4 Aug 2020

Credit Suisse International Wealth Management Associate Program 2021

Application Deadline: Ongoing

Job ID: 156494

About the Award: Relationship Managers offer comprehensive advice, investment products and wealth management solutions to high-net-worth (5 mio +) and ultra-high-net-worth individuals (50 mio +). Our clients include entrepreneurs, top executives and wealthy families who have complex wealth management and financing needs. As an advisor in Private Banking, you will work closely with the Investment Banking and Asset Management divisions to provide clients with a broad range of products and solutions.

Type: Job

Eligibility: We are looking for:
  • – MBA/ Master candidates at a leading school 
  • – A consistent track record in relationship management, new business development, client acquisition and revenue generation with at least 3 years of business experience
  • – Experience in or a strong affinity to the financial services industry with at least 2 years work experience
  • – Entrepreneurial spirit, endurance and a sales/service driven attitude
  • – Experience in establishing and developing a sustainable client network in the target market with at least 2 years work experience
  • – Proven network of HNWI/UHNWI in South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana, Tanzania, Botswana or Zambia with at least 2 years work experience
  • – Team orientation, high degree of flexibility and motivation
  • – Good analytical and interpersonal skills
  • – Fluency in English as well as in the native language spoken by the clients to be covered for the relevant market 
Eligible Countries: African countries

To be Taken at (Country): Switzerland

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The Full-time Associate program allows you to:
  • Join a structured 3-year program designed to develop highly talented individuals into successful Relationship Managers
  • Become certified as a Relationship Manager in the first 6 months and build up your own client book
  • Start with an intensive one-week global Bootcamp at our headquarters in Zurich
  • Participate in a fast track curriculum consisting of Private Banking modules and business development training
  • Integrate the fundamentals of our business model that allows us to provide the most comprehensive advisory services to our (ultra) high-net-worth clients
  • Network with senior management and former Associates from different markets all over the world
  • Receive advice from senior managers who will provide guidance and track your development along clearly defined milestones
Duration of Award: 3 years (Full-time (FT))

How to Apply:
  • It is important to go through all application requirements in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.
Visit Award Webpage for Details

