Connect with us

Government

Johnson & Johnson’s Brand Value Continues to Tumble

Johnson & Johnson’s Brand Value Continues to Tumble

Published

on

Brand Value

Johnson & Johnson’s Brand Value Continues to Tumble but Tide Could Turn From COVID-19 Pandemic

Get Our Activist Investing Case Study!

Get the entire 10-part series on our in-depth study on activist investing in PDF. Save it to your desktop, read it on your tablet, or print it out to read anywhere! Sign up below!

Q1 2020 hedge fund letters, conferences and more

Brand Finance US 500 Ranking Revealed

  • 19 New Jersey brands feature in the newly released Brand Finance US 500 2020 ranking
  • New Jersey’s most valuable brand, Johnson and Johnson, continues to lose brand value, but could fare better from COVID-19
  • Utilities mainstay PSEG is the fastest growing brand in New Jersey, up 27%
  • New Jersey’s brands could lose $7 billion worth of brand value following COVID-19 pandemic

Get Our Activist Investing Case Study!

Get the entire 10-part series on our in-depth study on activist investing in PDF. Save it to your desktop, read it on your tablet, or print it out to read anywhere! Sign up below!

Q1 2020 hedge fund letters, conferences and more

In one of the most comprehensive studies of the brand landscape in the US market, Brand Finance, the world’s leading independent brand valuation consultancy, reveals New Jersey’s Johnson & Johnson as the most valuable brand in the state, valued at $10.9 billion, down 11% from the previous year. The consumer healthcare giant may have had a rockier performance over the last year, but it is poised to perform well out of the COVID-19 crisis.

J&J’s flagship Johnson’s brand is the strongest brand in the state with a Brand Strength Index (BSI) score of 85 out of 100. It’s easy to imagine that Johnson’s will quietly slip into a an even more necessary role in everyone’s lives, as the nation changes its hygiene practices.

Elsewhere in the ranking, utilities mainstay PSEG is the fastest growing brand in New Jersey, its brand value growing 27% to $2 billion. PSEG announced the ambitious goal of achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050. While this claim may be a dime a dozen in other industries, for a power supply company this is groundbreaking.

The total number of New Jersey brands in the ranking is down from 24 to 19 overall. The future of New Jersey brands is still uncertain, but it is likely that we will see big shifts and changes in the hierarchy, as we are able to take stock of the damage caused by COVID-19. From Brand Finance’s initial calculations, we are predicting that New Jersey’s brands may lose up to $7 billion in brand value.

Brand Value

America’s Top 500 Brands Could Lose up to $400 Billion from COVID-19 Pandemic

As the COVID-19 pandemic wreaks havoc on the global and national economy, America’s top 500 most valuable brands could lose up to 10% of brand value cumulatively, a drop of a staggering US$393 billion compared to the original valuation date of 1st January 2020, according to the latest Brand Finance US 500 2020 report.

Looking beyond the US, the value of the 500 most valuable brands in the world, ranked in the Brand Finance Global 500 2020 league table, could fall by an estimated US$1 trillion as a result of the Coronavirus outbreak.

Brand Finance has assessed the impact of COVID-19 based on the effect of the outbreak on enterprise value, compared to what it was on 1st January 2020. Based on this impact on enterprise value, Brand Finance estimated the likely impact on brand value for each sector. The industries have been classified into three categories – limited impact (minimal brand value loss or potential brand value growth), moderate impact (up to 10% brand value loss), and heavy impact (up to 20% brand value loss) – based on the level of brand value loss observed for each sector in the first quarter of 2020.

Brand Value

Amazon primed for growth as lockdown continues

Amazon remains a cut above the rest in the Brand Finance US 500 2020 ranking, breaking the so far unattainable US$200 billion brand value mark, following 18% growth from US$187.9 billion last year. Amazon’s brand value has now reached US$220.8 billion, substantially ahead of second-placed, Google, with a brand value of US$159.7 billion.

The world’s largest online marketplace, Amazon has also branched out into cloud computing, artificial intelligence, consumer electronics, digital streaming, logistics, and is looking to enter other industries. The majority of Amazon’s revenue still comes from its retail division, however, and despite growing challenges – particularly in its international operations – the brand is untouchable in the sector.

