In April 1967, then-Senator Robert F. Kennedy visited the Mississippi Delta. The visit was part of a Senate Subcommittee on Employment Manpower and Poverty to assess the effectiveness of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty programs.1 During his visit, Kennedy discovered a critical gap in the U.S. government’s economic development efforts at the time.

Kennedy’s Delta Epiphany

One of the defining moments of Bobby Kennedy’s visit was meeting Annie Mae Wilkinson White, an African American mother of six living in Cleveland, Mississippi. Annie supported herself and her children by working in the cotton fields outside of Cleveland, in addition to cooking, cleaning house, and caring for the three young children of the Richardsons, a white family that lived in the same town.2 However, mechanization of farming in the early 1960s meant that work in the cotton fields was no longer available, meaning the fifteen dollars a week she earned working for the Richardsons soon became her only income.3 Bobby Kennedy stopped at Annie White’s home in Cleveland while he was touring the Delta. The senator’s attention shifted to one of White’s younger sons, David White. Ellen B. Meacham’s Delta Epiphany: Robert F. Kennedy in Mississippi illustrates a candid and moving description of what the senator witnessed:

“At twenty months old, David White was small for his age and wore only a filthy, tattered shirt and a diaper… he focused on the remains of rice and cornbread scattered on the floor. His little hands scratched at the crumbs and bits of rice mingled with the dirt on the floor and slowly delivered each hard-won fragment to his mouth.”4

Kennedy attempted to get the boy’s attention, but the child remained focused on the crumbs and bits of food on the ground. Nevertheless, the senator’s attention remained entirely on this child, and he did not let “the darkness, the dirt, the smells, even the child’s open sores” blind him to this baby’s humanity.5 Bobby continued talking to the boy for two minutes or so, but the child remained silent, only staring at the senator with wide open eyes.

“This was more than a need for better policy. Children, even babies, were near starvation in the heart of the richest country in the world… Kennedy finally stopped, carefully put him back on the floor and walked out… No longer smiling, his voice somber and slightly constricted with emotion, he stepped up to talk to the reporters outside… Calling what he had seen so far ‘as great a poverty as we’ve had in our country,’ Kennedy pointed out that the nation had a gross national product of $700 billion dollars and questioned its priorities.”6

You may remember exactly one year ago, I published a piece about Robert Kennedy and his unfinished mission for economic justice. In that article, I quoted a section from Kennedy’s 1968 speech at the University of Kansas in which he recounts exactly what he saw when visiting the Delta:

“And if we seem powerless to stop this growing division between Americans, who at least confront one another, there are millions more living in the hidden places, whose names and faces are completely unknown - but I have seen these other Americans - I have seen children in Mississippi starving, their bodies so crippled from hunger and their minds have been so destroyed for their whole life that they will have no future. I have seen children in Mississippi - here in the United States - with a gross national product of $800 billion dollars - I have seen children in the Delta area of Mississippi with distended stomachs, whose faces are covered with sores from starvation, and we haven't developed a policy so we can get enough food so that they can live, so that their children, so that their lives are not destroyed, I don't think that's acceptable in the United States of America…”7

However, a central point to Kennedy’s discovery focused on what was really necessary in order for those in the Delta (or really, any community in the United States) to thrive. It wasn’t another poverty tour from corporate media, not more top-down consulting from far away technocrats, but rather an empowerment of the community from the bottom-up. “I have seen proud men in the hills of Appalachia, who wish only to work in dignity, but they cannot, for the mines are closed and their jobs are gone and no one - neither industry, nor labor, nor government - has cared enough to help,”8 Kennedy later emphasized in the same speech. And even when outside forces did try to help, there was often a disconnect between intent and result.

In March 1967, Marian Wright, a young attorney from Mississippi working with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, testified before a Senate subcommittee in which she shared that the War on Poverty was not delivering its intended results on the ground back home. This failure of good intentions translating to positive impact was precisely due to a lack of community input in implementation. Community action had been a central piece of the War on Poverty, but as Wright emphasized in her testimony, community action was “not functioning as envisioned in Mississippi.”9 One key reason why this was had to do with the fact the money in many of the War on Poverty’s programs were going “through the very same power structures that created or helped create the poverty program in the first place.”10 If the War on Poverty was meant to empower those who actually lived in the community, the idea of funds and other aid bypassing “entrenched local power brokers… triggered a backlash of complaints from both big city mayors and officials in rural states alike.”11

The importance of community

What Marian Wright exposed to Bobby Kennedy is a common story in many communities across the country. Coalfield Development, a community-first economic development group based in southern West Virginia, was recently featured for an interview with Harvard’s Reimagining The Economy Project. Cassidy Riley, Coalfield Development’s Chief Program Officer, echoed the lessons of Kennedy’s trip to the Delta all those years ago:

“There are a million great ideas for revitalizing Appalachia or abandoned coal mine lands, but if it isn’t rooted in this notion of community-first development, it stops before it starts. So long as these great ideas for development can be done with communities and not to communities, there’s a glimmer of hope that people can connect to in that—and I think that’s critical.”12

Reading Cassidy’s thoughts on this truly resonated with me in a way you may not expect. I grew up in Staten Island, New York, which is obviously a different world compared to both southern West Virginia and the Mississippi Delta. However, especially as I entered adulthood, I developed this feeling that the city where I grew up was no longer meant for the people who called it home. I’ve seen friends and family priced out of New York City, people who worked hard and did everything right now can’t afford to live where they call home. We’ve even had podcasters tell us that if we can’t afford to live here, we should just move out. At the same time, I’ve met folks who grew up in parts of our country where you get told the exact opposite: You need to move to the big city because there’s nothing for you out here.

So which is it? Where does it end?

When you put it all together, you realize that the current order of things is simply a race to the bottom. Big outside forces come in, take, and the people who actually live in our communities are left to deal with the damages. And there are many such examples of this across the country. Where I come from, it looks like private equity buying up rent stabilized apartments in working-class neighborhoods. In 1960s Mississippi, it was a corrupt segregationist political machine upending War on Poverty programs. And today, across many parts of our country, it’s the emergence of data centers. It looks different depending on where you are, but the underlying injustice of extraction is a common theme.

We ought to make an effort together

As Kennedy confronted these realities in the Delta and Appalachia towards the end of his life, he developed a deeper understanding of what fueled the divisions in our country. What was happening in Cleveland, Mississippi was more than a policy failure; it was a fundamental threat to our country’s survival.

In 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave a speech in Syracuse, New York reflecting on the actions of his administration’s response to the Great Depression. With authoritarianism on the rise across the world, it seemed American democracy would be the next to fall. People were angry at their governments and their institutions, not unlike today. However, when push came to shove, Americans didn’t choose authoritarianism, they chose the New Deal. And the reason why is perfectly captured in Roosevelt’s speech:

“We met the emergency with emergency action. But far more important than that, we went to the roots of the problem, and attacked the cause of the crisis. We were against revolution. Therefore, we waged war against those conditions which make revolutions—against the inequalities and resentments which breed them. In America in 1933 the people did not attempt to remedy wrongs by overthrowing their institutions. Americans were made to realize that wrongs could and would be set right within their institutions. We proved that democracy can work.”13

And today, right now, our country is facing yet another rendezvous with destiny. Our democracy is at risk because people do not feel heard. A kid born in Brooklyn, New York and a kid born in Youngstown, Ohio are both told they have to leave home for different reasons, but the underlying injustice is the same. And that underlying injustice can only be addressed when we ensure everyday Americans are not only heard, but are actively empowered to lead their communities’ destiny.

That is how we not only end this race to the bottom, but once again prove that our democracy can truly work.

Share

Leave a comment

Thousands of graduate student workers at Harvard University have been on strike since late April.1 The Harvard Graduate Students Union (HGSU-UAW Local 5118) is seeking a significant wage increase for its workers, which include Teaching Fellows (TFs) and Research Assistants (RAs).2 Under current wage rates, RAs are paid $40,830 for 10 months of work, with TFs only taking home $26,300.3 HGSU is currently seeking a higher annual base pay of $55,000 for both RAs and TFs, along with annual raises of at least 5 percent (or higher if the rate of inflation exceeds that number).4 Shortly before the strike, Harvard’s Provost John Manning and Executive Vice President Meredith Weenick issued a statement explaining the university’s position on the proposed wage increase:

“On the wage component specifically, the University proposed a 10% increase to all salaried appointment rates over four years. This is in line with compensation offers in other recent labor negotiations. HGSU-UAW, however, has proposed a 74% increase in the minimum rate for teaching fellows and a 22% increase for salaried research assistants.”5

While university officials cite a 74% increase for teaching fellows and a 22% increase for salaried research assistants as justification for union demands being unrealistic, data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reveals that Harvard University’s pay rates have lagged substantially behind standard rates for the Boston Metro Area. Specifically, Harvard’s salaried RA and TF pay lags sharply behind both mean and median rates for the Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH area under the BLS’s Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS):

Social Science Research Assistants in the Boston Metro Area currently, on average, make $63,620 annually, while postsecondary Teaching Assistants (Fellows/TFs) make $51,830 annually. Immediately, you’ll notice that mean annual pay is substantially greater than current annual pay for both Harvard RAs and TFs. In order to make a clean comparison, we must take into account the fact that Harvard’s wages are for 10 months of work. Since RAs are paid $40,830 for 10 months of work, that translates to $4,083 a month, meaning a full 12 months of work would be around $48,996, far below the 12 month mean wage of $63,620. For Teaching Fellows, 10 months of $26,300 would equal about $2,630 a month, which would be $31,560 for a full 12 months of work, roughly 40% below the $51,830 mean annual pay for postsecondary Teaching Assistants in the Boston Metro Area. Thus, while Harvard implies a 74% increase from $31,560 to $55,000 would be unreasonable, they fail to acknowledge that their current base pay is already about 40% below the mean annual pay for TFs in the Boston Metro Area.

You may also notice that the hourly average wage for Social Science Research Assistants is $30.59. Currently, non-salaried graduate RAs working part-time on an hourly basis make roughly $21 or $22 an hour, also far below the Boston Metro Area’s hourly average wage for RAs. As such, the HGSU is also demanding that the base wage of all hourly workers be increased to $25 an hour, thus moving it closer to the mean and median RA pay for the Boston-Cambridge Area.6

The MIT Comparison

Harvard has countered the union’s demands by emphasizing that students receive other forms of compensation beyond their base wages:

“It is important to note that while there are different categories of students in the HGSU-UAW collective bargaining unit, approximately 60% of members are PhD students. As a reminder, PhD students receive living expense support, grants covering full tuition and fully subsidized health insurance, and other benefits totaling at least $425,000 over a minimum of five years. The living expense support is a combination of stipends and guaranteed offers of part-time employment as teaching fellows or research assistants as they make academic progress toward their degrees, totaling more than $50,000 a year.”7

However, it is important to note that other major universities in the Boston-Cambridge Area still pay base wage rates closer to the BLS average. Perhaps the closest comparison is MIT, whose PhD RAs and TAs both earn over $50,000 annually. This, despite MIT’s endowment (roughly $27 billion) being less than half of Harvard’s (which currently sits at a whopping $57 billion). Harvard also states that 80% of the endowment’s market value is allocated to specific purposes directed by the donor,8 thus arguing it cannot so easily increase the pay of its graduate workers. Again, though, the exact same share (80%) of MIT’s smaller endowment is also donor restricted, but their graduate workers are paid far closer to the Boston Area rates recorded by the BLS.

It’s time to give student workers the wages they deserve

The numbers paint a clear picture that Harvard is failing to adequately pay its graduate student workers. Many of the student workers I know come from working-class and modest backgrounds, and their RA and TF positions are a big part of how they’re able to have the opportunity to attend expensive schools like Harvard. Ivy League and other elite universities must do more to ensure those without generational wealth have an opportunity to succeed at their schools. Many of us come to places like Harvard because we understand the current systems are failing to support the communities we grew up in, and that attending such a school grants us a chance to make a change. Students should not have to work multiple DoorDash shifts in addition to their graduate work just to barely meet rent.

Harvard must not continue to leave its students barely scraping by like this. It’s time to give graduate workers the wages they deserve.

Share

Leave a comment

Conn-Selmer, branded as the largest manufacturer of band and orchestra instruments in the United States, recently announced a “tentative decision” to shutter its plant in Eastlake, Ohio, by the end of June 2026.1 The announcement leaves 150 jobs at risk in the Northeast Ohio town, with workers furious at the company’s decision. In an official statement, the company said it would “…transfer professional French horn production to its Elkhart, Indiana, brass factory and transition tuba, sousaphone, and student/intermediate French horn production offshore.”2 It is worth noting that the plant in Elkhart, Indiana, is a non-unionized plant.3 The company also plans to operate at a new plant in China to exploit cheap labor costs.4

Unionized workers at the Eastlake plant have accused the company’s owner, hedge fund billionaire, John Paulson, of selfishly putting profits over people.5 Paulson, whose net worth is valued at roughly $4 billion, substantially profited off the Great Recession, earning $15 billion in 2007 and an additional $5 billion in 2008.6 The United Auto Workers (UAW) released a statement condemning the move:

“Today, Conn-Selmer, the last USA-made brass instrument manufacturer, informed workers that it is shutting down its Eastlake, Ohio, facility to officially ship Ohio operations overseas to China. It means decades of an Ohio mainstay and hundreds of good, union jobs are on the chopping block so that billionaires can reap even more profits… Conn-Selmer is owned by hedge fund billionaire and Trump ally John Paulson who clearly cares more about raking in more cash instead of preserving an American institution… Across Ohio, in blue-collar town after blue-collar town, you can still see the scars left from the devastating effects of free trade. Conn-Selmer is the latest to choose profits for a handful of executives over people.”7

Paulson has also served as an economic advisor to President Trump and has even criticized past policies that have caused jobs to be shipped overseas.8 UAW local president 2359 Robert Hines also expressed frustration over the decision by Conn-Selmer, stating “A lot of us are proud of what we do. We’re proud of our jobs and to not even have a chance when we know it’s not our fault, as blue-collar workers, it was infuriating.”9 Workers such as Wyatt Georskey emphasized how the layoffs are not only about losing a paycheck, but also a passion. “I’m a color buffer. I’m one of two people who do tubas in the United States and I’m probably the only one who does tubas and sousaphones,” Georskey stated.10

My Interview with Ohio’s UAW Region 2B

I was able to sit down with Mike, a representative from United Auto Workers (UAW) Region 2B, for an interview regarding the union’s response to the factory closure. Region 2B represents UAW workers in Ohio and Indiana and is leading the charge to protect the threatened jobs at the Eastlake plant. Here’s what he had to say:

What impact will this loss have on the community in Eastlake?

Mike: Eastlake, specifically, I mean, we’re talking 150 families that are being uprooted with their livelihoods and the skill set that it takes to do these jobs is really different than anything that I’ve seen. I got 16 different assignments, all sectors, from aerospace to casinos to the Big Three (GM, Ford, and Stellantis) and these guys in Eastlake, with what they produce, brass instrument production is a dying breed and they’re the last manufacturer in the United States. And the way these guys make these, I mean, they're making them from scratch. Polishing them and everything from the very beginning to flat stock to all the way to the end. Conn-Selmer was looking at ways they could fire their members, right? Because they wanted to downsize. So it's hurting the community. Conn-Selmer said, “Hey, we’ve got your proposal, it's not good enough. We're still closing the plant.”

How much does an average worker make working a unionized job at the Conn Selmer plant?

Mike: On average, low to mid-20s an hour. When I first took over the assignment, they had about 200 or so members. They're currently down to 148 and they got different wage scales depending on what you do, if you're polishing, if you're buffing, if you're actually doing branches for the instruments. These guys could have easily went somewhere else to a different manufacturing plant to go make $30.00 an hour, but they’re such a family oriented group there, and they have a passion for what they do.

