Mediaboss Marketing

When I was the same age my kids are now, I was a giant Carl Sagan fan. Cosmos had begun airing on PBS, and for my birthday there was just one thing I wanted: a $50 donation to the Buffalo PBS affiliate. That was the only way to get the not-available-in-any-store (especially not a Canadian store) Cosmos companion book featuring lots of photos of Cornells least modest professor of astronomy and space sciences. My friends got Gretzky jerseys so they could skate like stars, but this nerd wanted Cosmos because were all star stuff (especially Carl).

For me, the most electrifying part of Cosmos -- the highest-rated show in public television history until Ken Burns came along -- was Sagans exposition of the Drake equation, which estimates the number of detectable technical extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way via seven discrete factors. The answer, Sagan expounded, could be in the millions, which raises a question: Shouldnt some of them have voyaged to earth?

As evidenced by increased UFO sightings around the time of Cosmos, many people thought they had. Lots still do. A 2019 poll found about a quarter of Americans believe aliens have visited the U.S. and the government is keeping it a secret. But with President Trump out of office for a month and continued silence on this conspiracy, we now have Sagan-caliber proof that the U.S. government has no such evidence. For if it did, Trump would have surely spilled the beans by now in an incoherent, attention-seeking fit of pique.

Sagan even had a signature phrase, not from Cosmos, but rather Johnny Carsons Cosmos parody: Billions and billions (overemphasizing the B). It was nonetheless richly deserved given the many, many times he used large numbers to make us all feel small. Sagans celebrity was well worn by Cornell, which featured him prominently in promotional materials, suggesting students would have frequent contact with Americas most telegenic scientist. Naturally, Sagan only taught one seminar each year, prompting the Cornell Review to launch an I touched Carl Sagan contest; students who had physical contact could win a prize by submitting essays on their experience.

Cornell tuition may not be in the billions and billions, but its galactically higher than when Cosmos first aired. In 1980, annual tuition at Cornell was $4,090. This year, students paid $59,331: nearly five times, adjusted for inflation. In endlessly increasing tuition far above the rate of inflation, Cornell is in good company. The predictable results are the progressive free college and student debt forgiveness movements that dominate higher education policy discourse as the Biden administration takes flight.

But one major critique of so-called free college is that it wouldnt actually be free. Students need to live while theyre studying. Rent, food and other expenses range from 30percent of total student budgets at schools like Cornell to 60percent at state universities and 80percent at community colleges. Since the Great Recession, these costs have been rising just as fast as tuition. Cornell now charges $15,706 for room and board for its 235-day academic calendar, and has students budget an additional $3,000 for books and living expenses.

Thanks to the former conspiracist in chief, Democrats dominate Americas political scene and will for the foreseeable future. But while President and Dr. Biden promote free community college, students still need to be able to afford to live while they learn. That means more of the same borrowing that has led to progressives putting pressure on the administration to forgive student debt. One solution is earn-while-you-learn models. Paying students a living wage while they learn is the best way to address cost of living and truly level the playing field for students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

You wont be surprised to learn theres a federal program for this. Its called Federal Work-Study (FWS), and each year 3,400 colleges and universities receive $1.2billion in wage subsidies to employ about 700,000 students. So its surprising that neither FWS nor any other earn-while-you-learn model (e.g., apprenticeships) shows up on the list of progressive policy priorities. Elizabeth Warrens campaign platform didnt mention FWS, and President Bidens platform references FWS only in the context of reforming the program. Progressives should be all over FWS and other earn-while-you-learn models. But theyre not, and Im wondering why.

***

Earn-while-you-learn programs are popping up more frequently than Carl Sagan on the Cornell campus. Launched last fall with CARES Act funding, the Digital Upskill Sacramento Program pays students from disadvantaged communities $600 per week to participate in free last-mile training. Students are given a laptop and trained for data analytics or software support roles. Said one participant who gave birth days before the start of training, Not having to use my credit card to pay for groceries, because I had the money, that was amazing. I didnt have a reason not to go forward, because they provided me with tools to go forward. In November, San Antonio voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure to allocate sales tax proceeds to workforce development, and programs like Project Quest are now paying students $15 per hour for short-term training.

