By Rose Marcario

After years of neglect by media, business, and politicians, the climate crisis is finally getting the headlines it deserves. Reports by the global scientific community have painted an increasingly dire picture of this crisis’s impact on people around the globe. America’s youth — the generation on whose shoulders the gravest impacts of climate change will likely fall without immediate action — have taken to the courts, the streets, and the halls of Congress. And businesses around the globe have been taking action through voluntary reductions in emissions and commitments to clean energy investment. All the attention should be cause for large-scale action, but our government’s response continues to be anemic at best.

Policymakers have yet to grasp the frightening magnitude of this threat. Climate change is undeniably global and has rightfully been described as an environmental crisis — which, standing on its own, should be a sufficient clarion call to immediate and focused action. It is also a national security threat, a looming food and water crisis, a social justice issue, and the biggest economic crisis our country has ever faced.

Fortunately, there are solutions — and with them a potential economic opportunity for America’s middle class. An emerging clean energy economy is poised to pair prosperity with a range of climate solutions and protect our planet for future generations.

To build support for solutions, we need to acknowledge the proven scope of the problem. For too long, partisan politics have sidelined responsible policies to slow or reverse the climate crisis, and special interest groups have spread false information, and worse, denied scientific fact.

For starters, let’s acknowledge the truth that climate change is a job killer — and it is unlike anything we’ve ever seen. Climate change puts at risk well over a billion jobs worldwide that rely on a healthy and stable environment in industries like agriculture, fisheries, forestry, tourism and more. Indeed, while politicians of both parties parade around the country claiming to care deeply about putting middle-class Americans back to work, our economy and jobs are all put at risk by our growing carbon footprint. The most recent Climate Assessment report puts it in stark terms: with the continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions, the U.S. economy is projected to lose hundreds of billions of dollars — more than the current GDP of some U.S. states

For starters, let’s acknowledge the truth that climate change is a job killer — and it is unlike anything we’ve ever seen.

These devastating projections stem from a wide variety of climate impacts, including the sheer uptick in deaths across the country associated with poorer air quality, extreme temperatures and weather events, widespread drought, out-of-control wildfires and more. As our climate becomes increasingly inhospitable, businesses will suffer huge losses and middle-class families will have a much harder time making ends meet. Even our own government, paralyzed by the politicization of climate change, predicts the U.S. economy will shrink by as much as 10 percent by the end of this century if emissions continue at current rates.

We don’t need another report to tell us this harsh reality: Our changing climate will hurt lower-income Americans and minority communities the most. This country is already suffering from historic income inequality, and climate change is making it exponentially harder for the American dream to survive. Our children and grandchildren will undoubtedly face significantly less economic opportunity than my generation has enjoyed.

But there’s a silver lining to the mess we’ve created. Climate change’s enormous challenges also present enormous economic opportunities — to innovate and to lead with new practices and technologies that can engage and lift our middle class. Already, the growth of renewable wind and solar energy is creating jobs 12 times faster than the rest of the U.S. economy. Millions of new jobs can be ours if we muster the political will to respond with urgency and decisive action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and embrace an exciting new economy built on clean energy.

That’s a big if. In recent decades, climate change has been relegated to the bottom of the priority list in our electoral politics. Our political leaders have never felt a mandate to enact strong policies that will help us avoid the worst-case scenario, even though devastating impacts of the climate crisis are being felt by communities coast to coast. Policymakers have failed to embrace the vision required to speed our national transition to renewable energy. Not even the ground we’re quickly losing to China in the race to rule the clean energy economy has sparked much interest among our so-called leaders.

That’s why we must address the climate crisis not only as an environmental problem, but as an economic opportunity. History shows us that strong environmental protections and economic growth go hand in hand, and we must not lose ground in solving the climate crisis with American ingenuity and leadership waiting in the wings. Study after study shows that jobs are among the top issues for American voters, and candidates running for office should embrace the bulletproof argument that strong climate action and clean energy policy will benefit middle-class Americans through sweeping job creation.

We’re starting to see hints of this approach in the Green New Deal and other proposals circulating in Washington. And some businesses, including Patagonia, are working hard to pick up the slack left behind by government inaction. But we need federal leadership to put policies in place that will slow and reverse the climate crisis and truly realize the economic opportunity in front of us. Simply put, we need transformative policies that include aggressive clean, renewable energy goals, a more responsible and sustainable system of agriculture, and increased protection for our public lands and waters.

Candidates and elected officials who claim to care about the long-term prosperity of the American people — especially the struggling middle class — should get behind a thriving, competitive future for our country driven by climate action and clean energy. Our planet depends on it.

Rose Marcario is the President and CEO of the California-based outdoor company, Patagonia.

Climate Change May Crush the U.S. Economy, But Fixing It Could Be the Boost We Need was originally published in Biden Forum on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Over 50 years ago, President Johnson’s National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty issued a call to action to improve the health and economic well-being of rural Americans. The ensuing decades witnessed marked gains in the fight against poverty and disease, but far too many people and places remain behind. This economic dislocation is exacerbated by a silent epidemic of rising joblessness among rural workers, especially those who lack formal skills and training.

Rising living standards and economic mobility for most of us come through full-time work. At the time of the Commission’s report, nearly every nonelderly, nondisabled adult male worked at some point during the year, regardless of their education or where they lived.

This is no longer true. Employment rates of men at all education levels have fallen, but this has been especially acute among those in rural areas without a high school diploma. Today, in rural areas, just over half of men with less than a high school education work, compared to nearly 7 in 10 low-skilled men in urban areas.

In recent years, these trends have impacted work by rural women, too: While employment rates for women rose steadily in both urban and rural places for 30 years, since 2000 they too have declined, and again more quickly in rural places. An opportunity gap has emerged between rural and urban America, and it shows no signs of abating.

In a recent proposal released by the Aspen Institute’s Economic Strategy Group, I suggested a series of ideas to bring “rural people to jobs” and “jobs to rural people.” The premise behind bringing people to jobs is to assist those who are geographically mobile. Indeed, many rural Americans are willing and able to work, but are unable to find gainful employment in their local communities and would benefit from a new place of residence. For those willing and able to move, I propose a new relocation assistance program operated out of state and local workforce development agencies that covers both moving costs and a temporary living stipend.

The second proposed strategy for helping workers is to provide a temporary credit to compensate for commuting costs. Transportation is the second largest expenditure for the typical American family, and the burden is greater for those in rural areas than urban communities. The Commuter’s Credit would be a transportation subsidy to workers in their first year of employment in a new job, and would be roughly equal to the average Earned Income Tax Credit received by families with at least two children.

An opportunity gap has emerged between rural and urban America, and it shows no signs of abating.

Not all workers are able to move, and some live too far from vibrant labor markets to benefit from the Commuter’s Credit. For these workers, I also propose “place-based policies” designed to improve the employment prospects in rural communities.

To start, I advocate for a large one-time investment in rural broadband infrastructure. Rural America was among the last to benefit from key infrastructure investments of the 20th century (roads, highways, water systems) and likewise lags behind key 21st-century infrastructure investment of broadband.

Financial capital for entrepreneurs is a natural complement to broadband expansion, but it is in limited supply and is more difficult to access in rural communities than in urban areas. Thus, I also propose an expanded program to improve financial capital access for entrepreneurs and other small business development initiatives in rural areas operated out of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Recognizing that some workers face greater barriers for finding and retaining employment, I also propose a program of public sector jobs to rejuvenate rural infrastructure. This could entail repair work on dilapidated roads, bridges, and public utilities, such as municipal water supplies; rehabilitation of long-neglected CCC trails; and the creation of tourist amenities such as “rails to trails,” among many others. The initial target population for this proposal is “persistently poor” communities that have regularly seen county poverty rates in excess of 20 percent over the past four decades. Currently about 11 percent of all counties meet this classification of persistently poor, and they are typically found in central Appalachia, the South, and Native American reservations in the West.

Rural America is home to Americans with diverse challenges and circumstances. The underlying reasons for rising joblessness are too varied to address with a single reform, and thus a multi-pronged initiative is needed to address the root causes. Combined, these reforms would bring new opportunities to both rural people and places and would be an important first step to ensuring that no one is left behind in sharing the great wealth of our nation.

James P. Ziliak is the Gatton Endowed Chair in Microeconomics and founding director of the Center for Poverty Research at the University of Kentucky.

Boosting employment opportunities for rural people and places was originally published in Biden Forum on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Investing in high-quality, accessible child care is a critical step to bolstering America’s middle class. Affordable child care reduces the burden on working families and allows them to keep more of their paycheck, while also putting young children on an early path to healthy academic and social development.

Before children even set foot in a kindergarten classroom, they have already learned skills that will guide their future success. As toddlers, they learned an entire language and how to communicate their needs, questions, and ideas. Through their earliest interactions, they learned how to trust adults and navigate the world in the context of these relationships. And they’ve learned important things about their environment by climbing, toddling, and tasting everything they encounter. Beneath the surface, children’s brains are growing at a rapid pace, forming over one million connections per second that shape their young minds.

For most children, early learning occurs not just at home, but also in child care and early education settings. In the U.S., two-thirds of children under age six live in homes where all parents work. That means that child care is a necessity for most families, and it has a huge impact on young children’s development. Child care should not only meet working parents’ needs, but it should also provide a nurturing and enriching environment that supports healthy development.

Yet, quality child care is expensive and there is very little help for families living paycheck-to-paycheck. The annual price of a licensed child care center or family child care home exceeds $10,000 in most states — well above what most families can afford to pay. And analysis from the Center for American Progress shows that over a 12 year period, wages mostly remained flat while the price of child care increased by 37 percent. When parents cannot afford to pay, child care programs cannot afford to open their doors.

It should come as no surprise, then, that 53 percent of lower-income and middle-class neighborhoods are child care deserts, with a short supply of licensed child care. Parents who live in child care deserts may find themselves scrambling — piecing together family and friends to cover child care or driving long distances to find an affordable option.

Not having access to affordable, quality child care is a constant burden for middle-class families, as well as those struggling to reach the middle class.

For parents, it can mean forgoing job opportunities, scaling back hours at work, or leaving the workforce altogether. Approximately two million parents in the U.S. experience career interruptions due to problems with child care, costing families over $8 billion in wages each year.

