

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Alan Barber, (202) 293-5380 x115
Black workers today are better educated and older than they were three decades ago, but are still less likely to be in a good job now than they were in 1979. A new report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) examines this deterioration of job quality for black workers in the United States and evaluates several policies that could help to reverse this trend.
The report "Has Education Paid Off for Black Workers?," describes the stagnation and decline in black labor market-outcomes since the end of the 1970s. According to the report, the poor outcomes reflect an overall decline in workers' bargaining power, which has disproportionately affected black workers, as well as ongoing discrimination against workers of color.
In 1979, just one-in-ten black workers had a four-year college degree or more. By 2011, one-in-four black workers was a college graduate. There was also a large drop in the share of black workers without a high school degree, falling from almost one-third in 1979 to just one-in-twenty in 2011.
The black workforce is also older and more experienced today than in 1979. At the end of the 70s, the median age of the employed black worker was 33. Today the median is 39.
"Economists expect that increases in education and work experience will increase workers' productivity and translate into higher compensation." said Janelle Jones, a co-author of the report. "But, the share of black workers in a 'good job' has actually declined."
The report defined a good job as one that pays at least $19 per hour (the inflation-adjusted median wage for male workers in 1979), has employer-provided health insurance, and has some type of employer-sponsored retirement plan.
While the share of good jobs in the economy as a whole has also fallen, the drop among black workers has been significant, especially for black males. Between 1979 and 2011, the share of black men in good jobs fell from 26.4 percent to 20.9 percent. While the share of black women in good jobs did rise from 14.5 percent in 1979 to 18.4 percent in 2011, black women are still less likely to have a good job than black men. The researchers found that black workers at every age and education level are less likely to be in a good job today than they were in 1979 and are less likely to be in a good job than comparable white workers.
"Over the last three decades, black workers have made an enormous, often unrecognized, investment in upgrading their education and work skills," Jones said. "But the economy has turned against workers across the board, leaving even college-educated black workers with little to show for these investments."
The authors blame the deterioration in job quality on discrimination against black workers and an economy-wide decline in the bargaining power of workers. These broader factors include an erosion of the value of the minimum wage and a decline in unionization rates in the private sector.
Universal policies such as national health insurance or a universal retirement plan over and above Social Security would, the report demonstrates, have a large impact on the quality of jobs for black workers. Pay equity with white male workers, increasing unionization, and further increases in college attainment would also help.
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) was established in 1999 to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives. In order for citizens to effectively exercise their voices in a democracy, they should be informed about the problems and choices that they face. CEPR is committed to presenting issues in an accurate and understandable manner, so that the public is better prepared to choose among the various policy options.
(202) 293-5380"We're going to blow the hell out of these people," declared the Republican senator.
US Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the most fanatical cheerleaders of the Iran war in Congress, on Sunday hailed the profit potential of the ongoing military assault, which has plunged the region and entire global economy into chaos.
"When this regime goes down, we're gonna have a new Mideast," Graham (R-SC) said in a Fox News appearance. "We're gonna make a ton of money. Nobody will threaten the Straits of Hormuz again."
Graham went on to respond dismissively to estimates of the massive financial costs of the war so far—roughly $1 billion per day, according to a preliminary Pentagon assessment—and warn of even more devastation in the weeks ahead. More than 1,200 Iranians have been killed by the US-Israeli onslaught so far.
"You just wait to see what comes in the next two weeks," said Graham, who has characterized the assault on Iran as a "religious war" that "will determine the course of the Middle East for a thousand years."
"We're going to blow the hell out of these people," the Republican senator said on Sunday.
The illegal US-Israeli war on Iran, which is now in its 10th day with no end in sight, has been a boon for American weapons contractors and liquefied natural gas giants, which stand to make tens of billions in windfall profits if the conflict and its reverberating impacts on global energy markets continue.
The Trump White House has repeatedly declined to provide a clear objective or timeline for the war. On Sunday, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said the president has not ruled out a ground invasion of Iran.
A classified report assembled by the US National Intelligence Council found that "even a large-scale assault on Iran launched by the United States would be unlikely to oust" the country's "entrenched military and clerical establishment," the Washington Post reported.
"I guess acknowledging that you attacked a school and killed a bunch of children right off the bat might spoil POTUS's splendid little war."
US President Donald Trump baselessly claimed over the weekend that Iran was behind the strike on an Iranian elementary school that killed more than 160 people—mostly young girls—during the first wave of US-Israeli bombings, even as evidence mounted that an American missile attack caused the devastation.
A reporter aboard Air Force One asked Trump straightforwardly whether the US bombed "a girls' elementary school in southern Iran on the first day of the war," to which the president responded: "No. In my opinion, based on what I've seen, that was done by Iran."
The reporter then asked Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth, standing right behind the president, whether the claim was true, and he declined to endorse it, saying, "We're certainly investigating."
JUST NOW: “It was done by Iran.”🤔
Despite NYT analysis that a 🇺🇸 bomb killed those Iranian school girls, Trump insists Iran did it. (Hegseth hesitated to agree)
Color us unconvinced.
(H/T @Acyn) pic.twitter.com/jgPkudSm2h
— The Tennessee Holler (@TheTNHoller) March 7, 2026
Michael Waltz, the US ambassador to the United Nations, similarly declined to back Trump's claim, telling ABC's Martha Raddatz on Sunday that he would "leave that to the investigators to determine."
"I can tell you, as a veteran, in no uncertain terms, the United States does everything it can to avoid civilian casualties," Waltz added. "Sometimes, of course, tragic mistakes occur."
The administration officials' comments on the massacre, which Human Rights Watch said should be investigated as a possible war crime, came as video footage, satellite images, and other evidence further indicated it was likely US forces who carried out the February 28 attack on the Iranian school in Minab. Reuters reported last week that, contrary to Trump's claim, US military investigators believe American forces were likely behind the school bombing.
"I guess acknowledging that you attacked a school and killed a bunch of children right off the bat might spoil POTUS's splendid little war," Brian Finucane, a former US State Department lawyer, wrote on social media.
The new video footage, which shows a Tomahawk missile hitting an Iranian military facility near the school, was released by the Iranian outlet Mehr News and analyzed by Bellingcat.
"The US is the only participant in the war that is known to have Tomahawk missiles," Bellingcat noted. "Israel is not known to have Tomahawk missiles."
New video footage shows a US Tomahawk missile hitting an IRGC facility in Minab, Iran, on Feb 28, showing for the first time that the US struck the area. The footage also shows smoke already rising from the vicinity of the girls’ school, where 175 people were reportedly killed. pic.twitter.com/4jBXrNcRJO
— Trevor Ball (@Easybakeovensz) March 8, 2026
The New York Times, which independently verified the video, observed that "as the camera pans to the right, large plumes of dust and smoke are already billowing from the area around the elementary school, suggesting that it had been struck shortly before the strike on the naval base."
"This is supported by a timeline of the strikes assembled by the Times that shows the school was hit around the time as the base," the newspaper added. "The Times has identified the weapon seen in the new video as a Tomahawk cruise missile, a weapon that neither the Israeli military nor the Iranian military has. Dozens of Tomahawks have been launched by US Navy warships into Iran since February 28, when the US-Israeli attack on Iran began."
A group of six Democratic US senators said in a joint statement late Sunday that they are "horrified" by the latest reports on the school strike, noting that "independent analysis credibly suggests the strike may have been conducted by US forces, which if true, would make it one of the worst cases of civilian casualties in decades of American military action in the Middle East."
"The killing of school children is appalling and unacceptable under any circumstance," said Sens. Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Patty Murray of Washington, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Mark Warner of Virginia, and Chris Coons of Delaware. "This incident is particularly concerning in light of Secretary Hegseth’s openly cavalier approach to the use of force, including his statement that US strikes in Iran wouldn’t be bound by ‘stupid rules of engagement,’ in his words."
"Senate Democrats will not help pass the SAVE Act under any circumstances," vowed the Senate Minority Leader.
The extremes to which the Republican Party will go to sway the 2026 elections in their favor was highlighted again on Sunday after US President Donald Trump said he will sign no other legislation into law this year until the SAVE Act—a bill that would deeply erode voting rights and threatens ballot access for tens of millions of Americans—is passed by Congress.
"It must be done immediately," Trump declared in a characteristically unhinged social media post on Sunday, referring to the SAVE Act, versions of which have passed the Republican-controlled House but so far stalled in the Senate.
"It supersedes everything else. MUST GO TO THE FRONT OF THE LINE," Trump continued in an all-caps tantrum. "I, as President, will not sign other Bills until this is passed, AND NOT THE WATERED DOWN VERSION - GO FOR THE GOLD: MUST SHOW VOTER I.D. & PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP: NO MAIL-IN BALLOTS EXCEPT FOR MILITARY - ILLNESS, DISABILITY, TRAVEL: NO MEN IN WOMEN’S SPORTS: NO TRANSGENDER MUTILIZATION FOR CHILDREN! DO NOT FAIL!!!"
Voting rights experts and Democratic lawmakers have denounced the SAVE Act as a dangerous threat to millions of eligible voters, calling it a clear effort by the GOP to tip the scales in their favor by depressing voter turnout in 2026 and beyond.
"In every form, the SAVE Act would require American citizens to show documents like a passport or birth certificate to register to vote. Our research shows that more than 21 million Americans lack ready access to those documents," warned Eliza Sweren-Becker and Owen Bacskai of the Brennan Center for Justice, which advocates for robust voting rights, in a blog post last week.
"Roughly half of Americans don’t even have a passport," Sweren-Becker and Bacskai continued. "Millions lack access to a paper copy of their birth certificate. The SAVE Act would disenfranchise Americans of all ages and races, but younger voters and voters of color would suffer disproportionately. Likewise, millions of women whose married names aren’t on their birth certificates or passports would face extra steps just to make their voices heard."
In response to Trump's threat on Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) characterized the SAVE Act as "Jim Crow 2.0" as he condemned the president and his GOP allies.
"If Trump is saying he won’t sign any bills until the SAVE Act is passed, then so be it: there will be total gridlock in the Senate," said Schumer. "Senate Democrats will not help pass the SAVE Act under any circumstances."
Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, said Sunday that the SAVE Act—which Trump said last week must be passed "at the expense of everything else"—is not a voter ID bill, but rather "voter suppression" legislation bill masquerading as a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
"If it was a voter ID bill, it would provide people with the proper IDs to vote, with no barriers — but it doesn’t," noted D'Arrigo. "The voter fraud rate is .0001%, and this bill would potentially prevent up to 69 million women, 40 million who don’t have access to their birth certificate, and 140 million without a passport, from voting."