As a result of redistricting efforts in New York, and rapid growth in Harlem’s Latino population, which is now larger than the black population, this community’s black residents may no longer have a leading voice in their district.
Congressman Charles Rangel, who represents the district, was able to withstand an ethics scandal that threatened his seat. But a rising Latino population could mean the end to black power in Harlem.
Changing demographics throughout the nation, combined with retiring lawmakers and redistricting, have members of the Congressional Black Caucus concerned that they will lose long-held black seats.
While much attention has been paid to gentrification and its consequences for historically African-American enclaves, there has been little discussion of the impact of the nation’s Latino population, now the largest minority group in the U.S.
According to the 2010 census, Latinos increased from 12.5 percent of the U.S. population in 2000 to 16.3 percent in 2010.
Blacks only increased from 12.3 percent to 12.6 percent during the same time period. Now, 50.5 million Hispanic-Americans outnumber 38.9 million African-Americans.
And in the New York metropolitan area, blacks, Latinos and Asians now make up a majority of the more than 19 million people in the area.
For the first time, the Hispanic poverty rate (28.2 percent) has surpassed the black rate (23.4 percent) nationwide.
This turn of events is due to lower participation of immigrant groups and non-English speakers in government assistance programs.
Black urban areas are emptying out and impoverished Latino groups are moving in.
As a result of redistricting efforts in New York, and rapid growth in Harlem’s Latino population, which is now larger than the black population, this community’s black residents may no longer have a leading voice in their district.
Congressman Charles Rangel, who represents the district, was able to withstand an ethics scandal that threatened his seat. But a rising Latino population could mean the end to black power in Harlem.
Changing demographics throughout the nation, combined with retiring lawmakers and redistricting, have members of the Congressional Black Caucus concerned that they will lose long-held black seats.
While much attention has been paid to gentrification and its consequences for historically African-American enclaves, there has been little discussion of the impact of the nation’s Latino population, now the largest minority group in the U.S.
According to the 2010 census, Latinos increased from 12.5 percent of the U.S. population in 2000 to 16.3 percent in 2010.
Blacks only increased from 12.3 percent to 12.6 percent during the same time period. Now, 50.5 million Hispanic-Americans outnumber 38.9 million African-Americans.
And in the New York metropolitan area, blacks, Latinos and Asians now make up a majority of the more than 19 million people in the area.
For the first time, the Hispanic poverty rate (28.2 percent) has surpassed the black rate (23.4 percent) nationwide.
This turn of events is due to lower participation of immigrant groups and non-English speakers in government assistance programs. Black urban areas are emptying out and impoverished Latino groups are moving in.
According to the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, the “ghetto” as we know it is changing from black to Hispanic.
The population of 133 historically black communities fell 36 percent since 1970, while black population growth slowed down and blacks moved to new areas.
Only 7 percent of blacks live in traditional ghettos, down from 33 percent in 1970.
African-Americans are moving back to the South and out of the big cities into the predominantly white suburbs, in the dramatic fashion in which they migrated to the North from the late 1800s to the 1950s.
Atlanta, for example, increased its number of black people by half a million in 10 years.
This reverse migration represents a major demographic shift: As the South’s share of African-Americans (57 percent) is at its highest point in over half a century, the five counties with the highest proportion of blacks — Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Cook (Illinois), Wayne (Michigan) and Kings (New York) — all shed black folks in the past decade.
Far more dramatic that the black reverse migration, however, is the ascendancy of Latinos across the nation, including in the South and other areas where few to none existed a few decades ago.
Of the 12 states with the largest rise in their Latino population, nine were in the South, including top-ranked South Carolina, followed by Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, North Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia and Virginia.
The non-Southern states are Maryland, South Dakota and Delaware. And of the 12 states with the largest number of Hispanics, the Southern state of Georgia ranks 10th, and North Carolina is 11th. California ranks first, followed by Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Arizona and other states.
Latinos became a majority in 191 of the nation’s 366 metropolitan areas, which account for 83.7 percent of the population of the U.S. In 2000—when Hispanics were more typically found in the border states of the Southwest—the group was a majority in 159 metropolitan areas.
Some of these areas include Atlantic City, New Jersey, Chicago, and Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Further, Omaha, Nebraska, Oklahoma City, Lakeland, Florida and Madison Wisconsin, all experienced faster Latino growth compared to blacks. Cities with particularly sizable declines in blacks include St. Louis, Detroit, Cleveland and New York.
