Archives for category: Economy
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Ben Tarnoff: What’s Behind The Rage to Teach Coding?

By dianeravitch
October 15, 2017 //
55

Ben Tarnoff writes about technology and Silicon Valley. In this article, he notes that many districts plan to teach coding as a basic skill, one that is necessary in the new global economy. He believes that the push for more coders is not about helping young people find jobs, but about enabling the computer industry to lower wages.

This month, millions of children returned to school. This year, an unprecedented number of them will learn to code.

Computer science courses for children have proliferated rapidly in the past few years. A 2016 Gallup report found that 40% of American schools now offer coding classes – up from only 25% a few years ago. New York, with the largest public school system in the country, has pledged to offer computer science to all 1.1 million students by 2025. Los Angeles, with the second largest, plans to do the same by 2020. And Chicago, the fourth largest, has gone further, promising to make computer science a high school graduation requirement by 2018.

The rationale for this rapid curricular renovation is economic. Teaching kids how to code will help them land good jobs, the argument goes. In an era of flat and falling incomes, programming provides a new path to the middle class – a skill so widely demanded that anyone who acquires it can command a livable, even lucrative, wage.

Forget Wall Street – Silicon Valley is the new political power in Washington

This narrative pervades policymaking at every level, from school boards to the government. Yet it rests on a fundamentally flawed premise. Contrary to public perception, the economy doesn’t actually need that many more programmers. As a result, teaching millions of kids to code won’t make them all middle-class. Rather, it will proletarianize the profession by flooding the market and forcing wages down – and that’s precisely the point.

At its root, the campaign for code education isn’t about giving the next generation a shot at earning the salary of a Facebook engineer. It’s about ensuring those salaries no longer exist, by creating a source of cheap labor for the tech industry.

As software mediates more of our lives, and the power of Silicon Valley grows, it’s tempting to imagine that demand for developers is soaring. The media contributes to this impression by spotlighting the genuinely inspiring stories of those who have ascended the class ladder through code. You may have heard of Bit Source, a company in eastern Kentucky that retrains coalminers as coders. They’ve been featured by Wired, Forbes, FastCompany, The Guardian, NPR and NBC News, among others.

A former coalminer who becomes a successful developer deserves our respect and admiration. But the data suggests that relatively few will be able to follow their example. Our educational system has long been producing more programmers than the labor market can absorb. A study by the Economic Policy Institute found that the supply of American college graduates with computer science degrees is 50% greater than the number hired into the tech industry each year. For all the talk of a tech worker shortage, many qualified graduates simply can’t find jobs.

More tellingly, wage levels in the tech industry have remained flat since the late 1990s. Adjusting for inflation, the average programmer earns about as much today as in 1998. If demand were soaring, you’d expect wages to rise sharply in response. Instead, salaries have stagnated.

Still, those salaries are stagnating at a fairly high level. The Department of Labor estimates that the median annual wage for computer and information technology occupations is $82,860 – more than twice the national average. And from the perspective of the people who own the tech industry, this presents a problem. High wages threaten profits. To maximize profitability, one must always be finding ways to pay workers less.

Tech executives have pursued this goal in a variety of ways. One is collusion – companies conspiring to prevent their employees from earning more by switching jobs. The prevalence of this practice in Silicon Valley triggered a justice department antitrust complaint in 2010, along with a class action suit that culminated in a $415m settlement. Another, more sophisticated method is importing large numbers of skilled guest workers from other countries through the H1-B visa program. These workers earn less than their American counterparts, and possess little bargaining power because they must remain employed to keep their status.

Guest workers and wage-fixing are useful tools for restraining labor costs. But nothing would make programming cheaper than making millions more programmers. And where better to develop this workforce than America’s schools? It’s no coincidence, then, that the campaign for code education is being orchestrated by the tech industry itself. Its primary instrument is Code.org, a nonprofit funded by Facebook, Microsoft, Google and others. In 2016, the organization spent nearly $20m on training teachers, developing curricula, and lobbying policymakers.

Categories Economy, Technology

Supreme Court Likely to Crush Unions and Eliminate Protections for Minimum Wage Workers This Term

By dianeravitch
October 2, 2017 //
33

The addition of Neil Gorsuch has given conservatives the decisive edge on the Supreme Court that they have sought for many years.

