Danielle Kurtzleben
What cell phone ownership says about poverty in America
Not too long ago, cell phones were considered a luxury or even a status symbol. Now, mobile phones are an increasingly basic necessity for Americans of all income levels.
New data from the Centers for Disease Control finds that the majority of households in poverty also are cell phone-only homes -- the only economic group studied for which that's true.
Pew breaks down the data on its Fact Tank blog, showing not only that the poorest Americans tend to be the ones most likely to be cell-phone-only, at 56 percent, but that younger adults also are generally more likely to be entirely wireless.
Of course, it's not that it's only poorer Americans who are increasingly going landline-free; the share of all income groups and age groups going cell-phone-only have generally trended upward since 2007 -- today, nearly 40 percent of all US adults live in cell-phone-only homes, up from 11 percent in 2007. But the poorest Americans have remained the most likely to be cell-phone-only throughout this period, and have inched away from non-poor adults.
Only 1 in 10 workers had to be licensed in 1970. Today it's closer to 1 in 3
Be honest: the last time you got your nails done or toilet repaired, did you ask your manicurist or plumber what kind of license they had? Those are just two of the many occupations that require a license. The system of getting those official government stamps of approval is hurting the economy, says Morris Kleiner, professor of public policy at the University of Minnesota and a visiting scholar at the Minneapolis Fed.
In a New York Times op-ed (see link below), Kleiner blasts what he calls the "national patchwork of stealth regulation" of state occupational licensing rules. As of 1970, he writes, 10 percent of American workers needed to be licensed to do their jobs. As of 2008, it was around 30 percent.
Strict licensing standards mobility, as a person licensed to practice her trade in, say, Utah might have to get re-licensed if she moves to Oklahoma. In addition, Kleiner argues, these rules restrict people from entering the professions they want to practice. That hurts both would-be workers and consumers; low-income people may not have the means to go through the licensing procedures, which can involve many hours of classroom training. And low-income people, facing this tighter supply of hairdressers and childcare workers, might not be able to afford those services. In other words, occupational licensing might in fact make inequality worse.