During this #CloseUpConversations webinar we focus on current issues such as bail reform, criminal sentencing reform, and decriminalization of drugs with guest speaker Margaret diZerega of the Center for Sentencing and Corrections and Unlocking Potential at Vera Institute of Justice. Hear about both sides of these critical criminal justice issues and about how you can have these discussions in the classroom.
On January 26, we posted about the deteriorating situation in Ukraine. Since then, Russia has invaded Ukraine and surrounded the capital, Kyiv. More than half a million refugees have fled the country and at least 136 civilians, including 13 children, have been killed.1
What Has Happened Since Then?
Why Did Russia Invade Ukraine?
After months of claiming that he had no plans to invade Ukraine, Putin’s forces attacked several major cities last week. Putin claimed that Russia could not feel “safe, develop, and exist” because of the threat from modern Ukraine, and demanded assurances that it would never join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Putin also falsely accused the Ukrainian government of genocide and called for the “de-Nazification” of Ukraine.7 These claims are part of Putin’s well-documented campaign of disinformation.8 Zelenskyy is Jewish and Ukraine’s chief rabbi and the Auschwitz Memorial have both rejected Putin’s claims.9
It is difficult to know exactly why Putin chose to invade now and what his final aims are, but many foreign policy experts agree that he wants to restore Russia to the superpower status the Soviet Union once enjoyed and topple Zelenksyy’s democratically elected government. Putin likely views a democratic Ukraine as an existential threat to his own autocratic leadership in Russia and fears protests for democratic reforms among his own citizens. It is impossible to know if Ukraine is Putin’s only target or if he would invade other countries, as he did with Georgia in 2008.10
It is likely that Putin was not expecting such a global response to his invasion. During his 2008 invasion of Georgia, his 2014 invasion of Ukraine and takeover of Crimea, and Russia’s bombing of civilians in Syria, sanctions and international condemnation were not as strong as those we see today.11
How Has the United States Responded?
President Joe Biden authorized an additional $350 million in defense aid on February 25, bringing the total U.S. assistance to Ukraine to more than $1 billion in the last 12 months.12 President Biden said the United States will also deploy 7,000 troops to Germany to reinforce NATO after the invasion of Ukraine (which is not a member). President Biden maintains that he will not send U.S. troops to Ukraine, a position he took before the Russian invasion. “That’s a world war when Americans and Russians start shooting at one another,” he said. Similarly, he has chosen a path of de-escalation in the face of Putin’s nuclear threats.13
In addition to providing aid to Ukraine and NATO, the United States and its allies have imposed economic sanctions on Russian leaders and the Russian financial system. President Biden has stated that while he wants to inflict damage on the Russian ruling class, he does not want to impoverish average Russians.14 The sanctions are likely to disrupt international markets as well. Food, energy, and industrial supply chains will be affected, and Americans are likely to see energy and food prices rise.15
How Do Economic Sanctions Work?
Many countries, including the United States, are moving to swiftly isolate Russia’s financial system. They are blocking some Russian products from being imported and limiting what types of products can be sold to Russia, with technology products that are not produced in Russia especially targeted.
The has caused the Russian ruble to lose as much as 25 percent of its value. Russia’s central bank (similar to the Federal Reserve in the United States, which regulates interest rates to help fight inflation and grow the economy) has as much as $643 billion in different banks around the world. Governments are now restricting access to that money so the Russian government cannot soften the impact of the sanctions.16 Inflation in Russia could be as high as 70 percent, and the Russian government shut down the stock exchange on Monday and Tuesday. To further isolate Russian financial institutions, Western countries are removing several Russian banks from SWIFT, a financial messaging network that allows banks to transfer money internationally.17 Economists describe the sanctions as “unprecedented.”18
How Are Other Governments and Organizations Responding?
What Can We Expect in the Coming Days?
