SEATTLE – Free public forums this week in Bellingham and Seattle will cover the future of Social Security.

For just over half of married couples and three-quarters of single people, Social Security makes up at least half of their retirement income. And it is the only income source for three out of 10 women age 65 and older.

Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), says that's why her group sees it as vital to not only keep Social Security in place, but strengthen it.

She points out the average annual benefit for a retired man is just over $17,000 – for a woman, it's $13,000.

"Women work an entire lifetime at unequal pay, and a lot of that relates to the fact that about two-thirds of minimum-wage workers are women,” she points out “So, they get to the end of their working career and they don't have that nest egg.

“Social Security is what women rely on in their retirement years."

O'Neill says NOW is backing the idea of a caregiver credit – a minimum amount of Social Security that could accrue for women during years when they have to drop out of the workforce to care for children or elderly parents.

O'Neill will be a panelist at the forums, on Wednesday night in Seattle and Thursday night in Bellingham.

Also on the panel is Marilyn Watkins, policy director at the Economic Opportunity Institute.

She says backers of Social Security have spent a lot of time in recent years defending it from those who would privatize or defund it.

Watkins stresses it's time to change the focus – to how to adjust and modernize a program that she says hasn't seen major updates since the 1980s.

"Now we all know that this is important, and let's start talking about making it better right now, and reassuring younger working Americans that we've done what we need to, to make this financially sound for when you get to retirement, too," she says.

There are proposals in Congress to increase Social Security benefits and cost-of-living adjustments, and to lift the cap on how much of a person's income is taxed for Social Security, so that people at higher incomes contribute similar percentages as those with lower incomes.

The Wed., June 4, forum starts at 7:00 p.m., at Bethany United Church of Christ, 6230 Beacon Ave. S., Seattle. The Thurs., June 5, forum is at Syre Center, Whatcom Community College, Bellingham. It begins at 7:30 p.m.





get more stories like this via email

New data show fewer than half of rural Gen Z'ers believe they can find a good job in their community, compared to nearly 70% of their urban peers.

Oregon is following the national trend along with a growing rural-urban income gap.

Megan Tuck, program coordinator for the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council, grew up in St. Paul, a small town in the Willamette Valley and now lives in Bend. She said she would have liked to stay in her hometown, but there are few opportunities there for work.

"That was the options, I feel like, growing up for me and a lot of my peers was you either move away, live in St. Paul and commute somewhere, or you work on farms, which is still an amazing profession," Tuck explained.

In 1980, the average rural Oregon household earned about 10% less than an urban family. Today, the gap has widened to 25%. Trump administration cuts to the federal workforce would only worsen the situation, as federal jobs make up a larger share of employment in rural Oregon counties and tend to pay more.

Data show rural youth, like Tuck, are more likely to want to stay closer to home than city-dwellers. Tuck pointed out she and a lot of her peers found city life challenging and missed their hometown community, though many initially wanted to leave after high school.

"Then at the same time, I see a lot of my peers and I as we get older, reflecting and realizing we actually want to come back and we actually want to live here," Tuck emphasized.

Tuck noted employment is not the only challenge to come with living rurally. She stressed rental housing options are also limited. Research shows rural Oregonian incomes are on par with rural American incomes, but rents are 16% higher.

Tuck added people in rural communities are afraid of losing their young people but many have no choice but to leave to find living-wage jobs. Regardless of the challenges she and her generation face, Tuck is determined to find a solution.

"How do you transition some rural economies to still keep the character of the community but also create opportunities for young people?" Tuck asked.


get more stories like this via email

The Iowa Legislature has advanced a bill to provide a $1 billion tax cut to companies covering unemployment benefits for out-of-work Iowans.

Iowa lawmakers reduced the maximum number of weeks Iowans could file for unemployment benefits in 2022 from 26 weeks to 16. The money the state has saved by not paying the additional benefits went into a trust fund, which has reached nearly $2 billion. Now, lawmakers are giving half the money back to business in the form of a tax cut.

Peter Hird, secretary-treasurer of the Iowa Federation of Labor, said Senate File 504 is a blow to people who are looking for work and now have a lot less time to find it while watching companies get a tax cut.

"If you take a benefit, a protection for workers, and then turn that into a tax savings for employers, it's a totally man-made tax cut," Hird pointed out. "This isn't just because of good luck."

The bill is through committee and awaits action on the Senate floor. Gov. Kim Reynolds said she is following through on a campaign pledge to lower taxes for Iowa companies, making the state more attractive to those considering locating in the state.

Hird noted labor groups also worry about what happens in the event of an unexpected economic downturn and added the fears are prominent in rural Iowa.

"Especially if you're working in the ag sector where your job is at stake, and you're talking about giving more benefits to rich people?," Hird emphasized. "I feel like that's just something that's resonating across the country right now."

Reynolds has proposed cutting the highest unemployment tax rate companies pay from 7% to 5.4%, which would save them nearly a billion dollars over five years.

Kentucky lawmakers are considering a bill that would ban the state from enforcing existing worker safety laws that are above and beyond federal standards. Critics say it would weaken worker's rights and put employees in manufacturing, construction, mining, and other dangerous jobs at higher risk. According to state data from 2022, Kentucky's workplace injury and death rates are higher than the national average.

Dustin Reinstedler, Kentucky AFL-CIO president, said Kentucky needs state laws that match industry-specific needs and challenges.

"There's so many things like coal mining, the bourbon industry, some of the heavy metals, aluminum and steel manufacturing that we have here that really aren't in other states," he explained.

If passed, House Bill 398 would eliminate the right of a worker's family, clergy, or attorney to request a safety inspection - a right that exists in all other states. It would also shorten the time for an employee to file a worker safety complaint and for the state to issue employer citations.

Supporters of the measure say matching worker safety regulations to the standards set by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration will spur economic development. But Reinstedler added that the Commonwealth is already experiencing record economic growth, jobs and capital investment.

"There's this kind of like false information flying around that somehow there are companies out there saying, "Oh gosh, I wish Kentucky would relax their rules against worker safety so we could come there and do business,"', when we know the facts, the data is there," he continued.

Jason Bailey, executive director of the Kentucky Center for Economic Policy explained that the bill would also threaten the state with financial penalties for enforcing safety laws.

"Making the state pay court costs, and that really will intimidate the state from issuing citations and incentivize employers to contest them," he said.

Kentucky's maximum penalty for workplace safety violations is $7,000 and can hit $70,000 for willful or repeated violations, while OSHA's is more than $16,000 per violation and $161,000 for willful or repeated violations.