Ocean Heat: From the Tropics to the Poles

Manuel Garcia Jr

The heat being captured by the increasing load of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is subsequently transferred into the oceans for storage. This process — global warming — has raised the temperature of the biosphere by 1°C (or more) since the late 19th century.
Heat introduced into any material body at a particular point will diffuse throughout its volume, seeking to smooth out the temperature gradient at the heating site. If heat loss from that body is slow or insignificant, then a new thermal equilibrium is eventually achieved at a higher average temperature.
Thermal equilibrium does not necessarily mean temperature homogeneity, because the body may have several points of contact with external environments at different temperatures that are held constant, or with other external thermal conditions that must be accommodated to. Equilibrium simply means stable over time.
The heat conveyed to the oceans by global warming is absorbed primarily in the Tropical and Subtropical latitudes, 57% of the Earth’s surface. The Sun’s rays are more nearly perpendicular to the Earth’s surface in those latitudes so they receive the highest fluxes of solar energy, and oceans cover a very large portion of them.
That tropical heat diffuses through the oceans and is also carried by ocean currents to spread warmth further north and south both in the Temperate zones (34% of the Earth’s surface) and the Polar Zones (8% of the Earth’s surface).
What follows is a description of a very idealized “toy model” of heat distribution in the oceans, to help visualize some of the basics of that complex physical phenomenon.
Heat Conduction in a Static Ocean
The model is of a stationary spherical globe entirely covered by a static ocean of uniform depth. The seafloor of that ocean is at a constant temperature of 4°C (39°F), the surface waters at the equator are at 30°C (86°F), and the surface waters at the poles are at -2°C (28°F). These temperature conditions are similar to those of Earth’s oceans. These temperature boundary conditions are held fixed, so an equilibrium temperature distribution is established throughout the volume in the model world-ocean. There is no variation across longitude in this model, only across latitude (pole-to-pole). (See the “Notes on the Technical Details”)
Figure 1, Isotherms Pole-to-Pole.
Figure 1 shows contours of constant temperature (isotherms) throughout the depth of the model ocean, from pole to pole. The temperature distribution is shown as a 3D surface plotted against depth, which is in a radial direction in a spherical geometry, and polar angle (from North Pole to South Pole).
Figure 2, Isotherms in Three Zones.
Figure 2 is a different view of the temperature distribution. Three regions are noted: The Tropical Zone (from 0° to 23° of latitude, north or south) combined with the Subtropical Zone (from 23° to 35° of latitude, north or south); the Temperate Zone (from 35° to 66° of latitude, north or south); and the Polar Zone (from 66° to 90° of latitude, north or south).
The model temperature distribution is perfectly stratified — isotherms uniform with depth — in the Tropical-Subtropical Zones, from 30°C at the surface at the equator, to 4°C at the seafloor. On entering the Temperate Zones, the isotherms arc up into a nearly radial (vertical) orientation. In the small portions of the planetary surface covered by the Polar Zones the isotherms are now more horizontally stratified because the surface waters are chillier that the those at the seafloor.
Figure 3, Heat Conduction Streamlines.
Figure 3 shows the streamlines of heat flow (the temperature gradient) for this temperature distribution. At the equator the heat is conducted down from the 30°C surface to the 4°C seafloor. As one moves further away from the equator the streamlines become increasingly lateral, until they are entirely so at 35° of latitude (north or south) where the model surface waters are at 19°C. The heat flow is entirely horizontal at this latitude, which separates the Subtropical and Temperate Zones; tropical heat is being conducted laterally toward the poles. In the Polar Zones the heat flow is up from the lower depths because the surface waters are chiller than those at depth, and because there is too little temperature variation with distance along the surface to drive a lateral heat flow.
Thermally Driven Surface Currents
Much oceanic heat is distributed by currents, and many of these occur along the surface.
The average speed of the Gulf Stream is 6.4km/hr (4mph), being maximally 9kph (5.6mph) at the surface but slowing to 1.6kph (1mph) in the North Atlantic, where it widens (information from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA).
Heat-driven equator-to-poles surface currents on the model ocean were estimated from the combination of the pole-to-pole surface temperature distribution, and thermodynamic data on liquid water. (See the Notes on the Technical Details)
The pressure built up by tropical heat in the model ocean’s equatorial waters pushes surface flows northward (in the Northern Hemisphere) and southward (in the Southern Hemisphere): from a standstill at the 30°C equator; with increasing speed as they recede from the equator, being 2kph (1.3mph) where the surface waters are at 25°C (77°F); a continuing acceleration up to a speed of 2.8kph (1.7mph) at the 35° latitude (the boundary between the Subtropical and the Temperate Zones); and an ultimate speed of 3.6kph (2.2mph) at the poles.
The currents are converging geometrically as they approach the poles, so a speed-up is reasonable. Logically, these surface currents are legs of current loops that chill as they recede from the equator, plunge at the poles, run along the cold seafloor toward the equator, and then warm as they rise to the surface to repeat their cycles.
