TrueValueMetrics ... Impact Accounting for the 21st Century

Date: 2025-08-21 Page is: DBtxt003.php txt00028992

COMMENTARY ROBERT REICH ... JULY 29TH, 2025 How Do We Get Out of This Mess? PLAY YOUTUBE VIDEO Original article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osDCl0cPHB4
How Do We Get Out of This Mess? Robert Reich Jul 29, 2025 1.28M subscribers ... 145,978 views ... 10K likes When we survive the Trump era, we can’t go back to the status quo. We need to build a future where our society and economy are fairer for everyone. Here are 15 ways to do just that: Links to all of the separate videos that are featured in this compilation. • The Biggest Economic Lies We’re Told \| Rob... • How the Super Rich Are Killing Social Secu... • What is Universal Basic Income? \| Robert R... • The Truth About Guaranteed Income \| Robert... • Think Tipping Is Out of Control? Watch Thi... • Robert Reich Destroys Minimum Wage Myths • Say Goodbye to Lousy, Low-Paying Jobs: The... • The Hidden Costs of Denying Paid Sick Leave • The Real Deal with Medicare for All \| Robe... • Why We Need a Wealth Tax \| Robert Reich • How Workers Can Reclaim Power From Bezos &... • How to Abolish the Electoral College \| Rob... • How to Fix a Broken Supreme Court \| Robert... • How to Make Congress Less Terrible \| Rober... • The Solutions to the Climate Crisis No One... Peter Burgess COMMENTARY Peter Burgess Transcript 0:00 Intro We need to look beyond Trump. Just fighting against his destructive agenda isn’t enough. We also need to fight for bold ideas that will make our society and economy fairer for everyone. Here are 15 ways to build a better future. First, we need to realize that the ways we’ve been measuring the health of our economy are fundamentally wrong. Watch this. 0:30 How We Measure a Successful Economy In America, it’s expensive just to be alive. And that’s because of choices made by some of these um....irregular Americans. Just look at how big oil is raking it in while you pay through the nose at the pump. Not sure about you, but I'll do just about anything to save fuel where I can. Go around! I'm driving slow because I'm saving gas. You don't like it, go around. Go around! That's on top of the average price of a new non-luxury car, 1:01 which is now over $44,000. I mean, even accounting for inflation, this is way higher than the average cost when I bought my first car. It's probably in a museum by now. Even worse, the median price for a house is now over $440,000. Compare that to 1972, when it was under $200,000. Work a full time minimum wage job? You won't even be able to afford rent on a one-bedroom apartment just about anywhere in the United States. And when you get back after a long day of work, you'll likely be met with bills up the wazoo for doctor's visits, student loans, and utilities. So what's left of the paycheck after basic living expenses? And maybe not even those! You can only reduce spending on food, housing, and other basic necessities so much. 2:00 Want to try covering the rest of your monthly costs with a credit card? Well, now that's more expensive, too with the Fed continuing to hike interest rates. All of this comes back to how we measure a successful economy. What good are more jobs if those jobs barely pay enough to live on? And what good are lots of jobs if they cause so much stress and take up so much time that our lives are miserable? And don't tell me a good economy is measured by a roaring stock market if the richest 10% of Americans own more than 80% of it. And what good is a large gross domestic product if more and more of the total economy is going to the richest 1%? In fact, what good is economic growth if the way we grow depends on fossil fuels that cause a climate crisis? These standard measures — jobs, the stock market, the GDP — They don't show how our economy is really doing, 3:04 who is doing well, or the quality of our lives. People who sit at their kitchen tables at night wondering how they're going to pay the bills, they don't say to themselves, “Well, at least corporate profits are at record levels.” In fact, corporations have record profits and CEOs are paid so much because Over the past 40 years, productivity has grown nearly four times as fast as hourly pay. That's right. Working Americans are getting paid less for being more productive than ever. Wish we could say the same about billionaires. At the same time, corporations are driving up the costs of everyday items people need. Because corporations are monopolizing their markets, they don't have to worry about competitors. A few giant corporations can easily coordinate price hikes and enjoy bigger profits. 4:04 Just four firms control 85% of all beef, 66% of all pork, and 54% of all poultry production. Firms like Tyson have seen their profit margins skyrocket as they jack up prices higher than their costs — forcing consumers who are already stretched thin to pay even more. It's not just meat. Weak antitrust enforcement has allowed companies to become powerful enough to raise their prices across the entire food industry. It's the same story with household goods. Giant companies like Procter and Gamble, they blame their price hikes on increased costs, but their profit margins have soared to 25%. Hello? They care more about their bottom line than your bottom. Meanwhile, parents — and even grandparents like me — are still struggling to feed their babies because of a national formula shortage. 5:03 Why? Largely because the three companies that control the entire formula industry would rather pump money into stock buybacks than quality control at their factories. Traditionally, our economy's health is measured by the unemployment rate. Job growth. The stock market. Overall economic growth. But these don't reflect the everyday “kitchen table economics” that affect our lives the most. These measures don't show the real economy. Instead of looking just at the number of jobs, we need to look at the income earned from those jobs. And not the average income. I mean, people at the top always bring up the average. If Jeff Bezos walked into a bar with 100 average working people, the average wealth of each person would suddenly be over a billion dollars. No, look here, at the median income — half above, half below. 6:02 And make sure it accounts for inflation. That is real purchasing power. Over the last few decades, the real median income has barely budged. This isn’t economic success. It's economic failure, with a capital F. And instead of looking at the stock market or the GDP, we need to look at who owns what, where the wealth really is. Over the last 40 years, wealth has concentrated more and more at the very top. Look at this. This is a problem, folks, because with wealth comes political power. Forget trickle down economics. It's trickle on. And instead of looking just at economic growth, we also need to look at what that growth is costing us. 7:02 Subtract the costs of the climate crisis, the cost of bad health, the costs of no paid leave, and all the stresses on our lives that economic growth is demanding. We need to look at the quality of our lives — all our lives. How many of us are adequately housed and clothed and fed? How many of our kids are getting a good education? How many of us live in safety or in fear? You want to measure economic success? Go to the kitchen tables of America. Social Security 7:38 Second, let’s focus on one of the most successful existing programs that’s currently under threat, but can easily be saved with one common sense reform. Here's the real reason Social Security is in danger that nobody's talking about. It's not just because too many boomers like me are retiring. 8:01 It's because of inequality. Now, I don't want to alarm you. Social Security is still helping us oldies enjoy our golden years, mostly on the pickleball court, but only for so long. Social Security is one of the most popular and successful government programs ever created, not only helping retirees, but it's also keeping 26 million people out of poverty. Yet here's the problem... It’s going to run out of money before you can ever receive it if the rich don't start paying their fair share. The trustees of Social Security — of which yours truly was once a member back when I had thicker hair — say the program will only be able to pay full benefits until 2033. After that, Social Security will only be able to dole out roughly 77% of benefits. Why? It's not the reason that many seem to think. “And we’re going to have more and more baby boomers 9:00 who are going to be collecting Social Security.” Boomer retirees like me might be soaking up some sun, but we’re not soaking up all of the program’s funds. The Social Security trustees anticipated the boom in boomer retirements. This is why Social Security was amended back in 1983, to gradually increase the age for collecting full retirement benefits from age 65 to age 67. That change is helping finance the boomers’ retirement. What did the trustees fail to anticipate? A much larger chunk of the nation’s total income is now going to the top compared to decades ago. But income subject to the Social Security payroll tax is capped. No dollar of earnings above the cap is taxed. The cap in 2023 is $160,200. So, as the rich have become far richer, more and more of the nation’s total income has escaped the Social Security payroll tax. For example, a CEO earning $20 million a year 10:06 pays Social Security taxes on roughly 1% of their income, while a worker earning under the cap pays Social Security taxes on 100% of their income. As more of the nation's income has gone to the super rich, logically, a larger share of the nation’s income goes untaxed for Social Security. This is why widening inequality has cost the Social Security Trust Fund an estimated $1.4 trillion since 1983. The solution is obvious. It’s time to scrap the cap, and make the rich pay more in Social Security taxes. One plan introduced in Congress would eliminate the cap on earnings over $250,000 and also subject investment income to Social Security taxes. It's estimated that this would extend the solvency of Social Security for the next 75 years without raising taxes on 93% of American households. 11:06 This is where you come in. Share this video and help spread the word about the real threat to Social Security and what can be done about it. If we want to ensure Social Security's long term future, and that working people can retire with dignity, we must make the wealthy pay their fair share. Now let’s look to the not-too-distant future. How will our society function when and if most people’s jobs are replaced by artificial intelligence? You see this little gadget? Let's call it an 'iEverything.' You can't get it yet, but if technology keeps moving as fast as it is now, the iEverything will be with us before you know it; a combination of intelligent computing, 3D manufacturing, big data crunching, and advanced biotechnology. This little machine will be able to do everything you want 12:02 and give you everything you need. There's only one hitch. As the economy is now organized, no one will be able to buy it because there won't be any paying jobs left. You see, the iEverything will do... everything. I'm exaggerating a bit in order to make a point about the trend we're already seeing. Even now, we're producing more and more with fewer and fewer people. Internet sales are on the way to replacing millions of retail workers. Diagnostic apps will be replacing hundreds of thousands of healthcare workers. Self-driving cars and trucks will replace five million drivers. digital voice Where would you like to go? Researchers estimate that almost half of all U.S. jobs are at risk of being automated in the next two decades. Now, this isn't necessarily bad. The economy we're heading toward could offer millions of people more free time to do what they want instead of what they have to do to earn a living. But, to make this work, 13:03 we'll have to figure out some way to recirculate the money from the relatively few people who do very well in the economy of the iEverything to the rest of us, who will want to buy the iEverythings. One possible answer: a universal basic income, possibly financed out of the profits going to labor-replacing innovations. The idea of a universal basic income historically has had support from people on both the left and the right. In the 1970's, President Nixon proposed a similar concept for the United States, and it even passed the House of Representatives. President Nixon I therefore propose that we abolish the present welfare system, and a basic federal minimum would be provided. The idea is getting some traction again. Some think it could be superior to welfare 14:02 or other kinds of public assistance, because a universal basic income doesn't tell people what to spend the assistance on. And everyone qualifies. In recent years, evidence has shown that giving people cash as a way to address poverty actually works. In study after study, people don't stop working, and they don't drink it away, they actually use it to increase their earnings. Interest in a basic income is surging, with governments debating it from Finland, to Canada, to Namibia. The charity Give Directly is about to launch a basic income pilot in Kenya. Providing an income for more than ten years to some of the poorest and most vulnerable families on the planet, and then rigorously evaluate the results. As new technologies replace work, the question for the future is how best to provide economic security for all. A universal basic income could be an answer. 14:59 How Does Universal Basic Income Work Sounds great, right? But how does universal basic income work in real life? 15:05 Watch this. Conservatives say that if you give people money, they won’t work. That cash assistance is a “handout,” “socialism.” O'Reilley: “It’s a disincentive!' 'Alright, I mean, it’s not hard to make a living.' 'It’s hard to make a good living, but not hard to make a living.” Well, baloney! Providing people with a basic income has significant benefits. The most recent example comes from Stockton, California, where researchers studied the effects of distributing $500 a month for 24 months to 125 recipients. The cash was unconditional — with no strings attached and no work requirements — and recipients were selected randomly from neighborhoods at or below the city’s median income. After a year, what are the initial findings? Those who received payments have gone from working part-time to working full-time at 16:00 more than twice the rate of those who did not receive payments. And more people who received payments but had not been working got work, while more of those who didn’t receive payments became unemployed. The explanation is simple. Receiving enough money to get by gives people the freedom to get the jobs they want — and feel psychologically healthier, less anxious and depressed. Republicans claim that people use so-called “handouts” to buy things they don’t need. Wrong. In Stockton, people have spent the payments on basic needs — groceries, utility bills, car repairs, and to pay down their debts — the kind of expenditures that keep them going. The Stockton study is still ongoing, but it already shows that unconditional cash payments help recipients find work, build financial stability, and relieve stress — all while stimulating the economy. It’s time we stop perpetuating conservative myths about laziness and handouts. 17:00 The Subminimum Wage Giving people money to survive isn’t just the moral thing to do — it’s the smart thing to do. Now, I can understand why some people might find this idea controversial. But I believe a Universal Basic Income will become a necessity as AI and automation replace more jobs. Let’s turn to an idea that shouldn’t be controversial at all: Workers deserve a living wage. To achieve that, at the very least, we need to get rid of the subminimum wage. $2.13 an hour. That's how much millions of American workers are paid under the federal subminimum wage for tipped workers — which was set all the way back in 1991. While many think tipping for services has gotten out of control... No, ma'am. We are not tipping at the Starbucks drive-thru ...arguing over who deserves a tip and how much they should get distracts from what we really should be angry about: 18:01 business models that depend on not paying workers a living wage. It's bad enough that the federal minimum wage is a measly $7.25 an hour, but employers are allowed to pay tipped workers just $2.13 an hour because supposedly those workers will be able to make up for it in tips. Saru Jayaraman of One Fair Wage has been advocating to change this absurd and exploitative law. I asked her to share with us four big reasons why we need to get rid of the subminimum wage, and pay service workers a full living wage with tips on top. Number one: Workers who earn a subminimum wage often end up making less than the minimum wage even with tips. 43 states currently allow tipped workers to be paid a subminimum wage. Employers in these states are legally required to make up the difference if a worker's combined wage and tips don't reach the full minimum wage. 19:04 But over a third of tipped workers report that their bosses regularly fail to do this. Number two: The subminimum wage perpetuates gender discrimination and sexual harassment on the job. More than two-thirds of tipped workers, actually 70% in the United States, are women. And one in six women that work a tipped job are living in poverty. That's nearly 2.5 times the rate for workers overall. Since workers earning the subminimum wage are so dependent on tips to make a living, they're often put in situations where they have to tolerate inappropriate customer behavior. A staggering 76%, that's more than three-quarters of tipped workers, have reported experiencing sexual harassment on the job. But in states that require full minimum wage with tips on top, sexual harassment is cut in half. because workers are not as dependent on customers for their income. Number three: Replacing wages with tips is a relic of slavery. 20:05 Tipped workers are disproportionately people of color, and Black service workers in particular consistently earn less, including tips, than their White counterparts. Look, this inequity of the subminimum wage is tied to America's history of structural racism. Following the Civil War, tipping was used as a racist solution by employers who didn't want to pay formerly enslaved Black workers. So by allowing them to pay their workers just in tips rather than a wage, employers were able to avoid directly paying Black workers. Number four: Paying workers a living wage plus tips is actually better for business — and our economy. Corporate lobbyists, particularly for the restaurant industry, claim that paying workers a full minimum wage with tips on top will be devastating to businesses. But research shows these fears are completely overblown. So far, seven states have replaced their subminimum wage for tipped workers with a higher full minimum wage 21:07 that still allows for tips on top. These seven states are actually faring better than the 43 other states, both in the number of restaurants and the number of people employed by restaurants. And take home pay for restaurant servers and bartenders in these states is 24% higher, almost a quarter higher, than in states with a wage of just $2.13 an hour. Workers at restaurants that have scrapped their subminimum wages in favor of higher, full minimum wages with tips on top are more productive, happier and less likely to quit their jobs. This alone helps business owners cut employee turnover nearly in half. So not only have higher wage states been able to maintain their restaurant industries, but workers are more productive, getting paid more, and less likely to live in poverty. 22:00 And when workers have more money, they spend more money — stimulating their local economies in the process. And here's the really exciting news. For the first time in 30 years, workers are winning on this issue in D.C., in Chicago, and soon in a dozen other states. One Fair Wage! One Fair Wage! One Fair Wage! The bottom line is that ending the subminimum wage for tipped workers is better. It's better for workers. It's better for business. It's better for our economy. And it's the right thing to do. 22:39 The Regular Minimum Wage In addition to scrapping the subminimum wage, it’s long past time to raise the regular minimum wage. If your business model depends on paying your workers starvation wages, you should not be in business. The federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour has not been raised since 2009. 23:00 That’s longest period without an increase since the minimum wage was enacted, meaning today’s minimum wage is actually worth far less than it was in 2009. This is an insult to American workers, and bad for our economy. It’s far past time to raise the minimum wage to at least $15 an hour. Today’s minimum wage is a starvation wage. A full-time minimum wage worker can’t afford a two-bedroom rental in any city, county, or state in the entire country. Meanwhile, billionaires like Jeff Bezos can afford a D.C. mansion with 25 bathrooms and 5 living rooms — just one of his many mansions. Now, the current minimum wage isn’t so low because these workers are “worth” less than they were years ago; quite the contrary. If the minimum wage had kept pace with workers’ productivity increases since 1968, it would be $22 an hour today. Even so, conservatives are out to scare you about raising the wage. Let’s debunk each of their talking points. 24:05 Myth #1: If businesses have to raise wages, they’ll cut employees’ hours or cut jobs altogether. Rubbish. Since at least the 1930s, critics have argued that setting any minimum standard of decency at the workplace will raise employer costs and kill jobs — child labor laws, the 40-hour workweek, and workplace safety laws. If we’ve learned anything over the years, it’s that treating workers decently is worth the price. Besides, an abundance of research shows that increases in the minimum wage do not reduce the overall number of jobs. Researchers examined 138 state-level minimum wage increases and found that the number of low-wage jobs remained essentially unchanged in the five years following the increase, but workers were paid more. That’s a job upgrade, not a job loss, and multiple studies have come to the same conclusion. When I led the fight to raise the minimum wage in 1996, 25:06 many conservatives predicted huge job losses. Well, I’m happy to report that after the increase, almost 10 million low-wage workers received a raise with no decline in overall employment. It’s simply a myth that raising the wage automatically means lost jobs. Not to mention the benefits for workers themselves. Raising the wage to $15 an hour by 2025, as proposed in the Raise the Wage Act, would give 32 million workers a raise. Here’s the bottom line: If your business model depends on paying your workers starvation wages, you should not be in business. Myth #2: Small businesses won’t be able to afford the higher wage and will be put out of business. Baloney. The fact is, a higher minimum wage can actually lower costs to small businesses. How? 26:02 For starters, a higher minimum wage attracts more potential workers into the labor force, thereby giving employers more choice of whom to hire. This leads to higher productivity and better service. Better service means more satisfied clients and customers. Higher paid workers are also more likely to stick around, saving businesses the hefty costs that come with recruiting, hiring, and training new workers. A study of the San Francisco airport confirms this: researchers found that following a wage increase, a majority of workers who received a raise improved their overall performance. The higher wages even led to shorter airport lines. Researchers also found that employee turnover declined by 34 percent -- saving an estimated $6.6 million a year. Smart business owners understand this. Henry Ford, after introducing the “five dollar day” in 1914 when typical industry wages were less than half 27:02 that, called it his best cost-cutting strategy because of the productivity boost that followed. Myth #3: If the minumum wage is raised, prices for everything will skyrocket and lead to widespread inflation. Wrong again. Researchers have found that for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, prices increase by less than half a percent. And it’s a temporary price increase — occurring only in the month the wage hike goes into effect. No way this sparks inflation. In fact, the minimum wage needs to be raised so that it can catch up with inflation. Because of inflation, today’s minimum wage is worth almost a third less than it was worth in 1968. And since it was last raised in 2009, it’s lost 17 percent of its value. This means that compared to 2009, minimum wage workers have lost $3,950 every year. So that’s why a higher minimum 28:04 wage would boost economic growth. 70 percent of the economy depends on consumer spending, so more money in people’s pockets means they can spend more on the goods and services that keep the economy going. Oh, and raising the minimum wage would reduce the amount of money taxpayers spend on public assistance that families need because their breadwinners don’t make enough to live on. It’s estimated that nearly half of federal minimum wage workers’ families are enrolled in at least one safety net program, costing the public $107 billion every year. That’s right: our tax dollars are subsidizing corporations that don’t pay a living wage. Myth #4: Most minimum wage workers are teenagers making some extra money on the side; they don’t need a wage increase. More rubbish. While this might have been the case in 1968, it certainly 29:03 isn't now. Today, only 1 in 10 workers who would benefit from a $15 minimum wage is a teenager. More than half are between the ages of 25 and 54. More than half of them work full time, and over a quarter have children. Today’s minimum wage hurts people who are in their prime earning years, preventing them from building wealth and establishing financial security. Raising the minimum wage would also help reduce racial and gender pay disparities. Minimum wage increases and expansions in the late 1960s reduced the income gap between Black and white workers. Raising the wage would have a similar effect today because Black workers, Hispanic workers, and women comprise a large portion of today’s low-wage workers. In sum, raising the minimum wage is good for workers, good for businesses, and good for the economy. 30:02 In addition to all this, raising the minimum wage is the morally correct thing to do. It ought to lift working people out of poverty, not keep them in it. We’re the richest country in the world, home to the richest people on the planet. We can, and we must, treat our workers with the dignity and respect they deserve. That starts with paying them a living wage. The Federal Job Guarantee 30:38 Every job should pay a living wage. Seems like common sense, right? Here’s something else that should be common sense: Everyone who wants a job should be able to get one. Spoiler alert: It’s the exact opposite of what the Trump regime is doing. We mustn't forget the economic frustrations that helped fuel Trump's election. For too long, too many Americans have faced lousy jobs or no jobs. One answer: a guaranteed job at a living wage. 31:15 Republicans continue to push for work requirements for recipients of Medicaid, food stamps, and public housing benefits. But the real problem is there aren't enough adequately paying jobs to go around. Even today, with a low official unemployment rate, millions who work part-time jobs want full-time work. Millions more are too discouraged to look for work, having endured the brutalities of job discrimination for far too long or unable to move to where the jobs are. And a large and growing number of jobs don't pay enough to get people out of poverty. At the same time, a lot of work needs to be done: greening our nation's infrastructure, caring for the elderly, teaching in our public schools, adequately staffing national parks, you name it. 32:02 So why shouldn't the federal government create jobs and connect them directly to people who can't otherwise find one with decent predictable hours and at a living wage? An added plus: The availability of such jobs would give more bargaining power to many low-wage workers to get better hours and wages — because if they don't get them from their employer, they'd have the option of a public job. In this way, a federal job guarantee would raise the floor for job quality nationwide. And a job guarantee would act as a giant economic stabilizer during downturns, when the first to lose their jobs are usually the most economically marginalized. Can we afford a job guarantee today? Yes. It's estimated to cost around $670 billion in its first year, $30 billion less than the defense budget. But that tab would quickly shrink. With more people working at better wages, Americans 33:04 would have more purchasing power to buy goods and services. This would lead to more hiring by the private sector and eventually less need for the federal job guarantee. More people working would also generate more tax revenue, partially offsetting the direct cost of the job guarantee. Additional savings would come from fewer people needing public assistance. The Center for Labor Research and Education at Berkeley estimates that the federal government now spends over $150 billion a year because workers aren't earning enough to get out of poverty. So, doesn't it make more sense to use this money to create guaranteed jobs at a living wage? So let's think beyond Trump to what Americans need. Few things are more important than a decent job. Full employment through a federal job guarantee makes sense for workers, for the economy, for America. 34:03 And no matter what kind of job you have, you should have paid sick leave! 34:09 Paid Sick Leave This idea that sick workers should just “power through it” isn’t just bad for them and their families. It’s bad for public health and bad for the economy. And it’s also just gross! Feeling sick? Then your boss should be paying you to stay home. It's better for your health, your coworkers’ health, customers’ health, and it's actually better for your company’s bottom line. Let me explain. Right now, roughly 33 million American workers have no paid sick leave because the U.S. is one of the very few wealthy nations that still does not guarantee it. But research shows that paid sick leave is actually good for businesses that want to save money and have happier, healthier employees. For starters, paid sick leave attracts more workers to jobs and keeps them there longer — improving employer-employee relationships while saving businesses the expenses of hiring and retraining. 35:04 It increases overall productivity. When workers get paid sick leave, they don't have to worry about reporting for work when they're feeling ill, meaning they're less stressed and more productive while on the job. Plus, it keeps workers safer by reducing the likelihood of on-the-job accidents and minimizing the spread of illnesses across workplaces. Workers who aren't afraid of losing pay when sick are also more likely to see a doctor and avoid becoming sicker — meaning fewer sick days later on and fewer costly visits to emergency rooms. This also saves their employers money over the long term by lowering health insurance premiums. Now, 79 percent of American workers have at least some form of paid sick leave thanks to a Band-Aid system of local laws, state laws, and the good graces of employers. But dig a little bit deeper and you'll see that this seemingly high number masks harsh inequalities in our current approach to providing paid sick leave. While 96% of the highest-paid workers have paid sick days, 36:03 only 38% of the lowest-paid workers get them. These lower-wage workers are often found in retail, restaurant, hotel, and hospitality jobs — the very people most likely to pick up the virus at work and also give it to customers. And because of their low wages, the least able to afford a day off. So why aren't all businesses offering paid sick leave to their workers? Because they're taking a narrow, short-term view. And many just don't trust their employees. But let me tell you this: Over the longer term, this is costing them, and it’s costing all of us. We've already seen, during the pandemic, how important paid sick leave is. If businesses don't provide paid sick leave voluntarily, we need to require them to provide it by law. Providing paid sick leave is good for everyone, and it’s the right thing to do. 36:53 Medicare for All And speaking of health, here’s why we need Medicare for All, as explained in a video we made during the 2020 presidential primaries. Republicans and even some Democrats are out to scare you about Medicare for All. They say it’s going to dismantle health care as we know it and will cost way too much. Rubbish! Here’s how much the typical American family now spends on health insurance premiums each year. And here I add in the co-payments and deductibles that doctors, hospitals, and drug companies also charge you, and typical out-of-pocket expenses for pharmaceuticals. But that’s not all, because some of the taxes you now pay are for health insurance too — for Medicare and Medicaid and for the Affordable Care Act. So let’s add them in, again for the typical American household. That’s a whopping $8,975 a year. Oh, and this number is expected to rise in the coming years. Not a pretty picture. If you’re a typical American, you're already paying far more for health insurance than 38:06 people in any other advanced country. And you’re not getting your money’s worth. The United States ranks near the bottom for life span and infant mortality. Or maybe you’re one of the 30 million Americans who don’t have any health insurance coverage at all. You see, a big reason we pay so much for health insurance is the administrative costs involved in private, for-profit, corporate insurance. About a third of what you pay goes to the people who oversee billing and collections. And then, of course, there are the marketing and advertising expenses, and the profits that go to shareholders or private equity managers. Now, what happens if we have Medicare for All? Let's first consider a limited version that keeps private insurance — as proposed by candidates, including Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, and Kamala Harris. 39:02 Now the insurance costs remain the same, because it’s the same private insurers and the same co-payments and deductibles. The only difference is more of this would be paid through your taxes, rather than by you directly, because the government would reimburse the insurance companies. This could help bring down costs by giving the government more bargaining leverage to get better prices. But we don’t know yet how much. Now, let’s talk about a different version of Medicare for All that replaces private, for-profit, corporate health insurance, as proposed by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. In this version, total costs — including a possible combination of premiums, co-payments, deductibles, or taxes — are even lower. So, you'd come out ahead. And everyone would be covered. This option is far cheaper, because it doesn’t have all those administrative expenses. Or the marketing and advertising. It’s public insurance that reimburses hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies directly 40:05 and eliminates the bloat of private, corporate insurance companies. You’d keep your same doctor or other health care provider, and you could still buy private insurance to supplement Medicare for All, just like some people currently buy private insurance to supplement Medicare and Social Security. The only thing that’s changed is you no longer pay the private, for-profit corporate insurers. Economists at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst say Medicare for All that replaces private, for-profit insurance would reduce costs by about 10 percent, mostly from lower administrative and drug costs. The Urban Institute estimates that households and businesses would save about $21.9 trillion. over ten years, and state and local governments would save $4.1 trillion. Any Medicare for All is better than our present system, but the second version is far better, 41:07 because — like Medicare and Social Security — it is based on the simple and proven idea that we shouldn’t be paying private, for-profit corporate insurers boatloads of money to get the insurance we need. It’s time for true Medicare for All. Now how do we pay for all of this? Tax the rich! Here’s a way to do it. Here’s a way to do it. The crisis of income inequality in America is well-known, but there is another economic crisis developing much faster and with worse consequences. I’m talking about inequality of wealth. The wealth gap is now staggering. In the 1970s, the wealthiest tenth of Americans owned about a third of the nation’s total household wealth. Now, the wealthiest 10% owns about 75% of total household wealth. 42:00 America’s richest one-tenth of 1% now owns as much wealth as the bottom 90%. Wealth isn’t like income. Income is payment for work. Wealth keeps growing automatically and exponentially, because it’s parked in investments that generate even more wealth. Wealth is also passed from generation to generation. An estimated 60% of the wealth in the United States today is inherited. Many of today’s super-rich never did a day’s work in their lives. The Walmart heirs alone have more wealth than the bottom 42% of Americans combined. America is now on the cusp of the largest intergenerational transfer of wealth in history. As wealthy boomers die, an estimated $30 trillion will go to their children over the next three decades. Over time, this wealth will continue to grow even further, without these folks lifting a finger. This concentration of wealth will soon resemble the kind of dynasties common to European aristocracies 43:04 in the 17th and 18th centuries. It’s exactly what our Founding Fathers sought to combat by creating a system of government and economy grounded in meritocracy. Dynastic wealth puts economic power into the hands of a relatively small number of people who make decisions about where and how to invest the nation’s capital, as well as which nonprofit enterprises and charities deserve support, and what politicians merit their campaign contributions. That means their decisions have a disproportionately large effect on America’s future. Dynastic wealth also magnifies race and gender disparities. Because of racism and sexism, women and people of color not only earn less, they have also saved less. Which is why the racial wealth gap and the gender wealth gap are huge and growing. Today, government is financed almost entirely by income taxes and payroll taxes, totally 44:03 ignoring the giant and growing wealth at the top. So how do we address the crisis of wealth inequality? A wealth tax, as proposed by Senator Elizabeth Warren, would begin to tackle all this by placing a 2% tax on wealth in excess of $50 million. According to estimates, this tax would generate $2.75 trillion over the next decade, which could be used for health care, education, infrastructure... everything else we need. Not only would a wealth tax raise revenue and help bring the economy back into balance, but it would also protect our democracy by reducing the influence of the super-rich on our political system. We must demand an economy that works for the many, not one that concentrates wealth in the hands of a few. A wealth tax is a necessary first step. 45:03 Unions How do workers get enough power to demand all these things? Unions! Come with me. And imagine a world where workers have real power. In this world, workers are paid a living wage, are protected by a strong union, and they wield enough political clout to ensure Congress passes pro-worker laws. Corporations can’t treat them like robots and abandon communities to find cheaper labor elsewhere. It's a world of low inequality, where workers have a bigger share of the fruits of their labor. This world is America in the 1950s. Now, this world was far from perfect, that’s why it’s not enough to just go back in time. We have to build upon it, and expand it. For the past 40 years, this world has been dismantled. The voice of workers has been steadily drowned out in both the workplace, and on the national political stage, by the voice of big corporations. 46:05 This massive power shift wasn’t the result of “free market forces,” but of political choices. Now it's time to make the political choice to strengthen the voice of all workers. Start with one of the biggest sources of worker power: unions. Every worker in America has a legal right to join a union free from interference from their employer — a hard-fought victory that workers shed blood to secure. But corporate America has been busting unions to prevent workers from organizing. In Bessemer, Alabama, for instance, Amazon used every trick in the anti-union playbook to prevent its predominantly Black workforce from forming the first Amazon union. Most union-busting tactics are illegal, but the punishment is so laughably small that it’s simply the cost of doing business for a multi-billion dollar company like Amazon. In addition, 28 states now have so-called “right-to-work” laws on the books, thanks to 47:04 decades of big business lobbying. These laws ban unions from requiring dues from non-union workers, although non-union workers still benefit from these union contracts. This obviously makes it much harder for workers to unionize. Corporations are also misclassifying employees as independent contractors and part-time workers, so workers don’t qualify for unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, or the minimum wage, and they don’t have the right to form a union. And corporations are waging political fights to keep employees off the books: Uber, Lyft, and other gig companies shelled out $200 million to get Proposition 22 passed in California, exempting them from a state labor law cracking down on misclassification. You see it's a vicious cycle: Corporations crush their workers to protect corporate bottom lines, then use their enlarged profits to lobby for policies that allow them to keep crushing their workers — preventing workers from having a voice in the workplace, and in our democracy. 48:07 This vicious cycle began in the 1980s, when corporate raiders ushered in the era of “shareholder capitalism” that prioritized shareholders above the interests of other stakeholders. They bought up enough shares of stock to gain control of the corporation, and then cut costs by slashing payrolls, busting unions, and abandoning their home communities for cheaper locales — all to maximize share values. The CEO of General Electric, Jack Welch, helped pioneer these moves: In just his first four years as CEO, a full quarter of GE’s workforce was fired. “The best thing you can do to an employee, is early on, as early as you know they’re the bottom 10, let them know so they can go on and adjust their life.” The Reagan administration helped block any legislation to rein in these hostile takeovers, 49:03 and refused to lift a finger to enforce antitrust laws that could have prevented some of them. The result of these political choices? Corporate profits have soared and wages have stagnated. But it doesn’t have to be this way. We can turn the tide by making new political choices that restore the voice and centrality of American workers. The most important is now in front of us: It’s called the Protecting the Right to Organize Act. Passed in the House in March, with bipartisan support, the PRO Act is the toughest labor law reform in a generation. It prevents misclassification of full-time workers, bans corporations from harassing or intimidating workers who want to form a union, prohibits employers from replacing striking workers with non-union workers, and beefs up penalties for breaking existing labor laws, among other provisions empowering workers. Now beyond the PRO Act, American businesses need to be restructured so workers have 50:02 a say, at every level. At the top, that means a voice on corporate boards. In many European countries, worker representation has been shown to boost wages, skills, and corporate investment in communities. At the local level, we should make it easier to establish worker-owned cooperatives, which have been shown to increase profits, wages, and worker satisfaction. And our trade and foreign policy can center on American workers without falling into the kind of xenophobia and nativism Donald Trump promoted. Reversing 40 years of shareholder capitalism won’t be easy. But remember this: You, the working people of America, outnumber the corporate executives and big investors by a wide margin. Together, you can change the rules, and build a world where workers have real power. Electoral College 51:07 Everything I’ve talked about so far is really about power. For people to be empowered, our democracy needs to work better. One way to make that happen? Start with the Electoral College. Should someone else's vote count more than yours? For 80% of Americans, that's exactly what's happening. Their vote for president isn't nearly as valuable as the vote of someone in a so-called “swing state.” Most of us live in states that have become so predictably Democratic or Republican that we're taken for granted by candidates. Presidential elections now turn on the dwindling number of swing states that could go either way, which gives voters in those states huge leverage. The 2020 election came down to just over 40,000 votes spread across just three swing states. 2016 came down to fewer than 80,000 votes also across three states. In those elections, the national popular vote wasn't nearly that close. In fact, in the last five elections, 52:02 the winners of the popular vote beat their opponents by an average of 5 million votes. The current state-by-state Electoral College system of electing presidents is creating ever-closer contests in an ever-smaller number of closely divided states for elections that aren't really that close. Not only that, but these razor-thin swing state margins can invite post-election recounts, audits, and lawsuits — even attempted coups. A losing candidate might be able to overturn 40,000 votes with these techniques. Overturning 5 million would be nearly impossible. The current system presents a growing threat to the peaceful transition of power. It also strips us of our individual power. If you’re a New York Republican or an Alabama Democrat, presidential candidates have little incentive to try and win your vote under the current system. They don't need broad 53:00 popular support as much as a mobilized base in a handful of swing states. Campaigning to a smaller and more radical base is also leading to uglier, more divisive campaigns. And it's becoming more and more likely that candidates are elected president without winning the most votes nationwide. It's already happened twice this century. But, there is an alternative — and it starts with getting our states to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Now, don't let that mouthful put you off. It could save our democracy. This compact would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes nationwide without a constitutional amendment. How does it work? The Constitution assigns each state a number of electors equal to its number of representatives and senators. As of now, the total number of electors is 538. So anyone who gets 270 or more of those Electoral College votes becomes president. 54:01 Article II of the Constitution allows state legislatures to award their electors any way they want. So all that's needed is for states with a total of at least 270 electoral votes to agree to award all their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote. The movement to do this is already underway. 15 states and the District of Columbia have joined the compact, agreeing that once enough states join, all their electoral votes will go to the popular vote winner. Together, states in the compact have 195 electoral votes. So we just need a few more states with at least 75 electors to join the compact and it's done. Popular vote laws have recently been introduced in Michigan and Minnesota, which, if passed, would bring the total to 220. Now, naturally, this plan will face legal challenges. 55:00 There are a lot of powerful interests who stand to benefit by maintaining the current system. But if we keep up the fight and get enough states on board, America will never again elect a president who loses the national popular vote. No longer would 80% of us be effectively disenfranchised from presidential campaigns. And a handful of votes in swing states would no longer determine the winner. If you want to know more or get involved, click the link below to read about the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. If your state is not already a member, I urge you to contact your state senators and reps to get your state on board. 55:45 The Supreme Court Now how about the Supreme Court? Is there a way to make the court better reflect the will of the people? The Supreme Court is off the rails — and it's only going to get worse unless we fight to reform it. Public trust and approval of the court have hit historic lows due to seemingly partisan decisions and a growing number of ethics scandals. 56:13 Here are three key reforms Congress should enact to restore legitimacy to our nation's highest court. Number one, establish a code of ethics. Every other federal judge has to sign on to a code of ethics — except for Supreme Court justices. This makes no sense. Judges on the highest court should be held to the highest ethical standards. Congress should impose a code of ethics on Supreme Court justices. At the very least, any ethical code should ban justices from receiving personal gifts from political donors and anyone with business before the court, clarify when justices with conflicts of interest should remove themselves from cases, prohibit justices from trading individual stocks, and establish a formal process 57:04 for investigating misconduct. Number two, enact term limits. Article III of the Constitution says judges may, “hold their office during good behavior,” but it does not explicitly give Supreme Court justices lifetime tenure on the highest court — even though that's become the norm. Term limits would prevent unelected justices from accumulating too much power over the course of their tenure — and would help diffuse what has become an increasingly divisive confirmation process. Congress should limit Supreme Court terms to 18 years, after which justices move to lower courts. Number three, expand the court. The Constitution does not limit the Supreme Court to nine justices. In fact, Congress has changed the size of the court 58:03 seven times. It should do so again in order to remedy the extreme imbalance of today's Supreme Court. Now, some may decry this as, “radical court packing.” That's pure rubbish. The real court-packing occurred when Senate Republicans refused to even consider a Democratic nominee to the Supreme Court on the fake pretext that it was too close to the 2016 election, but then confirmed a Republican nominee just days before the 2020 election. Rather than allow Republicans to continue exploiting the system, expanding the Supreme Court would actually unpack the court. This isn't radical. It's essential. Now, I'm not going to sugarcoat this — making these reforms happen won't be easy. We're up against big moneyed interests who will fight to keep their control of the nation's most important court. But these key reforms have significant support from the American people who have lost trust in the court. 59:05 The Supreme Court has no real power to enforce its judgments. It has no army. It has no control over spending. Its power comes from only one source: the trust of the people. With neither the sword nor the purse, trust is all it has. Everybody complains about Congress. As a practical matter, what can be done? We need to make the House of Representatives… bigger. Now I know what some might be thinking: “Make the government bigger?” Well, technically yes. But that's missing the point. We need to expand the House to make the government work better, and be more responsive to our needs. Put simply: The House of Representatives does not have enough members to adequately represent all 334 million of us. Now, the House hasn’t always had 435 members and it was never intended to stay the same size forever. 1:00:06 For the first 140 years of America’s existence, a growing House of Representatives was actually the norm. It wasn’t until 1929 that Congress arbitrarily decided to cap the size of the House at 435 members. Back then, each House member represented roughly 200,000 people. But since then, the population of the United States has more than tripled, bringing the average number of constituents up to roughly 760,000. Compared to other democracies, we're one of the worst in terms of how many constituents a single legislator is supposed to represent. Only in India does the average representative have more constituents. And as America continues to grow it's only going to get worse. Think your representative doesn’t listen to you now? Well, you just wait. Not surprisingly, research shows that representatives 1:01:03 from more populous House districts tend to be less accessible to their constituents, and less popular. Thankfully, the solution is simple: allow the House to grow. Increasing the number of representatives should be a no brainer for at least four reasons: First, logically, more representatives would mean fewer people in each congressional district — improving the quality of representation. Second, a larger House would be more diverse. Despite recent progress, today’s House is still overwhelmingly male, white, and middle-aged. More representatives means more opportunities for young people, people of color, and women to run for office — and win. Third, this reduces the power of Big Money. Running an election in a smaller district would be less expensive, increasing the likelihood that people elect representatives that respond to their interests rather than big corporations and the wealthy. 1:02:03 Fourth, this would help reduce the Electoral College’s bias toward small states in presidential elections. As more heavily populated states gain more representatives in Congress — they also gain more electoral votes. Now, some might say that a larger House of Representatives would be unwieldy and unmanageable. Well, Japan, Germany, France, and the UK — countries with smaller populations than us — all have larger legislatures — and they manage just fine. Others might say that it would be too difficult — or expensive — to accommodate more representatives in the Capitol. “Are there even enough chairs???” Seriously? Look, we’ve done it before. The current Capitol has been expanded to accommodate more members several times — and it can be done again. A building should not be an obstacle to a more representative democracy. Increasing the size of the House is an achievable goal. 1:03:02 We don’t even need a constitutional amendment. Congress only needs to pass a law to expand the number of representatives, which it’s done numerous times. And as it happens, there is a bill — in fact two! Each would add more than 130 seats to the House and lower the number of constituents a typical representative serves from 760,000 to a little over 570,000. Plus, there is a mechanism for adding new members down the line. These bills are our best chance to restore the tradition of a House that grows in representation as America grows. It’s time for us to think big — and make the People’s House live up to its name. None of these ideas to build a better future will matter if we don’t have a habitable world to live in. Big Oil has tricked us into thinking we have to choose between what’s good for the environment and what’s good for the economy. Baloney! Both our economy and the environment are in crisis. 1:04:04 Wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few while the majority of Americans struggle to get by. Climate related threats to Americans' physical, social, and economic well being are rising. Climate change could force more than 120 million more people into poverty. Urgent warnings of a severe threat to America's health and economy. If unprecedented changes are not made and made soon, there will be irreversible damage to the planet. The climate crisis is worsening inequality, as those who are most economically vulnerable bear the brunt of flooding, fires, and disruptions to supplies of food, water, and power. At the same time, environmental degradation and climate change are themselves byproducts of widening inequality. The political power of wealthy fossil fuel corporations has stymied action on climate change for decades. Focused only on maximizing their short-term interests, those corporations are becoming 1:05:01 even richer and more powerful — while sidelining workers, limiting green innovation, preventing sustainable development, and blocking direct action on our dire climate crisis. Now make no mistake: the simultaneous crises of inequality and climate are no fluke. Both are the result of decades of deliberate choices made, and policies enacted, by ultra-wealthy and powerful corporations. We can address both crises by doing four things: First, create green jobs. Investing in renewable energy could create millions of family sustaining, union jobs and build the infrastructure we need for marginalized communities to access clean water and air. The transition to a renewable energy-powered economy can add 550,000 jobs each year 1:06:01 while saving the US economy $78 billion through 2050. In other words, a Green New Deal could turn the climate crisis into an opportunity - one that both addresses the climate emergency and creates a fairer and more equitable society. Second, stop dirty energy. A massive investment in renewable energy jobs isn’t enough to combat the climate crisis. If we're going to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, we must tackle the problem at its source: Stop digging up and burning more oil, gas, and coal. The potential carbon emissions from these fossil fuels in the world’s currently developed fields and mines would take us well beyond the 1.5°C increased warming that Nobel Prize winning global scientists tell us the planet can afford. Given this, it’s absurd to allow fossil fuel corporations to start new dirty energy projects. Even as fossil fuel companies claim to be pivoting toward clean energy, 1:07:06 they're planning to invest trillions of dollars in new oil and gas projects that are inconsistent with global commitments to limit climate change. And over half of the industry’s expansion is projected to happen in the United States. Allowing these projects means locking ourselves into carbon emissions we can’t afford now, let alone in the decades to come. Even if the U.S. were to transition to 100 percent renewable energy today, continuing to dig fossil fuels out of the ground will lead us further into climate crisis. If the U.S. doesn’t stop now, whatever we extract will simply be exported and burned overseas. We'll all be affected, but the poorest and most vulnerable among us will bear the brunt of the devastating impacts of climate change. Third, kick fossil fuel companies out of our politics. 1:08:02 For decades, companies like Exxon, Chevron, Shell, and BP have been polluting our democracy by pouring billions of dollars into our politics and bankrolling elected officials to enact policies that protect their profits. The oil and gas industry spent over $103 million on the 2016 federal elections alone. And that's just what they were required to report: that number does not include the untold amounts of 'dark money' they’ve been using to buy off politicians and corrupt our democracy. The most conservative estimates still put their spending at 10 times that of environmental groups and the renewable energy industry. As a result, American taxpayers are shelling out $20 billion a year to bankroll oil and gas projects -- a huge transfer of wealth to the top. And that doesn’t even include hundreds of billions of dollars of indirect subsidies that cost every U.S. citizen roughly $2,000 a year. 1:09:04 This has to stop. And we’ve got to stop giving away public lands for oil and gas drilling. In 2018, under Trump, the Interior Department made $1.1 billion selling public land leases to oil and gas companies, an all-time record -- triple the previous 2008 record, totaling more than 1.5 million acres for drilling alone, threatening multiple cultural sites, countless wildlife. As recently as last September, the Trump administration opened 1.56 million acres of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, threatening Indigenous cultural heritage and hundreds of species that call it home. That’s not all. The ban on exporting crude oil should be reintroduced and extended to other fossil fuels. That ban, in place for 40 years, was lifted in 2015, just days after the signing 1:10:04 of the Paris Climate Agreement. After years of campaigning by oil executives, industry heads, and their army of lobbyists, the fossil fuel industry finally got its way. We can’t wait for these changes to be introduced in 5 or 10 years time — we need them now. Fourth, require the fossil fuel companies that have profited from environmental injustice to compensate the communities they've harmed. As if buying off our democracy wasn’t enough, these corporations have also deliberately misled the public for years on the amount of damage their products have been causing. For instance, as early as 1977, Exxon’s own scientists were warning managers that fossil fuel use would warm the planet and cause irreparable damage. In the 1980s, Exxon shut down its internal climate research program and shifted to funding 1:11:01 a network of advocacy groups, lobbying arms, and think tanks whose sole purpose was to cloud public discourse and block action on the climate crisis. The five largest oil companies now spend about $197 million a year on ad campaigns claiming they care about the climate -- all the while massively increasing their spending on oil and gas extraction. Meanwhile, millions of Americans, especially poor, Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities, already have to fight to drink clean water and breathe clean air as their communities are devastated by climate-fueled hurricanes, floods, and fires. As of 2015, nearly 21 million people relied on community water systems that violated health-based quality standards. Going by population, that’s essentially 200 Flint, Michigans happening all at once. 1:12:03 If we continue on our current path, many more communities run the risk of becoming 'sacrifice zones,' where citizens are left to survive the toxic aftermath of industrial activity with little, if any, help from the entities responsible for creating it. Climate denial and rampant pollution are not victimless crimes. Fossil fuel corporations must be held accountable, and be forced to pay their fair share for the damage they’ve wrought. If these solutions sound drastic to you, it’s because they are. They have to be if we have any hope of keeping our planet habitable. The climate crisis is not a far-off apocalyptic nightmare -- it is our present day. Australia’s bushfires wiped out a billion animals, California’s fire season wreaks more havoc every year, and record-setting storms are tearing through our communities like never before. 1:13:00 Scientists tell us we have 10 years left to dramatically reduce emissions. We have no room for meek half-measures wrapped up inside giant handouts to the fossil fuel industry. We deserve a world without fossil fuels. A world in which workers and communities thrive and our shared climate comes before industry profits. Working together, I know we can make it happen. We have no time to waste. Now, none of these bold ideas will be easy to achieve. But they are necessary changes that will make our economy and democracy stronger and fairer. The time to start fighting for them is now. Thank you for watching. Queue

SITE COUNT