Nationally, the Black unemployment rate remains below historic norms, averaging 6% in the first quarter of 2024. Since 2019, two states—Maryland and Alabama—stand out as consistently having Black unemployment rates below the national average. Among states where Black workers comprise at least 5% of the labor force, the state with the lowest Black unemployment rate has been either Maryland or Alabama for the last 13 quarters (back to 2021 Q1). In fact, these two states have had the lowest and second lowest Black unemployment rates (not always in the same order) for eight of the last nine quarters (from 2022 Q1 to 2023 Q4).

Despite the remarkable similarity in unemployment rates shown in Figure A, Black workers in Maryland and Alabama may not be as equally well off as they appear to be. Figure B reveals that between 2018 and 2023, a much larger share of Maryland’s Black population was employed than Alabama’s. In 2023, the employment-to-population ratio (EPOP) in Maryland was 64.6%, compared with just 55.5% in Alabama and 59.6% for the United States as a whole. 

If Black unemployment rates are so similar in both states, why are employment-to-population ratios so different? Because of fundamental differences in each state’s approach to social and economic policy. While Alabama adopts the Southern economic development strategy, for example, Maryland does not. This strategy seeks to disempower workers—especially Black and brown workers—to ensure employers can extract their labor for as little compensation as possible. In practice, this translates to higher rates of incarceration in Alabama than in Maryland, especially for Black men. Alabama has no minimum wage, compared with Maryland’s $15 per hour wage floor. Alabama lacks pro-worker, family-supportive labor policies like Maryland’s paid sick days and paid family and medical leave laws. And Alabama underinvests in public services.

Read more

As with young college graduates, young high school graduates are experiencing a much stronger labor market today than before the pandemic and at any point since 2000. The fast economic recovery from the pandemic shock is a direct result of the aggressive fiscal policy response that matched the scale of the problem—in stark contrast to policy responses following previous recessions.

In this blog post, we start by examining employment and enrollment outcomes for young high school graduates, defined as workers ages 18 to 21. We then analyze their short- and long-run trends in unemployment, underemployment, and wages, looking at those with only a high school degree and who are not enrolled in further schooling.1

To most accurately capture the choices that young high school graduates are making, we include all young people between the ages of 18 and 21 who have less than a bachelor’s degree (including those with some college) in our initial sample. We group this population into four categories: “employed only” and not enrolled in further schooling, “enrolled only” and not employed, employed and enrolled, or “idled” (not enrolled and not employed, which includes the unemployed). Among these young high school graduates, most are either “employed only” and not enrolled in further schooling (32.7%) or “enrolled only” and not employed (31.1%). Since 1989, the share of young high school graduates who are “employed only” has fallen 11.8 percentage points, while the share of those who are “enrolled only” has risen 10.1 percentage points. As of March 2024, the share of young high school graduates who are employed and enrolled (21.5%) and idled (14.7%) remains roughly similar from 1989 (21.0% and 13.5%, respectively).

Read more

Companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year hiring professional union-busters to campaign against and defeat union organizing drives. However, only a fraction of this spending is publicly reported because of loopholes and other weaknesses in the law and its enforcement.

A new report by the Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) found that the Office of Labor Management Standards (OLMS)—which oversees and enforces the union-buster (persuader) reporting requirements—“did not effectively enforce persuader activity requirements to protect workers’ rights to unionize.” While the report rightfully explains that more work must be done, there are many reasons the current OLMS should be commended for taking meaningful steps toward meeting its responsibility, and the report should be viewed as a roadmap for the agency moving forward. 

OLMS is a tiny agency of fewer than 200 employees charged with enforcing the many provisions of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), which include persuader reporting, union financial reporting, ensuring fair union elections, certifying compliance with labor standards as a condition of federal transit funding, and more. However, since its inception, OLMS has overwhelmingly prioritized enforcing the LMRDA’s union compliance provisions while failing to apply the same level of scrutiny required under the law to employers and union-busters. The Inspector General (IG) report makes clear that OLMS must begin allocating its resources more equitably to fulfill its obligation to protect the right of workers to engage in collective bargaining, mutual aid, and union representation.