An equator-to-pole average speed for these model surface currents is 2.8kph (1.7mph). Their estimated travel times along the 10,008km surface arc (for a model world radius of 6,371km, like that of a sphericalized Earth) is 3,574 hours, which is equivalent to 149 days (0.41 year).
Greater Realities
The model world just described is very simple in comparison to our lovely Earth. Since it does not rotate, it does not skew the north-south flow of currents that — with the help of day-night, seasonal, and continental thermodynamic inhomogeneities — creates all of the cross-longitudinal air and ocean currents of our Earth.
The irregularity of seafloor depth on Earth also redirects cross-latitudinal (pole-to-pole) and cross-longitudinal bottom currents, as do the coastlines of the continents; and the very slight and subtle changes in seawater density with temperature and salinity — neither of which is distributed uniformly throughout the body of Earth’s oceans — also affect both the oceans’s volumetric temperature distributions, and the course of ocean currents.
Recall that the model ocean is bounded by constant imposed temperature conditions at its seafloor (4°C) and surface waters (a particular temperature distribution from 30°C at the equator, to -2°C at the poles). Since this model world is otherwise suspended in a void, if these boundary conditions were removed the oceanic heat concentrated at the equator would diffuse further into the watery volume, seeking to raise the temperatures of the poles and seafloor while simultaneously cooling the equatorial region. The ultimate equilibrium state would be an ocean with a constant temperature throughout its volume.
Additionally, if it is also assumed that the now “liberated” model ocean-world can radiate its body heat away — as infrared radiation into the void of space — then the entire planet with its oceanic outer shell slowly cools uniformly toward -273.16°C (-459.69°F), which is the “no heat at all” endpoint of objects in our physical Universe.
When our Earth was in its Post-Ice Age dynamic thermal equilibrium, the “heat gun” of maximal insolation to the Tropics and Subtropics warmed the oceans there; a portion of that heat was conducted and convected into the Temperate Zones and toward the Poles; where the “ice bags” of masses of ice absorbed seasonal oceanic heat by partially melting — which occurs at a constant temperature — and then refreezing. Also, the atmosphere did not trap the excess heat radiated into space. In this way cycles of warming and cooling in all of Earth’s environments were maintained in a dynamic balance that lasted for millennia.
What has been built up in the atmosphere since about 1750 is an increasing load of carbon dioxide gas and other greenhouse gases, which have the effect of throwing an increasingly heated “thermal blanket” over our planet. Now, both the heat conduction pathways and the heat convection currents, described with the use of the model, convey increasing amounts of heat energy over the course of time. As a result the masses of ice at the poles are steadily being eroded by melting despite their continuing of cycles of partial re-freezing during winter, and additional melting during summer.
Simple mathematical models can help focus the mind on the fundamental processes driving complex multi-entangled physical realities. From there, one can begin assembling more detailed well-organized quantitative descriptions of those realities, and then using those higher-order models to inform decisions regarding actions to be taken in response to those realities, if responses are necessary. This point of departure from physics plunges you into the world of psychology, sociology, economics, politics, and too often sheer madness. I leave it to another occasion to comment outside my field of expertise about all that.
Notes on the Technical Details
The cylindrically symmetric equilibrium temperature distribution for a static ocean of uniform depth, which entirely covers a spherical planet, was solved from Laplace’s equation. The temperature of the seafloor everywhere is 4°C, the surface waters at the Equator are at 30°C, and the surface waters at the poles are at -2°C. The variation of surface water temperature with respect to polar angle (latitude) is in a cosine squared distribution. Displays of the 3D surface T(r,ɵ) show isotherms down through the ocean depths at all polar angles (ɵ). The contour lines on the stream function associated with T(r,ɵ) are heat flow streamlines, the paths of the heat gradient (which are always perpendicular to the isotherms).
Bernoulli’s Theorem was applied to surface flow from the equator to the poles (no radial, nor cross-longitudinal motion) for incompressible liquid water with thermal pressure given by:
P(T°C)=[62.25kg/m-sec^2]*exp{0.0683*[T(R,ɵ)-Tp]}
for R equal to the planetary radius to the ocean surface; Tp=-2°C; and using thermodynamic data for water between 32°F (0°C) and 100°F (37.8°C) that indicates a thermal pressure equal to 62.25kg/m-sec^2 in liquid water at 0°C; and that the density of water is essentially constant at 1000kg/m^3 (for the purposes of this model) within the temperature range of the data surveyed.
Inserting P(T°C) into the Bernoulli Theorem definition of equator-to-pole lateral (cross-latitudinal) velocity gives a formula for that velocity as a function of polar angle:
v(ɵ)=±sqrt{(2*[62.25kg/m-sec^2]/[1000kg/m^3])*exp[0.0683*(Te-Tp)]*[1-exp(-0.0683*[Te-T(R,ɵ)])]}
v(ɵ)=±(1.0523m/s)*sqrt{1-exp(-0.0683*[Te-T(R,ɵ)])}
for Te=30°C, and ± for northward (in the Northern Hemisphere) or southward (in the Southern Hemisphere) surface flows.