While the Russian military has not taken over any of the major cities it has attacked, it is important to remember that it is still early in the conflict. Ukrainian troops and civilians are providing more resistance than the Russian military was likely expecting, but foreign policy experts warn that Russian forces are still coming and seem to be surrounding Kyiv and Kharkiv.23
Russia looks to be using a strategy it found effective in Syria when it was supporting President Bashar al-Assad: bombing civilian centers with long-range precision weapons and taking over cities once civilians flee. In Syria, Russia used missiles to bomb hospitals, schools, and markets, and there are fears that Putin will use a similar strategy against Ukrainian civilians.24
Protests against the Russian invasion have popped up in many cities across the globe, including in Russia. More than 6,435 Russians have been arrested and detained for protesting their government’s invasion of Ukraine thus far.25
Discussion Questions
Key Terms
Additional Resources
As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below!
Sources
The National Football League (NFL) is in the hot seat again. This time, players and coaches are accusing the league of racial discrimination in hiring practices for coaches; more specifically, they claim that the NFL is biased against Black personnel for coveted coaching positions. In a sports league where most players are Black, most head coaches are white—and this is the problem.
Despite the fact that 70 percent of NFL players are Black, only one of the 32 head coaches is Black, as of the date of this posting. Recently, there were two other Black head coaches, Brian Flores of the Miami Dolphins and David Culley of the Houston Texans, but both were fired at the end of the season. Their exits left just one Black head coach (Mike Tomlin of the Pittsburgh Steelers) and one Latino head coach (Ron Rivera of the Washington Commanders) in the entire NFL. The rest of the head coaches are white.
On February 2, Flores sued the NFL and three of its teams for discriminatory hiring practices. The lawsuit outlines a series of specific experiences Flores had during his time as a coach in the league.
The NFL and the teams in question have denied these accusations, stating that the absence of Black head coaches is due to a lack of qualified candidates—a claim not supported by the available research. Some coaches and players believe the NFL is purposely overlooking qualified Black candidates to maintain its all-white leadership.
This isn’t the first time that the NFL has been accused of racism; the league has a long history of discriminating against Black athletes and coaches. In 1921, Fritz Pollard became the first coach of color in the NFL, but it took almost 70 years before Art Shell would become the second coach to break down the same barrier. In 2021, coach Jon Gruden was fired following a release of messages containing racist and homophobic remarks. And the topic of race has been a hot-button issue since 2016, when Colin Kaepernick first took a knee during the national anthem to protest racism in America. He has not been able to find a team to work with ever since. The following year, the 32 NFL team owners created a policy that would lead to a player being fined for kneeling during the anthem.1 Some people believe these instances demonstrate that race is an issue that the NFL continues to ignore.
In 2003, the NFL adopted the so-called Rooney Rule to address the league’s lack of diversity in coaching. As of May 2020, the Rooney Rule has been expanded to require teams to interview at least two external minority candidates for their head coaching job and at least one external minority candidate for any coordinator job.2 When the rule was first adopted, there were some positive effects in the short term: the NFL did see an increase in Black and Latino coaches. However, following those initial gains, the number of head coaches of color decreased over time. As of this writing, there are fewer Black head coaches in the NFL than there were in 2003 (when there were three).3
These figures show snapshot comparisons of newly hired NFL head coaches broken down by race in 2002-2003 vs. 2019-2020
Many people in the industry have refused to speak openly with reporters about the alleged discriminatory hiring practices for fear of backlash. However, one person did tell NFL.com that Flores’s case is “probably going to air out a lot of dirty laundry. What happened to [Flores] has been going on for decades, but no one has ever wanted to push the issue. Most have been happy to have the opportunity to work in the league and haven’t wanted to walk away from that opportunity. I admire his resolve.”4
Flores said in an interview that he felt the need to bring this issue to court (despite the negative impact it might have on his career) because “we need change. I know many capable Black coaches who would go out and do a great job on their interviews when given the opportunity. I hate to see that go to waste. We need to change the hearts and minds of the people making the decisions … the white NFL team owners.”5
In his lawsuit documents, Flores says that “the racial discrimination has only been made worse by the NFL’s disingenuous commitment to social equity.”6 He also describes several interviews with the NFL in detail, calling them “sham interviews” meant to fulfill the Rooney Rule requirement and check a box. In his lawsuit, Flores describes the Rooney Rule as well-intentioned but ineffective.
“However, well-intentioned or not, what is clear is that the Rooney Rule is not working. It is not working because the numbers of Black Head Coaches, Coordinators, and Quarterback Coaches are not even close to being reflective of the number of Black athletes on the field. The Rooney Rule is also not working because management is not doing the interviews in good faith. Therefore, it creates a stigma that interviews of Black candidates are only being done to comply with the Rooney Rule rather than in recognition of the talents that the Black candidates possess.”7
So what do Flores and others around the league hope to see the NFL do to bring about change? Here are just a few suggestions they have offered.8
READ the full interview for more details on these solutions.
In the end, the NFL must show that it is not biased against Black athletes and coaches or else continue to face the consequences. The longer these issues remain unaddressed, the worse the results could be for the league. What would the NFL do if players and coaches chose to boycott games or file additional lawsuits? Either way, the NFL’s reputation is on the line … again.
Discussion Questions
Additional Resources
As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below!
Sources
Last month, Senators Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., and Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., introduced the Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act, a reform bill that would require members of Congress to divest their stock market investments or face fines totaling the entire amount of their congressional salary.1 So, should members of Congress be allowed to trade stocks?
According to an August 2021 Gallup poll, approximately 56 percent of U.S. adults own stock.2 Stocks, also called equities, are bought in units called “shares” and represent partial ownership of a company.3 Investors who own shares hope for a return on their investment; if the company they invest in succeeds, their stock price rises and increases in worth. Investors may receive dividend payments, which are earnings that the company issues to its stockholders.4 At least 220 members of Congress—more than 40 percent of senators and representatives—own stock. This has raised concerns about corruption and conflicts of interest, prompting the question: should members of Congress be allowed to trade stocks?
The Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act would “require all members of Congress, their spouses, and dependent children to place their stock portfolios into a blind trust.”5 A blind trust is a method of divesting assets in which stockholders pass their investments on to an independent third party which then makes financial decisions on their behalf, insulating the stockholders from day-to-day decision-making and trading.
A decade ago, Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed into law the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, which aimed to prevent insider trading in Congress. Due to the nature of their job, members of Congress often have access to sensitive information from closed-door meetings and briefings about markets, upcoming regulations, and a multitude of government issues. They’re also the ones in charge of creating federal policy. The STOCK Act prohibits members of Congress from buying or selling stock on the basis of any privileged information they receive. It also requires Congress members trading stocks to be publicly disclosed on searchable, online databases within 45 days.6
Although the STOCK Act was an example of Congress taking the initiative to reform itself, the results have not been as effective as hoped. The average fine for failing to report trades on time is a mere $200, and according to an investigative series by Business Insider, 55 members of Congress—Democrats and Republicans alike—were late in disclosing their stock trades.7 Some were late by only a few days; others were late by months.8
READ MORE: “These Are the 50 Top Stocks that Members of Congress Own”
In January 2020, before the general public was aware of the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic, Senator Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga., sold millions of dollars of stock in companies that were poised to be hit hard by the pandemic, right before they dropped in value.9 She then purchased stock “in a company that makes COVID-19 protective garments.”10 Around the same time, financial decisions by Senators David Perdue, R-Ga., Richard Burr, R-N.C., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., also received scrutiny for what looked like insider trading. They have all denied any wrongdoing, and investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice have since concluded without any recommended charges.11
While there has been talk on Capitol Hill about doing more to rein in the buying and selling of stocks, and subsequent insider trading, by senators and representatives, leadership in the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives and Senate initially pushed back against the idea. “We are a free-market economy,” said Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who owns and trades stock along with members of her immediate family, adding that members of Congress “should be able to participate in this.”12 Just last week, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., signaled his support for discussing details of the proposal, warming up to it after facing bipartisan pressure from his fellow lawmakers.13
But it’s not just bipartisan support among those in Congress. According to the conservative-leaning Convention of States Action, 76 percent of Americans agree that members of Congress have an “unfair advantage” in the stock market and should not be allowed to trade stocks while in office.14 Those who support the Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act believe that elected officials need to rebuild trust with the American people, increase transparency, and show that they will put the best interests of their constituents before any personal profit.