Of course, earn-while-you-learn is more realistic for short workforce development programs than paying students for years as they pursue degrees. But as federal workforce development funding pales in comparison with government support for colleges and universities, paying wages for job training is still not a layup. For every $100 spent on accredited higher education, only $1 is spent on job training, spread across 43 uncoordinated programs. Public support for apprenticeships works out to less than $100 per apprentice each year and is a fraction of what other developed nations spend. The proposed $1.9trillion COVID relief plan includes billions and billions more for colleges and universities ($35billion to be exact), but no additional funding for workforce development or apprenticeships. Just as Cornell collegians were kept clear of Sagan, its as though grubby job training must be segregated from the big money of TitleIV of the Higher Education Act.

At current spending levels, federal workforce funds only flow to a million Americans each year, and there are only about half a million apprentices (with little government support). So moving the needle with earn-while-you-learn means reaching the 20million students enrolled at colleges and universities, specifically in multiyear degree programs. But a new program on the scale of free college would require a massive expansion of Federal Work-Study, which could be hard, seeing as colleges and universities dont need thousands of student dining hall workers and custodians -- not this year, and not any year.

Unfortunately, thats how FWS works. The current structure incentivizes colleges and universities to employ students to wash dishes and clean toilets rather than connect them with private sector jobs. The FWS handbook provides a 75percent wage subsidy for any on-campus job but only 50percent for off-campus jobs with private for-profit organizations. FWS also disincentivizes private sector employment in two other ways: (1) by requiring that private sector jobs must be relevant to your course of study and (2) by limiting schools from using more than 25percent of FWS funding to subsidize private sector employment. Not surprisingly, 92percent of FWS funds are used for on-campus jobs. The rest goes to off-campus jobs at not-for-profit or community services organizations. Less than 0.1percent subsidizes work at private for-profit organizations. This warped structure has come into focus via COVID as tens of thousands of students who might have been able to perform subsidized private sector work remotely have had campus jobs canceled, resulting in hardship and dropouts.

In non-pandemic years, washing dishes and cleaning toilets may help support 700,000 students through college, but its not scalable and much less likely to help launch careers than relevant work experience. Of the approximately 150million jobs in the U.S., less than 25percent -- approximately 36million -- are in the public and nonprofit sectors. Over 75percent of jobs are in the private sector. And its private sector employers that have become much pickier in job descriptions for entry-level positions, increasingly listing digital and business skill requirements that realistically are only obtained through relevant work experience. This explains why less than a third of students are confident theyll get a good job after graduation. So if were serious about not only solving the short-term problem of paying for college, but also the long-term problem of socioeconomic mobility, expanding earn-while-you-learn to colleges and universities means deeper and more sustained engagement with the private sector.

This is where progressives get nervous. It may be an unconscious block. After all, how may progressive leaders -- public officials and policy makers -- have worked outside government, think tanks, foundations and universities? Looking at the Biden administrations 24 appointees to the U.S. Department of Education, only six have held private sector jobs. Three are counsel who trained at law firms. The other three average 2.5 years in private sector jobs in careers than span decades. Fully 18 of the 24 have never worked in the private sector since graduating from college. Come to think of it, this may also explain other federal higher education policies that are skewed against private sector employment.

By now, it may also be a reflex. For too many years, progressive leaders have characterized for-profit companies as predatory and maligned the motivations of private sector actors as unethical rent seeking rather than serving customers, growth and building value for shareholders. In many ways, its hard to blame them. After all, the constituents progressives try hardest to protect are front-line workers in dead-end jobs and at-risk Americans who have been victimized by bad actors in pharmaceuticals, financial services and -- yes -- postsecondary education (creating a natural aversion to short-term job training from private sector providers).

Even more than their forebearers of a century ago, progressives take a dim view of private sector employers and employment. This allergy to private sector employment may also explain why progressives arent counting on unions to close the education-to-employment gap. For while many private sector unions -- particularly in the building and construction trades -- run earn-while-you-learn apprenticeships, public sector unions do virtually nothing. Progressives arent sure how they feel about career trajectories outside government and nonprofits. That's their Achilles heel, and thats why were not hearing more about earn-while-you-learn.

