AFFORDABILITY IS ABOUT MORE THAN RISING PRICES

In the 2024 Presidential election, Donald Trump disputed the Democrats’ claim that the economy was in good shape. He made the election about the lack of affordability, due to inflation, allegedly caused by the Biden administration.

Now, two years later, it is Trump’s turn to claim that the economy is sound. Official government data shows the opposite, largely because of the Trump tariffs and the war in Iran. It is beyond dispute that inflation is increasing and prices are rising.

Predictably, Democrats have turned the table and made affordability a central issue in this year’s midterm elections. Nevertheless, at every opportunity, the President calls the affordability crisis “a hoax,” perpetrated by Democrats.

Elected officials from both parties, political candidates, and most people are incorrectly focused only on “price” when they discuss affordability. They are missing an important point because affordability is actually the outcome of the race between incomes and prices. The race is being fought between those Americans who live month-to-month based on inadequate wages and those Americans who own assets that continue to appreciate in value, along with their much higher earnings.

According to a recent study performed by the Economic Policy Institute, “Wages, Inequality, and the Roots of America’s Affordability Crisis,” income inequality has done more to reduce the purchasing power of working Americans than inflation. A major conclusion of the study is that “The growing gap between what shows up in typical workers’ paychecks and benefits versus the overall income being generated by the economy is the root of American inequality and of today’s affordability crisis.”

This study has gone deep into economic data since the 1970s to explain why “Far too many families are unable to afford a decent economic life.” Its research has determined that “the rise in inequality was caused by increasingly unequal ‘market’ incomes (wages and salaries, returns on investment).”

If typical workers’ pay had kept pace with overall economic productivity since the late 1970s, today’s hourly pay would be much higher. Instead, those productivity gains have flowed directly into corporate profits and executive salaries. At large U.S. corporations, the average CEO-to-worker pay ratio is approximately 325-to-1.

The report furnishes the following background. “Historically, shared prosperity has only been achieved when policies that intentionally support workers (like strong unions, adequate minimum wages, and full employment mandates) have provided a countervailing force against employers’ power in labor markets. Much of the post-1979 period of the United States saw an assault on worker-friendly policies, and this led directly to the rise in inequality and to weak income growth for working families.”

Among the proposed solutions to create a fairer economy are: 1) Avoid recessions at all costs 2) Protect the right for workers to organize and to bargain collectively 3) Raise minimum wages 4) Enact rules that support healthy wage growth, not just healthy corporate profits 5) Raise taxes on the wealthy and on corporations.

Two narratives involving income inequality recently left me in a pessimistic and irritated frame of mind. On a weekend in late September, I read a featured essay in the New York Times. It was written by the daughter of a construction worker who fell 35 feet on a job, survived, endured 18 years of chronic pain, financial hardship, and fighting for help before committing suicide. (“The $15,000 Settlement That Destroyed My Father’s Life”).

What is unique about this story was that the father had privately recorded 694 videos detailing years of navigating workers’ compensation, disability benefits, and the health care system. The videos documented an ongoing battle with government programs that were supposed to be there to help him.

The following Monday, a construction crew arrived at our residence to install windows. One of the workers was a middle-aged individual from Washington County. During a break, he told me his story involving a work-related injury. Years ago, he was injured on the job. He lived in Pennsylvania, his employer was from another state, and he was working in a third state. He was instructed not to file a claim because of the complexity and that everything would be fine. Several months later, he was terminated, and it was too late to file for compensation. He was left with a chronic injury that has limited his ability to earn a living.

I could not stop thinking about the tens of thousands of laborers who have worked in construction, in landscaping, in processing plants, and other dangerous environments. How many others have similar stories?

The second narrative also helps explain increasing income inequality. Our taxation system supports a “20 percent deduction for pass-through income” available to businesses and tax filers at the highest income levels. Pass-through deductions reduce federal tax revenues by roughly $50 billion annually. Over half of this tax reduction flows to the top 1.5% of taxpayers.

