Forty percent of full-time workers toiling outside the traditional daytime weekday schedule bring home paychecks that put them in the lowest wage quartile, an Urban Institute analysis of 2011 Census Bureau data shows. Among all full-time employees with very low wages, 25 percent work most of their hours on a nonstandard schedule. The consequences of nonstandard work hours (6 p.m. to 6 a.m. Monday through Friday and anytime on weekends), such as child care and transportation problems, marital conflict, family instability, and health stresses, lie heavily on low-income families, Maria Enchautegui explains in “Nonstandard Work Schedules and the Well-Being of Low-Income Families.” And while nonstandard-schedule workers share some of the same challenges with daytime low-wage employees — including working on employer-controlled schedules, limited paid time off, and unpredictable hours — they confront special difficulties carving out time for family, keeping to household routines, and helping children with schoolwork.
• The older population (65+) numbered 41 .4 million in 20 11, an increase of 6.3 million or 18 % since 2000.
• The number of Americans aged 4 5 – 64 – who will reach 65 over the next two decades – increased by 33 % during this period.
• Over one in every eight, or 1 3.3 %, of the population is an older American.
• Persons reaching age 65 have an average life expectancy of an additional 19.2 years (20.4 years for females and 17. 8 years for males).
• Older women outnumber older men at 23.4 million older women to 17.9 million older men.
• In 2011, 21 .0 % of persons 65+ were members of racial or ethnic minority populations — 9% were African – Americans (not Hispanic), 4 % were Asian or Pacific Islander (not Hispanic), less than 1% were American Indian or Native Alaskan (not Hispanic), and 0.6 % of persons 65+ identified themselves as being of two or more races. Persons of Hispanic origin (who may be of any race) represented 7% of the older population.
• Older men were much more likely to be married than older women — 72% of men vs. 45% of women (Figure 2). 37 % older women in 2012 were widows.
• About 28% (11.8 million) of noninstitutionalized older persons live alone (8. 4 million women, 3.5 million men).
• Almost half of older women (46 %) age 75+ live alone.
Source: Diane Rehm Show, July 15, 2013
Getting a four-year college degree can cost a small fortune — even at public institutions. Annual tuition hikes at public and private universities often outpace the rate of inflation. With state funding for higher education decreasing and federal student loans rates rising, many students will be saddled with ever greater debt. For some, high tuition will make the American dream of getting a college degree unattainable. Diane and guests talk about why college is so expensive and what can be done about it.
Kevin Carey – director of the education policy program at the New America Foundation.
Kim Clark – senior writer for “Money” magazine.
Terry Hartle – senior vice president of American Council on Education, a trade association representing 1,800 public and private universities.
Brian Rosenberg – president of Macalester College.
From the summary:
…As debate swirls around how to properly fund public employee benefits, this report assesses the real challenges facing state and local government retirement plans and details the problems facing public employee pension systems across the country. Chingos, Whitehurst and Johnson’s comprehensive examination of the existing research on this topic highlights the many problems facing these pension plans, including the underfunding that threatens states’ economic futures and outdated design features that cripple states’ ability to recruit and retain the best public servants….
The Goldwater Institute is a special interest group in Arizona that also influences law outside the Grand Canyon State. This tax-exempt group — registered as 501(c)(3) non-profit –says its mission is “to advance freedom and protect the Constitution.”
This report outlines the following key findings on the Institute:
• Goldwater & ALEC’s Shared Agenda
• Goldwater Executives Get Bonuses while Arizona’s Middle Class Gets Less
• Attacks Government Spending, But Takes Taxpayer Dollars
• Its Tax Forms Reveal Murky Internal Financial Dealings: up to $1.9M in Cash Was Loaned to a Board Member’s Company
• Funded by Special Interests and Out-of-State Right-Wing Ideologues
• A Powerful Influence in the Arizona Statehouse that Reports Very Little Lobbying
After decades of bad press, average Americans – if they think of unions at all – regard them too often with a hostile or skeptical eye. Yet, as union membership has declined, so too have the clout and prosperity of American workers. Reversing this trend will require a long-term commitment to rebuilding people’s understanding of the role of labor organizing in creating more widespread prosperity.
When people understand that unions are not meddlesome outside institutions, but instead an expression of their own ability to stick together with other employees; when they understand that unions are not just about dues and services, but about a collective voice; when they see that the fundamental right to stick together is being attacked, then their whole perspective on the labor movement shifts. People turn away from the familiar caricatures to a much more constructive and supportive engagement.
Source: Sigal Kaplan, Carlo Giacomo Prato, Journal of Safety Research, Volume 43, Issue 3, July 2012
From the abstract:
► Generalized ordered logit model for bus accident severity in the United States ► Marginal effects of risk factors on bus accident severity are identified ► Bus severity is linked to driver’s age, gender and risky behavior ► Bus severity is linked with intersections, low-speed areas and road curves ► Driver training, career length, vehicle standards and education are proposed…
Results show that accident severity increases: (i) for young bus drivers under the age of 25; (ii) for drivers beyond the age of 55, and most prominently for drivers over 65 years old; (iii) for female drivers; (iv) for very high (over 65 mph) and very low (under 20 mph) speed limits; (v) at intersections; (vi) because of inattentive and risky driving….
From the summary:
This study of cultural building began in 2006 as a response to inquiries from arts consultants who had for some time been working on dozens of building projects across the country and found themselves confronting the same sets of problems with each new client. In many cases, the actual need for a new facility had not been demonstrated (even though there was often great enthusiasm about getting underway with construction); the connection between a new facility and delivering more effectively on mission was in many instances quite murky; realism about how a new facility could be sustained once built was frequently missing – both in terms of the financial resources and staff needed to successfully run a new facility. The list goes on. New facilities would open, organizations would then run into financial problems because of insufficient revenue, or an inadequate endowment, or because they couldn’t service the debt they incurred to build, or because the building was too costly to operate, or it turned out to be beyond the organization’s capacity to administer and sustain.
The need to move beyond anecdotes and newspaper articles and toward an in-depth, empirical study based on the entire cohort of buildings constructed over the last few decades seemed obvious. Without such a study, institutions had no clear and systematic way to learn from one another’s experiences, both positive and negative. While it emerges that there is no single ‘right way’ to undertake a cultural building project, from conducting analyses of more than 800 cultural facilities built since 1994 there emerges a long list of things to avoid, and things to make sure to do.
– The Determinants of Cultural Building
– The Feasibility of Cultural Building Projects
– An Overview of Cultural Building in the United States: 1994–2008
– A Quick Overview
– Case Studies
– Follow the Money
Source: U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
The report has five principal findings:
The Part D insurers have high administrative expenses. The administrative expenses, sales costs, and profits of the private insurers offering Medicare Part D coverage will cost taxpayers and beneficiaries $180 per beneficiary in 2007. Taking into account the costs to the government of monitoring the private insurers, total administrative expenses, sales costs, and profits will reach $4.6 billion in 2007, with the profits of the Part D insurers alone accounting for $1 billion. The administrative expenses, sales costs, and profits of the privatized Part D program are almost six times higher than the administrative expenses of traditional Medicare. These high expenses do not appear to be due to one-time “start-up” costs because the total expenses increased from 2006 to 2007.
The Part D insurers have not negotiated significant drug manufacturer rebates. The rebates negotiated from drug manufacturers by the private Part D insurers will reduce Medicare drug spending by 8.1% in 2007. In contrast, the Medicaid program receives rebates from drug manufacturers that reduce drug spending by 26%, over three times as much. The small size of the Medicare rebates and the transfer of low-income dual-eligible beneficiaries from Medicaid drug coverage to Medicare drug coverage will provide a $2.8 billion windfall to pharmaceutical manufacturers in 2007.
The Part D insurers receive rebates on drug purchases made by beneficiaries in coverage gaps. The Medicare Modernization Act requires that private insurers give Medicare beneficiaries “access to their negotiated prices,” including “all discounts, … rebates, [or] other price concessions.” When the Part D insurers obtain rebates, however, they do not pass them through to beneficiaries by reducing drug prices in coverage gaps like the “donut hole.” Instead, the dollars flow in the opposite direction: the private insurers receive rebates from the drug manufacturers on purchases paid out-of-pocket by beneficiaries. In 2007, the Part D insurers are expected to receive $1.0 billion in drug rebates from transactions in which beneficiaries in coverage gaps pay 100% of the drug costs.
The Part D insurers have established drug pricing formulas that leave beneficiaries and taxpayers vulnerable to price increases. In almost all cases, the private insurers use pricing formulas that pay pharmacies the drug manufacturers’ full list prices minus a fixed percentage and a small dispensing fee. These formulas have resulted in drug prices that are generally no lower than those already available through discount pharmacies and on-line drugstores, while leaving beneficiaries and taxpayers vulnerable to repeated increases in list prices by the drug manufacturers.
The Part D insurers have a mixed record in promoting the use of generic drugs. In 2007, 59% of prescriptions filled by Medicare Part D will be filled with generic drugs. This level of use of generic drugs compares favorably with Medicaid, which fills 54% of prescriptions with generic drugs. It does not compare favorably with the experience of the Department of Veterans Affairs, which fills 68% of prescriptions with generic drugs.
Source: Kaiser Family Foundation
As the next open enrollment period for Medicare prescription drug coverage approaches, the Kaiser Family Foundation has issued two data spotlights examining key changes and variations among the private Medicare drug plans available in 2008 across the country. More than 24 million seniors and disabled people receiving Medicare benefits are enrolled in a private Medicare drug plan, including 17 million in stand- alone drug plans and 7 million in Medicare Advantage drug plans. The first spotlight analyzes the premiums charged by the 1,824 stand-alone Medicare Part D plans that will be offered in markets across the country in 2008. The second spotlight examines the coverage gap, or “doughnut hole,” in Medicare drug plans.
In addition, Kaiser issued a new chartpack providing detailed information about Part D enrollment, by plan and by firm, in 2007.
Kaiser also has updated two relevant fact sheets — one that provides an overview of the Medicare prescription drug benefit and another that provides a state-by-state look at key features of the available 2008 stand-alone plans.