Posted tagged ‘Iowa Policy Project’

Climate change impacts showing up now

October 30, 2014

This month marks the fourth October in a row that scientists from across Iowa have penned an Iowa Climate Statement, a brief overview of climate change and its impacts to our state. Since I teach at the University of Iowa as well as work here as an environmental researcher, I am one of the 180 signers of the statement. The theme of this year’s statement was public health.

Health effects of climate change include:

  • The consequences of heavy rainfall — increased exposure to toxic chemicals and raw sewage mobilized and spread by flood waters and mold growing in flooded buildings.
  • Warmer temperatures and higher carbon dioxide levels cause plants to produce not only more pollen, but also pollen with a higher allergen content.
  • New species of mosquitos and ticks in Iowa capable of transmitting diseases have arrived and blue green algae capable of producing toxins has become a bigger problem.

These and other climate-related health effects are documented in the statement.

A free seminar by several Iowa authors of the statement will take place on Friday, October 31, 2014, from 9:15 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. at the state Hygienic Laboratory in Coralville.

As the Iowa Climate Statement 2014 states, action is required:

“ Adopting strong climate‐change policies will play a vital role in diminishing human suffering and illness now and for generations to come.”

IPP-osterberg-75   Posted by David Osterberg, co-founder of the Iowa Policy Project. Osterberg is a professor of environmental health in the University of Iowa College of Public Health. dosterberg@iowapolicyproject.org

Bad math, good math — and Iowa jobs

October 22, 2014

Those 31 points the Iowa Hawkeyes scored last Saturday were something, huh?

It sure feels better when you don’t include Maryland’s 38 points. And that’s the way Governor Branstad counts jobs.

Enough with the bad math, and let’s talk about those Iowa jobs.

The actual job performance of Iowa’s economy is pretty simple to compute from the state’s official spreadsheet, which shows seasonally adjusted, nonfarm jobs, month by month and sector by sector, back to January 2008. You can find that sheet here.

Doing it wrong

As we have pointed out in the past on this blog, the Branstad administration chose to edit the official spreadsheet by adding a special line that only shows increases. No job losses are counted. Ask anyone who’s lost a job whether that sounds reasonable. But when you’ve promised 200,000 jobs in five years, you have to get there somehow.

A snapshot of the key but distorted line is highlighted in the photo at right. Basic RGBThat line, “Gross Over-the-month Employment Gains,” ignores the monthly performance of any job sector showing a decrease. Instead, the increases in the other job sectors each month are added, and the total inserted into the “Gross Gains” total compiled from previous months during the Governor’s current term. Twisting the numbers this way, the Governor has reached 156,500 — almost twice the actual increase since he took office.

In September, the Governor’s math turns a 1,300-increase month into 4,900. A happy result, but false.

Doing it right

The Iowa Policy Project has put out a monthly analysis of state job numbers for 11 years now. And as we point out in our latest Iowa JobWatch, not only is the Governor’s number exaggerated, but there is a better approach that does not tie him to his ambitious and apparently unreachable goal.

If you want to measure progress, you measure everything. And that’s simple: How many jobs were there in the base month, and how many are there in the latest one?

So, for the real math as of September 2014:
— Since the Governor took office in January 2011, Iowa has added 80,000 jobs.
— The pace of job growth in those 44 months has been about 1,800 jobs per month.
— To reach the Governor’s goal of 200,000 by January 2016, the next 16 months would have to show an average monthly increase of 7,500.

More importantly, the best way to look at job growth is to remove the artificial political frame and examine it the way economists would. The Economic Policy Institute came up with a sensible measure, from a relevant starting place: the start of the last recession. Look at the job change from the start of the last recession and compute what would be needed to (1) make up lost jobs and (2) keep up with increased population, which for Iowa is about a 5 percent increase.

In this approach, we can see that as of September 2014:
— Iowa showed a net gain of 31,300 net jobs since December 2007.
— To keep up with population growth, Iowa needed a net gain of 76,800 jobs from the December 2007 level of 1,524,900.
— Iowa has a jobs deficit of 45,500.

Basic RGB

The Governor will do what the Governor wants to do. But that doesn’t mean the rest of the state or its policymakers should take their eye off what’s really happening in our economy.
Owen-2013-57
Posted by Mike Owen, Executive Director

Issues in Waiting: Tax-Increment Financing Reform

October 2, 2014

Basic RGBThis is an excerpt from an interview with IPP’s Peter Fisher on “The Devine Intervention,” KVFD-AM 1400, Fort Dodge. Host Michael Devine discussed tax-increment financing, or TIF, with Fisher, whose reports on this issue have prompted many to call for reform. TIF is one of Iowa’s “Issues in Waiting” — issues discussed year after year, but not resolved. The quotes below are actual quotes from the interview; the questions are paraphrased.

What was the idea behind tax-increment financing, or TIF?

It was originally a tool to help cities redevelop blighted or declining areas and what it did was allowed a city to capture more of the tax revenue from redevelopment when the city undertook some project to try to turn around a declining neighborhood. If they were successful, businesses would come in, the tax base would go up.

And what TIF did was allow the city to use not just the city taxes on all that growth, but the county and school taxes as well for some period of time to pay the city back for their expenses for this project, for redevelopment. And in the long run the county and school districts were better off. The cities got their money back, they got more tax base. That was the idea.

How did the implementation of TIF look?

It worked that way for quite a while. And then about 20 years ago we opened the door to just about anything cities wanted to do by saying well it doesn’t have to be a blighted area, it doesn’t have to be a redevelopment. It just has to be “economic development.” And just about anything cities do it turns out they can call “economic development” and finance with TIF.

Is there a consequence if TIF is abused?

Not really — as long as they are doing something within the law. The county and the school district don’t have any say on whether the city is going to divert their taxes to the city’s TIF fund. And there’s no state regulation either, other than the court system.

To hear the full interview, click here.

For more resources from Peter Fisher and the Iowa Fiscal Partnership about TIF, click here.

Iowa JobWatch: Jobs Rise in August, Still Sluggish

September 19, 2014

IOWA CITY, Iowa — Iowa nonfarm jobs increased in August to 1,553,500, but the unemployment rate remained at 4.5 percent, down from 4.7 percent a year ago. The Iowa Policy Project today released the following statement by research associate Heather Gibney about the latest numbers:

“The month of August saw a very small increase in total nonfarm jobs, which is right in line with the fact that Iowa’s major job sectors lost about the same amount of jobs that were gained. Professional and business services and leisure and hospitality saw the largest gains while construction experienced the biggest loss.”

“It’s also important to look at long-term trends rather than one-month changes. Iowa is now above pre-recession job levels — but those jobs serve a 4.9 percent larger population, according to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). The net job gain since the December 2007 start of the recession is only 28,600 — but 75,400 jobs were needed by now to keep up with population growth. Therefore, the state shows a job deficit of 46,800 jobs.”

Job Growth Perspective

Governor Branstad set a goal of 200,000 new jobs over five years. Iowa’s economy has produced 77,300 net new jobs through the first 43 months of his term. To add the remaining 122,700 jobs, Iowa would need to add 7,200 new jobs per month over the next 18 months, compared to a pace of 1,800 for the first 43 months.

Key Numbers

  • Nonfarm jobs held steady in August at 1,553,500. Nonfarm jobs are 18,000 ahead of where they stood a year earlier.
  • Nonfarm jobs are 25,500 ahead of the May 2008 peak of 1,528,000, and 28,600 ahead of the level at the start of the last recession in December 2007.
  • The unemployment rate remained at 4.5 percent in August but was down from 4.7 percent a year earlier.
  • The labor force — those working or looking for work — rose by 2,400 from July to 1,703,000 and was up 29,800 over 12 months.
  • Initial unemployment claims were 11,445 in August, down 11.2 percent from July and 4.6 percent from a year earlier. The number of continuing claims — 23,053 — was down 6.6 percent for the month and down 7.5 percent for the year.
  • Five sectors posted gains in August led by professional and businesses services and leisure and hospitality (1,200), trade and transportation (500), financial activities (300) and mining (100).
  • These increases were offset by losses of 1,100 in construction, a loss of 600 in education and health and government jobs, a loss of 500 in manufacturing, 200 in other services, and 100 for information jobs.

Key Trends

  • All job sectors except information and manufacturing have shown net gains over the last 12 months. Construction jobs are up 3.2 percent over the year, with changes in other major categories up by less than 2.4 percent over 12 months.
  • 300 jobs were added during the month of August.
  • Iowa averaged a monthly increase of about 1,500 jobs over the last 12 months.
  • For a full year, Iowa has remained above the previous job peak of 1,528,000, reached in May 2008, just before jobs began to plummet during the last recession.

 

Stop politicizing water quality

August 26, 2014

Water quality in Iowa is so bad that any new initiative to improve our waters is probably a good thing. That said, Iowa farm groups’ new initiative to take action on agricultural pollution of our waters comes with a troubling rollout.

Making the announcement with Governor Branstad not only politicizes water quality, something that should be above politics, but masks the governor’s own decision this year to delay action.

The Governor’s veto of $11 million for water quality — funding passed by a divided legislature — makes an important statement about water quality. In addition, the governor also vetoed $9 million in funding for the REAP program, which is used by counties and cities to acquire and protect natural areas and to preserve Iowa’s environment.

Twenty percent of REAP goes to farmers to improve soil and water practices. If you are promoting a voluntary system to reduce nutrient runoff, shouldn’t you make sure farmers have resources to put sensible measures into practice?

The new group established to improve water quality needs to be taken seriously by the environmental community and by all Iowans. But this rollout does not engender trust.

The Iowa Policy Project recently released a report on water quality in Iowa. [See A Threat Unmet: Why Iowa’s Nutrient Reduction Strategy Falls Short Against Water Pollution] We showed that the addition of six new policies to the state’s new Nutrient Reduction Strategy would make it possible for the strategy to succeed.

One of those policies is the kind of effort the new farm group plans to push — bringing attention to the problem. A second policy is more funding, and farm group muscle could improve the chances in the Legislature. However, even if the Legislature acts, as in the 2014 session, legislation still has to get by a governor’s veto.

Maybe the best starting place to build broad support would be to invite an environmental group to the table, rather than a politician in the middle of a heated campaign. We know plenty who could help.

IPP-osterberg-75 Posted by David Osterberg, co-founder of the Iowa Policy Project

Focusing better on new Iowans

July 3, 2014

Oftentimes the topic of immigration reform stirs up heavy debates and preconceived notions about what it means to be an immigrant in the United States. Reality about immigrants, their occupations and contributions to the economy can be misunderstood.

But here in Iowa, we know immigrants are important to our state and our economy. There are 120,000 documented and undocumented immigrants contributing both as workers and as employers. Most immigrants came to find jobs so it shouldn’t be surprising that most are of prime working age, and are working.

Look around your community and you will see them working in grocery stores and delis as butchers and meat cutters, teaching in high schools and colleges, cleaning homes and businesses, and working as computer programmers. Some are small business owners, filling gaps for particular goods and services in Main Street-type businesses.

10371388_10154327977850154_8158749370873517078_nOne big misunderstanding is about the state and local taxes that immigrants pay, regardless of their legal status, on the income they earn, the goods they purchase and the homes where their families live.

It is also estimated that 50-70 percent of undocumented workers — those who do not have legal authorization to work or live in the United States, have federal and state income and payroll taxes withheld from their paychecks.

Our new Iowa Policy Project report estimates that undocumented immigrants annually pay $64 million in Iowa state and local taxes, increasing revenue available for public programs and services, including many services they are unable to access themselves.

Immigration reform enabling work authorization and a path to citizenship for current undocumented residents would bring benefits not only to immigrants but all Iowans. Legal work status would open up better job opportunities and make it more worthwhile to invest in worker education and training. Immigrants would be less susceptible to wage theft and other exploitation by employers.

Legal status would increase earnings for workers and revenues for the state. It would mean that young adults brought here as children (DREAMers) could attend college and get better jobs and it would give immigrant business owners access to more options to start or expand a business.

While the future of immigration reform is uncertain, we can be certain that immigrants contribute to the state’s workforce, economy, tax revenues and communities.

IPP-gibney5464Posted by Heather Gibney, IPP Research Associate

What are U.S. workers missing?

June 23, 2014

Visiting other counties can mean drinking coffee in cafes, museums, night life and relaxing next to the sea. The best trips also include conversations with people from these lands.

I just taught a class in Romania and then visited Scandinavia to see friends and relatives. In both places I talked about work and family life. The first issue that always comes up is paid vacation, which America does not require.

What many U.S. workers may not know is that every other developed country has a legal requirement for paid vacation and holidays. All countries in the European Union require at least four weeks of paid vacation. Austria is the most generous, guaranteeing workers a legal minimum of 22 paid vacation days and 13 paid holidays each year.

U.S. workers have to depend on competition for such benefits. Companies must compete for workers. So in the U.S. the average worker gets 16 paid vacation days and holidays. However, that average is brought down by the fact that 1 in 4 U.S. workers does not have a single paid day off. That would not be allowed in Europe, or New Zealand, or Japan or Canada. In Canada, the federal government requires 19 paid days, and some provinces add additional time.

This data, from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) and USA Today, reflects what I heard in conversations during the last few weeks.

I can hear it now: Raising benefits will cost jobs. Wrong. The CEPR data comes from 2012 when Germany with one of the most generous time-off packages had an unemployment rate of just 5.5 percent when ours was 8.1. It becomes part of the overall marketplace.

Maternity leave is another benefit where the U.S. falls behind. According to the International Labour Organization and a study at McGill University in Canada, the U.S. joins Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, Liberia and Lesotho as countries that provide no financial support for working mothers through their job.

Since Bill Clinton pushed through the FMLA (the Family and Medical Leave Act), a mother in the U.S. can take off 12 weeks to give birth but there is no requirement that the time off be paid. Again when I talked to people on my recent trip, I was amazed that a worker in Sweden can get 420 days to take care of a new baby with 80 percent pay. That can be shared between the mother and father.

Most other countries are not so generous but Germany gives 14 weeks and Denmark requires a full year at 100 percent of pay. Japan demands 14 weeks at 67 percent of pay. In New Zealand, 14 weeks are paid at 100 percent and one can ask for another 38 weeks unpaid. Canada requires 52 weeks, with 17 weeks paid.

These are countries with successful economies. In some, jobs are harder to get than in the U.S. but in others, like Germany and New Zealand, the unemployment rate is lower than ours.

Travel overseas is a good thing. You get to relax, recharge the batteries and come back ready to do your job better.

You also might learn that what we have come to accept as reasonable family and work life in this country is so out-of-step with the rest of the world.

IPP-osterberg-75  Posted by David Osterberg, Founding Director of the Iowa Policy Project


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,685 other followers

%d bloggers like this: