Latest news with #BrookingsInstitution
Time Magazine
20 hours ago
- Politics
- Time Magazine
What Building Black Power Could Mean for Workplaces
By Ahead of Juneteenth, we spoke with Andre M. Perry, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and author of the recent book, Black Power Scorecard: Measuring the Racial Gap and What We Can Do to Close it. He told us that the goal of Black Power Scorecard was to 'find out the factors that we must address in order to create vibrant, thriving communities.' In it, he argues that Black power movements seek to 'remove privileges based on race,' a process that would 'advance democracy, benefiting all racial groups.' We asked him about employers' role in working towards that vision, given the attacks on corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs on the federal level. Here are excerpts from our conversation, edited for length and clarity: In Black Power Scorecard, you write that 'the concepts, strategies, and objectives of Black power have never been fully encapsulated by [corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)] programs.' Where has DEI fallen short? I wrote the book before Trump was elected, but I still feel that my position holds up in that the goal of DEI and affirmative action have never been the goals of the Civil Rights Movement. It's always been to have mainstream access to capital markets, mainstream access to higher educational institutions. And in many ways, DEI programs—not the values—are consolation prizes that have been offered in the face of not providing access. In one of my favorite studies, we scraped all the Yelp data from businesses across the country and found that Black-, Brown-, and Asian-owned firms actually score higher on Yelp than their white counterparts. That research shows empirically what elders used to say all the time, that our ice is just as cold, meaning that our businesses and entrepreneurs are just as worthy of investment. No one wants to be a consolation prize. No one wants to be a set aside. We don't want workarounds. Communities need investment like everyone else, and so to me, the goal is to create policy both in the public and private sectors that recognize the strength of people and that Black, Brown, and Asian folks are not a set aside. We don't want special programs. We just want mainstream access. One of my favorite quotes comes from Thich Nhat Han, a Vietnamese philosopher, who used to say, 'When you plant lettuce, if it does not grow well, you don't blame the lettuce.' You look to see if the soil's enriched. You look to see if it's getting proper rain water or sunlight. But when things aren't growing in black communities, we constantly blame the lettuce. I want for us to recognize that when there's a lack of growth it's because of a lack of investment, but also that we have strength in black communities, but that strength is devalued. And I don't necessarily promote the furtherance of devaluation through policies that aren't truly providing the investments that they deserve. So it's incumbent upon corporate America, upon government, upon American citizens to say, 'Hey, we want policies that work for all of us.' What should employers be doing instead to realize the goals of Black power, or as you write, 'create environments that maximize human potential?' When it comes to employers in particular, I do emphasize the role of income. Income is one of the top predictors [of life expectancy in Black communities]. What employers should be mindful of is that pay is a major factor in the quality of life for individuals. No surprises there. When people have adequate pay, they invest in their lives and their communities' lives. We always need to check our pay against cost of living increases because what has happened over the decades is that the cost of living in many markets has outpaced the increase in pay. And if we're not mindful, we can really make it hard on families overall to have a good quality of life. Another avenue could be workforce housing, which may be difficult in tight housing markets but can be a viable goal to create thriving communities. Because of those tight markets, we have not seen widespread employer-housing benefits, but if firefighters and teachers and other municipal employees can get access to home ownership, it helps stabilize their lives as well as the lives of others in the community. In the book, I talk a lot about how we must look for collective means to solve these problems. Unionization is one critical institution or practice for employees if their employers are not providing the incomes that encourage longevity. I'm also interested in employee-owned firms and other ways that employees can have a stake in the growth of a business. Employers shouldn't interfere with employees' efforts to organize and mobilize. That may be hard to hear, but for an employer, it does come with certain tensions that are ultimately healthy in a democracy. You want employees to have some say in how resources are distributed because their work matters and in many cases, they are a primary reason why the business is seeing profits. It only makes sense that there is some kind of mechanism for employers to recognize the contributions of workers. What are you seeing that gives you hope and keeps you engaged in this kind of work? When I did the research, it was clear that there are lots of places that are thriving and that we see growth in a lot of areas. What happens at the national level often masks the real growth at the local level. Things are changing at a local level in spite of what's happening at the federal level. I point to the growth in Black-owned employer firms, for instance, or firms with more than one employee. Black people represent about 14% of the population. In 2017, Black-owned firms were about 2.3% of employer firms. That number has actually increased by 50% since 2017. And that was through the first Trump administration, a pandemic, and then the Biden administration. In spite of everything, we're seeing growth on a local level, and so I'm encouraged by that. Certainly, there are threats that can thwart those advancements, but I know there's strength that has been created during these periods, and we can't lose sight of that growth because it really will mask the innovation, the dignity, the strength of the people who are doing the good work and winning.
Forbes
a day ago
- Business
- Forbes
6 Economic Wins America Is Missing By Underinvesting In Black Entrepreneurs Across Major Cities: This Juneteenth & Beyond
As cities take on the challenge of reducing inequality, building stronger communities, driving ... More economic growth, and securing their future, closing the Black business gap should be a core part of the strategy. By investing in Black entrepreneurs, America doesn't just close racial equity gaps, it can generate massive economic opportunity across U.S. cities for residents. Juneteenth marks a moment to reflect not just on emancipation, but on the long-standing gaps in access to economic freedom and opportunity. Today, those barriers are clearly visible in how Black-owned businesses remain underfunded, underrepresented, blocked, and disconnected from the full promise of prosperity and the American dream despite contributing for generations to every engine that makes the nation run, from innovation to infrastructure, culture (including widely used language like AAVE) to commerce. According to a 2024 analysis and research by the Brookings Institution, if Black-owned businesses reached parity with the Black population in each U.S. metro area, the national economy would see millions of new jobs, billions in additional wages, and trillions in potential revenue. The data published is a compelling call to action for smarter economic policy: achieving equity in business ownership isn't just moral; it's a strategy for widespread growth. If local governments prioritized data-driven strategies to increase equity by expanding programs and resources that help more Black residents within their current populations become business owners, cities would gain more jobs, higher wages, stronger local economies, and billions in new revenue. Here are six clear economic wins the U.S. is missing by failing to equitably invest in Black entrepreneurship: 1. Job Creation at a Transformational Scale Cities like Detroit, New York, and Jackson show the power of equitable investment. In Detroit, for example, parity in Black-owned businesses could yield an estimated 466,000+ new jobs. In Jackson, the figure tops 388,000 new jobs. Across all major metros, Black businesses consistently show high job-generation potential when properly resourced. 2. Billions in Additional Wages for Local Economies If Black businesses in Los Angeles alone reached population parity, they would contribute $7.1 billion in new wages. In Memphis, parity could yield $4 billion; New York would gain $22.2 billion. That's real money reinvested into communities, fueling everything from better housing to healthcare, education, neighborhood development, and local business ecosystems that residents can enjoy. 3. Increased Revenue Power and Economic Multiplier Effects Across cities, many Black businesses often operate with fewer resources and are under-capitalized, yet still manage to outperform expectations and deliver real impact to the communities they serve. In Boston, parity could bring $12.9 billion in additional revenue. In Miami, $30.4 billion. Nationwide, the numbers are even more staggering. Closing the business equity gap would have an unprecedented and miraculous ripple effect that boosts GDP, generates tax revenue, and strengthens supply chains. Benefits can also extend beyond our borders, strengthening trade partnerships and indirectly supporting economies in other countries interconnected through global markets. 4. Smart Use of Economic Strengths & Talent in Emerging Metro Areas Places like Columbia, SC, and Virginia Beach, VA, with high Black populations but low representation in business ownership, are missing out. Columbia could gain 138,000+ jobs and over $13 billion in revenue. Virginia Beach would see $6.2 billion in additional revenue. That's untapped potential sitting in plain sight. 5. Reversing Generational Economic Disparities Black entrepreneurs often face systemic barriers to capital, credit, and mentorship, a direct legacy of discriminatory policy. Equitable investment in these businesses and the supporting policies still need to be built on frameworks that address long-standing structural barriers limiting American economic growth, along with tools to measure progress effectively. To date, such comprehensive frameworks and measurement tools have been largely absent, perpetuating missed opportunities, economic instability, and slowing progress toward equity. 6. Shared Prosperity for the Entire Nation Closing the Black business gap through smarter, tailored, and more specific economic policies doesn't just benefit Black communities. Every dollar in revenue, wages, or jobs created has a multiplier effect and is a net positive for both the local and American economy. Equitable entrepreneurship strengthens the middle class and brings more innovation, diversity, jobs, and educational opportunities to the industries and communities that need them most. WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 20: A Juneteenth flag is raised during the Celebration of Juneteenth at the ... More African American Civil War Memorial event on Monday June 20, 2022 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images) This Juneteenth, the social and economic case for equity remains undeniable. It's time to move beyond performative posts and cultural awareness toward meaningful action by advocating for policies and practices that close the wealth gap and drive economic revitalization with far-reaching benefits for all communities. Investing in Black entrepreneurs is not a niche cause; it is a smart, scalable economic strategy. As cities seek to address inequality, raise quality of life, stimulate growth, and future-proof their economies, closing the Black business gap must be central. This requires understanding the history of multi-generational Black America and building solutions that acknowledge and address these realities through new systems and processes. The data is clear, and the opportunity is real. This holiday and beyond, we have the chance to come together and build a future where equity and morality open the door to new opportunities.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Iran air strikes: Republicans split over support for Trump and another ‘foreign war'
After returning early from the G7 summit in Canada, Donald Trump met with his national security team to be briefed on the escalating Israel-Iran conflict. It became clear that Trump was considering direct US military support for the Israelis. This has the potential to cause a split among the president's supporters between the Republican hawks (traditional interventionists) on one side and the Maga isolationists on the other. During his three presidential campaigns, Trump condemned former presidents for leading America into 'ridiculous endless wars'. This isolationist tilt won him plaudits with his base of those who supported him for his populist promises to 'make America great again' (Maga). In their work on US attitudes to foreign policy and US overseas involvement, Elaine Kamarck and Jordan Muchnick of the Brookings Institution – a non-profit research organisation in Washington – looked at a range of evidence in 2023. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. They found Republicans supporting less global involvement from the US had increased from 40% to 54% from 2004 to 2017. At that time only 16% of voters supported increasing US troop presence abroad, and 40% wanted a decrease, they found. They related this change in attitudes to Trump's foreign policy position. Fast forward to his second term, and many in the Maga camp are fiercely opposed to Trump's current posturing about leading the US into another conflict in the Middle East. Over the past few days the White House has doubled down on the line that Trump keeps repeating: 'Iran can not have a nuclear weapon'. As Trump edges closer to committing the US to joining Israel in air strikes on Iran, Steve Bannon, a staunch Trump ally, argued that allowing the 'deep state' to drive the US into conflict with Iran would 'blow up' the coalition of Trump support. Meanwhile, Conservative podcaster Tucker Carlson denounced those Republicans supporting action against Iran as 'warmongers' and said they were encouraging the president to drag the US into a war. Congresswoman Majorie Taylor Greene, in an unusual break with Trump, openly criticised the president's stance on the Israel-Iran conflict, writing on X: 'Foreign wars/intervention/regime change put America last, kill innocent people, are making us broke, and will ultimately lead to our destruction.' Other prominent Republican senators, including Josh Hawley and Rand Paul, have urged the president to avoid US involvement in an offensive against Iran. Another Republican congressman, Thomas Massie, has gone even further. He has joined with a coalition of Democrats in filing a House resolution under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which would seek to prevent Trump from engaging in 'unauthorized hostilities' with Iran without Congressional consent. These Republicans may believe their views are popular with their electoral base. In an Economist/YouGov poll in June 2025, 53% of Republicans stated that they did not think the US military should get involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran. But Donald Trump does seem to enjoy widespread support in the US for his position that the US cannot allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. According to CNN data analysis, 83% of Republicans, 79% independents, and 79% of Democrats, agree with the president's position on this issue. This slightly confusing split suggests there could be US voter support for air strikes, but it's clear there would not be that same support for troops on the ground. IranInfogram Resistance from ultra-Trump die-hards, however, might put them on the wrong side of the president in the long-term. Greg Sargent, a writer at The New Republic magazine, believes that, 'people become enemies of Trump not when they substantively work against some principle he supposedly holds dear, but rather when they publicly criticize him … or become an inconvenience in any way'. So why is Trump, to the dismay of many from within the Maga faithful, seemingly abandoning the anti-war tenet of his 'America first' doctrine? Jacob Heilbrunn, editor of The National Interest magazine, thinks that 'now that Israel's assault on Iran appears to be successful, Trump wants in on the action'. The president has several prominent Republican hawks urging him to do exactly that, and order the US Air Force to deploy their 'bunker-buster bombs'' to destroy Iran's underground arsenals. One of these is Senator Lindsey Graham. Earlier this week on Fox News, he told Trump to be "all in … in helping Israel eliminate the nuclear threat. If we need to provide bombs to Israel, provide bombs. If we need to fly planes with Israel, do joint operations.' Former Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell is also advocating US military action. He told CNN: 'What's happening here is some of the isolationist movement led by Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon are distressed we may be helping the Israelis defeat the Iranians,' adding that its 'been kind of a bad week for the isolationists' in the party. The same Economist/YouGov poll mentioned earlier showed that the stance taken by these Republicans – that Iran poses a threat to the US – is a position shared by a majority of GOP voters, with 69% viewing Iran as either an immediate and serious threat to the US, or at least somewhat of a serious threat. Some believe that Trump's evolving attitude towards American military involvement in the worsening crisis in the Middle East, however, is not a volte-face on isolationism, or an ideological pivot to the virtues of attacking Iran. Ross Douthat of the New York Times has observed that Trump 'has never been a principled noninterventionist' and that 'his deal-making style has always involved the threat of force as a crucial bargaining chip'. It is always difficult to fully determine what Trump's foreign policy doctrine actually is. It is useful, however, to reflect on some of the president's overseas actions from his first term. In April 2018, following a suspected chemical weapons attack by the forces of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad in a Damascus suburb, Trump ordered US air strikes in retaliation for what he called an 'evil and despicable attack' that left 'mothers and fathers, infants and children thrashing in pain and gasping for air'. This led the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic magazine, Jeffrey Goldberg, to describe Trump as 'something wholly unique in the history of the presidency: an isolationist interventionist'. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Richard Hargy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump Has A New Plan To Get Women To Have More Babies. What Could Go Wrong?
In an effort to get Americans to have more children, the Trump administration has proposed ideas such as a $5,000 'baby bonus' or a $1,000 tax-deferred investment account for children born between 2025 and 2029. It's as if we're suddenly in a game of Monopoly: Have a baby, pass go and collect cash! Their concern is that declining birth rates may lead to a smaller workforce amid an aging population, potentially straining economic stability and the social safety net. But having children can be a swift way into debt. According to the Brookings Institution, a financial think tank, the average middle-income family with two children — median income $80,610 ―spends $310,605 on each child by the time they reach 17. Additionally, having children in the U.S. comes with risks that go well beyond economics. Maternal morbidity is significantly higher in the U.S. than in other developed countries, and since abortion bans came into effect in some states, deaths have risen — inTexas, maternal death shot up 56%, according to the Gender Policy Equity Institute. For white women, the rate doubled from 20 per 100,000 to 39.1; for Black women, who are historically at greater risk, rates jumped from 31.6 to 43.6 per 100,000 live births. And those are just the implications for mothers; there are risks to babies as well. I made it through birth without too many complications, but my second son nearly didn't. He was born with VACTERL syndrome, a birth defect which affects multiple body systems. In the U.S., birth defects affect 1 in 33 babies and are the leading cause of infant death, making up 1 in 5 of all infant deaths. Racial disparities persist here, too,Black infants are over twice as likely to die relative to those born to parents of other races according to KFF. My son has a 'rare' disease — fewer than 200,000 people in the U.S. have it. Collectively, however, rare diseases aren't as 'rare' as they may seem. An estimated 25 to 30 million Americans have one, and birth defects like gastroschisis — a condition in which an infant is born with its intestines protruding outside the body — carry higher risk factors for younger women. Having a child with serious medical issues is like having a bomb explode in the heart of your family. After my son's birth, I was stuck at a hospital in Greenwich, Connecticut — my doctor refused to release me — as my newborn was sent via ambulance to a hospital in New York City for surgery. Emotionally, this was devastating. My family was lucky; my son survived. My spouse had insurance coverage through his job. Our boy got the immediate and ongoing medical attention he needed. But out-of-pocket copays for the three surgeries that marked my son's first 100 days of life came to $10,000 per month. Instead of staring into our baby's eyes, we were staring into a dark abyss that foretold possible bankruptcy. As exhausted as I was nursing, pumping, tending to a very sick child and his older brother, I also lay awake at night, terrified at the possibility of losing our health insurance. We made it through that first year by the skin of our teeth. Others aren't so fortunate. With high premiums and higher deductibles, health insurance becomes prohibitive to many if not most Americans. Today, 41% of adults in the US have health care debt, according to KFF. Those without health care coverage, and possibly even those with it, are only one accident or unfortunate circumstance away from bankruptcy. The inequities in health care grow the gap between wealthy and poor. According to the Center for American Progress,congressional Republicans' plans to slash Medicaid funding and allow Affordable Care Act tax credits to expire, ACA health insurance marketplace premiums may increase by thousands of dollars each year. If the GOP dismantles the ACA, those with preexisting conditions — like my son ― could be denied coverage. The Trump administration suggests that individuals who need help are lazy; that they must earn their keep. But women and families are trying — and it's clearly not possible. Young families can't afford children. Yet conservatives insist women have them anyway. The Biden administration was criticized as elitist for forgiving student loan debt, butstudent loan debt actually delays fertility for women, especially at the higher levels. Granted, it's easy for me to suggest not having children — I have two, both nearly grown. But women deserve to know the risks that can alter their lives. As a mother, I felt helpless watching my child endure so much suffering. More recently, I regret bringing my children into a world in which abundant resources are shared as if they were scant. It's terrifying to know my sons may not have access to the support they need when they need it. In countrieslike Japan, parents get a child Italy, working women with two or more children receive additional pension Hungary, women below the age of 40 who marry for the first time are eligible to receive an interest-free general-purpose loan worth $36,000 — which is forgiven in full for those with three offspring. The program was so successful that 2,400 families applied for the loan within the first two weeks. But offering financial incentives to having children has had lukewarm success over the long term. For example,Hungary's birth rate in 2019 was 1.55 babies per woman. In 2024, it was 1.38 and declining. The underlying assumption these countries and the Trump administration make is that individuals — both women and men — inherently want children. For whatever reasons, we may not. We may have goals exclusive to family and babies. Just because a government or country 'needs' them, it doesn't mean individuals do; and just because women can biologically have them, it doesn't mean they aspire to. If the Trump administration truly wants women to have children, it should support them in real and practical ways. Offer child care facilities, adequate financial aid and programs to help families and children. Provide affordable health care that's accessible to everyone. Reinstate Medicare funding. Protect the Affordable Care Act. Recognize abortion as a part of maternal health care. Knowing it is safe to have a child, and that the child will be safe in the world it is coming into, would be much more effective and persuasive than any one-time bonus. Do you have a compelling personal story you'd like to see published on HuffPost? Find out what we're looking for here and send us a pitch at pitch@
Daily Mail
3 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Stunning new number that shows Trump migrant crackdown has BEATEN border crisis
Economists have predicted that the United States may lose more migrants than it gains for the first time in 50 years as a result of four hardline policy initiatives by the Trump administration. The Department of Homeland Security, under Donald Trump 's direction, revoked legal status to migrants, threatened to deport international students, increased most notably of all, cracked down hard on migrants who illegally cross the southern border. President Trump campaigned on mass deportations and securing the southern border, which has been a cornerstone of the first five months of his second term. The United States has long championed itself as the land of immigrants, but the rise of illegal immigration and concerns about criminal activity have forced government officials to re-examine migration patterns. Immigration surged under the Biden administration, with net immigration jumping from 0.1 percent to 0.8 percent in a two year period, according to the Congressional Budget Office. According to Pew Research, the population of immigrants has steadily increased since 1970, reaching a record high of 14.3 percent in 2023. The staggering statistic was the highest percentage of migrants in the US since 1890, when 14.8 percent of the population migrated to the country. Now, researchers with the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institution are predicting that migration will only continue to decrease due to Trump's hardline immigration polices. Wendy Edelberg, one of the economists researching the trend, told the Washington Post ahead of the paper's publishing, 'For the year as a whole [2025], we think it's likely [immigration] will be negative.' 'It certainly would be the first time in more than 50 years.' For decades, more migrants have come to the US than left, with statistics from the Congressional Budget Office citing record highs of 3.3 million migrants in 2023 and 2024. After Trump's first 100 days in office, ICE arrested 66,463 undocumented migrants and removed 65,682 migrants, according to ICE data. 'We're just 100 days into this administration and thanks to President Trump and Secretary Noem, ICE is using every tool at its disposal to enforce our country's immigration laws and protect our communities,' ICE Acting Director Todd M. Lyons said at the time. The agency has also set up the 287(g) program to partner with local law enforcement and increase arrests of undocumented migrants. Homeland Security Investigations arrested more than 1,000 migrants in Trump's first 100 days and issued over $1 million in fines to businesses hiring illegal workers. Crackdown on the southern border Trump's crackdown at the southern border has also led to a dramatic decrease in migration. From 2022-2024, Customs and Border Patrol agents reported over two million encounters at the border per year. For example, in April, agents only reported 12,035 encounters for the month, which is a drastic drop from the year prior, with 179,737 encounters. In April 2023, there were 211,992 enforcement encounters and 235,785 in April 2022. Trump has seemingly delivered on his promises to secure the border and stop illegal immigration; however, some economists have warned of the negative impact his policies will have on the economy. As the Baby Boomer generation hits retirement age, the workforce has begun to slow, and Brusuelas argued that more migrants leaving than staying would exacerbate an already declining workforce. Economist Joe Brusuelas told the Washington Post that a decrease in migration results in a smaller workforce. 'You take those people away at a time when demographics are resulting in a lack of replacement for retired workers — all that's a recipe for higher inflation,' he told the publication. Revoking legal status and deporting international students Biden had expanded pathways for migrants to gain citizenship, including a program that allowed those from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to come to the US with a financial sponsor. Biden also raised the refugee admissions ceiling to 125,000 in 2022; however, when Trump assumed office, he revoked the program and ordered DHS to suspend applications for refugee status. Trump's administration has also threatened to deport international students. In March, the New York Times reported that 800 students were stripped of their visas. One of the most prominent examples was Mahmoud Khalil, a permanent resident of the US who is married to an American citizen. He was taken into custody while his wife was pregnant and sent to a detention center in Louisiana after he led protests at Columbia University in support of Palestine. Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish citizen, was also ripped off the streets by ICE after writing an opinion piece in a student newspaper criticizing Tufts University for its response to the war in Israel. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters in late March, 'There is no right to a student visa. 'We can cancel a student visa under the law just the same way that we can deny a student visa under the law. And we will do so in cases we find appropriate.' Deportations The Trump admin has also ramped up deportations, with over 50,000 migrants in ICE detention centers as of June 5, according to NBC News' calculations. Of the migrants in detention centers, over 10 percent have been fast-tracked for deportation. ICE raids across the country have sparked nationwide protests, resulting in Trump's decision to send the National Guard to Los Angeles. Despite the disturbing images, Stan Veuger, one of the researchers working on the upcoming paper, told the Washington Post that the drop in migrations is due to 'inflows' going down. 'It's not about deportations so much,' he said. 'It's really just that inflows are down so much; not just at the southern border, but also through various legal programs.' Trump's zero-tolerance immigration policies are only expected to continue as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (HR1) moves through Congress.
