PERSPECTIVE: At the Next Presidential Election, the Popular Vote Must Win Out

by John R. Koza The state-based winner-take-all system no longer serves the citizens of the country and we must act to reform it now.

The fact that it appears the winner of the 2016 election, Donald Trump, was not supported by a majority of voters dictates that we elect our next president by popular vote. We can no longer endure presidential elections that primarily focus on the issues and outcomes in a shrinking number of battleground states, while the rest of us feel marginalized and muted in the political process.

The reason five of our nation’s 45 incoming presidents have entered office after losing the national popular vote is that most states have winner-take-all laws that award all the state’s electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes in that state.

Given that the average national popular vote has been close in the last eight presidential elections (an average margin of less than 5%), it is likely that the nation will continue to experience elections in which the president wins the electoral college, but loses the nationwide popular vote.

These same state winner-take-all laws force presidential candidates to focus 94% of their general-election campaign events in 12 closely divided “battleground” states – with the remaining states receiving little or no attention. In 2012, they concentrated all of their campaign events in 12 states. As presidential candidate and Wisconsin governor Scott Walker publicly observed a year ago: “The nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president. Twelve states are.”

When presidential candidates devote virtually all of their attention to 12 states (representing just 30% of the nation’s voters), it is not just about TV advertising and rallies. It has a real impact on public policy. Battleground states receive 7% more presidentially controlled grants, twice as many disaster declarations, considerably more Superfund and No Child Left Behind exemptions, and benefit from many other major presidential policy decisions. For example, in 2016, both party’s nominees catered to Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania on the issue of trade treaties.

Former presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer said, “If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

Fortunately, the Founding Fathers provided us with a better way to improve the system than mass migration. Article II, section I of the US constitution empowers state legislatures to change their method of awarding electoral votes. National Popular Vote asks the legislatures if they want to join together as states to make every vote matter throughout the country.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. This interstate compact will go into effect after it is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes – that is, enough to elect a president (270 of 538). Under this system, the compacting states award all of their electoral votes (in block) to the candidate who received the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia). This guarantees the presidency to the national popular vote winner and makes every voter, in every state, politically relevant in every presidential election.

Eleven states possessing 165 electoral votes have already enacted the National Popular Vote bill into law. In addition, the bill has made significant progress by passing one legislative chamber in 12 additional states with 96 electoral votes. The bill was recently approved by a bipartisan 40-16 vote in the Republican-controlled Arizona house, a 28-18 vote in the Republican-controlled Oklahoma senate, a 37-21 vote in the Democratic-controlled Oregon House, and unanimously by legislative committees in Georgia and Missouri. A total of 2,794 state legislators have endorsed it.

The National Popular Vote bill offers the additional benefit of preventing a presidential election from being thrown into the US House of Representatives.

We cannot expect a system that makes every voter happy with the end result of every election. We can, however, demand a system where all citizens feel that their vote mattered and voice was heard. National Popular Vote will deliver this promise in every presidential election.

_______________________

John R. Koza is the founder of National Popular Vote.  A plurality of voters in Connecticut and in the United States voted for presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016.  Connecticut's legislature considered, but did not approve, legislation proposed by National Popular Vote in 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, and 2009.  The Connecticut House, but not the State Senate, approved NPV legislation in 2009, the same year that a statewide poll indicated that three-quarters of state residents were of the view that the presidential candidate receiving the most votes nationwide should be elected president.  This article first appeared in The Guardian.

PERSPECTIVE: Living in an Aging Connecticut

In Connecticut, a person born today can expect to live an average of 80.8 years, the third highest life expectancy in the nation. However, there are significant disparities in life expectancy between racial and ethnic groups.  Life expectancy is 89.1 years for Asian Americans; 83.1 years for Latinos; 81.0 years for Whites, and 77.8 years for African Americans.

Between 2010 and 2040, Connecticut’s population of people age 65 and older is projected to grow by 57 percent, but its population of people age 20 to 64 is projected to grow by less than 2 percent.

We live in an aging Connecticut.  More than one-third of Connecticut’s population is over the age of 50, and that proportion continues to rise.  Nearly every facet of our society will be impacted.

Increasing numbers of older adults will play pivotal roles, both as caregivers and as recipients of care in both families of origin and of choice.  They will prompt municipal and state leaders and their partners to ensure that communities have the features, services and funds to support aging in place.  And they will challenge our state’s creativity, polities and budgets as they increasingly outlive their financial resources, despite working longer.

Connecticut’s demographic transformation has been spurred by medical, social and economic advances.  And it has been buoyed by baby boomers, people born between the years 1946 and 1964, who were part of the noticeable increase in birth rate post-World War II.

At every stage, baby boomers have been changing this country, and now is no exception.  Not only are their sheer numbers larger than any other previous generation, but they are also longer-lived.

Overwhelmingly, these growing numbers of older adults what to stay in their communities and to have choice, independence and dignity.  By 2025, older adults will comprise at least 20 percent of the population of almost every town in Connecticut.

This perspective first appeared on the website of the now-defunct Connecticut Legislative Commission on Aging, with research and data analysis in conjunction with the Connecticut Data Collaborative.

PERSPECTIVE: All Ways Able Best Describes Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing

by Jeffrey S. Bravin This is a pivotal time for the American School for the Deaf.

In April, we celebrate 200 years of deaf education in the United States and ASD’s bicentennial anniversary.  While much has changed since our early days, ASD’s dedication to providing a quality education for all deaf and hard of hearing children has remained the same. 

We continue to explore innovative teaching methods while incorporating state-of-the-art technology into our classrooms.  ASD is equipped with the latest technology to provide students with total access to language – this includes signing, captioning, and advanced digital systems to assist students with hearing aids and cochlear implants.

We firmly believe that the use of sign language is also critical to ensure that our students benefit from communication access in all environments.  Exposing children to a communicatively accessible environment at the earliest possible age results in language development and academic success.  The bilingual approach will foster this accessible environment while providing our students with the tools to achieve fluency in two languages. 

Now in the second year of our three year strategic plan, we are hard at work growing our enrollment, raising our academic rigor, and integrating the American Sign Language/English Bilingual Approach on campus.

With our eyes to the future, we are also completing a comprehensive branding and marketing effort to reposition ASD as the first choice in education for all deaf and hard of hearing students.

We have unveiled a new logo, tag line (ALL Ways Able), and credo (see below) for the school that not only captures ASD’s centuries of excellence, but also translates our visions for the future as we embark on our next 200 years. Our credo:

What does it mean to be able?

It means you can.

You have what it takes.

To think.

Question.

Decide.

Dream.

Achieve.

Not just in a classroom, but in the world.

So we prepare deaf and hard-of-hearing students

not only for diplomas,

but for their whole lives.

By nurturing the whole child:

Intellectually.  Emotionally.  Physically.  And socially.

and by giving every student everything they need

to focus not on obstacles or challenges,

but on opportunities and potential.

Our students and their families find we’re more than a school -

we’re a true community, made up of passionate professionals

And, using a holistic ASL/English bilingual approach,

we help students and their families be well-prepared

To participate in everything tomorrow will bring.

Because we want all our students

To look forward to futures in which they’re…

ALL ways able.

_______________________

Jeffrey S. Bravin is Executive Director of the American School for the Deaf, located in West Hartford.  Founded in 1817, the American School for the Deaf was the first permanent school for the deaf in the United States and a nationally renowned leader in providing comprehensive educational programs and services for deaf and hard-of-hearing students.

https://youtu.be/MaMJ_sXbnc4

PERSPECTIVE: Move over Oprah - Giving to Women’s and Girls’ Causes is Growing (and is a Rising Force for Good)

by Carol Buckheit What role do philanthropic funds supporting women’s and girls’ causes play in creating change in Connecticut communities? Increasingly, a big one.

According to the Connecticut Council for Philanthropy, the first women’s fund in Connecticut was established in 1993, formed to gather and distribute dollars to improve the lives of women and girls and inform women about the most pressing issues affecting them in their local communities. Connecticut Community Foundation’s  Women’s Fund, serving the Greater Waterbury and Litchfield Hills region, is one of 12 such funds in the Nutmeg State. The Council reported that the combined assets of these women’s funds in Connecticut have grown dramatically, increasing more than six-fold from $2.9 million in 2002 to $18.7 million in 2011.

Nationally, the numbers are even more startling. Between 1990 and 2006, U.S. foundation giving to benefit women and girls (including international grants) grew from $412 million to $2.1 billion, an increase that surpassed the rate of growth for all foundation giving.

Connecticut funders (nearly all of them community foundations) have granted millions of dollars from women’s and girls’ funds to organizations tackling issues uniquely affecting women and girls, including prevention and treatment of eating disorders, dating violence, teenage pregnancy and domestic violence.

Our work, and focus, continues.

In the 21-town Greater Waterbury and Litchfield Hills area served by Connecticut Community Foundation, recent Women’s Fund grantees have included the Susan B. Anthony Project and Waterbury Youth Services. Each endeavors to build girls’ self-esteem and resiliency through programs sensitively developed just for girls, whether through supportive group therapy for girls in residential care or ensuring girls are connected to strong female role models in fulfilling careers.

New research bodes well for the continued growth of women’s funds and, most importantly, their influence in improving the lives of women and girls.

Data from a new study—the first academic research examining who gives to women and girls causes and what motivates donors to give—was released in May 2016 by the Women’s Philanthropy Institute (WPI) at the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy.

The encouraging news: Large percentages of female and male survey respondents (50% and 40%, respectively) reported donating to causes primarily affecting women and girls.  Women reported investing in these causes based on their personal experiences, including experiencing discrimination and having children, and because they believe that supporting those causes leads to the greatest social return to all of society.

An in-depth analysis of giving to women’s funds by the Foundation Center and Women’s Funding Network suggests this belief is valid, pointing to real and significant systemic changes worldwide in areas such as education, health and economic growth.

But, there’s even better news from WPI’s research for the women’s funds in Connecticut, particularly those hosted by community foundations like ours: donors trust us and are looking to us to gain a deeper understanding of issues affecting women and girls in local communities.

The authors discussed, “Our research showed that existing donors were highly complimentary of the women’s funds they supported, seeing them as a locus of expertise in their communities with the ability to make both local and systemic changes.”(p. 35).  Donors indicated that they were intentional about their giving, sought specific impacts, and trusted the women’s funds to deliver desired results.

“As more and more people make the connection between giving to women and societal change, we can see that giving to women and girls is not just a temporary trend but is here to stay,” said lead author of the study, Debra Mesch, Ph.D., director of the Women’s Philanthropy Institute. “Understanding the demographics and motivations of those who are giving to women’s and girls’ causes is increasingly important if we are to improve the lives of women and girls, and their families and communities.”

Indeed.

______________________________________

Carol Buckheit is Senior Communications Officer at the Connecticut Community Foundation.  Established in 1923, Connecticut Community Foundation fosters creative partnerships that build rewarding lives and thriving communities in 21 towns in Greater Waterbury and the Litchfield Hills. The Foundation provides leadership in addressing the region’s critical issues, strengthens local nonprofit organizations through grants and technical assistance programs, and works with individuals, families and corporations to establish and steward scholarships and charitable funds.

PERSPECTIVE commentaries by contributing writers appear each Sunday on Connecticut by the Numbers.

PERSPECTIVE: The Connecticut Job Swap – An Economy in Transition

by Derek Thomas and Ray Noonan During the past 15 years, Connecticut’s economy has experienced a “job swap” – jobs lost in high-wage industries were replaced with jobs gained in low-wage ones.

As a result, from 2001 to 2015, the share of Connecticut’s private sector jobs in low-wage industries increased by 20 percent, while the share in high-wage industries decreased by 13 percent. This helps explain why a growing number of families, even after a full week of hard work, are forced to choose between groceries and rent, or between childcare and transportation costs.

Why did this shift occur? Like many Northeastern and Midwestern states, Connecticut lost tens-of-thousands of manufacturing jobs before the recession, as a result of several factors, including currency manipulation and technological improvements in response to global competition. Although jobs in manufacturing industries accounted for 15 percent of Connecticut’s private sector jobs in 2001, they accounted for two-thirds of net losses in high-wage industries from 2001–2007. The nearly 22,000 jobs lost in high-wage manufacturing industries during this period dwarfed the growth of less than 1,500 jobs added in the financial and insurance industry.

During the recession, industries across all wage categories experienced net losses with a total net loss of more than 85,000 jobs – nearly 6 percent of total private sector jobs. More than 97 percent of total losses were in mid- and high-wage industries. Manufacturing continued to experience disproportionate losses, accounting for almost 30 percent of all jobs lost during this period. The construction industry accounted for another 20 percent, with administrative and waste services industries (composed largely of janitors, laborers, office clerks) accounting for 13 percent of losses.

This leaves us where we are today. The most recent data, from 2015, indicates that 24.5 percent of Connecticut’s private sector jobs are in low-wage industries, paying on average less than $15 per hour ($31,200 annually). That’s barely enough to be considered a living wage for a single adult in Connecticut, let alone enough to support a family. These jobs are concentrated in the food services, social assistance, and retail industries, and they offer fewer benefits, predictability, and flexibility as well as little opportunity for career growth.

Jobs in high-wage industries, paying at least $33.95 per hour ($70,616 annually) on average accounted for 31.4 percent of total private sector jobs in 2015. Since 2001, the state experienced a net loss of 66,000 positions in these industries, including 33,225 jobs before and 38,617 jobs during the recession.

The good news is that, in spite of the high-wage for low-wage job swap, the share of mid-wage industries in Connecticut has remained constant over the last 15 years – accounting for 44.1 percent of total private sector jobs in 2015.

Other recent trends are also encouraging. As of 2015, the rate at which jobs in high-wage industries declined as a share of all private sector jobs was closer to zero last year than at any point since 2010. Similarly, the rate at which jobs in low-wage industries grew as a share of all private sector jobs was near zero in 2015. These trends, along with recent announcements from Electric Boat, Pratt & Whitney, and Sikorsky suggest the 15-year trend could be reversing.

 These recent trends also demonstrate that, in spite of the shifting economy, a strong foundation of mid- and high-wage jobs exists moving forward: as a result of investments in human capital, the state still boasts a high-quality workforce. Moreover, a greater share of the state’s workforce participates in the labor force (meaning they are working or looking for work) than the U.S. and all peer states. Our workers are the fourth most productive in the nation.

Nonetheless, this decade-and-a-half long swap should be matched with equivalent policy responses. For starters, lawmakers should give careful consideration to workforce investments that stimulate growth in high-wage industries when setting upcoming budget priorities. In addition, to help working families close the gap between low wages and the cost of supporting a family, lawmakers should strengthen investments in childcare, restore the state’s full EITC, and raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour. Lastly, scarce resources mandate that state spending of more than $7 billion on tax expenditures should be evaluated and subject to routine public scrutiny  just as it is for spending on schools, transportation and services.

________________________________________

Derek Thomas is the Fiscal Policy Fellow at Connecticut Voices for Children. Ray Noonan is an Associate Policy Fellow at Connecticut Voices for Children. Their research is focused on how Connecticut’s fiscal policies and budget trends affect children and families. This article is based on their work on the “State of Working Connecticut” report. All the data is available at Connecticut Voices for Children’s website.

PERSPECTIVE commentaries by contributing writers appear each Sunday on Connecticut by the Numbers.

PERSPECTIVE: New Economic Perspectives on the I-91 Knowledge Corridor

by Don Klepper-Smith Today, as I look out over our economic landscape in mid-2016, and given recent developments, I believe there is enough evidence to suggest that the odds of a U.S. recession over the next 12-18 months have risen to roughly 30-40 percent.

During our last recession, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) did not make the official call until December 2008, a full year after the recession began, and after the November 2008 presidential election. So given the 2016 presidential election and the current political environment, it is highly unlikely that the so called "R- word" will be formally uttered by NBER before the end of 2016.

If there's one thing I've learned in my 35 years of being a professional economist, it's that once the dominos start falling in a given direction, either to the upside or the downside, expect them to do more of the same. In other words, the economic status quo always perpetuates itself.

Good news begets good news, and bad news begets more bad news. The trick is in discerning the "turning point", which has so many intangibles attached to it. Bottom line: We are clearly starting to see cracks in our economic recovery, but recession is not a foregone conclusion.

Essentially, structural change relates to those factors within the domestic economy which are NOT related to, and operate independent of, the U.S. business cycle. Structural changes have to be understood in their scope and magnitude in impacting today’s economy because many of these same factors will also be affecting future levels of growth.

Often unappreciated by federal and state policymakers, these structural changes have had profound and significant effects on levels of economic growth and have vastly reshaped our economic landscape over time. As a result, policy options are far more complicated and challenging.

The good news is that the current U.S. expansion is seven years old this summer, a bit longer than the average post-war recovery of five years. Despite all the rhetoric and cheerleading, the domestic economy grew just 1.7%, 2.4% and 2.6% respectively over the last three years, about a half a percent below our long-term average. In fact, the last time we saw “average growth of 3%” was in 2005. Today, the economic fundamentals clearly argue for another year of “modest growth” in the range of 2%, but red flags are starting to appear.

Importantly, the traditional tools for stimulating the domestic economy - monetary and fiscal policy - have either been exhausted, or are politically unpalatable as of mid-2016.  Here’s the bottom line:  With little means to stimulate the U.S. economy, the overall economy is poised for just modest, below-average, real GDP growth in the 2%-2.5% range for both 2016 and 2017.

In Connecticut, there's clearly been an escalating "crisis of confidence" in the state's business community that's been long ignored, and it's not going to turn around quickly. Research shows that both business confidence and consumer confidence don't turn on a dime, and that it takes many years to rebuild confidence once it's lost.

The present lack of fiscal discipline in state and local finances is clearly one contributing factor. With State and local budgets climbing three, four and five percent annually, and those on fixed incomes earning one to two percent, it doesn't take a degree in math to understand that "mounting fiscal stress" is already baked into Connecticut's fiscal picture over the next ten to fifteen years.

Inform CT is a public-private partnership that provides independent, nonpartisan research, analysis and public outreach.  Highlights of the August 2016 Inform CT survey results include:

• 40% of the state’s residents say they are likely to move out of state within the next five years.
• More significantly, more than half of those between 18-25 also said they will leave in the coming years, adversely impacting the local labor supply in the years ahead

The issues cited include lack of economic growth, lack of jobs, health insurance costs, declining business conditions, high S&L taxes, and a transportation system that cannot support the needs of its workforce.

Look at the key economic metrics, Connecticut vs. Massachusetts:

• Unemployment: CT at 5.6% in August 2016; MA at 3.9%; US at 4.9%
• Unemployed: CT up 5,500 over last year; MA down 30,300
• State Tax Revenue: CT up 0.8%; MA up 1.9%
• Single Family Housing Sales: CT up 9.9% year-to-date; MA up 14.2%

The Connecticut economy is expected to see growth of about 1%-1.5% in both 2016 and 2017, well below our long-term average annual growth rate of 2.5%.

Four recommendations for Connecticut:

1. To promote fiscal discipline, adopt a state spending cap tied to the CPI-U with accountability, adhere to the present spending cap laws on the books, which has been circumvented, and seek full accountability and visibility, making it known to the public when spending caps are exceeded.
2. Privatize where it makes sense.
3. Reconfigure wage and benefit packages for state and local workers to reflect what the private sector is paying.
4. Promote regionalism and the sharing of resources with the idea of increasing productivity.

If the region wishes to be competitive in a global marketplace that is increasingly competitive and subject to profound structural changes, then emphasis on the STEM skills- science, technology, engineering and math provides a gateway for growth.

STEM skills set the table for expansion in our manufacturing sector, which carries significant economic multipliers. It’s manufacturing which begets non-manufacturing, not the other way around. For every manufacturing job created, there are another 1.5 jobs created elsewhere in the local economy.

_______________________________________

Don Klepper Smith is Chief Economist & Director of Research at DataCore Partners LLC and Economic Advisor to Farmington Bank.  This is adapted from his presentation to the New England Knowledge Corridor Mayors’ Economic Forum on October 5, 2016. 

PERSPECTIVE commentaries by contributing writers appear each Sunday on Connecticut by the Numbers.

PERSPECTIVE: Hostility Instigated by Pride, Ambition, and Other Sinister and Pernicious Motives

by George Washington The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made…

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it - It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence.

Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated…

The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.

Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld.

And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter…

Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

__________________________________

George Washington was the first President of the United States, serving from 1789 to 1797.  This is an excerpt from his 6,000 word 1796 Farewell Address to the nation.  The full address appears on the website of the Lillian Goldman Law Library of Yale Law School, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

PERSPECTIVE: Reverse Mentoring – The Answer for Connecticut’s Seasoned Workers?

by Frances J. Trelease The idea first caught on a couple years ago, with the popularity of the movie “The Intern.”   In that film, A-list actor Robert DeNiro plays a retired professional who accepts an internship with a trendy online fashion company, to sharpen his skills and stay engaged. By the end of the film -- as you might have guessed – DeNiro earns his stripes as a valued team player who is looked to for his temperance and wisdom when chaos erupts.

The hit film brought to light the concept of reverse mentoring – millennials providing tutelage and guidance to their older counterparts in the workplace. It isn’t a new concept, but it’s rising to the surface as retired or downsized professionals seek novel ways to reenter the workforce. It plays off the “traditional” apprenticeship model, where a young trainee learns a craft or trade under the watchful eye of an older, more experienced worker. 

Jack Welsh, former CEO of General Electric, is widely credited with introducing the concept to the U.S. in 1999, when he charged his top officials with finding junior mentors to teach them the latest technologies. He was on to something, those 17 years ago.

According to U.S. Census Bureau projections, “the proportion of Connecticut’s population that is 60 and older is growing more rapidly than other sectors of the population.” The Bureau estimates that nearly 26 percent of Connecticut’s population will be 60 and older by the year 2030.

So for Connecticut’s aging workers, reverse mentoring makes good sense. Many have been phased out of jobs before they felt ready to go. Others voluntarily retired, but still have much to offer. But they face a changing work environment.

The largest hiring blocks in CT in 2016 were hospitality, transportation, financial and business services. (www.cga.ct.gov) Those fields challenge the training and skill sets of those born in the “baby boomer years” – 1948 to 1964 -- who attended college or trade school before today’s digital and electronic gadgets – nay, even basic computer systems -- were ubiquitous.  For them, today’s millennials hold the key to the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in fields like social media marketing and applications development.

The younger set, in turn, gains insight into strategy, negotiation skills and “macro”’ views of the big picture. They become groomed to step into leadership roles when their time comes.

Who wins from this emerging trend? Both groups do. Intellectual property continues to be the singles biggest asset of corporations across the U.S. In Connecticut alone, service giants such as United Technologies Corp., The Hartford, and Stamford-based Deloitte rely on the best and the brightest minds to innovate, create and outpace the competition. Those best and brightest range anywhere from 25 to 75 years old.

Lisa Bonner is director of Change Management & Communications at Cigna in Hartford. In a recent TEDx talk, she spoke of the value of the younger set sharing social media and mobile technology knowledge with Cigna’s “senior leaders.”   Bonner described “putting a 25 year old in the chairman’s office” a “leap of faith… but I knew we were going on to glory. It was difficult to take that step, but we did it. Once they opened up with each other, that’s when the magic started to happen.” (https://youtu.be/uCd7_0BTySY)

Michelle Manson is a blog writer for Chronus, (Chronus.com), which creates software to help run corporate mentoring programs. Manson writes that organizations such a Hewlett Packard, Ogilvy and Mather and Cisco have signed on to the concept.

She writes: “When Hartford Insurance started a reverse mentoring program in 2011, the aim was to train C-suite execs in the tools and culture of social media. With entry-level employees in their twenties as mentors, the business leaders soon began to appreciate the power of ‘searching’ for answers on the spot and they wanted others in the company to benefit from the same flexibility. As a result, they unlocked social networks that were previously off-limits to Hartford employees.”

Other benefits to reverse mentoring – improved morale and retention across the generations, not to mention colorful tweets and pings that fly across social media platforms and engage the consumer.

In Connecticut, reverse mentoring addresses just the tip of the iceberg. There’s so much more to be done.  Initiatives such as the Platform to Employment in Bridgeport provide subsidies of $6,000 to qualifying employers if they bring on unemployed – often senior -- people for eight-week training internships. The hope is that those employers will hire these men and women full-time when the internships end.

And Boomer Den, LLC of Oxford, CT works exclusively with adults ages 45 and older, to fit them to internships, temp-to-hire and permanent positions around the state. In many cases, candidates show up to work ready to learn from those a generation or two younger.

Independent forecasters estimate that half our U.S. workforce will be made up by workers born in the mid-1980s or later. It’s time in Connecticut to bridge generational gaps. It’s time we take a step back – and then a solid leap forward, toward pooling our talents for mutual gain.

_________________________

Frances J. Trelease is president of Boomer Den, LLC, a Connecticut agency that empowers adult workers through internships and job placement opportunities. She may be contacted at info@boomerden.com.

PERSPECTIVE commentaries by contributing writers appear each Sunday on Connecticut by the Numbers.

PERSPECTIVE: History Educators Show the Way – Collaboration Expands Opportunity

by Liz Shapiro On September 7, 2016, key aspects of Connecticut’s funding mechanism for public schools were declared in violation of the state constitution. In his ruling, Superior Court Judge Thomas Moukawsher ordered the state to address school funding inequalities, set up a mandatory standard for high school graduation, overhaul evaluations for public-school teachers and create new standards for special education. The state has been given 180 days to create plans to address the issues.

Although this inequity in school funding probably comes as a shock to some Connecticut residents – after all, Connecticut ranks fifth in the Education Week Research Center’s national 2016 Quality Counts report card of the nation’s schools – it comes as no surprise to a collaboration of history educators who have been working as partners for over three years on the simple goal of making history learning in Connecticut meaningful, fun and accessible to all learners.[1]

There are many recipes for great collaborations, but the key ingredients for Connecticut’s collaborative successes seem to be acknowledging and identifying a systematic weakness, and a willingness to look outside the box for solutions that create win-win-win-win scenarios for teachers, history museums (formally referred to as “public history” organizations), academic historians and students.

For practitioners, thinking about a collaborative effort of this scope even five years ago would have been impossible. Finding money for buses for field trips, combined with the time-crunch of the classroom day and ‘teach to the test’ mentality made learning outside of school walls nearly impossible.  Museum educators created one terrific program after another for school audiences, but invariably, visits dwindled. And students suffered the consequences. But as demonstrated time and time again in Connecticut’s history, state educators and historians rose to the challenge. Our story has a happy “middle” (the ending has yet to be written.) Not content with mediocrity, two groups of organizations led by people who care about Connecticut’s students approached this growing problem from two different angles.

First, under the leadership of the Connecticut Council for the Social Studies, Stephen Armstrong, Education Consultant to the State of Connecticut, and State Education Commissioner Dr. Dianna R. Wentzell, a team of elementary, middle, high school and college faculty envisioned and wrote a new set of frameworks for social studies education in Connecticut. These frameworks, based on the Inquiry Learning Process, where students ask and answer critical questions with support and guidance from teachers, were adopted in 2015.

At the same time, staff at Connecticut Humanities (CTh), the state affiliate of the National Endowment for the Humanities, seeking to focus and improve services, facilitated a dialog with their partner organizations – including the Connecticut League of History Organizations (CLHO), Connecticut Explored magazine, Connecticut History Day[2] and the CTh-run program, ConnecticutHistory.org.

What happened next was a series of conversations, phone calls, deep discussions and “ah-ha” moments that paved the way to unprecedented collaboration between educators, museums, public historians and academics. If, by working together, we could build bridges of communication and access between the people who steward Connecticut’s past, and the people who have daily interaction with our students, then wonderful, magical, life-long critical skills learning would happen. And it is working.

Tangible accomplishments are numerous:

• Participation in Connecticut History Day, including among students in inner-city schools such as New Haven, has steadily increased. School participation has nearly doubled (to 98 schools in 2016) since 2012. In 2016, over 4000 students and 470 teachers participated in History Day workshops, with the work of over 5000 students represented at the six regional contests.
• A new website, TeachITCT.org, was launched by CTh to complement their ConnecticutHistory.org project. The website was created in response to teacher requests for access to primary-source materials and short, inquiry-based activities that focus on Connecticut history. The website also includes a searchable list of museum field trips so that teachers can easily find the off-school learning experiences they look for to support their curricular goals.
• Master teachers David Bosso, of Berlin High School, and Stephen Armstrong were among key session leaders at a three-part workshop series (spring, 2016) hosted by the CLHO, attracting 37 museum educators, and designed to familiarize this group with the new Connecticut frameworks and the inquiry method of teaching. A dearth of Connecticut history content for the elementary audience was a problem for third and fourth grade teachers. Connecticut Explored magazine has begun work on an online magazine for third graders that explores relevant content material at an age-appropriate level.
• Long-established groups of academic historians such as the Association for the Study of Connecticut History (ASCH) and the Connecticut Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History (CCCPH) are welcoming public historians into their mix and looking deeply at ways to improve the relationships between public school educators, history museums and academic historians and better stewardship of the tiny pool of financial resources that we share.

What’s next? As the state plans for the court-ordered overhaul of school funding and the creation of new standards for high school graduation and special education, I would like to offer the collective experience of this group of “power historians and educators” (yes, similarities to the Power Rangers are purposeful) as a resource for state planning.

This is a group that has decades of practical experience in making educational miracles on a shoe-string budget, and better still, a track-record of outstanding collaboration. Best yet, all stand ready to help build a fair and equitable education system for all Connecticut’s students – because this is what we’ve been trying to do all along.

________________________________

Liz Shapiro is the Executive Director of the Connecticut League of History Organizations. She loves exploring issues of organizational behavior and bringing creative ideas to life. She may be reached at liz@clho.org.

PERSPECTIVE commentaries by contributing writers appear each Sunday on Connecticut by the Numbers.

 [1] http://www.edweek.org/media/qualitycounts2016_release.pdf, September 12, 2016

The full Quality Counts 2016 report, including in-depth reporting on new directions in school accountability, a retrospective look at highlights and milestones from the past 20 years, and an original analysis of national and state achievement trends: www.edweek.org/go/qc16.

[2] Connecticut History Day is managed by the Connecticut Public Affairs Network (CPAN) with support from the Connecticut League of History Organization, Connecticuthistory.org and Connecticut Explored magazine.

PERSPECTIVE: Over-Regulation Would Harm Innovative Tech Industry, Hurt Consumers

by Jack Carey In the years since the financial crisis, there has been a prevailing thought in America that “big” is bad. This sentiment started with banks, but in Washington, some are starting to question whether the theory holds for other industries as well.

In Connecticut and the Hartford region specifically, we need to be mindful of the harmful effects of government over-regulation, especially when it can have a damaging effect on innovation and our ability to create and retain high quality jobs.

As the owner of Carey Manufacturing in Cromwell, I know first-hand how challenging government regulations can be. Since 1981, we've been supplying catches, latches, and handles for military, aerospace, computer, electronics, telecom, automotive and consumer applications. In addition to an expanding global sourcing network, we own and operate a 30,000 square foot manufacturing facility here in Connecticut.  We work every day to maintain a competitive global advantage and government interference here at home frequently gets in our way.

Most recently, some policymakers have suggested that we abandon our decades-long approach to enforcing the antitrust laws, which focus on what is in the best interest of competition and the consumer, to one that looks primarily at size and views large companies as inherently bad. However, there is little evidence of the need to depart from our existing consumer-oriented antitrust framework, and that’s especially true in the case of the technology sector.

In fact, the current technology market is a vibrant and competitive one, where even big companies are required to constantly innovate in order to stay on top. This innovation has provided enormous benefits to consumers, who reap the rewards in the form of better and more advanced products and technologies.

These advances are the result of a market in which even the biggest giants in tech are vulnerable to competition. Ten years ago some of the dominant tech players were MySpace and AOL. These companies have since been surpassed – not because regulators intervened to check their growth, but because new startups offering better products won out in the market place.

In fact, in the tech sector, major companies are constantly competing with and challenging one another. Google has threatened Amazon’s dominance in the cloud storage business, Facebook is working to compete with YouTube for video consumption, and Apple is using its Siri technology to challenge Google Search – to name just a few examples. At the same time, these American companies are also facing new overseas competitors from China and other countries.

Unlike stagnant brick-and-mortar industries, the barriers to entry in tech markets are relatively low. Advances are constantly being made through innovation, enhancing competition and forcing companies to always stay one step ahead of the curve. It’s easy for startups to become the next big tech company, while even major players can fall as fast as they rose. Look how Facebook is battling newer social media platforms like Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, and Pinterest that didn’t even exist a few years ago but now have hundreds of millions of users.

Larger tech companies also often act as platforms for the development and growth of these startups, as well as other businesses. New startups can release their software on app stores managed by Apple or Google, new products can be sold far more easily than ever before on Amazon, and growing companies can use digital ads to generate crucial revenue.

The competitive nature of the tech marketplace is made clear by the amount major players spend on research and development. In noncompetitive markets, R&D spending is low, and innovation is minimal. The opposite is true in tech. In 2014, PricewaterhouseCoopers found that the Internet and software sector had the highest growth rate of R&D spending of any industry. This year, Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple have all significantly increased their R&D spending. These companies are investing in R&D because they understand the tech sector for what it is: a fast-changing and competitive industry in which startups thrive, new products are constantly being developed, and consumers are the ultimate winners.

In 2016, we’ve gotten used to being able to answer emails or plan a trip with a few taps on our phone. These services, so common that we don’t even give them a second thought, are the result of the tremendous and ongoing innovation in the technology sector. Proposals to change how we apply our laws and regulate the tech industry, however, would have the government intervene in this dynamic and competitive marketplace, threatening innovation and the enormous benefits it has provided consumers and our economy.

__________________________________

Jack Carey is the owner of Carey Manufacturing Company in Cromwell, CT.

PERSPECTIVE commentaries by contributing writers appear each Sunday on Connecticut by the Numbers.