The deduction lowers the top marginal rate on qualified business income from 37% down to 29.6%. For years, critics have argued that this deduction yields minimum gains in employment or wages. Moreover, it encourages business owners (and others) along with their accountants to game the system by reclassifying income to pay less taxes.

Yes, affordability is a problem. However, there is something more sinister than the price of gas or eggs in play. Until our elected officials admit that widening income inequality is the root of the affordability problem, matters will only get worse.

 

 

 

 

 

 

DEMOCRACY DEPENDS ON EDUCATED VOTERS

As we near the midterm elections, campaign talking points seem connected to yesterday’s headlines. They are dominated by the prices of food/gas and the building of data centers in voters’ backyards.  The Democrat’s political ads attack the draconian policies and executive orders of President Trump. Republicans, in an attempt to remain the majority party, falsely label progressive democrats as “communists.”

While this negative rhetoric may motivate voters, we deserve better. Voting should not only be an emotional, knee-jerk reaction based on the latest grocery store receipt, Trump pronouncement, or inaccurate label.

The midterm elections offer a critical choice between two contradictory views of America’s future. To understand these differences will require the informed voter to pull back the curtain and to study the established public policy goals of Republicans and Democrats.

This commentary will offer no opinion on individual candidates. Instead, it will outline some fundamental party differences for voters to consider, on the economy, our democracy, and on cultural issues.

The Economy. The often-repeated Republican goal of “shrinking the size of government” is only the tip of its economic policy. The real Republican story in recent decades has been one of increasing hardship for those who depend on wages and on public services while sponsoring generous government benefits for those who own assets.

Under Republican leadership, “assets” receive preferential tax treatment while wages have not kept pace with inflation. In addition, social services to help the disadvantaged have been cut or terminated.

Republicans are united in their desire to reduce public spending that does not promote the accumulation of private wealth. The party counts on more affluent Americans who own real estate, businesses, stocks/bonds, and robust retirement accounts to support them.

Democrats are focusing their midterm economic message on lowering the cost of living and criticizing the Trump administration's tariffs and handling of inflation. At least three proposals are being discussed by Democratic candidates. First, increasing the federal minimum wage. Second, expanding paid family leave, sick leave, and equal pay measures. Third, supporting targeted student loan relief.

The two economic elephants in the room that no candidate is talking about are funding social security and lowering the national debt. Voters should demand that candidates take a position on each before it is too late.

Democratic Institutions. There are fundamental differences in the way Republicans and Democrats view the presidency. Republicans have adopted a “Unitary Executive Theory.” This principle asserts that the president has absolute authority over the entire executive branch, including independent agencies. Republicans view presidential power as a tool to dismantle the "deep state" (federal bureaucracy) arguing that unelected agency officials hold too much unchecked power.

Democrats contend that President Trump has abused the increased authority granted to him by the Supreme Court. They point out that he has refused to follow long established guidelines regarding diplomacy, treatment of immigrants, destruction of federal buildings, and while president, self-enrichment/acceptance of gifts. They argue that Trump is attempting to turn America into an illiberal, more authoritarian nation.

Democrats generally view the presidency as an instrument for positive social and economic change. They believe a strong executive is necessary to check corporate power, protect the environment, and manage public safety.

To be fair, Democrats are not above bypassing Congress to achieve goals. They will not hesitate to pressure their presidents to utilize executive actions to advance positions on student loan forgiveness, immigration protections, and green energy initiatives.  Democrats believe that independent federal agencies require robust, enforcement authority to regulate corporations, public health, and finance.

In connection with voting, Republicans focus heavily on unproven election fraud. They prioritize measures such as strict photo identification requirements, regular maintenance of voter rolls, and limitations on mail-in ballots. Democrats prioritize expanding access to the ballot box by advocating for federal protections to expand voting rights, automatic voter registration, and mail-in voting.

There are fundamental disagreements regarding the role of the free press and media. Republicans often label mainstream media outlets as partisan actors hostile to conservative voters and candidates. Democrats view the free press as an essential pillar for holding leaders accountable and countering disinformation.

Cultural Issues. The two parties vehemently disagree on many social and cultural issues, including LGBTQ+/gender concerns, and abortion/ reproductive rights.

On education and race, Democrats favor diversity, equality and diversion (DEI) programs and support affirmative action. Republicans seek to eliminate these programs, and favor giving parents taxpayer funded education choices for their children, often to the detriment of public education.

Regarding immigration, Republicans favor strict border security, deportation of undocumented immigrants, and a focus on preserving a Christian national culture. Democrats lobby for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, seek humanitarian processing at the border, and view immigration as a core strength of our nation.

Lastly, on religion and public life, Republicans want Judeo-Christian religious beliefs to be “spotlighted” in the public square. In contrast, Democrats aim to follow the Constitution and to maintain a firm separation of church and state to protect a diverse, pluralistic society.

There are of course many other lenses through which to examine the two political parties and their candidates. Views on Artificial Intelligence, foreign policy, and constitutional law come to mind.

My point is that before voting in this year’s critical midterm elections, we should take the time to study and understand the policy positions each candidate will support if elected. Democracy depends on educated voters.

HOW BANANAS CONQUERED AMERICA

 

My spouse never fails to ask me what items to add to her shopping list. I always respond with “bananas.” While other produce languishes in the refrigerator fruit bin, bananas disappear faster than bagels or cookies. They are always calling my name from the counter space reserved for them, and I never disappoint.

To say that Americans take bananas for granted would be an understatement. No matter the season, we expect to find them piled high in the local supermarket. At convenience stores, fresh bananas are often displayed near the checkout.  

According to the online business platform, Statista, last year, we consumed over 9 billion pounds of bananas. The average American eats roughly 26.8 lbs. of fresh bananas each year.  Bananas remain the most purchased fruit by frequency and volume, making up about 1% of all grocery store sales in the country. It is the most heavily consumed fruit in the American diet.

The story of how bananas captured the American fruit market is fascinating. American innovation played an important role in moving the banana from a rare, exotic curiosity to the cheapest of all produce.

Before the Civil War, bananas were little known to consumers. Traders would throw some green bunches onto their schooner decks and hope to make it to New Orleans before the fruit ripened and spoiled. Northeastern ports were too much of a gamble. Bananas remained an expensive delicacy until the twentieth century.

Three new technologies changed the game. Modern transportation via steamship and railroads, along with the invention of refrigeration, brought bananas to the masses. In 1903, with the launching of the S.S. Venus, the first refrigerated produce boat, a quarter million pounds of bananas were imported from Latin America.

Almost all the bananas marketed in the U.S., Canada, and Western Europe now come from Central America. However, the banana is not native to the Western Hemisphere. The Malay Peninsula in Southeast Asia is the most likely center of origin. The western passage of the fruit was facilitated by the Portuguese in the late 15^th century – from the Guinea Coast to the Canary Islands. From there, the Spanish brought the fruit to the Caribbean and Central America.

The biological nature of the banana is as unique as its history and its shape. The banana is unlike any other fruit. (It is actually a berry.) The plant lacks a wood trunk, making it a tree-size herb. It has a palmlike crown and a fleshy green stalk that grows to a height of between twenty and forty feet.

In place of a root is a rhizome. Each female blossom becomes a single banana, then each cluster becomes a “hand,” and the massive bunch produces a “stem” of bananas. When this end is achieved, the cultivated plant is cut down, and a successor shoot takes over.

Banana picking and shipping are tricky businesses. They become edible only after leaving the mother plant. The sweetness and texture, valued by consumers, only occurs off the vine — and only if the fruit is plucked at the correct stage of maturity. Similar to strawberries, bananas are fragile and subject to rapid deterioration.

Philip Keep Reynolds, who wrote the classic profile, The Banana: Its History, Cultivation and Place Among Stable Foods, explains it best. “The necessity for infinite care in handling a bunch of bananas will be appreciated when it is realized that this fruit, when harvested, is practically a living organism. In the ripening process it generates heat within itself –- a few degrees above or below normal may stimulate too rapid ripening or cause checked vitality.”

Because of this process, the proper environment of cool, moist, and circulating air must be maintained during shipment. Reynolds calculated that a sixty-thousand-pound cargo of bananas generates the heat equivalent to burning a third of a ton of coal.

The discovery of ethylene gas and its relationship to bananas was the next breakthrough in transporting the product. A brief exposure to this gas is now used by suppliers to control the early ripening process. As we banana lovers know, the fruit continues to ripen on the store shelf. Forty per cent of consumers prefer to eat bananas at the “green-tip stage.” Only seven percent prefer the fully ripened banana.

Despite its popularity, the banana remains unloved, or at least ignored. Culinary praise (and expense) is more often reserved for the avocado, the mango, and the pomegranate. Thankfully, physicians and nutritionists take this odd fruit seriously.

The health benefits and nutritional value of the banana are impressive. This fruit supports heart health, digestion, and daily vitality. At 105 calories, a medium banana provides about 422 to 450 mg of potassium. Bananas contain 3 grams of dietary fiber. Their easily digestible carbohydrates provide a rapid, fat-free boost of natural energy before or after physical activity. Bananas offer vitamin B6 and tryptophan, an amino acid that your body converts into serotonin to help regulate mood and brain function. They are used to support weight loss because they’re relatively low in calories, nutrient-dense, and they’re filling.

One commentator has noted that bananas are a food for the whole of life. It is often the first solid food in an infant’s diet and the last solid food that can be managed by the elderly.

Then there are banana lovers like me that eat thousands of them during the long stretch in-between. I cannot imagine a morning without one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUMMERTIME IN THE CITY

 

Our summer was capped off with an end of August trip to the New York City theater district. My nephew’s wedding took place in nearby New Jersey. It was a short drive through the Lincoln Tunnel to our Times Square hotel. Yes, the parking was $50.00 a day, but we avoided flying into La Guardia from Pittsburgh and the two expensive cab rides.

The late summer energy in and around Midtown Manhattan was a marvel to behold. The beautiful weather and influx of foreign tourists made the four blocks in every direction from Times Square a sea of exhilarated humanity. In order to check Google Maps, we needed to duck behind a lamp post to avoid being swept away.

Almost everyone we met was from some other country with an interesting story to tell. The local waiters and retail clerks always greeted us with a smile. They would not hesitate to leave their posts to guide us around a corner to point out our destination. Those who label “the city” cold and dangerous are missing out on the excitement of America’s 24/7 global epicenter of culture, finance, and human diversity.

Our focus on this excursion was Broadway. Some performances on our bucket list had just closed (Cats: The Jellicle Ball and Ragtime) and the new fall offerings had not yet opened (Galileo and Other Desert Cities). However, our five choices did not disappoint. We came to summarize our viewing experience as “three gunshots and two large bangs.”

The initial play, on the evening of our arrival, was Oh Mary! This irreverent 80 minute, one-act drama provided our first gunshot.  The play satirizes the life of Mary Todd Lincoln in the weeks leading up to Abraham Lincoln’s assassination at Ford’s Theater. My guess is that this dark comedy will not be making the rounds in local community theaters anytime soon.

The play portrays Mary as an unhinged and raging alcoholic trapped in an unhappy marriage to a gay, closeted Abraham Lincoln. It mixes 19th-century historical figures with absurdist fiction, musical medleys, and biting camp humor.  

Initially, the show’s creator, Cole Escola, did not envision casting anyone besides himself to play Mary for what he thought would be a limited run. After the play became a runaway hit, nine actors have now played Mary in this very challenging performance.

Our second gunshot was from the famous duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton that ended the title character’s life. Hamilton has been on Broadway for over ten years. I thought our viewing would be a bit stale and anticlimactic. I was wrong. Hamilton was one of the most entertaining theater experiences of my life. Creator Lin-Manuel Miranda’s combination of hip-hop score and his African American take on American history was a joy to behold.

The third gunshot was from a small, off Broadway, production of The Play That Goes Wrong. This offering was a fast-paced physical comedy and a “play within a play.” It tells the story of a college drama society’s disastrous opening night where everything goes wrong, bringing chaos to the stage and laughs from the audience. At the end of the play, the villain is shot and the entire set collapses on the actors. Great fun, with the cast often going off script to interact with the patrons.

Our first large bang (in fact, many big booms) occurred in the over-the-top production of The Lost Boys. This musical is a major theatrical spectacle with incredible special effects, first rate acting, and memorable songs. This year, The Lost Boys won four Tonys including best performance by an actor and actress in a featured role.

The plot involves a mother and her two teenage sons. Looking for a fresh start, they move to the fictional boardwalk town of Santa Carla, California. Instead, they find a “band” of teenage vampires. The script uses some of the scenes from the 1987 cult film starring Kiefer Sutherland, but revises the roles of the female characters, giving them more agency.

For over two hours the action is nonstop. After the final song, “If We Make It Through the Night” there is a dramatic loud boom and a sudden drop to pitch darkness.

Our last selection, Operation Mincemeat, won high praise in London and made its way to Broadway in March of 2025. It has become a major commercial success and gained critical acclaim.

The musical depicts the true story of a 1943 British military deception plan during World War II. British Intelligence used a dead body with fake papers to trick Nazi Germany into expecting an invasion of Greece and Sardinia instead of Sicily. Hitler believed the fake papers and moved his troops to Greece and the Balkans, allowing the Allies to capture Sicily with far less resistance.

While the film by the same name was a drama starring Colin Firth, the musical is straight comedy pulled off by five actors, each playing dozens of roles. Our final theatrical “bang” was the high-energy, theatrical climax—the explosive final number of the show.

In addition to our theater selections, museums were high on our list. New exhibits at the Met were outstanding. We were particularly blown away by the recent renovations to and art installations at the Henry Clay Frick Mansion (now museum) facing Central Park.

Summertime in the city was an experience that will provide us with many pleasant, year-round memories.

 

 

HOW WILL TRUMP’S ODYSSEY END?

 

The year 2026 will be remembered for the celebration of America’s 250th birthday. The events of this year will be compared with those in other milestone celebration years and used to chronical the ebb and flow of American history.

I believe that one of the most widely discussed events from this year will be the manner in which Homer’s The Odyssey left an indelible impression on the cultural and political life of America. Odessey mania is sweeping the country following the release of Christopher Nolan’s epic movie, staring Matt Damon and Anne Hathaway. Prior to the movie’s release, a new highly regarded translation of Homer’s The Odyssey, was released by Daniel Mendelsohn.

My wife and I felt that Nolan’s creation was timely and enthralling cinema. The movie has influenced American society by igniting online culture-war debates over casting and interpretations. (Many scholars trained in the classics take issue with Nolan’s approach.)

The movie triggered widespread public reflection on national identity, misapplied military conflict, and the modern relevance of classical myth. Reviewers of the movie have noted that the sensory-heavy, large-format cinematic production compels audiences to feel the brutal physical toll of the hero’s journey rather than romanticizing the adventure of one man trying to reunite with his family.

The film has sent thousands of new readers back to Homer's original text as depicted in Mendelsohn’s and other modern translations.  According to the Guardian, “The movie’s most significant accomplishment might be turning a nearly 2,700-year-old epic poem into the most sought-after book in America.”  It was reported that in this country sales increased by roughly 76% and by an astounding 700% in the UK.

The popularity of The Odyssey has led many commentators to consider Donald Trump and his presidency through the lens of Homer’s epic works. There are many interesting parallels that come to mind.

Ironically, exactly ten years ago, in August of 2016, when Trump was first running for president, I wrote a commentary for this newspaper titled “Donald Trump as Homeric Hero.” After reading the excellent book, Why Homer Matters by Adam Nicolson, I had an epiphany that “Trump was staging a Homeric hero quest.”

I explained my analysis as, “the dichotomy between the warriors ‘outside the walls’ who view the civilized class ‘within the walls’ as too soft, corrupt, and dysfunctional. The quest is for the people of the ‘earth’ and ‘sword’ for whom action is everything and words have no meaning to tear down and replace the existing structure.”

I went on to say, “The hero’s goal is to crush what has come before and to take life back to a simpler time. The Homeric tradition sings the praises of a powerful leader who is able to meld uncooperative bands of miscreants into a coherent force to conquer what was thought to be the essence of the civilized world.”

Ten years ago, I reasoned that, “Trump may be the newest manifestation of the Homeric myth. The Homeric view of the world centers on revenge and conflict, not consensus or compromise.  Power is something to be fought for, not passed peacefully from one political elite to the next.  The Homeric warrior who can reach the pinnacle of power without the aid of other politicians or institutions owes nothing to the order that came before.  He controls his destiny.”

To prove my point, in a recent wide-ranging interview with The New York Times, Trump claimed that his power as commander-in-chief is limited only by his own morality and judgment, not by international treaties or laws.

My conclusion was that, “for those of you, who think I am giving Donald Trump too much credit, remember that Agamemnon, the Greek leader, was also called psychopathic.  In the Iliad he murders his daughter to gain a favorable wind to Troy and later steals Achilles’ woman, Briseis, thereby angering his greatest asset against the Trojans. Are Trump’s public acts those of a narcissistic madman or of an Alpha Greek warrior in the Homeric tradition?”

As the Trump presidency has unwound over six years, other Homeric similarities, not my own, have been widely discussed. First, Trump is called a “trickster” in the classical tradition as practiced by Ulysses. He employs no set strategy and instead is unpredictable and breaks conventional rules to outmaneuver opponents. Unfortunately, these tactics have not succeeded in Iran.

 

Second, Trump’s unstructured and repetitious political speeches are described as similar to the Greek oral tradition. He is fond of using catchy epithets (“crooked Hillary” instead of “swift footed Achilles”) to captivate a crowd from memory, not a teleprompter.

Third, Trump presents himself as the “lone warrior” and often remarks that “I alone can fix it.” This mirrors Ulysses in the Odyssey, the ultimate individualist who would rather do things his way than to follow the gods. 

How will Trump’s odyssey end? A core theme of Homer’s epic is xenia, the sacred Greek law of hospitality toward strangers and travelers. The Greek version is unlike the interpretation in Nolan’s movie, where the hospitality seems to be based on the Judeo-Christian, golden rule. In the classical version, you were kind to strangers because they could be gods in disguise.

Nevertheless, Trump’s actions with his brutal policies toward immigrants, disregard for those in need, and attacks on foreign dignitaries seems to directly violate xenia. Disobeying this policy (also known as Zeus’s Law) always brought ruin to Greek epic characters.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS ARE GOOD FOR AMERICA

The Swarthmore Bulletin is a quarterly magazine mailed to all alumni of the college. Normally, I turn to the final pages and read the class notes to catch up on the news of those who graduated with me. Then I return to the front of the magazine to review the books written by Swarthmore graduates over the past three months. Lastly, I skim the articles for interesting topics.

The current summer issue was unique. On the cover was a photograph of four students from foreign countries that were attending Swarthmore. The title of the issue was A Global Community. I eagerly read the articles covering this topic and was struck by the importance of foreign students to the college. Moreover, as Swarthmore graduates from other countries entered the workforce in all manner of professions, their contributions to our nation and to the world was astounding.

The editor of the Swarthmore Bulletin sets the stage with the following introduction: “Swarthmore’s global community is a snapshot of everything that lends to the cause of celebration in the U.S.---our diversity and our commitment to social equity and the pursuit of and access to knowledge. This unfolds in landscapes near and far.”

One article focuses on a project called “THE 1875.”  The projectname honors the year the first known international student came to Swarthmore. It traces the history of Swarthmore’s international students and how they enriched the fabric of the college. The project addressed important questions. What was it like to be an international student 50 years ago?  What about now? How does the college continue to grow and strengthen thisimportant community?

Since 1875, students from 133 countries have been admitted. The project documents the generations of international students that have forged lifelong friendships, overcame obstacles, and left their mark on the world. Their stories are a testament to the resilience, adaptability, and contributions of Swarthmore’s global community. The goal is to strengthen the ties between international students and the college as a whole, fostering a sense of belonging that extends beyond graduation.

A second article titled, “A Story of Welcome,” goes back in time to document a 1942 endeavor sponsored by PhiladelphiaQuakers and Swarthmore. John Nasson, then Swarthmore president, led an effort to relocate young, college-aged Japanese from West Coast internment camps and to place them in East Coast academic institutions. The effort removed almost 5,000 students from the camps and helped them gain a degree from prestigious institutions.

Among the Japanese admitted to Swarthmore were three members of the Inouye family. After the war, two became physicians and one a physics researcher.

Lastly, an article titled, “A Full Circle Moment,” tells the story of recent Swarthmore graduate Narangarav Enkhtaivan, a native of Mongolia. She arrived in 2023 through the Mongolian Young Scholars initiative and now helps run the program. Her goal is to repair the Mongolian education system which suffers because of underfunding and the fact that one third of Mongolian families are nomadic herders.

While Swarthmore celebrates its foreign students, throughout the nation other institutions that recruit international applicantshave been devastated by the Trump administration. Larger public and research universities rely on federal dollars to fund labs, employ staff, and to innovate with private companies. In these cases, federal funds can make up over 40% of total revenue. Even Harvard University, with its massive endowment, depends on federal dollars for 11% of its yearly operating costs and for 66% of its annual research budget.

When president Trump resumed office in 2025, foreign students became an immediate target. Using unfounded rationalizations concerning national security and the threat to the employment of American citizens, Trump sought to restrict legal immigration of students. This policy dovetailed with Trump’s plans to pressure elite universities on political and ideological issues.

The Trump State Department has revoked student visas for foreign-born individuals who participated in campus demonstrations. At our most elite universities, including Harvard, the Trump administration has moved to withdraw foreign student enrollment certificates. 

A new rule issued by The Department of Homeland Security(DHS) places a strict four-year admissions cap on students to discourage them from seeking employment in the U.S. The post graduate departure date has been shortened from 60 days to 30 days. In late July, DHS announced a rule that will add strict time limits to student visas. It will restrict student transfers from one program to another and/or changes to study plans.

In Pittsburgh, Carnegie Mellon University is an important research center with many Ph.D. programs that are longer than four years. It has a large number of international students that will be affected by the new rules. The school administration announced plans for a town hall for the upcoming fall semester. It stated in part, “Changes can cause uncertainty and anxiety. We want students to know that we are here to support you.”

Even a small private college like Swarthmore, with little federal funding, is affected. The new federal restrictions on international students threaten the college's diverse campus community, creates administrative burdens for foreign enrollment, and challenges the school's core institutional values.

International students are good for America. Most pay full tuition, which helps fund university budgets at a time when domestic student populations are dropping. These students provide diverse viewpoints and unique life experiences to help prepare our domestic students for living in a multicultural world.

 

OUR RETIREMENT SYSTEM IS BROKEN

 

Baby Boomers in the United States are currently 62 to 80 years old. My wife and I will both be 75 in September. In many ways, our retirement has been all we expected. It would be easy for us to assume that the American retirement system is working well and protecting older folks now and into the future.

This assumption would be a mistake.  Those experts who make a living analyzing the aging population have reached the opposite conclusion. America’s retirement system is broken.

A study in 2024 found that one in 10 (10.2%), or 5.9 million adults ages 65 and older, had incomes below the official poverty level. Without Social Security, 22 million more adults and children would live in poverty. If Congress does not act by 2032, Social Security will only collect enough revenue to pay 78% of scheduled retirement benefits.

To exasperate the financing of the aging problem, an average boomer who is currently 65 years old can expect to live another 18 to 20 years. (For someone born in the United States in 1930 the average life expectancy was about 59.7 years.)

This commentary will review some basic history of our retirement system. I will then turn to several recent books that have documented the “aging class” in America. These experts explain the financial problems of the growing older population and offer some plans for “rescuing retirement.”

Until the late 1800s, agriculture dominated the economy. Older Americans owned their own farms and passed them on to their children. My own family provides an example. At the turn of the century, my N.J. grandmother received one of six farms divided among her siblings. That farm passed to my father’s older brother who worked the land until his death in the late 1960s.

The needs of farm hands were covered by the broader community. Women stayed on the farm and cared for elderly family members. Life spans were relatively short.

The fate of older people changed dramatically as workers left the farms and women entered the labor market. Along with new immigrants, they poured into city offices, factories, and mines. There were no longer insular communities, or farm assets help the elderly. The majority of Americans had to continue working until they dropped. Secure retirements did not exist.

In the early 1900s, European countries faced up to the industrial revolution and began establishing government-run pension systems. The US waited until 1935 to establish Social Security benefits.  There were more dramatic changes after WWII. Company sponsored pensions were designed to attract and keep workers in tight labor markets. By the 1960s, more than 40% of American workers had a private pension in addition to Social Security. As a result, a third of the elderly population no longer lived in poverty.

What has become of this remarkable public/private retirement system to shield the elderly from financial hardship? Unfortunately, earlier gains have been reversed with lower-income workers hurt more than others.

The British historian, Robin Blackburn, explained the dilemma in his excellent 2007 book, Age Shock. Blackburn found that “Many elderly will be forced to take jobs in their later years that are too demanding and will be unable to afford needed health care, as life spans increase and costs rise.” Blackburn concluded that there was little political interest in the problem of old age poverty as other topics dominated the public debate.

Two more recent books explain the problem well.  Teresa Ghilarducci is a labor economist and nationally recognized expert in retirement security. Her book, Work, Retire, Repeat: The Uncertainty of Retirement in the New Economy, presents evidence that the system benefits private interests and exploits the most vulnerable people. She tells the stories of elderly Americans locked into jobs—not because they love to work but because they must.

Ghilarducci documents that while 50% of Americans age 62-70 are retired, their living standards have diminished significantly since they stopped working. Another 28% are still working and cannot afford to stop. She points to 1) inadequate savings, 2) insufficient Social Security payments, and 3) risky defined-contribution pensions like 401(k)s, that have supplanted traditional defined-benefit pensions paid by employers.

Ghilarducci is a progressive economist who believes that coercive corporate elites have replaced “working more hours” from the Gilded Age with “longer working lifespans” today. This policy deflates wages and reduces business costs by increasing the labor pool.

The second book Golden Years: How Americans Invented and Reinvented Old Age was written by James Chappel, an historian at Duke University. He is affiliated with the Duke Aging Center which focuses on aging research.

Chappel also traces the history of old age as a distinctive “stage of life.” He points out the many contradictions in old age policy as longer lifespans and spiraling health care costs have produced more instability, not an improved system. He believes the original, post-war model has crumbled. Instead of more security, older people are forced back into the workforce.

How could our retirement system be made better? Chappel urges Baby Boomers of all stripes to view themselves as a common social group. To borrow a popular phrase from the 1960s, Boomers need a “class consciousness,” predicated on inclusion and diversity.

Tribal partisan politics have inexplicitly moved us old folks away from being unified. Pro-business policymakers have seized this opportunity to push the burdens of aging back onto older Americans and their families.