***

There is a place where the best-educated and most highly skilled members of the work force are in government-controlled jobs. Unfortunately for progressives, Im quoting last weeks New York Times report on Cuba. If progressives want New Deal-level investment for education and employment, the current political configuration isnt likely to yield a Depression-era government-funded, government-run WPA or NYA (National Youth Administration). Theyll need to embrace the private sector.

If they can, the opportunity is huge. If theres any area where progressives can find common ground with moderates and conservatives, its here. A grand earn-while-you-learn bargain could incorporate not only FWS, but also apprenticeships, public-funded internships and work-integrated learning. Theres broad public support for spending on solving unemployment and underemployment. A recent Rutgers University survey found 74percent of Americans support spending more money on job training for laid-off workers. To paraphrase FDR, the only thing we have to fear is fear of the private sector itself.

Right before he passed away in 1996, Carl Sagan appeared on Charlie Rose and warned America might be up for grabs for the next charlatan political or religious who comes ambling along. Sagan's fear was lack of scientific literacy, which has never been clearer than it is now (see e.g., COVID pandemic). But he might also have been talking about economic opportunity. If the American dream is dead -- if there arent clear pathways for our children to do better than we did -- maybe its worth selecting conspiracy-spinning leaders for sheer entertainment value.

Sagan believed were not alone in the universe. And although he was progressive for his time -- working at universities and nonprofits like PBS, combating nuclear proliferation -- I bet he also understood that the public and nonprofit sectors arent alone, either: theres a universe of companies and employers out there, not all of which mean harm to customers and employees. And that a quest for economic development that disregards the private sector is likely to yield something like Cuba.

If progressives are going to play a constructive role in rekindling the American dream, theyll need to overcome private sector phobia and understand that connections from publicly funded education to privately funded employment arent inherently perilous like the Bridge of Death in Monty Pythons Holy Grail. Short of creating tens of millions of new jobs at the Department of Education, failing to make peace with the private sector (aka the United States economy) will damn Gen Z to a rinse-and-repeat doom loop of underemployment and student debt forgiveness. And the fault won't be in our stars -- or aliens or Trump or Fidel Castro -- but in ourselves.

Go here to read the rest:
Progressives should focus more on work-study and other earn-while-you-learn models (opinion) - Inside Higher Ed

When Heather McGhee was a 25-year-old staffer at Demos, the progressive think tank she would eventually lead, she went to Congress to present findings on shocking increases in individual and family debt.

Few politicians in Washington knew what it was like to have bill collectors incessantly ringing their phones about balances that kept growing every month, McGhee writes in her new book, The Sum of Us: What Racism Costs Everyone and How We Can Prosper Together.

Demoss explanatory attempts failed. When Congress finally took action in 2005, it made the problem worse, passing a bankruptcy bill that made escaping unsustainable debt harder than ever. For McGhee, the disaster was an education in the limits of research, which is often no match for the brute power of big money. But as she was walking down the hallway of the Russell Senate Office Building, she learned something else.

Stopping to adjust her new shoes near the door of a Senate office, she wrote, she heard the bombastic voice of a man going on about the deadbeats who had babies with multiple women and then declared bankruptcy to dodge the child support. She doesnt know whether the man was a Democrat or a Republican, but when she heard him she realized she and her allies might have missed something. Theyd thought of debt and bankruptcy primarily as a class issue. Suddenly she understood that for some of her opponents, it was more about race.

She wondered how, as a Black woman, shed been caught off guard. I hadnt even thought to ask the question about this seemingly nonracial financial issue, but had racism helped defeat us? she wrote.

McGhees book is about the many ways racism has defeated efforts to create a more economically just America. Once the civil rights movement expanded Americas conception of the public, white Americas support for public goods collapsed. People of color have suffered the most from the resulting austerity, but its made life a lot worse for most white people, too. McGhees central metaphor is that of towns and cities that closed their public pools rather than share them with Black people, leaving everyone who couldnt afford a private pool materially worse off.