The Janus case is likely to slash the resources of unions. Another case will be a setback for minimum wage workers, those who labor for $7.25 an hour.

These cases together will widen economic inequality and shift greater power to corporations.

Janus is about union dues.

“The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear a case that could deal a crushing blow to organized labor.

“It was one of 11 cases the justices added to the court’s docket from the roughly 2,000 petitions seeking review that had piled up during the court’s summer break.

“In the labor case, the court will consider whether public-sector unions may require workers who are not members to help pay for collective bargaining. If the court’s answer is no, unions would probably lose a substantial source of revenue.

“The question was before the justices last year in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, and they seemed poised to rule against the unions when the case was argued in January 2016. But the death of Justice Antonin Scalia the next month resulted in a 4-to-4 deadlock.“

The minimum wage case may inflict devastating harm on low wage workers.

Slate reports:

“In recent years, the nationwide Fight for $15 movement has succeeded in persuading several states and cities to raise their hourly minimum wages well above the federal minimum of $7.25. But the effort to ensure a living wage for workers may be headed for a serious setback in the U.S. Supreme Court. Depending on how they rule in a case set for argument next week, the justices could make it much more difficult for millions of workers to secure even the meager wages guaranteed by existing federal law.

“On Monday, the day that kicks off the Supreme Court’s new term, the justices will hear arguments in three consolidated cases with far-reaching implications for wage-earners. The cases—Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris, and National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.—are all about whether employers have the right to compel workers go through onerous individual arbitration proceedings in order to bring labor law claims. If the justices answer that question in the affirmative, then the affected workers will—as a practical matter—find it nearly impossible to win back pay in cases involving wage law violations.

“In the typical case involving wage law violations—such as when a firm makes employees work off the clock, pays less than the minimum wage, or fails to pay extra for overtime—plaintiffs bring what’s called a collective action (similar, but not identical to, a class action) in order to recover back pay from a common employer. Each worker’s claim might be worth only a few hundred or few thousand dollars, but when the defendant is a large firm with lots of similarly situated employees, the collective action might be worth millions. So while virtually no lawyer would want to take on an individual case on behalf of such a plaintiff, it’s much easier to find competent counsel to litigate a potentially more lucrative collective action.

“To pre-empt this possibility, more and more firms are inserting individual arbitration clauses into employee contracts. These clauses require employees to pursue workplace-related claims before private arbitrators rather than in federal or state court. These clauses also, critically, require employees to pursue their claims individually rather than through collective actions.”

These are victories long sought by the most reactionary elements of the most powerful elites in America. ALE, the Koch brothers, the DeVos family, and all those collectively known as “Dark Money” are close to achieving one of their most cherished goals, the victory of capital over labor.

Categories Economy, Equity, Unions

New Study: Education Is Important, But It Is Not the Key to Economic and Social Mobility

By dianeravitch
October 1, 2017 //
20

Rachel M. Cohen writes in The Atlantic about a new study by Jesse Rothstein, showing that education is important but it is not the key to economic and social mobility.

She writes:

“A new working paper authored by the UC Berkeley economist Jesse Rothstein builds on that research, in part by zeroing in on one of those five factors: schools. The idea that school quality would be an important element for intergenerational mobility—essentially a child’s likelihood that they will one day outearn their parents—seems intuitive: Leaders regularly stress that the best way to rise up the income ladder is to go to school, where one can learn the skills they need to succeed in a competitive, global economy. “In the 21st century, the best anti-poverty program around is a world-class education,” Barack Obama declared in his 2010 State of the Union address. Improving “skills and schools” is a benchmark of Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan’s poverty-fighting agenda.

“Indeed, this bipartisan education-and-poverty consensus has guided research and political efforts for decades. Broadly speaking, the idea is that if more kids graduate from high school, and achieve higher scores on standardized tests, then more young people are likely to go to college, and, in turn, land jobs that can secure them spots in the middle class.

“Rothstein’s new work complicates this narrative. Using data from several national surveys, Rothstein sought to scrutinize Chetty’s team’s work—looking to further test their hypothesis that the quality of a child’s education has a significant impact on her ability to advance out of the social class into which she was born.