When parents cannot afford to pay, child care programs cannot afford to open their doors.

For children, it can mean that they start school without the foundational skills that set them up for success. Children from low-income and middle-class families have lower preschool attendance rates than higher income families, and the impact is noticeable when they start school — children’s social and cognitive skills lag behind children from the highest income households.

Investing in child care and early education has impacts beyond individual parents and children; the economy is stronger when parents have quality, affordable options for their children. In Washington, D.C. — where preschool is universally available for three- and four-year-olds — maternal labor force participation increased by 10 percentage points due to preschool expansion.

When families cannot access early childhood programs, businesses pay in dividends. The U.S. loses an estimated $57 billion per year in revenue, productivity, and wages due to child care issues. Americans of all ages — whether they are raising a child today or raised one 20 years ago — should support families access to affordable, high-quality child care as an essential policy for boosting economic growth.

So what do we do about it? The U.S. needs a public investment in child care that subsidizes costs for parents, pays fair wages to child care workers (who currently make just $10 per hour, on average), and provides more options for high-quality care. Last year, Congress passed the largest ever increase in federal funding to help families afford child care and just last month, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) and Representative Bobby Scott (D-VA) introduced the Child Care for Working Families Act. If enacted, this legislation would provide quality, affordable child care for all families. It’s a visionary bill that will require policymakers to prioritize children and families, but America is up for the challenge.

Katie Hamm is the Vice President for Early Childhood Policy at the Center for American Progress.

Putting the middle class first means investing in child care was originally published in Biden Forum on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Everyone deserves a chance to provide for themselves and their families through hard work rewarded with fair pay. Yet for the estimated 11 million lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) adults in the United States, achieving economic security is especially difficult.

Why? To start, there is no federal legislation that explicitly prohibits discrimination at work based on sexual orientation and gender identity. And while some states have passed laws providing protection, half of LGBT people live in states that don’t provide such explicit protections. Add in discrimination in health care, housing, credit, education, and day-to-day life, and it is not surprising to learn that LGBT people report lower overall economic well-being compared to their peers.

And even in states with laws explicitly prohibiting such discrimination, subtle and less-than-subtle harassment and discrimination can mean that LGBT people get passed over for a promotion or don’t get hired at all. In a 2018 survey, 46 percent of LGBT workers said they were “closeted” at work, which can impact performance — as workers may be distracted, less connected to a team, and ultimately feel unhappy or depressed at work.

Far too many LGBT people face hostile workplaces or lose their jobs because of who they are. In 2015, 30 percent of transgender people reported being harassed at work, fired, or otherwise mistreated at work in the past year. And the impact of that discrimination is that transgender people, particularly transgender women of color, are more than twice as likely to live in poverty than the general population and three times as likely to be unemployed.

It is time to update to our nation’s laws to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation.

The challenges for LGBT people extend beyond the workforce and into personal finances: LGBT Americans are more likely than many others to struggle to make ends meet, showing higher rates of poverty, greater reliance on the safety net, and less certainty about the future. Analyses from the Williams Institute released earlier this month show that LGBT people are more likely to be unemployed, uninsured, experience food insecurity, and have incomes less than $24,000. These findings often come as a surprise to many given that the media and even politicians often inaccurately portray LGBT people and their families as being well-off.

These struggles are compounded for LGBT parents, of which there are many. In America, 29 percent of LGBT people are raising children, with the share exceeding 40 percent in some states. Parenting can be a challenge for adults of all stripes, but can be especially difficult for LGBT people — who often raise children in the face of discrimination, with no guarantee of paid sick time or family leave, and the added risk of being fired simply because of who they are or what their families look like.

All told, the reality for LGBT adults is that they often work, make ends meet, and parent in the face of severe discrimination — frequently without laws to protect them from these inequities.

With the reality of LGBT America in clearer view, what to do also becomes clearer. It is time to update to our nation’s laws to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. Last week, the Equality Act was introduced in Congress. The bill would ensure that all Americans can work hard and be treated fairly regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

States and cities are taking steps to protect their residents from discrimination through state laws and local ordinances that prohibit discrimination at work, in housing, and in places of public accommodations like restaurants and daycare centers. Basic nondiscrimination protections are critical to ensuring the economic well-being of all Americans. And more is needed.

It is time to pass meaningful leave laws that allow workers to take paid time from work to care for themselves or a family member. LGBT people are more likely to be caring for a loved one who isn’t legally recognized. Laws like Arizona’s paid sick time law and the sick leave ordinance in Chicago, which have broad definitions of family, offer job security during times of crisis.

It is time for health insurance to cover transition-related care so that transgender people can access medically necessary care without needing to jump through hoops or face outright denial.

These policies will have a tangible impact on the lives of millions of LGBT people and their families. After all, these Americans deserve the chance to provide for themselves and their families without the threat of lower pay, inadequate benefits, or being fired simply because of who they are.

Naomi Goldberg is policy and research director at the Movement Advancement Project (MAP), an independent, nonprofit think tank that provides rigorous research, insight and communications that help speed equality and opportunity for all. MAP works to ensure that all people have a fair chance to pursue health and happiness, earn a living, take care of the ones they love, be safe in their communities, and participate in civic life.

