081 is similarly misguided.
We appreciate your consideration of the Administration's concerns. We
look forward to working with you and other members of Congress in the
coming months to address the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, to
meet critical national priorities, to provide a living wage to those at
the bottom of the economic spectrum and to enact fiscally responsible tax
relief targeted at the needs of working families.
Sincerely yours,
Lawrence H. Summers
Alexis M. Herman
Identical letters sent to Speaker Hastert, Leader Gephardt, Chairman
Archer, Chairman Goodling, Congressman Rangel, Congressman Lazio, and
Congressman Clay
ARMS Email SystemRECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Douglas V. Almond ( CN=Douglas V. Almond/OU=CEA/O=EOP [ CEA 1)
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-NOV-1999 16:05:44.00
SUBJECT:
TO: Michael J. Brien ( CN=Michael J. Brien/OU=CEA/O=EOP@EOP [CEA])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Mike,
I put the paper back in your box. thanks, nice to be reading
papers.
as for the press release, i was thinking it might be good to do a
web piece or round-up on the rise of city living wage ordinances.
doug.
ARMS Email SystemRECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Charles F. Stone ( CN=Charles F. Stone/OU=CEA/O=EOP [CEA])
CREATION DATE/TIME:22-MAR-2000 13:54:16.00
SUBJECT: Re: living wage roundup
TO: Sarah L. Rosen (CN=Sarah L. Rosen/OU=CEA/O=EOP@EOP [ CEA D
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Lowell J. Taylor ( CN=Lowell J. Taylor/OU=CEA/O=EOP@EOP [ CEA D
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
This has the facts of the study OK. But I think we still need to try to
get in a subtle message about how the more you increase a wage floor, the
more you have to explicitly confront employment effects versus income
effects. Talk to Lowell to see if he has any thoughts
ARMS Email SystemRECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Sarah L. Rosen (CN=Sarah L. Rosen/OU=CEA/O=EOP [ CEA 1)
CREATION DATE/TIME:22-MAR-2000 14:35:00.00
SUBJECT: living wage roundup
TO: Lowell J. Taylor (CN=Lowell J. Taylor/OU=CEA/O=EOP@EOP [CEA])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
This is the roundup I wrote based on the recent Neumark NBER paper on
living wages.
Any thoughts?
ATTACHMENT 1
ATT CREATION TIME/DATE: 0 00:00:00.00
TEXT:
Unable to convert ARMS_EXT:[ATTACH.D40JARMS21394178D.046 to ASCII,
The following is a HEX DUMP:
END ATTACHMENT 1
BUSINESS, CONSUMER, AND REGIONAL ROUNDUP
Effect of Living Wage on Poverty, Employment. A growing number of cities
have recently implemented "living wage ordinances" mandating that companies
with city contracts or receiving city assistance pay their workers a wage
sufficiently high to financially support a family. These wages are typically much
higher than the wage floors set by federal and state minimum wage legislation.
Not surprisingly, living wage ordinances boost wages amongst low-wage
workers, a recent study found. However, because the cost to a firm of hiring low-
wage workers increases, employment rates and the number of hours worked of
low-wage workers fall. These countervailing forces suggest there are winners and
losers following a legislated increase in wages. Those who remain employed earn
a higher wage, but there is a group who is no longer employed or works fewer
hours as a result. In the end, average family income in cities with living wage
ordinances is found to be higher resulting in modest reductions in the poverty
level. These findings suggest living wage ordinances may help to achieve the
goal of reducing urban poverty.
Automated Records Management
System
Hex-Dump Conversion
Weekly Economic Briefing
--DRAFT--
February 5, 2018 8:57AM
--DRAFT--
ARMS Email SystemRECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Lowell J. Taylor ( CN=Lowell J. Taylor/OU=CEA/O=EOP [CEA])
CREATION DATE/TIME:22-MAR-2000 16:46:57.00
SUBJECT: Re: living wage roundup
TO: Sarah L. Rosen ( CN=Sarah L. Rosen/OU=CEA/O=EOP@EOP [CEA ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Sarah,
Your roundup looks fine. I made a few suggestions to the end (in red).
I'm not sure if they improve your paragraph much, or at all.
Lowell
ATTACHMENT 1
ATT CREATION TIME/DATE: 0 00:00:00.00
TEXT:
Unable to convert ARMS_EXT:[ATTACH.D81JARMS20857378C.046to ASCII,
The following is a HEX DUMP:
END ATTACHMENT 1
BUSINESS, CONSUMER, AND REGIONAL ROUNDUP
Effect of Living Wage on Poverty, Employment. A growing number of cities
have recently implemented "living wage ordinances" mandating that companies
with city contracts or receiving city assistance pay their workers a wage
sufficiently high to financially support a family. These wages are typically much
higher than the wage floors set by federal and state minimum wage legislation.