Read more

Since the early 2000s, many states have introduced significant voucher programs to provide public financing for private school education. These voucher programs are deeply damaging to efforts to offer an excellent public education for all U.S. children—and this is in fact often the intention of those pushing these programs. In this post we argue that: 

• Public education is worth preserving—it should be seen as one of the most important achievements in our country’s history and crucial for the social and economic welfare of future generations. 
• The economic logic behind voucher programs is weak; it rests on ideological commitments to markets over public provision of goods and services, even in realms of activity where the virtues of markets do not hold—like public education. 
• Most damagingly, introducing significant voucher programs has gone hand in hand with steep declines in public school spending relative to states that have not adopted these policies.
  • This spending stagnation has had profound effects in generating larger “adequacy gaps” in school funding in voucher states. 

• Paradoxically, even while they take resources away from public schools, many newly introduced voucher programs could result in more total state spending in coming years.  

• • This would be a particularly perverse result given the expansive research literature showing that vouchers do not improve educational outcomes. In essence, states that have introduced large-scale voucher programs are looking to substitute a more expensive and less effective system for educating kids than public education. The only reason for this policy thrust is ideology rooted in hostility to public education. 

Background on public education and the voucher debates 

Universal public education was perhaps the most important reason why the United States became the richest country in the world in the 20th century. As Claudia Goldin, the most recent Nobel Prize winner in economics, has written:  

At the dawn of the twentieth century the industrial giants watched each other cautiously. The British sent high-ranking commissions to the United States and the United States sent similar groups to Britain and Germany. All were looking over their shoulders to see what made for economic greatness and what would ensure supremacy in the future… Earlier delegations focused on technology and physical capital. Those of the turn-of-the-century turned their attention to something different. People and training, not capital and technology, had become the new concerns…For the twentieth century to become the human capital century required vast changes in educational institutions, a commitment by governments to fund education, a readiness by taxpayers to pay for the education of other people’s children, a belief by business and industry that formal schooling mattered to them, and a willingness on the part of parents to send their children to school (and by youths to go). The transition occurred first in the United States and was accompanied by a set of “virtues” or principles, many of which can be summarized by the word “egalitarianism.” 

In the 21st century, unfortunately, too many policymakers seem determined to squander this legacy by starving public education of money and legitimacy, often in the name of “school choice.” Their central claim (when they bother to make one with any clarity) is that public provision of goods or services is ineffective by definition and that a dose of private, market-like competition will lead to better schooling outcomes for the nation’s children.  

Read more

Average hourly wage growth has exceeded inflation for 12 straight months, according to new Bureau of Labor Statistics data released this morning. This real (or inflation-adjusted) wage growth is a key indicator of how well the average worker’s wage can improve their standard of living. As inflation continues to normalize, I’m optimistic more workers will experience real gains in their purchasing power.

The dark blue line in the figure below plots year-over-year real hourly wage changes for all private-sector workers.

Year-over-year real wage changes measure the percent change in wages in one month compared with the same month a year prior. Monthly or even quarterly changes in wages are notably more volatile. While shorter-term measures are valuable to capture very recent changes, this year-over-year measure provides a more stable and longer-term perspective on the state of real wage growth.

As the figure shows, average real wages rose sharply at the onset of the pandemic, but that’s because the bottom dropped out of the labor market when millions of lower-wage workers lost their jobs. Average real wages then fell sharply in the pandemic recovery as many of those lower-wage workers returned to work, pulling down the average. Real wage growth continued to decline as inflation rose steadily due to supply chain bottlenecks and shifts in consumer demand. As quickly as inflation rose—peaking at 9.1% in June 2022—it fell, hitting 3.0% in June 2023.

Nominal wage growth is the year-over-year growth in wages, not adjusted for inflation. The Federal Reserve looks at that measure for signs of wage-driven inflationary pressures. What’s clear is that nominal wage growth has been steadily decelerating over the last two years, as shown in the lightest blue line in the figure. The latest data find nominal wage growth at 3.9%, just a bit above the 3.5% long-run target for wage growth that is consistent with the Fed’s inflation target (2.0%) plus productivity growth (likely around 1.5%).

While nominal wage growth is an important indicator for Fed policymakers to measure signs of labor market slack and inflationary pressures (and these remain relatively muted), real wage growth is what matters for workers’ living standards. On average, the data are clear: wages have been beating inflation for 12 months now.