Why is it harder for LGBT people to be financially secure? was originally published in Biden Forum on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

The Biden Forum Highlight is a series of quick reads on the middle class. Each week, editors at the Biden Forum will highlight a key insight from new economic research and break down what it means for middle-class Americans. What should we highlight next? Email your questions or recommendations to forum@bidenfoundation.org.

Inheritances are an important source of income in the United States. As noted in a recent post by New York University School of Law Professor Lily Batchelder, inheritances make up about 40 percent of all wealth and 4 percent of household income every year.

But inheritances aren’t distributed evenly across households. As one might expect, households with higher income receive substantially higher inheritances — with marked disparity among those with incomes over $500,000. Households with “economic income” — earned income plus inheritance wealth — below $100,000 receive less than $100,000 in inheritances over the course of their life. But lifetime inheritances skyrocket for households with more than $1 million in economic income, as these households receive well over $600,000 in inheritance, on average.

The U.S. has traditionally addressed this disparity through an estate tax which typically taxes wealth above a given threshold. However, in recent years, the estate tax has been weakened considerably, with the per-couple threshold for taxation rising from $1.35 million in 2001 to over $22 million today — in large part due to the 2017 tax act’s generous estate tax cuts which doubled the per-couple threshold.

A major justification for the estate tax is to capture capital gains income which has entirely escaped taxation throughout a decedent’s life. The “stepped-up basis” loophole — which costs about $40 billion annually — allows investors to forego any tax on investments if they hold the asset until they die. This not only costs the Treasury needed revenue and decreases tax progressivity, but also causes investors to hold otherwise poor investments until death to avoid a tax. This ultimately hurts our economy because capital is not directed to its most beneficial use.

The Biden Forum has addressed issues of inheritance taxes before. In particular, Boston College Law School Professor Ray Madoff advanced a proposal that would eliminate the estate tax, but subject inheritances to the income tax while concurrently eliminating the stepped-up basis loophole.

Inheritance wealth: One reason the rich get richer was originally published in Biden Forum on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Strengthening the working middle class is impossible without a system that ensures more workers own capital. And the only plausible way to get capital in the hands of America’s workers is to strongly encourage broad-based profit sharing plans or employee share ownership programs at every workplace in the country.

The working middle class has been slammed by two long-term economic trends: flat or declining real wages for most income groups and the stunning concentration of wealth and capital income. Together, these trends mean that the working middle class is not sharing in the gains from economic growth and that the working middle class has not benefited from the lucrative returns to investment that have benefited wealthy families for decades. Put simply, growth in wealth is driven by increasing returns to capital — and most workers own little to none of it.

The overwhelming concentration of capital is well documented by economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, who found that 74.5 percent of all household wealth — real estate, ownership of businesses, stocks, bonds, cash — is concentrated in the hands of the top 10 percent of families. This capital does not just sit still; it continues to produce more wealth each year through capital gains and returns on investment. Saez and Zucman found that a stunning 96.7 percent of this capital income went to the top 10 percent of families.

The problem for most working middle-class families is that their earnings are not growing fast enough to allow them to save and accumulate wealth. On the flip side, those who own capital and share in its profits are doing very well. And it’s not just stock ownership driving this divergence. Wealthy families are the ones who own the businesses, technology, software, algorithms, and robots — all the key drivers of economic growth. Workers, whose earnings from work make up most of their income, do not share in that growth.

The solution to this dilemma is a far-reaching national policy to expand capital shares through the private sector, including a wide variety of established profit sharing and employee equity share plans. The basic idea is to encourage businesses to include employees nationwide in equity ownership and profit sharing plans, ensuring that the working middle class owns a piece of the businesses they help build.

What would a substantive national initiative on shares look like? It would look like the small businesses, large corporations, and growing tech firms that already compensate their employees with generous broad-based profit sharing and employee share ownership plans — we’d just see more of it.

Many people want to work at businesses that share profits and pay workers for their performance. Small family businesses tend to prefer cash profit sharing or gain sharing because the companies are family-owned. Large stock market companies, on the other hand, prefer broad-based employee share ownership programs.

Implementing a national policy on shares would begin with a civic discussion highlighting examples of businesses that do it well. An analysis of over a hundred different studies, including almost 60,000 businesses, found that employee share ownership improved performance. I found, along with colleagues Douglas Kruse of Rutgers and Richard Freeman of Harvard, that companies with employee share ownership and profit sharing had significantly lower employee turnover and better return on equity.

As they did decades ago, local chambers of commerce can consider calling attention to responsible share companies in their communities with seminars, receptions, and prizes. Political leaders can visit these companies, large and small, across all 50 states to draw media attention to a new fair-share deal for the middle class.

Broad-based profit sharing and employee share ownership is not only about inclusive growth, but also about citizens having a share in our civic life and our politics.

If shares are a national goal, the federal government could play a role by encouraging businesses nationwide to establish broad-based profit sharing and employee share ownership plans through tax incentives, special tax rates, preconditions for receiving government benefits, and purchasing preferences. This can be done through a handful of thoughtful policy reforms.

First, tax incentives for every kind of responsible share plan should be expanded to a level such that CEOs of every company will ask, “Should we do a share plan now?” In particular, tax incentives could target tech companies to reverse the astounding decline in the number of workers included in their equity plans, could offer tax credits to small businesses that have meaningful cash profit sharing, could make it easier for retiring business owners to sell the company to the managers and employees by expanding the credit available for such sales, and could encourage stock market companies by allowing large stable firms to deduct interest on loans to set up such plans and dividends used to repay these loans. Every company is different and every management team will consider whether a specific plan fits its circumstance.

Second, if and when Congress revisits the massive no-strings-attached corporate tax cut, another policy option is to lower the corporate tax rate for businesses with broad-based share plans. Similarly, while some of the most generous corporate tax expenditures may need to be cut, Congress should examine conditioning corporate subsidies on the company having abroad-based profit or equity participation plan for all employees. In both cases, the basic idea is to offer corporations a cut in exchange for sharing their profits with workers — a policy that would benefit owners and workers.

Third, the entire system of federal defense and non-defense procurement should be conditioned on the bidders having a broad-based profit or equity participation plan for all employees. During the Obama administration, regulators were able to influence labor policy by changing the requirement of federal contractors — a practice that should be extended to include employee ownership.

Fourth, recognizing that private equity has become a super-engine of wealth concentration, the “carried interest” capital gains treatment for private equity firms should be conditioned on these firms having a broad-based profit or equity participation plan for all portfolio companies. Not only would this encourage widespread share ownership, but it would favor the spinning off of those companies to firms with broad-based profit or equity participation plan for all employees.

Fifth, every type of share plan regulated by the federal government should be examined so that federal regulations encourage inclusivity, generosity, ease of implementation, and financial safety for workers. For example, tax incentives could focus on encouraging share plans that do not substitute fair wages for shares. Employee share purchase and share matching plans with very deep discounts that function like grants could also be carefully encouraged.

Sixth, income and capital gains tax rates on profit and equity shares should be lowered for middle-class families who are struggling to pay mortgages and save money for college and retirement to allow working families to keep a larger part of their profit and equity share for their families and children.

Widespread share ownership is the only plausible private-sector approach to closing the inequality gap. If investment returns continue to outpace middle-class wage growth, we will soon see a two-tiered economy where capital owners capture the vast bulk of the gains to a growing economy, and everyone else fights for the crumbs.

That being said, broad-based profit sharing and employee share ownership is not only about inclusive growth, but also about citizens having a share in our civic life and our politics. If most citizens own and share in the profits, they will have the freedom, economic liberty, and resources to reengage with civic life. Making sure that everyone owns a piece of our economy is not only central to combating widespread inequity, but to strengthening our democracy.

Joseph Blasi is the J. Robert Beyster Distinguished Professor and Director of the Institute for the Study of Employee Ownership and Profit Sharing at Rutgers University’s School of Management and Labor Relations. For the history of these ideas, see The Citizen’s Share: Reducing Inequality in the 21st Century (Yale University Press, 2014) by Joseph Blasi, Richard Freeman, and Douglas Kruse.

A national policy on shares for the working middle class was originally published in Biden Forum on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

In today’s economy, many workers know they need to better their skills to move up in the workplace, but have trouble juggling the pressures of parenthood and school — all while working to earn a paycheck. Elise Feldt knows this as well as anyone.

When Elise was 24 years old, she took on the responsibility of being a single mother. Her marriage was ending and she had two young sons to support. Elise finally found two jobs — one at a local hardware store and another at a local pub — to help make ends meet.

Her wages helped Elise and her family of three. But paying the bills, sending her two toddlers to daycare, and putting food on the table still proved difficult. What Elise wanted is what most people want — the opportunity to work a stable full-time job with benefits and enjoy a quality life outside of work. For Elise, a quality life also meant being a full-time mom to her two children.

Elise found that opportunity at The Apprentice School, the cornerstone of talent development for Newport News Shipbuilding. For 100 years, The Apprentice School at Newport News Shipbuilding has trained and developed a steady supply of skilled workers to build nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines for the U.S. Navy. Doors that were once open only to teenage boys now welcome a diverse group of workers seeking to be part of something greater than themselves.

Elise was accepted into the school’s pipefitter apprenticeship program, one of 19 shipbuilding trades. She immediately began receiving a paycheck. Each week, she spent two days learning her craft in a classroom and three days learning to construct and overhaul Navy ships.

After two years and three different rotations on aircraft carriers and submarines, Elise discovered her dream career in modeling and simulation — one of the school’s eight advanced programs. Today, she is two months shy of her bachelor’s degree in modeling and simulation and visualization engineering — working to finish her senior capstone project. Most importantly, she’s home by 6 p.m. to be the full-time mom she wants to be.

We believe it is our responsibility to create a work environment in which our employees want to be part of what we’re building.

That’s what apprenticeships are all about — providing future generations with lessons learned and the opportunity to enjoy a rewarding career and quality way of life.

Like traditional colleges and universities, The Apprentice School offers professional societies, student organizations, and athletics. Partnerships with local community colleges and universities provide our apprentices the opportunity to earn one of four associate degrees or a bachelor’s degree in electrical and mechanical engineering. Unlike its traditional counterparts, The Apprentice School offers a tuition-free education and full-time employment. Despite these perks, apprentices have no obligation to stay with the company after graduation. Why? Because we believe it is our responsibility to create a work environment in which our employees want to be part of what we’re building.

Our alumni represent third-, fourth- and fifth-generation shipbuilders who share a pride in their school, their craft, and their contribution to our nation’s defense. Dr. Jill Biden has experienced shipbuilder pride as the ship’s sponsor for the Virginia-class submarine Delaware and as the commencement speaker for our most recent Apprentice School graduation. She perfectly captured their contributions when she said, “Your work makes our nation strong.”

I believe the same is true for apprenticeships, which leverage the wisdom of past generations and provide opportunity for our future leaders to succeed. Fortunately for us, the value of apprenticeship was recognized very early in our company’s history. One hundred years later, the school remains the backbone of our workforce development and our success as shipbuilders.

As president of Newport News Shipbuilding, Jennifer Boykin has responsibility for the more than 23,000 shipbuilders who design, build and maintain the most complex ships in the world: nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines. Newport News Shipbuilding was founded in 1886, has about $4 billion in revenues and is the largest industrial employer in Virginia.

Apprenticeships make our nation stronger was originally published in Biden Forum on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Note: On Wednesday, February 20, Dr. Jill Biden delivered remarks in the plenary session of the Achieving the Dream’s 2019 DREAM Conference in Long Beach, California. She spoke about the economic opportunity community colleges offer to students, and announced a new initiative supported by Achieving the Dream and the Biden Foundation. Her complete remarks, lightly edited, are below.

I teach writing at Northern Virginia Community College, or NOVA. Some of my colleagues are here today. The culmination of each semester is a research paper. Last fall, I got a text from a student at around 6 o’clock in the morning on the day it was due. It read: “On my way to the hospital to have my baby; research paper will be late.”

To which I replied, “Excuses, excuses.”

Now this woman — my student — served as an interpreter for the U.S. military in Afghanistan. She’s starting a new life here in America for herself and her family. And in the midst of labor — one of the most exciting, scary, painful events a woman can go through — she was concerned about getting her paper in on time.

This same student approached me earlier in the semester and said: “Hey, Dr. B, can I talk to you about something? How do you do it all? How do you hold it all together?” This brave young woman from Afghanistan was asking me.

I’ve thought a lot about her question.

For most of us, “having it all” really means “giving it all,” doesn’t it? We must figure out how to give ourselves to all the different people and demands in our lives. And that’s especially true for women who are trying to raise kids, hold down a job, get their education, and give back to their communities. There are many women like my student, working so hard, not to have it all, but to give it all.

For 15 years, Achieving the Dream has worked with community colleges to champion evidence-based strategies to improve student success. You’ve worked to help students, yours and mine, thrive in community colleges, and it’s an honor to continue this dialogue with you today at DREAM 2019.

I didn’t start my teaching career in community colleges, but they are where I realized that teaching isn’t just what I do, but who I am. I was working at Brandywine high school in Wilmington when a friend called me — a former colleague, who had left Brandywine to teach at Delaware Technical & Community College. She said, “Jill, you’ve got to come teach here. I promise you, you’ll love it.”

Our students are ambitious. They’re resourceful, independent people who ask for nothing more than the chance to work hard and build a better life for themselves and their families.

I wasn’t sure at first. I enjoyed teaching my high-school students. And, frankly, the thought of teaching adults was a little intimidating. Could I really make a difference in their lives? But, I knew for certain it would mean no more dreaded cafeteria duty, so I thought, well, why not? I should at least visit.

One thing I love about being a teacher is that there are so many opportunities to continue learning — professionally and personally. And I could see that Del Tech was going to be a chance for me to try something totally different. To keep growing. So, I met with the dean and accepted a job.

Working with older students was a new challenge. They come from different paths. They are veterans, refugees, and parents. Some are working towards that two-year degree that means the difference between minimum wage and a living wage. For some it’s a fresh start or a new career. Some are even older than I am!

Our students are ambitious. They’re resourceful, independent people who ask for nothing more than the chance to work hard and build a better life for themselves and their families. But over and over again, we see in our classrooms that they don’t always get the support they need or deserve.

More people are heading to community colleges — because, as we all know, they are an affordable, flexible, high-quality option. But graduation rates remain frustratingly low. The Institute for Women’s Policy Research has shown that only a third of independent students complete a degree or certificate within six years.

And it’s worse for women. Nearly half of the five million students who are parents are single moms. They face challenges like child care issues, financial problems, caregiving, and food and housing insecurity. Often, they have to drop out. They don’t graduate.

When that happens, they lose so much more than just a degree. They miss opportunities to get better jobs, to progress in their careers, and to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars as the years go on. We have to do better. And we can.

I wrote my dissertation on mentoring and, all these years later, I still believe it is a critical piece of community college success.

When I was hired at NOVA in 2009, I had the chance to start a mentoring program for women over 30 who were returning to school. But younger women started saying to me, “You know, Dr. B, I need help too.” So we decided to open it up to all ages.

Now, mentoring is just one component of making sure that women have the support they need to graduate and get good jobs. Today, at NOVA, we have more than 120 women enrolled in the program and more than 50 faculty mentors. Our sisterhood is powerful. In our sessions, women share their sorrows and their anxieties. We celebrate their victories. We build friendships. I’ve watched so many women transform from struggling students to confident, accomplished college graduates.

One of the best ways we can strengthen families and neighborhoods is by investing in women. Because when women succeed, their children and families succeed.

In 2014, NOVA compared participants of our “Women Helping Women” group to a control group and found that our students had higher rates of retention, higher GPAs, and a significantly higher graduation rate — by 8.2 percentage points, in fact.

At its heart, education isn’t just about lectures and lesson plans. It’s about helping people become the best versions of themselves. It ignites our potential — gives us the confidence we need to believe in ourselves.

But if women are struggling to pay their bills, to find childcare or transportation — if they don’t have the mental and emotional support they need, that door of opportunity may stay locked.

One of the best ways we can strengthen families and neighborhoods is by investing in women. Because when women succeed, their children and families succeed.

A few years ago, one of the women in my class was having a hard time in her studies, and in our meetings, she revealed to us that she was a survivor of domestic violence. She had fled from her husband with her children. For a while, she had lived in her car and then a shelter. And although their lives were more stable at that point, she was still struggling with the mental and emotional aftermath.

So our group embraced her. We gave her a place to talk about her experience, we supported her through counseling, and I had the chance to work with her on her writing. And in time, not only was she able to graduate, but she wrote an incredible personal essay and was accepted into George Mason University. Today, she’s working as an accountant — and her whole family has a brighter future.

We’re here today for people like her.

And that’s why I am so excited to announce Community College Women Succeed, a new initiative supported by Achieving the Dream and the Biden Foundation.

This initiative, working with thought leaders like you from across the country, will promote promising practices and innovative programs to support women’s retention in community colleges, based on research and retention trends.

But this isn’t top-down. We will listen to women who know what they need more than anyone. We’re hosting regional roundtables with students and working with advocates across the nation to figure out how to create the best, most effective support system we can.

This isn’t easy. There isn’t one single thing that is going to reverse those numbers I read earlier. There isn’t one thing that’s going to suddenly make balancing work, and childcare, and education, and pursuing your career simple.

But for the women who are willing to give their all, who are willing to fight for the futures they want and deserve, we can do more.

As educators, we think that our schools and our students are the exception. So this may not surprise you, but I think community colleges are a special place. I think community college educators are special people. And I think that no one is better prepared to meet this challenge than we are.

You all know how important this is. You see it in the faces of the women we work with every day. You see it when your students struggle. And, you see it when they succeed — when they overcome obstacle after obstacle to stand triumphantly on that graduation stage.

Together we can find ways to clear that road. We all have a role to play. We all have gifts to give to this effort. And even though it’s tough, I have faith in us — I know that we will change things for the better.

I know we will find a way to help women be students and mothers. We will find a way to help them succeed at school and pay their bills. We will help them pursue the opportunities they want and deserve.

Because difficult tasks? Balancing impossible choices? Blazing new trails? We — all of you here — this community college family knows how to get this done.

So let’s say to our students: We’ve got your back.

When women succeed, their communities succeed was originally published in Biden Forum on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

In the United States, a software engineer can expect to make about $106,000 a year. That means at any given company, someone with a background in computer science can expect to make more than double the $44,000 salary of the average American worker.

These are the kinds of jobs that can lift entire families into the middle class. They are the American dream realized. They are the future of our country and our economy.

But right now, not all Americans have access to these jobs. Our girls, especially, are getting left behind or are being pushed out.

The odds are stacked against them in more ways than one. Although girls express interest in computer science at an early age, they begin to drop out in middle school because our culture tells them that computers and tech are for boys. They learn all about people like Bill Gates and Albert Einstein and Mark Zuckerberg, but not about Ayanna Howard or Katherine Johnson or Ada Lovelace.

By the time women leave college, only 1 percent of them will graduate with degrees in computer science. And when they enter the workplace, they are likely to face discrimination, or worse, harassment that forces them out of their job. From the classroom to the workplace, women face far too many barriers to a successful career in tech.

At Girls Who Code, we’re on a mission to change that. We’ve set out to educate, equip, and inspire girls with the computing skills they’ll need to pursue 21st-century opportunities. Ultimately, we want to close the gender gap in tech entirely.

But we can’t do it alone; we need help from Congress and state legislatures. Last year, we released a policy agenda with four recommendations for lawmakers across the country committed to closing the gender gap in tech. This agenda includes recommendations to track and report data on computer science participation, expand computer science courses to all middle schools, increase exposure to women and other underrepresented minorities in tech, and fund professional development with a focus on gender inclusion.

I’ve seen firsthand how computer science skills can change the trajectory of a career, the future of a girl, a family, a community. I’ve seen it with countless Girls Who Code alumni.

Consider Diana, a first-generation American whose mother worked as a live-in housekeeper in an affluent neighborhood just to make sure her daughter could have access to a quality education. Diana participated in our first-ever Summer Immersion Program in 2012, and went on to be the first woman in her family to go to college and major in computer science. Today, she is an engineer at Tumblr in New York City.

Diana is just one of our alumni. In seven years, Girls Who Code has reached more than 185,000 girls in communities across the country. Half of the girls in our programs are black, Latina or, like Diana, come from low-income households. We know that our alumni are majoring in computer science at a rate 15 times the national average. And we’re just getting started.

We believe that a commitment from lawmakers, combined with grassroots programs and resources — such as our free Women in Tech lesson plans — can guarantee a more equitable and competitive future for the U.S.

Imagine what would be possible if every girl in the country had a chance to learn computer science and to thrive in the field. Let’s give them a real shot at achieving their greatest potential so that they may become the leaders, visionaries, changemakers they were meant to be.

Changing policy to change the face of tech was originally published in Biden Forum on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

The future of manufacturing remains the compelling question of the 21st-century economy: How will we continue to innovate, create jobs, and ensure regional economic success — all while meeting the pressing needs of environmental sustainability? This race for the success of the U.S. manufacturing sector comes into heightened focus as raw materials become scarcer and more expensive. Meanwhile, the harmful effects of man-made climate change mean manufacturers must reinvent their craft to minimize environmental impact.

We cannot continue on the same path. I fiercely believe in the future of U.S. manufacturing, but also know that it must be sustainable. If we want to continue to lead the world in this industry, we must move away from the traditional production model of using only raw materials as inputs and disposing of used products. This approach will inevitably fail as we run out of raw materials and places to safely store waste.

The answer could lie in the burgeoning practice of remanufacturing — the process by which products are returned to good-as-new (or better) condition. During the remanufacturing process, products are disassembled into individual components and each worn-out part is repaired or replaced, resulting in a “remanufactured” machine that meets the same standards and specifications as a brand-new product.

Remanufacturing generates a larger demand for skilled labor relative to conventional linear production, potentially increasing skilled labor by up to 120 percent.

Over the last several decades, we have seen a steady uptick in the remanufacturing of aerospace products, automotive parts, electronics, and furniture. Despite these successes, there are massive untapped opportunities to expand remanufacturing as customers, dealers, and policymakers embrace and champion the benefits of the practice.

One of the most important benefits of remanufacturing is the reduced strain on the environment and our finite natural resources. It takes less energy and fewer raw materials to produce a remanufactured product, and there is less waste to dispose of at the end of the process. As remanufacturing becomes more popular, we can also expect a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. Remanufacturing and comprehensive refurbishment can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by between 79 percent and 99 percent in appropriate sectors.

Remanufacturing doesn’t just ease the impact on the environment, but also creates jobs and heightens the need for a skilled workforce. Remanufacturing generates a larger demand for skilled labor relative to conventional linear production, potentially increasing skilled labor by up to 120 percent. The International Trade Commission estimates that remanufacturing has already added over 180,000 jobs in the U.S., with an enormous potential for growth.

Remanufacturing is also cost-effective. I meet with manufacturers in my district every chance I get, and they are enthusiastic about the opportunity to create good-as-new products at a lower cost. For businesses in an industry with razor-thin margins as it is, remanufacturing could make all the difference. Consumers also stand to benefit since products that are cheaper to make are also cheaper to buy. In essence, customers are paying significantly less for a product that meets all the same standards and specifications as a brand-new one.

Remanufacturing is a uniquely American opportunity. The United States is far and away the remanufacturing capital of the world, in large part due to the American spirit of innovation and persistent drive to find new and better ways of doing things. Embracing this cheaper, more sustainable method of production will not only create hundreds of thousands of good-paying domestic jobs, but will also help solidify our standing as the world’s leading economy for generations to come.

The time is now to promote remanufacturing in the United States. The environmental and economic benefits of this industry are simply too good to pass up. We need our government to set an example by procuring remanufactured goods — everything from furniture in government office buildings to the vehicles employed by our military. And we need new and better strategies for incentivizing manufacturers to develop and invest in their remanufacturing capacity.

I’ve seen the power of manufacturing innovation firsthand. Prior to serving in the U.S. Congress, I had the privilege of working in a highly innovative advanced manufacturing research lab charged with developing new technologies in the industrial internet of things space and addressing the future of work in the digital age. I now have the privilege of serving Michigan’s manufacturing-rich 11th District in Metro Detroit, which is arguably home to the most robust supply chain in the country. I can say with absolute certainty that a flourishing remanufacturing industry is within our grasp.

I am excited to use my voice as a member of Congress and as a woman in manufacturing to advance remanufacturing in Michigan and across the country, and am eager to partner with anyone who wants to be a champion for cheaper, more sustainable products that help us compete with the rest of the world. The United States will continue its role as a worldwide leader in manufacturing, but it will require that we do what we have always done: finding new and better ways of making products for the world’s consumers.

Congresswoman Haley Stevens (MI-11) is the first millennial federal representative from Michigan. Prior to serving in Congress, Congresswoman Stevens worked in the Obama administration, including as Chief of Staff of the U.S. Auto Rescue.

How to make manufacturing cheaper and more sustainable was originally published in Biden Forum on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.