While most brands are experiencing or expecting a slump in revenue during the pandemic, Amazon is set for continued growth. As with fellow e-commerce brands, Amazon has been benefitting from the unprecedented surge in demand as consumers turn online following store closures. With over 100,000 workers hired and more in the pipeline, the brand is fighting to meet this demand. This spike has not come without its challenges, as Amazon’s logistics and supply chain network are being stretched to uncharted levels and the brand’s illustrious next day delivery service is being tested, with fulfilment and third-party vendors extending their lead times considerably. First time users of the platform may not be experiencing the world-leading level of speed that the brand prides itself on, which could jeopardize its long-term reputation.

Laurence Newell, Managing Director, Brand Finance Americas, commented:

“Amazon’s sheer dominance in the e-commerce space should stand them in good stead in the coming months as the world tackles the far-reaching repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic. Brand Finance has calculated that Amazon’s brand value could grow a further US$4 billion thanks to the spike in demand. Nevertheless, the world’s online marketplace must look beyond the coming months to ensure that quality and speed are not compromised should it wish to maintain its exceptional reputation and thus retain new users.”

Brand Value

Lockdown Boost For Media Brands

With a combined brand value of US$364.5 billion, media is the third most valuable sector in the ranking behind tech and retail, with many brands set for an extra boost from the lockdown.

The highest ranked media brand and the fifth most valuable US brand overall, Facebook (brand value down 4% to US$79.8 billion), has negotiated several high-profile reputational issues, most notoriously the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which resulted in a US$5 billion fine last year. The pandemic could, however, turn the tide on the tarnished brand, as people are forced to keep in touch with friends through social media and scroll down their feeds during the long lockdown days. Facebook has also been developing a symptom survey, which is hoped to reveal a lot about COVID-19 and contribute to research.

In contrast, Facebook-owned Instagram has enjoyed an explosion of growth, securing the fifth highest brand value increase among all US brands this year, up 58% to US$26.4 billion, and jumping up to 29th spot. With more than 1 billion active monthly users and a focus on new technology, like the latest Checkout feature that benefits both consumers and other brands, Instagram is catering to demand and staying relevant. The platform is successfully leveraging its position in the market as a genuine business tool – beyond its traditional influencer market – as more businesses move online during lockdown.

YouTube has also enjoyed a steady growth over the course of last year (up 17% to US$44.5 billion), climbing from 13th to 11th position. With 300 hours of video uploaded to YouTube every minute and 5 billion videos watched every day, the platform has only increased in popularity during COVID-19, becoming both an outlet for coronavirus-related news, as well as a source of entertainment as people around the world spend more time indoors.

In line with positive trends in brand value among other video streaming services, last year also saw Netflix enjoy an 8% boost in brand value to US$22.9 billion. Netflix has been a pioneering force in changing consumers’ viewing habits, taking over traditional television by providing a more appealing, flexible option in line with the modern fast-paced lifestyle. This success has only been spurred on by COVID-19, with the timely release of Tiger King raking in 34 million US viewers in the first 10 days alone.

Network television continues to lag behind online competitors, best exemplified by Fox being the fastest falling US brand this year, with a 47% decrease in brand value to US$8.4 billion, and dropping 39 positions on the ranking to 88th place. Around the country, similar challenges are faced by competitors who suffer at the hands of increasing demand for streaming services, for instance Discovery (down 32% to US$3.4 billion) and TBS (down 20% to US$2.3 billion).

In contrast, the shining star among traditional media brands, Disney (up 23% to US$56.1 billion) is no longer just children’s films or vacation spots – with the acquisition of 21st Century Fox, the company has secured its place as a leader in the industry. Disney has also put an emphasis on delivering direct-to-consumer experience. With the recent launch of Disney+, perfectly timed as Americans remain at home, the brand intends to take on Netflix and other emerging rivals such as HBO Max.

In addition to calculating overall brand value, Brand Finance also determines the relative strength of brands through a balanced scorecard of metrics evaluating marketing investment, stakeholder equity, and business performance. Alongside revenue forecasts, brand strength is a crucial driver of brand value. According to these criteria, Disney is also the strongest brand in the US with a Brand Strength Index (BSI) score of 93.9 out of 100 and a corresponding elite AAA+ brand strength rating.

Laurence Newell, Managing Director, Brand Finance Americas, commented:

“Consumers’ viewing habits have been transformed with the rise of streaming services. Under the current COVID-19 lockdown, it remains to be seen whether traditional television will be better positioned to compete with streaming services, or whether their brand values will continue on a downward trend for the rest of the year.”