One of the most fascinating things about The Sum of Us is how it challenges the assumptions of both white antiracism activists and progressives who just want to talk about class. McGhee argues that its futile to try to address decades of disinvestment in schools, infrastructure, health care and more without talking about racial resentment.

She describes research done by the Race-Class Narrative Project, a Demos initiative that grew out of her work for the book. McGhee and her colleagues, she writes, discovered that if you try to convince anyone but the most committed progressives (disproportionately people of color) about big public solutions without addressing race, most will agree right up until they hear the countermessage that does talk, even implicitly, about race.

But McGhee, who leads the board of the racial justice organization Color of Change, also implicitly critiques the way parts of the left talk about white privilege. Without the hostile intent, of course, arent we all talking about race relations through a prism of competition, every advantage for one group mirrored by a disadvantage for another? she asks.

McGhee is far from an opponent of the sort of social justice culture sometimes derided as wokeness. But her work illuminates whats always seemed to me to be a central contradiction in certain kinds of anti-racist consciousness-raising, which is that many people want more privilege rather than less. You have to have an oddly high opinion of white people to assume that most will react to learning about the advantages of whiteness by wanting to give it up.

Communicators have to be aware of the mental frameworks of their audience, McGhee told me. And for white Americans, the zero-sum is a profound, both deeply embedded and constantly reinforced one.

This doesnt mean that the concept of white privilege isnt useful; obviously it describes something real. What privilege awareness does, at its best, is reveal the systematic unfairness, and lift the blame from the victims of a corrupt system, McGhee said. However, I think at this point in our discourse also when so many white people feel deeply unprivileged its more important to talk about the world we want for everyone.

So McGhee is trying to shift the focus from how racism benefits white people to how it costs them. Why is student debt so crushing in a country that once had excellent universities that were cheap or even free? Why is American health care such a disaster? Why is our democracy being strangled by minority rule? As the first line of McGhees book asks, Why cant we have nice things? Racism is a huge part of the answer.

McGhee describes a solidarity dividend gained when people are able to transcend racism. Look at what just happened in Georgia, where the billionaire Kelly Loeffler, in an attempt to keep her Senate seat, waged a nakedly racist campaign against Raphael Warnock, who ran on sending voters $2,000 stimulus checks. He still lost most white people, but won enough to prevail. He did it by appealing to idealism, but also to self-interest. In the fight for true multiracial democracy, counting on altruism will only get you so far.

Continued here:
Opinion | The Book That Should Change How Progressives Talk About Race - The New York Times

Throughout much of his presidential campaign, Joe Biden was viewed with skepticism, and even outright hostility, by progressives. But a leftward shift during the general election and a promising first month in office has been generally heartening for the more liberal wing of the party, without alienating the moderates who helped him earn the Democratic nomination. But this week, for the first time in his presidency, a fissure has opened between Biden and progressive Democrats.

At issue: Student debt. Progressives like Elizabeth Warren and even party leaders like Chuck Schumer have called for the administration to forgive up to $50,000 in student loans. The federal government has turned its back on Americans young and old with student loan debt, Warren and Schumer wrote in a joint op-ed last month, shortly after Biden and Kamala Harris took office. The system failed them. But in CNN town hall Tuesday, Biden made clear he views that proposal as a non-starter: I will not make that happen, Biden said, telling the audience hed be prepared to write off $10,000 as he had promised during the campaign.

That rankled progressives, who shot down Bidens rationale for opposing the more ambitious plan. The frustration continued after White House press secretary Jen Psaki pumped the brakes even on the $10,000 plan, suggesting to reporters during a briefing Wednesday that the president wouldnt take executive action until it undergoes a legal review. Well wait for that conclusion before a final decision is made, Psaki said. Warren and Schumer said that wasnt an excuse, noting in a statement Wednesday that Barack Obama and Donald Trump each used executive authority to cancel debt. Its time to act, they wrote. Biden has the authority to cancel $50K in student loan debt, progressive Representative Ilhan Omar wrote Thursday morning, and can do so with the stroke of a pen.

Biden has framed his opposition to the $50,000 proposal as a matter of both policy and principle: He has expressed concern that such a proposal would forgive the debt of individuals who attended elite universities and make high salaries, and on Tuesday suggested he didnt have the authority to do so anyway. But Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others have dismissed the former, pointing out that wealthy individuals dont exactly make up a big chunk of those buried in student loan debt, and have summarily shot down the latter. He can and must use [his authority], Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley wrote this week. The people deserve nothing less.

Even the $10,000 in forgiveness Biden supports would make a major difference, and progressives have expressed hope that, through pressure on the administration, Bidens more modest plan will be a starting point, rather than the limit. We will continue to press the president for a number that better reflects the crisis and better addresses the racial equity issues, Alexis Goldstein, senior policy analyst at Americans for Financial Reform, told Politico Wednesday evening. How responsive Biden is to that pressureboth on student loans and a minimum wage hike, another brewing dispute between the president and progressivescould mean a lot, both for the Americans who would benefit from the policies and for his ability to keep the Democratic coalition from fracturing. This is the first key decision, progressive Representative Ro Khanna told the Los Angeles Times Thursday, referring to the minimum wage fight, on a real commitment to progressive values.

More Great Stories From Vanity Fair

I Will Destroy You: Why a Biden Aide Threatened a Politico Reporter For Donald Trump, Sarah Palins Fall Shows the Limits of Media Obsession The Chaos Behind Donald McNeils New York Times Exit The Rise and Fall of Bitcoin Billionaire Arthur Hayes Ivanka Trump Thinks Her Political Reemergence Is Just Around the Corner Will the Democrats Focus on Marjorie Taylor Greene Backfire? How the COVID-19 Vaccine Rollout Was Hobbled by Turf Wars and Magical Thinking From the Archive: The Complicated Dynamic Between the Young JFK, His Formidable Brother, and Their Tycoon Father

Not a subscriber? Join Vanity Fair to receive full access to VF.com and the complete online archive now.

View original post here:
Joe Bidens Honeymoon With Progressive Democrats Is Officially Over - Vanity Fair

Wise up, CA progressives

I agree with Oakland City Council member Dan Kalb that having two out of the five questions that the Progressive Delegates Network asked Democratic Party delegate candidates focus on Israel was overkill (California progressives get pushback on Zionism litmus test, Feb. 9).

Of the myriad issues that the party should be considering, attitudes toward Israel and Palestinians are far less important than indicated by the 40 percent represented in the questionnaire.

More critical, however, is the continued effort to conflate two separate issues, being pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian. It is time to move beyond thinking that to be pro-Palestinian one must, for example, also support the BDS movement and right of return. Palestinians must have a state of their own in the West Bank and Gaza, and Israel must accept its responsibility to end the conditions that Palestinians suffer each day.

However, BDS clearly has not been an effective advocacy tool, and right of return simply will never happen. There are better ways of building a just and lasting two-state peace in the Middle East. Creating a faulty litmus test for would-be Democratic delegates is counterproductive.

Personally, as a member of J Street, I advocate for meaningful measures to build support in the U.S. Congress for a pro-Palestinian as well as a pro-Israel foreign policy. I think that with the Democratic Party in Washington now in the leadership role, we can make real progress. We dont need the red-herring litmus test that the so-called Progressive Delegates Network was offering.

Jon KaufmanOakland

I grew up in the Bronx, in the Amalgamated Housing Cooperative, fairly close to the Stella Doro bakery (Why American Jews love Stella Doro cookies, Feb. 5 print edition).

When the wind was blowing in the right direction, you could smell the cookies baking. Stella Doro also had a restaurant in a building next to the bakery. Our family used to go there frequently for Sunday dinner. My mother often got lasagna, and I typically ordered the fried, breaded shrimp with spaghetti (for some unexplained reason, kosher did not come into play in restaurants).

This was gourmet heaven for an 8-year-old Bronx boy.

There were only two choices for dessert: spumoni or tortoni. But there was always a plate of cookies for the whole table. My mother would bring home the leftovers. As far as I know, you can still get Stella Doro Breakfast Treats and Swiss Fudge at Safeway.

Dr. Robert GolombBerkeley

The First Amendment is invariably cited to justify what is always termed legitimate criticism of Israel, no matter how untrue and/or hateful the verbiage may be.

However, even Bari Weiss and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, women of great intelligence and impeccable integrity, are incapable of presenting any legitimate criticism of Palestinians or Islam (Commonwealth Club event goes forward, despite CAIR criticism of anti-Muslim speakers, Feb. 12).

An impenetrable deflector shield of victimhood sanctity protects these entities.

Criticism of Palestinians or Islam is and apparently always will be anti-Muslim, racist and/or Islamophobic.

Julia LutchDavis

Kudos to Dr. Anthony Fauci for receiving a $1 million prize this week from Israels Dan David Foundation for his lifelong work in vaccine development (Fauci wins $1 million Israeli prize, Feb. 16).

In its statement, the foundation said he was receiving this award, among other reasons, for courageously defending science in the face of uninformed opposition during the challenging Covid crisis, a direct reference to his turbulent days under Trump as he tried to uphold the work of science, as opposed to the divisive politicking going on all around him.

In opposing anti-mask and anti-distancing in Trumps many unsafe gatherings over the last year, and therefore ostensibly sidelined, Fauci stood his ground against the anti-scientists as the U.S. continued to witness the highest death rates in the world.

Not only did he receive this prestigious award, but he is now once again fully recognized under the Biden government for the important work he continues to do on behalf of all of us.

Mazel tov, Dr. Fauci!

Yvonne BoxermanPalo Alto

I want to commend you on the addition of Gabe Stutman to your staff.

As someone who had been engaged as a journalist many years ago, I am most impressed by the quality of his reporting on controversial issues, his journalistic high standards and excellent writing style. He is a true professional in the best sense of the word.

Ruhama LipowWalnut Creek

For 70-plus years, Jews who believe in things like protecting the environment, health care for everybody, equality under the law, etc. have been able to call themselves progressives even when they turn their backs on Israels human rights violations against Palestinians (Progressive with some strings attached, Feb. 12).

But now, the times they are a-changin.

Now there are organizations like the Progressive Delegates Network that expect progressives to be consistent in their beliefs in order to win an endorsement.

Is it too much to ask of a candidate for public office that they support the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, freedom of speech in all matters and for everyone? And what about the rights of refugees to return to their homeland if they so choose? Is that also not a basic human right that all candidates should support, especially if they call themselves progressives?

There was not a single word about Israel or Palestine in the Progressive Delegates Networks questionnaire for (people seeking to become delegates for the California Democratic Party). There were only two general statements about protecting freedom of speech and the rights of refugees.

Organizations have the right to establish their own criteria for endorsement. If candidates dont agree with the criteria, they can seek endorsements elsewhere. That is their right.

Lois PearlmanGuerneville

The Torah teaches us that leaders are not perfect.

Noah saved the world but in his old age became a drunkard and debased himself. Jacob, also known as Israel, our namesake, deceived his father (that he was Esau) and tricked his uncle/employer Lavan out of his sheep (causing the lambs to be born speckled and spotted after making a deal to get the speckled and spotted ones).

Aaron was the first Kohen Gadol (high priest), but before that he fashioned the golden calf. Even Moses, in a fit of frustration during the 40 years in the desert, disobeyed Gods instruction and was forbidden to lead the Jews into Israel.

Yet, despite their flaws, all these forefathers remain eternally to be invoked and honored for their accomplishments.

The idea that the school board would strip school names honoring such accomplished leaders as Washington, Hamilton, Madison (my elementary school) and Lincoln shows a failure to understand the importance of true leadership (S.F. school board approves plan to rename 44 schools, including Feinstein and Sutro, Jan. 27).

It teaches a bad lesson to our kids and to the public and degrades the whole city.

Alan TitusSan Francisco

Politicians quoting the Old Testament has come back into fashion (Joe Bidens inauguration was replete with anxiety, and a lot of it was Jewish, Jan. 21).

The roots of American exceptionalism rhetoric began in Colonial times, when our Founding Fathers often spoke of our country as the American Zion and the 13 [sic] colonies as the tribes of Israel who were chosen by HaShem to be a light unto the world. That ended with the Civil War.

Some of the uptick in Old Testament quoting is a good sign, but some is dangerous in that it represents a mischaracterization of HaShem and Mosaic law as authoritarian and universal. The question is why now?

I think that American politicians across the spectrum turn to biblical authoritarianism to fill the void when there is little political consensus. Politicians argue that a cause or action is justified on moral grounds or a higher authority. It is a sign of a liberal democracy under stress. One road to fascism goes through biblical authoritarianism.

In other cases, citing a verse from the Old Testament can be viewed as a heartfelt expression of religious faith by our political leaders. I liked all the faith talk during the inauguration. I get a kick out of three former presidents wishing Joe Biden Godspeed on national TV.

I even gave our newly elected president the benefit of the doubt when he cited Ecclesiastes 3:1-8, a time to every purpose under Heaven, to signify that HaShem had a hand in his win.

Larry AbramsMonterey County

See the original post here:
LETTERS: Wise up, CA progressives; Hooray for Dr. Fauci; etc. - The Jewish News of Northern California

The Progressive Corp. is acquiring Indiana-based trucking industry insurer Protective Insurance Corp. in a move that will increase its stake in the commercial lines insurance market.

Progressive has agreed to pay $23.30 per share in cash, for a total transaction value of approximately $338 million. The per share price represents a 49.1% premium and 63.2% premium, respectively, to Protectives share prices as measured on February 12, 2021.

Protective Insurance Corp., founded in 1930, is the publicly-traded holding company for several property/casualty insurance subsidiaries including Protective Insurance Co., Sagamore Insurance Co. and Protective Specialty Insurance Co. The subsidiaries provide liability and workers compensation coverage for trucking and public transportation fleets of all sizes, along with trucking industry independent contractors.

In May, Protective Insurance Corp. reported that a special committee of independent directors has been formed to evaluate a sale agreement offered by certain shareholders and other parties. The offering parties were not identified.

Protective Insurance Co. is licensed in 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and all Canadian provinces and provides coverage for trucking fleets of all sizes.

Sagamore is licensed in 49 states and provides commercial auto coverage to small trucking fleets and artisan contractors, and workers compensation coverage to small and medium-sized transportation-focused businesses via the independent agency system.

Protective Specialty provides excess and surplus lines products in 48 states.

Through the end of nine months of 2020, Protective reported net premiums written were at $320 million and a net loss of $7.4 million, reflecting in part the effects of the pandemic on the trucking sector. The third quarter itself saw improvements net income of $3.3 million due to actions taken to improve underwriting results, including non-renewal of unprofitable business and significant rate increases in commercial automobile, according to Jeremy Johnson, Protectives CEO.

For full year 2019, Protective reported net premiums written of $447 million and net income of $7.4 million with a 106.80 combined ratio. Premium growth in 2019 was only 1.8% compared with 26% in 2018, 30% in 2017 and 7% in 2016.

But given ongoing profitability challenges, CEO Johnson announced the insurer would discontinue writing new public transportation business effective the fourth quarter of 2020.

The move allows Progressive to add products for larger fleets and brings expertise in workers compensation coverage for the transportation industry, which are new areas of business for Progressive.

As a leader in commercial auto insurance, were excited to expand our capabilities with the expertise Protective offers in larger fleet and affinity programs and by providing additional product lines for us to add to our portfolio, said Karen Bailo, Commercial Lines president for Progressive.

Keefe Bruyetts & Woods analyst Meyer Shields, who follows Progressive, commented that the deal will modestly broaden the insurers product offerings. He noted that Protective, along with others writing commercial auto, has underperformed in recent years. However, Shields believes that rising commercial lines rates and Progressives analytical capabilities will quickly produce better results.

According to 2018 figures from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Progressive is the largest commercial auto insurance writer with about an 11% share of the market, followed by Travelers, Liberty Mutual, Nationwide and Berkshire Hathaway.

Progressive said it plans to maintain Protectives offices in Carmel, Indiana and retain Protectives employees.

The acquisition is expected to close prior to the end of the third quarter of 2021.

Get automatic alerts for this topic.

View post:
Progressive to Buy Transportation Insurer Protective for $338 Million - Insurance Journal