Looking beyond the average, production/non-supervisory workers—roughly the bottom 82% of the wage distribution—started seeing positive real wage growth two months earlier in March 2023, now 14 months in a row (not shown). It’s not surprising that those more moderate-wage workers experienced faster wage growth as other research has shown that lower-wage workers had the strongest wage growth during the pandemic, which is quite unusual in recent U.S. history. These gains for workers are encouraging—and something I hope continues.

Volkswagen workers’ decisive recent union election victory in Chattanooga, Tennessee, makes them the first Southern U.S. auto workers to unionize a foreign-owned auto factory. Their success could also mark a historic turning point for generations of Southern workers seeking to improve their jobs and transform their states’ economies.

There are also signs that vigorous enforcement of federal labor law and other pro-worker federal policies, bolstered by the Biden administration, are contributing to a more level playing field for workers attempting to organize in the South.

But a long history of exploitation will take a strong, national labor movement to overcome. For decades, Southern state governments have promised corporate employers the opportunity to profit from the exploitation of local workers. The promise has hinged on a package of state policies designed to enrich the powerful few and maintain economic and racial inequalities, at the expense of all workers. As detailed in a new series of EPI reports, this Southern economic development model has been characterized by low wages, low corporate taxes, lax regulation of businesses, and extreme hostility toward unions. 

Despite this hostility, generations of Southern workers have fought to organize unions, at times achieving important but limited success. More often, intense employer repression of unions has blocked or crushed Southern workers’ organizing efforts, while state lawmakers have enacted policies to restrict collective bargaining rights in the South. As a result, Southern states have some of the lowest rates of union coverage in the country. Figure A shows that, while union coverage rates stand at 11.2% nationally, rates in 2023 were as low as 3.0% in South Carolina, 3.3% in North Carolina, 5.2% in Louisiana, and 5.4% in Texas and Georgia.

Perhaps the most ambitious of past efforts to organize Southern workers was Operation Dixie, launched 78 years ago this month, when multiple unions committed to organizing millions of workers in major Southern industries. Though well-resourced and determined, the unions that embarked on Operation Dixie were ultimately defeated by Southern economic and political elites, who used state power to assist employers in opposing unions while stoking racism to divide Black and white workers.

The failure of Operation Dixie allowed Southern elites to further entrench racism and exploitation in state economic policies for subsequent generations. Today, however, emerging successful efforts to organize Southern workers—despite familiar opposition from employers and Southern Republican elected officials—suggest that the present could be a new moment of opportunity for workers to build the collective power necessary to upend the failed Southern economic development model.

Read more

Download this article as a PDF

This essay was originally published in the Point/Counterpoint section of the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management and can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22545.

Racial disparities in unemployment are a defining feature of the U.S. labor market. Since the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) began reporting a Black unemployment rate in 1972, it has consistently been about double the white unemployment rate. On average, since unemployment rates decline with increasing levels of education, racial disparities in unemployment have commonly been attributed to observed racial differences in educational attainment or skills. However, the persistent 2-to-1 Black-white unemployment ratio is largely unexplained by observable factors like education or skills. In fact, the 2-to-1 ratio between Black and white unemployment rates exists at each level of education, across age cohorts, and for men and women, suggesting that broader structural factors, including racial discrimination and unequal bargaining power, lie at the root of persistent inequality in labor market outcomes between Black and white Americans.

The persistence of the Black-white disparity in unemployment makes it an ideal target for equity-focused policymaking. However, the idea that the unemployment rate gap is largely the result of a Black-white human capital gap has dominated decisions about the appropriate policy levers for closing the gap. As a result, most interventions focus on individual acquisition of additional skills or education rather than removing structural barriers to more equitable outcomes. This human capital-centered approach also undergirds the long-standing view that narrowing racial disparities in unemployment is outside the purview of the Federal Reserve (“the Fed”)’s legal mandate to maximize employment while maintaining price stability.

Read more

The labor market for young college graduates today is stronger than it was before the pandemic and has been for quite some time. This strong recovery was not guaranteed—instead, it was a direct result of an aggressive fiscal policy response to the pandemic’s economic shock. This bounceback—not just for young college graduates but for all workers—has been much faster than recoveries following recessions over the past 30 years, when fiscal policy was not used at scale.

In this blog post, we first examine employment and enrollment outcomes to determine what young college graduates are doing. We then analyze the short- and long-run trends in unemployment, underemployment, and wages for young college graduates—defined as workers ages 21 to 24—with only a four-year college degree and who are not enrolled in further schooling.1

Read more