Whites declined in all metro areas, and Asians increased in all but five.
In the city of Chicago, where blacks, whites and Hispanics are roughly equal, black and Latino mayoral candidates were rejected in favor of a white candidate — Rahm Emanuel, former White House chief of staff under Obama.
Latinos in Georgia increased from 435,000 to 850,000 in a decade. North Carolina has doubled its Latino population in the past 10 years, and 63 of the state’s 100 counties are at least 5 percent Latino.
Texas, which is a majority-minority state of 25 million people and 45 percent white, is around 38 percent Latino.
The state grew 20.6 percent since 2000, adding 4.2 million new people.
Latinos were responsible for 65 percent of that growth, and 95 percent of the 1 million additional children. Texas’ white population grew by only 4.2 percent, and the black population by 22 percent.
Latino growth gave Texas four additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, more than any other state. Latinos will receive three new seats in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, and Hidalgo and Starr Counties in the Rio Grande Valley.
The news came following complaints that Republican lawmakers were ignoring the Latino population and manipulating the redistricting process for political gain.
According to the census, most of California’s growth was due to Hispanics, who increased 28 percent to 14 million and achieved near population parity with whites, while Asians rose 28 percent to 14 million.
Whites dropped 5.4 percent to below 15 million, and black Californians fell 1 percent to 2.2 million people.
In the U.S., the Latino vote increased the most in California and Florida, with Latinos accounting for 23 percent and 34 percent of each state’s vote, respectively.
Latino voters are likely have an impact in key political battleground states such as Colorado, Florida, Nevada and New Mexico in 2012.
At the same time, conservative Republican backlash against Hispanic growth is evident in a number of Southern states.
Tough immigration laws in Georgia—with an undocumented population of about 425,000 — and Alabama — with around 125,000 undocumented immigrants and a 145 percent Latino growth rate since 2000—have scared away Latino migrant labor.
Alabama farmers are now considering using prison labor to replace the Latino agricultural workers that fled following the passage of that state’s immigration legislation.
In South Carolina, which leads the nation in Latino population growth, the state’s immigration law allows police to ask the immigration status of people during routine traffic stops if there is a “reasonable suspicion” they are undocumented.
That law was partially blocked by a federal judge in Charleston.
The court struck down the traffic stop provision of the law, and the ban on transporting or harboring an undocumented immigrant.
Federal courts have also blocked parts of immigration laws in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana and Utah.
In the South, Obama victories in the former Confederacy strongholds of Virginia, North Carolina and Florida in 2008 were attributed in part to black and Hispanic turnout, a factor which is poised to change race relations in the South.
Nationwide, blacks and Hispanics were a larger share of voters in that election year.
African-Americans are no longer the only minority group, and in some cases not even the dominant minority group in the South, which means that politicians will have to pay attention to the needs and concerns of Latinos.
Taking advantage of demographic shifts, a black-Latino coalition with moderate and liberal whites could provide a remedy to waning black political clout, and a counter to the white Republican political dominance of the South.
With Latinos as one of every 12 voters in Georgia (whose minority adult population is 41 percent), North Carolina and Virginia, a rising black and Asian population can alter the Southern political landscape.
< "Per our local reports, there are over 500,000 illegals in the Houston area alone. They are all getting money for what happened because we are a state that will not leave you out alone, but most understand that the money they will take could easily be going to the USA legal victims of the hurricane. So, yes build the wall Mr. President! I am a disowned Latina, and I know my people. Once they are allowed to stay, you will see the border saturated with more minors trained in what to say when crossing and demanding every free benefit they can get. Smugglers read a single sentence like this to rapidly increase the number of young illegal immigrants they cross. For those illegals who personally argue of how hard they work, you have to be honest to yourself, and recognize that while you work, you are also trying to cheat the system because after all, “El que no tranza no avanza” right? This famous Mexican accepted phrase says basically that he, who doesn’t cheat, doesn’t advance. The fact is that illegal immigrants will pull at your heart's strings with scripted lines to make you feel guilty and sorry for them. They talk about families being separated when most already directly LEFT their children back in their countries for many years before bringing them here, also illegally. How can you wish rape upon your “loved” one when according to a stunning Fusion investigation, 80 percent of women and girls crossing into the U.S. by way of Mexico are raped during their journey. Many complain that the wall will be about 25 billion dollars, but the USA has been paying for it for the longest time. At least lets get back something physically solid for it. Year after year, we have paid well over the 25 billion on getting every illegal and their families food stamps, housing, health care, free child birth, welfare checks, almost free education that USA students don't get, scholarship money that should go to your children, some even free cell phone service, free entertainment in the case of the illegal minors who at least under Obama got taken to waterparks and movies for weekly fun time. Just by minimizing the money that Mexicans take from us when we spend on them, we will be getting the money back from Mexico. I am tired of seeing so many Mexican license plates, even luxury cars of known drug dealers’ daughters, outside the benefit offices of my border town. At least we need to lose less. Please, defend the young citizens of this our USA."
......... From Chris, Yahoo News Commenter
< "As a college educator, I have seen countless Dream Act recipients being awarded a higher education virtually for free while so many young people born in this country have been forced to put off their schooling or to work nearly full time schedules in order to finance their tuition. Not fair at all."
...........From Biagio, Yahoo News Commenter
"Shame on Obama for implementing this program that ignored Federal laws and causing inequality in immigration. I am for equality and believe all immigrants should go through the same equal system, no one is above the law and no one should circumvent the laws and put themselves in front of other LEGAL immigrants. I am an immigrant and I support equality in immigration!!"
............. From Koalasalad, Yahoo News Commenter
"I welcome all fellow immigrants with open arms. But illegals are not immigrants, they're intruders."
~~~ WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is expected to announce that he will end protections for young immigrants who were brought into the country illegally as children, but with a six-month delay, people familiar with the plans said Sunday.
The delay in the formal dismantling of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program would be intended to give Congress time to decide whether it wants to address the status of the so-called Dreamers in legislation, according to two people familiar with the president's thinking. But it was not immediately clear how the six-month delay would work in practice and what would happen to people who currently have work permits under the program, or whose permits expire during the six-month stretch.
It also was unclear exactly what would happen if Congress failed to pass a measure by the considered deadline. Two people familiar with the president's thinking spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter ahead of a planned Tuesday announcement.
The president, who has been grappling with the issue for months, has been known to change his mind in the past and could still shift course. The plan was first reported by Politico Sunday evening.
Trump has been wrestling for months with what to do with the Obama-era DACA program, which has given nearly 800,000 young immigrants a reprieve from deportation and the ability to work legally in the form of two-year, renewable work permits.
The expected move would come as the White House faces a Tuesday deadline set by Republican state officials threatening to continue sue the Trump administration if the president did not end the program. It also would come as Trump digs in on appeals to his base as he finds himself increasingly under fire, with his poll numbers hanging at near-record lows.
Trump had been personally torn as late as last week over how to deal with what are undoubtedly the most sympathetic immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. Many came to the U.S. as young children and have no memories of or connections to the countries they were born in.
During his campaign, Trump slammed DACA as illegal "amnesty" and vowed to eliminate the program the day he took office. But since his election, Trump has wavered on the issue, at one point telling The Associated Press that those covered could "rest easy."
Trump had been unusually candid as he wrestled with the decision in the early months of his administration. During a February press conference, he said the topic was "a very, very difficult subject for me, I will tell you. To me, it's one of the most difficulty subjects I have."
"You have some absolutely incredible kids — I would say mostly," he said. adding: "I love these kids."
All the while, his administration continued to process applications and renew DACA work permits, to the dismay of immigration hard-liners.
News of the president's expected decision appeared to anger advocates on both sides of the issue.
"IF REPORTS ARE TRUE, Pres Trump better prepare for the civil rights fight of his admin. A clean DREAM Act is now a Nat Emergency #DefendDACA," tweeted New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez, a Democrat.
But Rep. Steve King, an Iowa Republican who has called DACA unconstitutional, warned that a delay in dismantling it would amount to "Republican suicide."
"Ending DACA now gives chance 2 restore Rule of Law. Delaying so R Leadership can push Amnesty is Republican suicide," he wrote.
It would be up to congressional lawmakers to pass a measure to protect those who have been covered under the program. While there is considerable support for that prospect among Democrats and moderate Republicans, Congress is already facing a packed fall agenda and has had a poor track record in recent years in passing immigration-related bills.
House Speaker Paul Ryan and a number of other legislators urged Trump last week to hold off on scrapping DACA to give them time to come up with a legislative fix.
"These are kids who know no other country, who are brought here by their parents and don't know another home. And so I really do believe that there needs to be a legislative solution," Ryan told Wisconsin radio station WCLO.
The Obama administration created the DACA program in 2012 as a stopgap to protect some young immigrants from deportation as they pushed unsuccessfully for a broader immigration overhaul in Congress.
The program protected people in the country illegally who could prove they arrived before they were 16, had been in the United States for several years and had not committed a crime while being here. It mimicked versions of the so-called DREAM Act, which would have provided legal status for young immigrants but was never passed by Congress.
As of July 31, 2015, more than 790,000 young immigrants had been approved under the program, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
The House under Democratic control passed a Dream Act in 2010 but it died in the Senate. But since Republicans retook control of the House in late 2010, it has grown increasingly hardline on immigration, killing the Senate's comprehensive immigration bill in 2013 and failing to even take up a GOP border security bill two years later because of objections from conservatives.
Many House Republicans represent highly conservative districts. The primary upset of the former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor to a conservative challenger in 2014 in a campaign that cast him as soft on illegal immigration convinced many House Republicans that pro-immigrant stances could cost them politically.
So despite Ryan's personal commitment on the issue and his rhetoric in favor of the young immigrants, action to protect them may be unlikely in the House — absent intense lobbying from Trump.
ROCHESTER — Gail Evans and Marta Ramos have one thing in common: They have each cleaned offices for one of the most innovative, profitable and all-around successful companies in the United States.
For Ms. Evans, that meant being a janitor in Building 326 at Eastman Kodak’s campus in Rochester in the early 1980s. For Ms. Ramos, that means cleaning at Apple’s headquarters in Cupertino, Calif., in the present day.
In the 35 years between their jobs as janitors, corporations across America have flocked to a new management theory: Focus on core competence and outsource the rest. The approach has made companies more nimble and more productive, and delivered huge profits for shareholders. It has also fueled inequality and helps explain why many working-class Americans are struggling even in an ostensibly healthy economy.
The $16.60 per hour Ms. Ramos earns as a janitor at Apple works out to about the same in inflation-adjusted terms as what Ms. Evans earned 35 years ago. But that’s where the similarities end.
Ms. Evans was a full-time employee of Kodak. She received more than four weeks of paid vacation per year, reimbursement of some tuition costs to go to college part time, and a bonus payment every March. When the facility she cleaned was shut down, the company found another job for her: cutting film.
Ms. Ramos is an employee of a contractor that Apple uses to keep its facilities clean. She hasn’t taken a vacation in years, because she can’t afford the lost wages. Going back to school is similarly out of reach. There are certainly no bonuses, nor even a remote possibility of being transferred to some other role at Apple.
Yet the biggest difference between their two experiences is in the opportunities they created. A manager learned that Ms. Evans was taking computer classes while she was working as a janitor and asked her to teach some other employees how to use spreadsheet software to track inventory. When she eventually finished her college degree in 1987, she was promoted to a professional-track job in information technology.
Less than a decade later, Ms. Evans was chief technology officer of the whole company, and she has had a long career since as a senior executive at other top companies. Ms. Ramos sees the only advancement possibility as becoming a team leader keeping tabs on a few other janitors, which pays an extra 50 cents an hour.
They both spent a lot of time cleaning floors. The difference is, for Ms. Ramos, that work is also a ceiling.
Eastman Kodak was one of the technological giants of the 20th century, a dominant seller of film, cameras and other products. It made its founders unfathomably wealthy and created thousands of high-income jobs for executives, engineers and other white-collar professionals. The same is true of Apple today.
But Kodak also created enough working-class jobs to help create two generations of middle-class wealth in Rochester. The Harvard economist Larry Summers has often pointed at this difference, arguing that it helps explain rising inequality and declining social mobility.
“Think about the contrast between George Eastman, who pioneered fundamental innovations in photography, and Steve Jobs,” Mr. Summers wrote in 2014. “While Eastman’s innovations and their dissemination through the Eastman Kodak Co. provided a foundation for a prosperous middle class in Rochester for generations, no comparable impact has been created by Jobs’s innovations” at Apple.
Ms. Evans’s pathway was unusual: Few low-level workers, even in the heyday of postwar American industry, ever made it to the executive ranks of big companies. But when Kodak and similar companies were in their prime, tens of thousands of machine operators, warehouse workers, clerical assistants and the like could count on steady work and good benefits that are much rarer today.
When Apple was seeking permission to build its new headquarters, its consultants projected the company would have 23,400 employees, with an average salary comfortably in the six figures. Thirty years ago, Kodak employed about 60,000 people in Rochester, with average pay and benefits companywide worth $79,000 in today’s dollars.
Part of the wild success of the Silicon Valley giants of today — and what makes their stocks so appealing to investors — has come from their ability to attain huge revenue and profits with relatively few workers.
Apple, Alphabet (parent of Google) and Facebook generated $333 billion of revenue combined last year with 205,000 employees worldwide. In 1993, three of the most successful, technologically oriented companies based in the Northeast — Kodak, IBM and AT&T — needed more than three times as many employees, 675,000, to generate 27 percent less in inflation-adjusted revenue.
The 10 most valuable tech companies have 1.5 million employees, according to calculations by Michael Mandel of the Progressive Policy Institute, compared with 2.2 million employed by the 10 biggest industrial companies in 1979. Mr. Mandel, however, notes that today’s tech industry is adding jobs much faster than the industrial companies, which took many decades to reach that scale.
Many of the professional jobs from those companies in the 1980s and ’90s have close parallels today. The high-paying positions setting corporate strategy, developing experimental technologies and shaping marketing campaigns would look similar in either era.
But a generation ago, big companies also more often directly employed people who installed products, moved goods around warehouses, worked as security guards and performed many of the other jobs needed to get products into the hands of consumers.
In part, fewer of these kinds of workers are needed in an era when software plays such a big role. The lines of code that make an iPhone’s camera work can be created once, then instantly transmitted across the globe, whereas each roll of film had to be manufactured and physically shipped. And companies face brutal global competition; if they don’t keep their work force lean, they risk losing to a competitor that does.
But major companies have also chosen to bifurcate their work force, contracting out much of the labor that goes into their products to other companies, which compete by lowering costs. It’s not just janitors and security guards. In Silicon Valley, the people who test operating systems for bugs, review social media posts that may violate guidelines, and screen thousands of job applications are unlikely to receive a paycheck directly from the company they are ultimately working for.
And the phenomenon stretches far beyond Silicon Valley, where companies like Apple are just a particularly extreme example of achieving huge business success with a relatively small employee count. The Federal Express delivery person who brings you a package may well be an independent contractor; many of the people who help banks like Citigroup and JPMorganservice mortgage loans and collect delinquent payments work for contractors; and if you call your employer’s computer help desk, there’s a good chance it will be picked up by someone in another state, or country.
Apple emphasizes that its products generate many jobs beyond those who receive a paycheck from the company directly. The company estimates 1.5 million people work in the “app economy,” building and maintaining the mobile applications used on Apple products. Apple stores in 44 states tend to offer more generous pay and benefits than is standard in the retail industry. And it is growing quickly, including far from its California headquarters, such as with 6,000 jobs in Austin, Tex., at an average salary of $77,000 a year, and many more indirectly through what it says is $50 billion in annual spending to suppliers in the United States.
“We’re responsible for creating over two million jobs in the U.S., across all 50 states,” said an Apple spokesman, “ranging from construction, customer care, retail and engineering to app development, manufacturing, operations and trucking. All Apple employees, whether full time or part time, are eligible for benefits and stock grants. We’re also fortunate to have skilled contractors that contribute to our products and services daily, along with over 9,000 suppliers in every state.”
Perhaps the biggest indictment of the more paternalistic approach taken by an earlier generation of corporate behemoths is that, Kodak, despite having been an early innovator in digital photography, is a shell of its former self. After a bankruptcy and many years of layoffs, the company now has only 2,700 employees in the United States and 6,100 worldwide.
But it is also clear that, across a range of job functions, industries and countries, the shift to a contracting economy has put downward pressure on compensation. Pay for janitors fell by 4 to 7 percent, and for security guards by 8 to 24 percent, in American companies that outsourced, Arindrajit Dube of the University of Massachusetts-Amherst and Ethan Kaplan of Stockholm University found in a 2010 paper.
These pay cuts appear to be fueling overall inequality. J. Adam Cobb of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and Ken-Hou Lin at the University of Texas found that the drop in big companies’ practice of paying relatively high wages to their low- and mid-level workers could have accounted for 20 percent of the wage inequality increase from 1989 to 2014.
The same forces that explain the difference between 1980s Kodak and today’s Apple have big implications not just for every blue-collar employee who punches a timecard, but also for white-collar professionals who swipe a badge.
Forklifts vs. 3D Maps
Phil Harnden was coming out of the Navy in 1970 when he applied for a job at Kodak, and soon was operating a forklift in a warehouse. He made $3 an hour, equivalent to $20 an hour today adjusted for inflation. That is roughly what an entry-level contracting job testing software pays.
The difference between the two gigs, aside from the absence of heavy machinery in Apple’s sleek offices, is the sense of permanence. Mr. Harnden put in 16 years operating forklifts before he left in 1986 to move to Florida. When he returned 10 years later, he was quickly rehired and even kept his seniority benefits.
In interviews, tech industry contractors in Silicon Valley describe a culture of transience. They can end up commuting to a different office park that houses a new company every few months; in many cases 18 months is the maximum a contractor is allowed to spend at one company.
“I would rather have stability,” said Christopher Kohl, 29, who has worked as a contractor at several Silicon Valley companies, including a stint doing quality assurance on Apple Maps. “It’s stressful to find a new job every 12 to 18 months.”
For Silicon Valley’s contracting class, there are reminders large and small of their second-class status. Contractors generally do not receive the stock options that have made some midlevel Silicon Valley workers wealthy over the years, nor the generous paid time off for vacation, illness or the birth of a child. The health insurance plans tend to be stingier than those that the tech giants they serve provide for their direct employees.
The smaller reminders can be just as telling. One former Apple contractor recalled spending months testing a new version of Apple’s operating system. To celebrate the release, the Apple employees they’d worked closely with on the project were invited to a splashy party in San Francisco, while the contractors had beers among themselves in a neighborhood pub.
The compensation these white-collar contractors receive puts them squarely in the middle rungs of workers in the United States, and the most skilled can make six figures (though that doesn’t go far in the hyper-expensive Bay Area housing market). Apple, based on its consultants’ report, expected to be indirectly responsible for nearly 18,000 jobs in Santa Clara County by now at an average pay of about $56,000 a year.
There are some advantages. If they work for one of the companies like Apple or Google that feature a subsidized, high-quality cafeteria, contractors can enjoy the food. They can tell their friends that they work at one of the world’s most admired companies, and enjoy predictable, regular hours. Once in a while, a contractor will be hired into a staff position.
“It’s not evil,” said Pradeep Chauhan, managing partner of OnContracting, a site to help people find tech contracting positions. “They have a job and they’re getting paid. But it’s not ideal. The problem with contracting is, you could walk in one day and they could say, ‘You don’t need to come in tomorrow.’ There is no obligation from the companies.”
And that is the ultimate contrast with the middle-skill, middle-wage jobs of earlier generations of titans — a sense of permanence, of sharing in the long-term success of the company.
“There were times I wasn’t happy with the place,” Mr. Harnden said of his Kodak years. “But it was a great company to work for and gave me a good living for a long time.”
Transmissions vs. Staplers
When an automaker needs a supplier of transmissions for its cars, it doesn’t just hold an auction and buy from the lowest bidder. It enters a long-term relationship with the supplier it believes will provide the best quality and price over time. The company’s very future is at stake — nobody wants to buy a car that can’t reliably shift into first gear.
But when that same automaker needs some staplers for the office supply cabinet, it is more likely to seek out the lowest price it can get, pretty much indifferent to the identity of the seller.
Labor exists on a similar continuum.
The right product engineer or marketing executive can mean the difference between success or failure, and companies tend to hire such people as full-time employees and as part of a long-term relationship — something like the transmission supplier. What has changed in the last generation is that companies today view more and more of the labor it takes to produce their goods and services as akin to staplers: something to be procured at the time and place needed for the lowest price possible.
There is plenty of logic behind the idea that companies should focus on their core competence and outsource the rest. By this logic, Apple executives should focus on building great phones and computers, not hiring and overseeing janitors. And companies shouldoutsource work when the need for staff is lumpy, such as for software companies that may need dozens of quality-assurance testers ahead of a major release but not once the product is out.
There’s no inherent reason that work done through a contractor should involve lower compensation than the same work done under direct employment. Sometimes it goes in the other direction; when a company hires a law firm, it is basically contracting out legal work, yet lawyers at a firm tend to be paid better than in-house counsel.
But as more companies have outsourced more functions over more time, a strong body of evidence is emerging that it’s not just about efficiency. It seems to be a way for big companies to reduce compensation costs.
Firms in the United States are legally required to offer the same health insurance options and 401(k) match to all employees — meaning if those programs are made extra generous to attract top engineers, a company that doesn’t outsource will have to pay them for everyone.
More broadly, there are a whole set of social pressures and worries about morale that encourage companies to be more generous with pay and benefits for employees who are on the same payroll.
“There was an overriding concern about equity,” said Mr. Cobb, the Wharton professor. “Firms would try to set pay so that the gap between the security guard or administrative assistant and senior V.P. wasn’t as great as you might expect, essentially by paying lower- and middle-skill workers more than they were probably worth on the market.”
Linda DiStefano applied for a secretarial job at Kodak during Easter week of her senior year in high school in 1968, and was hired to start immediately after her graduation for $87.50 a week, today’s equivalent of $32,000 a year. She put in four decades at the company, first as a secretary, then helped administer corporate travel and other projects.
“I helped put on the dinners for the board of directors, which in retrospect someone of my grade shouldn’t have been doing,” she said. “But I had a series of managers who trusted me.”
It bought her a house off Lake Avenue, a new car every few years and occasional long-distance trips to Motown reunion concerts. When her department was abolished in 2008, the travel bookings contracted out, she was making $20 an hour. The best job she could find was as a pharmacy technician at a grocery store for $8.50 an hour.
As you drive around Rochester, the role of Eastman Kodak in the city is evident everywhere, in the Kodak Tower that looms over the center of town, in the Eastman Theater on Main Street, and in the hulking buildings and empty parking lots of the manufacturing center known as Kodak Park.
In reading the company’s old annual reports, you get a sense that its executives thought of the jobs created and the wages paid as a source of pride and achievement. On the first page of most years’ annual reports was an accounting of how many employees the company had in the United States and worldwide, and the total pay and benefits they received.
Apple, with a spaceship-like campus about to open, looms large over Cupertino in its own way, accounting for something like 40 percent of the jobs in the city, and investing $70 million in local environmental and infrastructure upgrades. It is no middle-class enclave; the median home price is $1.9 million.
“We definitely feel a sense of pride to be the home of Apple,” said Savita Vaidhyanathan, the mayor of Cupertino. “But they consider themselves a global company, not necessarily a Cupertino company.” She said she has never met Tim Cook, Apple’s chief executive. “We would have a hard time getting an audience with anybody beyond upper-middle management,” she said.
Ms. Ramos, the Apple janitor, lives down the road in San Jose. She pays $2,300 monthly for a two-bedroom apartment where she and her four children live. Before overtime and taxes, her $16.60 an hour works out to $34,520 a year. Her rent alone is $27,600 a year, leaving less than $600 a month once the rent is paid. Overtime, in addition to the wages from one of her teenage children who works part time at a grocery store, help make the math work, though always tenuously.
She works from 6 p.m. until 2 a.m. On days when one of the other cleaners doesn’t show up, she may get a few extra hours, which is great for the overtime pay, but it means even less sleep before it is time to take her children to school.
A 60-cent-an-hour raise this year negotiated by her union, the SEIU United Service Workers West, helped. Kodak in its prime was not unionized, though in that era when organized labor was more powerful over all, managers deliberately kept wages high to try to prevent the company’s workers from forming one.
There is little chance for building connections at Apple. “Everyone is doing their own thing and has their own assignment, and we don’t see each other outside of work,” said Ms. Ramos in Spanish.
Ms. Evans, who was a Kodak janitor in the early 1980s before her rise to executive there and at other leading firms like Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard, recalls a different experience.
“One thing about Eastman Kodak is they believed in their people,” said Ms. Evans, now chief information officer at Mercer, the human resources consulting giant. “It was like a family. You always had someone willing to help open a door if you demonstrated that you were willing to commit to growing your skills and become an asset that was valuable for the company.”
The shift is profound. “I look at the big tech companies, and they practice a 21st-century form of welfare capitalism, with foosball tables and free sushi and all that,” Rick Wartzman, senior adviser at the Drucker Institute and author of “The End of Loyalty,” said. “But it’s for a relatively few folks. It’s great if you’re a software engineer. If you’re educated, you’re in command.”
But in the 21st-century economy, many millions of workers find themselves excluded from that select group. Rather than being treated as assets that companies seek to invest in, they have become costs to be minimized.
Fox Sports cut ties with Tampa Bay Rays and Orlando Magic sideline reporter Emily Austen after she made "insensitive comments" on a Facebook live stream with Barstool Sports, per Tom Jones of the Tampa Bay Times.
Austen called Cleveland Cavaliers forward Kevin Love "a little bitch" several times, noted she "didn't even know Mexicans were that smart" and said the "Chinese guy is always the smartest guy in math class."
The video is no longer on Barstool's site, but Kevin Draper of Deadspin found the entire clip (warning: NSFW language).
Toward the end of the session, Barstool'sDan Katz told Austen, "We might have to hire you because you're going to get fired."
Here's Fox's statement (via Jones):
We were made aware that Emily Austen appeared in a social media video unaffiliated with FOX Sports in which she made insensitive and derogatory comments. She was not speaking on behalf of FOX Sports, nor do we condone any of the statements she made in the video. Emily has been advised that her comments were unacceptable, and she is not scheduled to appear on any upcoming FOX Sports Florida or FOX Sports Sun broadcasts.
Welcome to the BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog. (Established 2008)
My name is Laurel. (Author & Publisher)
I Blog with a focus on POLITICS, Business, and occasionally Entertainment.
FACTS ABOUT LAUREL:
Wife,
Mother of a U.S. Soldier,
Sister,
Woman of GOD,
Loyal Friend,
Creative,
Blood-related to a nationally known Charlotte Politician.
Black Female, Intelligent,
Married,
Love to Travel,
Credentialed by the RNC and DNC.
Political Blogger/ Commentator
Grassroots Activist,
PROFESSIONAL STATUS:
Credential Political Blogger/ Commentator,
Registered Independent Voter
Original Native of BROOKLYN, NY
Currently reside in CHARLOTTE, NC
I’m Nice but don’t get it twisted because my Mind is Sharp!
Since You’ve Chosen to Visit and Read the Contents of this Blog by Personal Choice, and of Your Own Free Will,
Please don’t ask me to Compensate you for Expressing individual commentary/ Posted Articles, which are protected by the First Amendment, citing Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Expression.
No Intentionally Malicious Slander, Libel or Defamation of Character content will be published and I will always Credit all Sources.
NOTE TO ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS, APPOINTED OFFICIALS & PUBLIC FIGURES:
Per the Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case: 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan………
The Public has a Right to Criticize the People who Govern them, so the least Protection from Defamation is given to Public Officials. When officials are accused of something that involves their behavior in office, they have to prove all of the above elements of defamation and they must also prove that the defendant acted with “actual malice.” (For a definition of actual malice, see the “History of Defamation and the First Amendment, below.”)
People who aren’t Elected but who are Still Public Figures because they are influential or famous — like Actors, Actresses, Movie Stars, Singers & Entertainers, Journalists, TV Hosts, Bloggers, etc., — also have to Prove that Defamatory statements were made with Actual Malice, in most cases.
To the Associated Press and other Media Organizations:
When I use your Content Links., I’m also citing the Fair Use Doctrine (Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107) for further Copyright permission.
Posts and Links published on Black Political Buzz are not endorsed by Black Political Buzz Blog Author Laurel’s Employer, nor the Employers of other Black Political Buzz employees.
This includes Links, Posts and Comments posted on Black Political Buzz’s Facebook and Twitter account pages.
Comments, Links and Opinions of site visitors are Independently-Owned and not endorsed by Black Political Buzz employees, Blog Author Laurel or Laurel’s Employer.)
(No Personal Offense intended) Please know that Black Political Buzz is not responsible for nor do I endorse Requests for Donations from Third Parties on this Blog.
I will Only Endorse Requests for Donations made on behalf of BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog for Business Purposes & Operating Expenses.
I will also Only Endorse Requests for Donations on behalf of Legitimate Politicians and Legitimate Political Candidates. PERIOD!!
If anyone else or another Organization wishes to post a link to Request Donations, I am NOT endorsing ANY of those Requests!
Unless I receive a personal Request to do so and I have Professionally Confirmed that the Third Party Organization or Charity is indeed a Legitimate Entity.
NOTE: Anyone who chooses to give to any Third Party Organization NOT Endorsed by BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ is doing so at his or her own risk.
BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ does NOT Discriminate against Politicians, Political Candidates, Organizations or Charities based on Race, Color, Nationality, Ethnicity, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Religion, Faith, Disability, Political Affiliation, Creed, Education, Social Status, Age.
This disclaimer applies to ANY and All requests for Donations on this Blog. Thanks for understanding. Again No Personal Offense intended.
For Story Tips….Corrections…….. or Requests for Endorsements:
Please contact me via e-mail: blackpoliticalbuzz@gmail.com
or via my Facebook page: facebook.com/blackpoliticalbuzz
Thanks for stopping by
God Bless
Laurel @BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ
LINKS: POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE & INFORMATIONAL SITES
.jpg)
