Steven Greenhouse

 

Steven Greenhouse was a reporter at The New York Times for 31 years and was its labor and workplace reporter from 1995 to 2014. He is currently a visiting researcher at the Russell Sage Foundation. He is the author of The Big Squeeze: Tough Time for the American Worker and is currently working on a book about the future of America's workers.

Recent Articles

What Does the Tax Bill Do for Low-Income Workers?

Basically, nothing. But will that be sufficient to peel away voters?

Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP Images
Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP Images Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin speaks during a news conference in the Capitol where GOP senators said families and small businesses would benefit from tax reform. Appearing behind him are, from left, Senators Mike Rounds, Thom Tillis, David Perdue, John Barrasso, and Steve Daines. I magine a low-wage worker, perhaps one who voted for Donald Trump. This worker is getting nothing from the huge Trump-GOP tax plan. This worker won’t benefit from phasing out the estate tax. Nor will this worker gain from eliminating the Alternate Minimum Tax or from reducing the business pass-through tax from 39.6 percent to 25 percent. And because working class people can’t afford to invest in stocks or mutual funds, they won’t be among the lucky folks who receive bigger dividend checks after the corporate income tax is cut from 35 percent to 20 percent. This worker toils hard day after day, juggling two kids and a job that pays just above the minimum wage. She...

Beyond Carrier: Can Congress End the Green Light for Outsourcing?

Donald Trump’s unusual deal with Carrier Corp. to keep 800 jobs in the U.S. alarmed many economists, but it points to the need for a corporate norm that doesn’t tilt toward outsourcing.

AP Photo/Evan Vucci
AP Photo/Evan Vucci People watch as a motorcade carrying President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence arrive for a visit to the Carrier factory, Thursday, December 1, 2016, in Indianapolis, Indiana. trickle-downers.jpg W hile millions of Americans were thrilled to see President-elect Trump strong-arm the Carrier Corporation into keeping its Indianapolis plant open, numerous economists, commentators, and lawmakers denounced the deal. Some condemned it as crony capitalism, because Carrier will receive $7 million in state incentives as part of its agreement not to send 800 threatened jobs to Mexico. Others voiced alarm that Trump was singling out and bullying an individual company. One of the deal’s most prominent critics was Lawrence Summers, the former Treasury secretary, who wrote an opinion piece with the headline, “Trump’s Carrier deal could permanently damage American capitalism. ” Summers wrote, “I have always thought of American capitalism as dominantly rule...

Trump's Carrier Pigeons

The fear of Donald Trump's wrath may have been the biggest factor prompting Carrier to drop plans to move its Indianapolis plant to Mexico. Had President Obama gone that route, Republicans would have assailed him for meddling in the free market.

(Photo: AP/Darron Cummings)
(Photo: Darron Cummings) President-elect Trump speaks at Carrier Corp. on December 1, 2016, in Indianapolis. S omething in President-elect Donald Trump’s deal to save 800 Carrier jobs doesn’t add up. When Carrier announced in February that it would shutter its Indianapolis factory and move the operation to Monterrey, Mexico, it said the move would save $65 million a year. When you pay your Indiana workers $22 an hour on average and pay your workers in Mexico $3 an hour, that saves a lot of money. During the presidential campaign, Trump had singled out Carrier for attack, railing against it for turning its back on America. Trump even vowed to somehow keep 100 percent of the Carrier jobs in Indiana. To help Trump save the 800 jobs, Indiana officials agreed this week to give Carrier $7 million in state incentives over a decade. That’s a lot less than the $65 million that Carrier would save annually by moving operations to Mexico. This raises questions about what really persuaded Carrier...

Taking Trump’s Populism Seriously

While the Donald had a powerful message for white workers, Clinton failed to convey a robust pro-worker stance.

AP Photo/Julie Jacobson
AP Photo/Julie Jacobson Supporters arrive at Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's election night rally, Tuesday, November 8, 2016, in New York. I n small cities and towns across the nation, working-class whites unloosed a thunderbolt on Tuesday, giving a stunning victory to Donald Trump. “A primal scream,” was how David Axelrod described it. Working-class whites were clearly angry—about stagnating incomes, shuttered factories, and a perception that Washington was rigged against them. And they largely lined up behind Donald Trump, the candidate who voiced and channeled their anger, and not behind Hillary Clinton, a far more cerebral and measured candidate. By promising to deport 11 million illegal immigrants, to impose a 35 percent tariff on cars assembled in Mexico and to get tough on China trade, Trump came across as a raging fighter for American workers—even if the solutions he offered, such as tariffs that could spark a trade war, could plunge the nation into recession...

Pages