Not surprisingly, living wage ordinances boost wages amongst low-wage
workers, a recent study found. However, because the cost to a firm of hiring low-
wage workers increases, employment rates and the number of hours worked of
low-wage workers fall. These countervailing forces suggest there are winners and
losers following a legislated increase in wages. Those who remain employed earn
higher wages, but some workers lose jobs as a result. The net effect of the living
wage ordinances is found to be a modest increase in average family income.
These findings suggest that living wage ordinances may help to reduce urban
poverty, but in so doing these policies have the unintended consequence of
making some workers worse off.
Automated Records Management System
Hex-Dump Conversion
Weekly Economic Briefing
--DRAFT--
February 5, 2018 8:57AM
--DRAFT--
ARMS Email SystemRECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Sarah L. Rosen ( CN=Sarah L. Rosen/OU=CEA/O=EOP [ CEA 1)
CREATION DATE/TIME:22-MAR-2000 17:12:40.00
SUBJECT: Re: living wage roundup
TO: Charles F. Stone ( CN=Charles F. Stone/OU=CEA/O=EOP@EOP [ (CEA])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Lowell's suggestions.
Forwarded by Sarah L. Rosen/CEA/EOP on 03/22/2000
05:12 PM
Lowell J. Taylor
03/22/2000 04:46:50 PM
Record Type: Record
To: Sarah L. Rosen/CEA/EOP@EOP
cc:
Subject: Re: living wage roundup
Sarah,
Your roundup looks fine. I made a few suggestions to the end (in red).
I'm not sure if they improve your paragraph much, or at all.
Lowell
ATTACHMENT I
ATT CREATION TIME/DATE: 0 00:00:00.00
TEXT:
Unable to convert ARMS_EXT:[ATTACH.D83JARMS29839378M.046 to ASCII,
The following is a HEX DUMP:
END ATTACHMENT 1
BUSINESS, CONSUMER, AND REGIONAL ROUNDUP
Effect of Living Wage on Poverty, Employment. A growing number of cities
have recently implemented "living wage ordinances" mandating that companies
with city contracts or receiving city assistance pay their workers a wage
sufficiently high to financially support a family. These wages are typically much
higher than the wage floors set by federal and state minimum wage legislation.
Not surprisingly, living wage ordinances boost wages amongst low-wage
workers, a recent study found. However, because the cost to a firm of hiring low-
wage workers increases, employment rates and the number of hours worked of
low-wage workers fall. These countervailing forces suggest there are winners and
losers following a legislated increase in wages. Those who remain employed earn
higher wages, but some workers lose jobs as a result. The net effect of the living
wage ordinances is found to be a modest increase in average family income.
These findings suggest that living wage ordinances may help to reduce urban
poverty, but in so doing these policies have the unintended consequence of
making some workers worse off.
Automated Records Management
System
Hex-Dump Conversion
Weekly Economic Briefing
--DRAFT--
February 5, 2018 8:58AM
--DRAFT--
ARMS Email SystemRECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Sarah L. Rosen ( CN=Sarah L. Rosen/OU=CEA/O=EOP [CEA])
CREATION DATE/TIME:22-MAR-2000 13:42:50.00
SUBJECT: living wage roundup
TO: Charles F. Stone ( CN=Charles F. Stone/OU=CEA/O=EOP@EOP [ CEA ])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Christopher W. Snow ( CN=Christopher W. Snow/OU=CEA/O=EOP@EOP [CEA])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Chad,
Sorry I'm running late on roundups this week. Here's an
attempt at the living wage roundup. Some of the sentences get a
little wordy, but please let me know if, content-wise, it's what you
had in mind.
Sarah
ATTACHMENT 1
ATT CREATION TIME/DATE: 0 00:00:00.00
TEXT:
Unable to convert ARMS_EXT:[ATTACH.D17JARMS231560788.046 to ASCII,
The following is a HEX DUMP:
END ATTACHMENT 1
BUSINESS, CONSUMER, AND REGIONAL ROUNDUP
Effect of Living Wage on Poverty, Employment. A growing number of cities
have recently implemented "living wage ordinances" mandating that companies
with city contracts or receiving city assistance pay their workers a wage
sufficiently high to financially support a family. These wages are typically much
higher than the wage floors set by federal and state minimum wage legislation.
