The Child-Care Crisis Punishes Women in Health Care. Without Schools, They'll Quit.
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=55332"><span class="small">Chavi Eve Karkowsky, The Washington Post</span></a>
Monday, 27 July 2020 08:54
Karkowsky writes: "Everywhere I look in the hospital, this is what I see: parents, disproportionately women — we make up about 75 percent of health-care workers — who have done brave and difficult things to be able to come to work for the past few months."
Photographs of doctors and nurses, worn to comfort patients while they are dressed in protective gear, hangs on a wall outside the Covid-19 intensive care unit at the United Memorial Medical Center in Houston, June 29. (photo: Go Nakamura/Bloomberg)
The Child-Care Crisis Punishes Women in Health Care. Without Schools, They'll Quit.
By Chavi Eve Karkowsky, The Washington Post
27 July 20
ysha is a nurse practitioner I met during the pandemic who works in a small clinic that provides prenatal care in an underserved neighborhood in New York. It stayed open during the crisis, but her children’s public school did not. So while she worked from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. during the spring semester, her husband, who works a night shift, helped their 7-year-old and 9-year-old with their online schooling — grabbing naps when he could. When Aysha got home, he slept about three hours, then headed off to work, before starting all over in the morning.
Felicia works as a nurse in a surgical unit in a small hospital on the East Coast. She lives with her rising fourth grader and her mother, who has always provided child care. At the beginning of the pandemic, right before she was deployed to a covid-19 floor, Felicia sent her mom to live in a relative’s basement apartment — but it proved too expensive to maintain two households, and she worried about her kid too much. The local public school mainly provided paper homework packets that her 9-year-old found boring. He spends most of his time alone, in his room; Grandma makes him come out for meals, but she’s not sure what he’s doing in there all the time.
Then there’s me: an obstetrician with four kids, irregular hours and no local family. I have a partner who is working from home, in our three-bedroom apartment in northern Manhattan — meaning the kids are supervised, to the extent that they will probably not burn the house down.
Everywhere I look in the hospital, this is what I see: parents, disproportionately women — we make up about 75 percent of health-careworkers — who have done brave and difficult things to be able to come to work for the past few months. Most of us limped through the end of the school year, requesting every emergency favor we had stored up from friends and family to get there. Schools are an important part of the village that helps us raise our kids, along with relatives, babysitters and day care. The pandemic made a substantial part of that village unavailable: schools.
Every parent in this pandemic will tell you that without in-person schools, you can have a job or a child, but — ultimately — not both. And research shows that women bear the lion’s share of the child-care burden that the pandemic has placed squarely on the home. Given the makeup of the health-care profession and the intensity of the jobs, a reckoning is coming if schools remain online-only in the fall. Many health-care providers, especially those who are low-income, may have to quit. And it won’t only be their incomes that suffer. It will be your health care.
I am privileged: I work in a high-paying specialty, and my children go to a private school that is committed to getting kids to class, safely and in person, by the second week of September. But when New York announced that it would be using a hybrid model of education, with only one to three in-person days a week, almost every clinic that I’m in touch with saw a surge of workers requesting temporary leave or giving notice. Those who asked for leave said that if the requests were denied, they might have to walk away. When I mentioned this on social media, one doctor friend of mine responded that 20 percent of her large practice’s clinical support staff had asked for a leave of absence because of child-care issues. Another chimed in to say that at her clinic, the figure was closer to a quarter — with many asking for open-ended leave. If schools stayed closed, this friend was considering leaving, too. (Of course, if people take leave but don’t quit, that still leaves a staffing shortage.) The Center for American Progress has reported that roughly 4.6 million health-care workers — about 30 percent of the total — have children 14 or younger.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t want to open schools without a safe plan. Most of us in medicine had to work without such a plan during the early part of the pandemic, and we wouldn’t wish it on anyone else. But schools are getting short shrift as a national priority. And if female health-care workers don’t come to work, hospitals can’t function.
Remember those months you spent at home, at catastrophic personal and economic cost? (You may still be there.) All of that was to buy time for policymakers and our medical system — so that anybody who needed a hospital bed would have one, and so that we could set up a system of testing, tracing and isolation. That plan failed for multiple reasons. We ended up doing enough so that we have sufficient ventilators (for now) but not enough to guarantee that we could open the economy, and the schools, safely — and now we can’t say for sure if someone will be staffing those hospital beds.
If schools don’t open in the fall, or if some other child care solution isn’t devised, much of the sacrifice of the spring and summer will have been wasted. One consequence is that a large share of our hospital workers will be in an untenable situation, generated by the government’s failure to set the right priorities and to provide leadership. If female health-care providers are forced to keep juggling tutoring and their jobs, the medical system may not hold. And we need it to hold.
Climate Change, Oil Development Threaten Alaska's Polar Bears
Written by
Monday, 27 July 2020 08:47
Gosché writes: "The Inupiat share their whale meat with the polar bears, something they have done for many years. This gesture provides much needed food for polar bears, especially as they spend longer periods of time on land due to the receding sea ice."
A polar bear with two playful cubs. (photo: Jennie Gosché/Alaska Wilderness League)
Climate Change, Oil Development Threaten Alaska's Polar Bears
By Jennie Gosché, Alaska Wilderness League
27 July 20
n late 2019, before the world was completely upended by the COVID-19 pandemic, I was presented a last-minute chance to photograph polar bears outside one of the northernmost villages in the United States — Kaktovik, Alaska. It was an opportunity I couldn't refuse, and as the COVID-19 pandemic now stretches into summer 2020, I'm grateful I accepted.
Kaktovik is an Inupiat native village of around 250 people on the coast of the Arctic Ocean, located on barrier islands at the edge of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. My first trip there took place in September 2016, and I traveled with the purpose to photograph the threatened Southern Beaufort Sea polar bear population. The coastal region of the Arctic Refuge in fall is a special place to photograph these magnificent animals, as they congregate on dirt and sand spits of land waiting for the winter ice of the Beaufort Sea to make its way to the Alaska shore.
During the late summer and early fall, Inupiat boat owners from Kaktovik guide "tourist" photographers out to view polar bears from a safe distance in the placid lagoon adjacent to the raging waves of the Beaufort Sea. I joined one such group of photographers led by Hugh Rose, a professional photographer and geologist who lives in Fairbanks, and we took a short charter flight from Deadhorse to Kaktovik, landing in a morning snowstorm. But by afternoon, the sun was out and we had three and a half days of sunshine that combined with the ice and snow to create great conditions in which to photograph polar bears.
We were out in the lagoon twice a day, breaking only for lunch at our hotel, the modest but welcoming Waldo Arms Hotel owned by Walt "Waldo" Audi and Merlyn Trainer — one of only two options for places to stay in Kaktovik when visiting. The boat guides are skilled, and they have to be, because knowledge and awareness of depths in the lagoon is critical to prevent a boat from getting stuck in shallow water.
This trip we were in a boat with a heated cabin, a perk since we were there later in the season. Our boat driver, however, told us that at that very same time the previous year, the lagoon was completely frozen over. He shared this as we floated on the lagoon in open water, though ice was visible in places and we occasionally heard pieces rubbing against the hull of the metal boat.
The Inupiat are primarily subsistence hunters and whalers, harvesting whales each summer (in addition to caribou and other wildlife), the meat from which is shared by the entire village. It is a staple of their diet and has been for thousands of years, but as temperatures warm, the lack of ice combined with changes in whale migration patterns and timing could make hunting progressively more difficult.
The Inupiat share their whale meat with the polar bears, something they have done for many years. This gesture provides much needed food for polar bears, especially as they spend longer periods of time on land due to the receding sea ice. When I visited Kaktovik in 2016, my most memorable photo is of a cub on top of whale bones, shaking what looks like animal skin in its mouth.
As I returned to the village in late 2019, however, they had moved the bone pile away from the lagoon to an area off-limits to tourists. I was told the bone pile now only stays on land for a short time, and then the bones are pushed into the ocean. Eventually, this change could affect the overall health of the Southern Beaufort Sea polar bears, as many of them increasingly den on land in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and utilize the shared whale meat for sustenance during the summer and early fall before they enter their maternal birthing dens in November.
Which brings me back to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as wild a place as any other on Earth but one also under threat of oil and gas development. While in Kaktovik I learned that there is not a consensus in the village on the question of allowing oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge. Climate change and impacts to wildlife are serious concerns, so much so that more than 60 village residents signed a petition in 2017 opposing drilling on the Arctic Refuge coastal plain.
Helping to prevent development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge — a place that supports the greatest variety of plant and animal life in the entire circumpolar north — is very important to me, not least of all because the U.S. government has admitted it simply doesn't have enough information about the impacts of oil and gas development on the coastal plain to protect its wildlife and other values. Oil drilling will compound the devastating climate impacts already being felt by villages in the region, increasing carbon emissions, worsening climate pollution and further harming front line communities.
Especially now, in the midst of an uncertain present and looking forward to an uncertain future, we need to press pause on Arctic Refuge development. Instead of recklessly rushing ahead, more research over extended periods of time is needed so that we can fully understand the potential impact oil drilling will have on local villages, our climate and wildlife like the majestic polar bear.
Bill McKibben | What Joe Biden's Climate Plan Really Signals
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=35861"><span class="small">Bill McKibben, The New Yorker</span></a>
Sunday, 26 July 2020 08:22
McKibben writes: "Non-élites—members of activist movements and renewable-energy engineers—have built the pressure. Assuming that Trump exits next year, and that high-level climate denial goes with him, that pressure will do what pressure does: finally start to make things pop."
Bill McKibben. (photo: Wolfgang Schmidt)
What Joe Biden's Climate Plan Really Signals
By Bill McKibben, The New Yorker
26 July 20
hen Joe Biden issued his extensive climate plan last week, there were endless analyses, including mostly positive reviews like those from the energy expert Julian Brave NoiseCat, who called it “a Green New Deal in our view, substantively,” and the Sunrise Movement, which had graded Biden’s primary-season plan an F, but now says that he’s “talking the talk,” and that a post-election mobilization will insure that he’ll “walk the walk.” The main opposition came from President Trump, who insisted that Biden, in his zeal for energy efficiency, had called for abolishing windows.
I don’t want to go deeply into the details of the plan here, because chances are that few of the proposals will get enacted in their precise form, but they seem a truly useful compendium of the mainstream and obvious ideas for an energy and conservation transition. And they provide a good roadmap by which to steer, even if that map avoids the most controversial areas of the debate. (The plan is especially quiet about the efforts that will be necessary to limit mining and drilling for fossil fuels.) The best way to understand them, I think, is as a loud signal in the ever-louder conversation among élites about the trajectory and the pace of that transition.
Non-élites—members of activist movements and renewable-energy engineers—have built the pressure. Assuming that Trump exits next year, and that high-level climate denial goes with him, that pressure will do what pressure does: finally start to make things pop. A big signal comes from the investment community, where banks have started announcing major losses in the hydrocarbon sector. Wells Fargo, for instance, said that forty-seven per cent of its nonperforming corporate loans last quarter were in the three per cent of its deal book devoted to oil and gas. News like that dramatically ups the odds that, say, a Federal Reserve under Biden might increase capital requirements for oil loans. Indeed, earlier this week, a consortium of investors with nearly a trillion dollars in assets urged the Fed to “explicitly integrate climate change across your mandates,” in particular, by providing more information about the financial risks that global warming now presents. On Monday, Morgan Stanley announced that it would rate all its investments for their climate impact—on the one hand, that puts off the necessary end of those investments, but it’s probably also a first signal of acquiescence to reality. And, of course, as big money starts to edge away from the industry, politicians feel less need to do its bidding.
I think we’ve already reached the point where it’s clear that real change is finally coming, and that fossil fuel’s main hope is to slow and shape that change. (Above all, as I wrote last week, the industry is hopeful that natural gas has a future, though new scientific findings and technologies seem to be closing in on even that facet of the business.) The crucial job of activists, then, is to always be demanding that we move faster.
If you want a really powerful signal, one came last week from Teen Vogue, which published an op-ed encouraging young people to not open accounts with banks that are reckless with the planet. (The authors’ “Not My Dirty Money” pledge can be found here.) Meanwhile, Greta Thunberg and fellow climate strikers sent an open letter to the European Union. (I am among the tens of thousands of people who signed onto it.) It says, “You must stop pretending that we can solve the climate and ecological crisis without treating it as a crisis.” Just the right signal, reminding politicians that a devastated climate is not merely an excuse for a jobs program, and at just the right volume. And if signals don’t replace action they do usually precede it—so consider this season a relatively hopeful one.
Passing the Mic
Passing the mic is difficult for me this week, because I can barely even sit up in bed. I fell off my two-wheeled, low-carbon transit device on Thursday, and managed to break six ribs and a shoulder blade, and incurred a severely separated shoulder. I’ve been in the hospital since, and that’s why this newsletter is shorter than usual. I am enormously grateful for all the get-well e-mails; they are a surprisingly good anesthetic. And, although it’s a pretty self-absorbed thing to do, perhaps I can refer you to a letter that I sent my colleagues in the climate movement last week, explaining my plans to do more mic-passing in the years to come.
Climate School
Important news from Al Gore, who has rallied a bunch of hard-chargers in the tech world behind plans for Climate TRACE, which stands for Tracking Real-time Atmospheric Carbon Emissions. The platform “will leverage advanced A.I., satellite-image processing, machine learning, and land- and sea-based sensors to do what was previously thought to be nearly impossible: monitor G.H.G. emissions from every sector and in every part of the world. Our work will be extremely granular in focus—down to specific power plants, ships, factories.” That data will be incredibly powerful: think C.S.I. for carbon.
From time to time, one hears from people contending that the “real cause” of climate change, and all other troubles, is overpopulation. The thinking is sometimes racist, but almost as often, I think, it’s rooted in a leftover understanding of demographic trends. Given a choice, women in most parts of the world are deciding to have far fewer kids than they used to, and the new projections for population circa 2100 are fascinating. It won’t be easy for policymakers to deal with a Japan that is half its present size, but doing so shouldn’t be impossible, either. Japan, after all, was half its present size less than a century ago.
Scoreboard
Even though writers hate to admit it, sometimes a picture (from a really talented photographer) is worth more than words. I’d read often that the enormous Lake Chilwa, in Malawi, is drying out more frequently because of climate change, but it took this image from reader Chris Dawe to really drive that reality home.
Warming Up
There are weeks when one really needs some uplift. That must be why Bill Withers recorded his concert at Carnegie Hall, in 1972.
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=55313"><span class="small">Grace Blakeley, Jacobin</span></a>
Sunday, 26 July 2020 08:02
Blakeley writes: "This week, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos saw the largest single-day increase in wealth ever recorded for any individual."
Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. (photo: Andrew Harrer/Getty)
Why the Superrich Keep Getting Richer
By Grace Blakeley, Jacobin
26 July 20
Billionaires like Jeff Bezos aren't obscenely wealthy because they work harder than everyone else or they're more innovative. They're obscenely wealthy because their corporate empires drain society's resources — and we'd all be better off without them.
his week, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos saw the largest single-day increase in wealth ever recorded for any individual. In just one day, his fortune increased by $13 billion. On current trends, he is on track to become the world’s first trillionaire by 2026.
Those on the right wing of politics argue that extreme wealth is a function of hard work, creativity, and innovation that benefits society. But wealth and income inequality have increased dramatically in most advanced economies in recent years. The richest of the rich are much wealthier today than they were several decades ago, but it is not clear that they are working any harder.
Mainstream economists make a more nuanced version of this argument. They claim that the dramatic increase in income inequality has been driven by the dynamics of globalization and the rise of “superstars.” Firms and corporate executives are now competing in a global market for capital and talent, so the rewards at the top are much higher — even as competition also constrains wages for many toward the bottom end of the distribution.
According to this view, high levels of inequality are a reward for high productivity. The most productive firms will attract more investment than their less productive counterparts, and their managers, who are performing a much more complex job than those managing smaller firms, will be rewarded accordingly.
But here again the narrative runs aground on contact with reality. Productivity has not risen alongside inequality in recent years. In fact, in the United States and the UK productivity has flatlined since the financial crisis — and in the United States, it has been declining since the turn of the century.
There is another explanation for the huge profits of the world’s largest corporations and the huge fortunes of the superrich. Not higher productivity. Not simply globalization. But rising global market power.
Many of the world’s largest tech companies have become global oligopolies and domestic monopolies. Globalization has played a role here, of course — many domestic firms simply can’t compete with global multinationals. But these firms also use their relative size to push down wages, avoid taxes, and gouge their suppliers, as well as lobbying governments to provide them with preferential treatment.
Jeff Bezos and Amazon are a case in point. Amazon has become America’s largest company through anticompetitive practices that have landed it in trouble with the European Union’s competition authorities. The working practices in its warehouses are notoriously appalling. And a study from last year revealed Amazon to be one of the world’s most “aggressive tax avoiders.”
Part of the reason Amazon has to work so hard to maintain its monopoly position is that its business model relies on network effects that only obtain at a certain scale. Tech companies like Amazon make money by monopolizing and then selling the data generated from the transactions on their sites.
The more people who sign up, the more data is generated; and the more data generated, the more useful this data is for those analyzing it. The monetization of this data is what generates most of Amazon’s returns: Amazon Web Services (AWS) is the most profitable part of the business by some distance.
Far from representing its social utility, Amazon’s market value — and Bezos’ personal wealth — reflects its market power. And the rising market power of a small number of larger firms has actually reduced productivity. This concentration has also constrained investment and wage growth as these firms simply don’t have to compete for labor, nor are they forced to innovate in order to outcompete their rivals.
In fact, they’re much more likely to use their profits to buy back their own shares, or to acquire other firms that will increase their market share and give them access to more data. Amazon’s recent acquisition of grocery store Whole Foods is likely to be the first of many such moves by tech companies. Rather than the Darwinian logic of compete or die, the tech companies face a different imperative: expand or die.
States are supporting this logic with exceptionally loose monetary policy. Low interest rates make it very easy for large companies to borrow to fund mergers and acquisitions. And quantitative easing — unleashed on an unprecedented scale to tackle the pandemic — has simply served to raise equity prices, especially for the big tech companies.
As more areas of our lives become subject to the power of big tech, the fortunes of people like Bezos will continue to mount. Their rising wealth will not represent a reward for innovation or job creation, but for their market power, which has allowed them to increase the exploitation of their workforces, gouge suppliers, and avoid taxes.
The only real way to tackle these inequities is to democratize the ownership of the means of production, and begin to hand the key decisions in our economy back to the people. But you would expect that even social democrats, who won’t pursue transformative policies, could get behind measures such as a wealth tax.
“Building back better” after the pandemic will be impossible without such a tax — and the vast majority of both Labour and Conservative voters support such an approach, according to a recent poll. And yet it appears that Labour’s leadership are retreating from the idea.
In an interview the other day, I was asked why we should care about Jeff Bezos’s wealth if it makes everyone else better off. But the extreme inequalities generated by modern capitalism are making obvious something that Marxists have known for decades: the superrich generate their wealth at the expense of workers, the planet, and society as a whole.
In a rational and fair society, the vast resources of a tiny elite would be put to use solving our social problems.
Sunday Song: Bruce Springsteen | The Ghost of Tom Joad
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=55312"><span class="small">Bruce Springsteen, YouTube</span></a>
Sunday, 26 July 2020 07:57
Springsteen writes: "Shelter line stretchin' 'round the corner. Welcome to the new world order."
Bruce Springsteen. (photo: YouTube)
Sunday Song: Bruce Springsteen | The Ghost of Tom Joad
By Bruce Springsteen, YouTube
26 July 20
Men walkin' 'long the railroad tracks
Goin' someplace there's no goin' back
Highway patrol choppers comin' up over the bridge
Hot soup on a campfire under the bridge
Shelter line stretchin' 'round the corner
Welcome to the new world order
Families sleepin' in their cars in the Southwest
No home no job no peace no rest
The highway is alive tonight
But nobody's kiddin' nobody about where it goes
I'm sittin' down here in the campfire light
Searchin' for the ghost of Tom Joad
He pulls a prayer book out of his sleeping bag
Preacher lights up a butt and takes a drag
Waitin' for when the last shall be first and the first shall be last
In a cardboard box 'neath the underpass
Got a one-way ticket to the promised land
You got a hole in your belly and gun in your hand
Sleepin' on a pillow of solid rock
Bathin' in the city aqueduct
The highway is alive tonight
Where it's headed everybody knows
I'm sittin' down here in the campfire light
Waitin' on the ghost of Tom Joad
Now Tom said "Mom, wherever there's a cop beatin' a guy
Wherever a hungry newborn baby cries
Where there's a fight against the blood and hatred in the air
Look for me mom I'll be there
Wherever there's somebody fightin' for a place to stand
Or a decent job or a helpin' hand
Wherever somebody's strugglin' to be free
Look in their eyes Mom you'll see me. "
Well the highway is alive tonight
But nobody's kiddin' nobody about where it goes
I'm sittin' down here in the campfire light
With the ghost of old Tom Joad
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.