“Rothstein, however, found little evidence to support that premise. Instead, he found that differences in local labor markets—for example, how similar industries can vary across different communities—and marriage patterns, such as higher concentrations of single-parent households, seemed to make much more of a difference than school quality. He concludes that factors like higher minimum wages, the presence and strength of labor unions, and clear career pathways within local industries are likely to play more important roles in facilitating a poor child’s ability to rise up the economic ladder when they reach adulthood….

“Jose Vilson, a New York City math teacher, says educators have known for years that out-of-school factors like access to food and healthcare are usually bigger determinants for societal success than in-school factors. He adds that while he tries his best to adhere to his various professional duties and expectations, he also recognizes that “maybe not everyone agrees on what it means to be successful” in life….

“Rothstein is quick to say that his new findings do not mean that Americans should do away with investments in school improvement, or even that education is unrelated to improving opportunity. Certainly the more that people can read, write, compute, think, and innovate, the better off society and liberal democracy would be. “It will still be good for us if we can figure out how to educate people more and better,” he says. “It might help the labor market, our civic society, our culture.” But Americans should be more clear, he says, about why they are investing in school improvement. His research suggests that doing so in order to boost a child’s chances to outearn their parents is unlikely to be successful. According to Rothstein, education systems just don’t go very far in explaining the differences between high- and low-opportunity areas.”

Union membership is another factor that explains whether children can escape poverty. But unions are under siege, and that route has been nearly closed off by the joint efforts of ALEC, the Koch brothers, the Walton family, and other billionaires who want to pull the ladder up behind them and claim that school choice will solve the economic disparity that benefits them.

Categories ALEC, Betsy DeVos, Billionaires, Economy, Research, School Choice, Unions

Jennifer Berkshire: Education Can’t End Poverty, So Why Do Pundits Keep Saying So?

By dianeravitch
September 21, 2017 //
36

Jennifer Berkshire interviews Harvey Kantor, author of a recent book that explains why some people have substituted education as the answer to poverty instead of job-creation or income transfers.

I happen to believe that education is crucial for everyone, and especially for those who live in poverty. But education alone is not enough.

Berkshire cites an article by David Leonhardt of the New York Times, who wrote last May that education was the most powerful force for reducing poverty and raising living standards. Leonhardt dismisses vouchers but admires charters, without acknowledging their penchant for cherrypicking or noting how many charters are failures, even by their own goals.

This claim is a fixture in the corporate reform world. They would like the public to believe that charter schools can raise test scores and thereby solve the problems of poverty. Berkshire might have also cited Wendy Kopp, who has said and written many times that we don’t have to fix poverty first, we have to fix the schools. (Of course, no one ever actually said that “we have to ‘fix’ poverty before we can ‘fix’ the schools, other than Kopp herself.) This is an offer that corporate leaders love, because throwing money at TFA and charter schools is a lot more attractive than raising corporate and individual tax rates. (The marginal tax rate during the Eisenhower administration was 91%. Today it is in the high 30s.)

Berkshire and Kantor discuss this strange belief that education, important as it is, can raise living standards without other major changes in social policy.

She writes:

Unions are weak. Wage growth is non-existent. Plutocrats have all the power. And yet the myth that education is all we need to finally “fix” poverty persists. AlterNet education editor Jennifer Berkshire talks with historian Harvey Kantor about how the US gave up on the idea of responding to poverty directly, instead making public schools the answer to poverty. Hint: it all starts in the 1960’s with the advent of the Great Society programs. Fast forward to the present and our belief that education can reduce poverty and narrow the nation’s yawning inequality chasm is stronger than ever. And yet our education arms race, argues Kantor, is actually making income inequality worse.

Jennifer Berkshire: I read in the New York Times recently that education is the most powerful force for *reducing poverty and lifting middle-class living standards.* It’s a classic example of what you describe in this excellent history as *educationalizing the welfare state.*

Harvey Kantor: Education hasn’t always been seen as the solution to social and economic problems in the US. During the New Deal, you had aggressive interventions in providing for economic security and redistribution; education was seen as peripheral. But by the time you get to the Great Society programs of the 1960’s, education and human capital development had moved to the very center. My colleague Robert Lowe and I started trying to think about how that happened and what the consequences were for the way social policy developed in the US from the 1960’s through No Child Left Behind. How is it that there is so much policy making and ideological talk around education and so little around other kinds of anti-poverty and equalizing policies? We also wanted to try to understand how it was that education came to shoulder so much of the burden for responding to poverty within the context of cutbacks in the welfare state.

JB: You argue that by making education THE fix for poverty, we’ve ended up fueling disappointment with our public schools, a disillusionment that is essentially misplaced. Explain.

HK: One of the consequences of making education so central to social policy has been that we’ve ended up taking the pressure off of the state for the kinds of policies that would be more effective at addressing poverty and economic inequality. Instead we’re asking education to do things it can’t possibly do. The result has been increasing support for the kinds of market-oriented policies that make inequality worse.

If we really want to address issues of inequality and economic insecurity, there are a lot of other policies that we have to pursue besides or at least in addition to education policies, and that part of the debate has been totally lost. Raising the minimum wage, or providing a guaranteed income, which the last time we talked seriously about that was in the late 1960’s, increasing workers’ bargaining power, making tax policies more progressive—things like that are going to be much more effective at addressing inequality and economic security than education policies. That argument is often taken to mean, *schools can’t do anything unless we address poverty first.* But that’s not what we were trying to say.

Categories Charter Schools, Economy, Poverty

The Equifax Hack: The Free Market Fails Again

By dianeravitch
September 11, 2017 //
29

John Ogozalek, a graduate of Vassar College who teaches in upstate New York, wrote the following:


HALF the consumers in the U.S. have just had their financial pants pulled down in public, so to speak. And, it’s all due to the bungling of credit reporting giant Equifax, which was hacked yet again.

Meanwhile, citizens continue to be force fed the lie that the free market is always better -better schools, better health care, better everything.

And, here’s the real kick in the teeth. CNBC (see link below) reported that if you agree to Equifax’s offer to help monitor your credit, you “may be giving up key consumer rights”. Wow.

But readers of Diane’s blog are well familiar with this narrative. We’ve been living it for years now, as our schools are pillaged by the greedheads.

They screw you over, then use the chaos and confusion they’ve sown to screw you over even MORE.

The cheapos at Equifax are offering a measly one year of their dubious credit monitoring. Ha! Anyone who has ever had their credit information and identity stolen knows you enter a sickening, house of mirrors world where months, even years of your time are chewed up just reclaiming your “self”, your good name. You call a supposed number to get help, then have to detail your private, financial information over the line. But, how do you even know THAT NUMBER is really legit?

Here’s the truth about the free market. When you call to give them business, there’s always a person there who is ready to take your money. But, when you call to get help, well, take a number. Or, get ready to push lots of numbers, and maybe talk to someone eventually,. This is what privatization of schools will bring us. You are a number.

I’m always amazed by the school where I work. The PUBLIC school. Call there on any given day and within a minute you’ll not only have a real person helping you, but you can go right to the top and talk to one of our principals, too.

I had an issue a couple years ago with a classified student who needed some assistance and within one hour I had a team of wonderful teachers and counselors all over the challenge. And, it was solved in a great way. This is the norm where I work.

What’s that song say….you don’t know what you’ve lost until it’s gone?

Save our public schools!

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/08/3-reasons-breach-victims-might-not-want-equifax-credit-monitoring.html

Categories Corporate Reform, Economy

From the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Here are the Jobs of the Future!

By dianeravitch
September 4, 2017 //
26

An official projection of the new jobs that will be available, from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, from 2014-2024.

Notice how few require any post secondary education. Notice that you don’t need a high test score or the Common Core for most of them.

Education raises wages and prospects for the future. But most new jobs are low-wage, low education.

Categories Common Core, Economy

Laura Chapman: Beware Think Tanks Predicting the Future

By dianeravitch
August 28, 2017 //
26

Laura Chapman recounts the failed efforts to predict the jobs of the future:


In 2004, Achieve,Inc, the Education Trust, and Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, and William and Flora Hewett Foundation started marketing the myth that specific high school requirements would provide the necessary “college and career readiness” for “high-performance, high- growth jobs.”

The report: Ready or Not: Creating a High School Diploma that Counts was designed to say that American education had one main mission, preparing students for those jobs—projected to “ support a family well above the poverty level, provide benefits, and offer clear pathways for career advancement through further education and training. (p. 105).”

The writers relied on the 2002–03, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, and course taking patterns and transcripts of a cohort of students who graduated from high schools in 1992 in order to make absurd claims about the “proper curriculum content” for entry into high-growth, well-paying jobs.

This effort, called the American Diploma Project, morphed into the Common Core State Standards, with math and ELA the be-all and end-all of education and the meme of “college and career readiness” implanted as if the only thing that mattered in education.

There was not an ounce of reliable information in that report. The economy tanked in 2008. It has not yet recovered.

Now the tech industry is pushing computer everything into school. Here is a recent account of who is doing this and how well. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/technology/education-partovi-computer-science-coding-apple-microsoft.html

Here are the Bureau of Labor statistics job projections for the next 10 years 2014-2014. These projections are modified every two years. A typical US worker has held 11 jobs before the age 44.

People who say that career planning should begin in pre-school and kindergarten are really doing damage to education. The “college and career” meme has been marketed as if there is nothing more that matters, and that these two emphases will guarantee a great future for students and the economy. NOT, NOT, NOT.

FASTEST GROWING OCCUPATIONS

Bachelors degree or higher required
Number of new jobs in thousands and median salary
Physical therapists 71.8 $85,000
Nurse practioners 44.7 $100,900
Physician assistants 28.7 $101,480
Statisticians 10.1 $80,500
Operations researcher analyst 27.8 $78,300

SOME POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION REQUIRED

Web developer 39.5 $ 66,310
Physical therapy assistants 31.9 $56,610
Occupational therapy assistants 14.1 $59,010
Commercial drivers 1.6 $49,090

FASTEST GROWING JOBS OVERALL

Home health aides 348.4 $22,600
Physical therapy assistants 31.9 $56,610
Occupational therapy assistants 14.1 $59,010
Physical therapy aides 19.5 $25,680
Wind turbine service technicians 4.8 $52,260

OCCUPATIONS WITH THE MOST JOBS
Personal care aides 458.1 $21,920
Registered nurses 439.3 $68,450
Home health aides 348.3 $22,600
Food services, fast food 343.5 $19,440
Retail sales 314.2 $22,680

Categories Economy

Economic Policy Institute: The Average CEO Makes 271 Times More than the Average Worker

By dianeravitch
July 26, 2017 //
18

A few years back, I discovered that only one of the major think tanks in D.C. is not subsidized by the Gates Foundation. That is the Economic Policy Institute. Unlike other think tanks, which don’t even bother to disguise their ideological preferences, EPI makes its values clear: it advocates for economic and social justice and it is rigorous in its application of evidence.

In this report, EPI finds that the typical CEO is paid 271 times more than the typical worker.

Want a measure of the growth of inequality in our society, the engorgement of the 1%, and the shrinkage of the middle class? Consider this fact:

“While the 2016 CEO-to-worker compensation ratio of 271-to-1 is down from 299-to-1 in 2014 and 286-to-1 in 2015, it is still light years beyond the 20-to-1 ratio in 1965 and the 59-to-1 ratio in 1989. The average CEO in a large firm now earns 5.33 times the annual earnings of the average very-high-wage earner (earner in the top 0.1 percent)….

“Why it matters: Regardless of how it’s measured, CEO pay continues to be very, very high and has grown far faster in recent decades than typical worker pay. Exorbitant CEO pay means that the fruits of economic growth are not going to ordinary workers, since the higher CEO pay does not reflect correspondingly higher output. CEO compensation has risen by 807 or 937 percent (depending on how it is measured—using stock options granted or stock options realized, respectively) from 1978 to 2016. At 937 percent, that rise is more than 70 percent faster than the rise in the stock market; both measures are substantially greater than the painfully slow 11.2 percent growth in a typical worker’s annual compensation over the same period.”

Although this is not a problem that the Trump administration cares about, EPI has some straightforward fixes that a future administration might enact.

Categories Economy, Inequality

Marc Tucker: Trump’s Budget Takes from the Poor to Give to the Rich

By dianeravitch
June 20, 2017 //
36

Marc Tucker says that Trump’s budget will not make America great again. It is a reverse Robin Hood plan, taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

“The first reaction is all gut. The budget, on its face, would represent a gigantic redistribution of resources from the poor to the rich. To say that that is morally bankrupt is to understate the case. There is no rational argument for such a policy.

“The administration makes three cases for its proposals. The first is that tax breaks for the rich while robbing the poor to pay for the tax cuts will generate so much growth that the taxes on the increased income will more than pay for the tax relief. That argument has been advanced again and again despite a continuing lack of evidence that it has ever actually worked out that way. If you want to see the most visible and colossal evidence for the failure of this theory, you have only to look at Kansas, which has been virtually bankrupted by Governor Sam Brownback’s determination to go down this rat hole.

“The second is that all the administration is doing is giving freeloaders an incentive to work. That may be a masterpiece of propaganda, but not a masterpiece of reasoning. Someone has to explain to me how taking away financial support to go to college from low-income high school graduates is going to give these “freeloaders” an incentive to work. I want to know how giant cuts to the National Institutes of Health research budget on life-saving drugs is giving freeloaders an incentive to work.

“The third and last argument this administration has advanced for this budget is that the evidence that the programs they plan to terminate work is either weak or nonexistent. Without conceding the strength of their evidence that they do not work—the evidence is at worst mixed—let’s just look at the logic of the argument. Almost all of these programs are intended to help vulnerable populations. Surely, if they do not work, the responsibility of government is to replace them with stronger programs intended to accomplish the same objective. Replacing them with nothing but “choice” suggests that the administration does not care what the question was as long as the answer is choice, which is the very definition of policy made on the basis not of evidence but of ideology.

“When I say ideology, I am referring to the belief that something is true despite all the evidence to the contrary. Does the President’s Budget Director Mick Mulvaney actually believe, despite decades of evidence to the contrary and the counsel of most economists from both parties, that giant tax cuts will pay for themselves? Or could it be that ideology is not really the problem here, that greed is the problem? Are we looking at the result of a political system that has been captured in part by the very rich, people who spend their time on the golf course telling each other that it is really they who produce economic growth and are entitled to its benefits and who now happen to have the political power to enforce those views on the rest of us? Or is it both?

“That is my gut speaking, my gut honing in on the gigantic injustice that would be wreaked on the nation if this budget were in fact to become the United States government budget. And then I relax a little bit. It will not happen, I say to myself. Ronald Reagan offered a budget like this to the Congress and the Congress virtually ignored it. So it won’t happen this time either, I say to myself…

“The truth is that the administration’s budget will make enormous cuts in exactly the kind of research and development that is the key to our economic future, will cripple the universities that have driven the development of our best technologies decade after decade, will kneecap the disadvantaged students on whom the future of all of us now depends. My whole argument hinges on the idea that our people are our future and our future depends on giving our people, all of them, a world-class education and training to match. And what is the administration’s strategy for that? It is to cut the education and job training budget to ribbons and offer us choice as its sole strategy for improving student achievement. Choice well done can help at the margins, but what I just described is not a weight that choice can bear.

“The budget is a prism that casts a shining beam on who we are as a nation, what we believe in and what kind of nation we want to be. I would argue that the budget we need is neither the budget the administration has offered nor the budget we have. The Democrats will have to acknowledge that the imperative is not to keep all the social programs we have and start adding more (yes, it is true that some are not working as well as they should and it is also true that some are there not to provide needed services but to earn political support) and the Republicans will have to give up tax reduction as the holy grail of national politics (even if that costs them the open pockets of some of their richest contributors). The question we all have to ask is, in a very constrained economic environment, how much can we afford to spend on the current needs of our people while making the investments we have to make now to enjoy broadly shared prosperity tomorrow?”

Categories Budget Cuts, Economy, Funding

Trump Selects Another Goldman Sachs Banker for His Economic Team

By dianeravitch
March 15, 2017 //
17

Donald Trump demonized Goldman Sachs during the Presidential campaign and blasted Hillary Clinton for having the nerve to speak to them for high fees. But now he is stocking his economic team with men (yes, men) from…where else?…Goldman Sachs!

There should be a lot of room for advancement at that firm, what with all the top people leaving to join the Trump administration.

Their appointment reassures Wall Street, which can feel comfortable knowing that their friends are running the economy, not the King of Debt.

Categories Economy, Trump
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »