Saturday, September 19, 2026

[NJFAC] Solution to America’s Care Crisis: Employee ownership

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/worker-coops-elder-care-dementia/

The Dignifying Solution to America’s Care Crisis:  Employee ownership turns care work jobs into good jobs—and leads to better patient outcomes.

Excerpt:

Even in this politically polarized time, worker ownership is embraced by people across the political spectrum as a solution to unprecedented wealth inequality. Nearly three-quarters of all respondents (including 74 percent of Democrats, 72 percent of Republicans, and 67 percent of independents) in a national survey said they would rather work for an employee-owned company than for shareholders or the government. “Americans disagree about a lot of things, but this is not one of them,” says Joseph Blasi, the director of the Rutgers Institute for the Study of Employee Ownership and Profit Sharing.

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, one of the most enthusiastic backers of co-ops and employee stock-ownership plans (ESOPs) in Congress, is the lead sponsor of the Employee Ownership Financing Act, which would create a loan program to expand financing options for workers seeking to buy the businesses they work for. At a Senate committee meeting last year on employee ownership, while talking about ways to make the formation of ESOPs easier, Ohio Republican Senator Jon Husted said, “ESOPs are one of the most virtuous forms of capitalism in America.”

Still, Adria Scharf, a researcher who works with Blasi at Rutgers, cautions that “we can’t overburden the worker-cooperative structure and expect it to solve all the systemic problems.” Indeed, increased public funding will be key to addressing America’s care crisis. The last significant effort to transform the funding landscape was in 2021, when President Joe Biden proposed the Build Back Better bill, which would have stabilized and strengthened the home-care sector. As the sector now waits for another big push at national reform, local efforts show what is possible. “These precious organizations are just hidden in the shadows, and they are so different,” Scharf says. “They’re so beautiful.”

Peggy Powell knows that cooperatives represent a tiny fraction of the larger sector, but she doesn’t see scale as the only measure of significance. “Coming out of working-class roots, coming out of roots where you know you have very little control over many things in your life…putting one foot in front of the other is the victory,” she says. Her daughter Adria is still fighting for full-scale transformation. “We need access to capital, technical assistance, co-op-friendly policy, robust and strong cooperative networks, and investment in leadership and development pipelines for workers and worker-owners in the cooperative sector,” she says.

“Worker-owned home-care service delivery in the US,” she adds, “is the cornerstone of a far more equitable and caring economy.”

I'm sharing this from The Nation: The Dignifying Solution to America's Care Crisis

Thanks to a GoodJobs member for this article. jz

--
June Zaccone
National Jobs for All Network
http://www.njfac.org

--
This list is only for announcements, so you may not post. To contact the list manager, write to junez [at] njfac.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "goodjobs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to goodjobsforall+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/goodjobsforall/CAPV%3DhmB5W%3DFz%2Bp5btFrWwhmA%3Doejpo7mo7pMf0NJ35ACOkz2ZQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[NJFAC] New jobs in 140 years of data: Why the AI displacement fear is overstated



Forecasts of AI-driven job destruction rest on counting automatable tasks. But labour markets hire, pay, and fire whole occupations, not tasks – and occupations have proved far more durable than task exposure implies. Drawing on 140 years of Swedish census and register data, this column shows that roughly seven in ten workers today are in occupations whose core functions already existed in the late-nineteenth century. The mass-unemployment fear is overstated; the subtler question is whether today’s technological wave still generates the durable, specialised new work that earlier ones did.
....
This is not a Swedish peculiarity. Replicating the approach on US data, we find that occupations new since 1940 account for only about 9% of 2019 employment. That sits in apparent tension with Autor et al. (2024), whose title-based ‘new frontiers’ approach attributes a majority of current US employment to specialties introduced since 1940. The gap is methodological: their measure infers employment from the share of new micro-titles, whereas ours counts the people actually in each occupation. Tellingly, when Autor et al. (2026) move to person-level census data, the picture shifts decisively toward persistence – they find 18.3% of workers in 2011–2023 employed in work introduced since 1970, far below the title-share estimates and much closer to ours. Measured in people rather than titles, the occupational structure is old.
....
Where Durable New Work Actually Comes From
If occupations persist, where does new work come from? To understand this, we consider two distinct sources. Some new occupations are Schumpeterian – created directly by a new technology (electricians, computer programmers). Others are Smithian – created by the division of labour as markets grow and organisations get more complex (accountants, specialists, logistics workers).1 The general merchant of the colonial economy splits into shopkeepers, brokers and bankers not because trade is new, but because scale makes finer division of labour pay (Chandler 1978).
The crucial finding is that durable, well-paid employment accumulates overwhelmingly on the Smithian side. Smithian occupations are far more likely to survive: in our data, more specialised occupations are roughly half as likely to fall into decline, whereas occupations born in the most recent technological waves are several times more likely than incumbents to vanish – the punch-card operator being the textbook case. (It is membership in a recent technological wave, not a high ‘technology score’ as such, that carries the elevated risk.) The mechanism is a chain: technology creates scale, scale creates specialisation, and specialisation creates durable labour demand. We argue that the Schumpeterian sector raises productivity and enlarges the market but the employment it ultimately underwrites appears mostly elsewhere; as Smithian specialisation within enduring functions. This is also why the displacement fear might be overstated. The historical record shows that despite significant automation and technological change, occupations are strikingly persistent. And economic growth can still fuel the expansion of new Smithian jobs.
....
What It Means for the AI Debate
So the genuine question is not the one dominating the headlines. It is not whether AI will displace workers from tasks – occupations, the unit the market prices, have historically repeatedly absorbed that kind of shock. It is whether the current technological wave will still do what earlier waves did: generate enough productivity and scale to spin off durable, specialised, well-paid new work. Earlier general-purpose technologies reliably converted innovation into broad employment through the division of labour. The digital wave, so far, has not visibly repeated the feat.
....
--
June Zaccone
National Jobs for All Network
http://www.njfac.org

--
This list is only for announcements, so you may not post. To contact the list manager, write to junez [at] njfac.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "goodjobs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to goodjobsforall+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/goodjobsforall/CAPV%3DhmDE-3O%3D90H5p04-0-OY1bmVJ63RoCsAohqBRnm6qwJYgw%40mail.gmail.com.