Those who oppose the Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act believe that members of Congress should be free to participate in the stock market like anyone else, regardless of their position or title. They note that the STOCK Act is already on the books and should be better enforced to prevent even the appearance of corruption.
Discussion Questions
As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below!
Sources
On February 4, the Republican National Committee (RNC) officially censured two members of the party, Representatives Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., and Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., for their role in the ongoing House of Representatives investigation into the Capitol riot that occurred on January 6, 2021.
The RNC resolution claims that Cheney and Kinzinger “support Democrat efforts to destroy President Trump” and denounces “those who deliberately jeopardize [Republican] victory in November.” Perhaps the most controversial text of the RNC resolution states, “Representatives Cheney and Kinzinger are participating in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse.”1 Some interpreted this statement as downplaying the riot and showing support for those responsible.2 Later that day, RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel tweeted that the language was referring to “ordinary citizens who engaged in legitimate political discourse that had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol,” although the RNC resolution does not make that distinction and does not specify which actions the RNC members view as legitimate.3
READ MORE: Insurrection at the Capitol on the Current Issues Blog
On January 6, 2021, supporters of former President Donald Trump rioted in an attempt to stop the certification of the 2020 presidential election.4 The Department of Justice estimates that between 2,000 and 2,500 people entered the Capitol. More than 725 people have been arrested, with charges ranging from parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building to assault with a deadly weapon. As a result of the violence, 138 law enforcement officers were injured and two people died.5 In addition to the investigations by law enforcement agencies, the House launched its own investigation with a select committee that currently includes seven Democrats and Cheney and Kinzinger as the sole Republicans, all of whom were chosen by Democrats and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.6
READ MORE: Who Is Accountable for the Riot? on the Current Issues Blog
On the day of the censure vote, McDaniel made it clear that the RNC members are strongly prioritizing party unity, something Cheney and Kinzinger are purportedly threatening with their presence on the House committee and continued criticism of President Trump. “When Republicans come together, we win,” McDaniel said at the RNC general session.7 After facing criticism directed at the language in the resolution, McDaniel defended the RNC’s decision. “Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger crossed a line,” she said.8 Richard Porter, an RNC member from Illinois, agreed with the political censure of Cheney and Kinzinger, saying, “The nominal Republicans on the committee provide a pastiche of bipartisanship, but no genuine protection or due process for the ordinary people who did not riot being targeted and terrorized by the committee. The investigation is a de facto Democrat-only investigation increasingly unmoored from congressional norms.”9
READ MORE: Free Speech and Censorship Fallout from the Capitol Riot on the Current Issues Blog
Shortly before the political censure vote, Representative Cheney stated that her party had become “willing hostages to a man who admits he tried to overturn a presidential election.”10 Several members of the Republican Party, including Senators Bill Cassidy, R-La., and Mitt Romney, R-Utah, and Maryland Governor Larry Hogan, criticized the censure. “Shame falls on a party that would censure persons of conscience, who seek truth in the face of vitriol,” tweeted Romney. “Honor attaches to Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for seeking truth even when doing so comes at great personal cost.”11
The fight over President Trump continues to divide Republicans, as some support him and others believe opposing him will keep Republican congressional majorities out of reach in the upcoming midterms. Other Republicans believe they should be allowed to criticize the former president or disagree with the RNC. “It can be uncomfortable when you say I’m not going to align myself neatly with what the party is saying just because the party is saying [it],” said Senator Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska.12
Discussion Questions
As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below!
Sources
During this #CloseUpConversations webinar, we focus on school choice as well as educational equity and justice issues in education with guest speaker Jordan Banegas of The Institute for Justice.
President Joe Biden has ordered the Pentagon to put 8,500 U.S. troops on heightened alert for a possible deployment to Europe.1 And the State Department has told the families of U.S. diplomats in Ukraine to leave the country as the possibility of a Russian invasion increases.2 So, what is the situation in Ukraine?
Background on Ukraine
Ukraine is the second largest country in Europe, after Russia, and gained its independence in late 1991 after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It maintains deep ties to Russia, and many Russian leaders regret the separation. Ukraine’s leadership used to be aligned with Russia, but its top trading partner is now China and more than half of Ukraine’s population supports joining the European Union.3
Controlling Ukrainian territory has many advantages. It has some of the world’s most fertile soil and it’s located along the route of Russian oil and gas pipelines to Europe. Russia supplies Europe with 40 percent of its natural gas and 25 percent of its oil.4
In 2014, after Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, an ally of Russia, was forced out of office and a pro-Western candidate was elected in his place, separatists in eastern Ukraine began to rebel with Russian military aid. That war has killed over 15,000 people in the Donbas region. Russia also invaded the Crimean Peninsula that year and now controls it.5
The Role of Russia
Russia recently moved 100,000 troops and arms toward Belarus, a Russian ally and a neighbor of Ukraine, for military exercises. Russian President Vladimir Putin insists that he is not planning an invasion of Ukraine. Instead, he claims that the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) are trying to destabilize the region by sending in weapons and military advisors.6 Putin has spoken out against NATO before; in 2008, he warned that steps to bring Ukraine into the alliance “would be a hostile act toward Russia.”7
The Role of the United States
President Biden was vice president when the Russian military took control of Crimea, and he has said that Putin may try to “test the West” with another invasion. President Biden sent $650 million in defensive military aid and helped Ukraine procure missiles and aircraft. So far, no one has said the troops on alert would go directly to Ukraine; rather, they would be posted to support NATO members such as Poland or those in the Baltics.8
The United States has imposed economic sanctions on Russia since 2014. However, experts have debated their efficacy, since Russian oil and gas are essential to U.S. allies in Europe. The Biden administration is also considering using the “foreign direct product rule,” which would prohibit U.S. tech companies from exporting goods to Russia.9
READ MORE: This isn’t President Biden’s first foreign policy dilemma; read on the blog about the U.S. exit from Afghanistan
The Role of NATO
NATO was founded in 1949 in response to the Cold War between the West and the Soviet Union. By signing the treaty, member states agree to defend each other if any are invaded. After the Soviet Union dissolved, several former Soviet republics began the process of joining NATO, which Russia opposed. Ukraine has applied to be a member, but it is not one yet.10
Putin has demanded assurances that Ukraine will not join NATO and an end to military exercises near its border. For his part, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has said that Russia has no say over who is allowed to join NATO.11
The Situation in Ukraine
Recent elections indicate that Ukrainians prefer closer cooperation with the West than with Russia.12 Ukraine has criticized as premature the United States and other countries pulling diplomats’ families from embassies. A spokesperson for Ukraine’s foreign ministry said, “The threat of a new wave of Russian aggression has been permanent since 2014, and the build-up of Russian forces on the state border began in April of last year.” Despite this confidence, there is concern that the Russian military build-up is meant to threaten the internal stability of Ukraine.13
Attempts at Diplomacy
Last week, Blinken met with Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov in an attempt to defuse the situation in Ukraine. Blinken and Lavrov left the meeting affirming plans to continue speaking, and they said that a talk between the presidents of the two countries is possible. This statement came before the announcement that U.S. troops could be headed to the region or that more severe sanctions could be coming.
Discussion Questions
Other Resources
As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below!
Sources
It’s official: 2021 was either the fifth or sixth hottest year on record, depending on who you ask.
On January 13, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued reports saying that 2021 was the sixth hottest year ever recorded, going back to when record-keeping began in 1880.1 Earlierin the week, the Copernicus Climate Change Service, whose researchers are based in the European Union, released its own analysis, calculating 2021 temperature records to be the fifth hottest history.2 Although there are variations in the rankings based on how the averages were calculated, the overall data still align and reach the same conclusion: 2021 was yet another hot one.
This distinction comes as no surprise to climate scientists, whose analyses have shown that global temperatures have continued to break records in recent years. The year 2020 tied with 2016 as the hottest years, according to NASA.3 NASA’s data shows that “Earth’s average temperature has risen more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.2 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century” and that human activity—namely greenhouse gas emissions—is the root cause of this change.4
This is part of a broad trend of record-breaking temperatures. The previous seven years have been the seven hottest on record.5 And according to the NOAA, July 2021 was the single hottest month ever recorded.6 NOAA administrator Rick Spinrad characterized this data as a continuation of “the disturbing and disruptive path that climate change has set for the globe.”7
The effects of climate change can be seen around the world in extreme heatwaves, droughts, wildfires, and other severe weather events such as storms, hurricanes, and tornados, which increase in strength and frequency due to warmer temperatures. “We do not live in a stable climate now,” said Robert Rohde of Berkeley Earth, an organization focused on climate science. “We will expect to see more extremes and more all-time records being set.”8
U.S. 2021 Climate Crisis and Billion-Dollar Weather
This fall, the United Nations Climate Change Conference, known as COP26, met in Glasgow in what its organizers dubbed the “last, best hope to save the planet.”9 It ended with an agreement between more than 200 countries to come back in a year with stronger, concrete plans on how to mitigate the effects of climate change and the recognition that wealthier nations need to increase their funding for these efforts.10 There was also consensus about the urgency of the issue and ongoing conversations about what should be done, such as curtailing methane emissions and ending deforestation.11 However, nations disagreed about how quickly they need to reduce emissions and by how much—information that is vital to address climate change on a global scale.12 Nineteen-year-old environmental activist Greta Thunberg criticized the apparent lack of action in a tweet: “The #COP26 is over. Here’s a brief summary: Blah, blah, blah.”13
Discussion Questions
As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below!
Sources
Across the United States, towns and cities are flooded with “Help Wanted” signs on business doors. The U.S. job market has seen its share of ups and downs over the last two years, but 2021 was a year of record-breaking highs in many categories. The two most important: record-breaking quits and record-breaking new job openings.
According to the most recent Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) released by the Department of Labor, a record high of 4.5 million Americans quit their jobs in November 2021 alone.1 This number contributes to the 20 million people who resigned during the second half of 2021. 2
Economists and the media have dubbed this phenomenon “The Great Resignation” or “The Big Quit.” These numbers starkly contrast with the early months of the pandemic, when nearly 22 million people lost their jobs in only two months.3
 |
 |
Along with record-high job turnover, we are simultaneously experiencing record-high job openings across the nation. The job market reached historical pinnacles in 2021, with a record 6.4 million job openings (the highest number in history for one year) and an unemployment rate of 3.9 percent.4 For some perspective, this is 51 percent higher than the booming 4.3 million jobs added in 1946 following World War II.5 Furthermore, it took three times as long (three years total) to add the same number of jobs during the recovery from the Great Recession.6 It is possible to assume that we are just getting back jobs lost during the hot months of the pandemic, but as the chart below shows, the U.S. economy has 50.6 percent more positions open now than before the pandemic began.7 Meanwhile, in November 2021, the number of hires held steady at 6.7 million across all U.S. industries and regions.8 It seems we have the jobs, but not the workers.
With more jobs available than workers, people ask: “How do we bring even more people to work?” Economists and experts from employment-focused companies such as Linkedin and ZipRecruiter have conducted surveys and analyzed employment data to try and discover what is driving the wave of resignations and what employees are looking for in opportunities.
The most straightforward answer would be that the unemployment benefits from the COVID-19 pandemic are driving people toward the Great Resignation. However, both data and expert opinion suggest that this is an oversimplification of the current situation. Many people are not returning to the same or any workplace once benefits have ended. For example, a restaurant owner from Greenville, South Carolina, told 60 Minutes in an interview that his employees who never returned found other jobs that better aligned with their wishes and goals.9
WATCH: Reps. Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Pa., and Greg Murphy, R-N.C., debate the causes and remedies for the Great Resignation in a video from our partners, A Starting Point.
Many experts believe it is about more than money; it is about quality of life. Anthony Klotz, the man credited with coining the term “The Great Resignation,” told NBC in an interview that it’s not that people have stopped working. Instead, he said, they are making a change. “This great resignation and the turnover that goes along with it is individuals taking their futures, their careers into their own hands and trying to craft a life that is more meaningful for them and their families,” he said.10 In addition, people working in lower-wage jobs may find that quitting allows them to find higher wages with less potential exposure to COVID-19. Since the pandemic, many employees are looking for more flexibility in hours, remote work options, safety measures, reduced exposure to COVID-19, and good pay/benefits for work they find meaningful.11
On the other end of the spectrum, some people argue that there is no Great Resignation happening at all; this is simply how the job market flows. These people say that the quit rate isn’t that big of a deal because many people have been quitting their jobs for years. While comparatively high for a standard year (about five percent higher than an average number of quits per year), the rates are likely similar to workforce quits seen during other significant moments in history, such as pre-and post-World War II, but quits data was not being collected then.12 These people argue that the hype makes it seem like more people are leaving jobs across industries than is actually happening. While all job sectors have seen increases in resignations, a handful make up a large portion of those numbers (e.g., accommodation and food service, which makes sense given the parameters of COVID-19).13 (For information on specific quit rates, see the chart above.)
Whatever the reason for the open jobs and resignations, most people believe the tables have turned in favor of employees—for now. As such, if employers want to fill open positions, it may require an adjustment to what work looks like moving forward.
Discussion Questions
For More Information
Additional Charts and Tables
 |
 |
 |
As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below!
Sources
Already facing the enormous challenge of addressing spiking cases of COVID-19 due to the Omicron variant, President Joe Biden’s administration was presented with a new challenge when Senator Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., announced that he would not support the $2 trillion spending plan known as Build Back Better Bill. Citing concerns over the level of spending on social safety net programs and climate policies, Manchin said he could not find a way to support the bill that would be consistent with what he believes his constituents in West Virginia want.1
If passed by Congress, the Build Back Better program plan would allocate significant funding to a wide range of programs, including:
The bulk of the funding for these programs would come from a corresponding increase in taxes paid by corporations and by wealthy individuals (people earning $10 million or more per year).2
The Build Back Better plan was conceived as a second phase of new federal government spending following the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill that passed into law in mid-November. Promising to get the Build Back Better plan and its climate and social initiatives passed had been a source of contention between progressive Democrats and the rest of their party in Congress. Many of these progressives refused to support the infrastructure bill but enough of them, and enough Republicans, were willing to vote to secure its passage.3
The reason why Manchin’s refusal to support the Build Back Better Bill means it is likely dead because of the precarious hold that Democrats have on the Senate. Using a process called “budget reconciliation,” Build Back Better could have passed the Senate with only 50 votes (the Senate usually requires 60 votes). Democrats currently have only 50 members in the Senate. In the event of a tie, Vice President Kamala Harris casts the tie-breaking vote, effectively giving Democrats a 51-50 majority. However, Manchin and his fellow Senator Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., are considered more conservative than most of their Democratic peers, having expressed many concerns over the level of government spending in the Build Back Better program and the effects such spending would have on rising inflation. This led to weeks of negotiation between Manchin and Sinema and their fellow Senate Democrats, as well as with President Biden. While it seemed that Sinema was warming to the idea of voting for the Build Back Better Bill, the bill would likely be defeated 49-50 in the Senate without Manchin’s support.4
This represents a major setback for the Biden administration and is likely to result in significant backlash from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, who are growing increasingly frustrated with the party leadership’s unwillingness or inability to address the concerns they have surrounding climate, housing, social services, and health care. And with Democrats holding slim majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives ahead of the November 2022 elections, a major legislative defeat could result in huge losses and a return to Republican control in one or both chambers.5
Discussion Questions
Related Posts
As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below!
Sources
671 N. Glebe Road, Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22203
703-706-3300 or 800-CLOSE UP
CST-1002082-40:
Registration as a seller of travel does not constitute approval by the State of California.