Not surprisingly, living wage ordinances boost wages amongst low-wage
workers, a recent study found. However, because the cost to a firm of hiring low-
wage workers increases, employment rates and the number of hours worked of
low-wage workers fall. These countervailing forces suggest there are winners and
losers following a legislated increase in wages. Those who remain employed earn
a higher wage, but there is a group who is no longer employed or works fewer
hours as a result. In the end, average family income in cities with living wage
ordinances is found to be higher resulting in modest reductions in the poverty
level. These findings suggest living wage ordinances may help to achieve the
goal of reducing urban poverty.
Automated Records Management
System
Hex-Dump Conversion
Weekly Economic Briefing
--DRAFT--
February 5, 2018 8:58AM
--DRAFT--
ARMS Email SystemRECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Charles F. Stone ( CN=Charles F. Stone/OU=CEA/O=EOP [ CEA ])
CREATION DATE/TIME:23-MAR-2000 10:04:45.00
SUBJECT: drups
TO: Yu-Chin Chen ( CN=Yu-Chin Chen/OU=CEA/O=EOP@EOP [ CEA ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sarah L. Rosen ( CN=Sarah L. Rosen/OU=CEA/O=EOP@EOP [ CEA ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Christopher W. Snow ( CN=Christopher W. Snow/OU=CEA/O=EOP@EOP [ CEA 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Andrew R. Feldman ( CN=Andrew R. Feldman/OU=CEA/O=EOP@EOP [ CEA 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Leigh L. Linden ( CN=Leigh L. Linden/OU=CEA/O=EOP@EOP [ CEA 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Chris, put this version in the WEB
Leigh, this reflects some re-writing to bring out the story and some
cutting to make it fit
Sarah, slight re-writing of living wage. Many questions were raised about
the incarcertation and income distribution paper. I'm also concerned
about not knowing anything about the authors. Can you have Lowell look at
it and can you develop one of the other roundups as a backup
ATTACHMENT 1
ATT CREATION TIME/DATE: 0 00:00:00.00
TEXT:
Unable to convert ARMS_EXT:[ATTACH.D77]ARMS26874878A.046 to ASCII,
The following is a HEX DUMP:
END ATTACHMENT I
BUSINESS, CONSUMER, AND REGIONAL ROUNDUP
"Living Wage" Has Mixed Effects. A growing number of cities have recently
implemented "living wage" ordinances mandating that companies with city
contracts or receiving city assistance pay their workers a wage sufficiently high to
support a family. These wages are typically much higher than Federal and state
minimum wages, including the proposed higher Federal minimum wage. A
recent study found that living wage ordinances do indeed boost the wages of low-
wage workers. However, they also appear to raise the costs to employers of
hiring such workers enough that employment rates of low-wage workers and the
number of hours worked fall. These countervailing forces suggest there are
winners and losers following a legislated increase in wages. Those who remain
employed earn a higher wage, but others are no longer employed or work fewer
hours as a result. On balance, the study finds, average family income in cities
with living wage ordinances goes up, resulting in modest reductions in the
poverty level. These findings suggest living wage ordinances may help to achieve
the goal of reducing urban poverty in the aggregate, but at the cost of lost
employment and hours of work for some low-wage workers.
Railroad Mergers Stuck in the Station. Unlike most mergers, which are
reviewed by the Federal Trade Commission or the Department of Justice, railroad
mergers fall under the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board (STB)
housed in the Department of Transportation. Historically, the STB has approved
most mergers, including some over the objections of the Department of Justice.
Last week, however, the STB suspended all merger activity in the railroad
industry for 15 months while it develops new guidelines. The move was
prompted by advance notice of the proposed merger between the Burlington
Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) and the Canadian National
Railway Company (CNR). The Board noted that the last round of railway
mergers was accompanied by a number of serious service problems and that
railroad stocks have been falling since. It also expressed concern that the merger
between BNSF and CNR will prompt another round of mergers that could leave
the industry with only two major railroads serving North America.
Incarceration and Income Inequality. Since the 1940s, the earnings gap
between African American and white men has decreased while the gap in
employment rates has gotten larger. A recent study suggests that, in fact, the
worsening employment rate for African Americans (due in large part to
incarceration rates) explains some of the apparent increased earnings equality.
This is because people drop out of the labor force selectively, with low-wage
workers more likely to cease working than high-wage workers. As the low-wage
workers drop out, the average earnings of the remaining workers is higher. This
phenomenon is found to explain 20 percent of the reduced earnings inequality
between young men and explains more than half of relative black wage growth
between 1985 and 1996. High incarceration rates are a key reason behind the
labor inactivity of young African American men; 30 percent of non-working
black men are in jail.
Automated Records
Management System
Weekly Economic Briefing
Hex-Dump Conversion
--DRAFT--
February 5, 2018 8:58AM
--DRAFT--
ARMS Email SystemRECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Elizabeth A. Weber ( CN=Elizabeth A. Weber/OU=CEA/O=EOP [ CEA ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-SEP-2000 15:57:19.00
SUBJECT: living wage stuff
TO: Charles F. Stone ( CN=Charles F. Stone/OU=CEA/O=EOP@EOP [ CEA
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
The closest thing I can find from Neumark directly is "WILL THE DETROIT
LIVING WAGE ORDINANCE REDUCE URBAN POVERTY? LESSONS FROM OTHER CITIES",
David Neumark and Scott Adams, November 1999.
http://www.msu.edu/user/neumarkd/livwgpap.pdf The conclusions don't look
as strong as Business Week is quoting.
Looks like they also did it as an NBER: Do Living Wage Ordinances Reduce
Urban Poverty?
David Neumark,
Scott Adams
NBER Working
Paper No. W7606
Issued in
March 2000
Abstract
Many cities in the United States have
recently passed living wage ordinances. These ordinances typically mandate
that businesses under contract with the city
or, in some cases, receiving assistance from the city, must pay their
workers a wage sufficient to support a
family financially. To date, there has been no empirical analysis of the
actual
effects of living wages on the expected
beneficiaries low-wage workers and their families. In this paper, we
estimate the effects of city living wage
ordinances on the wages and hours of workers in cities that have adopted
such legislation. We also look at the
effects of the ordinances on employment and poverty rates in these cities.
Our
findings indicate that living wage
ordinances boost wages of low-wage workers. The estimated elasticities are
small, however, which seems consistent with
the fact that living wages have limited coverage, and may also have
limited compliance and enforcement. In
addition to the wage effects, we find weak negative hours effects of living
wage ordinances on low-wage workers, and
strong negative employment effects. Finally, our estimates of the
effects of living wages on poverty rates
indicate that living wage ordinances may help to achieve modest reductions
in urban poverty.
That's also the paper used in the 3/24/2000 DRUP.
As for EPI--The Effects of the Living Wage in Baltimore
Christopher Niedt, Greg Ruiters, Dana Wise, and Erica Shoenberger
This working paper (No. 119) examines the controversial "living wage" law,
which was passed in Baltimore, Md. in 1994,
to determine the direct costs of the living wage to the city and the
impact it had on workers.
37 pages, February 1999
$ 10.00
ARMS Email SystemRECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Charles F. Stone CN=Charles F. Stone/OU=CEA/O=EOP [CEA])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-SEP-2000 12:53:53.00
SUBJECT: this week's WEB
TO: Melissa M. Goldstein ( CN=Melissa M. Goldstein/OU=OVP/O=EOP@EOP [OVP])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: David W. Beier (CN=David W. Beier/OU=OVP/O=EOP@EOP OVP
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Things being worked on include:
1. Evidence on Estate Tax avoidance through inter vivos gifts.
Individuals are able to transfer $10,000 per year per person from their
wealth without incurring any estate and gift tax liablity, yet very few
people with likely estate tax liablities make maximum transfers to their
children according to recent studies. This suggests that the estate tax
is not a major concern to them or that they have reasons for waiting until
they die to transfer wealth to their children, even if it costs more in
taxes than making inter vivos transfers.
2. Non-CO2 gases and Kyoto. Press reports suggest that a recent
scientific analysis of greenhouse gases suggests we are overemphasizing
CO2 when methane is a more important source of global warming. This is
not quite what the evidence shows, but the emphasis on methane highlights
evidence that methane reductions may be a cost-effective way of meeting
Kyoto targets, i.e. that U.S. costs could be substantially lower than if
all reductions had to come through CO2 reductions
3. Third generation wireless. This would be a preview of the longer CEA
report and would observe that third generation wireless licenses fetched
hefty fees recently in Europe, and that notwithstanding differences
between U.S. and other country telecom markets, the U.S. may suffer from
unreasonable or unwarranted delays in developing its own 3G market.
4. Global integration--the view from Jackson Hole. This article would
sumarize themes fro the papers presented at the KC Fed's Jackson Hole
conference (including Greenspan), probably with an emphasis on views of
the U.S. current account deficit.
5. Welfare declines and spatial mismatch. This summer Brookings released
a study showing that the decline in welfare caseloads in cities, while
still substantial, was smaller than in non-urban areas. This article
would look at one possible explanation--the mismatch between the location
of potential workers in the central cities and the location of jobs in the
suburbs.
David--we are looking into the living wage papers. (Incidentally, we ran
a roundup in the March 24 WEB that I think may have been based on an early
version of the Neumark paper)