Brand Value

Call For Help For Telecoms Brands

A call to the help desk may be in order for the telecoms industry, as the majority of brands – 7 out of 9 – saw their brand value decline last year, despite strong investments. Big telcos are being squeezed from all sides as OTT messaging apps like WhatsApp are impacting voice and SMS revenue, and challenger brands offer comparable data services at below-market rates, leading to fierce price competition and decreasing margins.

US giant AT&T is the fastest-falling large telecoms brand this year, down 32% to US$59.1 billion. The company diversified its entertainment portfolio over the last few years, culminating with the acquisition of WarnerMedia, part of a plan to move away from reliance on the traditional telco business and pay television, as both revenue streams have been drying up over the last years. The upcoming launch of HBO Max with WarnerMedia, which will compete with over-the-top (OTT) media brands like Netflix, should help propel the company forward.

For the first time since 2016, Verizon has overtaken AT&T as the nation’s and world’s most valuable telecoms brand, with a brand value of US$63.7 billion. In the battle of the American telco titans, Verizon is commended for its overall performance, network reliability, network speed, data performance, call and text performance.

The COVID-19 crisis poses both a stress test of network capabilities as well as an opportunity to regain a reputation for reliability and a closer, positive relationship with customers which many brands have lost. So far, we see telecoms brands as only being lightly affected by this crisis, but it remains to be seen brand by brand, who takes advantage of the opportunity and who falters.

Laurence Newell, Managing Director, Brand Finance Americas, commented:

“The telecoms industry is one of the few sectors of the economy avoiding direct negative impact of COVID-19. Moreover, telecoms brands have the opportunity to embrace the working from home revolution, which has led to extraordinary demand for remote working resources and connectivity. However, as the pandemic struck at a low point for the industry, the competition to make the most of the growing demand will be fierce.”

Make Or Break: Banking

America’s most valuable banking brand, Wells Fargo has had its share of reputational issues in recent years, and according to Brand Finance’s customer research, out of the 34 financial institutions covered in the US, Wells Fargo is ranked last in reputation. Despite this, Wells Fargo saw a moderate increase in brand value of 2%, with its rivals in retail banking such as Bank of America (down 4% to US$35.4 billion), Citi (down 9% to US$33 billion), and Chase (down 14% to US$31.3 billion) all declining in value year on year.

Laurence Newell, Managing Director, Brand Finance Americas, commented:

“The banking sector is no stranger to turbulent times and banks globally and at home are likely to face a difficult journey ahead, with a potential 20% brand value loss from COVID-19. Brand Finance has calculated that Wells Fargo stands to lose the most brand value, with up to US$8 billion at stake. Banks’ response and contingency plans will be critical in the coming months as the global economy faces unprecedented disruption.”

The most valuable new entrant from the banking sector is Truist, which was formed after the acquisition of SunTrust Bank by BB&T, forming the 8th largest bank in the US. The decision to go with a new name has come under criticism since the launch in early 2020. Before the rebranding, BB&T had the highest rated customer service score out of all American banks surveyed by Brand Finance, the 5th best reputation, and ranked 4th for consideration among those aware of the brand.

Another new entrant from the banking sector, Ally Financial’s brand value has more than tripled in 4 years. Its brand value growth has been supported by significant investment in marketing, including a series of creative and relevant campaigns which play homage to Ally’s disruptive brand vision. In the latest wave of Brand Finance’s customer research, Ally achieved the highest rate of association with innovation and with having excellent website & apps, compared to all other US retail banks in the study.

Long Haul Problems For Airlines

Prior to the coronavirus outbreak, Delta (down 9% to US$9.2 billion) held on to its position as the most valuable airlines brand in the world, with its drop in brand value attributed to scoring lower for customer familiarity, satisfaction, and preference than in previous years. All US airline brands, including American Airlines (down 7% to US$8.9 billion) and United Airlines (down 3% to US$8.2 billion), have dropped in brand value following lower market research ratings and in effect falling Brand Strength Index (BSI) scores. Predicted to drop by a further 20% in line with industry trends, aviation is an illustrative example of the effect COVID-19 can have on brand value.

Apparel Brands Under Threat

For the sixth consecutive year Nike has claimed the title of the world’s most valuable apparel brand and therefore continues to lead in the US, recording a 7% increase in brand value to US$34.8 billion, as of 1st January 2020. The sports giant has focused on implementing a pivotal distribution strategy move, drastically reducing the number of retailers selling its products, with the aim of regaining control of the brand customer relationship and improving profit margins. Nike will have to rely on its dominant position in the coming months as Brand Finance’s analysis has shown the brand is likely to be one of the most affected by COVID-19 with up to US$7 billion worth of brand value of stake.

Laurence Newell, Managing Director, Brand Finance Americas, commented:

“The COVID-19 pandemic is undoubtedly going to hit the apparel sector hard – Brand Finance has predicted that apparel brands, like airlines and hotels, could face up to a 20% drop in brand value. As these brands negotiate store and factory closures, broken supply chains, and a customer base that is facing unprecedented economic uncertainty, they will have to prepare for a tough journey ahead.”


About Brand Finance          

Brand Finance is the world’s leading independent brand valuation consultancy, with offices in over 20 countries. Brand Finance bridges the gap between marketing and finance by quantifying the financial value of brands.

Brand Finance helped craft the internationally recognized standard on Brand Valuation – ISO 10668, and the recently approved standard on Brand Evaluation – ISO 20671.

Brand Finance is a chartered accountancy firm regulated by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW), and also the first brand valuation consultancy to join the International Valuation Standards Council (IVSC).

Brand Finance’s brand value rankings have been certified by the Marketing Accountability Standards Board (MASB) through the Marketing Metric Audit Protocol (MMAP), the formal process for validating the relationship between marketing measurement and financial performance.

Methodology

Brand Finance has assessed the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak based on the effect of the outbreak on enterprise value, compared to what it was on 1st January 2020. Based on this impact on enterprise value, Brand Finance estimated the likely impact on brand value for each sector. The industries have been classified into three categories – limited impact (0% brand value loss), moderate impact (up to 10% brand value loss), and heavy impact (up to 20% brand value loss) – based on the severity of enterprise value loss observed for the sector in the first quarter of 2020

Definition of Brand

Brand Finance helped to craft the internationally recognized standard on Brand Valuation – ISO 10668. It defines a brand as a marketing-related intangible asset including, but not limited to, names, terms, signs, symbols, logos, and designs, intended to identify goods, services or entities, creating distinctive images and associations in the minds of stakeholders, thereby generating economic benefits.

Brand Strength

Brand strength is the efficacy of a brand’s performance on intangible measures, relative to its competitors. In order to determine the strength of a brand, we look at Marketing Investment, Stakeholder Equity, and the impact of those on Business Performance.

Each brand is assigned a Brand Strength Index (BSI) score out of 100, which feeds into the brand value calculation. Based on the score, each brand is assigned a corresponding Brand Rating up to AAA+ in a format similar to a credit rating.

Brand Valuation Approach

Brand Finance calculates the values of the brands in its league tables using the Royalty Relief approach – a brand valuation method compliant with the industry standards set in ISO 10668. It involves estimating the likely future revenues that are attributable to a brand by calculating a royalty rate that would be charged for its use, to arrive at a ‘brand value’ understood as a net economic benefit that a brand owner would achieve by licensing the brand in the open market.

The steps in this process are as follows:

  1. Calculate brand strength using a balanced scorecard of metrics assessing Marketing Investment, Stakeholder Equity and Business Performance. Brand strength is expressed as a Brand Strength Index (BSI) score on a scale of 0 to 100.
  2. Determine royalty range for each industry, reflecting the importance of brand to purchasing decisions. In luxury, the maximum percentage is high, in extractive industry, where goods are often commoditized, it is lower. This is done by reviewing comparable licensing agreements sourced from Brand Finance’s extensive database.
  3. Calculate royalty rate. The BSI score is applied to the royalty range to arrive at a royalty rate. For example, if the royalty range in a sector is 0-5% and a brand has a BSI score of 80 out of 100, then an appropriate royalty rate for the use of this brand in the given sector will be 4%.
  4. Determine brand-specific revenues by estimating a proportion of parent company revenues attributable to a brand.
  5. Determine forecast revenues using a function of historic revenues, equity analyst forecasts, and economic growth rates.
  6. Apply the royalty rate to the forecast revenues to derive brand revenues.
  7. Brand revenues are discounted post-tax to a net present value which equals the brand value.

The post Johnson & Johnson’s Brand Value Continues to Tumble appeared first on ValueWalk.

Read More

Continue Reading

International

President Biden Delivers The “Darkest, Most Un-American Speech Given By A President”

President Biden Delivers The "Darkest, Most Un-American Speech Given By A President"

Having successfully raged, ranted, lied, and yelled through…

Published

on

President Biden Delivers The "Darkest, Most Un-American Speech Given By A President"

Having successfully raged, ranted, lied, and yelled through the State of The Union, President Biden can go back to his crypt now.

Whatever 'they' gave Biden, every American man, woman, and the other should be allowed to take it - though it seems the cocktail brings out 'dark Brandon'?

Tl;dw: Biden's Speech tonight ...

  • Fund Ukraine.

  • Trump is threat to democracy and America itself.

  • Abortion is good.

  • American Economy is stronger than ever.

  • Inflation wasn't Biden's fault.

  • Illegals are Americans too.

  • Republicans are responsible for the border crisis.

  • Trump is bad.

  • Biden stands with trans-children.

  • J6 was the worst insurrection since the Civil War.

(h/t @TCDMS99)

Tucker Carlson's response sums it all up perfectly:

"that was possibly the darkest, most un-American speech given by an American president. It wasn't a speech, it was a rant..."

Carlson continued: "The true measure of a nation's greatness lies within its capacity to control borders, yet Bid refuses to do it."

"In a fair election, Joe Biden cannot win"

And concluded:

“There was not a meaningful word for the entire duration about the things that actually matter to people who live here.”

Victor Davis Hanson added some excellent color, but this was probably the best line on Biden:

"he doesn't care... he lives in an alternative reality."

*  *  *

Watch SOTU Live here...

*   *   *

Mises' Connor O'Keeffe, warns: "Be on the Lookout for These Lies in Biden's State of the Union Address." 

On Thursday evening, President Joe Biden is set to give his third State of the Union address. The political press has been buzzing with speculation over what the president will say. That speculation, however, is focused more on how Biden will perform, and which issues he will prioritize. Much of the speech is expected to be familiar.

The story Biden will tell about what he has done as president and where the country finds itself as a result will be the same dishonest story he's been telling since at least the summer.

He'll cite government statistics to say the economy is growing, unemployment is low, and inflation is down.

Something that has been frustrating Biden, his team, and his allies in the media is that the American people do not feel as economically well off as the official data says they are. Despite what the White House and establishment-friendly journalists say, the problem lies with the data, not the American people's ability to perceive their own well-being.

As I wrote back in January, the reason for the discrepancy is the lack of distinction made between private economic activity and government spending in the most frequently cited economic indicators. There is an important difference between the two:

  • Government, unlike any other entity in the economy, can simply take money and resources from others to spend on things and hire people. Whether or not the spending brings people value is irrelevant

  • It's the private sector that's responsible for producing goods and services that actually meet people's needs and wants. So, the private components of the economy have the most significant effect on people's economic well-being.

Recently, government spending and hiring has accounted for a larger than normal share of both economic activity and employment. This means the government is propping up these traditional measures, making the economy appear better than it actually is. Also, many of the jobs Biden and his allies take credit for creating will quickly go away once it becomes clear that consumers don't actually want whatever the government encouraged these companies to produce.

On top of all that, the administration is dealing with the consequences of their chosen inflation rhetoric.

Since its peak in the summer of 2022, the president's team has talked about inflation "coming back down," which can easily give the impression that it's prices that will eventually come back down.

But that's not what that phrase means. It would be more honest to say that price increases are slowing down.

Americans are finally waking up to the fact that the cost of living will not return to prepandemic levels, and they're not happy about it.

The president has made some clumsy attempts at damage control, such as a Super Bowl Sunday video attacking food companies for "shrinkflation"—selling smaller portions at the same price instead of simply raising prices.

In his speech Thursday, Biden is expected to play up his desire to crack down on the "corporate greed" he's blaming for high prices.

In the name of "bringing down costs for Americans," the administration wants to implement targeted price ceilings - something anyone who has taken even a single economics class could tell you does more harm than good. Biden would never place the blame for the dramatic price increases we've experienced during his term where it actually belongs—on all the government spending that he and President Donald Trump oversaw during the pandemic, funded by the creation of $6 trillion out of thin air - because that kind of spending is precisely what he hopes to kick back up in a second term.

If reelected, the president wants to "revive" parts of his so-called Build Back Better agenda, which he tried and failed to pass in his first year. That would bring a significant expansion of domestic spending. And Biden remains committed to the idea that Americans must be forced to continue funding the war in Ukraine. That's another topic Biden is expected to highlight in the State of the Union, likely accompanied by the lie that Ukraine spending is good for the American economy. It isn't.