The Pandemic Reveals a Europe More United Than the United States

John Feffer

During the Trump era, America increasingly seems like a motley collection of states brought together for reasons of territorial contiguity and little else.
The conservative South is ravaged by a pandemic. The liberal Northeast waits patiently for elections in November to oust a tyrant. A rebellious Pacific Northwest faces off against federal troops sent to “restore order.” The Farm Belt, the Rust Belt, and the Sun Belt are like three nations divided by a common language.
The European Union, on the other hand, really does consist of separate countries: 27 of them. The economic gap between Luxembourg and Latvia is huge, the difference in median household income even larger than that between America’s richest and poorest states (Maryland and West Virginia).
European countries have gone to war with each other more recently than the American states (a mere 25 years ago in the case of former Yugoslavia). All EU members are democracies, but the practice of politics varies wildly from perpetually fragmented Italy to stolid Germany to ever-more illiberal Hungary.
Despite these economic and political differences, the EU managed last week to perform a miracle of consensus. After 90 hours of discussion, EU leaders hammered out a unified approach to rebuilding the region’s post-pandemic economy.
The EU is looking at an 8.7 percent economic contraction for 2020. But the pandemic clearly hit some parts of the EU worse than others, with Italy and Spain suffering disproportionately. Greece remains heavily indebted from the 2008-2009 financial crisis. Most of Eastern Europe has yet to catch up to the rest of the EU. If left to themselves, EU members would recover from the current pandemic at very different rates, and several might not recover at all.
That’s why last week’s deal is so important. The EU could have helped out its struggling members by extending more loans, which was basically the approach after 2009. This time around, however, the EU is providing almost half of the money in the new Recovery Fund — $446 billion — in grants, not loans. The $1.3 trillion budget that European leaders negotiated for the next seven years will keep all critical EU programs afloat (like the European Structural and Investment funds that help bridge the gap between the wealthier and the less wealthy members).
Sure, there were plenty of disagreements. The “frugal four” of the Netherlands, Denmark, Austria, and Sweden argued down the amount of money allocated to the grant program and the budget numbers overall. Germany has often sided with the frugal faction in the past, but this time Chancellor Angela Merkel played a key role in negotiating the compromise. She also managed to bribe Hungary and Poland to support the deal by taking “rule of law” conditionality off the table. Both countries have run afoul of the EU by violating various rule-of-law norms with respect to media, judiciary, and immigration. Yet both countries will still be able to access billions of dollars from the Recovery Fund and the overall budget.
Until recently, the EU seemed to be on the brink of dissolution. The UK had bailed, Eastern Europe was increasingly authoritarian, the southern tier remained heavily in debt, and the pandemic was accelerating these centrifugal forces.
But now it looks as the EU will spin together, not spin apart.
The United States, on the other hand, looks ever more in disarray. As Lucrezia Reichlin, professor of economics at London Business School, put it, “Despite being one country, the U.S. is coming out much more fragmented than Europe.’’
The Coming Storm
The Trump administration has been all about restarting the U.S. economy. Trump was reluctant to encourage states to lock down in the first place. He supported governors and even armed protestors demanding that states reopen prematurely.
And now that the pandemic has returned even more dramatically than the first time around, the president is pretending as though the country isn’t registering over 60,000 new infections and over a thousand deaths every day. Trump was willing to cancel the Florida portion of the Republican Party convention for fear of infection, but he has no problem insisting that children hold the equivalent of thousands of mini-conventions when they return to school.
Europe, which was much more stringent about prioritizing health over economy, is now pretty much open for business.
The challenge has been summer tourism. Vacationers hanging out on beaches and in bars are at heightened risk of catching the disease and bringing it home with them. There have been some new outbreaks of the disease in Catalonia, an uptick in cases in Belgium and Netherlands, and a significant increase in infections in Romania. Belgium is already re-instituting restrictions on social contacts. Sensibly, a number of European governments are setting up testing sites for returning tourists.
The EU is determined not to repeat what’s going on in Florida, Texas, and California. It is responding in a more deliberate and unified way to outbreaks leading to an average of 81 deaths a day than the United States is responding as a whole to a very nearly out-of-control situation producing more than 900 deaths a day.
The United States isn’t just facing a deadly resurgence of the pandemic. Various economic signals indicate that the so-called “V-shaped recovery” — much hyped by the Trump administration — is just not happening. More people are again filing for unemployment benefits. People are reluctant to go back to restaurants and hang out in hotels. The business sector in general is faring poorly.
“The sugar rush from re-openings has now faded and a resurgence of domestic coronavirus cases, alongside very weak demand, supply chain disruptions, historically low oil prices, and high levels of uncertainty will weigh heavily on business investment,” according to Oren Klachkin, lead U.S. economist at Oxford Economics in New York.
The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) released a report earlier this month that offered two potential scenarios for the U.S. economy through the end of the year. Neither looks good. The “optimistic scenario” puts the unemployment rate at the end of 2020 at 11.3 percent (more or less what it is right now) and an overall economic contraction of 7.3 percent. According to the pessimistic scenario, the unemployment rate would be nearer to 13 percent and the economic contraction at 8.5 percent.
Much depends on what Congress does. The package that Senate Republicans unveiled this week is $2 trillion less than what the Democrats have proposed. It offers more individual stimulus checks, but nothing for states and municipalities and no hazard pay for essential workers.
Unemployment benefits expired last week, and Republicans would only extend them at a much-decreased level. Although Congress will likely renew the eviction moratorium that expires at the end of this month, some landlords are already trying to kick out renters during the gap. The student loan moratorium affecting 40 million Americans runs out at the end of September.
The only sign of economic resurgence is the stock market, which seems to be running entirely on hope (of a vaccine, or a tech-led economic revival). At some point this irrational exuberance will meet its evil twin, grim reality.
The Europeans are preparing the foundation for precisely the V-shaped recovery that the United States, at the moment, can only dream about.
The Transatlantic Future
What does a world with a stronger Europe and a weaker America look like?
A stronger Europe will no longer have to kowtow to America’s mercurial foreign policy. Take the example of the Iran nuclear deal, which the Obama administration took the lead in negotiating. Trump not only cancelled U.S. participation, he threatened to sanction any actors that continued to do business with Iran. Europe protested and even set up its own mechanisms to maintain economic ties with Tehran. But it wasn’t enough. Soon enough, however, the United States won’t have the economic muscle to blackmail its allies.
The EU has certainly taken a tougher stance toward China over the last couple years, particularly on economic issues. But in its negotiations with Beijing, the EU has also put far greater emphasis on cooperation around common interests. As such, expect the EU to take full advantage of U.S. decline to solidify its position in an East Asian regional economy that recovers far more quickly from the pandemic than pretty much anywhere in the world.
Europe is also well-positioned to take the lead on climate change issues, which the United States has forfeited in its four years of catastrophic backsliding under Trump. As part of its new climate pact, the EU has pledged to become carbon-neutral by 2050. The European Commission is also considering a radical new idea: a carbon tax on imports. In the future, if you want to be competitive in selling your products in the European market, you’ll have to consider the carbon footprint of your operation.
Of course, the EU could do better. But compared to the United States or Russia or China, it’s way out in front.
The European Union is not a demilitarized space. It has a very mixed record on human rights conditionality. And its attitudes toward immigration range from half-welcoming to downright xenophobic.
But let’s say that Europe emerges from this pandemic with greater global authority, much as the United States did after World War II. A lot of Americans, and most American politicians, will bemoan this loss of status. But a world led by a unified Europe would be a significantly better place than one mismanaged by a fragmented United States.

Globalization and the End of the American Dream

David Rosen

Immanuel Wallerstein provocatively begins one of his essays with the following cautionary note: “Globalization is a misleading concept, since what is described as globalization has been happening for 500 years.”
Nevertheless, in a 2000 article, “Globalization or the Age of Transition?,” Wallerstein notes that after WW-II the U.S. was “the only major industrial power whose industries were intact, and whose territories had not been badly damaged by wartime destruction.”  He lays out a critical perspective:
This long-term economic development combined with the literal collapse of the economic structures of the other major loci of world production gave the USA a productivity edge that was enormous, at least for a time, and made it easy for US products to dominate the world market.
He then outlines the social consequences of this development: “It made possible, furthermore, the largest expansion of both value and real production in the history of the capitalist world economy, creating simultaneously great wealth and great social strain in the world social system.”
U.S. hegemony during the postwar era was marked by the establishment of a host of organizations to coordinate global order, both political and economic.  These entities include the United Nations as well as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.  U.S. global imperialism came to be known as the “Free World.”  The postwar policy of “détente” between the U.S. and the Soviet Union established the “cold war” that froze global economic zones and, while facilitating innumerable local military skirmishes, contained a third — atomic — world war.
Wallerstein states simply: “… the period of true hegemony was quite short. I date it as going from 1945 to circa 1970.”  He distinguishes the period by three critical factors:
(i) “that the U.S. is the land par excellence of liberty, and therefore is more ‘democratic’ than any other country”;
(ii) “that the U.S. is more modern, more technologically advanced, and therefore wealthier than any other country”; and
(iii) “that the U.S. has the strongest military in the world.”
This was the era of postwar economic prosperity, of the American Dream.  Its marked by
(i) Pres. Richard Nixon ending the gold standard,
(ii) OPEC raising the price of oil and
(iii) Nixon visiting China in 1972.
These developments occurred as the U.S. military was defeated in Vietnam and the nation was wracked by a social uprising involving not only opposition to the Vietnam war but race relations, gender equality and sexual practice.
One consequence of the end of the postwar era was that manufacturing steadily declined as a share of total employment.  Paul Krugman assesses the decline in manufacturing during the 1997-2005 period:
Does the surge in the trade deficit explain the fall in employment? Yes, to a significant extent. A trade deficit doesn’t produce a one-for-one decline in manufacturing value added, since a significant share of both exports and imports of goods include embodied services. But a reasonable estimate is that the deficit surge reduced the share of manufacturing in GDP by around 1.5 percentage points, or more than 10 percent, which means that it explains more than half of the roughly 20 percent decline in manufacturing employment between 1997 and 2005.
The St. Louis Federal Reserve notes that “gains from globalization have been quite large and have taken many different forms, specifically, lower prices, higher profits, and increased product variety.”  It then adds, one outcome had significant consequences: “The decline in manufacturing jobs had a rippling effect throughout society.  It led to what as a “decline in workers’ bargaining power leading to slower wage growth and rising income inequality.”  In goes further, noting “the direct impact of declining wages (real and relative) and increasing healthcare costs will likely outweigh the more indirect benefits.”
However, as globalization led to a decline in wages for manufacturing and other hourly workers, it led to an enormous increase in executive compensation.  A study of the executive compensation at thousands of U.S. companies between 1993 and 2013 by researchers from the University of Colorado–Boulder and Williams College in Massachusetts concluded that “recent globalization trends have increased U.S. inequality by disproportionately raising top incomes.”
This finding is corroborated by a series of other studies.  For example, a 2015 study by the Economic Policy Institute found executive pay had grown by 997 percent between 1978 and 2014, while the average compensation for a private-sector production and non-supervisory worker increased by just 10.9 percent.  Also in 2015, the Pew Center 2015 calculated that upper-income households saw their pay rise 47 percent between 1970 and 2014. Middle-income households enjoyed a median gain of only 34 percent over that window, while lower-income households posted a softer 28 percent gain.

Wallerstein warned, in his 2000 article, “The future, far from being inevitable and one to which there is no alternative, is being determined in this transition that has an extremely uncertain outcome.”