What happens to workers here if these jobs disappear? Where do they go? Are there even enough good-paying jobs in the area for displaced workers?

Mike: Well, there's a lot of business that's coming back in specifically with the Big Three. I've been taking multiple calls from other local unions I represent. Even on the West side of Cleveland that's reaching out and saying, hey, we know it's a shitty time for these guys, right? We know it's a bad time for them, but here we have job openings, we're hiring now. And I hate saying it this way, we have one Hail Mary out there and that Hail Mary… ultimately it's going to be President Trump saying, hey, yeah, this is jacked up. Hey, maybe I need to go ahead and increase the tariffs more on brass, or have his buddy John Paulson come and take a look and say, hey, you know what? Yeah, we're not going to do this.

How does this closure fit into the long-term decline of manufacturing in Northeast Ohio and across the country?

Mike: I've been through Youngstown and other towns across Northeast Ohio. This was my first union job coming out of the Big Three. Going through other towns, I've been through Barberton and you see factory after factory closed down with broken out windows. And when you see more of that, I hope that with the tariffs, this will bring some of those manufacturers back. Is it enough? I don’t think it’s enough. And GM’s put stuff out there, you know, Chrysler’s reopening out in Belvidere. So there’s movement, right? But we still have heavy duty trucks and other stuff like that being built over in Mexico under really, really cheap labor. Over the years, between NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) and everything else with how much it's actually hurt. Not even just union jobs, but all manufacturing jobs. Hey, it's cheaper over there. OK, screw it. We'll go build it over there. And all these corporations have just picked up and left.

One worker said, “This will not be a story of financial failure but a moral failure.” How do you interpret that? What does it say about the company, the industry, or American manufacturing as a whole right now?

Mike: I had to hold back my own tears. Sometimes I’m a big teddy bear and I have such deep feelings for what people are going through. I had to hold back my own tears. And he nailed it on the head, right? It really is. I mean, they’re not going to disclose it but you realize how much money they are saving, right? Sometimes, you know, you and I can look at it and say, hey, what's the right thing to do? Let's have common sense and be level-headed about this. And unfortunately, corporations, and dealing with a lot of them, get really, really greedy, and all they care about is either the shareholder or the dollar sign. And they forget that they're uprooting 150 families.

So it is a moral issue, right? And unfortunately, at least with this company, I've been with part of companies that are privately owned, have generational wealth and this and that. And like, I always go into negotiations with all my different assignments. We don't expect to be the millionaires. You did this. You created this company. Hey, we get it. But where’s the fair share? And these guys are just getting screwed every which way and there's no two ends about it. That's what's happening here.

Finally, what do you have to say to people who believe it’s time for the U.S. to “let go” of manufacturing?

Mike: I would strongly disagree with anyone that thinks manufacturing is gone. And that's why the Teamsters, the UAW, and other major unions, who might not agree on everything with President Trump, are willing to work with him on this. It's not a Democrat or Republican issue. We have a plant here and it's not a partisan issue. I don't care what your political background is. I don't care. These are jobs being lost because a corporation is greedy and they can make an extra dollar. And at the end of the day, that should be the concern across the board. These are 150 moms and dads, grandfathers, grandmothers. They don't know what they're going to do come June or earlier. And it's hard for some of those guys after they've worked in a factory for 30 years to go, where are they going to go? It's not about the money, it's about the passion of what they were doing.

It’s time for a pro-worker approach to trade

Recent presidential administrations have attempted to reshape trade policy. During both of his terms, President Trump has notably implemented tariffs. The Biden administration also utilized more targeted tariffs, paired with major federal investments in domestic manufacturing through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and CHIPS and Science Act. Additionally, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was renegotiated as the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) during Trump’s first term. The Biden administration would then enforce the USMCA’s Rapid Response Labor Mechanism (RRM), which penalized companies exploiting weak worker protections in Mexico, barring their products from entering the U.S. market if they failed to resolve any labor violations.11 The AFL-CIO noted that, in forcing companies to honor labor rights for Mexican workers, RRM helps American workers by “…undermining the rationale for outsourcing jobs to Mexico.”12 In other words, the corporate incentive to exploit cheap labor abroad is directly diminished, which ultimately protects unionized jobs for American workers. Of course, implementing a USMCA RRM-style mechanism to protect Conn-Selmer workers would require renegotiating current trade terms with China.

Other potential policy solutions could be grounded in tax policy, similar to the previously proposed No Tax Breaks for Outsourcing Act. This would require American corporations to pay at least 21 percent on profits generated in each country where profits are reported, meaning that the company engaging in the outsourcing would owe additional taxes to the U.S. government on offshore profits.13 According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, such legislation would also block corporate “inversions,” which is when American corporations “…claim a merger with a foreign company has converted them into a foreign entity for tax purposes even though most of their ownership has not changed.”14 This, in addition to stricter trade law protections, would disincentivize corporations like Conn-Selmer from continuing to outsource. Until then, our country’s current approach to trade policy will continue to benefit the billionaire-class at the expense of working-class Americans in communities like Eastlake.

Petition to Save the Eastlake Plant

The United States Department of Commerce recently reported Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth of 4.3% in the third quarter of 2025 (July to September).1 Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick celebrated this report, claiming that it meant all Americans would “…earn 4.3 percent more money.”2 Unfortunately for all of us, that’s not how GDP works. GDP is a measure of how much economic output an economy produces, not who benefits from it.3

The Commerce Department went on to credit “…increases in consumer spending, exports, and government spending…”4 as major drivers for the seemingly robust GDP report. However, it is important to note that consumer spending (which accounts for roughly 70% of GDP growth) has “…increasingly been characterized by a growing divide between wealthy households that aren't changing their habits amid rising costs of living, and middle- and lower-income households that have cut back.”5 And it is also important to note that between this same three-month period, household debt hit $18.59 trillion, with credit card balances increasing by $24 billion.6 This $24 billion increase in credit card balances has resulted in $1.23 trillion in total household credit card debt nationwide.7

As reflected in the graph above, credit card balances have trended sharply upward over the last couple of decades, just one indicator of how Americans have become very reliant on credit and borrowing to make ends meet. You may remember from a previous article last year in which I explained how worker pay has not kept up with labor productivity, particularly since the 1970s. As this lag in pay for workers emerged, large financial institutions saw an opportunity to profit. As my late father noted in his 2022 book, Commissar Conservatives: How Laissez-Faire Libertarianism Is Disturbingly Similar to Communism, “The over-reliance on private credit only benefits those that profit from margin fees and interest. Simultaneously, low-paid wage individuals fall into a dependency upon these lending institutions.”8

When I was back home in New York from school for Thanksgiving, I remember going to Guitar Center with my friends after dinner. As one of my friends was trying out a guitar, a member from the store’s staff said he could take home the instrument without having to pay basically anything. In other words, my friend could choose to “buy now, pay later.” This is a phrase a lot of you reading are likely familiar with. As explained by NerdWallet:

“‘Buy now, pay later,’ or BNPL, is a type of installment loan. It divides your purchase into multiple equal payments, with the first payment due at checkout. The remaining payments are billed to your debit, credit card or bank account until your purchase is paid in full.

BNPL plans don’t usually charge interest, though some may charge fees, depending on the provider. There’s also no hard credit check to get approved, unlike a credit card or loan.9

BNPL has proven itself quite attractive to American consumers in recent years, with 15% of U.S. adults using it in 2024, up from 14% in 2023 and 12% in 2022.10 The rise of BNPL has, of course, been associated with worsening consumer debt, with 25% of Americans regretting using buy now, pay later due to the unexpected costs.11 Additionally, 60% of Americans stated that they’ve used BNPL to complete a purchase they could not afford on their own.12 Its rise has especially been popular with younger consumers, with over half of Gen Z and millennials favoring BNPL over credit cards.13

Of course, it would make sense that BNPL is targeting younger Americans facing stagnant wages and a brutal cost-of-living crisis. Just as financial institutions saw an opportunity to profit off the rise of anti-worker policies during the late 20th century, BNPL seeks to twist the knife even further. As noted by the Stanford Graduate School of Business, BNPL users who miss repayment “…can incur late charges, overdraft fees, and interest payments. If they overuse BNPL, they may postpone other payments, incurring higher interest on credit cards and other kinds of loans.”14 Analysis from researchers at Stanford also emphasizes the risks for Americans living paycheck-to-paycheck:

“They found that being offered BNPL by a favorite retailer powerfully predicts a shopper’s willingness to use it and that these users had an 8.9% increase in overdraft charges, a 2.5% increase in credit card interest, and an 8.4% increase in late fees. This adds up to $176 per year in extra charges for the average user and up to $252 per year for especially vulnerable users.”15

These effects will be especially devastating for younger Americans, many of whom already face the heavy burden of student debt. And now, with the Trump administration recently announcing it will be cracking down on the paychecks of those with defaulted student loans, affected borrowers could lose up to 15% of their disposable income.16 This comes at a time when the job market has particularly been brutal for recent college graduates.

Commerce Secretary Lutnick and the Trump administration can continue to pretend that the American economy is booming, but the real economy is very much flashing bright red warning signs. Economic “growth” that is propped up by debt-fueled consumer spending is not something worth celebrating. Additionally, the fact that this is an issue hurting Americans across the board is proof this is a problem with the system, not a result of individual irresponsibility.

It will officially be one year since I launched Inequality Focus. So much has changed in both my personal life and society since I started this page. A year ago, I had just lost my job and was mentally drained. It felt like my career was going nowhere. Then, only a couple of months later, my father passed away the weekend of Thanksgiving.

Days and weeks passed. The whole world felt numb. As Christmas approached, I was listening to a playlist that my sister had put together of my dad’s favorite music. I put it on shuffle in the car and one song came on that sounded very familiar, a song that my dad would play every Christmas. It was “Father Christmas” by The Kinks. The track tells the story of a store Santa being attacked by a group of working-class kids demanding money for Christmas. The kids don’t care for toys, because that will not help them or their families caught in extreme poverty. Simply put, it’s a punk classic with a special focus on class struggle. One that is more timely than ever.

Dave Davies, lead guitarist of The Kinks, discussed how the song reflected his own family’s experience with Christmas growing up:

“I love the humour of it, and the aggression and bitterness. I could see the faces of my parents when Christmas came around. They had to struggle to make ends meet. We kind of got what we needed, but there was something fake about the holiday.”1

Hearing these lyrics, only weeks after my dad died, gave me the inspiration I needed in a time of grief. Months earlier, my dad had called me and said that launching a Substack could be a good way to keep myself busy as I figured out the next phase of my career. I did start a draft post back in September, but lost motivation because I honestly wasn’t very confident in my writing. I also just felt too exhausted at that point, given caretaking for my dad in his final months was very overwhelming.

Nevertheless, I pushed myself to finish the draft and publish my first article for the beginning of 2025. And from then on, I published a piece once a week. I did so for months straight, up until starting my Master in Public Policy program. It is my hope that after completing this degree, I will be able to expand this project into an actual non-profit organization that not only covers the issues of economic inequality across the U.S., but also plays a role in developing real solutions to address them.

I want to thank each and everyone of you who has kept up with my content over the past year. Honestly, when I originally launched this, I did not expect this page to grow as much as it has. There are so many more stories that I want to cover but haven’t had the chance to just yet, especially with my very demanding graduate school schedule. However, I view this first year as just the beginning of our long journey together.

And now, one year later, at a time when 70% of Americans are saying where they live is not affordable for an average family,2 at a time when 15 million people are set to lose health coverage due to Medicaid and ACA marketplace cuts,3 at a time when $186 billion is being cut from a key program that supports 42 million American’s ability to purchase food every month,4 and at a time when manufacturing workers across the country are being laid off due to corporate greed,5 the lyrics of The Kinks could not be more relevant.

Share

Leave a comment

Tyson Foods recently announced that it would be shutting down a beef plant in the small town of Lexington, Nebraska. Employing 3,200 workers in a town of roughly 11,000 people, almost one third of the town’s population will experience a loss of work.1 The Lexington-area Chamber of Commerce labeled the announcement a “gut punch” to the community.2 Clay Patton, vice president of the Chamber of Commerce, said that the plant’s closure in January will have massive ripple effects throughout the community, disrupting first-generation business owners and key investments in new housing for the community.3

Patton also added that “This impacts everything from car dealerships, body shops, auto mechanics, restaurants, food trucks, hospitality, motels, hotels, grocery stores.”4 Elmer Armijo, who leads the First United Methodist Church in Lexington, told the Associated Press the plant’s closure would reflect a major loss of job security, quality schools, health care systems, and economic development for the community.5 Tyson said displaced Lexington workers will have the chance to move to work at another place, which would require them to move hundreds of miles away from their families to remain employed by the company.6

Of course, this decision to shutter the plant comes after Tyson’s CEO claimed the company would be “…prioritizing efficiency, reducing cost and introducing innovative products.”7 While executives emphasize a need for cost-cutting and “innovation,” it’s worth noting that the company’s CEO Donnie King enjoyed a total compensation package of roughly $23 million in 2024, with his pay being 525 times the median Tyson employee’s pay.8 The AFL-CIO reported median worker pay at Tyson’s to be $43,417.9 Not to mention, the multinational corporation also managed to come up with one million dollars to donate towards President Trump’s inauguration fund earlier this year.10 When it comes to reducing costs at Tyson’s, they seemingly have enough money to engage in further stock buybacks and writing checks to pro-corporate politicians, but somehow not enough money for keeping people employed.

This closure will be a devastating blow to the local community in Lexington, but its impact will be felt well beyond the town. It will have a negative effect across Dawson County (which Lexington is the county seat of) and surrounding counties. Less paychecks means less consumers visiting local businesses, lower tax revenue for school budgets, and less money for county services as a whole. And it is already having this negative ripple effect. Fortrex, a privately held sanitation contractor that has cleaned Tyson Foods’ Lexington plant for over a decade, announced 139 jobs would be lost as sanitation services would be terminated at the plant.11

According to data from Feeding America, over 15% of households in Dawson County experience food insecurity, meaning they have limited or uncertain access to adequate food due to a lack of money or other essential resources.12 Between 2022 and 2023, the median household income declined from $67,462 to $65,383, a decrease of over 3%.13 The 2023 poverty rate for Dawson County was reported to be 12.3%, slightly outpacing the national poverty rate of roughly 11%.14 Additionally, 14% of children live in a household whose income is below the poverty line.15 State agencies and nonprofits across Nebraska have mobilized to help connect the laid off Tyson Food workers and families with economic support.16

It is possible that the shuttered processing plant could be repurposed to serve as a ground beef or case-ready processing facility.17 However, such a development seems unlikely given that Tyson removed all infrastructure inside a previous plant it shuttered in Norfolk, Nebraska, back in 2006.18 The Nebraska Cattlemen also voiced disappointment regarding the closure of the plant, stating it hoped the space could be converted for future use:

“We are disappointed by Tyson’s decision to permanently close the Lexington beef processing facility – especially in light of today’s USDA data indicating that Nebraska cattle-on-feed inventories remain slightly above year-ago levels in spite of the ongoing cyclical tightness in overall U.S. cattle numbers. We firmly believe there isn’t a better place to efficiently and economically raise cattle and produce beef than Nebraska. As this will have a profound impact on the community of Lexington and many cattle producers, we hope the plant will continue operations under new ownership.”19

And while Tyson has cited an adjusted loss of $426 million from its beef business as justification for its closing, the company nevertheless found $196 million to engage in stock repurchases for the year.20 Money that could have been used to preserve jobs in Lexington instead went to rewarding shareholders. This, unfortunately, is the product of an economic system that places shareholders before workers. Not unlike how John Deere has laid off thousands of workers across the Midwest while it engaged in over $40 billion in stock buybacks in 2023.21

As the national unemployment rate ticked up to a four-year high of 4.6% last month,22 workers across the country face uncertainty. Despite citing financial challenges as the reason for shuttering the Nebraska plant, the meat company is reportedly “…bullish on profits for the rest of the year, updating its adjusted operating income outlook between $1.6 to $1.8 billion.”23 In other words, jobs are being lost while corporate executives continue to reap rewards. As residents of Dawson County face economic uncertainty going forward, Tyson Foods will continue to enjoy substantial profits.

I encourage all of you to contribute to the Lexington Community Relief Fund as it provides assistance across the many organizations impacted by the recent plant closure.

Leave a comment

Share

Last month, President Donald Trump’s U.S. Department of Transportation announced it would not enforce key components of a rule requiring consumer protections for airline passengers who use wheelchairs.1 According to Reuters, the DOT “…will not enforce the requirements imposing airline liability for mishandled wheelchairs…”2 in addition to “…not [enforcing] a requirement [that] airlines notify passengers about their rights in writing when they are checking wheelchairs or scooters.”3 The Trump administration also stated it would not enforce a rule requiring airlines to reimburse passengers whose wheelchairs could not fit on a less expensive smaller flight, forcing them to buy a higher priced ticket on a larger aircraft.

The “Ensuring Safe Accommodations for Air Travelers with Disabilities Using Wheelchairs” rule was announced last year towards the close of the Biden administration. The Transportation Department explained the purpose of the new rule in its executive summary:

“The Department is committed to ensuring that our air transportation system is safe and accessible for all. Air travel connects individuals to family and friends, jobs, and vital services, and it opens the door to opportunity. However, air travel can be especially difficult for individuals who use wheelchairs or scooters and rely on disability-related physical assistance and services provided by U.S. and foreign air carriers… and their contractors. Damaged and delayed personal wheelchairs and assistive devices and untimely and unsafe assistance provided by airlines can lead to serious life disruptions such as loss of mobility independence, personal injury, lost opportunities and wages, and other significant harms. Some wheelchair users even avoid flying altogether because of these risks.”4

In 2024, it was reported that airlines had mishandled over 11,000 passenger wheelchairs.5 Analysis from WheelchairTravel.org ranked JetBlue, American Airlines, Frontier Airlines, and Spirit as most frequently mishandling equipment.6 As such, the rule mandated that airlines return all wheelchairs and other assistive devices used by passengers in the condition in which it was received.7 In the event that a passenger’s wheelchair had been mishandled, the DOT rule mandated “…airlines must immediately notify a passenger of the right to file a claim with the airline, to receive a loaner wheelchair, to choose a preferred vendor for repairs or replacement.”8 The ruling also proposed that airlines must “…provide and pay for loaner wheelchairs...”9 to passengers whose equipment was mishandled. The Trump administration’s decision to not enforce these provisions follows after a group of airlines, including United Airlines, Delta Airlines, American Airlines, Southwest Airlines, and JetBlue Airways, filed suit to challenge the new rule earlier this year.10 It is also worth noting that both United Airlines and Delta Airlines each contributed a million dollars to President Trump’s inauguration just a month before that lawsuit was filed.11

The Trump administration originally announced earlier this year that enforcement of these provisions would be delayed until March, then August, and now seemingly indefinitely as it “…engages in a new rulemaking that will consider whether to modify those provisions.”12 The Transportation Department also said it would propose a newer version of the rule in August of next year while planning to issue a final rule no sooner than December 31st, 2026.13

What it’s like for families who experience this

Growing up, my family would travel to visit relatives in Florida every year or so. We did this until I was about eight years old. February 2008 was the last time I ever flew on an airplane with both my parents. My late father’s muscular dystrophy was beginning to progress to a point where air travel was no longer an option. This was only several years or so after he started depending on a motorized wheelchair for mobility. I remember watching JetBlue staff disassembling and carrying his wheelchair onto the plane. I also remember my father having to be put onto a very uncomfortable smaller chair that could fit the narrow aisles of the aircraft. As his condition progressed, the idea of air travel (or really, any type of family travel) was no longer an option. Going forward, the most travel we would be doing was visiting family in New Jersey or Long Island (until, eventually, we could no longer even do that).

My dad always told me how he regretted the fact he never got to take me places as a kid. Not only was accessibility an issue, but the high costs of his care meant there was no room in our budget for any type of travel. Other kids at school would talk about the many trips they took over summer vacation, while I was just excited when my parents had enough money to take us out to a restaurant near our house. Now, thanks to the actions of the Trump administration, flight will be even more inaccessible.

I sit writing this article angry about how people can be so careless and cruel. Yet, to a guy like Trump, families like mine don’t deserve to experience travel. For years, while I was at home taking care of my father on Staten Island, Mr. Trump was flying above the city getting pampered on his private jet in between tapings of The Apprentice. Now, his administration is committed to actively making air travel more difficult and out of reach for so many families who have experienced similar hardships. All so he can get a nice check from United and Delta.

Paralyzed veterans at risk

Back in 2023, The New York Times published a story about Charles Brown, a U.S. marine whose military career was cut short after an injury left his arms and legs paralyzed. Mr. Brown shared how risky he found flying to be, both for him and his equipment:

“On his first flight after his injury, Mr. Brown got a concussion during the landing; he couldn’t stay upright, and his head slammed into the seat in front of him. On another flight a few years ago, two airline employees dropped him — it was a hard fall — while lifting him into a special aisle wheelchair. He shattered his tailbone and spent four months in the hospital afterward, battling a life-threatening infection.

There’s also the worry of what will happen to his $41,000 wheelchair when it is loaded and unloaded from the plane. The wheelchair, custom designed to fit Mr. Brown’s body, prevents pressure sores. Without it, he could risk another potentially life-threatening infection.”14

Mr. Brown’s story reflects how essential such protections are for paralyzed military veterans especially. In fact, Mr. Brown was the former president of the Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), a group who heralded the new protections announced last year as being “not only a win for the disability community, especially our nation’s veterans with catastrophic injuries and diseases, like MS and ALS, but also a testament to the power of collective advocacy.”15 As such, the actions of the Trump administration to halt these critical protections will pose a severe risk for veterans with disabilities.

Our leaders should be making air travel easier, not harder, for individuals with disabilities. Instead, we’re stuck with a government that is caving to the demands of airlines that generate billions in dollars of revenue a year.16 I don’t know about you, but I fully believe that airlines such as United and Delta can certainly afford the higher costs of making their planes more accessible. They seem to have enough money to throw at our current president’s inauguration fund. Thus, the decision to not enforce these regulations is not just a denial of accessibility, but a continuing pattern of this administration bending the knee to corporate interests.

Share

Share Inequality Focus

Have you ever wondered why the ice cream machine at McDonald’s has a history of always being broken? Well, what if I told you the reason you couldn’t order a McFlurry can also explain how John Deere is able to rob farmers and ranchers across the United States billions of dollars a year in lost revenue? This is because, in the case of both McDonald’s ice cream machines and John Deere tractors, both products have severe restrictions as to who can engage in the repair of key equipment. Up until late 2024, McDonald’s ice cream machines could only be fixed through the ice cream machine’s manufacturer.

But why was this the case? Up until last year, the “…Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which protects the code embedded in the ice cream machines, made it illegal for third parties… to break the digital locks installed by manufacturers.”1 This meant that any repairs attempted by McDonald’s employees and franchise owners were essentially illegal for the longest time, as they were considered third party entities and completing repairs would require breaking of such digital locks. This situation is very similar to what many farmers and mechanics in the United States experience when attempting to repair different types of machinery.

Technology as a barrier to repair

If it’s one thing about newer cars, it’s that they are far more computerized than they were decades ago. Sometimes this can be beneficial, especially when it comes to collision detection or lane departure prevention. This new technology installed in our vehicles has certainly made the driving experience safer in a lot of ways. However, such a shift towards more computerized systems has opened the door for abuse by key vehicle manufacturers. Car manufacturers often use such software to lock mechanics out of anything deemed “security sensitive,”2 which happens when they are completing repairs on a vehicle. Newer car models often require mechanics to acquire something called Vehicle Security Professional (VSP) access to bypass this.3 One mechanic, Shorty of Shorty’s Speed Shop, went viral on TikTok after posting a video about how he got software locked when attempting to repair a 2024 RAM 3500. Shorty also noted that the requirements to obtain VSP access are quite costly, including a $325 fee every two years, a $100 fee for every subsequent two-year license renewal, commercial liability insurance of $1 million, and a fidelity or employee dishonesty bond of $100,000.4 Such costs are expected to (and already have) decimated independent car repair shops who simply cannot keep up with such expenses to perform basic repairs.

Farmers and ranchers also experience a similar challenge when their tractors malfunction. Similar to cars at auto repair shops, tractors manufactured by companies such as John Deere will have a software lock activated that cannot be lifted until a computer from Deere can be connected to the tractor, allowing for the error codes to be downloaded and a repair to be initiated. Essentially, when a John Deere tractor malfunctions, a farmer cannot diagnose and repair the problem directly without use of John Deere software.

This software is not available for use by independent mechanics or farmers themselves, and thus repairs require a visit to a John Deere repair shop that can take up to a month to actually take place. One Montana farmer named Walter Schweitzer sat down for an interview with More Perfect Union to discuss his experience with having his modern John Deere tractor repaired. Walter explained that the part necessary for repair was about $160, with the labor to actually change the part being roughly $300. And yet, his bill was almost $5,000 when he took it to Deere. I encourage you to learn more about Walter’s story in the More Perfect Union video below.

Busting up the monopolies

There has been a significant push to curb the abuses of these repair monopolies. In January 2025, the Biden administration’s Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued Deere for “…its use of unfair practices that have driven up equipment repair costs for farmers while also depriving farmers of the ability to make timely repairs on critical farming equipment, including tractors.”5 The complaint issued by the FTC at the time accused Deere of forcing farmers to rely on the company’s network of authorized dealers for essential repairs, boosting Deere’s multi-billion profits.6 The reasoning behind the FTC’s decision to sue reflects the concerns expressed by Walter in the video above:

“Illegal repair restrictions can be devastating for farmers, who rely on affordable and timely repairs to harvest their crops and earn their income. The FTC’s action today seeks to ensure that farmers across America are free to repair their own equipment or use repair shops of their choice—lowering costs, preventing ruinous delays, and promoting fair competition for independent repair shops.”7

-Former FTC Chair Lina M. Khan

In addition to antitrust action by Khan’s FTC under the Biden administration, there have been efforts to implement what are known as right to repair laws. As defined by the National Conference of State Legislatures, “Right to repair legislation is directed at the ability of consumers to repair their own products instead of going back to the original manufacturer for service.”8 Many states across the country have proceeded to consider such legislation, with a few states already enacting some form of a right to repair law. Key examples include Colorado’s Consumer Right to Repair Agricultural Equipment and California’s Right to Repair Act. Of course, such efforts have angered the corporate world, with companies such as Microsoft threatening to no longer sell specific products in response to states such as Washington seeking to implement right to repair legislation. Representative Jeff Morris of the Washington State House claimed “Microsoft was going around telling our members that they wouldn’t sell Surface Tablets in Washington any longer if we passed the bill.”9

Clearly, as consumers begin to fight back against the predatory practices of these repair monopolies, it will be part of a larger struggle pitting repair advocates against companies worth a collective trillions of dollars. And it certainly shouldn’t surprise anyone that such companies will pull out all the stops to protect their repair monopoly. Considering that the Trump administration is currently committed to rolling back key antitrust reforms implemented during the Biden presidency (such as recently revoking a Biden-era executive order on antitrust in August), much of the battle will likely play out at the state level for the foreseeable future.

Last week, McDonald’s reported second quarterly earnings and revenue that exceeded analysts’ expectations. This comes after the fast-food chain’s first quarter U.S. same-store sales declined by 3.6%, the largest drop since an 8.7% plunge during the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020.1 After the dismal first quarter, McDonald's CEO Christopher Kempczinski revealed on a company conference call that quick-service industry traffic from low-income consumers was down roughly double digits compared to the prior year’s quarter.2 Quick-service industry traffic from middle-income consumers also fell by about the same amount, “…a clear indication that the economic pressure on traffic has broadened.”3

In the most recent quarter, McDonald’s credited rebounding sales with ongoing promotions, but shared that executives are “…still worried about the economic health of the low-income consumer.”4 Kempczinski noted on the second quarter conference call that visits across the industry by low-income consumers once again dropped by double digits compared to the prior year period,5 reflecting an extremely difficult economic environment for lower-income Americans. Specifically, breakfast has been the weakest performing component of the restaurant’s business operations.6 CNBC’s Carl Quintanilla even noted that declining breakfast sales could be interpreted as a sign of decreasing U.S. employment. Growth Shuttle further explains this observation:

“This correlation is not merely anecdotal; it traces back to economic downturns such as the 2008 financial crisis, during which fast-food breakfast sales suffered as job losses forced consumers to adjust their routines and cut costs. With fewer people commuting to morning jobs, there’s less incentive to purchase breakfast away from home. This historical relationship has reinforced the notion that consumers are likely to tighten their budgets during financial strain, prioritizing home-cooked meals over casual dining.”7

Thus, there is precedent for declining fast-food breakfast being associated with broader economic issues. And these issues are not just limited to McDonald’s, with Wendy’s reporting a 3.6% decline in same-store sales for the second quarter of 2025.8 Wendy’s interim CEO Ken Cook acknowledged that when the fast-food economy takes a turn for the worse, the warning signs typically show up in breakfast first.9 Axios also reported that similar declines were observed at other fast-food chains such as KFC, Pizza Hut and Popeyes.10

Fast-food sale declines are coinciding with other economic warning signs

It would be a mistake to judge the general health of the economy purely off sales at specific fast-food restaurants. However, when you consider insights from other key economic indicators, it starts to paint a more complete picture of what may actually be going on. The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis recently reported gross domestic product (GDP) increased at annual rate of 3.0% for the second quarter of 2025.11 At face value, this measure would indicate a positive sign for the economy, but this figure is greatly influenced by the shrinking U.S. trade deficit and less so actual spending from consumers. MarketWatch noted signs of underlying economic weakness in the recent GDP report, despite the 3.0% growth rate:

“The details of the GDP report showed several areas of softness in the second quarter, along with a few encouraging signs. Consumer spending, the main engine of the economy, rose at a 1.4% pace, up from a scant 0.5% in the first quarter. Yet some of the increase appeared to stem from Americans buying more cars to avoid price hikes. It’s unlikely that will happen to the same degree in the third quarter. The trade deficit had the biggest influence by far on GDP. A plunging deficit added a whopping 5 percentage points to U.S. growth.”12

In fact, when you consider the overall rate of personal consumption expenditures outlined in the most recent GDP report, you can see that there has been a major decrease since the final two quarters of 2024:

Consumer spending has substantially slowed this year in comparison to last year, and McDonald’s experiencing a sales slump is just one example of this slowdown. The Wall Street Journal even noted that the U.S. economy has become deeply dependent on the wealthiest Americans, with the top 10% of earners (households making $250,000 or more a year) now accounting for 49.7% of all spending per analysis by Moody’s Analytics.13 Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, estimated that “…spending by the top 10% alone accounted for almost one-third of gross domestic product.”14 When you consider this analysis, it starts to make sense as to why many aren’t showing up at their local McDonald’s for breakfast in the morning. Most of our economy’s spending is being done by those at the top.

Wage growth for top earners has outpaced those who earn the least

The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta’s wage growth tracker also provides some helpful insight into the state of consumer spending. According to their tracker, wage growth for the lowest quartile of earners has lagged significantly behind the wage growth for the highest quartile of earners. Towards the end of 2024, we can observe that the highest quartile of earners began to overtake the lowest quartile in wage growth, with the highest hovering between 4.7-4.9% in growth so far in 2025 while the lowest have dropped from 4.4% in January to 3.7% in July. This data reinforces a common theme: lower-income Americans are facing economic headwinds that are severely undercutting their ability to spend.

This is a serious problem for restaurants such as McDonald’s and Wendy’s given that their core customer base are those who eat out on a budget. When their budget can no longer include an Egg McMuffin, that is a clear warning sign of a broader economic problem. This has forced McDonald’s to reconsider their menu options, including a recent expansion of their McValue Meal Deal bundle.

Years of anti-worker policy choices are responsible

It is no coincidence that this spending struggle among the lowest-income workers has coincided with years of stagnant wages. Last month, I covered the reasons why the CEO-to-worker pay gap has become so wide. In that piece, I noted how CEOs in 2023 were paid 290 times as much as the typical worker.15 In 2024, CEOs made 285 times as much as the typical worker.16 For McDonald’s specifically, the median worker pay was $17,492 in 2024, with their CEO making 1,014 times as much as their median employee.17 When you consider that the federal minimum wage has remained at $7.25 since 2009,18 it becomes quite obvious why this gap is the case. This, in addition to the Reagan-era U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission adopting Rule 10b-18, creating a safe harbor from market manipulation liability for companies repurchasing their own shares.19 With this rule change, major U.S. corporations have become less incentivized to reinvest their profits directly into the workforce, and instead have opted to allocate greater funding towards stock buybacks. It is also worth acknowledging that McDonald’s specifically executed around $3 billion in stock buybacks both in 2024 and 2023.20

If companies such as McDonald’s are concerned with low-income workers cutting back on their visits to their restaurants, it would certainly be advisable that they take the lead in advancing the pay of minimum wage workers to close their significant CEO-to-worker pay gap. Beyond being fair, such a move would represent responsible business management and generally sound economics. In 1965, CEOs were paid only 21 times as much as the typical American worker.21 This, of course, was long before the Reagan-era SEC rule change that was implemented in the 1980s. When there were safeguards to ensure company executives couldn’t abuse the market for their own gain, American companies actually reinvested in their businesses, and worker pay was kept at a more reasonable level compared to today. This translated to a stronger U.S. economy that dominated the mid-20th century. Today, we are seeing decades of anti-labor policies meeting the shock of post-pandemic inflation, and it is ringing alarm bells across our economy. Thus, lagging sales data from McDonald’s among lower-income Americans is not only a warning sign about near-term economic troubles, but a much deeper sign that our very economic structure is fundamentally unsustainable.

Young college graduates are facing a brutal job market in 2025. Anecdotally, I’ve heard from many in my age group that it’s almost impossible to get hired these days (I’m 25 years old). I even grew so frustrated with the job market that I ultimately decided to return to graduate school. For a long time, it felt as if no matter where I submitted an application, I would either never hear back or receive an automated email months later thanking me for my interest but informing me that another candidate had been selected. I am certainly not alone in this frustration, though such experience is, of course, anecdotal. So, what does the data tell us? After analyzing publicly available unemployment data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, these feelings of frustration are actually very much valid. Yes, the job market in 2025 is fundamentally broken for recent college graduates.

Having a college degree no longer necessarily improves employment chances

Now, there is obviously a lot going on in the graph above, but the two lines I want you to focus on are the white line (all workers) and the blue line (recent college graduates aged 22-27). What do you notice about these two lines? It appears that from 1990 up until about the late-2010s, the white line was pretty much consistently above the blue line with a notable gap. There are some exceptions, as the two lines briefly converge in the early 2000s and again around the mid-2010s, but the blue line remained largely below the white line for nearly 30 years. This indicates that the general workforce mostly faced higher unemployment rates than recent college graduates throughout that period.

We’re told getting a college degree is supposed to improve our employment chances, so the data does show this was indeed the case during that decades-long period. However, it seems that this is no longer true in the post-Covid economy, as the blue line started matching and ultimately exceeded the white line after the late 2010s and early 2020s. While young workers with a college degree still face lower unemployment rates than young workers as a whole (yellow line), this is also a gap that has been closing in recent years. In June 2005, unemployment for all young workers (8.3%) was more than double the rate of recent college graduates (3.8%). A decade later, in June 2015, this was still true (10.2% vs. 4.4%). By June 2025, however, the difference had narrowed substantially: 7.4% for all young workers versus 4.8% for recent college graduates. These observations can point to why many young workers are turning to trade school over a college degree, feeling that the cost of a college education may not be worth it given that many recent graduates struggle to find work these days. You may also notice that the red line (all college graduates) has remained consistently below all the other lines between 1990 and 2025. Why is this the case? This can be explained by what many labor economists are calling the “great stay.”

The “Great Stay”

A few years ago, you may remember hearing about the “great resignation.” During this period, job openings hit historic levels, unemployment was at its lowest since the 1960s, and a record-breaking 50 million workers quit their jobs in 2022.1 As of late 2024 and the first half of 2025, the labor market has cooled significantly. According to CNBC, “Hiring has slowed to its lowest rate since 2013, excluding the early days of the pandemic. Yet, layoffs are still low by historical standards.”2

Indeed, as the graph above reflects, hiring has slowed to its lowest rate in over a decade (excluding the early pandemic phase). Such data demonstrates a job market that has cooled substantially. This analysis is also supported by the quits rate, which is released as part of the monthly U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS). Generally, a higher quits rate indicates that more workers are confident in their ability to find a new job and thus a stronger labor market, while lower quits reflect a lack of confidence in finding new opportunities and thus a weaker labor market. As of the second quarter of 2025 (April to June), the quits rate has remained steady at roughly 2.0%.3 Compare this to November 2021, when the quits rate peaked at 3.0%.4 This, along with slower hiring rates, shows that the labor market is essentially at a standstill. But how does this explain why all of those with a college degree face lower unemployment rates than recent college graduates? Well, think about it. If you are already past your first five years being in the job market after earning your undergraduate degree, you likely have already built a decent amount of experience and were hired when the labor market was stronger. Additionally, given that layoffs are low and hiring has slowed, this demonstrates that most employers are seeking to keep the talent they have, meaning older individuals with college degrees are staying in their jobs while younger college graduates who haven’t been in the workforce for that long are struggling to find opportunities.

The “great stay” has especially hit employment opportunities for office jobs. Recruitonomics noted that net hiring rates for fields such as marketing, software engineering, and data science “…are hovering near contraction.”5 The Information sector is a prime example of how certain fields have been negatively impacted by the post-pandemic labor market, with it growing at a remarkable 11% annually in 2021 as demand for digital technology spiked during the pandemic-era economy.6 However, higher interest rates from the Federal Reserve to tame post-pandemic inflation substantially weakened business outlook (check out my article on the causes of inflation here), and thus the momentum for tech hiring has vanished.7 Additionally, employers in general are less likely to invest in entry-level hiring, with research from PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) noting that in 2023, only 61% of human resource leaders said they were “…hiring for entry-level and less specialized positions, down from 79% in October 2022.”8

Another important variable at play includes the rise of artificial intelligence. According to Business Insider:

“The unemployment rate for 20- to 30-year-olds in tech has risen by nearly 3 percentage points since early 2024, over four times the increase in the overall jobless rate. That spike is yet another sign that generative AI is starting to displace white-collar jobs, especially among early-career workers.”9

A new research report from Microsoft also ranked white-collar professions as the most vulnerable to generative AI, and blue-collar careers as the least vulnerable.10 Reporting from Axios even noted that “AI could wipe out half of all entry-level white-collar jobs — and spike unemployment to 10-20% in the next one to five years.”11

With the rise of AI, a cooling job market, and employers less willing to hire entry-level workers, the job market is likely to remain challenging for both younger college graduates and young workers in general. This, in addition to the recent jobs report showing only a seasonally adjusted 73,000 jobs added for the month of July (far below the Dow Jones estimate for a gain of 100,000).12 All of this data points to a job market that will remain difficult for young workers to break into, at least in the near-term future.

One of my favorite traditions as a kid was looking through the Toys “R” Us holiday catalog every year. When I needed inspiration for my Christmas list, Toys “R” Us never failed to deliver. My lists were often ambitious, and that was very much reflected in what actually ended up under the tree on Christmas morning. Indeed, I couldn’t get everything I wanted from what was once every kid’s favorite store. One group, however, seemed to believe there was no limit to what they could get from Toys “R” Us: the private equity firms Bain Capital and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (KKR).

In 2005, Bain Capital and KKR, along with the real estate group Vornado Realty Trust, acquired Toys “R” US for $6.6 billion.1 At the time of the acquisition, the toy company was facing fierce competition from discount department store chains such as Walmart and Target. Additionally, the rise of e-commerce also began to pose a significant threat to the toy giant’s business operations. Why waste gas driving to the nearest Toys “R” Us when you could order your child’s birthday gift on Amazon? Perhaps new ownership could be just what Toys “R” Us needed to meet the moment. Instead, the 2005 acquisition ultimately sealed the beloved toy retailer’s fate. Private equity ended up dealing more damage to the company than any of its business rivals ever could.

How private equity firms work

Before diving into the case of Toys “R” Us, it is important to understand how private equity firms generally operate. Brendan Ballou, who previously served as Special Counsel for Private Equity at the U.S. Department of Justice, details the fundamental business structure of private equity firms in his 2023 book, Plunder: Private Equity’s Plan to Pillage America:

“To make its business model work, the private equity firm needs money, which it gets from three sources. The firm itself contributes a small percentage of the funds needed to buy the company, while the firm’s investors—pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, wealthy individuals, and the like—provide some of the rest necessary for the acquisition. The firm then leverages all those assets… to borrow most of the money it needs from banks and other lenders. Crucially, the responsibility for paying back the money the firm borrows sits not with the firm itself but with the company it buys. Thus, if the company fails, the private equity firm loses only its small initial investment.”2

As such, private equity firms contribute only a small portion of the capital themselves, raising most of it from wealthy investors. This investor capital is then used to help secure additional funding from banks and other lending institutions, thus allowing the private equity firm to proceed with acquiring a specific company. This process is known as a leveraged buyout (LBO), defined by Investopedia as, “…the acquisition of one company by another using a significant amount of borrowed money to meet the cost of acquisition.”3 Given that the private equity firm is primarily using borrowed money to purchase a company, you would expect that such an acquisition would burden the private equity firm with debt. However, this is not the case, and the burden of the debt is actually placed on the company that is acquired, not the private equity firm itself. In the case of Toys “R” Us, the toy company “…took on $5 billion in debt virtually overnight.”4

Private equity squeezed the life out of Toys “R” Us

After acquiring Toys “R” Us, KKR and Bain began extracting as much wealth as possible out of their new purchase. The private equity partnership proceeded to sell off the toy company’s real estate and forced the retailer to lease back its buildings, all while pocketing the money.5 This financial transaction is known as a leaseback, “…an arrangement in which the company that sells an asset can lease back that same asset from the purchaser.”6 The leaseback arrangement, often a significant source of revenue for private equity firms, is typically fatal for the acquired company. It makes sense when you think about it from a business standpoint. If your company actually owns its property instead of leasing it, you don’t have to worry about meeting rent payments. Additionally, the assets can serve as collateral if your business needs to borrow in bad times.

As Ballou explains, leasebacks are “…a great source of revenue for private equity because [they allow] the firm to post a quick profit and often take a transaction fee along the way.”7 However, it is typically quite detrimental for the underlying business. If your company is burdened with ongoing expenses and you already lack assets, it becomes very difficult to survive harsh business cycles. When you consider that Toys “R” Us had been paying down roughly “…$400 million in annual interest leftover from its leveraged buyout…”8 and was already struggling to keep up with fierce competition from rivals such as Amazon, the company was quite vulnerable. This, in addition to the fees and interest that Toys “R” Us paid out to KKR, Bain, and Vornado, left the company reeling.

The Private Equity Stakeholder Project estimated that KKR, Bain, and Vornado collected $464 million in fees and interest from Toys “R” Us while thousands of workers lost their jobs.9 This is because the private equity model is primarily used to “…loot and flip, not to invest or run companies well.”10 In other words, the actions of such firms are not genuine efforts to invest in productive businesses, but rather to extract as much wealth as possible while putting many out of work. According to Aliya Sabharwal, who organized on behalf of the laid-off Toys “R” Us workers, the private equity partnership “…eliminated positions and offloaded responsibilities onto other employees, while pressuring workers to sign up customers for high-margin sweeteners like credit cards and ‘payment protection plans.’”11

Instead of investing in technology to keep the business competitive (such as upgrading their website), or other innovative ways to modernize in the age of e-commerce, Toys “R” Us was paying hundreds of millions of dollars a year in interest leftover from its leveraged buyout, in addition to the millions of dollars paid annually to its private equity owners in management and advisory fees. While many at the time had blamed its struggling business on the rise of Amazon and e-commerce, the real issue at hand was the debt. As Ballou notes, “Toys’ sales remained steady, even during the Great Recession, and in the year before it filed for bankruptcy, its $11 billion in revenue accounted for an estimated one-fifth of all toy sales in the country.”12 Drowning in debt, the toy company filed for bankruptcy in 2017 and officially closed its doors in June 2018.13

Aftermath

Over 30,000 Toys “R” Us employees lost their jobs when the company officially shuttered in 2018.14 Even more outrageous, the laid-off employees were initially denied severance.15 The laid-off workers would later win a $2 million severance agreement, though this resulted in only about $34 each for part-time workers and $60 for full-time workers.16 The private equity owners also provided a $20 million “hardship fund” for the former employees, though this amount was significantly lower than the $75 million in severance workers were originally promised.17 It is also worth noting that lawyers from Kirkland & Ellis were awarded some $56 million in fees for representing Toys “R” Us during the bankruptcy case.18

CEO David Brandon even received $2.8 million in the form of a retention bonus just before the store’s bankruptcy was filed.19 Before receiving this payment, Brandon had been informed by company lawyers that his bonus would likely not be approved once bankruptcy was officially filed. He then ordered bonuses for himself and other top executives to be paid just three days before the filing.20 An employee at a shuttering Babies “R” Us location in New Hampshire shared her frustration over the closures and executive bonuses in an email to Brandon. The CEO had initially promised all of the employees at the New Hampshire location severance, before informing them they would no longer receive it about a week later.21 Brandon responded to the laid-off worker directly by saying, “While there is nothing I can do or say to make you feel any better about the very painful situation we are living through… I want you to know that I share your pain."22 He also insisted that there would be no bonuses received by himself or other executives. Toys "R" Us later disclosed in court that it paid CEO David Brandon the $2.8 million retention bonus just before filing for Chapter 11 protection, contradicting his claims.23

If you’re reading this feeling frustrated, the case study of Toys “R” Us and private equity is unfortunately not all that unique. Private equity has only grown more powerful since the start of the 21st century. So many once iconic companies have been destroyed under the ownership of private equity. RadioShack. Mattress Firm. Claire’s. Aeropostale. Fairway. Sports Authority. David’s Bridal. American Apparel. All of these companies ultimately filed for bankruptcy after being purchased by private equity firms.24 You could write a whole book about how private equity has wreaked havoc on so many lives and businesses. Thus, I highly recommend you check out Plunder: Private Equity's Plan to Pillage America by Brendan Ballou. Private equity has already reshaped the American economy in so many ways you likely haven’t even realized. Toys “R” Us is just one example.

On July 26, 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed into law the bipartisan Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The fundamental goal of the ADA was to ensure individuals with disabilities “…have the same opportunities as everyone else to enjoy employment opportunities, purchase goods and services, and participate in state and local government programs.”1 The ADA sought to address the extensive barriers individuals with disabilities face in the job market. Its provisions prohibited discrimination “…on the basis of disability in hiring, wage determination, and firing, and requires that employers offer reasonable accommodations to disabled workers, such as wheelchair access.” Indeed, the ADA was a significant step toward ensuring that Americans with disabilities could fully participate in our economy.

However, while the act was certainly a step in the right direction for ensuring equal economic opportunity, American workers with disabilities still face many barriers. Research from the Yale University Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics found that while the ADA has had a “…significant positive effect on the employment of individuals with physical or mental limitations that are not work-impacting,”2 it has not fulfilled its objectives in ensuring those with significant work limitations are employed at equal levels. Unfortunately, many American employers are seemingly reluctant to absorb the higher costs associated with ensuring reasonable accommodations. It is also not uncommon for employers to instead “…fire an employee with a disability because they [believe] the costs of litigation to be less costly than accommodation.”3 Thus, while the ADA certainly laid the important foundation of ensuring equal protection and equal pay, it has not achieved the objective of ensuring all individuals with disabilities are actually employed at equal rates. This is supported by employment data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics below:

We can observe that the unemployment rate for individuals aged 16 years and over with a disability has been consistently higher than those of the same demographic with no disability between 2009 and 2023. In 2023, the unemployment rate of individuals aged 16 and over with a disability (7.2%) was roughly double the rate of those without a disability (3.5%). Such trends highlight the challenge of developing a labor market that is truly inclusive of all Americans, over thirty years after the ADA was signed into law by President Bush.

Economic well-being for persons with disabilities

Despite the ADA’s improvements, more work must be done to ensure the economic well-being of Americans with disabilities. According to research from Disability Studies Quarterly, individuals with any work limitation “…earned about $12,000-14,000 less than the rest of the population in 1988 and in 2014.”4 Additionally, despite absolute earnings for people with disabilities increasing by roughly $1,200 between 1988 and 2014, the relative disparities in pay have not improved.5 Disability Studies Quarterly also noted how studies have consistently shown that individuals with mental or cognitive disabilities have worse employment outcomes than individuals with physical disabilities, and that earnings gaps were “…largest for people with work limitations, cognitive difficulties, and independent-living barriers.”6

Individuals with disabilities also tend to bear a higher cost of living due to care-related expenses, making the pay gap even more consequential. The National Council on Disability estimated in a 2023 report that “Working-age adults with disabilities remain employed at less than half the rate of people without disabilities and are twice as likely to live in poverty.7 Their report also notes that while programs such as Medicaid help cover the costs of support services that allow individuals with disabilities to remain in the workforce, limitations on earnings often result in people with disabilities having to choose “…between working at levels that allow them to maintain healthcare benefits, or risk losing access to health care when employed at higher levels.”8 This is because, as the worker with a disability sees their income rise as a result of being employed, they will no longer qualify for programs such as Medicaid (despite Medicaid covering the cost of support services which allow them to be able to work in the first place).

Unfortunately, as President Trump recently signed off on the “One Big Beautiful Act,” organizations such as the Muscular Dystrophy Association have warned that its provisions regarding Medicaid cuts will only worsen this inequality:

“Nonpartisan estimates from the Congressional Budget Office demonstrate the changes in the proposed legislation could result in as many as 13.7 million people losing their health coverage over the next 10 years. Given the community’s high utilization of Medicaid, those at risk of losing coverage would likely include people living with a neuromuscular disease.”9

Other groups representing individuals with neuromuscular diseases, such as the Les Turner ALS Foundation, also noted how the Trump-GOP budget would likely result in “ALS families who struggle with transportation [being] forced to travel several hours for the basic care they need – further straining their time, budget, and ability to access urgently needed care in the face of a rapidly progressing disease.”10 The foundation also claimed the bill “…offers no meaningful protections for people with disabilities, and puts people living with ALS, caregivers, and their families at risk.”11 Vice President J.D. Vance described such concerns over Medicaid cuts as “immaterial.”12 The bill was signed into law by President Trump on July 4th, 2025.

Potential policy solutions

Americans with disabilities must be guaranteed equal economic opportunity. In order to achieve this, policymakers must dismantle the current degree of inequality baked into our current economic system. Previously, I covered how many Americans with disabilities are employed in positions which pay below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. This is a result of the Section 14(c) provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which “…authorizes employers, after receiving a certificate from the [U.S. Department of Labor], to pay… wages less than the Federal minimum wage — to workers who have disabilities for the work being performed.”13 The Center for American Progress perhaps put it best, stating Section 14(c) “…is predicated on the presumption that disabled workers’ labor is less valuable and therefore warrants what is fundamentally a separate and unequal pay structure.”14 The Biden administration proposed phasing out this system of paying workers with disabilities below the minimum wage in December 2024. Unfortunately, just a few weeks ago, the Trump administration’s Department of Labor rescinded this proposal from the Biden administration. If we want to ensure American workers with disabilities are no longer twice as likely to live in poverty, it is long past time to phase out Section 14(c).

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, it has been estimated that by the tenth year after onset of a chronic and severe disability, “…average earnings fall by 76 percent, family income falls by 28 percent, and food and housing consumption falls by 25 percent.”15 Defenders of Section 14(c) claim that it is somehow good for workers with disabilities because it lowers the costs of hiring workers with disabilities. Similar arguments were used against the initial passage of the ADA because requiring accommodations would be “too expensive” for employers, thus disincentivizing the hiring of workers with disabilities. Such an argument begs the question, why should the burden be put on the individual with a disability to endure the high cost of an accommodation? Why should it not be the CEOs of American corporations, who made 290 times as much as the average American worker in 2023, that absorb the cost? And, if it is a small business that genuinely cannot afford to meet the costs, why not expand programs such as the Work Opportunity Tax Credit? Currently, under WOTC, small businesses can claim up to $2,400 in tax credits for the hiring of workers with disabilities.16 One practical policy solution could be to expand the $2,400 cap for workers with disabilities to be on the same level as military veterans with service-connected disabilities, which can range from a maximum tax credit cap of $4,800 to $9,600.17 Such a policy solution would not only help alleviate poverty for individuals with disabilities, but also support growth for small businesses.

Finally, another key program which supports the economic well-being of people with disabilities is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Given that individuals with disabilities are twice as likely to live in poverty, food insecurity is a major issue. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated that, across the country, more than 37% of SNAP recipients in 2024 were “…in families with members who are older adults or are disabled.”18 CBPP analysis also estimates that “Over 1 in 4 SNAP participants, equivalent to over 11 million individuals… have a functional or work limitation or receives federal government disability benefits…”19 per data from 2015.

As such, another potential policy solution in alleviating the disproportionate levels of poverty that individuals with disabilities face is to ensure SNAP benefits truly cover all individuals with disabilities. CBPP notes that many low-income individuals with disabilities do not meet SNAP’s strict disability definition and therefore cannot access certain benefits intended specifically for them, such as the medical expense deduction or the uncapped excess shelter deduction.20 Typically, SNAP identifies individuals as having a disability based on the receipt of government disability payments such as Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), which consequently limits “…payments to people who experience some of the most severe and more long-lasting impairments.”21 Yet, there are many individuals with disabilities that do not receive payments such as SSDI who would strongly benefit from disability-specific provisions under SNAP. Unfortunately, the Trump-signed “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” is estimated to cut $187 billion from SNAP over the next ten years, per analysis from the Bipartisan Policy Center.22 This will, of course, worsen economic inequality for individuals with disabilities.

A lot of work remains to be done to ensure Americans with disabilities can truly have a fair shot to succeed in our economy. All people deserve a chance to thrive in this economy. My late father is an example of this. He successfully ran a small law firm in New York City for decades despite suffering from Muscular Dystrophy, and he could not have done so without essential health programs that eased the high costs of his medical equipment. Thirty-five years after the initial passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, our leaders must recommit themselves to ensuring all individuals with disabilities have an equal opportunity to succeed.

There’s one indisputable fact about the U.S. economy: CEOs live in luxury, while far too many of their own workers struggle to keep up with the rising cost of living. CEO compensation increased by 1,085% from 1978 to 2023,1 while the typical American worker’s compensation has only increased by 24% during that same period.2 In fact, CEOs in 2023 were paid “…290 times as much as a typical worker—in contrast to 1965, when they were paid 21 times as much as a typical worker.”3 This statistic is captured by the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio tracked by the Economic Policy Institute. The historical trend of this ratio is illustrated in the graph below:

Before analyzing the graph, it’s important to understand what we are looking at. This graph features both the realized measure of compensation (light blue line) and the granted measure of compensation (dark blue line) for American CEOs. This distinction is important because most major corporations in the U.S. compensate their executives by issuing them company stock options. The idea is that, if a CEO’s compensation is tied to the stock performance of their company, then they are incentivized to ensure the company succeeds. Thus, these measures can be understood in two basic definitions:

• Realized measure of compensation: Includes the value of stock options when they are actually realized (when the CEO exercises their stock options and likely enjoys a nice profit).

• Granted measure of compensation: Includes the estimated value of stock options at the time it is initially awarded to the CEO (when the CEO is first issued their stock options, so future profits have not yet been realized and are mere estimates).

Now, coming back to the graph above, what do you notice about it? The blue lines seem pretty stable between 1965 and the early 1980s, yet start to tick up at an increasingly faster rate by the mid-1980s. By the 1990s, both realized and granted CEO compensation had surged, and as a result, the pay ratio became substantially higher during the first two decades of the 21st century than it had been in the latter half of the 20th century. Thus, as recently as 2023, U.S. CEOs made 290 times as much in compensation as the typical American worker.

But why is this happening?

Wages have lagged behind productivity

In the early 1970s, an alarming trend started to emerge for American workers. Hourly compensation began to lag behind labor productivity. Up until the 1970s, the two had consistently been tied together, as noted in the graph above. And, as you can observe, this gap has only become wider upon entering the 21st century. It is certainly no coincidence that, as real wages and labor productivity began to diverge, the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio dramatically increased.

But what happened in the 1970s that caused such a divergence? Well, if you remember my previous article on airline deregulation, this is the decade in which American economic policy began to shift dramatically towards neoliberalism (that is, a policy approach grounded in reduced government spending and deregulation). The Economic Policy Institute perfectly summarized this profound shift in policy:

“Starting in the late 1970s policymakers began dismantling all the policy bulwarks helping to ensure that typical workers’ wages grew with productivity. Excess unemployment was tolerated to keep any chance of inflation in check. Raises in the federal minimum wage became smaller and rarer. Labor law failed to keep pace with growing employer hostility toward unions. Tax rates on top incomes were lowered. And anti-worker deregulatory pushes—from the deregulation of the trucking and airline industries to the retreat of anti-trust policy to the dismantling of financial regulations and more—succeeded again and again.”4

As neoliberalism began to dominate economic thinking in Washington, American workers were left behind. No longer did higher productivity necessarily equate to higher pay. Today, the federal minimum wage has stood at $7.25 an hour since 2009.5 Of course, some states have increased their minimum wage rates beyond the national $7.25, yet workers across the country struggle to keep up with the rising cost of living. Dean Baker, senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, estimated that if the minimum wage had kept up with productivity, the productivity-adjusted minimum wage would have been $21.50 in 2020 and $23 in 2021.6

But if wages for workers lagged, why did CEOs see such a dramatic increase in their compensation?

The Reagan-era SEC Rule Change

In 1981, President Ronald Reagan nominated John S. R. Shad to chair the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.7 Under Shad, the SEC would adopt Rule 10b-18, which provided “…an issuer (and its affiliated purchasers) with a ‘safe harbor’ from liability for manipulation.”8 This new rule would effectively shield CEOs and corporate boards from being accused of illegal market manipulation when executing stock buybacks. In fact, stock buybacks were “…all but illegal in many jurisdictions up until the 1980s [because] they were considered a form of stock manipulation.”9 Rule 10b-18 would change that.

Above, we established that major American corporations primarily compensate their CEOs by issuing them company stock. So, if a corporation is to engage in the practice of stock buybacks, the price of the stock would increase and thus the CEO (who, again, is typically compensated through being issued company stock options) would see their earnings rise handsomely. Returning to our first graph on the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio, we see that both realized and granted CEO compensation truly started to take off during the 1980s. This growth coincided with the SEC rule change that occurred during the Reagan presidency:

Lenore Palladino, former Senior Economist and Policy Counsel at the Roosevelt Institute, criticized the Reagan-era SEC rule change for undermining workers and encouraging CEOs to reinvest profits in ways that benefit themselves rather than actually improving the business:

“…the main effect of repurchases in the short term is to reduce the number of shares available on the open market for trading, meaning that the value of each remaining share goes up in value. Though there is no practical improvement in the sales of a company’s goods, customer satisfaction, or efficiency gains in the production process, share prices go up through the removal of share volume.”10

This assessment certainly has merit. In April, I covered how John Deere has engaged in the outsourcing of labor, resulting in manufacturing layoffs in states such as Iowa and Illinois. The company blamed the job cuts on a struggling farm economy, yet the United Auto Workers (UAW) union pointed out that Deere spent $43.6 billion on stock buybacks and dividends over the past two decades, while their CEO’s total compensation was $26.8 million in 2023.11 In 2024, Deere reported a net income of $7.1 billion.12

Of course, there are those who may argue stock buybacks are justified because CEOs “take on the risk” and are also obligated to put a company’s shareholders first. This is also flawed reasoning, as the more money that is directed towards stock buybacks, the less money is actually reinvested in the business itself. That means fewer technology, fewer infrastructure, fewer investment in the workforce, and effectively a diminished business operation. The practice of stock buybacks was criticized in a 2020 Harvard Business Review article for contributing to poor business management:

“Stock buybacks made as open-market repurchases make no contribution to the productive capabilities of the firm. Indeed, these distributions to shareholders, which generally come on top of dividends, disrupt the growth dynamic that links the productivity and pay of the labor force. The results are increased income inequity, employment instability, and anemic productivity…”

Lenore Palladino also noted how stock buybacks coincided with significant safety issues related to Boeing aircrafts:

“According to economist William Lazonick, Boeing spent $43.1 billion on stock buybacks from 2013 to 2019, raising the company’s stock price to a record high just 10 days before the second crash of its 737 MAX. Boeing CEO Muilenburg collects most of his pay through stock or compensation based on financial metrics. Yet the company reportedly avoided spending the estimated $7 billion it would have needed to engineer a safer plane.”13

Thus, the adoption of Rule 10b-18, along with the implementation of neoliberal economic policies during the 1970s and 1980s, have not only contributed to a major pay gap between CEOs and the average American worker, but has also undermined necessary investments into key businesses themselves.

Ronald Reagan is remembered for his famous quote, “…the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.”14 Yet, the Reagan administration did offer a great deal of government help to America’s CEOs when the SEC adopted Rule 10b-18. Perhaps what Reagan truly meant is that it's terrifying when the government helps workers, but it's worth celebrating when it helps only those at the top.

In June 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt delivered one of the most consequential speeches in American history before the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. After being overwhelmingly elected in 1932, Roosevelt was seeking reelection as the nation continued recovering from the onset of the Great Depression. In this speech, Roosevelt reaffirmed his commitment to leading the nation out of economic hardship, but also touched upon how the country was facing perhaps its greatest test.

As economic inequality deepened, with wealth and power increasingly concentrated in an elite few and ideological extremism gaining ground, the American democratic experiment stood at grave risk. Roosevelt understood this and called upon the American people to meet the moment. Indeed, our country was facing a rendezvous with destiny. Across the globe, fascism and communism were on the rise. As the German economy collapsed after World War I, many Germans turned to Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party. In Russia, the monarchy’s indifference to widespread economic suffering helped pave the way for Vladimir Lenin. Here in the United States, however, amid the greatest economic disaster in our nation’s history, the American people turned to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal.

While the American people had fought for independence from monarchy in the Revolutionary War, the 1930s marked a new fight for independence, this time from those whom Roosevelt labeled “economic royalists.” That is, an independence from the wealthy elite and the interests of big business. As the Founding Fathers had warned against the concentration of political power in the hands of a wealthy elite, Roosevelt recognized that this very group had seized control of the levers of government in the years leading up to the Great Depression. And, as Abraham Lincoln condemned the elite plantation class for fomenting class warfare through the system of slavery, FDR condemned the elite corporate class for fomenting the very same thing through defending policies of laissez-faire absolutism. Roosevelt perfectly tied this together in his speech:

“For out of this modern civilization, economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital-all undreamed of by the fathers—the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service… It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man.”1

The American Revolution was a struggle for independence from monarchy. The Civil War was a battle over the institution of slavery and the preservation of the Union. And the Great Depression was a fight for freedom from corporate oligarchy. Even though the United States was already a constitutional republic, there was a clear inequality in who could actually participate in its democratic institutions. Roosevelt exposed this contradiction of American ideals in his speech, reaffirming that any government run by the people and for the people could not be exclusive to these economic royalists. If it was, then those elites were effectively operating an oligarchy that was democratic in name only. And just as monarchy was unacceptable to the American people, so too was a corporate oligarchy. FDR elaborated further on this critical point:

“For too many of us, the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people’s property, other people’s money, other people’s labor, other people’s lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness. Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of Government. The collapse of 1929 showed up the despotism for what it was… Today we stand committed to the proposition that freedom is no half-and-half affair. If the average citizen is guaranteed equal opportunity in the polling place, he must have equal opportunity in the market place.”2

After the crash of 1929 and onset of the Great Depression, the corporate class had proven their system of government was unsustainable. This class had exercised a degree of political power unmatched by the average American citizen, and while they implemented policies that benefited their own interests and marketed them as “pro-growth,” the economic disaster proved how such policies were fundamentally selective in growth. These policies primarily came to fruition under the administrations of Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover, Roosevelt’s immediate Republican predecessors. And while the 1929 crash itself occurred under President Hoover, it was the economic policies of President Coolidge which were primarily responsible for the crash. As Rutgers University professor of U.S. History David Greenberg documented of the Coolidge presidency,

“…it became apparent that his policies contributed to the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression that followed. His fiscal policy encouraged speculation and ignored inequality… His hands-off regulatory policy took its toll especially in the financial arena, where the dangerous practice of margin trading was allowed to flourish unrestrained. And for all the heady growth of the 1920s, Coolidge's policies exacerbated the uneven distribution of income and buying power, which led to the overproduction of goods for which there were not enough affluent consumers.”3

Thus, Roosevelt criticized the governance of the 1920s as being selectively pro-corporate, arguing that such policies, while benefiting the interests of big business, were fundamentally detrimental to the broader economy. The leaders of big business knew how to turn a profit, but they were grossly incompetent at running an economy. This is because they were only concerned with turning a profit for themselves and not for the average American citizen. And, as a result, the American public paid for it dearly. Recognizing this, they overwhelmingly elected (and reelected three more times) Franklin D. Roosevelt to head an administration that was truly pro-economy and not exclusively pro-corporate. New Deal reforms made the pursuit of happiness realistic, and began to grant the average citizen equal opportunity at both the polling place and the marketplace.

Of course, the corporate class resented Roosevelt for developing a true free market where all had an equal opportunity to succeed. The corporate class and their allies, not unlike today, labeled such economic reforms as “anti-American” and “Marxist.” Roosevelt rightfully called out such rhetoric as hypocritical. The truth was, this class of economic royalists resented their absolute grip on power finally being challenged:

“These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power. In vain they seek to hide behind the Flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the Flag and the Constitution stand for. Now, as always, they stand for democracy, not tyranny; for freedom, not subjection; and against a dictatorship by mob rule and the over-privileged alike.”4

It was the corporate class whose policies exacerbated the very economic inequality that fueled an appetite for extremism, whether it be fascism or communism. Thus, it was economic inequality, not FDR’s progressivism, which was the greatest ally of extremism. It was laissez-faire conservatism, not the New Deal, that enabled communism to gain influence. The Great Depression presented perhaps the strongest opportunity for it to do so. Yet, Roosevelt met the moment and presented an alternative that preserved democratic institutions while rejecting economic inequality as inevitable. FDR’s remarks during a separate speech in Syracuse, New York, captured this point perfectly:

“We met the emergency with emergency action. But far more important than that, we went to the roots of the problem, and attacked the cause of the crisis. We were against revolution. Therefore, we waged war against those conditions which make revolutions—against the inequalities and resentments which breed them. In America in 1933 the people did not attempt to remedy wrongs by overthrowing their institutions. Americans were made to realize that wrongs could and would be set right within their institutions. We proved that democracy can work… I have said to you that there is a very great difference between the two parties in what they do about Communism. Conditions congenial to Communism were being bred and fostered throughout this Nation up to the very day of March 4, 1933.”5

Fiscal conservatives claimed to detest communism, yet their policies fostered the very economic conditions that made it so appealing. Today, the same is still true. The MAGA movement claims to be defending America from the spread of socialism and communism, yet has just signed off on a budget bill that will dramatically worsen the economic inequalities of the neoliberal era, further fueling the influence of extremist ideologues. Even in Roosevelt’s own Democratic Party, the corporate faction which gained prominence at the end of the 20th century has essentially joined MAGA leadership in opposing economic progressivism. Yet, it is the neoliberal policies of both the MAGA movement and this corporate faction of the Democratic Party that have made (and will continue to make) extremism so appealing to struggling Americans.

As economic inequality worsens, the people will only continue to lose faith in the democratic experiment. The reforms that Roosevelt implemented almost a century ago have been under siege. Whether it’s a Supreme Court consistently ruling in favor of corporate interests, a Congress that consciously strips health care from millions, or a billionaire president who has deceived the working class, this generation of Americans is facing a new rendezvous with destiny.

Whether we meet the moment once again is up to us.

If you’ve ever visited the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia’s Independence National Historical Park, you’ve likely read its timeless inscription: “Proclaim Liberty Throughout All the Land Unto All the Inhabitants thereof.”1 A true icon of liberty and our nation’s founding ideals, no one can doubt its significance in our history. Yet, what is often less discussed is the full text of its inscription, and how it relates to what our country’s Founders viewed as one of the gravest threats to liberty: economic inequality.

First, where does this inscription originate from? According to the National Park Service, “The Liberty Bell's inscription is from the Bible (King James version)… This verse refers to the ‘Jubilee’, or the instructions to the Israelites to return property and free slaves every 50 years.”2 The precise Bible verse referenced is Leviticus 25:10, which proclaimed in its entirety:

The Vatican’s official website expands upon the importance of the Jubilee in the Bible:

“The believer may not tolerate the forms and the duration of a life of slavery, even as it was practiced by other peoples. Just so it is not tolerable that, because of debt or poverty, a family or a father be deprived of his land forever, since the land comes from God and is a fruitful gift for man.”4

That’s right. The Liberty Bell, perhaps the greatest symbol of America’s independence, bears an inscription from the Bible that calls for social and economic liberation. These are the founding ideals of our nation—too often overlooked by those who most loudly claim to be liberty’s staunchest defenders. Of course, the Founders did not fulfill liberation for the enslaved, despite slavery standing as an obvious moral contradiction to their own ideals. Abraham Lincoln would later confront this moral contradiction in his 1859 address to the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society, where he asserted that slavery was incompatible with America’s founding ideals of individual liberty and economic justice. Still, the Founders understood that true liberty could not endure in an economic system designed to serve the elites rather than the people.

Debt as a threat to individual liberty

Personal debt is quite possibly the largest burden facing Americans today. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, household debt hit $18.20 trillion in the first quarter of 2025.5 This includes $1.18 trillion in credit card balances, $1.64 trillion in auto loan balances, and $1.63 trillion in student loan balances.6 Chances are, you, the reader, are carrying some form of personal debt—maybe a credit card balance, a student loan payment, or the stress of both. But what if I told you the Founders themselves feared exactly what many are experiencing today: that economic elites would infiltrate government not to serve the people, but to profit from the very debt now crushing millions of Americans? Often, we see these very economic elites invoke the words of figures such as Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith. These elites often quote them on topics related to free markets, yet do so strictly in defense of a market that exclusively serves corporate and special interests. In reality, both Jefferson and Smith spoke of debt as a threat to the masses, not the corporate elites who constitute the very few.

Jefferson himself stated, “I am not among those who fear the people. They and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom. And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.”7 He also emphasized that “We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude.”8 Jefferson understood that a lifetime of debt would result in the majority of society laboring endlessly to pay it off. And he was correct in this assessment—millions of Americans today remain trapped under crushing student loan debt, credit card bills, and other financial burdens, while private interests continue to profit handsomely. He saw this as a fundamental threat to liberty, though Jefferson was clearly selective in this belief, as he personally benefited from the very system of slavery (which, as noted earlier, Abraham Lincoln criticized in 1859 as fundamentally both anti-liberty and anti-labor).

Jefferson’s words are often selectively used by the elite class to criticize government spending in services that promote the common good. And while Jefferson certainly warned of excessive federal spending, his concerns were with how such debt would negatively impact independent farmers—specifically, family farms that performed their own labor, unlike the plantation class, which depended upon slavery—for the benefit of the elite class. He warned of a government that was beholden to the elite class (even though Jefferson himself was part of, and profited from, the wealthy plantation class). Compare this to today, when the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” is projected to cause our debt to reach 130% of GDP if made permanent by the Senate, primarily due to its provisions regarding tax cuts for the ultra wealthy.9 All this, while gutting key programs that benefit independent farmers and exacerbating economic inequality.10

And, as our national government burdens the public with debt to service the billionaire class, this same corporate class is precisely responsible for the excessive amount of personal debt American households struggle with. As the U.S. economy became financialized from the 1980s onward, wages stagnated and Americans have become increasingly reliant on credit to get by.

“As real worker wages have stagnated, the cost of living has not. In order to bridge this gap the average person relies increasingly on credit. In 1983 the financial sector accounted for 15% of domestic corporate profits. By 2013 that share had risen to 30%. The over-reliance on private credit only benefits those that profit from margin fees and interest. Simultaneously, low-paid wage individuals fall into a dependency upon these lending institutions. That is neither freedom nor liberty.”11

Thus, we see how our current government is promoting an agenda that promotes an elite-ruled market, not a true free market. The wage laborer, the independent farmer, and the middle-class college student all bear the burden of debt, even as the corporate class profits tremendously. And while this corporate class often invokes the words of economic thinkers like Adam Smith to justify their actions, it was Smith himself who warned against the very economic exploitation these elites practice today.

Adam Smith’s warning

Adam Smith is often hailed as the father of modern capitalism, and corporate interests frequently invoke his words to justify their vision of a “free market.” Yet Smith’s actual vision of a free market stands in sharp contrast to the practices of the corporate elite who currently dominate our government. Yes, Smith believed in a free market, but in a true free market. In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith explicitly warned of exploitive private interests. He warned of merchants whose private interests infiltrated government, distorting laws and undermining the very spirit of a truly free market. Smith also understood the threats of monopoly power and big business, contrary to what laissez-faire absolutists may say. Though proponents of the elite class, particularly corporate politicians currently in Congress, claim to follow The Wealth of Nations, they have repeatedly caved to the interests of those who seek to deceive and oppress the public.

Smith, like Jefferson, also warned of how debt could be weaponized by the elites at the expense of the people. He advocated for interest rate caps to prevent the predatory practices of loan companies that continue to undermine our economic freedom today. He supported reasonable laws limiting usury—laws that capped interest rates at a level neither too low to stifle lending nor too high to permit exploitation. As University of California, Irvine banking law professor Mehrsa Baradaran explains:

“Smith recognized that there was a distinction between market capitalism and the financialization of markets, creating complex financial products and prioritizing financial profit over a productive economy. Market capitalism was defined by investments toward production in the ‘real economy’—[such as] the building of railroads… Financialization involves making bets on markets… unproductive activities because all profits stay within finance… In short, as Smith saw as early as 1776, not all debts were socially or economically productive, and those that weren’t shouldn’t be allowed.”12

Perhaps the clearest example of how financialization fostered socially and economically unproductive practices is the 2008 financial crisis. This meltdown occurred when financial institutions prioritized short-term profits through predatory subprime mortgage lending, ultimately triggering a collapse that required a taxpayer-funded bailout. However, to avoid getting into another recap of The Big Short, I will simply link you to my piece from February which dove into this topic further. Additionally, I would encourage you to check out my article detailing how the Clinton administration signed off on a key piece of banking legislation that set the stage for the crisis, a prime example of policy that was heavily influenced by deceptive private interests.

Before neoliberal economic policies were ushered in, limits on usury protected individuals from loan sharks and predatory lenders. That changed when Milton Friedman and other neoliberal economists led the charge against usury laws, believing that “…usury laws were a prime example of government overreach and a drag on the economy.”13 Friedman stated in one 1970 Newsweek column:

“I know of no economist of any standing from [Smith’s time] to this who has favored a legal limit on the rate of interest that borrowers could pay or lenders receive—though there must have been some.”14

Yet Friedman clearly overlooked the writings of Adam Smith, who explicitly supported limitations on interest rates to prevent speculative and reckless lending. That Friedman—an economist who often invoked Smith’s legacy—ignored this fundamental position raises serious questions about his commitment to a truly free market. Rather than advocating for a genuinely competitive economy, Friedman’s vision often aligned with the interests of large private capital, enabling a system where corporate actors, not the public, could only succeed. This is because Friedman, like many selective interpreters of Smith, championed a so-called free market that was only for big business. That is not a true free market, nor is it what Adam Smith believed in.

Thus, if we are to have a true free market, there must be limits on the influence of big business within government. An economy and government dominated by corrupt elites not only defies our nation’s founding principles but also contradicts the vision of a truly free market championed by thinkers like Adam Smith. Unfortunately, as our government enacts one of the most economically regressive budget bills in decades on the very anniversary of our independence, we are reminded once again just how far our leaders have strayed from the true principles of liberty.

And, as inequality deepens and demagogues grow more powerful, Benjamin Franklin’s old warning echoes louder still:

In 1859, Abraham Lincoln delivered one of his most important (yet, often forgotten) speeches before the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society in Milwaukee. The speech, a year before the 1860 election, focused on the topic of “free labor.” Lincoln argued that free labor, in contrast with the system of slavery, promoted individual liberty and economic opportunity. While slavery was centered around the belief that one class of society (specifically, the wealthy and elite slaveowners) was above everyone else, the ideals of free labor were grounded in a fundamental belief that all Americans should be afforded the opportunity to achieve social mobility. In doing so, Lincoln argued that slaveholders and their defenders were the true fomenters of class warfare, reinforcing a fundamental inequality that was socially and economically unacceptable.

Lincoln vs. “Mud-Sill” Theory

While the system of slavery depended on maintaining a sharp divide between economic classes, the ideals of free labor promoted economic opportunity for all. In slavery, there was a class only meant to work and toil for the elites, with no potential for advancement. Free labor offered a system in which all could pursue genuine economic mobility, a system where the wage laborer could reach the status of business owner. It is also in this speech where Lincoln rejects the notion of “mud-sill,” a theory that attempted to justify slavery as necessary for society.

Lincoln recognized a general consensus: society could not exist without labor. The real debate, however, lay in how labor was valued and understood. The elite class argued that “mud-sill” theory was a justification for a segment of society (whether it was underpaid wage laborers or slaves) that was essentially condemned to a lifetime of unrewarding work with no room for mobility. In other words, the economic elites at the time argued that “…in every society there must of necessity be a lower class to provide for the support and maintenance of the upper class.”1 In rejecting mud-sill theory, Lincoln adopted a progressive view on labor and economics. Lincoln built upon this view later in his speech:

Indeed, Lincoln believed in a just economic system that guaranteed equal opportunity for all—one in which an individual didn’t need to be born into wealth to achieve the American Dream. He advocated for an economic structure that leveled the playing field and dismantled systemic barriers—with slavery being the most significant of his time. Lincoln’s free labor philosophy ultimately served as a prototype for the labor movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Thus, the former president laid the groundwork for reformers, union leaders, and Progressive Era policymakers to build upon his vision of economic fairness and individual dignity.

Laissez-faire misinterpretations

While Lincoln’s words offer strong evidence of his support for an economic outlook that afforded opportunity for all, there are those of the laissez-faire view who often selectively quote and misinterpret his words from the very same speech. Particularly, a part of the speech where he acknowledges that some in the free labor system may not achieve such mobility:

Some laissez-faire advocates may interpret this as Lincoln blaming laborers for their own economic stagnation and deeming them undeserving of help. In reality, Lincoln was reinforcing the core principles of free labor’s progressive philosophy.

1. He is acknowledging that some may choose to remain laborers because they find their work economically rewarding enough to thrive (“a dependent nature which prefers it”).

2. Lincoln understood that human beings make mistakes (“improvidence, folly”) in their efforts to achieve economic prosperity. This didn’t mean Lincoln supported an unforgiving, punishing system where those who stumbled should be left to suffer. Lincoln was simply acknowledging, even in a truly just system that ensured equal opportunity for all, individuals could still make errors that hindered their own mobility. That is natural—and precisely what makes us human.

3. Lastly, Lincoln notes that “singular misfortune” could play a role too. This reinforces his progressive vision, where he explicitly acknowledges an inherent inequality in society that may limit personal growth. It is here where Lincoln seeks to reiterate the “free labor” philosophy must ensure those less fortunate (through no fault of their own) can also achieve economic mobility.

Abraham Lincoln advocated for a system that genuinely rewarded hard work—but was neither punishing nor unforgiving. This is precisely what distinguishes “free labor” from unfiltered laissez-faire absolutism.

Modern “Mud-Sill”

Today, “mud-sill” theory is still alive and well—though it has evolved into a new form. In the 21st century, extreme economic inequality, stagnant wages, and shrinking social mobility have tragically become the defining features of the American economy. Neoliberal policies of recent decades—with their emphasis on deregulation, privatization, and corporate power—have hollowed out economic security for millions, especially working-class Americans.

Simultaneously, movements like MAGA have weaponized the anger of those left behind—not by challenging the economic system itself, but by redirecting blame toward cultural “others.” All this, while MAGA leadership pushes budget proposals that double down on the very economic inequalities that fueled its popularity among many in the working class. Thus, the foundational logic of mud-sill remains: that a permanent class of expendable individuals must exist to sustain the wealth and comfort of those above. The names and rhetoric have changed, but the underlying injustice persists.

Indeed, MAGA’s brand of laissez-faire absolutism is the 21st-century successor to the mud-sill theory. Pro-slavery advocates also stoked fear of the “other” to maintain power, convincing poor white Americans that they shared common cause with the elite slaveholding class—when in truth, it was that very class whose interests were against both the enslaved and the white working poor. Today, unlike the pro-slavery elites, MAGA appeals to a multiracial working class—but it now exploits a new fear of “others” to fuel its influence, even as it betrays the very people it claims to represent. As our country once again faces the test of rejecting “mud-sill,” I will leave you with the words of my late father, who warned of mud-sill’s modern form in the shape of laissez-faire absolutism.

Last month marked the 71st anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, when the United States Supreme Court ruled separating children based on race in public schools was unconstitutional. A landmark Supreme Court case, the victory sparked hope for many that our country was moving towards a society which afforded all Americans the same opportunity of economic mobility. Yet, as New Yorkers prepare for the upcoming mayoral election, the city’s public school system remains one of the most segregated in the United States.

As for why this somehow remains the case in one of the most diverse cities in the world, Errol Louis of Spectrum News NY1 may have put it best:

“Perhaps our leaders [are] embarrassed by the fact that our city has been cited for more than a decade as having the nation’s most racially segregated schools and has done little or nothing to implement dozens of reasonable proposals to move in the direction of integration.”1

Indeed, Louis is correct in this assessment. According to the William T. Grant Foundation, “In 2018, 77% of Black and Hispanic students in NYC attended schools that were less than 10% white. In contrast, only 43% of Asian students and 11% of white students attended such schools.”2 In other words, despite “…schools [being] culturally diverse, the population of an individual school is predominantly one specific racial demographic.”3 But why is this? And what are the deeper economic factors behind it?

Segregation through economic inequality

Sure, Brown v. Board of Education ruled American public schools couldn’t racially separate students, but what followed was a calculated, deliberate effort to ensure such segregation persisted. University of California, Irvine law professor Mehrsa Baradaran explains how “de facto segregation” has ensured that the opportunity gap in public education continues to persist:

“While de jure segregation (laws explicitly designating schools white or Black, which had all but disappeared by the 1970s) was clearly prohibited by Brown, de facto segregation (laws, tests, or practices that were on their face neutral but that led to segregation) was easy to design for districts that wished to resist the spirit of Brown.”4

After Brown, efforts to maintain segregation in America increasingly relied on exploiting economic conditions rather than explicit racial laws. According to Jelani Cobb, dean of the Columbia Journalism School, a toxic combination of “…redlining, housing discrimination, and wage disparity conspired to produce segregation without Jim Crow—maintaining all the familiar elements of the past in an updated operating system.”5 Indeed, addressing such separation in both New York and the United States will depend upon addressing the underlying economic conditions that make it possible. Professor Cobb also notes any future conversation of desegregation “…will have to involve the tax code, the minimum wage, and other efforts to redress income inequality.”6 Cobb is correct. And his argument is backed up by economic data. Take a look at the pair of maps below:

What do you notice about these two maps? Generally, the higher the income in a given school zone, the fewer Black and Latino students attend schools there—and vice versa. This trend is clearly across the boroughs, highlighting how deeply intertwined economic and educational inequality are in New York City. Test scores often determine admission into some of the city's most well-resourced public schools—like Stuyvesant and Bronx Science—yet excelling on these exams is far more accessible to families who can afford private tutoring or prep courses. This makes it disproportionately difficult for Black and Latino students, who are more likely to come from under-resourced neighborhoods shaped by generations of systemic exclusion, to succeed on such exams. It also creates barriers for lower-income students of all backgrounds, reinforcing a cycle of inequity. Of course, there will always be the argument that such families should “…pull themselves up by their bootstraps.” The problem is, it’s pretty much near impossible to do that when the legal and economic system is literally designed against your community. As Professor Cobb noted, redlining and housing discrimination fueled a great deal of the inequality that shaped school segregation. But what exactly is redlining?

After the Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) was implemented during the New Deal to help Americans refinance home mortgages that were in default, HOLC staff members would work with local real estate professionals in cities across the country to assign grades to residential neighborhoods that reflected their "mortgage security."7 These grades would then be visualized on color-coded maps. Dr. Robert Nelson of the University of Richmond explained this practice in Mapping Inequality: Redlining in New Deal America:

“Neighborhoods receiving the highest grade of ‘A,’ colored green on the maps, were deemed minimal risks for banks and other mortgage lenders when they were determining who should receive loans and which areas in the city were safe investments. Those receiving the lowest grade of ‘D,’ colored red, were considered ‘hazardous.’ Conservative, responsible lenders, in HOLC judgment, would ‘refuse to make loans in these areas [or] only on a conservative basis.’ HOLC created area descriptions to help to organize the data they used to assign the grades. Among that information was the neighborhood's quality of housing, the recent history of sale and rent values, and, crucially, the racial and ethnic identity and class of residents.”8

At the time, housing discrimination also targeted working-class immigrants. For example, an archived HOLC report on Tompkinsville, Staten Island, bluntly stated that “Italian infiltration depress[es] residential desirability in this area.”9 Another report from Sacramento documented how “Italians predominate but with a sprinkling of Mexicans, Negroes, and Orientals… the subversive character of the population constitutes the area's principal hazard. The area is accorded a 'medial red' grade."10 I come from an Italian-American family in New York City and actually grew up not far from Tompkinsville, Staten Island. While my ancestors were eventually accepted by the system, many continue to face persistent and systemic discrimination today. It is long past time to dismantle these barriers and create equitable opportunities for all who have been left behind.

In addition to redlining, predatory speculators often bought properties in the big cities and then would “sell” the home to a Black buyer for “…three to four times what they had paid.”11 Despite these sales holding out the possibility of owning the home in the future, it was intentionally structured to keep the “buyer” effectively a renter. In other words, a debt trap. And the moment the buyer missed a payment, they would lose the “…house, down payment, and all the work they had put into the property.”12 This, along with redlining, formed the barriers that have shaped both the economic and educational segregation we see in New York City today.

It’s time for all New Yorkers to have a fair shot at economic mobility

Such a system is unsustainable and a betrayal of our values as New Yorkers. It’s time for equitable and pragmatic solutions that can ensure all in our city have an equal opportunity to succeed, regardless of background. Some school districts in the city have attempted to address this issue with some degree of success. For example, District 3 on the Upper West Side prioritized academically struggling students who were eligible for subsidized lunch for a quarter of each school’s seats in the district.13 District 15 in Northwest Brooklyn would go even further, giving students who were homeless and low-income priority for around half of each school’s seats.14 Another potential policy solution is investing in more magnet schools. These are public schools with specialized curricula designed to attract students from different racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds across neighborhoods.15 If further expanded with an emphasis on racial and socioeconomic inclusion, magnet schools can potentially serve as an effective tool to promote integration in our education system.

However, to truly address the root of the problem, the city must confront its affordable housing crisis directly. Many New Yorkers — particularly longtime Black and Latino residents — are being squeezed out of an already discriminatory housing system. Of course, gentrification has only complicated and exacerbated this inequality. Bed-Stuy, Brooklyn, is a prime example of how gentrification has fostered an affordability crisis that has priced out longtime residents. In 1970, the average price for a house sold in Bed-Stuy was $30,000 or less, compared to an average price of $1,000,000 by 2020.16 A 2-bedroom rental in Bed-Stuy would, on average, go for $330 in 198017 but today exceeds $3,500.18 These rent increases have correlated with a drastic reduction in Black residents in Bed-Stuy, who once comprised 74.9% of the neighborhood population in 2000 but have dropped to 40.7% as of 2023.19 One Bed-Stuy native explained how she has personally observed the adverse effects of gentrification,

“I have seen first-hand how the neighborhood that I love has changed so much over time. Gentrification has been ravaging most of Brooklyn, but it has especially hurt the people who have lived in Bed-Stuy forever. The prices have sky-rocketed to extreme highs recently. Renting and buying have become equally troublesome and not sustainable for most people’s salaries. The price for a two-bedroom apartment would be what someone who earns 40k a year brings home every month after taxes. Between rent/mortgage payments, student loans, bills, and childcare, there is no space for social mobility. Gentrification raises the cost of living so only the rich can afford to live in these kinds of spaces and then they move on to the next trendy place and leave the old places completely devoid of the personality that they once had and all of their people are displaced.”20

Some research shows that gentrification can lead to enrollment declines, along with contributing to a growing gap between who lives in a neighborhood and who actually attends its schools.21 In many majority-Black and Latino communities, gentrification technically brings more diversity, but many wealthier newcomers send their children to schools elsewhere. As a result, local schools often remain segregated even as the neighborhood itself changes, while longtime residents face rising economic pressure. This is why any serious approach to reducing school segregation needs to address the larger economic forces shaping both housing and education.

These are just some of the potential ideas for promoting a public school system that gives every New Yorker a fair shot. There will be opposition. There will be economic elites who seek to keep others down and exploit our differences. But public education remains one of the most powerful engines of social mobility. And if we truly believe in the ideals of this country and this city, then finally ending de facto segregation in our schools is not only necessary — it is long overdue.

June 5th, 1968, was one of the most consequential days in American history. Senator Robert F. Kennedy, campaigning for president at a time of great tension and uncertainty across the nation, had just pulled off major victories in both the California and South Dakota Democratic primaries. Amid a brutal war in Vietnam, widespread civil unrest, and the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., Americans sought a leader who could unify a fragmented country.

After a disappointing performance in the New Hampshire Democratic primary, incumbent President Lyndon B. Johnson suspended his campaign for re-election in 1968. This left the staunchly anti-war Minnesota Senator Eugene McCarthy and incumbent Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey as Kennedy’s main opponents for the Democratic nomination. The wins in California and South Dakota gave Kennedy strong momentum heading into that year’s Democratic Convention. Tragically, shortly after delivering a victory speech at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, Kennedy was fatally shot. He died the following day in the hospital.

My own late father vividly remembered that day. He had gone to bed knowing Kennedy had won in California but woke the next morning to learn he had been shot. My great-grandfather, a staunch FDR Democrat, was in tears over the news. He kept repeating to my father, “They shot Kennedy… they shot Kennedy.”

Bobby Kennedy’s death is often viewed as the symbolic end of the New Deal coalition—a coalition that united Americans from vastly different backgrounds. At the time, Kennedy was seen as its leader, building a multi-racial alliance of working-class voters, anti-war protestors, urbanites, rural farmers, civil rights activists, and young university students. Kennedy himself highlighted the symbolism of winning both California and South Dakota that same night in his victory speech:

“The vote here in the state of California… the most urban state of any of the states in our union. South Dakota, the most rural state of any of the states in our union, [being] able to win them both. I think that we can end the division within the United States. What I think is—what I think is quite clear is that we can work together in the last analysis and that what has been going on in the United States over the period of the last three years, the division, the violence, the disenchantment with our society, the division whether it's between black and white, between the poor and the more affluent or between age groups or over the war in Vietnam that we can start to work together. We are a great country… and a compassionate country.”1

Kennedy’s words—perhaps more timely than ever—underscore the need for unity in times of hardship. His platform during the 1968 election promoted economic justice for all as a great unifying force in America. Compare that to today, where many of our current leaders exploit economic pain to deepen social division. For Kennedy, it didn’t matter who you were, what you looked like, where you lived, or how you earned your paycheck—what mattered was a collective fight for economic fairness.

Urban, suburban, or rural—Kennedy understood that the common denominator behind many of the nation’s problems was economic in nature. Today, as the country now suffers from some of the worst wealth inequality since just before the Great Depression, many politicians exploit identity-based differences to deflect attention from the powerful economic elites truly responsible. Kennedy addressed this directly in a 1968 speech at the University of Kansas, early in his campaign:

“And if we seem powerless to stop this growing division between Americans, who at least confront one another, there are millions more living in the hidden places, whose names and faces are completely unknown - but I have seen these other Americans - I have seen children in Mississippi starving, their bodies so crippled from hunger and their minds have been so destroyed for their whole life that they will have no future. I have seen children in Mississippi - here in the United States - with a gross national product of $800 billion dollars - I have seen children in the Delta area of Mississippi with distended stomachs, whose faces are covered with sores from starvation, and we haven't developed a policy so we can get enough food so that they can live, so that their children, so that their lives are not destroyed, I don't think that's acceptable in the United States of America…”2

Perhaps the most powerful element of Kennedy’s message was that he linked economic fairness to opportunity and dignity. He understood that working-class Americans suffering under economic inequality weren’t seeking charity—they were seeking opportunity. He made this clear when he spoke about Appalachia at the same event:

“I run for the presidency because I have seen proud men in the hills of Appalachia, who wish only to work in dignity, but they cannot, for the mines are closed and their jobs are gone and no one - neither industry, nor labor, nor government - has cared enough to help.”3

Amid the civil rights struggles of the 1960s, Kennedy also emphasized that many in the Black community sought the very same economic opportunity. He emphasized how time and time again, those in the Black community would hear from leaders “…ever greater promises of equality and of justice, as they sit in the same decaying schools and huddled in the same filthy rooms - without heat - warding off the cold and warding off the rats.”4

By drawing these connections, Kennedy emphasized that all Americans, regardless of race, longed for opportunity and dignity. This message allowed him to unite a remarkably diverse economic coalition—Italian American mechanics from the Northeast, Black autoworkers in the Midwest, Scotch-Irish coal miners in Appalachia, and Mexican American farmworkers across the Southwest. And he did so in one of the most turbulent and divided years in American history.

Kennedy also questioned how the country measured economic success. Despite hundreds of billions of dollars in Gross National Product (GNP) growth, he argued that many Americans were not benefiting from it. That concern resonates even more today, in a time of skyrocketing inequality.

“Our Gross National Product, now, is over $800 billion dollars a year, but that Gross National Product - if we judge the United States of America by that - that Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl…Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play…It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.”5

Many economists have agreed with Kennedy’s assessment that measures such as GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and GNP all too often fail to capture the economics of well-being. Justin Fox, former editorial director of the Harvard Business Review, emphasized how Kennedy’s critique has resurfaced in the modern debate over measures of true economic growth:

“Although Kennedy’s critique got little attention at the time, it has since become famous, and deservedly so, because it gives succinct voice to almost all the major criticisms of GDP. The three main strands have been these: (1) GDP is, even on its own terms, a faulty measure; (2) it takes no account of sustainability or durability; and (3) progress and development can be better gauged with other metrics.”6

Such criticisms may also help explain why, during the 2024 election, many voters perceived the economy as being in a recession—despite real GDP growing by 2.8% last year.7 Perhaps it is finally time for our leaders to adopt more meaningful measures of economic health, just as Bobby Kennedy urged over 50 years ago.

As we remember Bobby Kennedy, we can learn from his timeless message of economic fairness as a path to unity. In an age of deep polarization, his vision offers a roadmap forward.

Now more than ever, let us all commit ourselves to that vision.

Leave a tip

If you were to ever visit the home I grew up in, you would find the very image that inspired me to pursue my life’s work. That image is what you see right above: President Franklin Delano Roosevelt shaking hands with miner Zeno Santenello in Elm Grove, West Virginia. At the time, Roosevelt presented something to the people of Elm Grove that many of our current leaders lack: the promise that he truly gave a damn. He represented a type of leadership that actually showed up and delivered in communities across the United States. He was committed to showing up and listening to working-class Americans in Appalachia, a region long overlooked by those in power.

While certain pockets of the country grew wealthier, towns across Appalachia were hollowed out and left behind. Today, some of the highest rates of poverty in the United States are concentrated in eastern Kentucky and the bordering counties of West Virginia. According to the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), Appalachia’s median household income stands at $61,688.1 Compare this to the real median household income of the U.S. as a whole, which was reported to be $80,610 in 2023 per data from the Census Bureau.2 The ARC also estimated the overall poverty rate in Appalachia to be 14.3%.3 However, in many parts of the region, the poverty rate exceeds 20%—and in some areas, even 30%—as shown in the ARC map below.

Since the Great Depression, there have been some notable efforts to promote economic development in the region. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Act of 1933 is one of the most well-known examples. Some of you may even remember reading about the TVA in your middle-school social studies textbook. According to the National Archives, this piece of legislation sought to accomplish the following:

“[TVA] was asked to tackle important problems facing the valley, such as flooding, providing electricity to homes and businesses, and replanting forests. Other TVA responsibilities written in the act included improving travel on the Tennessee River and helping develop the region’s business and farming.”4

Indeed, TVA was a major first step in promoting economic opportunity in Appalachia. By the following year, over 9,000 Americans were employed thanks to the act.5 The program also extended to training farmers in new techniques that would help control soil erosion and increase land productivity.6 While an ambitious and positive development for the region, its implementation certainly had its faults. An estimated 3,500 families in eastern Tennessee unfortunately lost their homes due to dam construction, and the federal government failed to help resettle many of those that had been displaced.7

The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 is another example of public investment. Building on the efforts of the TVA, the REA “…brought electricity to rural areas in Appalachia and the South, where there was no market or financial incentive for private capital to invest.”8 The number of rural electric systems in operation doubled within a few years after World War II, while the number of consumers connected more than tripled, providing electricity to 90% of American farms by 1953.9 This critical economic initiative funded many of the electric co-ops that still serve Appalachian communities to this day.10

Despite these efforts, economic pain remained prominent across Appalachia. New York Times reporter Homer Bigart would visit the region in 1963. Just as many workers today feel threatened by automation, miners in eastern Kentucky faced a similar hardship with the rise of technology in the 20th century. Bigart’s reporting painted a picture of communities who hungered for opportunity but were denied it:

“In the Cumberland Mountains of eastern Kentucky, tens of thousands of unemployed coal miners and subsistence farmers face another winter of idleness and grinding poverty. This region was an early victim of automation. Replaced by machines, the miners can find no work. They are forced to live on government handouts… The welfare system has eroded the self-respect of the mountain people. Gone is the frontier bravado, the sense of adventure, the self-reliance that once marked the Kentucky mountaineer.”11

Dr. Randall D. Collins, serving as the health officer for Letcher County, Kentucky, at the time, told Bigart that work relief projects similar to those implemented during the New Deal could help the people of eastern Kentucky “…regain self-respect by earning paychecks through labor performed in the public welfare.”12 This reporting would gain the attention of President Kennedy, who ended up announcing an emergency relief plan for eastern Kentucky not long after the article was published in the Times. President Kennedy would even tap Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr. to oversee the efforts, asking Congress to appropriate $45 million for an accelerated public works program. This proposal from the Kennedy administration promised eastern Kentucky “…increased public health services, a strengthened school lunch program, distribution of surplus food and other commodities, self-help programs to provide jobs, rural housing grants, and other activities.”13 Fiscal conservatives in Congress would ultimately deny the request while simultaneously cutting $285 million from President Kennedy's public works budget.14

The War on Poverty

Kennedy’s successor, President Lyndon B. Johnson, would make economic revitalization in Appalachia a central piece of his War on Poverty initiative. In his first State of the Union address, President Johnson asked Congress to declare an “unconditional war on poverty,” leading to legislation that invested more in American schools, created Medicare and Medicaid, expanded housing subsidies, funded job training programs, and increased Social Security benefits.15

In September of 1964, almost a year after the assassination of President Kennedy, the Johnson administration would have some of its most ambitious funding for Appalachia approved in the Senate. The U.S. Senate would approve over $1 billion in aid for the region, including $850 million for road building, $35 million for the timber industry, $21.5 million for mining, $5 million for water resources, $16 million for vocational education, and $90 million to support federal grants-in-aid.16 However, this funding would face some resistance in the U.S. House, and the chamber wouldn’t approve any aid for the region until March 1965.17 This package came to be known as the Appalachian Regional Development Act and would be signed by President Johnson on March 9th, 1965. The act established the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) cited above, consisting of members representing Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi.18

It’s time to truly invest in Appalachia

While actions undertaken by administrations in the post-WWII era certainly were major steps in promoting economic opportunity, it’s clear that the region is still very much neglected by our leaders. This has been especially the case since the 1980s, when the economic order of the United States shifted significantly to favoring the elites. President Ronald Reagan’s administration made dismantling the Appalachian Regional Commission a prime goal of its economic agenda during the 1980s, claiming that the ARC “…largely completed its job… and that the challenge for Appalachia now is economic development, which should be addressed by the private sector and not government.”19 His administration unsuccessfully proposed eliminating the Appalachian Regional Commission each year during his first term. However, funds appropriated to the commission were significantly reduced from $358 million in 1981 to $149 million in 1985 by the Reagan administration.20 And clearly, decades later, the private sector did not bring about the great prosperity Reagan’s team promised. If anything, big business showed up in Appalachia only to take and had little to give. The organization ReImagine Appalachia perhaps put it best, stating that private interests “…extracted enormous wealth from our region for the profit of owners and shareholders while the region is left with high rates of poverty, unemployment and low wages.”21

But it doesn’t have to be this way. We can and should invest in Appalachia more than ever before. ReImagine Appalachia even published a blueprint for what a New Deal for Appalachia could look like, one that is built on efforts that benefit all. This blueprint outlines how leaders both locally and nationally can come together to generate an economic revival plan that promotes opportunity for all in the region. In fact, many of the ideas suggested look very similar to those enacted during the post-WWII era, enhanced and expanded to ensure no one is left out this time. One of these proposals is the Rural Grid Modernization Program, an upgrade to the Rural Electrification Program.

“It is time for an upgrade: the Rural Grid Modernization Program. Policymakers must invest in a modern rural grid that brings efficient and affordable energy to industries and families. Like the Rural Electrification Program, this program will create tens of thousands of construction, maintenance and utility jobs. Unlike the Rural Electrification Program, this time policymakers must make sure the investment benefits all of us, no matter what we look like or where we live.”22

The policy blueprint also calls for other critical investments, including affordable internet access for all, a revival of the New Deal’s Civilian Conservation Corps to plant millions of plants and trees while creating jobs, the expansion of public transportation, efforts to reduce costs for local farmers, and a guarantee that such public investment includes unionized, well-paying jobs.23

If you're interested in staying up to date on how public policy continues to shape Appalachia, I recommend checking out Mountain State Spotlight, a journal focused on West Virginia politics. I also recommend you check out The Holler by John Russell if you want to hear no-nonsense, working-class news from a man who grew up in the Upper Ohio Valley.

No matter where you live in the country, we should all be paying attention to the future of Appalachia.

Non-profit groups in Appalachia

Last week, Republicans in Congress faced pushback from Americans nationwide for their ongoing attempts to cut Medicaid. One clip that received significant attention over the weekend featured a woman from Youngstown, Ohio confronting U.S. Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL) on these proposed cuts. Congressman Palmer insisted that the GOP budget would ensure Medicaid continued to deliver critical services for struggling Americans across the country. Yet there is one major problem with this claim: the GOP budget plan would clearly cut hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicaid.

Before getting into the details, some of the most damning evidence comes from inside the GOP itself. U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) has perhaps been the loudest voice in opposing these cuts.1 Hawley has sounded the alarm over how such action would betray working-class and low-income Americans, significantly damaging the Republican Party’s credibility. Hawley had the following remarks to share with his colleagues in an op-ed published last week:

“Mr. Trump has promised working-class tax cuts and protection for working-class social insurance, such as Medicaid. But now a noisy contingent of corporatist Republicans — call it the party’s Wall Street wing — is urging Congress to ignore all that and get back to the old-time religion: corporate giveaways, preferences for capital and deep cuts to social insurance.”2

President Trump has called the budget “big and beautiful” and the GOP House Budget Committee is in strong agreement, considering they advanced the bill in a late-night vote on Sunday.3 Hawley, clearly frustrated with his party, understands how deeply unpopular such a move will ultimately be. Other Republicans have voiced concern over this as well, with U.S. Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY) (who ended up voting for the cuts anyway) and several other Congressional Republicans sending a letter to House leadership last month voicing opposition to potential Medicaid cuts.4 These concerns are also supported by an independent analysis of the bill from the Wharton School of Business, which estimated “…$880 billion in cuts from the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over Medicaid and other federal health programs.”5

As such, it is no surprise that Americans across the country do not trust Republicans in Congress to preserve their Medicaid benefits, considering independent analysis of the bill and concerns being expressed directly by GOP officials. This of course includes the woman from Ohio, who claimed that such cuts could put her own life at risk. Olga, a woman from Youngstown who is HIV-positive and disabled, explained in the clip above that she has survived on medication that typically costs $10,000 a month, thanks to vital programs such as Medicaid.

Youngstown, Ohio is no stranger to severe economic pain. It is one of many communities in this country that has far too often been sold out by both the Democratic and Republican establishment. After elites in both parties pushed for the emergence of unchecked free trade, Youngstown would experience significant economic decline. Marilyn Geewax, a journalist originally from Youngstown, expressed frustration with how presidential campaigns come every four years with false promises of prosperity and revitalization in one 2016 piece:

“Every presidential election year, candidates flock to Youngstown, Ohio, to use my hometown as a political backdrop. It's a great place to talk about job losses. Steel mills used to line the Mahoning River for miles, churning out tens of thousands of jobs. One mill after another would shut down. Within five years, the industry was effectively gone from the ‘Steel Valley.’”6

One 2021 study even ranked Youngstown “…the poorest city in Ohio”7 with a poverty rate “…pegged at 35.2 percent.”8 And now, after President Trump himself campaigned heavily on returning towns such as Youngstown to economic greatness, he and his Republican allies are ignoring their concerns. In some cases, Trump allies have even resorted to straight-up mocking the very residents of Youngstown. Take self-proclaimed “investor” and conservative influencer Collin Rugg, a strong Trump ally, who took to social media over the weekend to poke fun at the concerns of Olga. In sharing the clip, Rugg reacted with a “Yikes.” Others then joined in on the mocking, as seen in the comments below:

To a guy like Rugg, left-behind Americans in communities across Ohio and the United States are not worth fighting for. If anything, they feel such Americans are only to be looked down upon and abandoned. Even if that means letting them die. All this, while he takes home a big juicy tax cut that should actually be going to the people of Youngstown. Though, this shouldn’t be surprising, considering Rugg is an out-of-touch elitist.

Of course, Olga isn’t the only Ohioan whose Medicaid is at risk. The Muscular Dystrophy Association recently featured individuals on its social media whose economic independence depends on critical health programs. One of these individuals is Bryce from Dayton, Ohio, who voiced concerns about how the proposed cuts will impact his life:

“Medicaid means everything to me and my family. Medicaid cuts would dramatically change my life if cuts were to happen. I would no longer be a productive person to society and get the care that I need to get out of bed, get a shower. It would also cut my housing. I live in a low-income apartment complex that is suited to my needs with a disability… I live right by my work. If this were to happen and cuts were to take place, I wouldn’t be able to live that independent American Dream.”9

Dayton, Ohio, is another part of the state that has experienced significant economic decline over the years due to deindustrialization. PBS documented Dayton’s history of economic hardship in a 2018 episode of Frontline. Just like Bryce, the people of Dayton are hungry for opportunity and independence. Another woman from Ohio, Shelly Johnson of Columbus, also voiced concerns regarding how Medicaid cuts could disrupt her independence:

“Many think Medicaid is simply government-subsidized health insurance, but for me, and millions of others like me, it is so much more. It allows me to live independently in a home that I own. It pays for modifications like a ramp and roll-in shower that make life’s routines easier. Most importantly, Medicaid pays the wages of my caregivers who support my personal care needs and household tasks. As a 59-year old, it enables me to stay employed, leave the house, and live a fulfilling life. Without it, these things would be impossible because I would be stuck in bed with no one to care for me.”10

They’re not asking for a free ride, they simply want a fair shot to achieve their American Dream. Both Bryce’s and Shelly’s stories deeply resonated with me, as my late father had Muscular Dystrophy and relied on vital health programs to cover the immense cost of care, allowing him to continue working as an attorney despite his disability. Similar health programs helped cover his respiratory machine, which typically costs thousands of dollars our family did not have at the time. This allowed him to continue running his small New York law firm, which primarily served working-class clients and local construction companies. Unfortunately, though, the elites label such programs as “waste.”

What I would like to ask whoever runs Meme The Left, how does taking away key programs that allow the disabled community to be economically independent count as waste? I bet the many truck drivers that my father represented throughout his decades-long career would sure as hell disagree it was “money wasted.” He fought for them, and he could only do so because key health programs helped cover necessary breathing equipment for him to survive and continue working. He damn well generated more value to society in his legal career than someone posting nonsense on social media all day. The same goes for Olga, Bryce, and Sally in Ohio. Their lives all have value, and they rely on Medicaid to not only stay alive but to be productive members of society. More productive than a certain self-proclaimed investor and a guy running some random political meme account. They create actual value for society and our economy.

This behavior is clear proof that the elites backing Trump never gave a damn about the people of Dayton or Youngstown, or really, anyone in Ohio and the rest of the United States. Trump and his corporate allies campaigned in the past three presidential elections about how establishment figures in both parties abandoned the working American. Yet, they are no different than the establishment politicians on both sides who also offered false promises to restore prosperity in these communities. They are just the latest flavor of the month who are finally comfortable revealing it was all for show. It was all to score cheap political points and not about delivering actual results. Trump will no longer face an election, so he doesn’t need the support of Youngstown and Dayton anymore. Now, his elitist allies can laugh while the current administration guts economic programs that promote independence. And, if you look at social media, you’ll see they are already doing that. The mask is finally off.

For the people who will continue to laugh and punch down, I will leave you with these words from Johnny Cash: