SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
monopolies
A Winning Economic Agenda for Kamala Harris
Harris and Walz should run on ensuring economic freedom by reversing and remedying the brutal imbalance between the people and the powerful.
Sep 17, 2024
Today I want to talk with you about what U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris could do to win over more Americans on the issue that remains her biggest challenge: the economy.
Harris’ family-centered policies—$6,000 for newborns, a tax credit that will help people with children decide for themselves whether to work or stay at home, and universal affordable childcare—are useful and important.
But here’s the rub: Many young men and women simply can’t afford to form families in the first place. As Harold Meyerson notes in The American Prospect, Harris’ family policies won’t have much impact on many young working-class men and women employed in the private sector, where the rate of unionization is barely 6%, where gig employment is often a necessity just to get by (as is a second or even third job), and where the absence of job stability or an adequate income or both deters marriage.
Freedom—including reproductive freedom—means the chance to raise a family without soul-crushing economic stress.
The disappearance of good jobs for those without a college degree has led to declining marriage rates across all of the American working class, according to studies by MIT economist David Autor and his colleagues—a far steeper rate of decline than in the middle and upper classes.
The issue boils down to how to get good jobs to people without four-year college degrees.
On Friday, Harris made the important promise to dispense with unnecessary college degree requirements for federal jobs. She could go further and tell private employers to use skills-based hiring instead of requiring college degrees.
Harris might also call for the construction of 10 million new homes over the next four years. This would help funnel non-college workers into building trades and community college apprenticeship programs, leading to high-wage jobs that don’t require college degrees.
She could build on the impetus of the CHIPs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act to get good new jobs to places around the country that have been abandoned by most industry. The most important family policy for young people growing up in rural Georgia or North Carolina is to be able to find good jobs where they are, rather than have to leave their communities to find adequate-paying work.
She should also build on the significant work of Biden’s FTC and the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department in attacking monopolies and mergers, and promise that as president she’ll fight for competitive markets where big corporations can’t keep prices high (she’s already said she’ll attack corporate price gouging).
Monopolies don’t just hurt consumers. They also hurt workers, and make it harder for them to have families. When there’s only one game in town, you don’t dare push back against arbitrary schedules and hours that keep you from your family.
Harris should attack housing developers that collude to drive up prices. She should fight against mandatory arbitration, which locks workers and consumers into private courts funded by the same companies they want to challenge. And she should commit to strengthening unions by preventing big corporations from firing workers who want them and pushing for sector-by-sector bargaining.
Former U.S. President Donald Trump has proposed exempting overtime earnings from federal tax. But remember: It was Trump whose labor department made about 8 million workers ineligiblefor overtime. Harris should pledge to reverse that ruling.
She should package all of this, as Jedediah Britton-Purdy suggests, as part of a push for economic freedom.
Many Americans feel powerless, ripped off by monopolies in everything from phone service to concert tickets, locked into dead-end jobs because there are no alternatives, unable even to contemplate raising a family because they can’t possibly afford the costs.
Freedom—including reproductive freedom—means the chance to raise a family without soul-crushing economic stress.
I’ve already discussed how Trump’s economic agenda (to the extent he’s provided one) is just another variant on trickle-down economics, where wealth and power go to the top and nothing trickles down. Trump’s version would result in an even more brutal imbalance between the people and the powerful.
But that’s not how many Americans see it. As Purdy says:
Although Democrats see Trump as a chaotic bad boss in chief, many supporters see him as the real defender of economic security, decent jobs, and a safe and orderly world. His call for tariffs on all imported goods and his promise to beat up on companies until they lower prices may be unrealistic, but they are concrete promises to shake up the system on behalf of ordinary people. That’s the kind of dramatic change so many people seem to want.
Fundamentally, economic freedom requires reversing and remedying the brutal imbalance between the people and the powerful. It necessitates taking power back from the ruling economic class—from the ultra-wealthy who have been bribing politicians to lower their taxes, allow them monopolize markets, and crush labor unions.
This must be at the heart of the Harris-Walz economic agenda.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Kamala Harris Should Embrace—and Build Upon—Biden’s Antitrust Legacy
Harris should reject the smear campaign against Khan’s FTC and commit to reappointing her as chair of the commission, signalling that under her administration, corporate lawbreakers would face the full force of the law.
Sep 06, 2024
U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris’ ascension to the top of the Democratic ticket hasn’t just shifted the 2024 electoral calculus—it’s also reignited the battle for the party’s ideological soul. Just as progressives have outlined their hopes for a Harris administration, so too have bad faith actors looking to turn back the clock on the most significant progressive achievement of the Biden era: the reinvigoration of antitrust enforcement.
The revival of anti-monopoly politics has been met with predictable ire from corporate interests that have got off scot-free for decades. This has been largely directed at Lina Khan, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) chair who has taken on some of America’s most entrenched monopolies. Rather than accede to the demands of Silicon Valley and Wall Street billionaires, Harris should embrace—and entrench—the Biden administration’s antitrust efforts.
It goes without saying that progressives have the right to be disappointed with the legacy of the Biden administration in many respects. Whether one lays the blame on the White House or congressional math, many of the most promising initiatives pushed in 2021 never made it to law. However, the early Biden administration’s focus on reinvigorating antitrust enforcement is one that has paid dividends in the years that followed. The Reagan-era defanging of antitrust helped pave the way for the present-day monopoly crisis, which has left its mark on everything from the tech sector to the rental market to grocery shopping.
The FTC under Khan has taken aim at price gouging in, among others, the energy industry and grocery sector, which compliments Harris’ stated plan to crack down on price gouging if elected.
The Biden administration deserves credit for breaking with his predecessors’ hands-off approach to taking on corporate monopolies. Both Khan at the FTC and Jonathan Kanter, the assistant attorney general for the Antitrust Division at the Department of Justice (DOJ), have taken a tough line against anti-competitive behavior. Khan and Kanter’s efforts to block illegal mergers have been met with rage from corporate America’s worst offenders. This has resulted in frivolous demands for their recusals from key antitrust cases, as well as broader efforts to kneecap antitrust regulation itself. With a “changing of the guard” on the Democratic ticket, these same actors have taken to demanding Harris abandon Biden-era antitrust efforts, complete with a change in personnel.
Harris should reject these demands, and instead look to Khan and Kanter’s successes as a road map for enacting change in Washington. Time and time again, Khan and Kanter have delivered victories for consumers in the face of a hostile press and a right-wing judicial landscape. In August, the DOJ emerged victorious in its historic U.S. v. Google antitrust lawsuit, one that Kanter fittingly says belongs on the “Mount Rushmore of antitrust cases.” In the years following House Democrats’ 2020 report on monopoly power in the tech sector, Biden administration enforcers have filed antitrust suits against Amazon and Apple, along with a separate Google suit set to go to trial this month.
If successful, these lawsuits stand to rein in some of the tech sector’s worst abuses. But make no mistake: The FTC and DOJ’s antitrust efforts target far more than just the abuses of the “Big Tech” giants. This year, the DOJ launched a blockbuster antitrust suit against Ticketmaster, which was largely given a pass for its abuses in previous administrations. The DOJ Antitrust Division has stood with tenants by filing an antitrust lawsuit against RealPage over the company’s role in enabling rental price gouging. The FTC under Khan has taken aim at price gouging in, among others, the energy industry and grocery sector, which compliments Harris’ stated plan to crack down on price gouging if elected.
Antitrust enforcement is both crucial to building a fairer economy and broadly popular with the general public. For this reason, Harris should firmly reject the smear campaign against Khan’s FTC and commit to reappointing her as chair of the commission. Doing so would send a strong signal that under a Harris administration, corporate lawbreakers would face the full force of the law.