We Need an Economic Survival Package Not Another Stimulus

Dean Baker

There continues to be enormous confusion about what we should be trying to accomplish in the next pandemic relief package. This is best demonstrated by Republicans’ obsession with getting people back to work, with a mixture of cuts to unemployment benefits and return to work bonuses.
Ignoring the questionable economic logic (there is zero evidence of large numbers of jobs going unfilled), this approach also ignores the reality of the pandemic. At the start of April, both houses voted nearly unanimously to support measures that were designed to make it possible for people to stay at home rather than work. At that time, we had roughly 35,000 new infections a day. Currently, we are seeing well over 60,000 new infections a day, with the count crossing 70,000 in many recent days.
The comparison looks even worse if we pull out New York and New Jersey, both of which were overwhelmed by the pandemic at the start of April. Between them, they had roughly 15,000 new infections a day, which means the rest of the country was seeing close to 20,000. By contrast, at present both states have the virus relatively under control, which means that the new infection count in the country would still be over 60,000 a day, excluding New York and New Jersey.
This raises the obvious point: if Congress thought it made sense to allow, encourage, and possibly even require people to stay home rather than work at the start of April, how could it possibly make sense to push people to work at a time when the rate of new infections is more than three times as high, in areas outside of New York and New Jersey?
This is really a question of life and death. Tens of millions of workers have serious health conditions that mean they would be at considerable danger if they became infected. Tens of millions more workers would be putting into danger family members, with serious health conditions, if they became infected. As a result, a high percentage of the work force has very good reasons for not wanting to return to work just now.
If we face the reality of the pandemic, we should not be designing a package to get people back to work, we need to design a package to keep them whole through a period in which tens of millions of people will still not be able to work because of the pandemic. This means that we want people to have the money to pay their rent or mortgage and to buy food and other necessary items. We don’t want them to be going out to restaurants and bars, to see movies or baseball games, or to fly away on vacations or go on a cruise ship.
There was considerable confusion on this point even back in March and April where many were referring to the bills passed by Congress as stimulus. Some were even pushing types of spending that could boost the economy. There was little reason to want to boost the economy back in April, nor should there be now. We want to make it so that people endure as little hardship as possible for now, and the economy to be prepared to start up as quickly as possible, once the pandemic is under control.
Of course, we should not be in this situation. Most of the economy was shut down from the middle of March to the middle of May, with major restrictions staying in place in the hardest-hit areas well into June. These restrictions did largely bring the pandemic under control in places like New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington (both state and DC).
Unfortunately, many states did not take the need for restricting business seriously and began to open at the start of May. This is the reason that states like Arizona, Georgia, Florida, and Texas now have major outbreaks. California also now has a major outbreak, as a lack of financial support from the federal government, coupled with political pressure orchestrated by Donald Trump in the form of “liberate California” protests, led the state to relax restrictions sooner than it should have.
It would be possible to talk about an economic reopening now, if we had been successful in bringing the pandemic under control, as is the case in Europe and East Asia, in addition to the Northeast in the United States. But we can’t make plans based on a reality that does not exist. The pandemic is more out of control than ever in most of the country. This means that we again have to plan for another period in which the economy will not be operating normally by design. We need to focus on keeping people whole.
The Shape of this Rescue Package
The centerpiece of a keeping people whole strategy should be the continuation of the $600 weekly supplements to unemployment checks.  We can debate whether $600 is the right sum, but unemployment benefits have fallen far below the levels that would allow millions of workers to sustain anything close to their normal living standards through a period of prolonged unemployment. In order for millions of workers who are unemployed due to the pandemic to be able to pay their mortgage or rent and cover other unavoidable expenses, it will be necessary to have a substantial supplement to normal benefits.
There have been numerous complaints from Republicans, and some economists, that these supplements will discourage people from working. This is undoubtedly true in some cases, but this is the point. When we have a pandemic that is out of control, we don’t want to force people to work and threaten their own health and/or the health of family members.
Some have raised the issue that it is not fair that some people who are working at low-paying jobs are getting less from their paychecks than other workers are getting from being unemployed. This isn’t fair, but there is much that is going on in this pandemic that is not fair.
For example, the government is paying the pharmaceutical company, Moderna, $955 million to develop and test a vaccine. Then, after covering the research and testing costs, Trump will also give Moderna a patent monopoly that will allow it to charge prices that are more than 2000 percent above the cost of manufacturing and delivering the vaccine. The company is getting the patents in spite of the fact that the taxpayers paid for the research and took all the risk. Several top executives of the company have already made tens of millions on stock options as a result of the government contracts. There are similar stories at other pharmaceutical and medical equipment companies.
So, the fact that some workers may be getting less money at low-paying jobs than other workers are getting from unemployment insurance is unfair. But if this is someone’s biggest concern over unfairness, they are not paying attention to the world around them.
Others have also expressed concerns that these unemployment insurance supplements are making it hard for employers to find workers. There is zero evidence that this is a problem. There are millions of unemployed workers anxious to find jobs. If employers were having difficulty getting workers we should be seeing an increase in the number of job openings for unfilled positions. In fact, openings are very low. We should also be seeing rapidly rising wages as employers compete for available workers. The most recent data on compensation, that controls for changes in the mix of the workforce, found that compensation growth slowed sharply in the second quarter.
There will be workers who fall through the cracks and don’t get unemployment insurance. To try to help as many of these workers as possible, we should expand both the size and eligibility criteria for SNAP. We also must ensure that the moratoriums on evictions and moratoriums on foreclosures remain in place throughout the rest of the year.
Some of the other items that should be in the rescue package are funding for state and local governments. The Postal Service will also need substantial additional funding to prevent large-scale layoffs. State and local governments have already laid off 1.6 million workers, additional funding will allow them to hire back many of these workers and prevent the lay off of millions of additional workers. These governments also have an essential role to play in bringing the pandemic under control, doing things like testing and tracing, providing health care to coronavirus patients, and ensuring that workplaces and businesses are safe.
In the same vein, money is needed to allow schools to reopen safely. It is very important for both children and parents that the schools be open, but plans have to be put in place to allow for safe re-openings. Unfortunately, there was no national leadership or money for this effort over the summer and now most schools are not prepared to reopen. The next rescue package must have the money to allow for schools to make the necessary arrangements so that they can have safe re-openings as soon as possible.
We also need to try to lay the groundwork for a quick recovery when the pandemic is brought under control. The Paycheck Protection Program was useful for this purpose, keeping many businesses intact through a period in which they were operating well below capacity or shutdown completely. It would be good to extend this through the next three months.
We also need to ensure that our child care facilities are up and running. Lack of affordable child care has long been a problem, but it has become much worse in the pandemic as many child care centers have closed. We will need adequate child care arrangements if we want to ensure that parents are able to go back to work when the pandemic is brought under control.
One item that is completely unnecessary is the pandemic checks that gave every adult $1,200 in the first round and seem destined to be included in the last round as well.  While these checks give Donald Trump something to put his name on, they did little to keep people whole in the shutdown and are not likely to provide much of a demand boost when we reopen.
The vast majority of these checks were saved, with the saving rate out of disposable income soaring to 25.0 percent in the second quarter. (The saving rate was hovering near 8.0 percent before the pandemic.) The overwhelming majority of people who received these checks did not suffer any substantial fall in income as a result of the pandemic, they are either still getting full pay at their job or were retired. It is difficult to understand what the purpose of these checks is supposed to be.
To be clear, at a time when the economy is operating well below its capacity there is no particular harm in adding $1,200 to everyone’s bank account. This is not about causing an inflationary spiral, in large part because people are not spending the money. But if there are political limits on the size of the pandemic package, knocking out a $300 billion item that serves no real purpose, is a very good place to start.

Escalating State Repression and Covid-19: Their Impact on the Poor in Kenya

Kenneth Good

Soon after Kenya experienced its first Covid-19 case on 13 March 2020, President Uhuru Kenyatta invoked the Public Order Act to activate a series of tough measures, including wearing face masks at all times, the closure of schools and all ‘non-essential’ businesses, and a dusk till dawn curfew. Reports of police brutalities quickly followed. Even before the start of the curfew on 27 March, police in downtown Nairobi reportedly whipped and kicked people on the street, and in Embakasi, forced people walking home from work to kneel before them.
In the port city of Mombasa, police teargassed crowds trying to board a ferry home from work, beating them with batons and gun butts, kicking and slapping them, forcing them to huddle together and to lie on top of each other. In Kakamega county, around 1 April, Idris Mukolwe, a tomato seller, was hit by a teargas-cannister police threw at him. It exploded in his face and as he started suffocating, they laughed at him before he died. In the first 10 days, police killed at least six people in Kenya, according to Human Rights Watch (22 April 2020).
Various voices attested to the scale of the killings over the first weeks of the Covid crackdown. The Independent Police Oversight Authority (IPOA), an underfunded civilian organisation, had received more than 95 complaints of police brutality and had confirmed 30 deaths. Missing Voices KE, a consortium of rights groups, had recorded 17 people killed. The Mathare Social Justice Centre (MSJC) had documented the deaths of 10 people in Mathare alone, a poor district of Nairobi: this number involved both extrajudicial executions, and the fate of Christine Aoko who, trying to evade the police curfew, had slipped down a cliff into the Mathare River and drowned. For “Stoneface”, an artist born and raised in Mathare, her death was in no sense accidental. ‘The topography of Mathare is defined [in part] by four police stations—one in each cardinal direction, connected by barracks no more than three kilometres apart’. For residents ‘these stations are familiar, feared portals from which armed officers emerge and into which young men often disappear.’ Purposeful and long enduring killings were taking place. MSJC’s report of 2017 (‘Who Is Next?’) tallied ‘systematic extra judicial killings’ of 804 people in Nairobi’s informal settlements 2013-2015. The victims were mostly young men, abducted or detained by police, shot at close range, sometimes in front of family members or neighbours. These findings were similar to those of Philip Alston, UN Special Rapporteur in 2009 on flagrant, institutionalised state killings, reported on by the present writer in these pages 3 January 2018, and by April Zhu, ‘Turning a Covid-19 Crisis Into a Human Rights Emergency’, New York Review (22 July 2020).
Rachel Wanjiku, 25, told reporters that she “knew about the police”: her boyfriend, Alex, age 19, was shot by them on the same night when she was in hospital giving birth to their child. Wanjiku was now with 200 others in Mathare in June protesting against police brutality. In Mathare, this was “a poor people’s struggle. Poor people are [being treated as] criminals”. Sobukwe Nonkwe, 30, a filmmaker, said “the police have killed us more than Corona”. At the start of June, IPOA announced that at least 15 people had been killed by police and 31 injured in the two months since the curfew was imposed. For writer, Patrick Gathara, “the brutality is just a function of how the state sees and deals with its subjects…not as citizens with rights but rather subjects with obligations.” Mathare’s marchers stopped at places where people had been killed, and finished at the apartment block of 13-year-old Yasin Moyo, shot when playing on his balcony after curfew in March. Police used teargas to disperse the marchers (reported by Amanda Sperber, Guardian Online, 9 June 2020).
Enhancing State Repression
Through settler colonialism, the Mau Mau poor-peasant rebellion of the 1950s, and successive independent governments since 1963, wealthy landed classes have used force to gain and maintain power. In the Kisumu Massacre in 1965, police fired into the crowd protesting against the visit of President Jomo Kenyatta, killing some eleven people and injuring hundreds. His successor, Daniel arap Moi, went further, using police as the tool of repression and assassination, and the detention and torture of opponents and dissidents. The police and paramilitaries are known today as one of Kenya’s most corrupt institutions: at all levels of its organisation, it is reviled for nepotism, tribalism and abuse. People who refuse to pay bribes may be brutalised, maimed or killed. The IPOA is overwhelmed by the number of complaints flooding into it: reportedly some 9, 200, on which it has secured convictions for ‘fewer than 10 cases’ (Douglas Lucas Kivoi, The Conversation (Johannesburg) 5 June 2020.
And the poor still protest. On 7 July, hundreds of demonstrators, mostly from such poor districts as Mathare, Dandora and Kiamike, voiced their anger against police brutality and the lack of basic public services. They also commemorated Saba Saba, seven seven, the 7 July 1990 protests, when ‘hundreds of others were arrested and dozens killed’ in nation-wide opposition to dictatorship (Rael Ombuor, Voice of America, 8 July 2020).
The continuities with the past are both close and complex. At independence, according to Tom Tebesi Anyamba, professor of architecture at the University of Nairobi, segregation in the capital was not dismantled, but rather “enhanced” along class lines instead of racial lines. From the 1970s and through the 1990s, “informalisation”, or the development of urban slums, ‘actually increased’, reinforcing the ‘exclusion of the city’s poor majority’. As the city expanded and refashioned itself into an outward-looking international hub, its “anti-city” followed. Nairobi always grows ‘in two directions at once’: every affluent district has ‘an equal and opposite slum’.
Despite being one of the city’s oldest settlements, from its time as a quarry, Mathare does not receive public water and lacks a systematic water grid. Water must be purchased by the poor at prices perhaps twenty times higher than the rate for city water. Across the bisecting highway from Mathare is the rich neighbourhood of Muthaiga, with its lush diplomatic residences, a long-established country club and golf course.
For Mathare and for “Stoneface” specifically this bifurcation constitutes a dense web of “ecological injustice”: cholera, the absence of schooling and sanitation, joblessness, housefires, teargas, the creation of hopelessness. This is also part of what defines Mathare.
And because the state has not invested in infrastructure for Mathare, the governance strategy of “neglect and force” exists, in the words of urban ethnographer, Wangui Kimari. The continuities appear clear. Kenya’s police force ‘can trace a direct lineage’ back to its colonial forerunner, the paramilitary Administration Police established in 1958, the final year of the State of Emergency out of which President Jomo Kenyatta emerged victorious. (Mau Mau’s Nairobi headquarters was in Mathare, Zhu says).
The Public Order Act is a pillar of colonialism and repression. Created in 1958, it criminalised vague infractions like ‘loitering and vagrancy’, and licensed police to widen the net of their roundups. The Act empowered the first two authoritarian presidents, Jomo Kenyatta and arap Moi, and it remained intact through reform attempts in the 1990s.
This is what Uhuru Kenyatta invoked on 13 March 2020, to combat the Covid-19 emergency. Brutality existed, but the Act facilitated and enhanced “policing by terror” (April Zhu, 22 July 2020).