It's not possible to predict all the ways President Biden will exaggerate, mislead, and outright lie in his speech on Thursday. But we can be sure of two things. The "state of the Union" is not as strong as Biden will say it is. And his policy ambitions risk making it much worse.

*  *  *

The American people will be tuning in on their smartphones, laptops, and televisions on Thursday evening to see if 'sloppy joe' 81-year-old President Joe Biden can coherently put together more than two sentences (even with a teleprompter) as he gives his third State of the Union in front of a divided Congress. 

President Biden will speak on various topics to convince voters why he shouldn't be sent to a retirement home.

According to CNN sources, here are some of the topics Biden will discuss tonight:

  • Economic issues: Biden and his team have been drafting a speech heavy on economic populism, aides said, with calls for higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy – an attempt to draw a sharp contrast with Republicans and their likely presidential nominee, Donald Trump.

  • Health care expenses: Biden will also push for lowering health care costs and discuss his efforts to go after drug manufacturers to lower the cost of prescription medications — all issues his advisers believe can help buoy what have been sagging economic approval ratings.

  • Israel's war with Hamas: Also looming large over Biden's primetime address is the ongoing Israel-Hamas war, which has consumed much of the president's time and attention over the past few months. The president's top national security advisers have been working around the clock to try to finalize a ceasefire-hostages release deal by Ramadan, the Muslim holy month that begins next week.

  • An argument for reelection: Aides view Thursday's speech as a critical opportunity for the president to tout his accomplishments in office and lay out his plans for another four years in the nation's top job. Even though viewership has declined over the years, the yearly speech reliably draws tens of millions of households.

Sources provided more color on Biden's SOTU address: 

The speech is expected to be heavy on economic populism. The president will talk about raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy. He'll highlight efforts to cut costs for the American people, including pushing Congress to help make prescription drugs more affordable.

Biden will talk about the need to preserve democracy and freedom, a cornerstone of his re-election bid. That includes protecting and bolstering reproductive rights, an issue Democrats believe will energize voters in November. Biden is also expected to promote his unity agenda, a key feature of each of his addresses to Congress while in office.

Biden is also expected to give remarks on border security while the invasion of illegals has become one of the most heated topics among American voters. A majority of voters are frustrated with radical progressives in the White House facilitating the illegal migrant invasion. 

It is probable that the president will attribute the failure of the Senate border bill to the Republicans, a claim many voters view as unfounded. This is because the White House has the option to issue an executive order to restore border security, yet opts not to do so

Maybe this is why? 

While Biden addresses the nation, the Biden administration will be armed with a social media team to pump propaganda to at least 100 million Americans. 

"The White House hosted about 70 creators, digital publishers, and influencers across three separate events" on Wednesday and Thursday, a White House official told CNN. 

Not a very capable social media team... 

The administration's move to ramp up social media operations comes as users on X are mostly free from government censorship with Elon Musk at the helm. This infuriates Democrats, who can no longer censor their political enemies on X. 

Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers tell Axios that the president's SOTU performance will be critical as he tries to dispel voter concerns about his elderly age. The address reached as many as 27 million people in 2023. 

"We are all nervous," said one House Democrat, citing concerns about the president's "ability to speak without blowing things."

The SOTU address comes as Biden's polling data is in the dumps

BetOnline has created several money-making opportunities for gamblers tonight, such as betting on what word Biden mentions the most. 

As well as...

We will update you when Tucker Carlson's live feed of SOTU is published. 

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/08/2024 - 07:44

Read More

Continue Reading

International

What is intersectionality and why does it make feminism more effective?

The social categories that we belong to shape our understanding of the world in different ways.

Published

on

Mary Long/Shutterstock

The way we talk about society and the people and structures in it is constantly changing. One term you may come across this International Women’s Day is “intersectionality”. And specifically, the concept of “intersectional feminism”.

Intersectionality refers to the fact that everyone is part of multiple social categories. These include gender, social class, sexuality, (dis)ability and racialisation (when people are divided into “racial” groups often based on skin colour or features).

These categories are not independent of each other, they intersect. This looks different for every person. For example, a black woman without a disability will have a different experience of society than a white woman without a disability – or a black woman with a disability.

An intersectional approach makes social policy more inclusive and just. Its value was evident in research during the pandemic, when it became clear that women from various groups, those who worked in caring jobs and who lived in crowded circumstances were much more likely to die from COVID.

A long-fought battle

American civil rights leader and scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw first introduced the term intersectionality in a 1989 paper. She argued that focusing on a single form of oppression (such as gender or race) perpetuated discrimination against black women, who are simultaneously subjected to both racism and sexism.

Crenshaw gave a name to ways of thinking and theorising that black and Latina feminists, as well as working-class and lesbian feminists, had argued for decades. The Combahee River Collective of black lesbians was groundbreaking in this work.

They called for strategic alliances with black men to oppose racism, white women to oppose sexism and lesbians to oppose homophobia. This was an example of how an intersectional understanding of identity and social power relations can create more opportunities for action.

These ideas have, through political struggle, come to be accepted in feminist thinking and women’s studies scholarship. An increasing number of feminists now use the term “intersectional feminism”.

The term has moved from academia to feminist activist and social justice circles and beyond in recent years. Its popularity and widespread use means it is subjected to much scrutiny and debate about how and when it should be employed. For example, some argue that it should always include attention to racism and racialisation.

Recognising more issues makes feminism more effective

In writing about intersectionality, Crenshaw argued that singular approaches to social categories made black women’s oppression invisible. Many black feminists have pointed out that white feminists frequently overlook how racial categories shape different women’s experiences.

One example is hair discrimination. It is only in the 2020s that many organisations in South Africa, the UK and US have recognised that it is discriminatory to regulate black women’s hairstyles in ways that render their natural hair unacceptable.

This is an intersectional approach. White women and most black men do not face the same discrimination and pressures to straighten their hair.

View from behind of a young, black woman speaking to female colleagues in an office
Intersectionality can lead to more inclusive organisations, activism and social movements. Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock

“Abortion on demand” in the 1970s and 1980s in the UK and USA took no account of the fact that black women in these and many other countries needed to campaign against being given abortions against their will. The fight for reproductive justice does not look the same for all women.

Similarly, the experiences of working-class women have frequently been rendered invisible in white, middle class feminist campaigns and writings. Intersectionality means that these issues are recognised and fought for in an inclusive and more powerful way.

In the 35 years since Crenshaw coined the term, feminist scholars have analysed how women are positioned in society, for example, as black, working-class, lesbian or colonial subjects. Intersectionality reminds us that fruitful discussions about discrimination and justice must acknowledge how these different categories affect each other and their associated power relations.

This does not mean that research and policy cannot focus predominantly on one social category, such as race, gender or social class. But it does mean that we cannot, and should not, understand those categories in isolation of each other.

Ann Phoenix does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Biden defends immigration policy during State of the Union, blaming Republicans in Congress for refusing to act

A rising number of Americans say that immigration is the country’s biggest problem. Biden called for Congress to pass a bipartisan border and immigration…

Published

on

By

President Joe Biden delivers his State of the Union address on March 7, 2024. Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images

President Joe Biden delivered the annual State of the Union address on March 7, 2024, casting a wide net on a range of major themes – the economy, abortion rights, threats to democracy, the wars in Gaza and Ukraine – that are preoccupying many Americans heading into the November presidential election.

The president also addressed massive increases in immigration at the southern border and the political battle in Congress over how to manage it. “We can fight about the border, or we can fix it. I’m ready to fix it,” Biden said.

But while Biden stressed that he wants to overcome political division and take action on immigration and the border, he cautioned that he will not “demonize immigrants,” as he said his predecessor, former President Donald Trump, does.

“I will not separate families. I will not ban people from America because of their faith,” Biden said.

Biden’s speech comes as a rising number of American voters say that immigration is the country’s biggest problem.

Immigration law scholar Jean Lantz Reisz answers four questions about why immigration has become a top issue for Americans, and the limits of presidential power when it comes to immigration and border security.

President Joe Biden stands surrounded by people in formal clothing and smiles. One man holds a cell phone camera close up to his face.
President Joe Biden arrives to deliver the State of the Union address at the US Capitol on March 7, 2024. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

1. What is driving all of the attention and concern immigration is receiving?

The unprecedented number of undocumented migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border right now has drawn national concern to the U.S. immigration system and the president’s enforcement policies at the border.

Border security has always been part of the immigration debate about how to stop unlawful immigration.

But in this election, the immigration debate is also fueled by images of large groups of migrants crossing a river and crawling through barbed wire fences. There is also news of standoffs between Texas law enforcement and U.S. Border Patrol agents and cities like New York and Chicago struggling to handle the influx of arriving migrants.

Republicans blame Biden for not taking action on what they say is an “invasion” at the U.S. border. Democrats blame Republicans for refusing to pass laws that would give the president the power to stop the flow of migration at the border.

2. Are Biden’s immigration policies effective?

Confusion about immigration laws may be the reason people believe that Biden is not implementing effective policies at the border.

The U.S. passed a law in 1952 that gives any person arriving at the border or inside the U.S. the right to apply for asylum and the right to legally stay in the country, even if that person crossed the border illegally. That law has not changed.

Courts struck down many of former President Donald Trump’s policies that tried to limit immigration. Trump was able to lawfully deport migrants at the border without processing their asylum claims during the COVID-19 pandemic under a public health law called Title 42. Biden continued that policy until the legal justification for Title 42 – meaning the public health emergency – ended in 2023.

Republicans falsely attribute the surge in undocumented migration to the U.S. over the past three years to something they call Biden’s “open border” policy. There is no such policy.

Multiple factors are driving increased migration to the U.S.

More people are leaving dangerous or difficult situations in their countries, and some people have waited to migrate until after the COVID-19 pandemic ended. People who smuggle migrants are also spreading misinformation to migrants about the ability to enter and stay in the U.S.

Joe Biden wears a black blazer and a black hat as he stands next to a bald white man wearing a green uniform and a white truck that says 'Border Patrol' in green
President Joe Biden walks with Jason Owens, the chief of the U.S. Border Patrol, as he visits the U.S.-Mexico border in Brownsville, Texas, on Feb. 29, 2024. Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images

3. How much power does the president have over immigration?

The president’s power regarding immigration is limited to enforcing existing immigration laws. But the president has broad authority over how to enforce those laws.

For example, the president can place every single immigrant unlawfully present in the U.S. in deportation proceedings. Because there is not enough money or employees at federal agencies and courts to accomplish that, the president will usually choose to prioritize the deportation of certain immigrants, like those who have committed serious and violent crimes in the U.S.

The federal agency Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported more than 142,000 immigrants from October 2022 through September 2023, double the number of people it deported the previous fiscal year.

But under current law, the president does not have the power to summarily expel migrants who say they are afraid of returning to their country. The law requires the president to process their claims for asylum.

Biden’s ability to enforce immigration law also depends on a budget approved by Congress. Without congressional approval, the president cannot spend money to build a wall, increase immigration detention facilities’ capacity or send more Border Patrol agents to process undocumented migrants entering the country.

A large group of people are seen sitting and standing along a tall brown fence in an empty area of brown dirt.
Migrants arrive at the border between El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, to surrender to American Border Patrol agents on March 5, 2024. Lokman Vural Elibol/Anadolu via Getty Images

4. How could Biden address the current immigration problems in this country?

In early 2024, Republicans in the Senate refused to pass a bill – developed by a bipartisan team of legislators – that would have made it harder to get asylum and given Biden the power to stop taking asylum applications when migrant crossings reached a certain number.

During his speech, Biden called this bill the “toughest set of border security reforms we’ve ever seen in this country.”

That bill would have also provided more federal money to help immigration agencies and courts quickly review more asylum claims and expedite the asylum process, which remains backlogged with millions of cases, Biden said. Biden said the bipartisan deal would also hire 1,500 more border security agents and officers, as well as 4,300 more asylum officers.

Removing this backlog in immigration courts could mean that some undocumented migrants, who now might wait six to eight years for an asylum hearing, would instead only wait six weeks, Biden said. That means it would be “highly unlikely” migrants would pay a large amount to be smuggled into the country, only to be “kicked out quickly,” Biden said.

“My Republican friends, you owe it to the American people to get this bill done. We need to act,” Biden said.

Biden’s remarks calling for Congress to pass the bill drew jeers from some in the audience. Biden quickly responded, saying that it was a bipartisan effort: “What are you against?” he asked.

Biden is now considering using section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to get more control over immigration. This sweeping law allows the president to temporarily suspend or restrict the entry of all foreigners if their arrival is detrimental to the U.S.

This obscure law gained attention when Trump used it in January 2017 to implement a travel ban on foreigners from mainly Muslim countries. The Supreme Court upheld the travel ban in 2018.

Trump again also signed an executive order in April 2020 that blocked foreigners who were seeking lawful permanent residency from entering the country for 60 days, citing this same section of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Biden did not mention any possible use of section 212(f) during his State of the Union speech. If the president uses this, it would likely be challenged in court. It is not clear that 212(f) would apply to people already in the U.S., and it conflicts with existing asylum law that gives people within the U.S. the right to seek asylum.

Jean Lantz Reisz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending