How are Wisconsin voters experiencing the pandemic economy?

Wisconsin’s unemployment rate hit 14 percent in April and remained at 12 percent in May. Combining surveys from late March, early May, and mid June, the Marquette Law Poll found that 13 percent of Wisconsin registered voters had lost a job or been laid-off due to the coronavirus outbreak. A further 23 percent said this had happened to a family member. Likewise, 23 percent reported working fewer hours due to the coronavirus outbreak, and another 29 percent said this had happened to a family member. Altogether, 27 percent of those interviewed had either lost a job, lost hours, or both at some point during the economic shutdown.

Taken by themselves, these numbers suggest an economic catastrophe on par with the Great Depression, but that has not happened–at least not yet–in the experiences of most Wisconsinites. In nearly every poll, we ask respondents to evaluate their family’s financial situation–are they “living comfortably, just getting by, or struggling to make ends meet?” The trend is remarkably flat. In January 2020 63 percent said they were living comfortably–statistically indistinguishable from the 61 percent saying the same thing in June. So what gives?

Graph of self-reported subjective economic status, January - June 2020

Our poll alone cannot answer this question definitely, but it can offer some clues. Just as COVID-19 has hurt some communities in Wisconsin more than others, so too has the accompanying economic crisis. Along with disproportionate cases and deaths, Black and Latinx Wisconsin residents faced a stark economic toll. The number of Black respondents “struggling to make ends meet” increased from 10 percent in January/February to 22 percent during the pandemic. The proportion of Latinx respondents “living comfortably” declined from 66 percent to 47 percent over the same period.

In early 2020, prior to the economic shutdown, 63 percent of respondents described their family as “living comfortably.” People who lost their job during the pandemic did indeed report declining financial comfort. Just 37 percent of those who lost a job were “living comfortably.” Even worse off were those whose families lost multiple jobs. Only one in three people in this position were “living comfortably;” 57 percent were “just getting by,” and 11 percent were “struggling to make ends meet.” But people who suffered no financial ill effects actually improved their self-assessed financial well-being during the pandemic. Among people whose families lost no jobs or hours, 70 percent were “living comfortably,” 25 percent “just getting by,” and only 4 percent struggling to make ends meet.

The table below compares experiences by income level in 2019. To maximize cases, I pooled together all respondents who reported a job loss among any member of their family.

Before the pandemic, 37 percent of people with household incomes below $40,000 said they were living comfortably. People in this income bracket whose family lost at least one job during the shutdown now report a 24 percent rate of “living comfortably”–a 13 percent decline. Forty-seven percent of people from families who avoided income losses now say they are “living comfortably”–a 10 percent increase. The same pattern repeats itself in each other income tier.

percent of respondents living comfortably by job loss

What accounts for the increase in “living comfortably” among those who’ve kept their jobs? I see three possible explanations, all of which probably contribute in some way.

First, job losses in the pandemic have been concentrated among lower-wage workers. It could be that those who lost their jobs were already more likely to be financially struggling. Second, people whose families have kept their jobs may feel themselves lucky and are thus more likely to positively evaluate their subjective financial well-being. Third, people who have maintained an uninterrupted income stream may actually be making and/or saving more money than before. Whatever the cause, the pandemic appears to be sharpening the division between haves and have-nots in Wisconsin’s economy.

Continue ReadingHow are Wisconsin voters experiencing the pandemic economy?

The Washington, D.C., Issue of the Marquette Lawyer Magazine 

2020 Summer Cover

Amid all the global disruptions that started in March, Marquette Law School moved forward effectively in teaching students to be lawyers and in offering, as best we could, the public engagement we are known for. One important aspect of the latter is the release of the new issue of the Marquette Lawyer magazine, produced with a few internal procedural adjustments, but no change in schedule or in our commitment to provide high-quality reading to Marquette lawyers, all lawyers in Wisconsin, and many interested others.

Washington, D.C., is the focus of the new issue. The Washington that’s in

Continue ReadingThe Washington, D.C., Issue of the Marquette Lawyer Magazine 

Why isn’t Racine part of the Milwaukee Metropolitan Statistical Area?

The Milwaukee Metropolitan Statistical Area (“The Milwaukee Metro”) consists of Milwaukee, Waukesha, Washington, and Ozaukee counties, but not Racine County. Why not? Racine County, home to Wisconsin’s fifth largest city, lies just to the south of Milwaukee County. The answer to this question reveals much about the economic geography of southeastern Wisconsin. Despite its close physical proximity to the Milwaukee Metro, Racine County still lacks economic integration with its neighbor to the north. There are doubtlessly many ways in which Racine is part of the “Greater Milwaukee Area,” but workforce connectivity (the key metric used to define metro areas) is not one of them.

Understanding core based statistical areas

Metropolitan Statistical Areas are a vital concept for understanding American cities because the legal boundaries of “central cities” vary so much from one place to another and because the cultural, economic and social web of a city extends well beyond wherever those political boundaries calcified. Since 1949 the federal government has defined what are currently called “core based statistical areas” (CBSAs). A CBSA containing at least one urbanized area with at least 50,000 or more residents is a “metropolitan statistical area.” Smaller CBSAs are “micropolitan statistical areas.” As the term “core-based” suggests, Micro- or Metro-politan areas are centered around one or more principal cities. The most populous municipality in each CBSA is a principal city by default, but additional cities are designated principal cities if they draw large numbers of commuters in their own right. The Los Angeles metropolitan area has 19 principal cities, for instance. The Milwaukee Metro has two principal cities–Milwaukee and Waukesha.

The boundaries of core based statistical areas are defined using commuter flows. There are two main ways for a place to be part of a CBSA. One way is to be a commuter hub–a principal city–drawing in workers from the rest of the region. In an MSA with multiple principal cities, each will act as an interconnected hub, with large numbers of workers commuting each direction every day. As I wrote in 2017, “Milwaukee city attracts the most workers—some 125,000 in total. Still, nearly 95,000 people leave the city for work every day. Thirty-thousand of them go to Waukesha county, while 30,000 in Waukesha commute to the city of Milwaukee. The net-worker balance between Milwaukee city and Waukesha county is virtually equal.” The other way for an area to be part of a CBSA is as a commuter suburb. Some places attract very few outside workers, but provide a large number of employees for other towns. Muskego in Waukesha county is a good example. Eighty-five percent of its workers commute somewhere else, and the town’s population shrinks by about 30% during the workday.

Few workers commute from Milwaukee or Waukesha to Racine

Given this criteria, Racine County is in an odd situation. Like Waukesha, it has a principal city of its own. Reflecting this, about two-thirds of workers from Racine and Waukesha counties alike commute to work within their county of residence. This is much more than Washington or Ozaukee counties where just half of commuters work in their county of residence. Again like Waukesha county, Racine county does send more than a few workers to the Milwaukee metro. Seventeen percent go to Milwaukee county and 6 percent to Waukesha. But this relationship is not reciprocal. Just 1 percent of Milwaukee county workers commute to Racine, compared to 14 percent going to Waukesha. Waukesha sends 28 percent of its workers to Milwaukee but just 1 percent to Racine.

Racine County has a one-way commuter relationship with the Milwaukee metro area. The City of Racine is a commuter hub locally, but its pull does not reach far. Thirteen Milwaukee county workers commute west to Waukesha county for every 1 who travels south to Racine County.

Racine doesn’t do much better with its southern neighbor Kenosha county, either. Kenosha county is classified as part of the Chicago MSA. About 27 percent of its workers travel to Illinois compared to just 11 percent who work in Racine.

The boundaries of metropolitan statistical areas are intended to describe reality, not shape it. In the future, Racine’s economy may become intertwined with Milwaukee’s in the same way that Milwaukee and Waukesha have grown into a single economic unit. The Foxconn project could be the catalyst needed to make this shift (if it is ever completed). In the meantime, however, Racine remains a close cousin, if not a sibling member of the Milwaukee Metro.

graphs showing commute flows between counties in SE Wisconsin

Continue ReadingWhy isn’t Racine part of the Milwaukee Metropolitan Statistical Area?