Rebecca J. Rosen
Rebecca J. Rosen
Rebecca J. Rosen is a senior editor at The Atlantic, where she oversees the Business Channel. She was previously an associate editor at The Wilson Quarterly.
  • Stephen Lam / Reuters / Zak Bickel / ...

    How Will the American Workforce Change?

    Experts on race, gender, and labor offer their reasons for optimism and pessimism going into 2016.

  • Lucy Nicholson / Reuters / Zak Bickel / ...

    What Would It Take for the Economy to Be More Fair?

    Experts on business, labor, and corporate governance offer their reasons for optimism and pessimism going into 2016.

  • Max Whittaker / Reuters / Zak Bickel / ...

    Will Inequality Ever Stop Growing?

    Experts on the economy and the labor market offer their reasons for optimism and pessimism going into 2016.

  • Lucy Nicholson / Reuters / Zak Bickel / ...

    Can the Planet Be Saved?

    Experts on ecology, conservation, and climate change offer their reasons for optimism and pessimism going into 2016.

  • Paul Hackett / Reuters

    The Christmas Dilemma: How Much of a Kid’s Wishlist Should Parents Oblige?

    A conversation with the sociologist Allison Pugh, who studies why children want what they want and how moms and dads navigate those desires

  • Mike Blake / Reuters

    The Fundamental Misalignment of Work and Life

    School ends at 3 and the workday ends at 6. Discuss.

  • Mike Segar / Reuters

    Why Affluent Parents Put So Much Pressure on Their Kids

    For the most successful Americans, prosperity feels fragile.

  • David McNew / Reuters

    Money-Rich and Time-Poor: Life in Two-Income Households

    For families without a stay-at-home parent, there just aren’t enough hours in the day.

  • Yannis Behrakis / Reuters

    The Humane Way That U.S. Courts Treat Corporations

    A legal strategy designed to provide people with second chances is instead being used to protect businesses.

  • Eric Thayer / Reuters

    Paul Ryan Wants to Protect His Family Time

    Good luck to him—elite workers rarely succeed at fencing off space for their personal lives.

  • Anne-Marie Slaughter's Unfinished Business

    The author discusses her new book on work and family, and how her views have changed since writing "Why Women Still Can’t Have It All."

  • The Atlantic

    The Evolution of Anne-Marie Slaughter

    In her book, the writer and scholar addresses and learns from some of the critics of her blockbuster Atlantic article.

  • Mike Blake / Reuters

    Can There Be a Less Materialist American Dream?

    The scholar and cultural critic Juliet Schor argues that the once-niche opposition to hyper-consumerism is becoming more mainstream.

  • Are You a Feminist? Cont'd

    Sophie writes forcefully of the “long list of female celebrities who’ve declined to identify themselves as feminists out of an assumption that the word implies widespread rejection or dislike of men.” She laments, as do I, that many people embrace the ideas of feminism but nevertheless recoil at the label:

    Because whatever the history, whatever the nuances, whatever the charged sentiments associated with political activism, being a feminist is very simple: It means believing that women are and should be equal to men in matters political, social, and economic. They should be able to vote. They should have equal protection under the law and equal access to healthcare and education. They should be paid as much as their male counterparts are for doing exactly the same job. Do you believe in these things? Then, you are a feminist.

    These seem like the kinds of things that women are likely to support. They also seem like the kinds of things that men are likely to support.

    And I’d like to know when men do. It’s a shame that famous men (not only entertainers, but CEOs and politicians too) are so rarely asked whether they are feminists.

  • How to Avoid Fighting at Ikea

    Ikea fights are practically a promised part of any Ikea excursion: winding corridors of ersatz living rooms, Swedish meatballs, and discord. That’s just how it works.

    As Corinne Purtill wrote in a piece we ran this week:

    The showroom is also where troubling questions of taste arise. In an environment where choosing a coffee table is marketed as an expression of identity, it’s easy to project deeper meaning onto a partner’s opinion. If I like the Lack and you like the Klingsbo, do we want the same kind of home? Do we want the same kind of life? Who are you, really?

    Anybody with the slightest bit of remove from this environment can tell that this is ridiculous. But the problem is that for those couples, trapped in that Ikea maze, they have no remove.

    Which is why when my husband and I go to Ikea, we observe a strict rule: snack breaks at the cafe every 90 minutes. There, away from all the Hemnes and Pax and Poäng, we can have a nice, sane conversation about the task before us. As he puts it, “It’s like a casino. Everywhere you want to go, you have to take a weird path past higher-profit stuff. It’s hard to have a level-headed discussion in such a stimulating environment.”

    He adds, “Plus, yum: almond cake.”

  • A Perfect Little Detail

    In a piece we ran this past week about a factory closing in northwestern Illinois, there was a wonderful little detail that risks getting lost in the bigger story, so I thought I’d call some attention to it in Notes: The CEO of the private-equity firm responsible for the closure hosted the fundraiser where Mitt Romney made his crass 47-percent remark in the 2012 election cycle.

    As our writer Chad Broughton tells it:

    The events that led to the [factory’s] shuttering began in 2014, when Schneider Electric, a French multinational, bought Invensys, the company that owned the Hanover factory.

  • The 'Too Good' Life

    In an interview with Politico earlier this week, the Senate majority leader made his views on America’s labor market plain:

    Asked about the improving economy, McConnell scoffed: Business leaders tell him they have “a hard time finding people to do the work because they’re doing too good with food stamps, Social Security and all the rest.”

    For those who believe this description of American poverty, I would heartily recommend the new book, $2.00 a Day, by Kathryn J. Edin and H. Luke Shaefer, which we excerpted recently here on The Atlantic. In the excerpt, Edin and Shaefer tell of how poor people resort to selling their plasma (not a pleasant process) in order to stay afloat week to week. Would people be selling their plasma if they were doing “too good” with their public benefits?

    What Edin and Shaefer’s book demonstrates is that for people who don’t have work in America, the safety net is practically non-existent.

  • Ken Lund / Flickr

    A Study of the 1.5 Million American Households With Practically No Income at All

    And why they aren’t getting much in the way of government assistance

  • Chewie Pug / Flickr

    Unions 30 Years Ago Are Somehow Making People Richer Today

    People whose parents were in the labor movement decades ago are earning more today than those whose parents were not. Why?

  • A Charming Parenthetical

    Academic writing gets a bad rap, but occasionally there are moments of real charm, such as this droll parenthetical I came across while working on my recent piece about how economists throughout history have understood technological unemployment:

    Karl Marx, from a rather different perspective [than John Stuart Mill], also argued that technological unemployment was a serious problem in the short run, in the broader context of the immiseration of workers under a capitalist system. But for Marx as well, technological improvement was part of a social and political process that would lead eventually to widespread prosperity. (Of course, the Marxist vision of progress also eventually required a wholesale overthrow of the existing capitalist economic system.)

    Of course.

    (Source: “The History of Technological Anxiety and the Future of Economic Growth: Is This Time Different?” by Joel Mokyr, Chris Vickers, and Nicolas L. Ziebarth in Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 29, No. 3.)