Instead of turning back the clock on antitrust, a Harris administration should build upon the progress of the last three years by launching other needed antitrust initiatives. This could include, among others, taking on YouTube-related competition issues, which advocates have sounded the alarm on. More broadly, the DOJ and FTC under a Harris administration should continue to probe would-be monopolists in the artificial intelligence (AI) sector. Given the scope of monopolistic behavior in today’s economy, regulators under a Harris Administration must take a vigilant approach to anti-competitive practices across sectors.Keep ReadingShow Less
'Corporate Greed at Its Absolute Worst': FTC Challenges Kroger Merger
"As grocery store 'price gouging' reaches the top of the political ticket, the FTC is intervening to protect consumers and workers from further harm."
Aug 26, 2024
As grocery giants Kroger and Albertsons faced the U.S. Federal Trade Commission in a federal court Monday, economic justice advocates said Americans should be wary of the corporate media's reporting on the FTC's lawsuit, which aims to block the companies' proposed $24.6 billion merger.
"Get ready for more takes like these from corporate media," said the American Economic Liberties Project (AELP), posting on social media a clip from CNBC in which anchor Joe Kernen echoed Kroger and Albertsons' claims that the merger would help them compete with big box stores like Walmart, lower prices for consumers, and benefit workers.
"With a merger this blatantly harmful to consumers, workers, and countless local communities, Wall Street cheerleaders can't help but rely on misleading arguments," said AELP.
The trial, kicking off in a U.S. District Court in Portland, Oregon, centers on a claim by the FTC along with eight states and the District of Colombia that the merger would reduce industry competition—creating "a straight-up monopoly" in small communities like Gunnison, Colorado where 6,000 residents "would have to drive 65 miles to reach a non-Kroger supermarket," according to AELP.
FTC Chair Lina Khan is also opposing the merger because it would weaken unionized workers' bargaining power, particularly in parts of the country where dozens of Kroger and Albertsons stores are located near each other.
With 115 of 159 Albertsons stores located within two miles of a Kroger in Los Angeles County and Orange County, California, the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) has warned that hundreds of unionized workers could see their stores close if the merger is finalized.
As the trial began Monday, The New York Times published an interview with an employee of an Albertsons subsidiary in Woodland Hills, California. Leonard De Monte was represented by the UFCW in 2015 when the grocery store he was working at was sold as part of Albertsons' merger with the store's parent company—a deal that was called "an unmitigated disaster" for workers by AELP senior legal counsel Lee Hepner.
De Monte found another job at the Albertsons subsidiary, but was demoted to minimum wage. Now nine years later, after working his way up to a $27-per-hour union wage, the store De Monte works at is once again at risk of being sold if the merger goes through, and he fears being demoted to minimum wage again and losing his benefits.
"I have great health benefits because I've been with the company so long," he told the Times. "If I lose my health benefits, I would have to pay out of pocket."
Despite the stores' claim that they need to compete with Walmart and Amazon, AELP pointed out in March that Kroger and Albertsons acknowledge one another as their top competition. Without the two stores competing, said the group, "grocery workers will lose bargaining power, both because individually they won't have a competing employer to go work for, and because unions will lose leverage during contract negotiations. As a result, workers will potentially face lower wages, worse working conditions, and layoffs."
According to an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute, the merger would reduce the total annual earnings of grocery store workers in affected metropolitan areas by $334 million.
In court on Monday, the FTC displayed text messages showing that Kroger executives have complained that Albertsons has forced it "to accept more worker compensation."
The progressive think tank Roosevelt Institute said the trial, which is expected to go on for three weeks, shows that Khan and the FTC are "taking the harms of corporate consolidation on workers seriously."
Kroger's arguments and business practices—including using "dynamic pricing" to price gouge and its exorbitant CEO pay—represent "corporate greed at its absolute worst," said former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich.
"The Kroger-Albertsons merger would eliminate head-to-head competition between grocery stores across the country," said Hepner. "As grocery store 'price gouging' reaches the top of the political ticket, the FTC is intervening to protect consumers and workers from further harm."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular