Iowa’s continuing jobs crisis

The last time the unemployment rate was this high, Charlie Chaplin was starring in Modern Times, and Jesse Owens was upstaging Adolf Hitler at the Berlin Olympics.

In the week ending June 13, another 9,516 Iowa workers filed for unemployment insurance. This brings the total new claims since the start of the COVID recession to over 350,000, or one-fifth of the labor force.

The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for Iowa in April (the latest month for which data is available) was 10.2 percent, but that is a serious undercount for two reasons:

First, it misses those who, faced with such a dismal job market or family commitments, have dropped out of the labor force altogether. If you are not actively looking for work, you don’t get counted as unemployed. In April, Iowa’s labor force participation rate (the share of the working age population who are working or looking for work) dropped below 70 percent for the first time since the Great Recession.

Second: misclassification. In calculating the April unemployment rates, the Bureau of Labor Statistics misclassified those furloughed or unable to work because of family commitments as “employed but unable to work.”

If we take these factors into account, the real unemployment rate in Iowa is probably closer to 15 percent. The last time the unemployment rate was this high, Charlie Chaplin was starring in Modern Times, Jesse Owens was upstaging Adolf Hitler at the Berlin Olympics, and the cement in the Hoover Dam was not yet dry.

Colin Gordon is senior research consultant for the Iowa Policy Project (IPP), and a professor of history at the University of Iowa. He has provided job and work-life issue analysis for IPP since the organization started in 2001.

Encourage Iowans to seek both jobless, housing benefits

The new rental and mortgage assistance program offers relief in one breath to Iowans economically harmed by COVID-19, and then snatches it away in the next.

Amidst the worst employment crisis since the Great Depression, Governor Kim Reynolds and her colleagues seem fixated not on the magnitude of the crisis, but on the generosity of the CARES Act unemployment programs and the obstacle they apparently pose to getting Iowans back to work.

First, Iowa Workforce Development issued a chilling directive (from which they have now retreated) which very nearly suggested that only those actually laid out by the virus had any claim on unemployment insurance. Now the new “Iowa Eviction and Foreclosure Prevention Program,” (which offers rental and mortgage assistance to households “at risk of eviction or foreclosure due to a documented COVID-19 related loss of income”) actually disqualifies those receiving unemployment insurance from applying.

The logic here is difficult to fathom. Those thrown out of work by the pandemic are struggling to make ends meet, and to sustain rent or mortgage payments. Aren’t these exactly the Iowans who should be eligible for a program of rental or mortgage assistance? Instead, the new program offers assistance to “Iowans who have been economically impacted by COVID-19,” in one breath and then snatches it away in the next — penalizing and stigmatizing those most at need by treating receipt of the federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (PUC) benefit ($600 a week through July 25) like a failed drug test.

But even if we put the savage inequity of this aside, the Governor’s evident distaste for the federal supplements to unemployment insurance is just bad fiscal policy. Let’s do the math. As of this week, 178,619 Iowans are receiving regular unemployment benefits and another 17,545 are receiving Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA).  The PUA base benefit is paid for with federal dollars, and recipients under both regular UI and the PUA also get the $600 PUC benefit through July. That’s an inflow of over $120 million a week, from the federal treasury into the pockets of working Iowans.

If we assume an effective state income tax rate of 2.3 percent and effective sales tax rate of 5.3 percent (both based on estimates by the Institute on Tax and Economic Policy for Iowans earning between $22,000 and $40,000/year), that’s a boost to state income tax receipts of $2.8 million dollars a week,[1] and a boost to state and local sales tax receipts of $6.4 million dollars a week. In the seven weeks before the PUC expires July 25, that’s a net revenue of gain of $64.5 million — or enough to pay for the mortgage and rental assistance program (which has been allotted $22 million of Iowa’s CARES Act funds) almost three times over.

And these are conservative estimates. The unemployment totals do not include the over 150,000 UI (including those from the last two weeks) that have been filed but not yet processed. They do not include the retroactive benefits payable to those qualifying for UI. They are based on the minimum monthly benefit under the PUA. And they do not include the stimulus or tax revenue impact of state-funded UI benefits.

For the health and safety of working Iowans, we should be encouraging and enabling as many as possible to qualify for unemployment benefits. And, as long as federal government is picking up the tab, we should jump at the chance to backfill state and local budgets with the tax revenues that accompany such benefits.

[1] The state’s June 3 fiscal update echoes this estimate, attributing a $31.4 million increase in state income tax receipts over the 10-week period from March 19 to June 2 ($3.1 million a week) to withholding from UI benefits. This estimate is slightly higher because it includes the withholding from state-funded benefits as well.

Colin Gordon is senior research consultant for the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project. He is a professor of history at the University of Iowa.

Losing jobs and health access

As Iowa’s unemployment rate climbs towards numbers not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s, we are shedding health coverage — in the midst of a sustained public health crisis — almost as fast as we are shedding jobs.

One of the cruelest ironies of the COVID-19 unemployment crisis is that, alongside the job losses, many workers and their families are also losing health coverage.

In Iowa, almost two-thirds (64 percent) of the nonelderly population rely on employment-based health insurance. As Iowa’s unemployment rate climbs towards numbers not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s, we are shedding health coverage — in the midst of a sustained public health crisis — almost as fast as we are shedding jobs.

Even in good times, our crazy patchwork of health coverage — job-based care for most, Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for low-income families, the ACA “marketplace” for others, and no coverage at all for the rest — is an engine of inequality. The better the job, as a rule, the better the health coverage. And in bad times, that coverage can easily disappear. Our reliance on job-based coverage, as one health policy expert famously put it, is like an umbrella that melts in the rain.

By one estimate (through May 14), about half of the 300,000 Iowans who lost their jobs in the COVID-19 recession also lost their health insurance. And this is a conservative estimate, as it does not count family members who might have relied on the same coverage and it is based only on those who lost their jobs and filed an unemployment claim.

These workers have some options — although the interruption of coverage alone is a frightening prospect in these troubled times. A lucky few might be able to pick up coverage through another family member who remains employed (and insured). Those losing job-based coverage have the “COBRA” option of continuing coverage by paying the full premiums themselves. But this is a costly option (the annual premium for job-based family coverage in Iowa is over $18,000) that few can afford.

Most displaced workers will turn to public programs. Iowa’s Medicaid program offers coverage to adults earning less than 138 percent of the federal poverty level ($16,791 for an individual, $28,888 for a family of three), and Medicaid and CHIP cover children in families with incomes up to 302 percent of the federal poverty level ($65,594 for a family of three). Unemployment benefits count towards this threshold, but the supplemental $600/week in Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (available through the end of July) does not.

Those whose family incomes fall above the Medicaid or CHIP thresholds have the last option of the Affordable Care Act “marketplace” insurance. Iowa’s health insurance exchange is a “federally facilitated” marketplace, which means it cannot allow open enrollment outside the conventional enrollment window in November.

But loss of a job (and job-based insurance) does qualify for off-cycle enrollment, and the premium assistance available for those purchasing at least a bronze plan on the exchange can substantially reduce costs for those with income under three to four times the poverty level. But here again there is a catch: Unemployment benefits count as income in determining both eligibility for ACA assistance and the amount of the assistance.

All this underscores the inequity and inefficiency of our job-based health care system. It is uneven and unreliable. And it fails at its most elemental goal: to protect working Iowans from risks that are beyond their control.

Colin Gordon is senior research consultant for the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project (IPP) and a professor of history at the University of Iowa. He has led IPP’s State of Working Iowa analyses since 2001, and is author of Dead on Arrival: The Politics of Health Care in Twentieth Century America, and Citizen Brown: Race, Democracy, and Inequality in the St. Louis Suburbs.

Historically high: Jobless claims vs Great Recession

New unemployment claims are trending down, but still rising and in the latest week were still nearly as high as the worst week of the Great Recession.

The pace of new unemployment claims slowed in Iowa to 13,040 for the week ending May 16, but still nearly as high as new claims in the worst week of the Great Recession. Meanwhile, the running total of new claims since mid-March — at 313,150 — is about 18 percent of Iowa’s entire labor force.

On top of that, Iowa has slowly begun to process claims for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA), the federally funded benefits for those ineligible for regular UI. In the week ending May 9, there were 15,219 Iowans on continuing PUA claims and 4,552 new applications.

The PUA has enormous potential for the self-employed, independent contractors, platform or “gig” workers, and new entrants to the labor force. It pays a weekly benefit of between $200 and $590 (depending on earnings and dependents). Once approved, recipients can received up to 39 weeks of benefits — retroactive to early February and running through December. Receipt of PUA benefits brings with it another $600 month in Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (PUC), the federal top-off that runs through the last week of July.

All of this is funded entirely with federal dollars — making it an important source of economic stimulus for the state as well.

But the rollout of the PUA has been slow. Initial applicants were summarily rejected by Iowa Workforce Development and the first payments did not trickle out until almost two months after the program was put in place. And the number of new and continuing PUA claims in Iowa (just under 20,000) as of this morning is very low given the number of Iowans that could benefit from this program (taken together, those reporting some form of self-employment income and new entrants probably account for about 20 percent of the labor force). Under normal conditions, Iowa pays unemployment claims to only about 41 percent of the unemployed. The PUA could and should extend that coverage dramatically.

Colin Gordon is senior research consultant for the Iowa Policy Project and a professor of history at the University of Iowa.

Faster infection pace, fewer limits

Despite problems with testing, we are able to know where there have been major increases in identified cases.

A number of Iowa counties are seeing a surge in coronavirus cases, even as the Governor continues to reopen the Iowa economy and further relax social distancing requirements.

In Wapello County, cases soared from 10 on April 28 to 306 two weeks later. Over that same time period, Crawford County saw an increase from 21 to 207, and Sioux County from 8 to 103. Yet instead of reinstituting social distancing in those hot spots, the Governor has expanded her relaxation of requirements on businesses from 77 counties to all counties statewide.

Given the problems and delays with testing, and the lack of widespread testing, it is difficult to know just how many Iowans are actually infected with the coronavirus, and whether there are other emerging hotspots that remain unidentified. But we do know where there have been major increases in identified cases. For the most recent two-week period, the table below shows the 16 counties with the highest number of new cases per 100,000 population over the past two weeks (through May 12).

When adjusted for population, we see that many rural counties are experiencing more rapid growth than urban centers, many of which (Linn, Johnson, Scott) did not even make this list. Half the counties on the list (indicated by shading) are among the 77 counties where restrictions were first relaxed on May 1.

Most of those eight counties we identified last week as likely hot spots based on the growth in cases up to that point. New additions to the list are Monroe and Osceola, where the total number of cases is not large, but where we may be seeing the beginning of a surge. Six of the eight shaded counties saw their case count more than double in the past week.

It is easiest to see which counties have grown the fastest if we compare the cases per 100,000 population and how this number changed since the county first hit 50 cases. The counties are compared on the basis of when the surge began in their county. Wapello and Crawford have been growing at much the same rate as Woodbury, notably one of the top counties in the entire country in terms of the size and rate of the coronavirus surge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Fisher is research director for the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project in Iowa City.

Another 25K Iowans file unemployment claims

At a moment when going back to work poses grave public health risks, it is in our best interests to be generous in determining eligibility for benefits.

In the week ending May 2, another 24,693 Iowans applied for unemployment insurance. That brings the total new claims for unemployment insurance, over the last seven weeks, to 285,741.

Iowa’s insured unemployment rate (the share of the labor force receiving unemployment benefits, which does not include this week’s new claims) is now 11 percent. Since mid-March almost 1 in 5 Iowa workers (more than 18 percent of the non-farm labor force) have filed an unemployment claim.

This total does not include those who have dropped out of the labor force. It does not include those unable to access our overwhelmed unemployment insurance application system.

And it does not include those discouraged from even applying by Iowa Workforce Development’s chilling “get back to work” directive. The outcry against that directive — so clearly at odds with both Iowa law and the unemployment crisis at hand — has forced IWD to soften its tone. The “FAQ” for workers on IWD’s website now acknowledges that unsafe working conditions, and the failure of employers to provide adequate protection, constitute valid reasons for leaving a job and claiming benefits.

As the jobs crisis deepens, we need to remember that unemployment insurance is intended as a safety net, as a means of sustaining incomes through periods of both personal misfortune and broader economic troubles.

We are at a moment when going back to work poses grave public health risks, and when the federal government has stepped up to cover most of the costs. Under these conditions, it is in our best interests to be generous in the determination of eligibility for benefits — and to let Iowa workers displaced by this crisis make the right decision for themselves, for their families, and for their communities.

Colin Gordon is senior reearch consultant for the Iowa Policy Project, and a professor of history at the University of Iowa.

Demanding a healthy way to go back to work

The state’s “back to work” directive sends the wrong public health message at exactly the wrong time. And in clear defiance of Iowa and federal standards, it puts economic and physical security of workers at unnecessary risk.

Iowans want to get back to work. But — much more importantly — they want to get back to work under conditions that protect their health and safety, and the health and safety of their families and communities.

Over the past few weeks, we have questioned both the metrics and the lack of transparency behind the state’s decision — virtually alone among its peers — to stop short of a “shelter in place” order. Those concerns are now magnified by announcement this week that Governor is lifting social distancing measures in 77 of Iowa’s 99 counties — this despite the fact that the caseload in Iowa continues to grow, that two of Iowa’s metros (Sioux Falls and Waterloo-Cedar Falls) are currently among the worst “hot spots” in the entire country, and that a sudden influx in social interactions, as the Iowa Medical Society warned earlier this week, “is all but certain to cause a spike in new COVID-19 patients and potentially overwhelm our health care system.”

Even more troubling is the clear evidence that public health policy is being driven by largely economic concerns. At the same moment as the Governor’s office announced the relaxation of restrictions, Iowa Workforce Development (IWD) chimed in with a chilling directive for unemployed Iowans — warning not only that “Iowans who refuse to return to work without good reason when recalled will lose eligibility to unemployment benefits,” but that those who continued to draw benefits in defiance of this directive faced “serious consequences for fraud, including fines, confinement and ineligibility for future unemployment benefits.” IWD even created a webform where employers are encouraged to “report employees who refuse to return to work without good reason or who quit their jobs.”

The IWD directive goes on to list a narrow range of “good cause” reasons for remaining unemployed — including a positive COVID test (for the worker or a member of her or his household), and the loss of child care or transportation to work because of COVID-19.

This directive — and the message it sends to working Iowans — is bad public health policy in a state where the most severe COVID outbreaks have occurred at workplaces. But, just as importantly, it offers a fundamentally flawed misreading of both Iowa law and the terms of the federal Families First and CARES Acts.

Iowa Code (871-Chapter 24.26 [96]) is crystal clear on this point, and offers a much broader set of conditions and options. A person who leaves a job due to “unsafe working conditions” or “intolerable or detrimental working conditions” cannot be considered to have voluntarily quit the position, which would make the worker ineligible for unemployment benefits. The determination of what is “unsafe” or “intolerable” depends upon both the workplace and the worker. A reasonable standard of safety, under these conditions, might be the guidance offered by the Centers for Disease Control or the Occupational Health and Safety Administration for best practices — regarding social distancing and protective equipment — for workplaces. Yet, while IWD is directed to discourage claims and applications, there is no accompanying expectation that such safety guidelines are mandatory in Iowa workplaces.

Federal law offers the same basic assurance. For workers collecting regular UI, the federal “prevailing conditions of work” provision prohibits a state from denying UI to a worker who refuses work if the “the wages, hours, or other conditions of the work offered are substantially less favorable to the individual than those prevailing for similar work in the locality.” This provision covers “work rules, including health and safety rules” and situations where there has been a change in the existing conditions of work. According to the legislative history of the provision, it “requires a liberal construction in order to carry out the Congressional intent and the public policy embodied therein,” and the “the claimant should be given the benefit of the doubt.”

In turn, IWD’s directive flies in the face of the federal programs (and money) designed to both prop up Iowa’s unemployment system through the crisis and offer a more generous approach to eligibility. The Families First Act (passed in mid-March) offered emergency grants to states (including Iowa) for the administration of unemployment under the condition that states streamline their application process and “demonstrate policies to increase access to unemployment compensation.” The Act also requires a report, due at this time next year, detailing how progress on increased access.

The CARES Act (passed in late March) established three new unemployment programs: Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) for those workers (self-employed, gig workers) not conventionally eligible for unemployment insurance; Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (PUC), which adds $600 per week (through the end of July) to all unemployment claims paid under either regular UI or the PUA; and Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC), a 13-week extension of state UI benefits.

The programs extended the logic of the Families First Act: States were expected to be expansive and generous in their approach to eligibility for unemployment insurance, making it both possible and economically-feasible for workers to shelter in place and avoid the risks posed in many settings by continued employment. Importantly, the CARES Act attached a list of COVID-related conditions (similar to that in the IWD directive) to the PUA program, but not to the expansion or extension of regular UI benefits.

The IWD’s “Back to Work” directive is bad public policy. On public health grounds, it sends exactly the wrong message at exactly the wrong time. And, in clear defiance of Iowa and federal standards for unemployment insurance eligibility, it puts the economic security and physical health of Iowa workers at dire and unnecessary risk. The Governor and Iowa Workforce Development should reverse course and protect our workers and their families.

Colin Gordon, senior research consultant for the Iowa Policy Project, is a professor of history at the University of Iowa.

Governor’s metrics still raise questions

Iowa’s social distancing policy appears to be hostage to an unexplained and backward-looking indicator for hospitalizations.

(UPDATED, APRIL 16)

The latest “metrics” from the Governor’s office once again raise serious questions. A few days ago it seemed clear that two or three of the state’s six regions would very soon reach the magic number 10, at which point shelter-in-place is considered justified by the Governor and the Iowa Department of Public Health, according to their guidelines. Instead, as of April 15, regions 1 and 6 remained stuck at 8 and 9, respectively, and region 5 had fallen to 8. Why? Because the hospitalization rate score, which by deduction must have been at 3 for all 6 regions just a week ago, was suddenly downgraded to 1 in two regions, and 2 in two others.

Today, April 16, things changed again. Lo and behold, Region 6 made it to 10. And in fact the Governor followed through with something akin to shelter in place, with most kinds of gatherings limited to families, not groups of 10 or fewer. No additional business closures were announced, however. Meanwhile, Region 5 jumped two points with new outbreaks at two more nursing homes, but then lost a point because the hospitalization score apparently was lowered again, without any explanation. So it remains at 9, even though it is maxed out on all criteria except hospitalizations.

No explanation of the hospitalization score has been forthcoming beyond the vague definition in the “Guidance” memo unearthed by Zachary Smith of the Iowa City Press-Citizen last week. That memo defines it thus: “Percent of identified cases requiring hospitalization.” Is the numerator the cumulative total of all cases in Iowa that required hospitalization at some point, or just cases in the last 14 days, or just current hospitalizations as of the most recent day? Is the numerator cumulative cases, cases in the last 14 days, or something else? We don’t know, and no hospitalization rate by this measure has been reported even statewide, nor does the newly launched dashboard contain any hospitalization data at the county or regional level.

Total cases of COVID-19 continue to rise, as do current hospitalizations. So in the face of a rising number of Iowans currently with a severe enough case of the virus to be hospitalized, why does the hospitalization score decline, lessening the supposed need for shelter in place? Why is the percent relevant in the first place? Surely the total number of persons hospitalized for the virus is the single most important indicator, since it signifies not only the number of Iowans seriously affected by the virus, but the potential strain on hospital resources.

A forecast of this number is the crucial indicator in the widely known forecasting models by epidemiologists at the University of Washington and elsewhere. But in Iowa, we still do not have a forecast, and social distancing policy appears now to be hostage to an unexplained and backward-looking indicator. If that percentage continues to be low, or to fall, despite daily increases in cases, deaths, and hospitalizations, we may not see another region get to the magic number of 10.

Peter Fisher is research director for the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project in Iowa City.

pfisher@iowapolicyproject.org

Sheltering the data in place

One thing is clear: transparency has been sadly lacking, and for no apparent reason.

Governor Kim Reynolds over the past few weeks has moved incrementally to close more kinds of businesses, to the point where Iowa’s restrictions now resemble those of states that have a blanket statewide “shelter in place” order. Significant distinctions remain: a proper and comprehensive shelter in place order closes all businesses except those specified as essential, leaving no ambiguities and loopholes, and comes with clear and enforceable restrictions on travel and social activities.

The governor continues to assert that her recommendations are driven by the same four metrics that have guided her since the beginning and that only recently became partly public information due to efforts by the press. We provided a thorough analysis of that guidance several days ago. On Tuesday, we finally learned about one of those metrics: There are three long-term care facilities with a sufficient number of COVID-19 cases to be classified as a facility with an outbreak.

We now know enough to construct the point system in spite of stonewalling by the Governor’s Office.

The first of the four measures — percent of population age 65 or over — can be found from census data. The second — cases per 100,000 population — can be calculated because the number of cases has been released by IDPH by county. The third — outbreaks at care facilities — is now known, with locations, because of a question at a press conference.

That leaves the fourth — hospitalizations as a percent of cases — that is unknown by county or region because the governor still refuses to release the data. But we know the total score by region because it shows up on the maps that are intermittently released at press conferences (but remain unavailable on the IDPH website). Thus by subtraction we can determine that all four regions must be at the highest level, a 3, on the hospitalization rate score.

From here on out, the only thing that can change is the cases per 100,000 population and the number of care facility outbreaks. Region 5 is already at the maximum on the cases measure, and regions 1 and 6 will likely get there soon, leaving all three regions with a score of 9, 1 short of 10, the number that supposedly triggers shelter in place. So those regions, covering a large majority of the state’s population and COVID-19 cases, can get to 10 only with another outbreak at a care facility.

The governor on the one hand argues that we already have the equivalent of shelter in place, and at the same time the metric that she says still guides her decisions shows that shelter in place is not yet warranted anywhere in the state. Has that metric really been used thus far, and in what way? How do you get from the metrics to a list of particular additional businesses to close? What will happen when a region reaches 10? Will the governor order more stringent measures in just that region? Or will the whole thing be scrapped once a proper forecasting model is developed that meets with her approval?

One thing is clear: transparency has been sadly lacking, and for no apparent reason.

Peter Fisher is research director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project.

pfisher@iowapolicyproject.org

Too soon to consider recovery?

Even economists point the immediate focus to public health — and keep recovery in the wider view.

What is needed in a pandemic is for citizens to stay home, and for public policy to assure access to unemployment insurance and health care, and push support to the health system.

Economists such as former Labor Secretary Robert Reich are making these points — that limiting the spread of the coronavirus is the top priority to save lives.[1] When even economists are pressing the point about public health, our leaders should pay attention. Now is not the time to talk about being “open for business” prematurely, as President Trump once suggested we do by Easter.

That is not to say a public health spotlight precludes steps in the coming weeks and months to set up recovery when that can be the main focus.

Now, jobs remain in critical services in hospitals and electric stations, and some in construction. Factories where people stand next to each other on a production line have different social distancing from workers who build things in the open air. We could expand more of the latter jobs right now where the materials are at hand.

Good examples: Wind turbines and solar installations and the power lines that connect them to the electric grid. Right now we could be constructing clean energy facilities that can be producing electricity in six months or a year when we all want demand to expand. It is an opportune moment to think ahead and start replacing older coal production plants, which have their own health problems.

Public policy has a role here. Just before the Iowa legislators recessed because of the COVID-19 pandemic, they passed — and Governor Kim Reynolds signed — a bill to stabilize the solar industry. It would do this by setting the price for the next seven years for the electricity that MidAmerican and Alliant buy from homeowners and businesses.[2]

Another step the Legislature could take is lifting the limit on the tax credit for businesses and homeowners when they install solar.

The annual amount that could be taken on the credit was not fully used in the first year, but in all years since 2013 installations exceeded the cap, now at $5 million per year, pushing installations completed later in the year to a waitlist.[3] The tax credit eventually comes but not until at least a year later. While an installation completed today will get a federal tax credit when taxes are filed in April 2021, the Iowa tax credit will not happen until 2022 or later.

Why make these Iowa investors wait? Extending the total amount eligible for the credit from $5 million to perhaps $20 million would further stimulate the construction of solar panels just when the economy needs the jobs.

There also is a federal role, as the amount of that credit for both solar and wind is phasing out. This would be a good time to stop the phaseout for the next several years. Tax credits of electric cars could also be enhanced.

COVID-19 has slammed the economy. We need to think about when we will recover but also how we will recover. Jobs in clean energy have been on a growth curve that can be re-established quickly. And these jobs are creating a new energy system that will help us with the next crisis, climate change.

Most agree we should follow science to confront the pandemic. We should also follow the science to prepare for the next crisis — climate change.

David Osterberg is an economist and lead environmental researcher at the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project in Iowa City. Contact: dosterberg@iowapolicyproject.org.

A version of this column also ran in the April 1 Quad-City Times.

 

 

 

 

[1] MSNBC interview, March 17, 2020. https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari/watch/-our-economy-is-shutting-down-clinton-wh-veteran-pushes-lives-over-dollars-in-covid-19-crisis-80868933847

[2] O. Kay Henderson. Iowa House and Senate give solar bill unanimous support. Radio Iowa March 4, 2020. https://www.radioiowa.com/2020/03/04/iowa-house-and-senate-give-solar-bill-unanimous-support/

[3] Iowa Department of Revenue. Solar Energy System Tax Credit Annual Report for 2019. https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/DF/1126111.pdf