"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes
me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations
have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow,
and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by
working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated
in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
-- Abraham Lincoln
Isn’t inequality merely the price of America being No. 1?
... That’s almost certainly false... Prior to about 20 years ago, most economists
thought that inequality greased the wheels of progress.
Wealth
Inequality in America Overwhelmingly now, people who study it empirically
think that it’s sand in the wheels. ... Inequality breeds conflict,
and conflict breeds wasted resources”
Imagine if the people of the Soviet Union had never heard of communism. The
ideology that dominates our lives has, for most of us, no name. Mention it in
conversation and you'll be rewarded with a shrug. Even if your listeners have
heard the term before, they will struggle to define it. Neoliberalism: do you
know what it is?
Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of its power. It has played a major
role in a remarkable variety of crises: the financial meltdown of 2007‑8, the offshoring
of wealth and power, of which the
Panama
Papers offer us merely a glimpse, the slow collapse of public health and education,
resurgent child poverty,
the epidemic of loneliness , the collapse of ecosystems, rejection of the current
neoliberal elite by majority of American people and the rise of candidates like
Donald Trump . But we respond to these developments as if they emerge in isolation,
apparently unaware that they have all been either catalyzed or exacerbated by the
same coherent philosophy; a philosophy that has – or had – a name. What greater
power can there be than to operate namelessly?
One of the key property of
neoliberalism is that it recasts inequality as virtuous. The market ensures that
everyone gets what they deserve. If you deserve to die, so be it. Of cause that
does not apply to the financial oligarchy which is above the law and remains unpunished
even for very serious crimes. This fate is reserved for bottom 99% of population.
Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations, In other words
neoliberal economic model uses "unable to compete in the labor market" label for poor
people in the same way Nazi used concept of
Untermensch
for Slavic people.
That also mean that for those outside top 20% of population the destiny is brutal exploitation not
that different then in slave societies. It victimizes and artfully creates complex
of inferiority among poor people trying to brainwash that they themselves are
guilty in their status and that their children do not deserve better. This is why
subsidies for colleges are cut. Unfortunately now even lower middle class is coming
under tremendous pressure and essentially is moved into poverty. Disappearance of
well-paid middle class "white collar" jobs such as IT jobs and recently oil sector
jobs and conversion of many jobs to temp or to outsourcing/off-shoring model
is a fact that can't be denied. Rise in inequality in the USA for that last twenty
years of neoliberalism domination is simply dramatic and medial income per family
actually dropped.
Everything is moving in the direction of a pretty brutal joke: poor
Americans just got a new slave-owners. And now slaves are not distinguished by the color of
their skin.
The economic status of Wal Mart employees (as well as employees of
many other retailers, who are predominantly women) are not that different from slaves. In "rich" states like
NY and NJ Wal-Mart cashiers are paid around $9 an hour. That's around $18K a year if you can get
40hours a week (big if), You can't survive on those money
living alone and renting an apartment. Two people might be able to survive if they share the
apartment costs. And forget about that if you have a child (aka "single mothers" as a
new face of the US poverty). You can survive
only with additional social programs like food stamps. In other words the federal
state subsidizes Wal-Mart, increasing their revenue at taxpayers expense.
Piketty thinks a rentier society (which is another definition of neoliberal society)
contradicts the meritocratic worldview of democratic societies and is toxic for
democracy as it enforces "one dollar one vote" election process (corporation buy
politicians; ordinary people just legitimize with their votes pre-selected by elite
candidates, see
Two Party
System as Polyarchy):
“…no ineluctable force standing in the way to extreme concentration
of wealth…if growth slows and the return on capital increases [as] tax competition
between nations heats up…Our democratic societies rest on a meritocratic worldview,
or at any rate, a meritocratic hope, by which I mean a belief in a society
in which inequality is based more on merit and effort than on kinship and rents.
This belief and hope play a very crucial role in modern society, for a simple
reason: in a democracy the professed equality of rights of all citizens contrasts
sharply with the very real inequality of living conditions, and in order to
overcome this contradiction it is vital to make sure that social inequalities
derive from ration and universal principles rather than arbitrary contingencies.
Inequalities must therefore be just and useful to all, at least in the realm
of discourse and as far as possible in reality as well…Durkheim predicted that
modern democratic society would not put for long with the existence of inherited
wealth and would ultimately see to it that the ownership of property ended at
death.” p. 422
A neo-liberal point discussed in Raymond Plant's book on neo-liberalism is that
if a fortune has been made through no injustice, then it is OK. So we should not
condemn the resulting distribution of wealth, as fantastically concentrated as it
may be. That that's not true, as such cases always involve some level of injustice,
if only by exploiting some loophole in the current laws. Piketty is correct that
to the extent that citizens understood the nature of a rentier society they would
rise in opposition to it. The astronomical pay of "super-managers" cannot be justified
in meritocratic terms. CEO's can capture boards and force their incentive to grow
faster then company profits. Manipulations with shares buyback are used to
meet "targets". So neoliberal extreme is definitely bad.
At the same time we now know the equality if not achievable and communism was
a pipe dream that actually inflicted cruelty on a lot of people in the name of unachievable
utopia. But does this means that inequality, any level of inequality, is OK. It
does not look this way and we can actually argue that extremes meet.
But collapse of the USSR lead to triumph of neoliberalism which is all about
rising inequality. Under neoliberalism the wealthy and their academic servants,
see inequality as a noble outcome. They want to further enrich top 1%, shrink middle
class making it less secure, and impoverish poor. In other words they promote under
the disguise of "free market" Newspeak a type of economy which can be called a
plantation economy. In this type of the economy all the resources and power
are in the hands of a wealthy planter class who then gives preference for easy jobs
and the easy life to their loyal toadies. The wealthy elites like cheap labor. And
it's much easier to dictate their conditions of employment when unemployment is
high. Keynesian economics values the middle class and does not value unemployment
or cheap labor. Neoliberals like a system that rewards them for their loyalty to
the top 1% with an easier life than they otherwise merit. In a meritocracy where
individuals receive public goods and services that allow them to compete on a level
playing field, many neoliberal toadies would be losers who cannot compete.
In a 2005 report to investors three analysts at Citigroup advised that “the
World is dividing into two blocs—the Plutonomy and the rest … In a plutonomy
there is no such animal as “the U.S. consumer” or “the UK consumer", or indeed the
“Russian consumer”.
In other words there are analysts that believe that we are moving to a replay
of Middle Ages on a new, global level, were there are only rich who do the lion
share of the total consumption and poor, who does not matter.
We can also state, that under neoliberal regime the sources
of American economic inequality are largely political. In other words they are the
result of deliberate political decision of the US elite to shape markets in neoliberal
ways, and dismantle New Deal.
Part of this "shaping the markets in neoliberal ways" was corruption of academic
economists. Under neoliberalism most economists are engaged in what John Kenneth
Galbraith called "the economics of innocent fraud." With the important correction
that there is nothing innocent in their activities. Most of them, especially "neoclassical"
economists are prostitutes for financial oligarchy. So their prescription and analysis
as for the reasons of high unemployment should be taken with due skepticism.
We also know that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That
means that existence of aristocracy might not be optimal for society "at large".
But without moderating influence of the existence of the USSR on appetites of the
US elite, they engage is audacious struggle for accumulation as much power and wealth
as possible. In a way that situation matches the situation in 1920th, which was
known to be toxic.
But society slowly but steadily moves in this direction since mid 80th. According
to the official wage statistics for 2012
http://www.ssa.gov , 40% of
the US work force earned less than $20,000, 53% earned less than $30,000, and 73%
earned less than $50,000. The median US wage or salary was $27,519 per year.
The amounts are in current dollars and they are "total" compensation amounts subject
to state and federal income taxes and to Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes.
In other words, the take home pay is less.
In other word the USA is now entered an inequality bubble, the bubble with the
financial oligarchy as new aristocracy, which strives for absolute control of all
layers of the government. The corruption has a systemic character. It take not only
traditional form of the intermarriage between Wall street and DC power brokers (aka
revolving doors). It also create a caste of guard labor to protect oligarchy.
Some researchers point out that neoliberal world is increasingly characterized
by a three-tiered social structure(net4dem.org):
The first tier is made up of some 30–40% of the population in core (G7)
countries and around 5-10% (the elite) in peripheral countries.
It is those who hold “tenured” employment in the global economy and are able
to maintain, and even expand, their consumption.
The second tier, some 30% in the core and 20–30% in the periphery,
form a growing army of “casualized” workers, who face chronic insecurity in
the conditions of their employment and the absence of any collective insurance
against risks. which previously were offloaded to the welfare state.
The third tier, some 30% of the population in the core capitalist countries,
and some 50% or more in peripheral countries, represents those structurally
excluded from productive activity and completely unprotected neither from
side effects of dismantling of welfare, nor from the cruelty of police state.
They represent the “superfluous” population of global capitalism (see,
inter alia, Hutton, 1995; Hoogvelt, 1997).
This process of stratification and fossilization of "haves" and "haves-not" is
now pretty much established in the USA. The US population can be partitioned into
five distinct classes, or strata:
Lower class (poor) bottom 20%. Those folks have income close to official
poverty line, which varies from state to state. In "expensive states" like NJ
and NY this category ranks much higher then national level, up to 40%. Official
figures from a Census Bureau that state that in 2010 twelve states had poverty
rates above 17%, up from five in 2009, while ten metropolitan areas had poverty
rates over 18%. Texas had the highest poverty rate, at 33.4%, followed by Fresno,
California, at 26.8%.
According to figures published by the Social Security
Administration in October 2011, the median income for American workers in 2010
was $26,364, just slightly above the official poverty level of $22,025
for a family of four. Most single parent families with children fall
into this category. Many single earner families belong to this category too.
The median income figure reflects the fact that salaries of 50% of all workers
are less then $26,364 and gives a much truer picture of the real social
conditions in the United States than the more widely publicized average income,
which was $39,959 in 2010. This figure is considerably higher than median
income because the distribution of income is so unequal—a relative handful of
ultra-high income individuals pulls up the average.
Liquid Asset Poverty Rate is around 43%. This is calculated as
a "percentage of households without sufficient liquid assets to subsist
at the poverty level for three months in the absence of income." In
2009 in USA it is around 43%. Edward Lambert (Economist's
View Video Eichengreen on Dollar Dominance) stated:
He touched upon the importance of liquidity in the financial markets...
but he didn't mention liquidity of households. There is very low household
consumption in China.
There is a liquidity problem in the US households. That affects credit.
and maybe household liquidity makes no difference to a currency being
a safe haven. Still, if liquidity of financial markets is so important,
it should also be important for households.
The liquid asset poverty
rate in the US was 43.1% in 2009. What could it be now considering that
the savings rate is back to below 4%?
"Liquid Asset Poverty Rate... Definition... Percentage of
households without sufficient liquid assets to subsist at the poverty
level for three months in the absence of income."
Lower middle class (60%). Depending on class model used, the middle
class may constitute anywhere from 25% to 66% of households. Typically includes
households with incomes above $46,326 (all households) or $67,348 (dual earners
households) per year. The latter is more realistic. In order for two earners
family to qualify each earner should get approximately $34K a year or more ($17
per hour wage with 40 hours workweek). Per household member income is around
$23.5K
The lower middle class... these are people in technical and lower-level
management positions who work for those in the upper middle class as lower
managers, craftspeople, and the like. They enjoy a reasonably comfortable
standard of living, although it is constantly threatened by taxes and inflation.
Generally, they have a Bachelor's and sometimes Masters college degree.
—Brian K. William, Stacy C. Sawyer and Carl M. Wahlstrom, Marriages,
Families & Intimate Relationships, 2006 (Adapted from Dennis Gilbert
1997; and Joseph Kahl 1993)[4]
Upper
middle class (top 20%). The includes households with incomes above 91K
per year.
Large percentage of those are educated two income families
(when both members of the household have bachelor degree or better). Most
graduates of Ivy League schools belongs to this category.
Important subgroup of upper middle class istop 10% (
millionaires). There was 3.4m millionaires in the USA in 2013, approximately
10% of population. Millionaire households constituted roughly seven
percent of all American households.Half of all millionaire households
in the US are headed by retirees.
There are 12 million people on the planet that had investible assets
of more than $1 million dollars. Collectively, this group controls $46.2
trillion dollars (2012). A quarter of them live in America (3.4m); followed
by almost a sixth in Japan (1.9m) and a twelfth in Germany (over 1m). China
and Great Britain round out the top 5.
Upper class (elite): top 1%. Annual comes (AGI) for this group
exceed $380K per year. Commonly called multimillionaires (net worth two
millions or more). In 2010 controlled at least 25% of total nation income (23.5%
in 2007, 8.9% in 1979) . Top 1% owns more than 90% of combined or 33.8% of
the nation private wealth.
Super rich (top 0.01%, oligarchs, super-elite, or top 1000 families).
A close to this category of super-rich are billionaires. US is home of 425
billionaires, while Russia and China have 95 and 96 correspondingly. The average
worth of the world's billionaires is now $3.5 billion, or $500 million more
than last year.(
Forbes)
To get to the top 400 (Forbes
400 list) in the USA you need 1.3 billion. Top 400 families have
as much wealth as lower half of the US population. The combined
net worth of the Forbes 400 wealthiest Americans in 2007: $1.5 trillion.
The combined net worth of the poorest 50% of American households: $1.6 trillion.
Real number of billionaires in the USA is probably much higher. Billionaires
want to keep a low profile for lots of reasons -- from personal safety concerns
to not wanting financial competitors to know what they're up to.
The youngest billionaire is the founder of the online social networking
site Facebook -- 25-year-old American Mark Zuckerberger, whose net worth
is estimated at $9 billion.
Share of consumption for families outside upper middle class (with income, say,
below $91K per year (80% of US households) is much less then commonly assumed. That
means that in the USA consumer spending are driven by upper class and as such
is pretty much isolated from decline of wages of lower 80% of population.
The median household income in the United States is around $50K.
Weiner's book is more than worth its price simply as an armchair tour of
interesting places and cultures and mores, deftly and briefly described. But
he has a more serious and important point to make. While the social cohesion
that the values of the clan promote is alluring, they are ultimately at odds
with the values of individual autonomy that only the much-maligned modern liberal
state can offer.
Even the state's modern defenders tend to view it, at best, as a necessary
evil. It keeps the peace, upholds (somewhat) international order, and manages
the complexity of modern life in ways that allow individuals to get on with
their journeys of personal fulfillment.
Weiner shows (in too brief but nevertheless eloquent ways) that this
reductive view of the state is insufficient to resist the seductive appeal of
the clan, and that it will be for the worse if we can't find ways to combat
this allure within the legal structures of modern liberalism.
Read alongside James Ault's masterful participant study of fundamentalist
Baptism, Spirit
and Flesh, and draw your own conclusions.
Of course the elite is worried about security of their ill-gotten gains. And
that's partially why the USA need such huge totally militarized police force and
outsize military. Police and military are typical guard labor, that protects private
wealth of the US plutocrats. Add to this equally strong private army of security
contractors.
Other suggested that not only the USA, but the global neoliberal society is deeply
sick with the same disease that the US society expected in 20th (and like previously
with globalism of robber barons age, the triumph of neoliberalism in 1990th was
and is a global phenomenon).
High inequality logically leads to dramatic increase of guard labor and inevitable
conversion of state into National Security State. Which entail total surveillance over the
citizens as a defining factor. Ruling elite is always paranoid, but
neoliberal elite proved to be borderline psychopathic. They do not want merely
security, they want to crush all the resistance.
Butler Shaffer wrote recently that the old state system in the United States
is dying before our very eyes:
A system that insists on controlling others through increasing levels of
systematic violence; that loots the many for the aggrandizement of the few;
that regulates any expressions of human behavior that are not of service to
the rulers; that presumes the power to wage wars against any nation of its choosing,
a principle that got a number of men hanged at the Nuremberg trials; and finally,
criminalizes those who would speak the truth to its victims, has no moral energy
remaining with which to sustain itself.
It is pretty clear that the USA became a society where there is de facto
royalty. In the form of the strata which Roosevelt called "Economic
royalists". Jut look at third generation of Walton family or Rocafeller family.
Remember the degenerative Soviet Politburo, or, for a change, unforgettable dyslexic
President George W Bush ? The painful truth is that in the most unequal nations
including the UK and the US – the intergenerational transmission of income is very
strong (in plain language they have a heredity-based aristocracy). See
Let them eat cake.
In more equal societies such as Denmark, the tendency of privilege to breed privilege
is much lower but also exists and is on the rise. As Roosevelt observed in a similar
situation of 30th:
These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions
of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their
power.
Neoliberalism and
its ideology(Randism)
undermined social cohesion, making society members more hostile to each other and
as such less willing to defend the country in case of real danger.Betrayal
of the country is no longer an unspeakable crime.
The purpose of government should be to foster a "civil society". The slogan of
the "oligarchic right" is "me first", or, as in Paul Ryan's adoration of
Ayn Rand, greed is good. Objectivism became kind of new civic religion,
with the goal of maximizing the wealth of a single individual at the expense of
the civil society is a virtue. And those new social norms (instilled by MSM) allow
the fat cats simply to stole from everybody else without fear of punishment. See
an outburst from Stephen Schwarzman. If there are two societies inside of the
country with bridges burned, the bottom part is less willing to spill blood for
the upper part. And having a contractual army has its own set of dangers, as it
spirals into
high level of militarism (being in war is a new normal for the USA during the
last 30 years or so), which while enriching part of the elite bankrupts the country.
The quality of roads is a testament of this process.
Countervailing mechanisms and forces are destroyed. Plutocrats now can
shape the conversation by buying up newspapers and television channels as well as
funding political campaigns. The mousetrap of high inequality became irreversible
without external shocks. The more unequal our societies become, the more we all
become prisoners of that inequality. The key question is: Has our political system
been so degraded by misinformation and disinformation that it can no longer function
because it lost the touch with reality? The stream of outright falsehoods that MSM
feed the lemmings (aka society members) is clearly politically motivated. But a
side effect (externality) of all that brainwashing efforts is that nobody including
players at the top of the government now understands what's going on. Look at Obama
and Joe Biden.
As the growth of manufacturing base slowed down and return on capital dropped,
the elite wants less government social spending. They wants to end popular government
programs such as Social Security, no matter how much such cuts would cause economic
dislocation and strains in the current social safety net. The claims are that these
programs are "Waste" and could be cut without anyone, but the "moochers" noticing
the effects. They use the economic strain felt by many in the economy to promote
these cuts. They promise that cuts to vital programs will leave more money in the
pockets of the average person. In reality, the increase in money will be marginal,
but the effects on security and loss of "group purchasing power" economy of scale
will make the cuts worse than worthless (Economist's
View Paul Krugman Moment of Truthiness)
The US system of voting (winner take all) leads inexorably to Two party
system. Third parties are only spoilers. Protest votes in the current system
are COUNTERPRODUCTIVE (i.e. they help the evil, not the merely bad). Deliberate
and grotesque gerrymandering further dilutes protest votes.
Again, I would like to stress that rich consumers, few in number, getting the
gigantic slice of income and the most of consumption (that's why the US consumption
was so resilient during two last financial crises). There are the rest, the “non-rich”,
accounting for surprisingly small bites of the national pie.
The question arise "Why we should care?". Most of the readers of this page are
not at the bottom bracket anyway. Many are pretty high up. Here is one possible
answer:
But should we care? There are two reasons we might: process and outcome.
We might worry that the gains of the rich are ill-gotten: the result
of the old-boy network, or fraud, or exploiting the largesse of the taxpayer.
Or we might worry that the results are noxious: misery and envy, or
ill-health, or dysfunctional democracy, or slow growth as the rich sit on
their cash, or excessive debt and thus financial instability.
It is very difficult to understand the real situation with inequality in the
USA today without experiencing long term unemployed.
Or if you forced into job of a WalMart cashier or other low paid employee. Job
that does not provide a living minimum wage. You need to watch this YouTube video
Wealth Inequality
in America to understand the reality.
The video was posted anonymously by someone using the YouTube handle
politizane. It is pretty clear that not only the USA became a society where
there is de facto royalty, economic royalty but also a strata of people completely
deprived. An Outcaste.
And the royalty became recklessly like it should promoting to the top the likes
of recovered alcoholic Bush II or "private equity shark" Romney (and remember who
Romney father was).
In the current circumstances education is no longer the answer to rising inequality.
Instead of serving as a social lift it, at least in some cases, became more of a
social trap. This is connected with neoliberal transformation of education. With
the collapse of post-war public funded educational model and privatization of the
University education students face a pretty cruel world. World in which they are
cows to milk. Now universities became institutions very similar to McDonalds ( or,
in less politically correct terms, Bordellos of Higher Learning). Like McDonalds
they need to price their services so that to receive nice profit and they to make
themselves more attractive to industry they intentionally feed students with overspecialized
curriculum instead of concentrating on fundamentals and the developing the ability
to understand the world. Which was a hallmark of university education of the past.
Since 1970th Neo-Liberal
University model replaced public funded university model (Dewey
model). It is now collapsing as there are not that many students, who are able (and
now with lower job prospects and tale of graduates working as bartender, willing)
to pay infated tuition fees. That means that higher education again by-and-large
became privilege of the rich and upper middle class.
Lower student enrollment first hit minted during dot-com boom expensive private
colleges, who hunt for people with government support (such a former members of
Arm forces). It remains viable only in elite universities, which traditionally serve
the top 1% and rich foreigners. As David Schultz wrote in his article (Logos,
2012):
Yet the Dewey model began to collapse in middle of the 1970s. Perhaps it
was the retrenchment of the SUNY and CUNY systems in New York under Governor
Hugh Carey in 1976 that began the end of the democratic university.What caused its retrenchment was the fiscal crisis of the 1970s.
The fiscal crisis of the 1970s was born of numerous problems. Inflationary
pressures caused by Vietnam and the energy embargoes of the 1970s, and recessionary
forces from relative declines in American economic productivity produced significant
economic shocks, including to the public sector where many state and local governments
edged toward bankruptcy.
Efforts to relieve declining corporate profits and productivity initiated
efforts to restructure the economy, including cutting back on government services.
The response, first in England under Margaret Thatcher and then in the United
States under Ronald Reagan, was an effort to retrench the state by a package
that included decreases in government expenditures for social welfare programs,
cutbacks on business regulations, resistance to labor rights, and tax cuts.
Collectively these proposals are referred to as Neo-liberalism and their
aim was to restore profitability and autonomy to free markets with the belief
that unfettered by the government that would restore productivity.
Neo-liberalism had a major impact on higher education. First beginning
under President Carter and then more so under Ronald Reagan, the federal and
state governments cut taxes and public expenditures. The combination of
the two meant a halt to the Dewey business model as support for public institutions
decreased and federal money dried up.
From a high in the 1960s and early 70s when states and the federal government
provided generous funding to expand their public systems to educate the Baby
Boomers, state universities now receive only a small percentage of their money
from the government. As I pointed out in my 2005 Logos “The Corporate University
in American Society” article in 1991, 74% of the funding for public universities
came from states, in 2004; it was down to 64%, with state systems in Illinois,
Michigan and Virginia down to 25%, 18%, and 8% respectively. Since then, the
percentages have shrunk even more, rendering state universities public
institutions more in name than in funding.
Higher education under Neo-liberalism needed a new business model and it
found it in the corporate university. The corporate university is one
where colleges increasingly use corporate structures and management styles to
run the university. This includes abandoning the American Association
of University Professors (AAUP) shared governance model where faculty had an
equal voice in the running of the school, including over curriculum, selection
of department chairs, deans, and presidents, and determination of many of the
other policies affecting the academy. The corporate university replaced
the shared governance model with one more typical of a business corporation.
For the corporate university, many decisions, including increasingly those
affecting curriculum, are determined by a top-down pyramid style of authority.
University administration often composed not of typical academics but those
with business or corporate backgrounds had pre-empted many of the decisions
faculty used to make. Under a corporate model, the trustees, increasingly
composed of more business leaders than before, select, often with minimal input
from the faculty, the president who, in turn, again with minimal or no faculty
voice, select the deans, department heads, and other administrative personnel.
Neoliberalism professes the idea the personal greed can serve positive society
goals, which is reflected in famous neoliberal slogan "greed is good". And university
presidents listen. Now presidents of neoliberal universities do not want to get
$100K per year salary, they want one, or better several, million dollar salary of
the CEO of major corporation (Student
Debt Grows Faster at Universities With Highest-Paid Leaders, Study Finds - NYTimes.com)
At the 25 public universities with the highest-paid presidents, both student
debt and the use of part-time adjunct faculty grew far faster than at the average
state university from 2005 to 2012, according to a
new study by the Institute for Policy Studies, a left-leaning Washington
research group.
The study, “The One Percent at State U: How University Presidents Profit
from Rising Student Debt and Low-Wage Faculty Labor,” examined the relationship
between executive pay, student debt and low-wage faculty labor at the 25
top-paying public universities.
The co-authors, Andrew Erwin and Marjorie Wood, found that administrative
expenditures at the highest-paying universities outpaced spending on scholarships
by more than two to one. And while adjunct faculty members became more numerous
at the 25 universities, the share of permanent faculty declined drastically.
“The high executive pay obviously isn’t the direct cause of higher student
debt, or cuts in labor spending,” Ms. Wood said. “But if you think about it
in terms of the allocation of resources, it does seem to be the tip of a very
large iceberg, with universities that have top-heavy executive spending also
having more adjuncts, more tuition increases and more administrative spending.”
... ... ...
The Chronicle of Higher Education’s annual
survey of public university presidents’ compensation, also released Sunday,
found that nine chief executives earned more than $1 million in total compensation
in 2012-13, up from four the previous year, and three in 2010-11. The median
total compensation of the 256 presidents in the survey was $478,896, a 5 percent
increase over the previous year.
... ... ...
As in several past years, the highest-compensated president, at $6,057,615
in this period, was E. Gordon Gee, who
resigned from Ohio State last summer amid trustee complaints about frequent
gaffes. He has since become the president of West Virginia University.
This trick requires dramatic raising of tuition costs. University bureaucracy
also got taste for better salaries and all those deans, etc want to be remunerated
like vice presidents. So raising the tuition costs became the key existential idea
of neoliberal university. Not quality of education, but tuition costs now are the
key criteria of success. And if you can charge students $40K per semester it is
very, very good. If does not matter that most population get less then $20 an hour.
The same is true for professors, who proved to be no less corruptible. And some
of them, such as economic departments, simply serve as prostitutes for financial
oligarchy. So they were corrupted even before that rat race for profit. Of course
there are exceptions. But they only prove the rule.
As the result university tuition inflation outpaced inflation by leaps and bounds.
At some point amount that you pay (and the level of debt after graduation) becomes
an important factor in choosing the university. So children of "have" and "have
nots" get into different educational institutions and do not meet each other. In
a way aristocracy returned via back door.
Neoliberal university professes "deep specialization" to create "ready for the
market" graduates. And that creates another problem: education became more like
stock market game and that makes more difficult for you to change you specialization
late in the education cycle. But early choice entail typical stock market problem:
you might miss the peak of the market or worse get into prolonged slump as graduates
in finance learned all too well in 2008. That's why it is important not to accumulate
too much debt: this is a kind of "all in" play in poker. You essentially bet that
in a particular specialty there will be open positions with high salary, when you
graduate. If you lose this bet you are done.
As a result of this "reaction to the market trends" by neoliberal universities,
when universities bacem appendixes of HR of large corporations students need to
be more aware of real university machinery then students in 50th or 60th of the
last century. And first of all assume that it is functioning not to their benefits.
One problem for a student is that there are now way too many variables that you
do not control. Among them:
Will it be a sizable market for graduates for the given specialty in
four years from now (late specialization and attempt to get a job after
bachelor degree might help here; in this case the selection of the master degree
specialization can become more realistic).
What will be the general health of national economy on the moment of
graduation? Remeber about students who graduated in 2008.
The total price of education (and by extension the size of the debt
you get on the day of graduation from the college).
Whether you become a victim of rip offs sponsored by the university administration.
Although this is a slight exaggeration, but the working hypothesis for student
a modern neoliberal university should probably be "This is a hostile environment -- Beware financial ripoffs". That might involve gentle pushing you into
obtaining worthless specialty or other intricate ways to screw you based on
your lack of life experience, poor understanding of academic environment and
natural youth maximalism. Loading you with loans to the max is another dirty
trick. In private universities this is a new art that is polished to perfection
and widely practiced on unsuspecting lemmings.
On the deep level neoliberal university is not interested to help you to find
specialization and place in life where can unleash your talents. You are just a
paying customers much like in McDonalds, and university interests are such they
might try to push you in wrong direction or load you with too much debt.
If there is deep mismatch as was with computer science graduates after crash
of dot-com boom, or simply bad job market due to economy stagnation and
you can't find
the job for your new specialty (or if you got "junk" specialty with inherent
high level of unemployment among professionals) and you have substantial education
debt, then waiting tables or having some other MacJob is a real disaster for you.
As with such selaries you simply can't pay it back. So controlling the level of
debt is very important and in this sence parents financial help is now necessary.
In other words education became more and more "rich kids game".
That does not mean that university education should be avoided for those from
families with modest means. On the contrary it provides unique experience and help
a person to mature in multiple ways difficult to achieve without it. It is still
one of the best ways to get vertical mobility. But unless parents can support you
you need to try to find the most economical way to obtain it without acquiring too
much debt. This is you first university exam. And if you fail it you are in trouble.
For example, computer science education is a great way to learn quite a few things
necessary for a modern life. But the price does matter and prestige of the university
institution that you attend is just one of the factors you should consider in your
evaluation. It should not be the major factor ("vanity fair") unless your parents
are rich and can support you. If you are good you can get later a master degree
in a prestigious university after graduation from a regular college. Or even Ph.D.
County colleges are greatly underappreciated and generally provide pretty high
standard of education, giving ability to students to save money for the first two
years before transferring to a four year college. They also smooth the transition
as finding yourself among people who are only equal or superior then you (and have
access to financial respource that you don't have) is a huge stress. The proverb
say that it is better to be first in the village then last in the town has some
truth in it. Prestigious universities might provide a career boost (high fly companies
usually accept resumes only from Ivy League members), but they cost so much that
you need to be a son or daughter of well-to-do parents to feel comfortably in them.
Or extremely talented. Also amount of career boost that elite universities provide
depends on whom your parents are and what connections they have. It does not depend
solely on you and the university. Again, I would like to stress that you should
resist "vanity fair" approach to your education: a much better way is to try to
obtain BS in a regular university and them try to obtain MS and then, if you are
good, PHD, in a prestigious university. Here is a fragment of an interesting discussion
that covers this topic (Low Mobility Is Not a Social Tragedy?,
Feb 13, 2013 ; I recommend you to read the whole discussion ):
kievite:
I would like to defend Greg Clack.
I think that Greg Clack point is that the number of gifted children is
limited and that exceptionally gifted children have some chance for
upper move in almost all, even the most hierarchical societies (story
of Alexander Hamilton was really fascinating for me, the story of Mikhail
Lomonosov
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Lomonosov was another one -- he
went from the very bottom to the top of Russian aristocracy just on the
strength of his abilities as a scientist). In no way the ability to "hold
its own" (typical for rich families kids) against which many here expressed
some resentment represents social mobility. But the number of kids who went
down is low -- that's actually proves Greg Clack point:
(1) Studies of social mobility using surnames suggest two things.
Social mobility rates are much lower than conventionally estimated.
And social mobility rates estimated in this way vary little across societies
and time periods. Sweden is no more mobile than contemporary England
and the USA, or even than medieval England. Social mobility rates seem
to be independent of social institutions (see the other studies on China,
India, Japan and the USA now linked here).
Francisco Ferreira rejects this interpretation, and restates the
idea that there is a strong link between social mobility rates and inequality
in his interesting post.
What is wrong with the data Ferreira cites? Conventional estimates
of social mobility, which look at just single aspects of social status
such as income, are contaminated by noise. If we measure mobility on
one aspect of status such as income, it will seem rapid.
But this is because income is a very noisy measure of the underlying
status of families. The status of families is a combination of their
education, occupation, income, wealth, health, and residence. They will
often trade off income for some other aspect of status such as occupation.
A child can be as socially successful as a low paid philosophy professor
as a high paid car salesman. Thus if we measure just one aspect of status
such as income we are going to confuse the random fluctuations of income
across generations, influenced by such things as career choices between
business and philosophy, with true generalised social mobility.
If these estimates of social mobility were anywhere near correct
as indicating true underlying rates of social mobility, then we would
not find that the aristocrats of 1700 in Sweden are still overrepresented
in all elite occupations of Sweden. Further, the more equal
is income in a society, the less signal will income give of the true
social status of families. In a society such as Sweden, where the difference
in income between bus drivers and philosophy professors is modest, income
tells us little about the social status of families. It is contaminated
much more by random noise. Thus it will appear if we measure social
status just by income that mobility is much greater in Sweden than in
the USA, because in the USA income is a much better indicator of the
true overall status of families.
The last two paragraphs of Greg Clark article cited by Mark Thoma are
badly written and actually are somewhat disconnected with his line of thinking
as I understand it as well as with the general line of argumentation of
the paper.
Again, I would like to stress that a low intergenerational mobility
includes the ability of kids with silver spoon in their mouth to keep a
status close to their parent. The fact that they a have different starting
point then kids from lower strata of society does not change that.
I think that the key argument that needs testing is that the number of
challengers from lower strata of the society is always pretty low and is
to a large extent accommodated by the societies we know (of course some
societies are better then others).
Actually it would be interesting to look at the social mobility data
of the USSR from this point of view.
But in no way, say, Mark Thoma was a regular kid, although circumstances
for vertical mobility at this time were definitely better then now. He did
possessed some qualities which made possible his upward move although his
choice of economics was probably a mistake ;-).
Whether those qualities were enough in more restrictive environments
we simply don't know, but circumstances for him were difficult enough as
they were.
I stopped reading after that. I teach at a high school in a town with
a real mix of highly elite families, working class families, and poor families,
and I can tell you that the children of affluent parents are not obviously
more gifted than the children of poor families. They do, however, have
a lot more social capital, and they have vastly more success. But the limitations
on being "gifted" are irrelevant.
According to an extensive study (Turkheimer et al., 2003) of 50,000 pregnant
women and the children they went on to have (including enough sets of twins
to be able to study the role of innate genetic differences), variation
in IQ among the affluent seems to be largely genetic.
Among the poor, however, IQ has very little to do with genes -- probably
because the genetic differences are swamped and suppressed by the environmental
differences, as few poor kids are able to develop as fully as they
would in less constrained circumstances.
All you said is true. I completely agree that "...few poor kids are
able to develop as fully as they would in less constrained circumstances."
So there are losses here and we should openly talk about them.
Also it goes without saying that social capital is extremely important
for a child. That's why downward mobility of children from upper classes
is suppressed, despite the fact that some of them are plain vanilla stupid.
But how this disproves the point made that"exceptionally gifted
children have some chance for upper move in almost all, even the most hierarchical
societies"? I think you just jumped the gun...
mrrunangun:
The early boomers benefitted from the happy confluence of the postwar
boom, LBJ's Great Society efforts toward financial assistance for those
seeking to advance their educations, and the 1964 Civil Rights Act which
opened opportunities for marginalized social groups in institutions largely
closed to them under the prewar social customs in the US.
The US Supreme Court is made up of only Jews and Catholics as of this
writing, a circumstance inconceivable in the prewar America. Catholics were
largely relegated to separate and unequal institutions. Jews' opportunities
were limited by quotas and had a separate set of institutions of their own
where their numbers could support such. Where their numbers were not sufficient,
they were often relegated to second rate institutions.
Jewish doctors frequently became the leading men in the Catholic hospitals
in Midwestern industrial towns where they were unwelcome in the towns' main
hospitals. Schools, clubs, hospitals, professional and commercial organizations
often had quota or exclusionary policies. Meritocracy has its drawbacks,
but we've seen worse in living memory.
College textbook publishing became a racket with the growth of neoliberalism.
That means at least since 1980. And it is pretty dirty racket with willing accomplishes
in form of so called professors like Greg Mankiw. For instance, you can find a used
5th edition Mankiw introductory to Microeconomics for under $4.00, while a new 7th
edition costs over $200. An interesting discussion of this problem can be found
at
Thoughts on High-Priced Textbooks'
And it is as isolated as the aristocracies of bygone days, isolation reinforced
by newly minted royalty withdrawal into gated estates, Ivy League Universities,
and private planes.
They are not openly suggesting that no child should rise above the status of
parents, presumably in terms of wealth, education, and opportunity. But their policies
are directed toward this goal. If you are born to poor parents in the USA, all bets
are off -- your success is highly unlikely, and your servile status, if not poverty
is supposedly pre-destined by poor generic material that you got.
This is of course not because the children of the elite inherit the talent, energy,
drive, and resilience to overcome the many obstacles they will face in life from
their parents. Whatever abilities they have (and regression to the mean is applicable
to royalty children too), they are greatly supplemented, of course, by the easy
opportunities, valuable connections, and access to power. That's why the result
of SAT in the USA so strongly correlated with the wealth of parents. And a virtual
freedom from prosecution does not hurt either, in case they have inherited a penchant
for sociopathy, or something worse, along with their many gifts.
The view that the children of the poor will not do well, because they are genetically
inferior became kind of hidden agenda. These are the pesky 99% just deserve to be
cheated and robbed by the elite, because of the inherent superiority of the top
one percent. There is no fraud in the system, only good and bad breeding, natural
predators and prey.
This line of thinking rests on the assumption that I succeed, therefore I am.
And if you do not, well, so be it. You will be low-paid office slave or waiter in
McDonalds with a college diploma as it is necessary for the maximization of profits
of the elite. There is no space at the top for everybody. Enjoy the ride... Here
is an typical expression of such views:
"Many commentators automatically assume that low intergenerational mobility
rates represent a social tragedy. I do not understand this reflexive wailing
and beating of breasts in response to the finding of slow mobility rates.
The fact that the social competence of children is highly predictable once
we know the status of their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents is
not a threat to the American Way of Life and the ideals of the open society
The children of earlier elites will not succeed because they are born with
a silver spoon in their mouth, and an automatic ticket to the Ivy League.
They will succeed because they have inherited the talent, energy, drive,
and resilience to overcome the many obstacles they will face in life. Life is
still a struggle for all who hope to have economic and social success. It is
just that we can predict who will be likely to possess the necessary characteristics
from their ancestry."
Greg Clark, The Economist, 13 Feb. 2013
Mr. Clark is now a professor of economics and was the department chair
until 2013 at the University of California, Davis. His areas of research are
long term economic growth, the wealth of nations, and the economic history of
England and India.
And another one:
"During this time, a growing professional class believed that scientific
progress could be used to cure all social ills, and many educated people accepted
that humans, like all animals, were subject to natural selection.
Darwinian evolution viewed humans as a flawed species that required pruning
to maintain its health. Therefore negative eugenics seemed to offer a rational
solution to certain age-old social problems."
David Micklos, Elof Carlson, Engineering American Society: The Lesson of
Eugenics
If we compare this like of thinking with the thinking of eightieth century and
you will see that the progress is really limited:
“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that
survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the
other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums
for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our
medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last
moment.
There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who
from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the
weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended
to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious
to the race of man.
It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads
to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself,
hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental
result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of
the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated,
more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so
urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.
The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows
that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally
to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit,
with a certain and great present evil.
Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the
weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least
one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society
not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased,
though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind
refraining from marriage.”
Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
So all this screams of MSM about dropping consumer spending is just a smoke screen.
In oligarchic republic which USA represents, consumption is heavily shifted to top
20% and as such is much less dependent of the conditions of the economy. And top
20% can afford $8 per gallon gas (European price) without any problems.
John Barkley Rosser, Jr. With Marina V. Rosser and Ehsan Ahmed, argued
for a two-way positive link between income inequality (economic inequality)
and the size of an underground economy in a nation (Rosser, Rosser, and
Ahmed, 2000).
Globally in 2005, top fifth (20%) of the world accounted for 76.6% of total private
consumption (20:80 Pareto rule). The poorest fifth just 1.5%. I do not think the
USA differs that much from the rest of the world.
There was two famous Citigroup Plutonomy research reports (2005 and 2006) featured
in in Capitalism: A Love Story . Here is how Yves Smith summarized the findings
(in her post
High Income Disparity Leads to Low Savings Rates)
On the one hand, the authors, Ajay Kapur, Niall Macleod, and Narendra Singh
get some credit for addressing a topic surprisingly ignored by mainstream economists.
There have been some noteworthy efforts to measure the increase in concentration
of income and wealth in the US most notably by Thomas Piketty and Edmund Saez.
But while there have been some efforts to dispute their findings (that the rich,
particularly the top 1%, have gotten relatively MUCH richer in the last 20 years),
for the most part discussions of what to make of it (as least in the US) have
rapidly descended into theological debates. One camp laments the fall in economic
mobility (a predictable side effect), the corrosive impact of perceived unfairness,
and the public health costs (even the richest in high income disparity countries
suffer from shortened life spans). The other camp tends to focus on the Darwinian
aspects, that rising income disparity is the result of a vibrant, open economy,
and the higher growth rates that allegedly result will lift help all workers.
Yet as far as I can tell, there has been virtually no discussion of the macroeconomy
effects of rising income and wealth disparities, or to look into what the implications
for investment strategies might be. One interesting effect is that with rising
inequality the share of "guard labor" grows very quickly and that puts an upper
limit on the further growth of inequality (half of the citizens cannot be guards
protecting few billionaires from the other half).
Now the fact that the Citi team asked a worthwhile question does not mean
they came up with a sound answer. In fact, he reports are almost ludicrously
funny in the way they attempt to depict what they call plutonomy as not merely
a tradeable trend (as in leading to some useful investment ideas), but as a
Brave New Economy development. I haven't recalled such Panglossian prose since
the most delirious days of the dot-com bubble:
We will posit that:
1) the world is dividing into two blocs – the plutonomies, where
economic growth is powered by and largely consumed by the wealthy few, and
the rest. Plutonomies have occurred before in sixteenth century
Spain, in seventeenth century Holland, the Gilded Age and the Roaring Twenties
in the U.S.
What are the common drivers of Plutonomy? Disruptive technology-driven
productivity gains, creative financial innovation, capitalist-friendly cooperative
governments, an international dimension of immigrants and overseas conquests
invigorating wealth creation, the rule of law, and patenting inventions.
Often these wealth waves involve great complexity, exploited best by the
rich and educated of the time…..Most “Global Imbalances” (high current account
deficits and low savings rates, high consumer debt levels in the Anglo-Saxon
world, etc) that continue to (unprofitably) preoccupy the world’s intelligentsia
look a lot less threatening when examined through the prism of plutonomy.
The risk premium on equities that might derive from the dyspeptic “global
imbalance” school is unwarranted – the earth is not going to be shaken off
its axis, and sucked into the cosmos by these “imbalances”. The earth
is being held up by the muscular arms of its entrepreneur-plutocrats, like
it, or not..
Yves here. Translation: plutonomy is such a great thing that the entire stock
market would be valued higher if everyone understood it. And the hoops the reports
go through to defend it are impressive. The plutomony countries (the notorious
Anglo-Saxon model, the US, UK, Canada and Australia) even have unusually risk-seeking
populations (and that is a Good Thing):
…a new, rather out-of-the box hypothesis suggests that dopamine differentials
can explain differences in risk-taking between societies. John Mauldin,
the author of “Bulls-Eye Investing” in an email last month cited this work.
The thesis: Dopamine, a pleasure-inducing brain chemical, is linked with
curiosity, adventure, entrepreneurship, and helps drive results in uncertain
environments. Populations generally have about 2% of their members with
high enough dopamine levels with the curiosity to emigrate. Ergo, immigrant
nations like the U.S. and Canada, and increasingly the UK, have high dopamine-intensity
populations.
Yves here. What happened to “Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses
yearning to breathe free/The wretched refuse of your teeming shore”? Were the
Puritans a high dopamine population? Doubtful. How about the Irish emigration
to the US, which peaked during its great famine?
Despite a good deal of romanticization standing in for analysis, the report
does have one intriguing, and well documented finding: that the plutonomies
have low savings rates. Consider an fictional pep rally chant:
We’re from Greenwich
We’re invincible
Living off our income
Never touch the principal
Think about that. If you are rich, you can afford to spend all your income.
You don’t need to save, because your existing wealth provides you with a more
than sufficient cushion.
The ramifications when you have a high wealth concentration are profound.
From the October 2005 report:
In a plutonomy, the rich drop their savings rate, consume a larger fraction
of their bloated, very large share of the economy. This behavior overshadows
the decisions of everybody else. The behavior of the exceptionally rich
drives the national numbers – the “appallingly low” overall savings rates,
the “over-extended consumer”, and the “unsustainable” current accounts that
accompany this phenomenon….
Feeling wealthier, the rich decide to consume a part of their capital
gains right away. In other words, they save less from their income, the
wellknown wealth effect. The key point though is that this new lower savings
rate is applied to their newer massive income. Remember they got a much
bigger chunk of the economy, that’s how it became a plutonomy. The consequent
decline in absolute savings for them (and the country) is huge when this
happens. They just account for too large a part of the national economy;
even a small fall in their savings rate overwhelms the decisions of all
the rest.
Yves here. This account rather cheerily dismisses the notion that there might
be overextended consumers on the other end of the food chain. Unprecedented
credit card delinquencies and mortgage defaults suggest otherwise. But behaviors
on both ends of the income spectrum no doubt played into the low-savings dynamic:
wealthy who spend heavily, and struggling average consumers who increasingly
came to rely on borrowings to improve or merely maintain their lifestyle. And
let us not forget: were encouraged to monetize their home equity, so they actually
aped the behavior of their betters, treating appreciated assets as savings.
Before you chide people who did that as profligate (naive might be a better
characterization), recall that no one less than Ben Bernanke was untroubled
by rising consumer debt levels because they also showed rising asset levels.
Bernanke ignored the fact that debt needs to be serviced out of incomes, and
households for the most part were not borrowing to acquire income-producing
assets. So unless the rising tide of consumer debt was matched by rising incomes,
this process was bound to come to an ugly end.
Also under Bush country definitely moved from oligarchy to plutocracy. Bush
openly claimed that "have more" is his base. The top 1% of earners have captured
four-fifths of all new income.
An interesting question is whether the extremely unequal income distribution
like we have now make the broader society unstable. Or plebs is satisfied with "Bread
and circuses" (aka house, SUV, boat, Daytona 500 and 500 channels on cable)
as long as loot from the other parts of the world is still coming...
Donald made a point I was going to. I would go a bit further though. It’s not
clear to me that economic inequality is not desired for its own sake by the
some of the elite. After all, studies suggest that once you get past the
level of income needed for a reasonably comfortable life – about $40K for a
single person in the US - the quest for money is mostly about status.
Meeting your needs is not necessarily zero sum, but status is: my status
can only be higher than yours to the extent that yours is lower than mine.
The more inequality there is, the more status differentiation there
is. Of course, there are other sources of status than money, but I’m
talking specifically about people who value money for the status it confers.
This is in addition to the “Donner Party Conservatism” calls to make sure the
incentives to work are as strong as possible (to be fair, I think tolerating
some inequality for the sake of incentives is worthwhile, but we seem to be
well beyond that).
For example currently the USA is No.3 in Gini measured inequality
(cyeahoo,
Oct 16, 2009), but still the society is reasonably stable:
Gini score: 40.8 GDP 2007 (US$ billions): 13,751.4 Share of income or expenditure (%)
Poorest 10%: 1.9
Richest 10%: 29.9 Ratio of income or expenditure, share of top 10% to lowest 10%: 15.9
What is really surprising is how low the average American salary is: just
$26,352 or ~$2,200 a month. This is equal approximately to $13 an hour.
At the same time:
There are roughly 150,000 households in the United States with a net worth
of at least $20 million.
In 2004, the last time the Fed provided data, there were 649,000 American
households worth $10 million or more, a nearly 300 percent jump since 1992.
More than 49,000 Americans are said to have more than $50 million.
125,000 more households in the $25 million to $50 million range.
Some interesting facts about upper class (top 1% of the US population). First of
all this is pretty self-isolated group (a nation within a nation). They associate
almost exclusively with members of their own social and economic standing, few members
of the bottom 90% of Americans have ever even personally met a member of the upper
class.
In 1985 there were 13 US billionaires- today there are more than a 1,000.
The richest 1% of Americans (the upper class) have income over $380K
and control more wealth than 90% of the U.S. population combined (owned
34.6% of all privately held wealth,). The next 19% own 50% which means
that 20% of people control 85% of total wealth, leaving only 15% to the bottom
80% (wage and salary workers).
The earners in the top 1 percent in income distribution bracket make
20% of the money.
Private jet travel is the fastest growing luxury market segment. Over 15%
of all flights in the U.S. are by private jet. There are more than 1,000 daily
private jet flights in key markets such as South Florida, New York and Los Angeles.-
(Elite Traveler Magazine).
Now about top 400:
2007 was the first year that making Forbes magazine's list of 400
richest Americans required more than $1 billion. (The cutoff was $1.3
billion.)
In 2005, the top 400 earners in America collectively piled up $214 billion,
more than the GDP of 149 nations.
Here are some interesting hypothesis about affect of inequality of the society:
It's not ratio of poorest 10% to highest 10% that matter. It's the
ratio of top 10% to middle class. Without a strong middle class, the
democracy is not sustainable. The weakness of this hypothesis is that it does
not tell what kind of democracy is not sustainable without the strong middle
class. Also Asian states successfully demonstrated society progress is possible
without or, more correctly, with very little democracy.
As economicinequality grows beyond certain level, nations
might become increasingly politically unstable. First of all the level
of instability depends probably on the level of mass communication available
in the society: ancient societies were much more unequal that any of modern
societies and still they were pretty stable. Supporting evidence includes the
USSR: as mass communications dramatically increased due to personal computers
and Internet, the society lost internal stability despite the fact that economic
difficulties it experiences were far less prominent that in the past.
At some point the anger creates destructive tendencies in society that are
self-sustainable no matter what police force is available for the state (like
nationalistic forces that blow out the USSR). In the meantime society experiences
apathy and decline in all societal dimensions (mass alcoholism and hidden opposition
to any productivity rising initiatives in the USSR). At the same time ruling
elite became less and less intellectually astute ( dominated by gerontocrats
in the USSR) and at some point pretty detached from reality ("let them eat cake").
After inequality reaches certain level (critical mass) society became
permanently stratified and rigid and that negatively affects the quality of
the elite.Supporting evidence includes the USSR with its deteriorating
"nomenclature". Recent research drawing on a series of studies from Europe,
the United States and Australia has concluded that among comparable countries,
the United States has an unusually rigid social system and limited possibilities
for social mobility.
In a very unequal society, the people at the top have to spend a lot
of time and energy keeping the lower classes obedient and productive.
High inequality also changes the composition of labor in a very negative way.
because it leads to an excess of what is calls “guard labor.”
In a 2007 paper on the subject, Samuel Bowles and co-author Arjun Jayadev, an
assistant professor at the University of Massachusetts, made an eye opening
finding: Roughly 1 in 10 Americans is employed to keep fellow citizens
in line and protect private wealth from would-be Robin Hoods.
I’m surprised a thoughtful guy like Glenn Greenwald would make such an unsubstantiated
link between collapsing public services for American peasants and a collapse
of America’s global (indirect) imperial realm. Is there really a historic
link between the quality of a nation’s services to its citizens and its global
power? If so the Scandinavian countries would have been ruling the world
for the past fifty years. If anything there is probably a reverse correlation.
None of the great historic imperial powers, such as the British, Roman, Spanish,
Russian, Ottoman, Mongolian, Chinese, Islamic, or Persian, were associated with
egalitarian living conditions for anyone outside of the elite. So from
a historic point of view, the ability to divert resources away from the peasants
and towards the national security state is a sign of elite power and
should be seen as a sign increased American imperial potential.
Now if America’s global power was still based on economic production then
an argument could be made that closing libraries and cancelling the 12th grade
would lower America’s power potential. But as we all know that is no longer
the case and now America’s power is as the global consumer of excess production.
Will a dumber peasantry consume even more? I think there is a good chance that
the answer is yes.
Now a limit could be reached to how far the elite can lower their peasant’s
standard of living if these changes actually resulted in civil disorder that
demanded much energy for American elites to quell. But so far that is
far from the case. Even a facile gesture such as voting for any other political
party except the ruling Republicrats seems like a bridge too far for 95% of
the peasants to attempt. No, the sad truth is that American elites, thanks to
their exceptional ability to deliver an ever increasing amount of diverting
bread and circuses, have plenty of room to further cut standards of living and
are nowhere near reaching any limits.
What the reductions in economic and educational options will result in are
higher quality volunteers into America’s security machinery, which again obviously
raise America’s global power potential. This, along with an increasingly ruthless
elite, should assure that into the medium term America’s powerful position will
remain unchallenged. If one colors in blue on a world map all the countries
under de facto indirect US control then one will start to realize the extent
of US power. The only major countries outside of US control are Iran, North
Korea, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela. Iraq and Afghanistan are recent converts
to the blue column but it far from certain whether they will stay that way.
American elites will resist to the bitter end any country falling from the blue
category. But this colored world map is the best metric for judging US global
power.
In the end it’s just wishful thinking to link the declining of the American
peasant’s standard of living with a declining of the American elite’s global
power. I wouldn’t be surprised to see this proven in an attack on Iran in the
near future.
Higher pay inequality feeds organized crime (and here we assume that banksters
are different from the organized crime, which is probably a very weak hypothesis
;-). That's why Peter Drucker was probably right. He thought that top execs
shouldn't get more than 25 times the average salary in the company (which would
cap it around $2 millions). I would suggest a metric based on multiple from
the average of lower 50% full time jobs for a particular firm (for example in Wal
Mart that would cashers and cleaners, people who are living in Latin American style
poverty, if they are single mothers as many are). One of the particular strengths
of the idea of the maximum wage base on average of lower 50% of salaries is that
if senior managers want to increase their own pay, they have to increase that of
the lower-paid employees too.
And in a way financial industry itself became an organized crime. The notion
of exorbitant wages prevalent in financial industry (and, before it, pioneered by
in high-tech companies during dot-com boom via stock options) is based on the idea
that some people are at least hundred times more productive then the others. In
some professions like programming this is true and such people do exists. But any
sufficiently large company is about team work. No matter what job a person does
and no matter how many hours they work, there is no possible way that an single
individual will create a whole product. It's a team effort. That means that neither
skill nor expertise or intelligence can justify the payment of 200, 300 or even
400 times the wages of the lowest-paid 20% workers in any large organization.
This is especially questionable for financial professionals because by
and large they are engaged in non-productive. often harmful for the society as whole
redistribution activities, the same activities that organized crime performs.
Moreover, modern traders are actually play a tremendously destructive role as subprime
crisis (and before it saving and loans debacle) aptly demonstrated. which make them
indistinguishable in this societal roles from cocaine pushers on the streets.
Drucker's views on the subject are probably worth revisiting. Rick Wartzman wrote
in his Business Week article
Put a Cap on CEO Pay' that "those who understand that what comes with their
authority is the weight of responsibility, not "the mantle of privilege," as writer
and editor Thomas Stewart described Drucker's view. It's their job "to do
what is right for the enterprise—not for shareholders alone, and certainly not for
themselves alone."
Large pay also attracts sociopathic personalities. Sociopathic personalities at
the top of modern organizations is another important but rarely discussed danger.
"I'm not talking about the bitter feelings of the people on the plant floor,"
Drucker told a reporter in 2004. "They're convinced that their bosses are crooks
anyway. It's the mid-level management that is incredibly disillusioned" by CEO
compensation that seems to have no bounds. " This is especially true, Drucker explained
in an earlier interview, when CEOs pocket huge sums while laying off workers.
That kind of action, he said, is "morally unforgivable." There can be exceptions
but they should be in middle management not in top management ranks.
Put it all together, and the picture became really discouraging. We have an ill-informed
or misinformed electorate, politicians who gleefully add to the misinformation,
watchdogs who are afraid to bark and guards on each and every corner. Mousetrap
is complete.
Transforming American politics, September 16, 2010
This review is from: Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the
Rich Richer--and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class (Hardcover) This is
a transformative book. It's the best book on American politics that I've
read since Rick Perlstein's Before the Storm. Not all of it is original
(the authors seek to synthesize others' work as well as present their own,
but provide due credit where credit is due). Not all of its arguments are
fully supported (the authors provide a strong circumstantial case to support
their argument, but don't have smoking gun evidence on many of the relevant
causal relations). But it should transform the ways in which we think about
and debate the political economy of the US.
The underlying argument is straightforward. The sources of American
economic inequality are largely political - the result of deliberate political
decisions to shape markets in ways that benefit the already-privileged at
the expense of a more-or-less unaware public. The authors weave
a historical narrative which Kevin Drum (who says the same things that I
am saying about the book's importance) summarizes cogently here. This is
not necessarily original - a lot of leftwing and left-of-center writers
have been making similar claims for a long time. What is new is both the
specific evidence that the authors use, and their conscious and deliberate
effort to reframe what is important about American politics.
First - the evidence. Hacker and Pierson draw on work by economists like
Picketty and Saez on the substantial growth in US inequality (and on comparisons
between the US and other countries), but argue that many of the explanations
preferred by economists (the effects of technological change on demand for
skills) simply don't explain what is going on. First, they do not explain
why inequality is so top-heavy - that is, why so many of the economic benefits
go to a tiny, tiny minority of individuals among those with apparently similar
skills. Second, they do not explain cross national variation - why the differences
in the level of inequality among advanced industrialized countries, all
of which have gone through more-or-less similar technological shocks, are
so stark. While Hacker and Pierson agree that technological change is part
of the story, they suggest that the ways in which this is channeled in different
national contexts is crucial. And it is here that politics plays a key role.
Many economists are skeptical that politics explains the outcome, suggesting
that conventional forms of political intervention are not big enough to
have such dramatic consequences. Hacker and Pierson's reply implicitly points
to a blind spot of many economists - they argue that markets are not `natural,'
but instead are constituted by government policy and political institutions.
If institutions are designed one way, they result in one form of market
activity, whereas if they are designed another way, they will result in
very different outcomes. Hence, results that appear like `natural' market
operations to a neo-classical economist may in fact be the result of political
decisions, or indeed of deliberate political inaction. Hacker and Pierson
cite e.g. the decision of the Clinton administration not to police derivatives
as an example of how political coalitions may block reforms in ways that
have dramatic economic consequences.
Hence, Hacker and Pierson turn to the lessons of ongoing political science
research. This is both a strength and a weakness. I'll talk about the weakness
below - but I found the account of the current research convincing, readable
and accurate. It builds on both Hacker and Pierson's own work and the work
of others (e.g. the revisionist account of American party structures from
Zaller et al. and the work of Bartels). This original body of work is not
written in ways that make it easily accessible to non-professionals - while
Bartels' book was both excellent and influential, it was not an easy read.
Winner-Take-All Politics pulls off the tricky task of both presenting the
key arguments underlying work without distorting them and integrating them
into a highly readable narrative.
As noted above, the book sets out (in my view quite successfully) to
reframe how we should think about American politics. It downplays
the importance of electoral politics, without dismissing it, in favor of
a focus on policy-setting, institutions, and organization.
First and most important - policy-setting. Hacker and Pierson
argue that too many books on US politics focus on the electoral circus.
Instead, they should be focusing on the politics of policy-setting.
Government is important, after all, because it makes policy decisions
which affect people's lives. While elections clearly play an important
role in determining who can set policy, they are not the only moment
of policy choice, nor necessarily the most important. The actual processes
through which policy gets made are poorly understood by the public,
in part because the media is not interested in them (in Hacker and Pierson's
words, "[f]or the media, governing often seems like something that happens
in the off-season").
And to understand the actual processes of policy-making, we need
to understand institutions. Institutions make it more or less easy
to get policy through the system, by shaping veto points. If one wants
to explain why inequality happens, one needs to look not only at the
decisions which are made, but the decisions which are not made, because
they are successfully opposed by parties or interest groups. Institutional
rules provide actors with opportunities both to try and get policies
that they want through the system and to stymie policies that they do
not want to see enacted. Most obviously in the current administration,
the existence of the filibuster supermajority requirement, and the willingness
of the Republican party to use it for every significant piece of legislation
that it can be applied to means that we are seeing policy change through
"drift." Over time, policies become increasingly disconnected from their
original purposes, or actors find loopholes or ambiguities through which
they can subvert the intention of a policy (for example - the favorable
tax regime under which hedge fund managers are able to treat their income
at a low tax rate). If it is impossible to rectify policies to deal
with these problems, then drift leads to policy change - Hacker and
Pierson suggest that it is one of the most important forms of such change
in the US.
Finally - the role of organizations. Hacker and Pierson suggest
that organizations play a key role in pushing through policy change
(and a very important role in elections too). They typically trump voters
(who lack information, are myopic, are not focused on the long term)
in shaping policy decisions. Here, it is important that the organizational
landscape of the US is dramatically skewed. There are many very influential
organizations pushing the interests of business and of the rich. Politicians
on both sides tend to pay a lot of attention to them, because of the
resources that they have. There are far fewer - and weaker - organizations
on the other side of the fight, especially given the continuing decline
of unions (which has been hastened by policy decisions taken and not
taken by Republicans and conservative Democrats).
In Hacker and Pierson's account, these three together account for
the systematic political bias towards greater inequality. In simplified
form: Organizations - and battles between organizations over policy as well
as elections - are the structuring conflicts of American politics. The interests of the rich are represented by far more powerful organizations
than the interests of the poor and middle class. The institutions
of the US provide these organizations and their political allies with a
variety of tools to promote new policies that reshape markets in their interests.
This account is in some ways neo-Galbraithian (Hacker and Pierson refer
in passing to the notion of `countervailing powers'). But while it lacks
Galbraith's magisterial and mellifluous prose style, it is much better than
he was on the details.
Even so (and here begin the criticisms) - it is not detailed enough.
The authors set the book up as a whodunit: Who or what is responsible for
the gross inequalities of American economic life? They show that the other
major suspects have decent alibis (they may inadvertently have helped the
culprit, but they did not carry out the crime itself. They show that their
preferred culprit had the motive and, apparently, the means. They find good
circumstantial evidence that he did it. But they do not find a smoking gun.
For me, the culprit (the American political system) is like OJ. As matters
stand, I'm pretty sure that he committed the crime. But I'm not sure that
he could be convicted in a court of law, and I could be convinced that I
was wrong, if major new exculpatory evidence was uncovered.
The lack of any smoking gun (or, alternatively, good evidence against
a smoking gun) is the direct result of a major failure of American intellectual
life. As the authors observe elsewhere, there is no field of American political
economy. Economists have typically treated the economy as non-political.
Political scientists have typically not concerned themselves with the American
economy. There are recent efforts to change this, coming from economists
like Paul Krugman and political scientists like Larry Bartels, but they
are still in their infancy. We do not have the kinds of detailed and systematic
accounts of the relationship between political institutions and economic
order for the US that we have e.g. for most mainland European countries.
We will need a decade or more of research to build the foundations of one.
Hence, while Hacker and Pierson show that political science can get us
a large part of the way, it cannot get us as far as they would like us to
go, for the simple reason that political science is not well developed enough
yet. We can identify the causal mechanisms intervening between some specific
political decisions and non-decisions and observed outcomes in the economy.
We cannot yet provide a really satisfactory account of how these particular
mechanisms work across a wider variety of settings and hence produce the
general forms of inequality that they point to. Nor do we yet have a really
good account of the precise interactions between these mechanisms and other
mechanisms.
None of this is to discount the importance of this book. If it has the
impact it deserves, it will transform American public arguments about politics
and policymaking. I cannot see how someone who was fair minded could come
away from reading this book and not be convinced that politics plays a key
role in the enormous economic inequality that we see. And even if it is
aimed at a general audience, it also challenges academics and researchers
in economics, political science and economic sociology both to re-examine
their assumptions about how economics and politics work, and to figure out
ways better to engage with the key political debates of our time as Hacker
and Pierson have done. If you can, buy it.
Great Faulkner's Ghost (Washington, DC)
This review is from: Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the
Rich Richer--and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class (Hardcover) Many people
have observed that American politics and the American economy reached some
kind of turning point around 1980, which conveniently marks the election
of Ronald Reagan. Some also pointed to other factors such as the deregulation
of stock brokerage commissions in 1975 and the high inflation of the 1970s.
Other analysts have put the turning point back in 1968, when Richard Nixon
became President on the back of a wave of white, middle-class resentment
against the 1960s. Hacker and Pierson, however, point the finger at the
1970s. As they describe in Chapter 4, the Nixon presidency saw the high-water
market of the regulatory state; the demise of traditional liberalism occurred
during the Carter administration, despite Democratic control of Washington,
when highly organized business interests were able to torpedo the Democratic
agenda and begin the era of cutting taxes for the rich that apparently has
not yet ended today.
Why then? Not, as popular commentary would have it, because public opinion
shifted. Hacker and Pierson cite studies showing that public opinion on
issues such as inequality has not shifted over the past thirty years; most
people still think society is too unequal and that taxes should be used
to reduce inequality. What has shifted is that Congressmen are now
much more receptive to the opinions of the rich, and there is actually a
negative correlation between their positions and the preferences of their
poor constituents (p. 111). Citing Martin Gilens, they write, "When
well-off people strongly supported a policy change, it had almost three
times the chance of becoming law as when they strongly opposed it. When
median-income people strongly supported a policy change, it had hardly any
greater chance of becoming law than when they strongly opposed it" (p. 112).
In other words, it isn't public opinion, or the median voter, that matters;
it's what the rich want.
That shift occurred in the 1970s because businesses and the super-rich
began a process of political organization in the early 1970s that enabled
them to pool their wealth and contacts to achieve dominant political influence
(described in Chapter 5). To take one of the many statistics they
provide, the number of companies with registered lobbyists in Washington
grew from 175 in 1971 to nearly 2,500 in 1982 (p. 118). Money pouring
into lobbying firms, political campaigns, and ideological think tanks created
the organizational muscle that gave the Republicans a formidable institutional
advantage by the 1980s. The Democrats have only reduced that advantage
in the past two decades by becoming more like Republicans-more business-friendly,
more anti-tax, and more dependent on money from the super-rich. And that
dependency has severely limited both their ability and their desire to fight
back on behalf of the middle class (let alone the poor), which has few defenders
in Washington.
At a high level, the lesson of Winner-Take-All Politics is similar to
that of 13 Bankers: when looking at economic phenomena, be they the financial
crisis or the vast increase in inequality of the past thirty years, it's politics that matters, not just abstract economic forces. One of the singular victories of the rich has been convincing the rest
of us that their disproportionate success has been due to abstract economic
forces beyond anyone's control (technology, globalization, etc.), not old-fashioned
power politics. Hopefully the financial crisis and the recession that has
ended only on paper (if that) will provide the opportunity to teach people
that there is no such thing as abstract economic forces; instead, there
are different groups using the political system to fight for larger shares
of society's wealth. And one group has been winning for over thirty years.
Citizen John (USA)
In Winner-Take-All Politics, two political science professors explain
what caused the Middle Class to become vulnerable. Understanding this phenomenon
is the Holy Grail of contemporary economics in the U.S.
Some may feel this book is just as polarizing as the current state of
politics and media in America. The decades-long decline in income taxes
of wealthy individuals is cited in detail. Wage earners are usually subjected
to the FICA taxes against all their ordinary income (all or almost their
entire total income). But the top wealthy Americans may have only a
small percentage (or none) of their income subjected to FICA taxes.
Thus Warren Buffett announced that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.
Buffett has cited income inequality for "poisoning democracy."
When you search the Net for Buffett quotes on inequality, you get a lot
of results showing how controversial he became for stating the obvious.
Drawing attention to the inequity of the tax regime won him powerful enemies.
Those same people are not going to like the authors for writing Winner-Take-All.
They say these political science people are condescending because they presume
to tell people their political interests.
Many of studies of poverty show how economic and political policies generally
favor the rich throughout the world, some of which are cited in this book.
Military spending and financial bailouts in particular favor the wealthy.
Authors Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson document a long U.S. policy trend
favoring wealthy Americans. This trend resulted in diminished middle class
access to quality healthcare and education, making it harder to keep up
with the wealthy in relative terms. Further, once people have lost basic
foundations of security, they are less willing and able to take on more
risk in terms of investing or starting a business.
The rise of special interests has been at the expense of the middle class,
according to the authors. Former President Carter talked about this and
was ridiculed. Since then government has grown further from most of us.
Even federal employees are not like most of us anymore. In its August 10,
2010 issue, USA Today discussed government salaries: "At a time when workers'
pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees' average compensation
has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY
analysis finds."
An excellent documentary showing how difficult it is to address income
inequality is One Percent, by Jamie Johnson of the Johnson & Johnson family.
Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, by Pulitzer Prize-winner
Jared Diamond Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed shows examples
of what can happen when a society disregards a coming disaster until too
late. I hope that Winner-Take-All will prompt people to demand more of elected
officials and to arrest the growing income gap for the sake of our democracy.
4.5 stars-Wall Street speculators control both parties,
September 19, 2010
See all my reviews
This review is from: Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the
Rich Richer--and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class (Hardcover)
This book basically argues that Wall Street controls both political parties
through the use of massive campaign contributions and lobbyists who buy
off both the Republicans and Democrats in the White House,Senate and House.This
is essentially correct but obvious.Anyone can go back to the 1976 Jimmy
Carter campaign and simply verify that the majority of his campaign funds
and advisors came from Wall Street.This identical conclusion also holds
with respect to Ronald Reagan,George H W Bush,Bill Clinton,George W Bush
and Barack Obama. The only Presidents/Presidential candidates not dominated
by Wall Street since 1976 were Gerald Ford, Walter Mondale, Ross Perot,
Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan.
For instance,it is common knowledge to anyone who carefully checks to
see where the money is coming from that Wall Street financiers, hedgefunds,
private equity firms and giant commercial banks are calling the shots. For
example, one could simply read the July 9,2007 issue of FORTUNE magazine
to discover who the major backers of John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack
Obama were. One could also have read Business Week(2-25-2008) or the Los
Angeles Times of 3-21-2008.Through February, 2008 the major donors to the
McCain campaign were 1)Merrill Lynch, 2) Citigroup, 3)Goldman Sachs, 4)J
P Morgan Chase and 5)Credit Suisse
The major donors to the Hillary Clinton campaign were 1)Goldman Sachs,
2)Morgan Stanley, 3)Citigroup, 4)Lehman Brothers and 5)J P Morgan Chase.
Guess who were the major donors to the Obama campaign ? If you guessed
1)Goldman Sachs,2)UBS Ag,3)J P Morgan Chase ,4)Lehman Brothers and 5)Citigroup,
then you are correct.
It didn't matter who became President-Hillary Clinton,Barack Obama or
John McCain.All three had been thoroughly vetted by Wall Street. The campaign
staffs of all three candidates ,especially their economic and finance advisors,
were all Wall Street connected. Wall Street would have been bailed out regardless
of which party won the 2008 election.
Obama is not going to change anything substantially in the financial
markets. Neither is Rep. Barney Frank, Sen. Chris Dodd, Sen. Kerry or Sen.
Schumer, etc. Nor is any Republican candidate going to make any changes,
simply because the Republican Party is dominated even more so by Wall Street(100%)
than the Democratic Party(80%). The logical solution would be to support
a Third Party candidate, for example, Ross Perot .
One aspect of the book is deficient. True conservatives like Ross Perot,
Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs have been warning about the grave dangers of
hallowing out and downsizing the American Manufacturing -Industrial sector,
with the consequent offshoring and/or loss of many millions of American
jobs, for about 20 years at the same time that the " financial services
" sector has exploded from 3% of the total service sector in 1972 to just
under 40% by 2007. This is what is causing the great shrinkage in the middle
class in America .
This review is from: Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made
the Rich Richer--and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class (Hardcover)
This is a phenomenal book and everyone interested in how American politics
works (or more accurately, doesn't work) should pick it up. It's both really
smart and really accessible to a lay audience, which is rare for a political
science book.
Extreme economic inequality and the near paralysis of our governing institutions
has lead to a status-quo that is almost entirely indifferent to the needs
of working families. Hacker & Pierson chronicle the rise of this corrupt
system and the dual, yet distinct, roles the Republican and Democratic Parties
have played in abetting it.
4.0 out of 5 stars Interesting and Timely, but Also Off-Base in Some
Regards, September 15, 2010
See all my reviews
This review is from: Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the
Rich Richer--and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class (Hardcover)
The thirty-eight biggest Wall Street companies earned $140 billion in 2009,
a record that all taxpayers who contributed to their bailouts can be proud
of. Among those, Goldman Sachs paid its employees an average $600,000, also
a record, and at least partially attributable to our bailout of AIG, which
promptly gave much of the money to Goldman. Prior to that, the top 25 hedge
fund managers earned an average of $892 million in 2007. "Winner-Take-All
Politics" is framed as a detective story about how we got to inequality
levels where the top 300,000 (0.1%) receive over 20% of national income,
vs. 13.5% for the bottom 180 million (60% of the population).
Between
1947 and 1973, real family median income essentially doubled, and the growth
percentage was virtually the same for all income levels. In the mid-1970s,
however, economic inequality began to increase sharply and middle-incomes
lagged. Increased female workforce participation rates and more overtime
helped cushion the stagnation or decline for many (they also increased the
risk of layoffs/family), then growing credit card debt shielded many families
from reality. Unfortunately, expectations of stable full-time employment
also began shrinking, part-time, temporary, and economic risk-bearing (eg.
taxi drivers leasing vehicles and paying the fuel costs; deliverymen 'buying'
routes and trucks) work increased, workers covered by employer-sponsored
health insurance fell from 69% in 1979 to 56% in 2004, and retirement coverage
was either been dropped entirely or mostly converted to much less valuable
fix-contribution plans for private sector employees. Some exceptions have
occurred that benefit the middle and lower-income segments - Earned Income
Tax Credit (EITC), Medicaid, and Medicare were initiated or expanded, but
these have not blunted the overall trend. Conversely, welfare reform, incarceration
rates rising 6X between 1970 and 2000, bankruptcy reform, and increased
tax audits for EITC recipients have also added to their burden, Social Security
is being challenged again (despite stock market declines, enormous transition
costs, and vastly increased overhead costs and fraud opportunity), and 2009's
universal health care reform will be aggressively challenged both in the
courts and Washington.
Authors Hacker and Pierson contend that growing inequality is not the
'natural' product of market rewards, but mostly the artificial result of
deliberate government policies, strongly influenced by industry lobbyists
and donations, new and expanded conservative 'think tanks,' and inadequate
media coverage that focused more on the 'horse race' aspects of various
initiatives than their content and impact. First came the capital gains
tax cuts under President Carter, then deregulation of the financial industry
under Clinton, the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, and the financial bailouts
in 2008-09. The authors contend that if the 1970 tax structure remained
today, the top gains would be considerably less.
But what about the fact that in 1965 CEOs of large corporations only
earned about 24X the average worker, compared to 300+X now? Hacker and Pierson
largely ignore the role of board-room politics and malfeasance that have
mostly allowed managers to serve themselves with payment without regard
to performance and out of proportion to other nations. In 2006, the 20 highest-paid
European managers made an average $12.5 million, only one-third as much
as the 20 highest-earning U.S. executives. Yet, the Europeans led larger
firms - $65.5 billion in sales vs. $46.5 billion for the U.S. Asian CEOs
commonly make only 10X-15X what their base level employees make. Jiang Jianqing,
Chairman of the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (world's largest),
made $234,700 in 2008, less than 2% of the $19.6 million awarded Jamie Dimon,
CEO of the world's fourth-largest bank, JPMorgan Chase.
"Winner-Take-All Politics" also provides readers with the composition
of 2004 taxpayers in the top 0.1% of earners (including capital gains).
Non-finance executives comprised 41% of the group, finance professionals
18.4%, lawyers 6%, real estate personages 5%, physicians 4%, entrepreneurs
4%, and arts and sports stars 3%. The authors assert that this shows education
and skills levels are not the great dividers most everyone credits them
to be - the vast majority of Americans losing ground to the super-rich includes
many well-educated individuals, while the super-rich includes many without
a college education (Sheldon Adelson, Paul Allen, Edgar Bronfman, Jack Kent
Cook, Michael Dell, Walt Disney, Larry Ellison, Bill Gates, Wayne Huizenga,
Steve Jobs, Rush Limbaugh, Steve Wozniak, and Mark Zuckerberg).
Authors Hacker and Pierson are political science professors and it is
understandable that they emphasize political causes (PACs, greater recruitment
of evangelical voters, lobbying - eg. $500 million on health care lobbying
in 2009, filibusters that allow senators representing just 10% of the population
to stop legislation and make the other side look incompetent, etc.) for
today's income inequality. However, their claim that foreign trade is "largely
innocent" as a cause is neither substantiated nor logical. Foreign trade
as practiced today pads corporate profits and executive bonuses while destroying/threatening
millions of American jobs and lowering/holding down the incomes of those
affected. Worse yet, the authors don't even mention the impact of millions
of illegal aliens depressing wage rates while taking jobs from Americans,
nor do they address the canard that tax cuts for and spending by the super-wealthy
are essential to our economic success (refuted by Moody's Analytics and
Austan Goolsbee, Business Week - 9/13/2010). They're also annoyingly biased
towards unions, ignoring their constant strikes and abuses in the 1960s
and 1970s, major contributions to G.M., Chrysler, and legacy airline bankruptcies,
and current school district, local, and state financial difficulties.
Bottom-Line: It is a sad commentary on the American political
system that growing and record levels of inequality are being met by populist
backlash against income redistribution and expanding trust in government,
currently evidenced by those supporting extending tax cuts for the rich
and railing against reforming health care to reduce expenditures from 17.3+%
of GDP to more internationally competitive levels (4-6%) while improving
patient outcomes. "Winner-Take-All Politics" is interesting reading, provides
some essential data, and point out some evidence of the inadequacy of many
voters. However, the authors miss the 'elephant in the room' - American-style
democracy is not viable when at most 10% of citizens are 'proficient' per
functional literacy tests ([...]), and only a small proportion of them
have the time and access required to sift through the flood of half-truths,
lies, and irrelevancies to objectively evaluate 2,000+ page bills and other
political activity. (Ideology-dominated economic professionals and short-term
thinking human rights advocates are two others.)
Comments (2)
"Americans live in Russia, but they think they live in Sweden." -
Chrystia Freeland, March 26, 2011
See all my reviews
This review is from: Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made
the Rich Richer--and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class (Hardcover)
No one should doubt the rising income inequality in America, which the
authors trace back to the late 1970s since the latter part of Carter's presidency
in what they call the "30 Year War". Zachary Roth, in a March 4th Time magazine
article stated "A slew of conservative economists of unimpeachable academic
credentials--including Martin Feldstein of Harvard, Glenn Hubbard, who was
President Bush's top economic adviser, and Federal Reserve chair Ben Bernanke--have
all acknowledged that inequality is on the rise."
And why should we care that most of the after tax income growth since
30 years ago has gone the way of the richest Americans in a "winner-take-all"
economy? Because as Supreme Court justice biographer Melvin Urofsky stated,
"in a democratic society the existence of large centers of private power
is dangerous to the continuing vitality of a free people." (p. 81)
Because if unchecked, a new economic aristocracy may replace the old hereditary
aristocracy America's Founders fought to defeat (p. 298). Because unequal
societies are unhappy societies, and inequality can foster individual resentment
that may lead to a pervasive decline in civility and erosion of culture.
And why should we be concerned that this trend in rising inequality may
not experience the period of renewal the authors are optimistic about? Because
unlike the shock of the 1930s' Great Depression that served as the impetus
for the politics of middle class democracy, the potential shockwaves of
the 2008 Great Recession were tempered by massive government stimulus, resulting
in no meaningful financial reform, and an extension of the tax cuts for
the wealthy. And because of the lottery mentality of a large swath of the
population which opposes tax increases on the rich. One day, they or their
children too can share in the American dream. According to an October 2000
Time-CNN poll, 19 percent of Americans were convinced they belonged to the
richest 1 percent. Another 20 percent thought they'd make the rank of the
top 1 percent at some point in their lives. That's quite a turnover in the
top 1 percent category to accommodate 20 percent of the population passing
through.
Mr. Hacker and Mr. Pierson have put together powerful arguments on the
root causes of income inequality in the U.S., its political and economic
ramifications, and to a lesser extent, a roadmap to returning democracy
to the masses. This is an eye opening and disturbing, yet informative book,
even for readers who may disagree with their opinions.
3.0 out of 5 stars great history of big money influence on policy
but needs more analysis of the ways policy affects the winner-take-all economy,
September 21, 2011
See all my reviews
This review is from: Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the
Rich Richer--and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class (Hardcover)
Writing:
A bit hokey and repetitive for the first couple chapters. Much better
after that. Stick with it if you're interested in the subject.
Content:
This book does a very good job explaining how and why certain special
interest groups (notably those that represent the wealthiest .1%) have come
to have such a stranglehold on government, particularly Congress. I
come away with a clear understanding of how the wealthiest citizens are
able to exert their influence over legislative policy and enforcement at
the federal level.
What I would have liked more of are better explanations of the mechanisms
through which government policies exacerbate the winner-take-all economy.
Tax policy (rates and loopholes) is the most obvious answer, and the book
provides plenty of stats on the regression of tax policy over the past 30
years.
But complicated, interesting, and largely missing from public discourse
is why PRE-TAX incomes have become so much more radically skewed during
that time. This is certainly touched on - the authors are deliberate in
saying it's not JUST tax policy that's contributing to increased inequality
- but I would've liked much more analysis of the other policy-driven factors.
"Deregulation" is too general an explanation to paint a clear picture.
The authors make it clear that they believe the increasing divide in
pre-tax incomes (the winner-take-all economy) is not the inevitable result
of technological changes and of differences in education ("the usual suspects"),
but of policy decisions made at the state and, especially, federal levels.
Personally, I wasn't fully convinced that technological change has little
or nothing to do with the skew (though I agree that while education goes
a long way toward explaining the gap between poor and middle class, it doesn't
explain much of the gap between middle class and super rich). But I do believe,
as they do, that public policy plays a large role in influencing the extent
of inequality in pre-tax incomes, even beyond more obvious market-impacting
factors like union influence, and mandates including the minimum wage, restrictions
on pollution, workplace safety and fairness laws, etc.
Off the top of my head, here are some regulatory issues that affect market
outcomes and can influence the extent of winner-take-all effects in the
marketplace (a few of these may have been mentioned in the book, but none
were discussed in detail):
the enforcement of antitrust laws and other means of encouraging
pro-consumer competition in the marketplace, such as cracking down on
explicit or implicit price-fixing and collusion schemes [concentration
of market share and/or collusion will certainly contribute to winner-take-all
effects at the expense of consumers, small businesses and the dynamics
of the economy as a whole.]
regulations that seek to minimize conflicts of interest in the corporate
world, particularly those with far-reaching effects [i.e. some policy
makers and regulators are in a position to decide whether it makes sense
for bond ratings agencies with the authority they have over so many
investment decisions to be paid, in negotiable fashion, by the companies
whose bonds they rate. i'd wager the status quo exacerbates winner-take-all
and not in a way that rewards the right things - but i'd be glad to
hear an intellectually honest counter-argument]
net neutrality [should internet service providers be allowed to
favor their corporate partners' websites to the point that eventually
you'll no longer be able to publish a blog and expect that anyone will
be able to access it expediently?]
insurance regulation [should we rely on reputation threat alone
to discourage insurer's from stiffing their policyholders' legitimate
claims? status quo we don't, but there are those who argue against regulation
of insurers]
broad macroeconomic goals, such as relative balance between imports
and exports, or attempts to encourage educational institutions to help
align workforce skills with projected job opportunities for instance
- enforced preferably through various incentives rather than mandates
[the U.S. isn't big on this at the moment but many other rich countries
are, in varying forms]
preferential treatment of small businesses to help them compete
with "the big boys", thereby increasing competition in the market and
job-creation
preferential treatment of businesses who do various things deemed
to be in the public interest
intellectual property laws (the extent of patent, copyright, trademark
rights)
securities law, including bans on insider trading, front-running,
etc
food safety and labeling laws
allocation and extent of government-sponsored R&D in industries
deemed important or potentially beneficial to the public
restrictions on what can be bought and sold [almost no one would
argue judge's decisions should be for sale to the highest bidder. how
about cigarette sales to kids, should that be allowed? heroin to anyone?
spots in the class of a competitive public university?]
And many more. I know regulatory issues like that play huge roles in
the distribution of pre-tax "market" incomes, but I'd like to have a better
understanding of how, and also to be better able to articulate how in response
to those who seem to believe taxes (and perhaps obvious restrictions, such
as on pollution or the minimum wage) are the only significant means through
which governments influence wealth disparities.
There wasn't a whole lot of discussion of these or similar regulatory
issues in the book. I would like to see another edition, or perhaps another
book entirely, that does. Please let me know if you have any recommendations.
20141223 : US shows Malthus just 220 years early ( The labor of moderately educated US workers is rewarded considerably less now than in 1979, even as the country has got much richer. In other words, Thomas Malthus' gloomy prophecies, written in 1798, were not wrong. They were merely early... )
"You load 16 tons and whaddaya get??
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don'tcha call me 'Cause-I can't go…
I owe my soul to the Company Store" -- "Sixteen
Tons"
"... Perhaps, Lin, by voluntarily entering an establishment in order to alter one's consciousness- whether in Vietnam or America- you are signaling your surrender and defeat in the war on the "true nature of reality." ..."
I would agree that the America of the neighborhood tavern is dying but would not characterize
our political leadership as a 'rootless, criminal cabal. Criminal they maybe but they are
rooted in the Ivy League, principally Yale and Harvard, and the ideology to gain admission to
those schools. I would say skills to gain entrance but, today, it is more a matter of
ideology. Stray too far from the Clinton/Bush crony capitalist model or Obama's identity
politics and your application goes into the garbage can and with it your chance of joining
our governing elite.
Indeed. I would say this from a slightly different angle: forget about the details of
politics: constitutional monarchy, parliamentary democracy, a republic, democratic socialism,
even marxism, checks and balances, an independent judiciary, an independent central bank, a
written constitution all of these can be made to work, more or less, if the elites care about
the nation as whole. And none of these will matter if the elites no longer care, if they
value their own short-term profit over the long-term stability and strength of their nation.
Back under FDR etc., the elites of this nation were worried about communists, and
anarchists, and then Nazis. That made them care about this nation, they feared that if the
nation went down they would go down as well. So they cared about the working class. I am old
enough to remember when we used to celebrate that we had the highest wages in the world
– that was considered a magnificent joint accomplishment and proof of the greatness of
this nation. Now high American wages are routinely derided as evil, as proof that Americans
are selfish and lazy and they need to be replaced by all those wonderful third-world refugees
who have no alternative but to work for sub-poverty wages
I think the core of this rot is that the elites are no longer afraid. They no longer have
reason to care. They live in gated estates, they fly from private airports (even first class
in a public airport is not good enough/removed enough from the masses for them!), and if
things fall apart they will just sail away in their yachts, tut-tutting about how Americans
no longer deserve their presence
Perhaps, Lin, by voluntarily entering an establishment in order to alter one's
consciousness- whether in Vietnam or America- you are signaling your surrender and defeat in
the war on the "true nature of reality."
The alcohol delusion amplifies greed hatred bondage.
And is anathema to wholesome higher insights.
Whether alcohol or heroin these self- ingrained defilements are an obstruction to the
complete repose to the human spirit.
Exactly. America's leaders behave criminally because they're not scared of the population.
So there's nothing to constrain our leaders from behaving like grifters and conmen.
At some point, however, this will come to an end. Our massively skyrocketing national debt
is totally unpayable, so investors will eventually stop buying our bonds. When that happens,
our national economy and standard of living will collapse dramatically.
It's at that point when our leaders are either put in jail or flee the country.
So is capital, when the dollar will have only limited reserve currency status to the rest
of the world, the American locals will be proportionately ruled by Russian oligarchs and
Chinese priviledge.
American locals are just bulk humanity to these supranationals, they are defined by global
consumerism of the same crap the elites despise. They sweat corn syrup and palm oil and seem
to look "Pinker Steve" happy when digitally masturbating and being chemically subdued,
encased in concrete scenarios.
Now after consumerism, since it is offset by limited resources of our planet, it will be
real misery, as in plowing concrete. That must be mostly indifferent to our supranationals.
Bulk humanity is basically obsolete, and extra-ordinary lucky. If it were for the
supranational nuclei to have a long term policy, we the deplorables would be wiped away, say
three quarters of us.
They are though eagerly observing, if we not, as always, will do it ourselves to us. The
problem would die on itself. The ethnic White middle class down to the street is pointing the
way.
Nonetheless, you might have noticed that happy days aren't exactly here again. The real U.S.
unemployment figure -- all who are counted as unemployed in the "official" rate, plus
discouraged workers, the total of those employed part-time but not able to secure full-time
work and all persons marginally attached to the labor force (those who wish to work but have
given up) -- is 7.6
percent . (This is the "U-6" rate.) That total, too, is less than half of its 2010 peak and
is the lowest in several years. But this still doesn't mean the number of people actually
working is increasing.
Fewer people at work and they are making less
A better indication of how many people have found work is the "civilian labor force
participation rate." By this measure, which includes all people age 16 or older who are not in
prison or a mental institution, only 62.7 percent of the potential U.S. workforce
was actually in the workforce in May, and that was slightly lower than the previous month. This
is just about equal to the lowest this statistic has been since the
breakdown of Keynesianism in the 1970s, and down significantly from the peak of 67.3
percent in May 2000. You have to go back to the mid-1970s to find a time when U.S. labor
participation was lower. This number was consistently lower in the 1950s and 1960s, but in
those days one income was sufficient to support a family. Now everybody works and still can't
make ends meet.
And that brings us to the topic of wages. After reaching a peak of 52 percent in 1969, the
percentage of the U.S. gross domestic product going to wages has fallen to 43 percent , according to research by
the St. Louis branch of the Federal Reserve. The amount of GDP going to wages during the past
five years has been the
lowest it has been since 1929 , according to a New York Times report. And within
the inequality of wages that don't keep up with inflation or productivity gains, the worse-off
are doing worse.
The Economic Policy Institute
noted , "From 2000 to 2017, wage growth was strongest for the highest-wage workers,
continuing the trend in rising wage inequality over the last four decades." The strongest wage
growth was for those in the top 10 percent of earnings, which skewed the results sufficiently
that the median wage increase for 2017 was a paltry 0.2 percent, the EPI reports. Inflation may
have been low, but it wasn't as low as that -- the typical U.S. worker thus suffered a de facto
wage decrease last year.
What this sobering news tells us is that good-paying jobs are hard to come by. An EPI
researcher, Elise Gould,
wrote :
"Slow wage growth tells us that employers continue to hold the cards, and don't have to
offer higher wages to attract workers. In other words, workers have very little leverage to
bid up their wages. Slow wage growth is evidence that employers and workers both know there
are still workers waiting in the wings ready to take a job, even if they aren't actively
looking for one."
The true unemployment rates in Canada and Europe
We find similar patterns elsewhere. In Canada, the official unemployment rate held at
5.8 percent in
April , the lowest it has been since 1976, although there was a slight decrease in the
number of people working in March, mainly due to job losses in wholesale and retail trade and
construction. What is the actual unemployment rate? According to Statistics Canada's R8
figure , it is 8.6 percent. The R8 counts count people in part-time work, including those
wanting full-time work, as "full-time equivalents," thus underestimating the number of
under-employed.
At the end of 2012, the R8 figure was 9.4
percent , but an analysis published by The Globe and Mail analyzing unemployment
estimated the
true unemployment rate for that year to be 14.2 percent. If the current statistical
miscalculation is proportionate, then the true Canadian unemployment rate currently must be
north of 13 percent. "[T]he narrow scope of the Canadian measure significantly understates
labour underutilization," the Globe and Mail analysis conclude.
Similar to its southern neighbor, Canada's labor force participation
rate has steadily declined, falling to 65.4 percent in April 2018 from a high of 67.7
percent in 2003.
The most recent official unemployment figure in Britain 4.2 percent. The true figure is
rather higher. How much higher is difficult to determine, but a
September 2012 report by Sheffield Hallam University found that the total number of
unemployed in Britain was more than 3.4 million in April of that year although the Labour Force
Survey, from which official unemployment statistics are derived, reported only 2.5 million. So
if we assume a similar ratio, then the true rate of unemployment across the United Kingdom is
about 5.7 percent.
The European Union reported an official unemployment rate of 7.1
percent (with Greece having the highest total at 20.8 percent). The EU's Eurostat service
doesn't provide an equivalent of a U.S. U-6 or a Canadian R8, but does separately
provide totals for under-employed part-time workers and "potential additional labour
force"; adding these two would effectively double the true EU rate of unemployed and so the
actual figure must be about 14 percent.
Australia's official seasonally adjusted unemployment rate is 5.6 percent , according to the
country's Bureau of Statistics. The statistic that would provide a more realistic measure, the
"extended labour force under-utilisation" figure, seems to be well hidden. The most recent
figure that could be found was for February 2017, when the rate was given as 15.4 percent. As
the "official" unemployment rate at the time was 5.8 percent, it is reasonable to conclude that
the real Australian unemployment rate is currently above 15 percent.
Mirroring the pattern in North America, global employment is on the decline. The
International Labour Organization estimated the world labor force participation rate
as 61.9 percent for 2017, a steady decline from the 65.7 percent estimated for 1990.
Stagnant wages despite productivity growth around the world
Concomitant with the high numbers of people worldwide who don't have proper employment is
the stagnation of wages. Across North America and Europe, productivity is rising much faster
than wages. A 2017 study found that across those regions median real wage growth since the
mid-1980s has not kept
pace with labor productivity growth.
Not surprisingly, the United States had the largest gap between wages and productivity.
Germany was second in this category, perhaps not surprising, either, because German workers
have suffered a
long period of wage cuts (adjusted for inflation) since the Social Democratic Party
codified austerity by instituting Gerhard Schröder's "Agenda 2010" legislation. Despite
this disparity, the U.S. Federal Reserve issued a report in 2015 declaring the problem of
economic weakness is due to wages not
falling enough . Yes, the Fed believes your wages are too high.
The lag of wages as compared to rising productivity is an ongoing global phenomenon. A
separate statistical analysis from earlier this decade also
demonstrated this pattern for working people in Canada, the United States, Britain, France,
Germany, Italy and Japan. Workers in both Canada and the United States take home hundreds of
dollars less per week than they would if wages had kept up with productivity gains.
In an era of runaway corporate globalization, there is ever more precarity. On a global
scale, having regular employment is actually unusual. Using International Labour Organization
figures as a starting point, John Bellamy Foster and Robert McChesney calculate that the
"global reserve army of labor" -- workers who are underemployed, unemployed or "vulnerably
employed" (including informal workers) -- totals 2.4 billion. In contrast, the world's wage
workers total 1.4 billion. Writing in their book The Endless Crisis: How
Monopoly-Finance Capital Produces Stagnation and Upheaval from the USA to China , they
write:
"It is the existence of a reserve army that in its maximum extent is more than 70 percent
larger than the active labor army that serves to restrain wages globally, and particularly in
poorer countries. Indeed, most of this reserve army is located in the underdeveloped
countries of the world, though its growth can be seen today in the rich countries as well."
[page 145]
Having conquered virtually every corner of the globe and with nowhere left to expand into
nor new markets to take, capitalists will continue to cut costs -- in the first place, wages
and benefits -- in their ceaseless scrambles to sustain their accustomed profits. There is no
reform that can permanently alter this relentless internal logic of capitalism. Although she
was premature, Rosa Luxemburg's forecast of socialism or barbarism draws nearer.
"... At this point, I'm wondering whether life was easier in the old days, when you could buy a spot in the elite university of your choice with cold cash. Then I remind myself that Grandfather lasted only one year at Yale. In those days, the Ivies kicked you out if you weren't ready for action. Today, you have to self-combust in a newsworthy way before they show you the door. ..."
"... Excellent Sheep ..."
"... The Price of Admission ..."
"... In the United States, the premium that college graduates earn over their non-college-educated peers in young adulthood exceeds 70 percent. ..."
"... All of this comes before considering the all-consuming difference between "good" schools and the rest. Ten years after starting college, according to data from the Department of Education, the top decile of earners from all schools had a median salary of $68,000 . But the top decile from the 10 highest-earning colleges raked in $220,000 -- make that $250,000 for No. 1, Harvard -- and the top decile at the next 30 colleges took home $157,000. (Not surprisingly, the top 10 had an average acceptance rate of 9 percent, and the next 30 were at 19 percent.) ..."
"... But the fact is that degree holders earn so much more than the rest not primarily because they are better at their job, but because they mostly take different categories of jobs. Well over half of Ivy League graduates, for instance, typically go straight into one of four career tracks that are generally reserved for the well educated: finance, management consulting, medicine, or law. To keep it simple, let's just say that there are two types of occupations in the world: those whose members have collective influence in setting their own pay, and those whose members must face the music on their own. It's better to be a member of the first group. Not surprisingly, that is where you will find the college crowd. ..."
"... The candy-hurling godfather of today's meritocratic class, of course, is the financial-services industry. Americans now turn over $1 of every $12 in GDP to the financial sector; in the 1950s, the bankers were content to keep only $1 out of $40. ..."
"... It isn't a coincidence that the education premium surged during the same years that membership in trade unions collapsed. In 1954, 28 percent of all workers were members of trade unions, but by 2017 that figure was down to 11 percent. ..."
"... Education -- the thing itself , not the degree -- is always good. A genuine education opens minds and makes good citizens. It ought to be pursued for the sake of society . In our unbalanced system, however, education has been reduced to a private good, justifiable only by the increments in graduates' paychecks. Instead of uniting and enriching us, it divides and impoverishes. ..."
"... If the system can be gamed, well then, our ability to game the system has become the new test of merit. ..."
My 16-year-old daughter is sitting on a couch, talking with a stranger about her dreams for
the future. We're here, ominously enough, because, she says, "all my friends are doing it." For
a moment, I wonder whether we have unintentionally signed up for some kind of therapy. The
professional woman in the smart-casual suit throws me a pointed glance and says, "It's normal
to be anxious at a time like this." She really does see herself as a therapist of sorts. But
she does not yet seem to know that the source of my anxiety is the idea of shelling out for a
$12,000 "base package" of college-counseling services whose chief purpose is apparently to
reduce my anxiety. Determined to get something out of this trial counseling session, I push for
recommendations on summer activities. We leave with a tip on a 10-day "cultural tour" of France
for high schoolers. In the college-application business, that's what's known as an "enrichment
experience." When we get home, I look it up. The price of enrichment: $11,000 for the 10
days.
That's when I hear the legend of the SAT whisperer. If you happen to ride through the
yellow-brown valleys of the California coast, past the designer homes that sprout wherever tech
unicorns sprinkle their golden stock offerings, you might come across him. His high-school
classmates still remember him, almost four decades later, as one of the child wonders of the
age. Back then, he and his equally precocious siblings showed off their preternatural verbal
and musical talents on a local television program. Now his clients fly him around the state for
test-prep sessions with their 16-year-olds. You can hire him for $750, plus transportation, per
two-hour weekend session. (There is a weekday discount.) Some of his clients book him every
week for a year.
Affirmative-action programs are to some degree an extension of the system
of wealth preservation. They indulge rich people in the belief that their college is open to
all.
At this point, I'm wondering whether life was easier in the old days, when you could buy
a spot in the elite university of your choice with cold cash. Then I remind myself that
Grandfather lasted only one year at Yale. In those days, the Ivies kicked you out if you
weren't ready for action. Today, you have to self-combust in a newsworthy way before they show
you the door.
Inevitably, I begin rehearsing the speech for my daughter. It's perfectly possible to lead a
meaningful life without passing through a name-brand college, I'm going to say. We love you for
who you are. We're not like those tacky strivers who want a back-windshield sticker to testify
to our superior parenting skills. And why would you want to be an investment banker or a
corporate lawyer anyway? But I refrain from giving the speech, knowing full well that it will
light up her parental-bullshit detector like a pair of khakis on fire.
The skin colors of the nation's elite student bodies are more varied now, as are their
genders, but their financial bones have calcified over the past 30 years. In 1985, 54 percent
of students at the 250 most selective colleges came from families in the bottom three quartiles
of the income distribution. A similar review of the class of 2010 put that figure at just 33
percent. According to a 2017 study, 38 elite colleges -- among them five of the Ivies --
had more students from the top 1 percent than from the bottom 60 percent . In his 2014
book, Excellent Sheep , William Deresiewicz, a former English professor at Yale,
summed up the situation nicely: "Our new multiracial, gender-neutral meritocracy has figured
out a way to make itself hereditary."
The wealthy can also draw on a variety of affirmative-action programs designed just for
them. As Daniel Golden points out in The Price of Admission , legacy-admissions
policies reward those applicants with the foresight to choose parents who attended the
university in question. Athletic recruiting, on balance and contrary to the popular wisdom,
also favors the wealthy, whose children pursue lacrosse, squash, fencing, and the other
cost-intensive sports at which private schools and elite public schools excel. And, at least
among members of the 0.1 percent, the old-school method of simply handing over some of Daddy's
cash has been making a comeback. (
Witness Jared Kushner, Harvard graduate .)
The mother lode of all affirmative-action programs for the wealthy, of course, remains the
private school. Only 2.2 percent of the nation's students graduate from nonsectarian private
high schools, and yet these graduates account for 26 percent of students at Harvard and 28
percent of students at Princeton. The other affirmative-action programs, the kind aimed
at diversifying the look of the student body, are no doubt well intended. But they are to some
degree merely an extension of this system of wealth preservation. Their function, at least in
part, is to indulge rich people in the belief that their college is open to all on the basis of
merit.
The plummeting admission rates of the very top schools nonetheless leave many of the
children of the 9.9 percent facing long odds. But not to worry, junior 9.9 percenters! We've
created a new range of elite colleges just for you. Thanks to ambitious university
administrators and the ever-expanding rankings machine at U.S. News & World Report ,
50 colleges are now as selective as Princeton was in 1980, when I applied. The colleges seem to
think that piling up rejections makes them special. In fact, it just means that they have
collectively opted to deploy their massive, tax-subsidized endowments to replicate privilege
rather than fulfill their duty to produce an educated public.
The only thing going up as fast as the rejection rates at selective colleges is the
astounding price of tuition. Measured relative to the national median salary, tuition and fees
at top colleges more than tripled from 1963 to 2013. Throw in the counselors, the whisperers,
the violin lessons, the private schools, and the cost of arranging for Junior to save a village
in Micronesia, and it adds up. To be fair, financial aid closes the gap for many families and
keeps the average cost of college from growing as fast as the sticker price. But that still
leaves a question: Why are the wealthy so keen to buy their way in?
The short answer, of course, is that it's worth it.
In the United States, the premium that college graduates earn over their
non-college-educated peers in young adulthood exceeds 70 percent. The return on education is 50
percent higher than what it was in 1950, and is significantly higher than the rate in every
other developed country. In Norway and Denmark, the college premium is less than 20 percent; in
Japan, it is less than 30 percent; in France and Germany, it's about 40 percent.
All of this comes before considering the all-consuming difference between "good" schools and
the rest. Ten years after starting college, according to data from the Department of Education,
the top decile of earners from all schools had a median salary of $68,000 . But the top decile from
the 10 highest-earning colleges raked in $220,000 -- make that $250,000 for No. 1, Harvard --
and the top decile at the next 30 colleges took home $157,000. (Not surprisingly, the top 10
had an average acceptance rate of 9 percent, and the next 30 were at 19 percent.)
It is entirely possible to get a good education at the many schools that don't count as
"good" in our brand-obsessed system. But the "bad" ones really are bad for you. For those who
made the mistake of being born to the wrong parents, our society offers a kind of virtual
education system. It has places that look like colleges -- but aren't really. It has debt --
and that, unfortunately, is real. The people who enter into this class hologram do not collect
a college premium; they wind up in something more like indentured servitude.
So what is the real source of this premium for a "good education" that we all seem to
crave?
One of the stories we tell ourselves is that the premium is the reward for the knowledge and
skills the education provides us. Another, usually unfurled after a round of drinks, is that
the premium is a reward for the superior cranial endowments we possessed before setting foot on
campus. We are, as some sociologists have delicately put it, a "cognitive elite."
Behind both of these stories lies one of the founding myths of our meritocracy. One way or
the other, we tell ourselves, the rising education premium is a direct function of the rising
value of meritorious people in a modern economy. That is, not only do the meritorious get
ahead, but the rewards we receive are in direct proportion to our merit.
But the fact is that degree holders earn so much more than the rest not primarily because
they are better at their job, but because they mostly take different categories of jobs. Well
over half of Ivy League graduates, for instance, typically go straight into one of four career
tracks that are generally reserved for the well educated: finance, management consulting,
medicine, or law. To keep it simple, let's just say that there are two types of occupations in
the world: those whose members have collective influence in setting their own pay, and those
whose members must face the music on their own. It's better to be a member of the first group.
Not surprisingly, that is where you will find the college crowd.
why do America's doctors make twice as much as those of other wealthy countries? Given that
the United States has placed dead last five times running in the Commonwealth Fund's ranking of
health-care systems in high-income countries, it's hard to argue that they are twice as gifted
at saving lives. Dean Baker, a senior economist with the Center for Economic and Policy
Research, has
a more plausible suggestion : "When economists like me look at medicine in America --
whether we lean left or right politically -- we see something that looks an awful lot like a
cartel." Through their influence on the number of slots at medical schools, the availability of
residencies, the licensing of foreign-trained doctors, and the role of nurse practitioners,
physicians' organizations can effectively limit the competition their own members face -- and
that is exactly what they do.
Lawyers (or at least a certain elite subset of them) have apparently learned to play the
same game. Even after the collapse of the so-called law-school bubble, America's lawyers are
No. 1 in international salary rankings and earn more than twice as much, on average, as their
wig-toting British colleagues. The University of Chicago law professor Todd Henderson, writing
for Forbes in 2016,
offered a blunt assessment : "The American Bar Association operates a state-approved
cartel."
Similar occupational licensing schemes provide shelter for the meritorious in a variety of
other sectors. The policy researchers Brink Lindsey and Steven Teles detail the mechanisms in
The Captured
Economy . Dentists' offices, for example, have a glass ceiling that limits what dental
hygienists can do without supervision, keeping their bosses in the 9.9 percent. Copyright and
patent laws prop up profits and salaries in the education-heavy pharmaceutical, software, and
entertainment sectors. These arrangements are trifles, however, compared with what's on offer
in tech and finance, two of the most powerful sectors of the economy.
By now we're thankfully done with the tech-sector fairy tales in which whip-smart cowboys
innovate the heck out of a stodgy status quo. The reality is that five monster companies -- you
know the names -- are worth about $3.5 trillion combined, and represent more than 40 percent of
the market capital on the nasdaq stock exchange. Much of the rest of the technology sector
consists of virtual entities waiting patiently to feed themselves to these beasts.
Let's face it: This is Monopoly money with a smiley emoji. Our society figured out some time
ago how to deal with companies that attempt to corner the market on viscous substances like
oil. We don't yet know what to do with the monopolies that arise out of networks and scale
effects in the information marketplace. Until we do, the excess profits will stick to those who
manage to get closest to the information honeypot. You can be sure that these people will have
a great deal of merit.
The candy-hurling godfather of today's meritocratic class, of course, is the
financial-services industry. Americans now turn over $1 of every $12 in GDP to the financial
sector; in the 1950s, the bankers were content to keep only $1 out of $40. The game is more
sophisticated than a two-fisted money grab, but its essence was made obvious during the 2008
financial crisis. The public underwrites the risks; the financial gurus take a seat at the
casino; and it's heads they win, tails we lose. The financial system we now have is not a
product of nature. It has been engineered, over decades, by powerful bankers, for their own
benefit and for that of their posterity.
Who is not in on the game? Auto workers, for example. Caregivers. Retail workers. Furniture
makers. Food workers. The wages of American manufacturing and service workers consistently
hover in the middle of international rankings. The exceptionalism of American compensation
rates comes to an end in the kinds of work that do not require a college degree.
You see, when educated people with excellent credentials band together to advance their
collective interest, it's all part of serving the public good by ensuring a high quality of
service, establishing fair working conditions, and giving merit its due. That's why we do it
through "associations," and with the assistance of fellow professionals wearing white shoes.
When working-class people do it -- through unions -- it's a violation of the sacred principles
of the free market. It's thuggish and anti-modern. Imagine if workers hired consultants and
"compensation committees," consisting of their peers at other companies, to recommend how much
they should be paid. The result would be -- well, we know what it would be, because that's what
CEOs do.
It isn't a coincidence that the education premium surged during the same years that
membership in trade unions collapsed. In 1954, 28 percent of all workers were members of trade
unions, but by 2017 that figure was down to 11 percent.
Education -- the thing itself , not the degree -- is always good. A genuine education opens
minds and makes good citizens. It ought to be pursued for the sake of society . In our
unbalanced system, however, education has been reduced to a private good, justifiable only by
the increments in graduates' paychecks. Instead of uniting and enriching us, it divides and
impoverishes. Which is really just a way of saying that our worthy ideals of educational
opportunity are ultimately no match for the tidal force of the Gatsby Curve. The metric that
has tracked the rising college premium with the greatest precision is -- that's right --
intergenerational earnings elasticity, or IGE. Across countries, the same correlation obtains:
the higher the college premium, the lower the social mobility.
As I'm angling all the angles for my daughter's college applications -- the counselor is
out, and the SAT whisperer was never going to happen -- I realize why this delusion of merit is
so hard to shake. If I -- I mean, she -- can pull this off, well, there's the proof that we
deserve it! If the system can be gamed, well then, our ability to game the system has become the new test of merit.
So go ahead and replace the SATs with shuffleboard on the high seas, or whatever you want.
Who can doubt that we'd master that game, too? How quickly would we convince ourselves of our
absolute entitlement to the riches that flow directly and tangibly from our shuffling talent?
How soon before we perfected the art of raising shuffleboard wizards? Would any of us notice or
care which way the ship was heading?
Let's suppose that some of us do look up. We see the iceberg. Will that induce us to
diminish our exertions in supreme child-rearing? The grim truth is that, as long as good
parenting and good citizenship are in conflict, we're just going to pack a few more violins for
the trip.
We currently exist in a land of financial contradictions. US household incomes adjusting for
inflation are back to levels last seen in the late 1980s. However, holiday spending is going
strongly largely by people going
into big debt . Many are going to be paying for the holiday season of 2013 deep into years
to come. More troubling than spending via debt is the record level of wealth inequality in the
United States.
We would need to go back to the Gilded Age to find similar levels of wealth inequality.
The latest data shows that roughly 75 percent of the financial wealth in America is held in
the hands of the top 10 percent of households. Or to invert this, 25 percent of all US wealth
is divided up amongst the bottom 90 percent of the population.
Wealth is the true measure of financial stability. It used to be the case that housing was
the one safe store of wealth for Americans but Wall Street has hijacked this asset class and
has converted it to another commodity to speculate on. Yet by looking at spending habits and
financial behavior many Americans think they are simply
temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
They act against their own interests while wealth inequality rages on.
Images were deleted. Refer to the original link for full text.
Notable quotes:
"... According to Miles Corak, an economics professor at the City University of New York, half a century ago IGE in America was less than 0.3 . Today, it is about 0.5. In America, the game is half over once you've selected your parents. IGE is now higher here than in almost every other developed economy. On this measure of economic mobility, the United States is more like Chile or Argentina than Japan or Germany. ..."
"... Social Register ..."
"... Obesity, diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, and liver disease are all two to three times more common in individuals who have a family income of less than $35,000 than in those who have a family income greater than $100,000. Among low-educated, middle-aged whites, the death rate in the United States -- alone in the developed world -- increased in the first decade and a half of the 21st century. Driving the trend is the rapid growth in what the Princeton economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton call "deaths of despair" -- suicides and alcohol- and drug-related deaths. ..."
"... Why can't they get their act together? ..."
"... This article appears in the June 2018 print edition with the headline "The Birth of a New American Aristocracy." ..."
At the end of each week, we would return to our place. My reality was the aggressively middle-class world of 1960s and '70s U.S.
military bases and the communities around them. Life was good there, too, but the pizza came from a box, and it was Lucky Charms
for breakfast. Our glory peaked on the day my parents came home with a new Volkswagen camper bus. As I got older, the holiday
pomp of patriotic luncheons and bridge-playing rituals came to seem faintly ridiculous and even offensive, like an endless birthday
party for people whose chief accomplishment in life was just showing up. I belonged to a new generation that believed in getting
ahead through merit, and we defined merit in a straightforward way: test scores, grades, competitive résumé-stuffing, supremacy in
board games and pickup basketball, and, of course, working for our keep. For me that meant taking on chores for the neighbors, punching
the clock at a local fast-food restaurant, and collecting scholarships to get through college and graduate school. I came into many
advantages by birth, but money was not among them.
The meritocratic class has mastered the old trick of consolidating wealth and passing privilege along at the expense of other
people's children.
I've joined a new aristocracy now, even if we still call ourselves meritocratic winners. If you are a typical reader of The
Atlantic , you may well be a member too. (And if you're not a member, my hope is that you will find the story of this new class
even more interesting -- if also more alarming.) To be sure, there is a lot to admire about my new group, which I'll call -- for
reasons you'll soon see -- the 9.9 percent. We've dropped the old dress codes, put our faith in facts, and are (somewhat) more varied
in skin tone and ethnicity. People like me, who have waning memories of life in an earlier ruling caste, are the exception, not the
rule.
By any sociological or financial measure, it's good to be us. It's even better to be our kids. In our health, family life, friendship
networks, and level of education, not to mention money, we are crushing the competition below. But we do have a blind spot, and it
is located right in the center of the mirror: We seem to be the last to notice just how rapidly we've morphed, or what we've morphed
into.
The meritocratic class has mastered the old trick of consolidating wealth and passing privilege along at the expense of other
people's children. We are not innocent bystanders to the growing concentration of wealth in our time. We are the principal accomplices
in a process that is slowly strangling the economy, destabilizing American politics, and eroding democracy. Our delusions of merit
now prevent us from recognizing the nature of the problem that our emergence as a class represents. We tend to think that the victims
of our success are just the people excluded from the club. But history shows quite clearly that, in the kind of game we're playing,
everybody loses badly in the end.
2.
The Discreet Charm of the 9.9 Percent
Let's talk first about money -- even if money is only one part of what makes the new aristocrats special. There is a familiar
story about rising inequality in the United States, and its stock characters are well known. The villains are the fossil-fueled plutocrat,
the Wall Street fat cat, the callow tech bro, and the rest of the so-called top 1 percent. The good guys are the 99 percent, otherwise
known as "the people" or "the middle class." The arc of the narrative is simple: Once we were equal, but now we are divided. The
story has a grain of truth to it. But it gets the characters and the plot wrong in basic ways.
It is in fact the top 0.1 percent who have been the big winners in the growing concentration of wealth over the past half century.
According to the UC Berkeley economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman,
the 160,000 or so households in that group held 22
percent of America's wealth in 2012 , up from 10 percent in 1963. If you're looking for the kind of money that can buy elections,
you'll find it inside the top 0.1 percent alone.
A Tale of Three Classes ( Figure 1 ):
The 9.9 percent hold most of the wealth in the United States.
Saez / Zucman
Every piece of the pie picked up by the 0.1 percent, in relative terms, had to come from the people below. But not everyone in
the 99.9 percent gave up a slice. Only those in the bottom 90 percent did. At their peak, in the mid-1980s, people in this group
held 35 percent of the nation's wealth. Three decades later that had fallen 12 points -- exactly as much as the wealth of the 0.1
percent rose.
In between the top 0.1 percent and the bottom 90 percent is a group that has been doing just fine. It has held on to its share
of a growing pie decade after decade. And as a group, it owns substantially more wealth than do the other two combined. In the tale
of three classes (see Figure 1), it is represented by the gold line floating high and steady while the other two duke it out. You'll
find the new aristocracy there. We are the 9.9 percent.
So what kind of characters are we, the 9.9 percent? We are mostly not like those flamboyant political manipulators from the 0.1
percent. We're a well-behaved, flannel-suited crowd of lawyers, doctors, dentists, mid-level investment bankers, M.B.A.s with opaque
job titles, and assorted other professionals -- the kind of people you might invite to dinner. In fact, we're so self-effacing, we
deny our own existence. We keep insisting that we're "middle class."
As of 2016, it took $1.2 million in net worth to make it into the 9.9 percent; $2.4 million to reach the group's median; and $10
million to get into the top 0.9 percent. (And if you're not there yet, relax: Our club is open to people who are on the right track
and have the right attitude.) "We are the 99 percent" sounds righteous, but it's a slogan, not an analysis. The families at our end
of the spectrum wouldn't know what to do with a pitchfork.
We are also mostly, but not entirely, white. According to a Pew Research Center analysis, African Americans represent 1.9 percent
of the top 10th of households in wealth; Hispanics, 2.4 percent; and all other minorities, including Asian and multiracial individuals,
8.8 percent -- even though those groups together account for 35 percent of the total population.
One of the hazards of life in the 9.9 percent is that our necks get stuck in the upward position. We gaze upon the 0.1 percent
with a mixture of awe, envy, and eagerness to obey. As a consequence, we are missing the other big story of our time. We have left
the 90 percent in the dust -- and we've been quietly tossing down roadblocks behind us to make sure that they never catch up.
Let's suppose that you start off right in the middle of the American wealth distribution. How high would you have to jump to make
it into the 9.9 percent? In financial terms, the measurement is easy and the trend is unmistakable. In 1963, you would have needed
to multiply your wealth six times. By 2016, you would have needed to leap twice as high -- increasing your wealth 12-fold -- to scrape
into our group. If you boldly aspired to reach the middle of our group rather than its lower edge,
you'd have needed to multiply your wealth by a
factor of 25 . On this measure, the 2010s look much like the 1920s.
If you are starting at the median for people of color, you'll want to practice your financial pole-vaulting.
The Institute for Policy Studies calculated
that, setting aside money invested in "durable goods" such as furniture and a family car, the median black family had net wealth
of $1,700 in 2013, and the median Latino family had $2,000, compared with $116,800 for the median white family. A 2015 study in Boston
found that the wealth of the median white family there was $247,500, while the wealth of the median African American family was $8.
That is not a typo. That's two grande cappuccinos. That and another 300,000 cups of coffee will get you into the 9.9 percent.
N one of this matters, you will often hear, because in the United States everyone has an opportunity to make the leap: Mobility
justifies inequality. As a matter of principle, this isn't true. In the United States, it also turns out not to be true as a factual
matter. Contrary to popular myth, economic mobility in the land of opportunity is not high, and it's going down.
Imagine yourself on the socioeconomic ladder with one end of a rubber band around your ankle and the other around your parents'
rung. The strength of the rubber determines how hard it is for you to escape the rung on which you were born. If your parents are
high on the ladder, the band will pull you up should you fall; if they are low, it will drag you down when you start to rise. Economists
represent this concept with a number they call "intergenerational earnings elasticity," or IGE, which measures how much of a child's
deviation from average income can be accounted for by the parents' income. An IGE of zero means that there's no relationship at all
between parents' income and that of their offspring. An IGE of one says that the destiny of a child is to end up right where she
came into the world.
According to Miles Corak, an economics professor at the City University of New York,
half a century ago IGE in America was less than 0.3 . Today, it is about 0.5. In America, the game is half over once you've selected
your parents. IGE is now higher here than in almost every other developed economy. On this measure of economic mobility, the United
States is more like Chile or Argentina than Japan or Germany.
The story becomes even more disconcerting when you see just where on the ladder the tightest rubber bands are located. Canada,
for example, has an IGE of about half that of the U.S. Yet from the middle rungs of the two countries' income ladders, offspring
move up or down through the nearby deciles at the same respectable pace. The difference is in what happens at the extremes. In the
United States, it's the children of the bottom decile and, above all, the top decile -- the 9.9 percent -- who settle down nearest
to their starting point. Here in the land of opportunity, the taller the tree, the closer the apple falls.
All of this analysis of wealth percentiles, to be clear, provides only a rough start in understanding America's evolving class
system. People move in and out of wealth categories all the time without necessarily changing social class, and they may belong to
a different class in their own eyes than they do in others'. Yet even if the trends in the monetary statistics are imperfect illustrations
of a deeper process, they are nonetheless registering something of the extraordinary transformation that's taking place in our society.
A few years ago, Alan Krueger, an economist and a former chairman of the Obama administration's Council of Economic Advisers,
was reviewing
the international mobility data when he
caught a glimpse of the fundamental
process underlying our present moment . Rising immobility and rising inequality aren't like two pieces of driftwood that happen
to have shown up on the beach at the same time, he noted. They wash up together on every shore. Across countries, the higher the
inequality, the higher the IGE (see Figure 2). It's as if human societies have a natural tendency to separate, and then, once the
classes are far enough apart, to crystallize.
The Great Gatsby Curve ( Figure 2 ): Inequality and class immobility go together.
Miles Corak
Economists are prudent creatures, and they'll look up from a graph like that and remind you that it shows only correlation, not
causation. That's a convenient hedge for those of us at the top because it keeps alive one of the founding myths of America's meritocracy:
that our success has nothing to do with other people's failure. It's a pleasant idea. But around the world and throughout
history, the wealthy have advanced the crystallization process in a straightforward way. They have taken their money out of productive
activities and put it into walls. Throughout history, moreover, one social group above all others has assumed responsibility for
maintaining and defending these walls. Its members used to be called aristocrats. Now we're the 9.9 percent. The main difference
is that we have figured out how to use the pretense of being part of the middle as one of our strategies for remaining on top.
Krueger liked the graph shown in Figure 2 so much that he decided to give it a name: the Great Gatsby Curve. It's a good choice,
and it resonates strongly with me. F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel about the breakdown of the American dream is set in 1922, or right
around the time that my great-grandfather was secretly siphoning money from Standard Oil and putting it into a shell company in Canada.
It was published in 1925, just as special counsel was turning up evidence that bonds from that company had found their way into the
hands of the secretary of the interior. Its author was drinking his way through the cafés of Paris just as Colonel Robert W. Stewart
was running away from subpoenas to testify before the United States Senate about his role in the Teapot Dome scandal. We are only
now closing in on the peak of inequality that his generation achieved, in 1928. I'm sure they thought it would go on forever, too.
3.
The Origin of a Species
Money can't buy you class, or so my grandmother used to say. But it can buy a private detective. Grandmother was a Kentucky debutante
and sometime fashion model (kind of like Daisy Buchanan in The Great Gatsby , weirdly enough), so she knew what to do when
her eldest son announced his intention to marry a woman from Spain. A gumshoe promptly reported back that the prospective bride's
family made a living selling newspapers on the streets of Barcelona. Grandmother instituted an immediate and total communications
embargo. In fact, my mother's family owned and operated a large paper-goods factory. When children came, Grandmother at last relented.
Determined to do the right thing, she arranged for the new family, then on military assignment in Hawaii, to be inscribed in the
New York Social Register .
Sociologists would say, in their dry language, that my grandmother was a zealous manager of the family's social capital -- and
she wasn't about to let some Spanish street urchin run away with it. She did have a point, even if her facts were wrong. Money may
be the measure of wealth, but it is far from the only form of it. Family, friends, social networks, personal health, culture, education,
and even location are all ways of being rich, too. These nonfinancial forms of wealth, as it turns out, aren't simply perks of membership
in our aristocracy. They define us.
We are the people of good family, good health, good schools, good neighborhoods, and good jobs. We may want to call ourselves
the "5Gs" rather than the 9.9 percent. We are so far from the not-so-good people on all of these dimensions, we are beginning to
resemble a new species. And, just as in Grandmother's day, the process of speciation begins with a love story -- or, if you prefer,
sexual selection.
The polite term for the process is assortative mating . The phrase is sometimes used to suggest that this is another of
the wonders of the internet age, where popcorn at last meets butter and Yankees fan finds Yankees fan. In fact, the frenzy of assortative
mating today results from a truth that would have been generally acknowledged by the heroines of any Jane Austen novel: Rising inequality
decreases the number of suitably wealthy mates even as it increases the reward for finding one and the penalty for failing to do
so. According to one study, the last time marriage partners
sorted themselves by educational status as
much as they do now was in the 1920s .
For most of us, the process is happily invisible. You meet someone under a tree on an exclusive campus or during orientation at
a high-powered professional firm, and before you know it, you're twice as rich. But sometimes -- Grandmother understood this well
-- extra measures are called for. That's where our new technology puts bumbling society detectives to shame.
Ivy Leaguers looking to mate with their equals can apply to join a dating service called the League. It's selective, naturally:
Only 20 to 30 percent of New York applicants get in. It's sometimes called "Tinder for the elites."
From Our June 2018 Issue
Subscribe to The Atlantic and support 160 years of independent journalism
It is misleading to think that assortative mating is symmetrical, as in city mouse marries city mouse and country mouse marries
country mouse. A better summary of the data would be: Rich mouse finds love, and poor mouse gets screwed. It turns out -- who knew?
-- that people who are struggling to keep it all together have a harder time hanging on to their partner. According to the Harvard
political scientist Robert Putnam, 60 years ago just 20 percent of children born to parents with a high-school education or less
lived in a single-parent household; now that figure is nearly 70 percent. Among college-educated households, by contrast, the single-parent
rate remains less than 10 percent. Since the 1970s, the divorce rate has declined significantly among college-educated couples, while
it has risen dramatically among couples with only a high-school education -- even as marriage itself has become less common. The
rate of single parenting is in turn the single most significant predictor of social immobility across counties, according to a study
led by the Stanford economist Raj Chetty.
None of which is to suggest that individuals are wrong to seek a suitable partner and make a beautiful family. People should --
and presumably always will -- pursue happiness in this way. It's one of the delusions of our meritocratic class, however, to assume
that if our actions are individually blameless, then the sum of our actions will be good for society. We may have studied Shakespeare
on the way to law school, but we have little sense for the tragic possibilities of life. The fact of the matter is that we have silently
and collectively opted for inequality, and this is what inequality does. It turns marriage into a luxury good, and a stable family
life into a privilege that the moneyed elite can pass along to their children. How do we think that's going to work out?
This divergence of families by class is just one part of a process that is creating two distinct forms of life in our society.
Stop in at your local yoga studio or SoulCycle class, and you'll notice that the same process is now inscribing itself in our own
bodies. In 19th-century England, the rich really were different. They didn't just have more money; they were taller -- a lot taller.
According to a study colorfully titled "On English Pygmies and Giants," 16-year-old boys from the upper classes towered a remarkable
8.6 inches, on average, over their undernourished, lower-class countrymen. We are reproducing the same kind of division via a different
set of dimensions.
Obesity, diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, and liver disease are all
two to three times more common in individuals who have a family income of less than $35,000 than in those who have a family income
greater than $100,000. Among low-educated, middle-aged whites, the death rate in the United States -- alone in the developed world
-- increased in the first decade and a half of the 21st century. Driving the trend is the rapid growth in what the
Princeton economists
Anne Case and Angus Deaton call "deaths of despair" -- suicides and alcohol- and drug-related deaths.
The sociological data are not remotely ambiguous on any aspect of this growing divide. We 9.9 percenters live in safer neighborhoods,
go to better schools, have shorter commutes, receive higher-quality health care, and, when circumstances require, serve time in better
prisons. We also have more friends -- the kind of friends who will introduce us to new clients or line up great internships for our
kids.
These special forms of wealth offer the further advantages that they are both harder to emulate and safer to brag about than high
income alone. Our class walks around in the jeans and T‑shirts inherited from our supposedly humble beginnings. We prefer to signal
our status by talking about our organically nourished bodies, the awe-inspiring feats of our offspring, and the ecological correctness
of our neighborhoods. We have figured out how to launder our money through higher virtues.
Most important of all, we have learned how to pass all of these advantages down to our children. In America today, the single
best predictor of whether an individual will get married, stay married, pursue advanced education, live in a good neighborhood, have
an extensive social network, and experience good health is the performance of his or her parents on those same metrics.
We're leaving the 90 percent and their offspring far behind in a cloud of debts and bad life choices that they somehow can't stop
themselves from making. We tend to overlook the fact that parenting is more expensive and motherhood more hazardous in the United
States than in any other developed country, that campaigns against family planning and reproductive rights are an assault on the
families of the bottom 90 percent, and that law-and-order politics serves to keep even more of them down. We prefer to interpret
their relative poverty as vice: Why can't they get their act together?
New forms of life necessarily give rise to new and distinct forms of consciousness. If you doubt this, you clearly haven't been
reading the "personal and household services" ads on Monster.com. At the time of this writing, the section for my town of Brookline,
Massachusetts, featured one placed by a "busy professional couple" seeking a "Part Time Nanny." The nanny (or manny -- the ad scrupulously
avoids committing to gender) is to be "bright, loving, and energetic"; "friendly, intelligent, and professional"; and "a very good
communicator, both written and verbal." She (on balance of probability) will "assist with the care and development" of two children
and will be "responsible for all aspects of the children's needs," including bathing, dressing, feeding, and taking the young things
to and from school and activities. That's why a "college degree in early childhood education" is "a plus."
In short, Nanny is to have every attribute one would want in a terrific, professional, college-educated parent. Except, of course,
the part about being an actual professional, college-educated parent. There is no chance that Nanny will trade places with our busy
5G couple. She "must know the proper etiquette in a professionally run household" and be prepared to "accommodate changing circumstances."
She is required to have "5+ years experience as a Nanny," which makes it unlikely that she'll have had time to get the law degree
that would put her on the other side of the bargain. All of Nanny's skills, education, experience, and professionalism will land
her a job that is "Part Time."
The ad is written in flawless, 21st-century business-speak, but what it is really seeking is a governess -- that exquisitely contradictory
figure in Victorian literature who is both indistinguishable in all outward respects from the upper class and yet emphatically not
a member of it. Nanny's best bet for moving up in the world is probably to follow the example of Jane Eyre and run off with the lord
(or lady) of the manor.
If you look beyond the characters in this unwritten novel about Nanny and her 5G masters, you'll see a familiar shape looming
on the horizon. The Gatsby Curve has managed to reproduce itself in social, physiological, and cultural capital. Put more accurately:
There is only one curve, but it operates through a multiplicity of forms of wealth.
Rising inequality does not follow from a hidden law of economics, as the otherwise insightful Thomas Piketty suggested when he
claimed that the historical rate of return on capital exceeds the historical rate of growth in the economy. Inequality necessarily
entrenches itself through other, nonfinancial, intrinsically invidious forms of wealth and power. We use these other forms of capital
to project our advantages into life itself. We look down from our higher virtues in the same way the English upper class looked down
from its taller bodies, as if the distinction between superior and inferior were an artifact of nature. That's what aristocrats do.
... ... ...
5.
The Invisible Hand of Government
As far as Grandfather was concerned, the assault on the productive classes began long before the New Deal. It all started in 1913,
with the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment. In case you've forgotten, that amendment granted the federal government the power
to levy a direct personal-income tax. It also happens that ratification took place just a few months after Grandfather was born,
which made sense to me in a strange way. By far the largest part of his lifetime income was attributable to his birth.
Grandfather was a stockbroker for a time. I eventually figured out that he mostly traded his own portfolio and bought a seat at
the stock exchange for the purpose. Politics was a hobby, too. At one point, he announced his intention to seek the Republican nomination
for lieutenant governor of Connecticut. (It wasn't clear whether anybody outside the clubhouse heard him.) What he really liked to
do was fly. The memories that mattered most to him were his years of service as a transport pilot during World War II. Or the time
he and Grandmother took to the Midwestern skies in a barnstorming plane. My grandparents never lost faith in the limitless possibilities
of a life free from government. But in their last years, as the reserves passed down from the Colonel ran low, they became pretty
diligent about collecting their Social Security and Medicare benefits.
There is a page in the book of American political thought -- Grandfather knew it by heart -- that says we must choose between
government and freedom. But if you read it twice, you'll see that what it really offers is a choice between government you can see
and government you can't. Aristocrats always prefer the invisible kind of government. It leaves them free to exercise their privileges.
We in the 9.9 percent have mastered the art of getting the government to work for us even while complaining loudly that it's working
for those other people.
Consider, for starters, the greatly exaggerated reports of our tax burdens. On guest panels this past holiday season, apologists
for the latest round of upwardly aimed tax cuts offered versions of Mitt Romney's claim that the 47 percent of Americans who pay
no federal income tax in a typical year have "no skin in the game." Baloney. Sure, the federal individual-income tax, which raised
$1.6 trillion last year, remains progressive. But the $1.2 trillion raised by the payroll tax hits all workers -- but not investors,
such as Romney -- and it hits those making lower incomes at a higher rate, thanks to a cap on the amount of income subject to the
tax. Then there's the $2.3 trillion raised by state and local governments, much of it collected through regressive sales and property
taxes. The poorest quintile of Americans
pays more than
twice the rate of state taxes as the top 1 percent does , and about half again what the top 10 percent pays.
Our false protests about paying all the taxes, however, sound like songs of innocence compared with our mastery of the art of
having the taxes returned to us. The income-tax system that so offended my grandfather has had the unintended effect of creating
a highly discreet category of government expenditures. They're called "tax breaks," but it's better to think of them as handouts
that spare the government the inconvenience of collecting the money in the first place. In theory, tax expenditures can be used to
support any number of worthy social purposes, and a few of them, such as the earned income-tax credit, do actually go to those with
a lower income. But more commonly, because their value is usually a function of the amount of money individuals have in the first
place, and those individuals' marginal tax rates, the benefits flow uphill.
Let us count our blessings: Every year, the federal government doles out tax expenditures through deductions for retirement savings
(worth $137 billion in 2013); employer-sponsored health plans ($250 billion); mortgage-interest payments ($70 billion); and, sweetest
of all, income from watching the value of your home, stock portfolio, and private-equity partnerships grow ($161 billion). In total,
federal tax expenditures exceeded $900 billion in 2013. That's more than the cost of Medicare, more than the cost of Medicaid, more
than the cost of all other federal safety-net programs put together. And -- such is the beauty of the system -- 51 percent of those
handouts went to the top quintile of earners, and 39 percent to the top decile.
The best thing about this program of reverse taxation, as far as the 9.9 percent are concerned, is that the bottom 90 percent
haven't got a clue. The working classes get riled up when they see someone at the grocery store flipping out their food stamps to
buy a T-bone. They have no idea that a nice family on the other side of town is walking away with $100,000 for flipping their house.
But wait, there's more! Let's not forget about the kids. If the secrets of a nation's soul may be read from its tax code, then
our nation must be in love with the children of rich people. The 2017 tax law raises the amount of money that married couples can
pass along to their heirs tax-free from a very generous $11 million to a magnificent $22 million. Correction: It's not merely tax-free;
it's tax-subsidized. The unrealized tax liability on the appreciation of the house you bought 40 years ago, or on the stock portfolio
that has been gathering moths -- all of that disappears when you pass the gains along to the kids. Those foregone taxes cost the
United States Treasury $43 billion in 2013 alone -- about three times the amount spent on the Children's Health Insurance Program.
Grandfather's father, the Colonel, died in 1947, when the maximum estate-tax rate was a now-unheard-of 77 percent. When the remainder
was divvied up among four siblings, Grandfather had barely enough to pay for the Bentley and keep up with dues at the necessary clubs.
The government made sure that I would grow up in the middle class. And for that I will always be grateful.
... ... ...
8.
The Politics of Resentment
The political theology of the meritocracy has no room for resentment. We are taught to run the competition of life with our eyes
on the clock and not on one another, as if we were each alone. If someone scores a powerboat on the Long Island waterways, so much
the better for her. The losers will just smile and try harder next time.
In the real world, we humans are always looking from side to side. We are intensely conscious of what other people are thinking
and doing, and conscious to the point of preoccupation with what they think about us. Our status is visible only through its reflection
in the eyes of others.
Perhaps the best evidence for the power of an aristocracy is to be found in the degree of resentment it provokes. By that measure,
the 9.9 percent are doing pretty well indeed. The surest sign of an increase in resentment is a rise in political division and instability.
We're positively acing that test. You can read all about it in the headlines of the past two years.
The 2016 presidential election marked a decisive moment in the history of resentment in the United States. In the person of Donald
Trump, resentment entered the White House. It rode in on the back of an alliance between a tiny subset of super-wealthy 0.1 percenters
(not all of them necessarily American) and a large number of 90 percenters who stand for pretty much everything the 9.9 percent are
not.
According to exit polls by CNN and Pew, Trump won white voters by about 20 percent. But these weren't just any old whites (though
they were old, too). The first thing to know about the substantial majority of them is that they weren't the winners in the new economy.
To be sure, for the most part they weren't poor either. But they did have reason to feel judged by the market -- and found wanting.
The counties that supported Hillary Clinton represented an astonishing 64 percent of the GDP, while Trump counties accounted for
a mere 36 percent. Aaron Terrazas, a senior economist at Zillow,
found that the median home value in
Clinton counties was $250,000, while the median in Trump counties was $154,000. When you adjust for inflation, Clinton counties enjoyed
real-estate price appreciation of 27 percent from January 2000 to October 2016; Trump counties got only a 6 percent bump.
The residents of Trump country were also the losers in the war on human health. According to Shannon Monnat, an associate professor
of sociology at Syracuse, the Rust Belt counties that put the anti-government-health-care candidate over the top were those that
lost the most people in recent years to deaths of despair -- those due to alcohol, drugs, and suicide.
To make all of America
as great as Trump country, you would have to torch about a quarter of total GDP, wipe a similar proportion of the nation's housing
stock into the sea, and lose a few years in life expectancy. There's a reason why one of Trump's favorite words is unfair
. That's the only word resentment wants to hear.
Even so, the distinguishing feature of Trump's (white) voters wasn't their income but their education, or lack thereof. Pew's
latest analysis indicates that Trump lost college-educated white voters by a humiliating 17 percent margin. But he got revenge with
non-college-educated whites, whom he captured by a stomping 36 percent margin. According to an analysis by Nate Silver,
the 50 most
educated counties in the nation surged to Clinton : In 2012, Obama had won them by a mere 17 percentage points; Clinton took
them by 26 points. The 50 least educated counties moved in the opposite direction; whereas Obama had lost them by 19 points, Clinton
lost them by 31. Majority-minority counties split the same way: The more educated moved toward Clinton, and the less educated toward
Trump.
The historian Richard Hofstadter drew attention to Anti-intellectualism in American Life in 1963; Susan Jacoby warned in
2008 about The Age of American Unreason ; and Tom Nichols announced The Death of Expertise in 2017. In Trump, the age
of unreason has at last found its hero. The "self-made man" is always the idol of those who aren't quite making it. He is the sacred
embodiment of the American dream, the guy who answers to nobody, the poor man's idea of a rich man. It's the educated phonies this
group can't stand. With his utter lack of policy knowledge and belligerent commitment to maintaining his ignorance, Trump is the
perfect representative for a population whose idea of good governance is just to scramble the eggheads. When reason becomes the enemy
of the common man, the common man becomes the enemy of reason.
Did I mention that the common man is white? That brings us to the other side of American-style resentment. You kick down, and
then you close ranks around an imaginary tribe. The problem, you say, is the moochers, the snakes, the handout queens; the solution
is the flag and the religion of your (white) ancestors. According to a survey by the political scientist Brian Schaffner, Trump crushed
it among voters who "strongly disagree" that "white people have advantages because of the color of their skin," as well as among
those who "strongly agree" that "women seek to gain power over men." It's worth adding that these responses measure not racism or
sexism directly, but rather resentment. They're good for picking out the kind of people who will vehemently insist that they are
the least racist or sexist person you have ever met, even as they vote for a flagrant racist and an accused sexual predator.
No one is born resentful. As mass phenomena, racism, xenophobia, anti-intellectualism, narcissism, irrationalism, and all other
variants of resentment are as expensive to produce as they are deadly to democratic politics. Only long hours of television programming,
intelligently manipulated social-media feeds, and expensively sustained information bubbles can actualize the unhappy dispositions
of humanity to the point where they may be fruitfully manipulated for political gain. Racism in particular is not just a legacy of
the past, as many Americans would like to believe; it also must be constantly reinvented for the present. Mass incarceration, fearmongering,
and segregation are not just the results of prejudice, but also the means of reproducing it.
The raging polarization of American political life is not the consequence of bad manners or a lack of mutual understanding. It
is just the loud aftermath of escalating inequality. It could not have happened without the 0.1 percent (or, rather, an aggressive
subset of its members). Wealth always preserves itself by dividing the opposition. The Gatsby Curve does not merely cause barriers
to be built on the ground; it mandates the construction of walls that run through other people's minds.
But that is not to let the 9.9 percent off the hook. We may not be the ones funding the race-baiting, but we are the ones hoarding
the opportunities of daily life. We are the staff that runs the machine that funnels resources from the 90 percent to the 0.1 percent.
We've been happy to take our cut of the spoils. We've looked on with smug disdain as our labors have brought forth a population prone
to resentment and ripe for manipulation. We should be prepared to embrace the consequences.
The first important thing to know about these consequences is the most obvious: Resentment is a solution to nothing. It isn't
a program of reform. It isn't "populism." It is an affliction of democracy, not an instance of it. The politics of resentment is
a means of increasing inequality, not reducing it. Every policy change that has waded out of the Trump administration's baffling
morass of incompetence makes this clear. The new tax law; the executive actions on the environment and telecommunications, and on
financial-services regulation; the judicial appointments of conservative ideologues -- all will have the effect of keeping the 90
percent toiling in the foothills of merit for many years to come.
The second thing to know is that we are next in line for the chopping block. As the population of the resentful expands, the circle
of joy near the top gets smaller. The people riding popular rage to glory eventually realize that we are less useful to them as servants
of the economic machine than we are as model enemies of the people. The anti-blue-state provisions of the recent tax law have miffed
some members of the 9.9 percent, but they're just a taste of the bad things that happen to people like us as the politics of resentment
unfolds.
The past year provides ample confirmation of the third and most important consequence of the process: instability. Unreasonable
people also tend to be ungovernable. I won't belabor the point. Just try doing a frequency search on the phrase constitutional
crisis over the past five years. That's the thing about the Gatsby Curve. You think it's locking all of your gains in place.
But the crystallization process actually has the effect of making the whole system more brittle. If you look again at history, you
can get a sense of how the process usually ends.
10.
The Choice
I like to think that the ending of The Great Gatsby is too down-beat. Even if we are doomed to row our boats ceaselessly
back into the past, how do we know which part of the past that will be?
History shows us a number of aristocracies that have made good choices. The 9.9 percenters of ancient Athens held off the dead
tide of the Gatsby Curve for a time, even if democracy wasn't quite the right word for their system of government. America's
first generation of revolutionaries was mostly 9.9 percenters, and yet they turned their backs on the man at the very top in order
to create a government of, by, and for the people. The best revolutions do not start at the bottom; they are the work of the upper-middle
class.
These exceptions are rare, to be sure, and yet they are the story of the modern world. In total population, average life expectancy,
material wealth, artistic expression, rates of violence, and almost every other measure that matters for the quality of human life,
the modern world is a dramatically different place than anything that came before. Historians offer many complicated explanations
for this happy turn in human events -- the steam engine, microbes, the weather -- but a simple answer precedes them all: equality.
The history of the modern world is the unfolding of the idea at the vital center of the American Revolution.
The defining challenge of our time is to renew the promise of American democracy by reversing the calcifying effects of accelerating
inequality. As long as inequality rules, reason will be absent from our politics; without reason, none of our other issues can be
solved. It's a world-historical problem. But the solutions that have been put forward so far are, for the most part, shoebox in size.
Well-meaning meritocrats have proposed new and better tests for admitting people into their jewel-encrusted classrooms. Fine --
but we aren't going to beat back the Gatsby Curve by tweaking the formulas for excluding people from fancy universities. Policy wonks
have taken aim at the more-egregious tax-code handouts, such as the mortgage-interest deduction and college-savings plans. Good --
and then what? Conservatives continue to recycle the characterological solutions, like celebrating traditional marriage or bringing
back that old-time religion. Sure -- reforging familial and community bonds is a worthy goal. But talking up those virtues won't
save any families from the withering pressures of a rigged economy. Meanwhile, coffee-shop radicals say they want a revolution. They
don't seem to appreciate that the only simple solutions are the incredibly violent and destructive ones.
The American idea has always been a guide star, not a policy program, much less a reality. The rights of human beings never have
been and never could be permanently established in a handful of phrases or old declarations. They are always rushing to catch up
to the world that we inhabit. In our world, now, we need to understand that access to the means of sustaining good health, the opportunity
to learn from the wisdom accumulated in our culture, and the expectation that one may do so in a decent home and neighborhood are
not privileges to be reserved for the few who have learned to game the system. They are rights that follow from the same source as
those that an earlier generation called life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Yes, the kind of change that really matters is going to require action from the federal government. That which creates monopoly
power can also destroy it; that which allows money into politics can also take it out; that which has transferred power from labor
to capital can transfer it back. Change also needs to happen at the state and local levels. How else are we going to open up our
neighborhoods and restore the public character of education?
It's going to take something from each of us, too, and perhaps especially from those who happen to be the momentary winners of
this cycle in the game. We need to peel our eyes away from the mirror of our own success and think about what we can do in our everyday
lives for the people who aren't our neighbors. We should be fighting for opportunities for other people's children as if the future
of our own children depended on it. It probably does.
This article appears in the June 2018 print edition with the headline "The Birth of a New American Aristocracy."
There are many societies that tolerate a certain degree of economic inequality, but still
provide decent living conditions, services and infrastructure for most citizens. The notion
that we either have extreme inequality or extreme poverty is empirically and morally empty.
The economist John Maynard Keynes said "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do
you do, sir?" But many students continue to be deceived by their professors who, even
after the great financial crisis, refuse to change their mind and continue to actively peddle
theories that are plain wrong. So on the show we ask if the academics are failing us, how do we
begin to reverse such a heavily entrenched education system? Host Ross Ashcroft is joined by
Professor Steve Keen and the author and economist Steven Payson.
Stumbling and Mumbling has a good riff on this topic:
". Economics, for me, is not about armchair theorizing. It should begin with the facts, and
especially the big ones. The facts are that share buy-backs do usually matter, so thought
experiments that say otherwise are wrong from the off. Similarly, the fact that wage
inflation has been low for years (pdf) is much more significant than any theorizing about
Phillips curves."
The comments are good as well:
"That's a category error: you don't define "Economics", tenure committees define it, and they
award tenure to people who have a long record of publishing "internally consistent"
("armchair theorizing") papers."
"I found myself sitting next to a very likable young middle-aged academic tenured at an elite
British university, whom henceforth I will refer to as Doctor X and whose field is closely
associated with this blog. Every year I publish papers in the top journals and they're pure
shit." Doctor X, who by now had had a glass or two, felt bad about this, not least because
"students these days are so idealistic and eager to learn; they're really wonderful."
Furthermore Doctor X could and would like "to write serious papers but what would be the
point?" "
http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2018/04/facts-vs-hand-waving-in-economics.html#comments
Yeah. I'm inclined to think the author needs to curb his enthusiasms and take up dejected
drinking.
The nub of his presentation was a model in which consumers, due to cognitive
limitations, were unable to fully examine every single product they purchased. The result
was that regulations guaranteeing a certain standard of safety, quality and the like could
improve competition by giving people more time to shop around instead of having to devote
so much time to investigate specific products. Thus, regulation would improve markets and
competition
This is Nobel-level work? It amounts to finding a way to pitch a product to
anti-regulation dogmatists. I'm sure that you could find similar arguments being made during
the Progressive era regulatory push. Only they would have been framed more as "people will
have more time to shop around if they're not killed by previous ingestion of the
product."
What I mean by 'mathemagics' is the misuse of mathematics –even simple
mathematics -- to create the illusion that 'utility' or 'indifference curves' actually
pertain to real concepts. In reality, they 'mathematize' gobbledygook passed off as coherent
concepts. There is nothing so conceptually barren as 'utility' or 'indifference curve'
analytics. The notion that one can derive any coherent 'demand' analysis for any one consumer
that is individual human being (or life form of any kind) for any product, or that one can
aggregate these up is mathematical junk.
The Classical Economists used the broader political economy rather than today's narrow
economics.
The Washington Consensus dreamed of a world run by the laws of economics.
The laws of economics worked in China's favour and the Western economies got hollowed
out.
Disposable income = wages – (taxes + the cost of living)
Maximising profit required minimising wages.
The minimum wage is set when disposable income equals zero.
The minimum wage = taxes + the cost of living
China had it made and the West had tilted the playing field against itself.
The US eventually woke up the geopolitical consequences of a world governed by the laws of
economics that had worked in China's favour.
Trump has just made things worse with his tax cuts.
Theory:
If we reduce taxes on the wealthy they will create more jobs and wages.
Reality:
If we reduce taxes on the wealthy they will create more jobs and wages in Asia where they can
make more profit. They can then ship the stuff back here increasing Western trade
deficits.
"... First, we need to accept that there is no such thing as "value-free" analysis of the economy. As I've explained, neoclassical economics pretends to be ethically neutral while smuggling in an individualistic, anti-social ethos " – Howard Reed ..."
"... Fundamentally, economics is a religion, with priests, high priests, creed, dogma, punishment for heretics, and all the other trappings of a religion. But the pay is good, so Clive's rule for middle class jobs applies. ..."
Economics conducted
a curriculum review of 174 modules at 7 Russell Group universities -- rightly or wrongly
considered the 'top' universities in the UK -- and we found that the uncritical acceptance of
one type of economics begins with education. Under 10% of modules even mentioned anything other
than mainstream or 'neoclassical' economics; in econometrics, over 90% of modules devoted more
than two-thirds of their lectures to linear regression. Only 24% of exam questions required
critical or independent thinking (i.e. were open-ended); this dropped to 8% if you only counted
the compulsory macro and micro modules that form the core of economics education.
We have
previously called this 'indoctrination', and while this may seem dramatic the dictionary
definition of indoctrination is to "teach a person or set of people to accept a set of beliefs
uncritically", which we think adequately characterises the results of the review, as well as
our own experience and many widely used economics textbooks. Given this education, it is no
wonder that economists remain wedded to the fundamental precepts of choice models and linear
regression no matter where they turn their attention. By putting the method first, the implicit
assumption becomes that answering a question using this framework is prima facie
interesting, and critical evaluation of these tools against others is made unthinkable.
For nearly thirty years after the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) became received gospel
in the mid-1960s, the claim that stock prices exhibited momentum (which shouldn't be true in
a perfectly efficient market) was roundly mocked by mainstream economists.
Then in 1993, Jegadeesh and Titman published a paper titled "Returns to Buying Winners and
Selling Losers: Implications for Stock Market Efficiency" in the Journal of Finance .
Its evidence for a momentum effect was impossible to refute.
So economists bolted en masse to the opposite side of the boat. Today there are
thousands of papers on momentum, often presenting some fairly trivial arithmetic that
home-based amateurs have long used. But it's formulated into equations with Greek letters,
and a [totally boring] statistical panel appears in the Appendix to prove some statistical
significance.
A few professors actually exploited their discoveries to get rich. Cliff Asness, a U of
Chicago PhD (but a practitioner, not a professor) offers some light-hearted commentary on his
mentor Eugene Fama:
Of course the book The Fama Portfolio also contains contributions by other
authors (or how the heck did I get in there?) that reflect, directly or indirectly, on
Gene's work.
Being able to read Gene's originals and some of the major papers by others that explore
his work in one volume is both a treat and incredibly useful (these contributors, unlike
John Liew and myself, are themselves serious academic luminaries!).
OK, enough shilling. If you love finance and don't immediately pine for this book, I
can't help you any further☺
Where the police were call off their pursuit, when within a finger nail of – helping
– their subject. Because the economic perimeters their models produced, with the help of
computational machines, gave a ridged defined view of the operation. Seems the subject was
operating outside the econometric perimeters due to mental illness – was a patient whom
escaped at the time.
Alas we never get to see what he saw when he popped out on the surface, save a blinding
orb.
In retrospect did they do the underground thingy to better control, could nature itself be a
threat to the model, hence the need to control every aspect of environment for behavioral
reasons.
Anywho I'll just leave this on my way to work:
"If we accept that we need fundamental reform, what should the new economics --
"de-conomics" as I'm calling it -- look like?
First, we need to accept that there is no such thing as "value-free" analysis of the
economy. As I've explained, neoclassical economics pretends to be ethically neutral while
smuggling in an individualistic, anti-social ethos " – Howard Reed
Linear regression is economists' preferred empirical technique
That's really a powerful tool in a world which is chaotic.
The trouble with embracing chaos and catastrophe theory is the "chaos" part of predicting
the future. But economists, being human and liking their paychecks, are not interested in any
predictions which do not cater, or pander, to the needs of their bosses or paymasters.
Why, that might suggest the boss is wrong! Such heresy leads to a quick execution!
Fundamentally, economics is a religion, with priests, high priests, creed, dogma,
punishment for heretics, and all the other trappings of a religion. But the pay is good, so
Clive's rule for middle class jobs applies.
Disclaimer: My view of Religion is similar: Why?
1. You'll get your reward in the afterlife, after you are dead!
2. We know this is true, because we've never had a complaint.
Linear regression certainly is a powerful tool for examining linear distributions, but it
essential to first confirm that the distribution is linear, and to remember that on occasion,
samples drawn from random (unrelated) distributions can show a spurious correlation.
but it essential to first confirm that the distribution is linear
Very true, but how is this proven? In nature and economics are there any linear
distributions? If so over what range?
I notice a preponderance of using straight lines instead of growth curves. I also notice
chaos, or noise, in behaviors, coupled with a complete non-understanding of entropy.
In nature linear behavior is unlikely. If it were linear we'd see straight branches on
trees, rainfall evenly distributed and the wind would always blow at constant speed, with
predictable eddies.
I suppose a rock dropped would exhibit linear behaviors until it hits the ground, and at
that point in time the "dropping rock" system become decidedly chaotic, from stuck in the mud,
to bouncing in a random direction, to bursting into pieces, pieces who's destiny is completely
uncertain.
― Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder
I've debated many economists who claim to specialize in risk and probability: when one
takes them slightly outside their narrow focus, but within the discipline of probability,
they fall apart, with the disconsolate face of a gym rat in front of a gangster hit man."
Nassim, I think covers all this better than anyone else. Would love to hear of
similarly comprehensive works.
Neoliberalism as a social system is self-destructive -- similar to Trotskyism from which it was derived.
World leaders urged to act as anger over inequality reaches a 'tipping point'
Typical neoliberal mantra "need to rise productivity" is a typical neoliberal fake: look at Amazon for shining example here.
Notable quotes:
"... The real focus of our taxation system should be to tax wealth and recipients of silly amounts of annual income. ..."
"... Ur talking about something called "Reagan-nomics" or what was commonly and lovingly referred to as "trickle down economics". After the destruction of unionized labor, years of globalization, record profits for corporations & wall street and a high octane doze of Reagan / Thatcher Neoliberalism, "trickle down" has obviously been a complete failure. ..."
An alarming projection produced by the House of Commons library suggests that if trends seen since the 2008 financial crash were
to continue, then the top 1% will hold 64% of the world's wealth by 2030. Even taking the financial crash into account, and measuring
their assets over a longer period, they would still hold more than half of all wealth.
Since 2008, the wealth of the richest 1% has been growing at an average of 6% a year – much faster than the 3% growth in wealth
of the remaining 99% of the world's population. Should that continue, the top 1% would hold wealth equating to $305tn (£216.5tn)
– up from $140tn today.
The population of third world countries is skyrocketing. The population of developed countries, outside the importation of poor
immigrants, is static. The top 1% of world population will continuously become comparatively richer as long as this is the case.
That means 6.75m households are in the top 1% of the world, At 1.94 adults per household, that's 13,000,000 people.
However, assuming households are not 'legal people' but the adults within them are, then you'd have to divide household income
by the number of adults (1.94) to get the wealth per person. So to reach £550,000 per person, a household would have to
have net wealth of £1.067m, and only 10% of households have that wealth.
10% of 27m is 2.7m and that equates to only 5,240,000 people.
So in terms of households we easily reach 10m mark, but in terms of individual people, you are correct, it is 'only' 5.24m.
Still and awful lot of people though.
A single mother get £20k on benefits per years. Over 18 years that is £360,000. She has two kids, so that iwill cost £3,000 in
education per years. 2 kids x 14 years x £3,500 per years = £98,000. We pay for child birth costs, free vaccinations, anti-natal
care, free prescriptions, free eye care, free dental care, free school meals, we pay her countal tax bil. Plus if she is lucky,
she get a free £450,000 council home.
Even if she works for a few years, it will never be enough to pay what she has received from the state. PLus we have to make
provisions for her pension and her elderly care, meals on wheels, elderly health care etc...
That is easily £1m to £2million per single mother....
The plebs are well on the way to figuring it out alright and so have the 1%. That's we now live under a militarized surveillance
state which serves the elites.. Think again if voting will ever change this.. Bernie was doomed from the getgo.
I think the principle here is that the longer this goes on and the greater inequality becomes then the more extreme will be the
countervailing force.
It is in everybody's interest that the world becomes fairer. That governments govern in the interests of as many people as
possible. That public services like health and education are available to all regardless. That taxes are progressive and that
governments have international treaties to deal with tax avoidance and evasion. That our democratic processes are as robust as
possible and that all our organs of state are as transparent as possible and open to scrutiny to the public.
If the accumulation of wealth on this scale continues unabated it will end in tears... inevitably.
Furthermore I believe that there is a relationship between inequality - and all the things that go with it and follow from
it - and environmental degradation.
Greater fairness between individuals and between countries is, in my opinion, one of the essential requirements for us to surmount
the epic problems that we face in the world today.
I think most of us have are aware of what really happens at Davos. The wealthy and powerful are cooking up more schemes to screw
the 99% over. Your Bono's and your Bill Gates are no friends to the working class or the working poor. Take Jeff Bezos for example.
He has a mass of wealth totaling $112 Billion.
To end global hunger - $30 Billion
To end homelessness in the USA - $20 Billion
Jeff Bezos, or even Bill Gates could do that in an instant and still have Billions to spare. The super rich don't care about
"regular" people, and never have.
Peter Rabbit ComfortablyPlumb 7 Apr 2018 14:25
This is the Osborne analogy regurgitated.
If you live in a £2.5 million house, you are wealthy, not average or poor. To be wealthy is not some form of human rights entitlement,
especially if it is at the cost of the overwhelming majority. This concept is known as "greed" and "selfishness". Obviously your
mantra is that of Gordon Gekko "greed is good".
The real focus of our taxation system should be to tax wealth and recipients of silly amounts of annual income.
All these arguments are dated and are applicable to the Thatcher era of the early 1980s which has long gone and is not going
to return. The problem facing our society currently is run away social and economic inequality and the entrenchment of substantial
wealth for a very small number of people which is fuelling generational social and inequality.
TakoradiMan BrotherLead 7 Apr 2018 14:24
I presume that most those living in the U.K. will fall within top 1% which the Guardianista loath so much.
I'm sorry but this post is utterly clueless.
To be in the top 1% you need to have a household income of well over £50k per annum (closer to £100k I suspect - no one here
has yet given very authoritative figures); only a fraction of the UK population are that well off.
AnneK1 Landlord52 7 Apr 2018 14:24
Except that they don't and the charities have to come along and ask us for more money because the public sector haven't used
tax revenue efficiently. I would say Britain's ineffective public sector are the greatest threat to Corbyn's chances of forming
the government we need to rid us of these dangerous Tories.
PeterlooSunset 7 Apr 2018 14:24
The richest 1% own the corporate media (including the private equity firms keeping the Guardian afloat) that keep telling us
we have to focus our attention on identity politics while they loot all the wealth.
prematureoptimsim -> Inthesticks 7 Apr 2018 14:23
Ur talking about something called "Reagan-nomics" or what was commonly and lovingly referred to as "trickle down economics". After the destruction of unionized labor, years of globalization, record profits for corporations & wall street and a high octane doze of Reagan / Thatcher Neoliberalism, "trickle down" has obviously been a complete failure.
U need proof ? Just examine recent history of presidential elections. . . .
Barack Obama - ( Mr. Hope and Change )
Donald Trump - ( Mr. Make America Great Again ).
And in the end it's the same as it ever was. The rich get richer and. . . . Well u know the rest. Good luck to u. Enjoy ur crumbs.
"... Bin Salman's affair with academia isn't a fluke – it's a result of the neoliberal logic by which universities increasingly operate. As the journalist David Dickson noted in 1984, American universities and corporations have "teamed up to challenge the democratic control of knowledge" by delegating control over academic research to "the marketplace". ..."
Bin Salman's affair with academia isn't a fluke – it's a result of the neoliberal logic by which universities increasingly operate.
As the journalist David Dickson noted in 1984, American universities and corporations have "teamed up to challenge the democratic
control of knowledge" by delegating control over academic research to "the marketplace".
This market rationality extends even to the way research is evaluated – which the Saudi government has been gaming. To give one
example, it paid highly cited mathematicians at universities around the world to list
King Abdulaziz University as an affiliation,
thereby making it the seventh "best" mathematics department worldwide in the
2014 US
News and World Report university rankings .
Here, the Saudi government is only playing by the rules of a game designed by western elites. This is the same logic that has
been used to allow corporations, nonprofits and the military to steadily buy out chunks of academia to the point where it makes little
sense to presume clear boundaries exist between these entities. As a result, numerous partnerships entangle MIT researchers with
Bin Salman. On his Boston tour, he also visited IBM's Cambridge research facility, which recently partnered with MIT to form an artificial
intelligence research laboratory in exchange for a $240m commitment to the university.
Boston Dynamics , an MIT partner that builds robots for the US military, also offered a demonstration. Such alliances ought to
cast doubt on MIT's promise to understand the "societal and ethical" implications of AI and build socially beneficial technologies.
The terms of all of these partnerships are essentially opaque, while the secrecy that surrounds them denies the community the
chance to deliberate and take action. The growth of unaccountable university partnerships, like other crises facing educational institutions,
stems from the absence of democratic engagement. When universities decide to sell themselves to the highest bidder, they become deaf
to the interests of their students and the wider societies in which they operate. Subservience to war criminals and corporate overlords
tends to follow.
Bin Salman's affair with academia isn't a fluke – it's a result of the neoliberal
logic by which universities increasingly operate. As the journalist David Dickson noted in
1984, American universities and corporations have "teamed up to challenge the democratic
control of knowledge" by delegating control over academic research to "the marketplace".
This
market rationality extends even to the way research is evaluated – which the Saudi
government has been gaming. To give one example, it paid highly cited mathematicians at
universities around the world to list King Abdulaziz University as an
affiliation, thereby making it the seventh "best" mathematics department worldwide in the
2014 US News and World Report university rankings .
Here, the Saudi government is only playing by the rules of a game designed by western
elites. This is the same logic that has been used to allow corporations, nonprofits and the
military to steadily buy out chunks of academia to the point where it makes little sense to
presume clear boundaries exist between these entities. As a result, numerous partnerships
entangle MIT researchers with Bin Salman. On his Boston tour, he also visited IBM's Cambridge
research facility, which recently partnered with MIT to form an artificial intelligence
research laboratory in exchange for a $240m commitment to the university.
Boston Dynamics , an MIT partner that builds robots for the US military, also offered a
demonstration. Such alliances ought to cast doubt on MIT's promise to understand the "societal
and ethical" implications of AI and build socially beneficial technologies.
The terms of all of these partnerships are essentially opaque, while the secrecy that
surrounds them denies the community the chance to deliberate and take action. The growth of
unaccountable university partnerships, like other crises facing educational institutions, stems
from the absence of democratic engagement. When universities decide to sell themselves to the
highest bidder, they become deaf to the interests of their students and the wider societies in
which they operate. Subservience to war criminals and corporate overlords tends to follow.
"... In over half of states, the share was higher. In Vermont, New Hampshire, Delaware and Pennsylvania, over 70 percent of higher education funding came from tuition dollars last year. ..."
State colleges and universities are relying more on tuition dollars to fund their operations even as state funding rises
and colleges come under pressure to keep tuition low.
Last fiscal year, for the first time, tuition revenue outpaced government appropriations for higher
education in the majority of states, according to the annual higher education finance report from the State
Higher Education Executive Officers Association. The association represents chief executives of statewide
governing, policy and coordinating boards of postsecondary education.
Tuition dollars are becoming a more important revenue source as more students head to college, tuition
prices rise, and state lawmakers struggle to return higher education funding to the per-student levels seen
before the Great Recession.
The report looked at net tuition revenue, which it defined as tuition and fees minus medical student
tuition, state and institutional financial aid and other waivers and discounts. It found that tuition dollars
paid by families -- a figure that includes federal grants and loans -- made up 46 percent of funding for U.S.
public colleges and universities in fiscal 2017, almost double tuition's share of higher education funding in
1990.
In over half of states, the share was higher. In Vermont, New Hampshire, Delaware and Pennsylvania, over
70 percent of higher education funding came from tuition dollars last year.
Nationwide, net tuition revenue peaked as a funding source for public higher education in 2013, after the
collapsing economy sent a wave of students back to school at the same time as state lawmakers were cutting
funding for colleges. Since then, enrollments have fallen and state investments in higher education and
financial aid have increased.
It takes a lot of courage for an addict to recover and stay clean. And it is sadly not news that drug addiction and high levels
of prescription drug use are signs that something is deeply broken in our society. There are always some people afflicted with deep
personal pain but our system is doing a very good job of generating unnecessary pain and desperation.
Mady Ohlman was 22 on the evening some years ago when she stood in a friend's bathroom looking down at the sink.
"I had set up a bunch of needles filled with heroin because I wanted to just do them back-to-back-to-back," Ohlman recalled. She
doesn't remember how many she injected before collapsing, or how long she lay drugged-out on the floor.
"But I remember being pissed because I could still get up, you know?"
She wanted to be dead, she said, glancing down, a wisp of straight brown hair slipping from behind an ear across her thin face.
At that point, said Ohlman, she'd been addicted to opioids -- controlled by the drugs -- for more than three years.
"And doing all these things you don't want to do that are horrible -- you know, selling my body, stealing from my mom, sleeping
in my car," Ohlman said. "How could I not be suicidal?"
For this young woman, whose weight had dropped to about 90 pounds, who was shooting heroin just to avoid feeling violently ill,
suicide seemed a painless way out.
"You realize getting clean would be a lot of work," Ohlman said, her voice rising. "And you realize dying would be a lot less
painful. You also feel like you'll be doing everyone else a favor if you die."
Ohlman, who has now been sober for more than four years, said many drug users hit the same point, when the disease and the pursuit
of illegal drugs crushes their will to live. Ohlman is among at least
40 percent of active
drug users who wrestle with depression, anxiety or another mental health issue that increases the risk of suicide.
Measuring Suicide Among Patients Addicted To Opioids
Massachusetts, where Ohlman lives, began formally
recognizing
in May 2017 that some opioid overdose deaths are suicides. The state confirmed only about 2 percent of all overdose deaths as suicides,
but Dr. Monica Bhare l, head of the
Massachusetts Department of Public Health, said it's difficult to determine a person's true intent.
"For one thing, medical examiners use different criteria for whether suicide was involved or not," Bharel said, and the "tremendous
amount of stigma surrounding both overdose deaths and suicide sometimes makes it extremely challenging to piece everything together
and figure out unintentional and intentional."
Research on drug addiction and suicide suggests much higher numbers.
"[Based on the literature that's available], it looks like it's anywhere between 25 and 45 percent of deaths by overdose that
may be actual suicides," said
Dr. Maria Oquendo
, immediate past president of the American Psychiatric Association.
Oquendo pointed to one study of overdoses
from prescription opioids that found nearly 54 percent were unintentional. The rest were either suicide attempts or undetermined.
Several large studies show an increased risk of suicide among drug users addicted to opioids, especially women. In
a study of about 5 million veterans, women were eight
times as likely as others to be at risk for suicide, while men faced a twofold risk.
The opioid epidemic is occurring at the same time suicides have
hit a 30-year high , but Oquendo said few doctors
look for a connection.
"They are not monitoring it," said Oquendo, who chairs the department of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania. "They are
probably not assessing it in the kinds of depths they would need to prevent some of the deaths."
That's starting to change. A few hospitals in Boston, for example, aim to ask every patient admitted about substance use, as well
as about whether they've considered hurting themselves.
"No one has answered the chicken and egg [problem]," said
Dr. Kiame Mahaniah , a family physician who runs the
Lynn Community Health Center in Lynn, Mass. Is it that patients "have mental health issues that lead to addiction, or did a life
of addiction then trigger mental health problems?"
With so little data to go on, "it's so important to provide treatment that covers all those bases," Mahaniah said.
'Deaths Of Despair'
When doctors do look deeper into the reasons patients addicted to opioids become suicidal, some economists predict they'll find
deep reservoirs of depression and pain.
In a seminal paper published in 2015, Princeton economists
Angus Deaton and
Anne Case tracked falling marriage rates,
the loss of stable middle-class jobs and rising rates of self-reported pain. The authors say opioid overdoses, suicides and diseases
related to alcoholism are all often "deaths of despair."
"We think of opioids as something that's thrown petrol on the flames and made things infinitely worse," Deaton said, "but the
underlying deep malaise would be there even without the opioids."
Many economists agree on remedies for that deep malaise. Harvard economics professor
David Cutle r said solutions include a good education, a steady
job that pays a decent wage, secure housing, food and health care.
"And also thinking about a sense of purpose in life," Cutler said. "That is, even if one is doing well financially, is there a
sense that one is contributing in a meaningful way?"
Tackling Despair In The Addiction Community
"I know firsthand the sense of hopelessness that people can feel in the throes of addiction," said
Michael Botticelli , executive director of the Grayken Center
for Addiction at Boston Medical Center; he is in recovery for an addiction to alcohol.
Botticelli said recovery programs must help patients come out of isolation and create or recreate bonds with family and friends.
"The vast majority of people I know who are in recovery often talk about this profound sense of re-establishing -- and sometimes
establishing for the first time -- a connection to a much larger community," Botticelli said.
Ohlman said she isn't sure why her attempted suicide, with multiple injections of heroin, didn't work.
"I just got really lucky," Ohlman said. "I don't know how."
A big part of her recovery strategy involves building a supportive community, she said.
"Meetings; 12-step; sponsorship and networking; being involved with people doing what I'm doing," said Ohlman, ticking through
a list of her priorities.
There's a fatal overdose at least once a week within her Cape Cod community, she said. Some are accidental, others not. Ohlman
said she's convinced that telling her story, of losing and then finding hope, will help bring those numbers down.
res ipsa loquitur although as one wag said, this news tidbit does seem to disprove
the claim that young people aren't risk takers. But it may establish that they are innumerate
or more specifically, bad at statistics. One of Nassim Nicholas Taleb's recommendations about
investing boils down to "Be paranoid" and "Don't be greedy" and leveraged cryptocurrency
speculation is the opposite of that.
This sort of thing does not help the image of student borrowers, although it does strengthen
the case for regulating cryptocurrencies far more strictly. Given the decline in the status of
cab drivers, who historically have been indicators of market peaks (when cab drivers talk about
their stocks, it's usually sign of a bubble), this finding may also be a proof of Peak
Cryptocurrency.
According to a study by The Student Loan Report, over one-fifth of current university
students with student loan debt indicated that they used their student loan money to invest
in digital currency such as bitcoin.
The student loan news and information website found that 21.2% of the 1,000 students they
surveyed indicated that they used their borrowed cash to gamble on the highly volatile
digital currency market. While school administrators may look down upon the practice of using
borrowed funds for non-school expenses, Student Loan Report indicates that there are
currently no rules against it. College students are able to use loans for "living expenses,"
a flexible category that covers a wide range of potential necessities.
Given that 70% of retail investors in futures lose money, there's not a strong reason for
thinking that latecomers to the cryptocurrency party would be stellar traders. I wonder how
many students who lose so much money on bad cryptocurrency wagers that it undermines their
ability to finish their course of study (presumably they really did need at least some of that
"living expense" money for bona fide living expenses) will be willing to 'fess up to that
fact.
I guess that means that almost 4/5ths of students did NOT use "loan" proceeds (which are
part of the whole Casino enterprise, after all) to gamble invest "expose
themselves to market risk" by moving those bits representing "money" into the block chain
spurt
And I also guess that means that the Puritans among us, and the mopes who want to make
sure everyone else gets as screwed by "the system" as they have been by so diligently paying
off those student loans/debt millstones, will now have a new line of argument about why the
Banksters and the scum among the legislators and "loan servicers" and kickback-collecting
higher-education administrators should be fully armed to go after mope students and
graduates-without-portfolios-but-with-lots-of-"credentials" and their parents and other
"guarantors" to extract that last full measure of blood from the turnipheads who signed on
the dotted line without much of a clue that the "contract" was drafted by some Shylock named
"Mephistopheles "
Say it loud, say it clear -- "#juststoppaying. No other way to end the game, is there? And
yes, there will be blood, economically speaking, in the Street
But think how it helped stimulate the economy. Except that unlike other Fed Gov spending,
the Fed Gov wants this money back. D'oh! And as we know, it's very difficult to discharge
student loans through bankruptcy (which at least gives the economy more slack for other debt
to be paid off).
So ultimately it doesn't stimulate the economy. It just feeds various maws: the education
industry and its bubble, the corporations and their inflated requirements for hiring for
jobs. Edit: And the cryptocurrency bubble who knew? While subtracting from other maws:
housing starts, family starts, etc.
I doubt you could find 20% of college students who even know where to buy crypto.
Maybe, maybe you could find 20% who are more aware than "heard about it on the
news".
(propublica.org)As the world's dominant technology firm, payrolls at International Business Machines swelled
to nearly a quarter-million U.S. white-collar workers in the 1980s. Its profits helped
underwrite a broad agenda of racial equality, equal pay for women and an unbeatable offer of
great wages and something close to lifetime employment, all in return for unswerving loyalty.
But when high tech suddenly started shifting and companies went global, IBM faced the changing
landscape with a distinction most of its fiercest competitors didn't have: a large
number of experienced and aging U.S. employees .
The company reacted with a strategy that, in the words of one confidential planning
document, would "correct seniority mix." It slashed IBM's U.S. workforce by as much as
three-quarters from its 1980s peak, replacing a substantial share with younger,
less-experienced and lower-paid workers and sending many positions overseas. ProPublica
estimates that in the past five years alone, IBM has eliminated more than 20,000 American
employees ages 40 and over, about 60 percent of its estimated total U.S. job cuts during those
years. In making these cuts, IBM has flouted or outflanked U.S. laws and regulations intended
to protect later-career workers from age discrimination, according to a ProPublica review of
internal company documents, legal filings and public records, as well as information provided
via interviews and questionnaires filled out by more than 1,000 former IBM employees.
"Before accounting for taxes and transfers, the U.S. ranked 10th in income inequality; among
the countries with more unequal income distributions were France, the U.K. and Ireland. But
after taking taxes and transfers into account, the U.S. had the second-highest level of
inequality, behind only Chile. "
" The five countries with the worst income inequality -- Chile, Mexico, Turkey, the United
States, and Israel -- also had the five highest poverty rates in the OECD. The relationship is
not perfect, however. The United Kingdom fell just outside the five worst countries for income
equality, but its poverty rate was 13th lowest among developed nations."
I've been thinking about this as well. I went looking for a graph of median income in China
and the US over the last 20 years ... and could not find one. What I would really like to see
is a graph of median income increases over the last 20 years - I would argue this is more
relevant than the easy to find graphs of GDP increases.
Median income in Russia increased something like 270% in inflation adjusted terms during the
first 10 years that Putin was in power. The Economist claims this was solely due to the
increase in oil prices. I went looking at countries that had comparable
oil-production-per-person and found that Canada (whose oil production per person is essentially
identical to Russia) saw its median income increase only 9% in the same period.
This isn't to say that Putin's leadership is necessarily good in the long term, but the
western press are clearly ignoring important economic statistics regarding both China and
Russia. Reply
21 March 2018 at 03:10 PM Fred said in reply to Terry... Terry,
"by some measures" If you torture the data long inenough it confesses. So the US is one of
the five worst in income inequality? Maybe those Chineese imigrants should all stay in China to
enjoy their "percentages". Of course they might first ask just what the 400% increase in
Chineese income means. Oh, that's right, the 400% increase from almost nothing to 4 times
almost nothing. The negative 1% reduction in bottom 50% of income distribuiton in the US over
that 4 decades resulted in:
"Median individual income for all earners in the workforce was $37,610.00, and the
breakpoint to be a one-percenter (99th percentile) was $300,800.00."
So the 50% percentile in the US has a 37K icome. What is it for China, it certainly isn't
37K. That's right, acording to the link you provided it's 14,600 USD. In China, with the
official exchange rate.
James T,
"but the western press are clearly ignoring important economic statistics regarding both
China and Russia."
Yes indeed, they ignore the actual data and repeat out percentages with no idea of the
underlying facts of how those percentages were created and not bothering to ask how they were
calculated. Reply
21 March 2018 at 09:11 PM
Like many high demand cults neoliberalism is a trap, from which it is very difficult to escape...
Notable quotes:
"... A large, open-border global free market would be left, not subject to popular control but managed by a globally dispersed, transnational one percent. And the whole process of making this happen would be camouflaged beneath the altruistic stylings of a benign humanitarianism. ..."
"... Globalists, as neoliberal capitalists are often called, also understood that democracy, defined by a smattering of individual rights and a voting booth, was the ideal vehicle to usher neoliberalism into the emerging world. Namely because democracy, as commonly practiced, makes no demands in the economic sphere. Socialism does. Communism does. These models directly address ownership of the means of production. Not so democratic capitalism. This permits the globalists to continue to own the means of production while proclaiming human rights triumphant in nations where interventions are staged. ..."
"... The enduring lie is that there is no democracy without economic democracy. ..."
This 'Washington Consensus' is the false promise promoted by the West. The reality is quite
different. The crux of neoliberalism is to eliminate democratic government by downsizing,
privatizing, and deregulating it. Proponents of neoliberalism recognize that the state is the
last bulwark of protection for the common people against the predations of capital. Remove the
state and they'll be left defenseless .
Think about it. Deregulation eliminates the laws. Downsizing eliminates departments and their
funding. Privatizing eliminates the very purpose of the state by having the private sector take
over its traditional responsibilities.
Ultimately, nation-states would dissolve except perhaps for armies and tax systems. A large, open-border global free
market would be left, not subject to popular control but managed by a globally dispersed, transnational one percent. And the
whole process of making this happen would be camouflaged beneath the altruistic stylings of a benign humanitarianism.
Globalists, as neoliberal capitalists are often called, also understood that democracy, defined
by a smattering of individual rights and a voting booth, was the ideal vehicle to usher
neoliberalism into the emerging world. Namely because democracy, as commonly practiced, makes
no demands in the economic sphere. Socialism does. Communism does. These models directly
address ownership of the means of production. Not so democratic capitalism. This permits the
globalists to continue to own the means of production while proclaiming human rights triumphant
in nations where interventions are staged.
The enduring lie is that there is no democracy
without economic democracy.
What matters to the one percent and the media conglomerates that disseminate their worldview is
that the official definitions are accepted by the masses. The real effects need never be known.
The neoliberal ideology (theory) thus conceals the neoliberal reality (practice). And for the
masses to accept it, it must be mass produced. Then it becomes more or less invisible by virtue
of its universality.
Neoliberal economists are a new type of clergy. As simple as this. Neoliberal God is great that's what they are preaching to students.
Notable quotes:
"... Bronze Age: Greatest Age EVAH! ..."
"... It's surprising economists feel the need to engage in happy talk, considering that markets are supposed to be natural, just, and efficient. Like clergy preaching to a perpetually backsliding laity about the one true God, Whom only a fool would doubt. If God were so great, there'd be no need to harp on it. In any case, this goes some way toward accounting for Bennet's statement. ..."
"... It takes a half-educated person to say something like that. First you get the ideas by way of a certain education, and then you don't think about them, in part because the educators discourage that kind of thing. ..."
"[Capitalism] has been the greatest engine of, it's been the greatest anti-poverty program
and engine of progress that we've seen."
I can almost smell the economics section of my local bookstore. Strange science,
economics. Judging from the titles, much of it consists of cheerleading. Very different from
history, anthropology, or sociology.
I never see history titles like Bronze Age: Greatest Age EVAH!It's
surprising economists feel the need to engage in happy talk, considering that markets are
supposed to be natural, just, and efficient. Like clergy preaching to a perpetually
backsliding laity about the one true God, Whom only a fool would doubt. If God were so great,
there'd be no need to harp on it. In any case, this goes some way toward accounting for
Bennet's statement.
It takes a half-educated person to say something like that. First you get the ideas by
way of a certain education, and then you don't think about them, in part because the
educators discourage that kind of thing.
"... "Liberals" stopped caring about those things after Clinton showed them the "third way," which was really just a way to be kinder, gentler conservatives. ..."
"... the best and most well-founded causations history I've come across directly relating to "Divide & Rule". ..."
" liberals are concerned about minorities and the poor."
What a joke. "Liberals" stopped caring about those things after Clinton showed them the "third way," which was really just
a way to be kinder, gentler conservatives.
LEFTISTS still care about minorities and the poor, which is why liberals do everything in their power to keep them from ever
getting elected and would rather throw an election to someone like Trump than let Bernie Sanders be president.
Longtooth , February 22, 2018 8:04 pm
Here's paper that economistsview just linked to today. It traces the events leading to Trump -- or shall I say leading to the
recognition by those that have been economically disenfranchised which led to Trump. http://www.cesifo-group.de/DocDL/cesifo1_wp6868.pdf
In it's composite as well as most (though not all) causes the paper describes, it is the best and most well-founded causations
history I've come across directly relating to "Divide & Rule".
Pay growth for middle class workers in the US has been abysmal over recent decades – in real terms, median hourly compensation
rose only 11% between 1973 and 2016. 1 At the same time, hourly labour productivity has grown steadily, rising by 75%.
This divergence between productivity and the typical worker's pay is a relatively recent phenomenon. Using production/nonsupervisory
compensation as a proxy for median compensation (since there are no data on the median before 1973), Bivens and Mishel (2015) show
that typical compensation and productivity grew at the same rate over 1948-1973, and only began to diverge in 1973 (see Figure 1).
Figure 1 Labour productivity, average compensation, and production/nonsupervisory compensation 1948-2016
Notes : Labour productivity: total economy real output per hour (constructed from BLS and BEA data). Average compensation:
total economy compensation per hour (constructed from BLS data). Production/nonsupervisory compensation: real compensation per hour,
production and nonsupervisory workers (Economic Policy Institute).
What does this stark divergence imply about the relationship between productivity and typical compensation? Since productivity growth
has been so much faster than median pay growth, the question is how much does productivity growth benefit the typical worker?
2
A number of authors have raised these questions in recent years. Harold Meyerson, for example, wrote in American Prospect
in 2014 that "for the vast majority of American workers, the link between their productivity and their compensation no longer exists",
and the Economist wrote in 2013 that "unless you are rich, GDP growth isn't doing much to raise your income anymore". Bernstein
(2015) raises the concern that "[f]aster productivity growth would be great. I'm just not at all sure we can count on it to lift
middle-class incomes." Bivens and Mishel (2015) write "although boosting productivity growth is an important long-run goal, this
will not lead to broad-based wage gains unless we pursue policies that reconnect productivity growth and the pay of the vast majority".
Has typical compensation delinked from productivity?
Figure 1 appears to suggest that a one-to-one relationship between productivity and typical compensation existed before 1973, and
that this relationship broke down after 1973. On the other hand, just as two time series apparently growing in tandem does not mean
that one causes the other, two series diverging may not mean that the causal link between the two has broken down. Rather, other
factors may have come into play which appear to have severed the connection between productivity and typical compensation.
As such there is a spectrum of possibilities for the true underlying relationship between productivity and typical compensation.
On one end of the spectrum – which we call 'strong delinkage' – it's possible that factors are blocking the transmission mechanism
from productivity to typical compensation, such that increases in productivity don't feed through to pay. At the opposite end of
the spectrum – which we call 'strong linkage' – it's possible that productivity growth translates fully into increases in typical
workers' pay, but even as productivity growth has been acting to raise pay, other factors (orthogonal to productivity) have been
acting to reduce it. Between these two ends of the spectrum is a range of possibilities where some degree of linkage or delinkage
exists between productivity and typical compensation.
In a recent paper, we estimate which point on this linkage-delinkage spectrum best describes the productivity-typical compensation
relationship (Stansbury and Summers 2017). Using medium-term fluctuations in productivity growth, we test the relationship between
productivity growth and two key measures of typical compensation growth: median compensation, and average compensation for production
and nonsupervisory workers.
Simply plotting the annual growth rates of productivity and our two measures of typical compensation (Figure 2) suggests support
for quite substantial linkage – the series seem to move together, although typical compensation growth is almost always lower.
Figure 2 Change in log productivity and typical compensation, three-year moving average
Notes : Data from BLS, BEA and Economic Policy Institute. Series are three-year backward-looking moving averages
of change in log variable.
Making use of the high frequency changes in productivity growth over one- to five-year periods, we run a series of regressions to
test this link more rigorously. We find that periods of higher productivity growth are associated with substantially higher growth
in median and production/nonsupervisory worker compensation – even during the period since 1973, where productivity and typical compensation
have diverged so much in levels. A one percentage point increase in the growth rate of productivity has been associated with between
two-thirds and one percentage point higher growth in median worker compensation in the period since 1973, and with between 0.4 and
0.7 percentage points higher growth in production/nonsupervisory worker compensation. These results suggest that there is substantial
linkage between productivity and median compensation (even the strong linkage view cannot be rejected), and that there is a significant
degree of linkage between productivity and production/nonsupervisory worker compensation.
How is it possible to find this relationship when productivity has clearly grown so much faster than median workers' pay? Our findings
imply that even as productivity growth has been acting to push workers' pay up , other factors not associated with productivity
growth have acted to push workers' pay down . So while it may appear on first glance that productivity growth has not benefited
typical workers much, our findings imply that if productivity growth had been lower, typical workers would have likely done substantially
worse.
If the link between productivity and pay hasn't broken, what has happened?
The productivity-median compensation divergence can be broken down into two aspects of rising inequality: the rise in top-half income
inequality (divergence between mean and median compensation) which began around 1973, and the fall in the labour share (divergence
between productivity and mean compensation) which began around 2000.
For both of these phenomena, technological change is often invoked as the primary cause. Computerisation and automation have been
put forward as causes of rising mean-median income inequality (e.g. Autor et al. 1998, Acemoglu and Restrepo 2017); and automation,
falling prices of investment goods, and rapid labour-augmenting technological change have been put forward as causes of the fall
in the labour share (e.g. Karabarbounis and Neiman 2014, Acemoglu and Restrepo 2016, Brynjolffson and McAfee 2014, Lawrence 2015).
At the same time, non-purely technological hypotheses for rising mean-median inequality include the race between education and technology
(Goldin and Katz 2007), declining unionisation (Freeman et al. 2016), globalisation (Autor et al. 2013), immigration (Borjas 2003),
and the 'superstar effect' (Rosen 1981, Gabaix et al. 2016). Non-technological hypotheses for the falling labour share include labour
market institutions (Levy and Temin 2007, Mishel and Bivens 2015), market structure and monopoly power (Autor et al. 2017, Barkai
2017), capital accumulation (Piketty 2014, Piketty and Zucman 2014), and the productivity slowdown itself (Grossman et al. 2017).
While we do not analyse these theories in detail, a simple empirical test can help distinguish the relative importance of these two
categories of explanation – purely technology-based or not – for rising mean-median inequality and the falling labour share. More
rapid technological progress should cause faster productivity growth – so, if some aspect of faster technological progress has caused
inequality, we should see periods of faster productivity growth come alongside more rapid growth in inequality.
We find very little evidence for this. Our regressions find no significant relationship between productivity growth and changes in
mean-median inequality, and very little relationship between productivity growth and changes in the labour share. In addition, as
Table 1 shows, the two periods of slower productivity growth (1973-1996 and 2003-2014) were associated with faster
growth in inequality (an increasing mean/median ratio and a falling labour share).
Taken together, this evidence casts doubt on the idea that more rapid technological progress alone has been the primary driver of
rising inequality over recent decades, and tends to lend support to more institutional and structural explanations.
Table 1 Average annual growth rates of productivity, the labour share and the mean/median ratio during the US' productivity booms
and productivity slowdowns
The 70s was when the ideology of free lunch economics was born and then rose to take over virtually the entirety of economics.
Even Krugman adopts a lot of free lunch economics.
In free lunch economics, costs are dependent on price, not price dependent on costs. And profits rising on maximum efficiency,
maximum factor utilization, not profits going to zero when factor utilization and efficiency are maximized.
Free lunch economics is the opposite of Keynesian principles. Free lunch economists prescribe the opposite of what Keynes prescribed
in similar circumstances.
Keynes called for maximizing aggregate labor costs. Free lunch economists call for minimizing aggregate labor costs.
As all real economic costs are labor costs, everything else being profits and rents, when Bernie bros call for lower costs,
or oppose higher costs, they are arguing for lower labor costs, lower wages. Economics is zero sum.
Food costs are low because of government subsidies and government policies promoting low labor costs, low wages.
Progressives should be opposed to SNAP and food banks which are directly or indirectly government funded/subsidized. The solution
is to ensure jobs are available than pay wages high enough to buy food that farmers sell at high prices which allow them to pay
all their bills.
FDR and Congress set price floors for many goods, and paid workers living wages to do productive work. Conservatives fought
these measures to increase costs. Note Hoover was very interested in building capital assets, but he wanted workers to be paid
as little as possible, and as few as possible. He promoted working workers to death to cut costs, even when the assets built would
certainly generate high returns over their useful lives.
Friedman created the intellectual free lunch theory to justify Hoover's business theory applied to government policy.
Friedman invented the free lunch welfare handout to make the free lunch economy work, because he knew economies are zero sum.
Instead of SNAP which is restricted cash, he called for unrestricted cash so labor costs could be cut to increase profits, with
government free lunch handouts given to workers to pay the high profits on the goods they were paid to produce.
Again, this is contrary to Keynes and FDR.
Yet Bernie progressives call for Friedman's free lunch economics subsidy of profits in consumer spending subsidies to enable
low wages and high profits.
This research and paper merely provide evidence that Friedman's free lunch economics have driven public policy and private
sector investment.
Milton Friedman's free lunch economics principles have successfully driven lower productivity growth as he intended, based
on his Newsweek articles circa 1970, and based on other 70s era statements and lectures.
OMG- how many understatements can be written, without acknowledging basic facts and truth.
A good place to start would be a similar, I mean really similar, and use CEO pay. Come on lets see a CEO pay VS productivity
- the CEO's sure aren't doing the work, and neither are the midline managers. Come on lets see some real good charts on "divergence"
factors starting in 1973. Quit the BS. The economy is presently increasing based on human predation. Ignore it, til it stares
you in the face, upfront and personal.
From cited link- for those who want the reason why, I even posted a link on banking, when this article is on labor divergence
etc. etc.
5.4.1. Implications for economic theory
The empirical evidence shows that of the three theories of banking, it is the one that today has the least influence and that
is being belittled in the literature that is supported by the empirical evidence. Furthermore, it is the theory which was widely
held at the end of the 19th century and in the first three decades of the twentieth. It is sobering to realise that since the
1930s, economists have moved further and further away from the truth, instead of coming closer to it. This happened first via
the half-truth of the fractional reserve theory and then reached the completely false and misleading financial intermediation
theory that today is so dominant. Thus this paper has found evidence that there has been no progress in scientific knowledge in
economics, finance and banking in the 20th century concerning one of the most important and fundamental facts for these disciplines.
Instead, there has been a regressive development. The known facts were unlearned and have become unknown. This phenomenon deserves
further research. For now it can be mentioned that this process of unlearning the facts of banking could not possibly have taken
place without the leading economists of the day having played a significant role in it. The most influential and famous of all
20th century economists, as we saw, was a sequential adherent of all three theories, which is a surprising phenomenon. Moreover,
Keynes used his considerable clout to slow scientific analysis of the question whether banks could create money, as he instead
engaged in ad hominem attacks on followers of the credit creation theory. Despite his enthusiastic early support for the credit
creation theory (Keynes, 1924), only six years later he was condescending, if not dismissive, of this theory, referring to credit
creation only in inverted commas. He was perhaps even more dismissive of supporters of the credit creation theory, who he referred
to as being part of the "Army of Heretics and Cranks, whose numbers and enthusiasm are extraordinary", and who seem to believe
in "magic" and some kind of "Utopia" (Keynes, 1930, vol. 2, p. 215).33
Needless to mention, such rhetoric is not conducive to scientific argument. But this technique was followed by other economists
engaged in advancing the fractional reserve and later financial intermediation theories. US Federal Reserve staffer Alhadeff (1954)
argued similarly during the era when economists worked on getting the fractional reserve theory established:
"One complication worth discussing concerns the alleged "creation" of money by bankers. It used to be claimed that bankers could
create money by the simple device of opening deposit accounts for their business borrowers. It has since been amply demonstrated
that under a fractional reserve system, only the totality of banks can expand deposits to the full reciprocal of the reserve ratio.
[Original footnote: 'Chester A. Phillips, Bank Credit (New York: Macmillan, 1921), chapter 3, for the classical refutation of
this claim.'] The individual bank can normally expand to an amount about equal to its primary deposits" (p. 7).
The creation of credit by banks had become, in the style of Keynes (1930), an "alleged 'creation'", whereby rhetorically it was
suggested that such thinking was simplistic and hence could not possibly be true. Tobin used the rhetorical device of abductio
ad absurdum to denigrate the credit creation theory by incorrectly suggesting it postulated a 'widow's cruse', a miraculous vessel
producing unlimited amounts of valuable physical goods, and thus its followers were believers in miracles or utopias.
This same type of rhetorical denigration of and disengagement with the credit creation theory is also visible in the most recent
era. For instance, the New Palgrave Money (Eatwell et al., 1989), is an influential 340-page reference work that claims to present
a 'balanced perspective on each topic' (Eatwell et al., 1989, p. viii). Yet the financial intermediation theory is dominant, with
a minor representation of the fractional reserve theory. The credit creation theory is not presented at all, even as a possibility.
But the book does include a chapter entitled "Monetary cranks". In this brief chapter, Keynes' (1930) derogatory treatment of
supporters of the credit creation theory is updated for use in the 1990s, with sharpened claws: Ridicule and insult is heaped
on several fateful authors that have produced thoughtful analyses of the economy, the monetary system and the role of banks, such
as Nobel laureate Sir Frederick Soddy (1934) and C.H. Douglas (1924). Even the seminal and influential work by Georg Friedrich
Knapp (1905), still favourably cited by Keynes (1936), is identified as being created by a 'crank'. What these apparently wretched
authors have in common, and what seems to be their main fault, punishable by being listed in this inauspicious chapter, is that
they are adherents of the credit creation theory. But, revealingly, their contributions are belittled without it anywhere being
stated what their key tenets are and that their analyses centre on the credit creation theory, which itself remains unnamed and
is never spelled out. This is not a small feat, and leaves one pondering the possibility that the Eatwell et al. (1989) tome was
purposely designed to ignore and distract from the rich literature supporting the credit creation theory. Nothing lost, according
to the authors, who applaud the development that due to
"the increased emphasis given to monetary theory by academic economists in recent decades, the monetary cranks have largely disappeared
from public debate " (p. 214).
And so has the credit creation theory. Since the tenets of this theory are never stated in Eatwell et al. (1989), the chapter
on 'Cranks' ends up being a litany of ad hominem denigration, defamation and character assassination, liberally distributing labels
such as 'cranks', 'phrase-mongers', 'agitators', 'populists', and even 'conspiracy theorists' that believe in 'miracles' and engage
in wishful thinking, ultimately deceiving their readers by trying to "impress their peers with their apparent understanding of
economics, even though they had no formal training in the discipline" (p. 214). All that we learn about their actual theories
is that, somehow, these ill-fated authors are "opposed to private banks and the 'Money Power' without their opposition leading
to more sophisticated political analysis" (p. 215). Any reading of the highly sophisticated Soddy (1934) quickly reveals such
labels as unfounded defamation.
To the contrary, the empirical evidence presented in this paper has revealed that the many supporters of the financial intermediation
theory and also the adherents of the fractional reserve theory are flat-earthers that believe in what is empirically proven to
be wrong and which should have been recognisable as being impossible upon deeper consideration of the accounting requirements.
Whether the authors in Eatwell et al. (1989) did in fact know better is an open question that deserves attention in future research.
Certainly the unscientific treatment of the credit creation theory and its supporters by such authors as Keynes, who strongly
endorsed the theory only a few years before authoring tirades against its supporters, or by the authors in Eatwell et al. (1989),
raises this possibility.
5.4.2. Implications for government policy
There are other, far-reaching ramifications of the finding that banks individually create credit and money when they do what
is called 'lending money'. It is readily seen that this fact is important not only for monetary policy, but also for fiscal policy,
and needs to be reflected in economic theories. Policies concerning the avoidance of banking crises, or dealing with the aftermath
of crises require a different shape once the reality of the credit creation theory is recognised. They call for a whole new paradigm
in monetary economics, macroeconomics, finance and banking (for details, see for instance Werner, 1997, 2005, 2012, 2013a,b) that
is based on the reality of banks as creators of the money supply. It has potentially important implications for other disciplines,
such as accounting, economic and business history, economic geography, politics, sociology and law.
5.4.3. Implications for bank regulation
The implications are far-reaching for bank regulation and the design of official policies. As mentioned in the Introduction,
modern national and international banking regulation is predicated on the assumption that the financial intermediation theory
is correct. Since in fact banks are able to create money out of nothing, imposing higher capital requirements on banks will not
necessarily enable the prevention of boom–bust cycles and banking crises, since even with higher capital requirements, banks could
still continue to expand the money supply, thereby fuelling asset prices, whereby some of this newly created money can be used
to increase bank capital. Based on the recognition of this, some economists have argued for more direct intervention by the central
bank in the credit market, for instance via quantitative credit guidance (Werner, 2002, 2003a, 2005).
5.4.4. Monetary reform
The Bank of England's (2014b) recent intervention has triggered a public debate about whether the privilege of banks to create
money should in fact be revoked (Wolf, 2014). The reality of banks as creators of the money supply does raise the question of
the ideal type of monetary system. Much research is needed on this account. Among the many different monetary system designs tried
over the past 5000 years, very few have met the requirement for a fair, effective, accountable, stable, sustainable and democratic
creation and allocation of money. The view of the author, based on more than twenty-three years of research on this topic, is
that it is the safest bet to ensure that the awesome power to create money is returned directly to those to whom it belongs: ordinary
people, not technocrats. This can be ensured by the introduction of a network of small, not-for-profit local banks across the
nation. Most countries do not currently possess such a system. However, it is at the heart of the successful German economic performance
in the past 200 years. It is the very Raiffeisen, Volksbank or Sparkasse banks – the smaller the better – that were helpful in
the implementation of this empirical study that should serve as the role model for future policies concerning our monetary system.
In addition, one can complement such local public bank money with money issued by local authorities that is accepted to pay local
taxes, namely a local public money that has not come about by creating debt, but that is created for services rendered to local
authorities or the community. Both forms of local money creation together would create a decentralised and more accountable monetary
system that should perform better (based on the empirical evidence from Germany) than the unholy alliance of central banks and
big banks, which have done much to create unsustainable asset bubbles and banking crises (Werner, 2013a,b).
AND, be sure to read why a lot of present economist's are so OFF "talking points" that they don't know they are even off the fundamental
talking points, and way off track! You have to start reading the Werner article from the beginning to understand that preceding
exclamatory sentence.
Why I have my doubts about whether Trump colluded with Moscow.
By BLAKE HOUNSHELL February 18, 2018
f, like me, you've been following every twist and turn of the Russia investigations, you've probably wrestled with the same
question that has been gnawing at me for more than a year now: What if there's nothing there?
No, I'm not denying the voluminous evidence that Russia, at Kremlin strongman Vladimir Putin's personal direction, sought to
meddle in the 2016 election, and that Donald Trump was clearly his man. The indictment on Friday of 13 Russians -- and the incredible
forensic detail in the 37-page complaint filed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team -- ought to have convinced any reasonable
person that the Russia investigation is definitely a somethingburger. But what kind of somethingburger is it?
President Trump has seized on Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's statement that "there is no allegation in the indictment
that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity" to say that the special counsel has vindication his oft-repeated
refrain that there was "NO COLLUSION" between Russia and the Trump campaign. This is obviously nonsense -- the key words in Rosenstein's
remarks being "in the indictment," which in any case dealt only with a sliver of Russian efforts to tilt the election in Trump's
favor.
Of course, Mueller has put some serious points on the board. In addition to the 13 Russians and three Russian organizations
from Friday's indictments, we've also seen two indictments of Trump associates thus far -- former Trump campaign chairman/manager
Paul Manafort and his wingman Rick Gates -- and two plea bargains, from sometime national security adviser Michael Flynn and volunteer
campaign adviser George Papadapoulos. There is also other stuff hanging out there -- most of all Donald Trump Jr.'s infamous meeting
in Trump Tower, the one he enthusiastically scheduled after being told the Russians on offer had dirt on Hillary Clinton. Mueller's
team has had nothing to say -- yet? -- about the hacked emails of the Democratic National Committee or Clinton campaign chairman
John Podesta. And there is no indication, despite the professed optimism of White House lawyer Ty Cobb, that they are wrapping
up anytime soon.
There are, of course, odd aspects of Trump's behavior that arouse suspicions. His obsequious praise of Putin. The aborted effort
to roll back the old Russia sanctions, and the failure to enforce the new ones. His refusal to accept that Moscow meddled in the
election, despite the conclusions of his own staff, the intelligence community and pretty much everyone looking at the evidence
in good faith. Firing his FBI director and reportedly ordering the firing of the special counsel. His constant fulminations against
the "Russia hoax." The fact that he hasn't directed any effort to safeguard the 2018 midterms. If Trump is guilty, he sure is
acting like it.
And there is the fact Trump aides have repeatedly lied about the fact, and extent, of contact between campaign officials and
Russia. If the Trump Tower meeting was as innocuous as Donald Jr. says it was, for instance, why the misleading claim that it
was about "adoptions"?
I keep coming back the slapdash nature of Trump's 2016 operation, and the chaos and dysfunction that everyone who covered that
campaign saw play out each day. Like the Trump White House, the Trump campaign was a viper's nest of incompetence and intrigue,
with aides leaking viciously against one another almost daily. So much damaging information poured out of Trump Tower that it's
hard to believe a conspiracy to collude with Moscow to win the election never went public. If there was such a conspiracy, it
must have been a very closely guarded secret.
Then there's the Trump factor to consider. Here's a man who seems to share every thought that enters his head, almost as soon
as he enters it. He loves nothing more than to brag about himself, and he's proven remarkably indiscreet in the phone calls he
makes with "friends" during his Executive Time -- friends who promptly share the contents of those conversations with D.C. reporters.
If Trump had cooked up a scheme to provide some favor to Putin in exchange for his election, wouldn't he be tempted to boast about
it to someone?
And there are aspects of the Russia scandal, too, that don't quite add up for me. Take Flynn's plea bargain. As Preet Bharara,
the former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, noted after the deal became public, prosecutors usually prefer
to charge participants in a conspiracy with charges related to the underlying crime. But Flynn pleaded guilty only to lying to
the FBI, which Bharara surmised suggests might mean Mueller didn't have much on him. It certainly seems unlikely that any prosecutor
would charge Flynn for violating the 219-year-old Logan Act, a constitutionally questionable law that has never been tested in
court, for his chats with the Russian ambassador. It's not even clear if the (stupid) idea of using secure Russian communications
gear, as Flynn and Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner reportedly considered doing, would have been a crime.
Then there is Papadopoulos, the hapless campaign volunteer who drunkenly blabbed to the Australian ambassador to London that
the Russians were sitting on loads of hacked emails. He, likewise, confessed only to lying to the FBI. Papadopoulos desperately
tried to arrange meetings between Trump or top Trump officials and Russians, which apparently never happened. Papadopoulos has
been cooperating with Mueller for months, but how much does he really have to offer? He seems like an attention-seeking wannabe
-- the kind who puts "Model U.N. participant" on his resume.
Speaking of attention-seeking wannabes, Carter Page was another volunteer campaign adviser who was enthusiastic about collaborating
with Russia. His writings and comments suggest he has been a Putin apologist for years. But anyone who has seen Page's TV interviews
or read through his congressional testimony can tell that there's something not quite right about him. He's apparently broke,
doesn't have a lawyer, and has issued lengthy, bizarre statements comparing himself to Martin Luther King, Jr. Back in 2013, when
a Russian agent tried to recruit Page, he described him as too much of an "idiot" to bother with. This is the mastermind of the
Russia scandal?
As for Manafort and Gates, the charges against them are serious and detailed. They stand accused of failing to register as
foreign agents for their overseas work, as well as various offenses related to money laundering. But Mueller has yet to charge
them with any crimes related to their work on the Trump campaign. Gates is reportedly working out a cooperation deal with Mueller's
team -- perhaps he has stories to tell. And we can't rule out the idea that Mueller is prepared to file superseding charges against
either or both of the two men. But so far, their alleged crimes seem unrelated to 2016.
There is, of course, plenty of public evidence that Trump was all too happy to collude with Putin. "Russia, if you're listening,
I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," springs to mind, not to mention Trump's endless invocation of
WikiLeaks in the closing weeks of the 2016 campaign. What's particularly eerie, too, is how Trump's divisive racial rhetoric and
claims about how the election was going to be "rigged" in favor of Hillary Clinton echoes the messages described in Mueller's
latest indictment. Not to mention the voluminous fodder Trump has given Mueller for a (very) hypothetical obstruction of justice
case.
Mueller's team doesn't leak, and he's repeatedly surprised us, as he did again on Friday. But I'm still waiting for a smoking
gun -- and the special counsel hasn't shown us one yet, assuming he ever will.
We'll see when Mueller finally wraps up his investigation, but we know that garbage people like you and Yggies are taking this
opportunity to attack the Left even though there is on evidence for it.
Bernie and Jill Stein supporters aren't implicated at all and only scum like you would suggest so. No doubt you are paid by
DNC Super PACs.
Russiagate Targets the Left
BY
BRANKO MARCETIC
Liberal conspiracy theorists are using Russiagate to smear Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein. How long until they come for you?
id Russia conspire to put its thumb on the scales for Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein in 2016?
If you've paid any attention to mainstream coverage of Robert Mueller's indictment of the Russians involved in running an online
troll farm that opposed Hillary Clinton's campaign, then you're probably certain the answer is "yes." There's been no shortage
of headlines declaring that the accused -- typically referred to simply as "Russians" -- "tried to help" or "aimed to help" the
two left-wing candidates, or that they "appear to have been helped by Russian election interference." Even the New York Times,
the paper of record, declared that the company, Internet Research Agency, aimed to "bolster" Sanders and Stein's candidacies.
You'll find this same narrative on the nominally liberal MSNBC. Stein was grilled on MSNBC about the Russian attempt to "boost"
her campaign. Meanwhile, Ari Melber, one of the network's pundits, seemed to suggest there was something fishy going on between
Sanders and the Russian trolls with an innuendo-laden question to Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal.
"It says in here that Donald Trump was the main intended beneficiary, and Bernie Sanders was the other major party candidate
who was a beneficiary," said Melber. "Neither of them have clearly stood up today and said: 'I don't want that help from the Russians,
please don't do that kind of thing for me, and anything that happened, I disclaim.'"
It all sounds pretty damning. Until you read the actual indictment.
Fast and Loose
The sole reference to Stein in the nearly 10,000-word document is a sentence that mentions one single Instagram post from Blacktivist,
an account controlled by the company, saying: "Choose peace and vote for Jill Stein. Trust me, it's not a wasted vote."
Sanders, meanwhile, appears twice. The first mention is when the document states the company's work was "primarily intended
to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump." The
second is a few lines down, when it provides an example of this support: an outline of themes for future content that was circulated
around the company, urging employees to "use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump -- we
support them)." The indictment doesn't specify anything else, including any examples of material support for Sanders's campaign.
These scant references comprise the sole basis for headline after headline about the Kremlin-backed trolls working for Sanders
and Stein's campaigns. Some Clinton backers such as Joy-Ann Reid uncritically spread the narrative that "Russia was helping Jill
Stein and Sanders," while others used it as a launching pad to suggest Sanders was knowingly in cahoots with the Russian efforts.
MSNBC's Melber has been particularly dogged in pushing this narrative. Despite the lack of evidence in the indictment, Melber
claimed on his show that "Mueller has shown that [the Russians] spent 2016 pushing another campaign to elect Bernie Sanders."
When Sanders, appearing on Meet the Press, said that the trolls only began flooding pro-Sanders Facebook pages with anti-Clinton
content after she had already won the nomination -- a claim backed up by previous reporting -- Melber pushed back.
"That may be how Sanders remembers it," said Melber. "But now we know it began much earlier with those February marching orders,
and the very next month a Sanders volunteer, John Mattes, says a 'huge wave of fake news stories' slamming Clinton from abroad
targeted Sanders supporters."
The quote that Melber is referring to -- "huge wave of fake news stories" -- comes from this Guardian piece from July 2017.
It also happens to have been wildly misrepresented by Melber.
For one, the words were never uttered by Mattes, a Sanders campaign volunteer in California and investigative journalist who
played a role in bringing the Iran-Contra scandal to light in the 1980s. Rather, the phrase was used by the Guardian article's
author, Julian Borger. Secondly, at no point is it stated that this "wave" was targeting Sanders supporters. In fact, reading
the whole passage it's clear that neither Borger nor Mattes was saying that the "wave" had anything to do with Sanders at all.
Here is the passage in full:
A huge wave of fake news stories originating from eastern Europe began washing over the presidential election months earlier,
at the height of the primary campaign. John Mattes, who was helping run the outline campaign for the Democratic candidate Bernie
Sanders from San Diego, said it really took off in March 2016.
"In a 30-day period, dozens of full-blown sites appeared overnight, running full level productions posts. It screamed out to
me that something strange was going on," Mattes said. Much of the material was untraceable, but he tracked 40 percent of the new
postings back to eastern Europe.
In fact, publicly available interviews with Mattes make this clear, such as this NBC 7 interview in which Mattes explains what
led him to look into the troll activity in the first place.
"Hundreds and hundreds of people were joining Bernie Sanders pages on Facebook for a campaign that was over. It made no sense,"
he told the network.
I spoke to Mattes, who confirmed as much.
"I did not do that, at all," he said about the claim that he looked into troll activity on pro-Sanders pages during the primaries.
"Anybody who says that I knew what was happening in March 2016 is misconstruing what I've said publicly."
Mattes, who says he was never consulted by MSNBC about Melber's use of his quote, adds that he has "not seen any reporting
that there was material assistance that would have helped" Sanders during the primaries. While he does say that he found Sanders
page administrators around the country complaining about fake news sites being posted on their pages, that was in May, and was
largely haphazard. The trolls didn't appear to target California, for instance, even though it was clear by at least mid-May that
the state was the Sanders's campaign's last hope.
"Had there been an outrageous blasting of Hillary Clinton on our Facebook pages in the outrageous manner that occurred after
the convention, I would've noticed it," says Mattes. "If the Russians had really wanted to help Bernie, our last stand was in
California, and I didn't see it."
As of the time of writing, Melber's segment is still available for viewing online on the MSNBC website, even though Mattes
says he contacted MSNBC to register his objections regarding the misquote. I reached out to Melber and MSNBC and asked them if
they plan on issuing a public retraction. This story will be updated with their response.
It appears, then, that the widespread claim that "the Russians" were helping Sanders's campaign, and did so during the primaries,
is fake news -- much like the kind that those advancing this narrative accuse the Kremlin of spreading to subvert American democracy.
What appears to have happened here is a marked collapse of basic journalistic standards. Various news outlets and pundits have
created a narrative about Russian material support for left-wing presidential candidates based on precisely three references in
a thirty-seven-page document that don't actually provide evidence of such a thing. Ari Melber, meanwhile, misattributed and misrepresented
a quote from a year-old article and never bothered to speak to the individual he was supposedly quoting -- all for the purposes
of quickly and falsely debunking Sanders's defense of his campaign.
A less charitable interpretation is that the media -- unfriendly towards Sanders, uncritical of the national security establishment,
and predisposed to run sensational stories about Russian interference -- ran headfirst into a story that seemed to be an ideal
blend of these two trends, facts be damned.
Who's Next?
The widespread adoption of this narrative as a cudgel wielded against prominent left-wing political figures, often by liberals,
shows the danger of the current political climate, in which liberal anchors openly speculate whether their political opponents
are foreign agents. The moment such accusations are turned leftward is never far away.
Look at what's happening in the Mexican presidential race. The current front-runner is a left-wing, anti-Trump populist running
on a platform promising to renegotiate NAFTA, establish a universal pension, pump billions into infrastructure spending, and undo
the current president's privatization of gas and oil fields. One Bloomberg op-ed charged he would be an ideal beneficiary of a
Putin-backed disinformation campaign. Another, this time at the Washington Post, asserted that Putin "may" be working to help
him, an unsupported charge repeated by one of his opponent's aides in January.
Those hostile to left-wing causes have also made use of the accusation of Russia meddling. Texas Republican Lamar Smith, a
man saturated with the fumes of fossil fuel industry money, has accused anti-fracking environmental groups and Facebook ads of
being funded by the Kremlin. Others have also hyped up the work of Russian troll farms in promoting black activism and the Dakota
Access Pipeline protests. It brings to mind the intelligence assessment released by the Directorate of National Intelligence last
January, which, in lieu of detailing evidence for the Russian hacking of the DNC, instead cited Russia Today's coverage of US
wealth inequality, police brutality, mass surveillance, corruption, fracking, and more as examples of Russian propaganda.
And in the future, such attacks can easily be turned on the liberals now weaponizing Russiagate. What would happen if and when
a Kremlin-backed disinformation campaign appeared to come to the aid of the Democrats in a future election? It's not so far-fetched:
the legal analysis website Law & Crime recently reported that the pundit most retweeted by the trolls indicted by Robert Mueller
was MSNBC's very own Joy-Ann Reid, who received around ten times more retweets than Sanders from the same trolls. It remains to
be seen if news outlets will claim that Reid was being "helped" by the Russian disinformation campaign, or if Ari Melber will
ask for her to renounce their aid.
Liberals should be wary of continuing to use Russiagate for partisan purposes, and of abandoning reporting standards to punish
their ideological challengers, whether consciously or not. Weapons, after all, have a way of getting into other people's hands.
Employers have spent a lot of effort understanding their processes in greater and greater detail over the past 25 years. "Labor
productivity" is very, very gross measure and does not have much meaning to the employer. What exactly in the process is generating
improvements and can an employee effectively withhold their contribution to the improvement are key questions that are pursued
very aggressively. If the new layout of the fabrication cells drives a lot of extra productivity or if a redesign of the product
itself increases producibility, the human labor in the process is not going to be compensated very much regardless of the aggregate
shift in labor productivity. If you can hire someone out of a fast food restaurant and hit the 95% productivity target by the
close of his/her first shift, well the incumbent worker in the position is not going to be getting a big slice of general productivity
measures. On the whole, firms are assessing situations accurately and taking actions that are in their profit interests. If they
were getting this wrong a lot they would make changes. Employers are usually very pragmatic and if higher compensation makes them
more money, they do not hesitate. But it usually does not make them more money.
I don't know whether other commenters have already made this observation, but in case they haven't:
The paper can be summarized by the relationship of median wage growth to productivity growth as the sum of two variables A
& B:
c(3)W = c(1)A + c(2)B
where c(i) are the coefficients of the relations of each term to productivity growth.
What the authors implied is that c(1) is positive and c(2) is negative by a much greater absolute value than c(1), resulting
in a very low but positive c(3).
For this to be the case, then variable B must be the composite weighted sum of all factors besides those with positive coefficients
included in A.
The authors did not identify those factors the sum of which are B.
But, that identification only matters to identify what if any of those factors can be adjusted, eliminated, or substantially
modified. And since they are each related to Productivity growth but still sum to a composite weighted negative coefficient c(2)
they must adjustable, or eliminatable, or modifiable such that in composite the coefficient c(2) sums to near zero.
The simple fact that the coefficient of B has increasingly become more negative over time strongly suggests that many or most
or even all of these factors that sum to B may not in fact be adjustable, eliminatable, or modifiable to any appreciable degree,
since otherwise they would have already been identified and adjustments, etc. made (1973 to 2018 is nearly two generations of
time).
In other words the coefficients of factors B that sum to c(2) must clearly also have strong positive weighted coefficients
that relate to other than productivity growth but which are each still related to productivity growth.
It is obvious then that the other relationships (non-productivity growth) of factors B weigh positively (since 1973 and increasingly
so since then) far more than those that sum to coefficients c(2) which only relate to productivity growth.
Simply stated the other relationships of B to non-productivity growth terms have had increasingly greater priority than those
related to productivity growth .. enough so to fully counteract them at an increasingly greater rate with time.
I submit that Summers et.al. know this already and even what the major drivers are, but intentionally left them in their Posted
"economics" as unknowns to keep from upsetting the apple cart.
"This divergence between productivity and the typical worker's pay is a relatively recent phenomenon.."
Only if you consider 46 years (1973 to 2018) "recent". Most economists would reject that assertion. Most non-economists would
reject that assertion. Most laypersons would reject that assertion.
So on what basis can Summers et.al. possibly assert it as true?
The period since the end of WWII completely changed global and domestic economies and that period is 73 years of time, so that
the most recent 45 years comprises 61% of it or well over half the period since WWII's end has been in effect.
Basically the most recent 45 years begins a few short years after LBJ's administration and the Nixon's failed admin -- but
which was followed by Ford, Carter, and Reagan's.
I'm not indicting the presidential administrations only using them to show that "recent" begins in the post LBJ / Nixon time-frame.
I don't know anybody that would refer to Nixon's presidency as a "recent" administration, including me (and I was born in 1945).
My 40 something offspring and their cousins and all their friends refer to that as "ancient history". Summers was born nearly
a decade after I was, and so must be using a hugely different concept of "recent" than I do or than my children and their generation
do.
Historians have a different concept of "recent" since their operating time frames cover at least from the Industrial revolution
and more often than not several centuries more.
"On the link between US pay and productivity" is more a matter of the link between Anna Stansbury and Larry Summers than a matter
of analytical elegance. OTOH, Anna is quite elegant.
Fed Staff Pondered Inflation Puzzle and Came Away None the Wiser
By Matthew Boesler
February 22, 2018, 12:00 AM EST
Former Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen has called low inflation a bit of a "mystery." So it was appropriate that at her
final Fed meeting, she and her colleagues received a special briefing on what had gone wrong with the computer models they use
to forecast price pressures.
The conclusion of the briefing: The models aren't great for forecasting, but alternative options aren't obvious either. Perhaps
even more troubling for policy makers is that inflation appears to be anchored below the Fed's 2 percent target.
The presentations by Fed staff economists were described in the minutes of the policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee's
Jan. 30-31 meeting published Wednesday. The failure to anticipate last year's decline in inflation, despite a tightening labor
market, was chalked up to transitory factors like a one-time drop in the price of cell-phone services.
No alternative frameworks for understanding inflation beyond the Fed's reliance on the decades-old Phillips Curve relationship
-- which relies on the level of the unemployment rate and household inflation expectations -- were uncovered.
"The staff found little compelling evidence for the possible influence of other factors such as a more competitive pricing
environment or a change in the markup of prices over unit labor costs," according to the minutes of the gathering, which took
place just before Jerome Powell succeeded Yellen as chairman. "The prediction errors in recent years were larger than those observed
during the 2001-07 period but were consistent with historical norms."
On one hand, the findings arm Fed officials with ammunition in the debate about whether inflation will pick up again this year
as unemployment remains low. "Almost all" FOMC participants continued to see the Phillips Curve relationship between unemployment
and inflation as a useful guide, according to the minutes, which reinforces the case for gradually raising interest rates even
with relatively slow price increases.
But the news was not all good.
"Two of the briefings presented findings that the longer-run trend in inflation, absent cyclical disturbances or transitory
fluctuations, had been stable in recent years at a little below 2 percent," according to the minutes.
Evans Dissent
The findings echoed a concern that led Chicago Fed President Charles Evans to dissent against the FOMC's most recent rate hike
in December. After that meeting, he explained his decision on the grounds that U.S. households' expectations for inflation may
have fallen below 2 percent, which may make it harder for actual inflation to rise.
Fed officials' preferred inflation gauge has been below 2 percent throughout most of the last six years. Prices rose 1.7 percent
in the 12 months through December, according to the Commerce Department index.
But in the discussion among FOMC participants that followed the briefings, there was no indication that Evans's concerns were
becoming more widespread, despite the staff's findings. Only "a few" said inflation expectations appeared to have fallen below
2 percent, though "a number" noted the importance of stressing the symmetric nature of the Fed's inflation goal.
Dorian Bon reviews a collection of essays by socialist authors and journalists, many of them SW contributors, that asks tough
questions about Trumpism--and answers them.
...............................................
Trump and the crisis that caused him
...................................
"In 2008, Obama rode a wave of popular enthusiasm into the White House. "Two years later," Selfa writes, "the formerly discredited
and out-of-touch Republican Party scored a historic landslide in the 2010 midterm election. In the largest congressional midterm
victory since 1938, the Republicans captured sixty-three seats, ending the four-year Democratic majority in the House of Representatives."
"How did this happen? When Obama took office two years before, with the Democrats controlling both houses of Congress, his
administration quickly proceeded to appoint Bush-era officials to top positions in the Treasury and Pentagon.
The fiscal stimulus law passed weeks after Obama's inauguration, while significant, excluded jobs programs to ease rising unemployment.
The administration imposed sweeping concessions on unionized workers through the auto industry bailout, even while corporate executives
continued to be rewarded with lavish payoffs.
As the business elite found a willing partner in the new White House, poll after poll showed that Americans had begun to associate
Obama and the Democratic Party with big finance."
In an uninformed America, fake news organization like NYT, Wapo and Economist can peddle
fake news about fake news with nary a question of its accuracy. A dangerous time for the world.
MORONS R/U$
"I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire, ... The man
that controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire. And I control the money
supply."
Baron Nathan Mayer Rothschild
Bearing mind that the US Federal Reserve is a private consortium of Rothschild-linked
banks and it was another Rothschild that basically wrote the Balfour Declaration...
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost
always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you
superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority." Lord Acton
Add in Zimbardo (Stanford Prison Experiment) and Milgram (Shock Experiments) revealing how
the influence machine operatesand you have the schema behind what passes for crony capitalism
that infests the world. The icing on the oligarchic system is Bernays-inspired
propaganda.
well octopi are very intelligent as i understand it.. so they got that right!
i agree with @2 ger and @3 A P.. this constant mantra to get russia is a real interesting
set up if you ask me... someone hopes to make a ton of money off war.... these same people
don't care about the death of others either... not pretty..
Sigh, nothing but racism against Russians, MSM really wants ww3 with Russia and unfortunately
they will probably get it if their hatred, hysteria soar coming months, years.
As b said earlier this week, all for the click-bait.
Russiagate is the means the USA are using to manufacture consent for war.
A war that is not based on any real cause - just the Neo cons agenda. That is what the
Meuller enquiry is designed to with the cooperation of the media - to make Americans hate
Russia enough for war to be on the agenda
Putin is demonised - like with Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden and Ghaddafi
It started with obama and the demonisation of Putin.
Hillary was meant to continue this - Trump (Macmasters, Haley, Tillerson and the gang) are
following the plan set out by the Neo-cons.
The question is will Europe follow - the UK and France and Poland may the Baltic's are
dumb enough but I am not so sure about the rest of Europe.
Octopus ist a Symbol like any other, depicting for example methods of surveilance states. If
Sueddeutsche got attacked for using nazi symbolism, this is mosty due to the strong influence
of zionist groups in germany, showing off on their power. Bruce schneier likely confirms
this, even he though he uses a slightly different symbol: the squid.
"The question is will Europe follow - the UK and France and Poland may the Baltic's are dumb
enough but I am not so sure about the rest of Europe".
Unfortunately you are misinformed, the anti-russian hatred is probably worse in europe
than in america. Remember economist is a brittish/european news magazine.
Who most likely resembles an octopus, and acts more likely as one, is George Soros. Have
never seen his likeness mocked in any publication. It is far overdue.
This is amazing Big Lie projection by the elite. It shows their current weakness when they
project their ability onto others as b clearly shows.....has private banking been reeled in
since 1894 or has it grown to project more power and control?
Please remember folks that it is our social contract that needs to change rather than
punish some individuals and leave finance in private hands. Have we "evolved" enough to be
able to manage finance as a public utility? Like with gun (aggression) control, if we can get
some adults to lead the discussion and evolution instead of the psychopaths leadership we
have currently, there shouldn't be a problem.
the anti-russian hatred is probably worse in europe than in america. Remember economist is
a brittish/european news magazine.
Not in whole Europe. In Southern/Mediterranean Europe for example you do not find hatred
towards Russia. And how much Britain is European anyways, they call us 'continentals' after
all.
james @ 4 said:"i agree with @2 ger and @3 A P.. this constant mantra to get russia is a real
interesting set up if you ask me... someone hopes to make a ton of money off war.... these
same people don't care about the death of others either... not pretty.."
The picture of Putin as meddling octopus attacking democracies is of course dumb nonsense.
There is no evidence that the Russian government was in any way involved in the U.S.
election..."
No evidence either that the US, where electors choose between Trump and Clinton, Democrat
neo-cons and republican neo-cons, is a democracy.
Perhaps The Economist is re-cycling Karl Marx's old, 1848, charge against 'that power, whose
head is in Moscow and whose hand is in every cabinet in Europe' a charge that today fits the
arbiter of all wannabe, whose head is in Washington. to a tee.
I cant see any difference between southern states like Spain, France vs northern like
Holland and Norway.
The media is even more hawkish than the folks also.
The famous british weather forecast in never a past thing:
", ladies & gentelment a heavy thick mist this morning covers the Channel, thus isolating
the European continent...''
@ mauisurfer with the english translation of the Soros and INET piece....Thanks!
Most of my undergraduate study was in macro economics which showed the myth behind the
religion of private finance/property and ongoing inheritance. I was one of the folks in class
that asked too many questions and would never get invited to an INET gathering but was a
computer nerd by then anyway.
The point that struck me about the situation is that to overturn private finance also
means dealing with the excesses of patriarchy ....sigh We are a species that has advanced
amazingly so in so many ways and yet here we are with a multi-century pattern of private
finance controlling the lifeblood of human commerce like a vampire. This may have made some
sense in the feudal era but we are past that aren't we?
I hope we don't destroy ourselves trying to evolve.
Putin works for the Rothschilds. Putin is the bankers' faithful employee. Putin was just a
low-level KGB member and suddenly he becomes Russia's president? Just like Obama the unknown
became the US president?
In one sense it's certainly projection. I imagine the text is full of falsifications and
allegations offered with no facts to back them, which is what we've seen from all other media
and linked governments. Clearly, Russia is seen as an easier target than China thanks to the
years of Cold War brainwashing. But when we're confronted with such excrement, what's the
message we see being sent? I see an elaborate Ponzi Scheme built on a slowly disintegrating
foundation of lies in the process of imploding. The so-called Masters of the Universe no
longer hold any Truths and must thus rely on their seemingly infinite lies broadcast via the
Propaganda System. Meanwhile, The Resistance holds all the Truths and refutes the lies
easily. The Resistance rapidly gains the credibility the Masters once wielded.
The Hydra in Greek Mythology is killed in several differing ways. But the most important
aspect of its being is the reason for its existence: Hera raised it specifically to kill
Heracles--it's a tool of the Elite made to kill one of the Elite's main challengers. Yet, it
was a member of the Elite--Athena--who provides Heracles with the ultimate weapon to slay the
Hydra. Yes, Truth is stranger than Fiction; and it must be recalled that Mythology always is
constructed around a core of Truth.
What? No cognitive dissonance? Look closely again! Rothschild is exactly what your
"Private Finance" looks like. I would have thought you would highly approve. Are you sure you
took Economics 101? or just had a bad reaction to a pizza?
It is interesting that the host "b", who is scrupulous about anti-semitic biases, has now to
acknowledge at least tangentially that the anti-semites got some things right. The
anti-semites may have gone overboard with their accusations, but as always there is a kernel
of truth. The Jewish opinion-makers have no sense of moderation, or fairplay and that has
always turned off anyone who thinks about these things. I myself have turned away from being
a raging 110% Zionist to total indifference now.
Whose tentacles control the world?
From the Iran Deputy FM on the nuclear deal :
The world will be plunged into a new nuclear crisis if Donald Trump continues to sabotage
the Iran nuclear deal, the country's deputy foreign minister has warned. Abbas Araghchi, a
deputy foreign minister, accused Mr Trump's administration of violating the agreement by
threatening to reimpose sanctions and said Tehran could walk away from the deal if it did
not begin to see economic benefits from the deal.
" I don't think the deal can survive in this way, if the atmosphere of confusion
continues, if companies or banks will not cooperate with Iran . We cannot stay in a
deal in which there is no benefit for us," he said. "That's a fact." . . .
here
countries that are parties to the JCPOA--
China
European Union
France
Germany
Iran
Russian Federation
United Kingdom United States .. .The meddler
So Trump, not Putin, menaces Western democracies. Change the head on that octopus.
U.S. Mainstream news television and print has become boring predicable relentless propaganda
nonsense, pure hype. Half is pure hype propaganda and the other is mostly advertisement
selling products like pharmaceuticals any news item is product placement, LOL. It is
Frightening at the same time hard to believe that the American Public is still falling for
the same shell game, evil dictator, etc. This Defraud of the American Public, relentless and
diabolical misinformation mind control, and Mr. Obama and his ilk insist they will decide
what is true or not, fake news or not. And they will marginalize criminalize or physically
damage the outliers.
i live on rothschild street it is very nice and safe already no arab spring here as we
removed them and sent them to munchen,garmischpartenkirken,scotland,wales london and norway
sweden barbera lerner spector sorted the shipping out for us super better thsn dhl logistics
already.
"The great Ideal of Judaism is ...that the whole world shall be imbued with Jewish teachings,
and that in a Universal Brotherhood of Nations - a greater Judaism, in fact -- all the
separate races and religions [and nations] shall disappear."
Mythology contains its core of truth because, I submit, events and symbols both arise from
the same source, and share the same pattern.
In plain terms: we are too self-important to think we put the connections together. The
connections come already made, we just ascertain them.
In useful terms: the mythologies contain patterns of existence that remain alive even if
we only see the patterns from mythologies that owe their fame to past events. Whatever a
story evokes, it also invokes. It can happen again because it never went away. The pattern is
universal, enduring, primordial. Plus ca change...
Karlofi @ 24: In a way, the Hydra did kill Heracles (the mortal part of him). Heracles shot a
centaur who was menacing his second wife Deianira with one of his arrows (which he had
previously dipped in the Hydra's blood). The centaur told Deianira to dip a shirt into his
blood (the centaur's blood, that is), falsely claiming that his blood could be used as a love
potion. Some time in the future, Heracles' eye starts to wander and Deianira remembers the
centaur's last words. She gives Heracles the bloodstained shirt to wear. The Hydra poison in
the shirt starts killing Heracles and he cannot take it off.
It is vital to acknowledge that animus towards zionists is culturally driven rather than
racially motivated. Saturday morning Hebrew classes - frequently instructed by fresh outta
the IDF young israelis, has been an essential part of the indoctrination of jews into
zionism. Without that it would have been impossible to develop the cohort of fervently
pro-Israeli jews. Wind the clock back 5 or 6 decades and you will find that among the wider
jewish population zionists were outnumbered by a mixture of secular jews who wanted
integration and those orthodox jews who believed zionism to be contrary to established
teaching. Not now.
However there is another major downside to the accepted indoctrinations. Spend time with a
third generation arab american, italian- american or Greek-american and you will find that
aside from the surname they appear just as any amerikan would. Not so for Amerikan jews,
whose brainwashing has served to seperate them from the wider population.
This is particularly apparent in attitudes towards women. Over the early years of emigration
to the "New World" there have been numerous instances of recent migrants from Italy Greece
and the ME being involved in some dreadful activities against local women. Now, these have
frequent been used by a racist media to persuade fools that the particular nationality in
question is deviant, violent and will 'steal our womenfolk'. After a couple decades of local
Italian-amerikans, Greek-amerikans and Arab-amerikans it all settles down into a crime rate
within the usual boundaries of citizens.
That hasn't prevented race-baiting by third generation feminists, the worst example being
englander
Labour Party MP Sarah Champion claiming that all muslims were misogynist after a gang of
1st & 2nd generation Pakistani-englanders were convicted of grooming 'young white girls'.
The link which certainly doesn't represent my view on this gives a flavour of how the
englander media published racist tropes while pretending to be opposed to racism.
I mention the Champion case because one group of englanders and amerikans are always given
a free pass on sexism, even though they, unlike descendants of xtian and islamic immigrants,
continue with their belief in gender based oppression into all subsequent generations of
amerikans.
Take a look at the primary perpetrators in the #ME TOO tweeting? Harvey Weinstein, Woody
Allen, Roman Polanski to name a tiny percentage of the Hollywood "heavy Hitters" who have
been accused of sexual harassment and/or rape and who happen to be Jews.
I have always held that the combination of "we are the chosen people" rhetoric combined with
the "all goy women are easy" [I mean to say married goyim don't even wear a
sheitel ) nonsense has
encouraged jews to hang on to gender based prejusices long after the societies which other
migrants came from ditched such tosh.
Yet there have been no articles on the rate of Judaism amongst sex pests and rapists. Why
not?
I'm not highlighting this because I reckon the world needs more racist propaganda, but
because a well-researched article which considered all the issues properly could put these
'hebrew classes' that let's face it, are the judaic equivalent of wahabi Madrasa
brainwashing, under pressure to reform the curriculum away the anti-=women, anti-islam - hell
anti anyone/anything which isn't judaic- and into less socially divisive anti-hate speech
stuff.
Looking at any of the problems across this rock in 2018 with a race-based mindset is
wasteful and untrue. amerikans of all colours and creeds cheer on the destruction of the
'undeveloped' world not because of their hair or skin colour, but because they have had their
minds filled with garbage ever since someone first turned on a vid tube to 'distract'
them.
"Really, if the lower orders don't set us a good example, what
on earth is the use of them? They seem, as a class, to have absolutely no sense of moral
responsibility." –Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest
Credit Slips informs us of an important new study, "Life in the Sweatbox," by Pamela
Foohey, Robert M. Lawless, Katherine M. Porter, and Deborah Thorne, forthcoming from the
Notre Dame Law Review , and available for download now at
SSRN . Foohey summarizes the article:
"Sweatbox" refers to the financial sweatbox -- the time before people file bankruptcy,
which is when they often are on the brink of defaulting on their debts and lenders can charge
high interest and fees. In the article, we focus on debtors' descriptions of their time in
the sweatbox.
Based on CBP data, we find that people are living longer in the sweatbox before filing
bankruptcy than they have in the past. Two-thirds of people who file bankruptcy reported
struggling with their debts for two or more years before filing. One-third of people reported
struggling for more than five years, double the frequency from the CBP's survey of people who
filed bankruptcy in 2007. For those people who struggle for more than two years before filing
-- the "long strugglers" -- we find that their time in the sweatbox is marked by persistent
debt collection calls, the loss of homes and other property, and going without healthcare,
food, and utilities. And although long strugglers do not file bankruptcy until long after the
benefits outweigh the costs, they still report being ashamed of needing to file.
Foohey concludes:
Our results suggest that the bankruptcy system, at present, cannot deliver its promised
"fresh start" to many of the families that seek its protection.
In this brief post, I'll look at one aspect of how the bankruptcy system came to be as it
is: The narrative that debtors perform a "utilitarian calculus" in deciding whether or not to
seek bankruptcy. This narrative is false, based the results of "Life in the Sweatbox." Since it
will crop up again if bankruptcy reform efforts gain traction -- as they should -- it's
important to debunk it now. This subject matter is new to me, so I will primarily quote from
and contextualize Foohey, Lawless, Porter, and Thorne.
First, let's define the "sweatbox.' Foohey et al., page 1:
The time before a person files bankruptcy is sometimes called the financial "sweatbox."
People in the financial sweatbox are on the brink of defaulting on their debts, which is when
their lenders can charge high interest rates and fees and otherwise profit from their
customers' financial misery.
Ka-ching.
Although the term "sweatbox" often is connected with bankruptcy, how long people spend in
the sweatbox before filing and what it means to live in the sweatbox has yet to be carefully
examined. Understanding what people endure while in the sweatbox is crucial to evaluating the
longstanding belief that people decide to file bankruptcy based on a strategic, financial
calculation.
Second, current personal bankruptcy law is premised on the narrative that people seek
personal bankruptcy out of self-interest (the "utilitarian calculus"). Foohey et al., page
2:
The term "financial sweatbox" came out of the debates leading to the 2005 passage of the
Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA), a major amendment to the
Bankruptcy Code designed to decrease consumer bankruptcy filings by making filing more
difficult, expensive, and timeconsuming. The consumer credit industry insisted that changes
to bankruptcy were needed because bankruptcy courts were full of deadbeat, "can-pay" debtors
who filed "bankruptcies of convenience" to try to escape their rightful obligations and who
felt no shame in "abusing" the system. This story contradicted the overwhelming expert
consensus that the bankruptcy system functioned well, abuse was rare, and there was no need
for drastic overhaul.
And from page 12:
To make its case for restricting access to bankruptcy and thus extend the time consumers
spend in the sweatbox, the consumer credit industry painted a picture of profligate spending
and uninhibited use of bankruptcy. This picture was not new. Rather, it was updated and
embellished for more than a decade. Proponents of this picture argued that reforms were
necessary because the "rising tide of bankruptcy filings" cost every moral, bill-paying
family $400 a year, a figure that made for "the best sound-bite in the debate."
Proponents further linked people's supposed propensity to file at the first sign of financial
trouble to a purported drastic decline in bankruptcy's stigma.
None of proponents' claims were supported by evidence . Proponents never
substantiated the often-cited "fact" that bankruptcy was costing every American family $400 a
year. The claim that bankruptcy courts were filled with "can-pay" debtors was contradicted by
decades of robust empirical evidence that people file bankruptcy after experiencing exogenous
shocks, such as decline in income, increased expenses, job loss, divorce, and medical
problems. Based on this evidence, the related claim that bankruptcy's stigma had disappeared
became suspect. If anything, comparing levels of consumer debt and the number of bankruptcy
filings, the stigma of filing may have increased over past decades.
Nonetheless, lured by tales of a $400 bankruptcy "tax," Congress embraced the consumer
credit industry's assertion that restricting eligibility to and otherwise making it harder to
file bankruptcy was the best policy.
(The politics of bankruptcy legislation, it seems, make the
politics of
health care law look like deliberations at Aristotle's Lyceum .) So now you have
been inocculated against the talking points from the credit "industry" (so-called), especially
that virulent "$400 a year" one. I'm about to give the article's internal logic on why these
talking points are false, but the article is lavishly footnoted and you can run down plenty of
additional material for yourself.
Third, the struggle to avoid bankruptcy involves immense suffering. Page 39:
To squeeze a few more dollars out of their lives, people work overtime, forego basic
necessities, face serious health consequences, deal with persistent debt collection calls,
end up in court, lose homes, and sell what little they own .
Financial misery hurts families. For couples, financial distress is "complicated by the
internal dynamic of the household." Struggling with unmanageable debts can strain marriages
and relationships. Fights over how to make ends meet, shifting of responsibilities for
dealing with ever-worsening finances, and watching loved ones deal with the emotional
distress that comes with money troubles may lead to separation and divorce. Splitting one
household into two only worsens the financial problems .
For parents, financial troubles are compounded with worries over how the kids cope with
the hardships. If homes are foreclosed, children are displaced along with their parents, and
may switch schools, possibly more than once as their parents find a workable living
situation. Home loss is linked with educational regression. Even if children are not
displaced, they notice their parents' financial distress. Schedules change, diets change, and
activities are scaled back as parents cut spending. Such changes can confuse children,
resulting in behavioral and emotional problems. The effects of prolonged financial problems
extend beyond families to workplaces and communities. Existing in a state of money scarcity
damages people's ability to lead productive lives. Merely determining how one will survive
day to day depletes people's mental resources. This leaves little energy for attending to
anything else, including one's job, threatening people's livelihoods and leading to further
economic drain. People withdraw from society, adding to their isolation. And the costs of
life in the sweatbox are magnified by people's reported underutilization of health-related
services and insurance, which can permanently harm people's health.
Fourth, many prolong the struggle to avoid bankrupcty long after it's in their interest to
do so. Page 3:
[T]wo-thirds of people who file bankruptcy report that they seriously struggled with their
debts for more than two years prior to bankruptcy. Almost one-third report that they
seriously struggled for more than five years, double the frequency from the CBP's survey of
people who filed bankruptcy in 2007. For those people who struggle for more than two years
before filing bankruptcy -- the "long strugglers" -- their time in the sweatbox is
particularly damaging, distinguishing them from other debtors. They lose their homes to
foreclosure, sell other property, report going without food and other necessities, all while
employing multiple tactics to try to make ends meet and dealing with persistent debt
collection calls and lawsuits. When long strugglers finally file, they enter bankruptcy with
fewer assets than other debtors and overwhelming unsecured debts. Long strugglers would
have benefitted financially from filing months or years before they did . Yet seven out
of ten long strugglers say they felt shame upon filing bankruptcy. These debtors' reports
about their prebankruptcy lives suggest a model of deciding to file based on something
beyond just dollars and cents .
Finally and finally, QED. Debtors, especially long strugglers, cannnot be presumed to perfom
a "utilitarian calculus." Page 42:
Debtors' presumed utilitarian calculation that underlies debates about access to
bankruptcy supposes more knowledge about law and shrewdness about timing than our data
suggest people have. People's willingness to file is diminished further by feelings of shame
about using bankruptcy even when filing is clearly financially beneficial. Combined, the
bankruptcy system is severely hampered in delivering the fresh start it is assumed to bestow
on struggling families.
And from page 38:
Far from being a first resort, bankruptcy is the last refuge for struggling families, and
their decisions to file do not reflect the utilitarianism bankruptcy law .
At this point, I'm thinking that the situation in bankruptcy is so hellish that that
loveable goof, Joe Biden, actually did student debtors a favor by not allowing them to file for
it [hollow laughter].
It also occurs to me that since it's not obvious that our elites are likely to feel shame,
and it's quite obvious that they're adept at utilitarian calculus (ka-ching), perhaps they're
projecting their own values and behavior onto the rest of us?
This is an excellent article, far richer in data, ideas, and policy concepts than I've
sought to convey here. Recommended reading . Grab a
cup of coffee!
New figures published this week on obscene inequality show how the capitalist economic
system has become more than ever deeply dysfunctional. Surely, the depraved workings of the
system pose the greatest threat to societies and international security. Yet, Western leaders
are preoccupied instead with other non-existent threats – like Russia.
Take British prime minister Theresa May who this week was
speaking at a posh banquet in London. She told the assembled hobnobs, as they were sipping
expensive wines, that "Russia is threatening the international order upon which we depend".
Without providing one scrap of evidence, the British leader went to assert that Russia was
interfering in Western democracies to "sow discord".
May's grandstanding is a classic case study of what behavioral scientists call "displacement
activity" – that is, when animals find themselves in a state of danger they often react
by displaying unusual behavior or making strange noises.
For indeed May and other Western political leaders are facing danger to their world order,
even if they don't openly admit it as such. That danger is from the exploding levels of social
inequality and poverty within Western societies, leading to anger, resentment, discontent and
disillusionment among increasing masses of citizens. In the face of the inherent, imminent
collapse of their systems of governance, Western leaders like May seek some relief by prattling
on about Russia as a threat.
This week European bank Credit Suisse published figures showing that the wealth gap between
rich and poor has reached even more grotesque and absurdist levels. According to the bank, the
world's richest 1% now own as much wealth as half the population of the entire planet. The
United States and Britain are among the top countries for residing multi-millionaires, while
these two nations have also emerged as among the most unequal in the world.
The data calling out how dysfunctional the capitalist system has become keeps on coming. It
is impossible to ignore the reality of a system in deep disrepair, yet British and American
politicians in particular – apart from notable exceptions like Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie
Sanders – have the audacity to block out this reality and to chase after risible
phantoms. (The exercise makes perfect sense in a way.)
Last week, a
report from the US-based Institute of Policy Studies found that just three of America's
wealthiest men – Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett – own the same level of
wealth as the poorest half of the entire US population. That is, the combined monetary worth of
these three individuals – reckoned to be $250 billion – is equivalent to that
possessed by 160 million citizens.
What's more, the study also estimates that if the Trump administration pushes through its
proposed tax plans, the gap between rich elite and the vast majority will widen even further.
This and other studies have found that over 80% of the tax benefits from Trump's budget will go
to enrich the top 1% in society.
All Western governments, not just May's or Trump's, have over the past decades overseen an
historic trend of siphoning wealth from the majority of society to a tiny elite few. The tax
burden has relentlessly shifted from the wealthy to the ordinary workers, who in addition have
had to contend with decreasing wages, as well as deteriorating public serves and social
welfare.
To refer to the United States or Britain as "democracies" is a preposterous misnomer. They
are for all practical purposes plutocracies; societies run by and for a top strata of obscenely
wealthy.
Intelligent economists, like the authors at the IPS cited above, realize that the state of
affairs is unsustainable. Morally, and even from an empirical economics point of view, the
distortion of wealth within Western societies and internationally is leading to social and
political disaster.
On this observation, we must acknowledge the pioneering work of Karl Marx and Friedrich
Engels who more than 150 years ago identified the chief failing of capitalism as being the
polarization of wealth between a tiny few and the vast majority. The lack of consumption power
among the masses owing to chronic poverty induced by capitalism would result in the system's
eventual collapse. Surely, we have reached that point in history now, when a handful of
individuals own as much wealth as half the planet.
Inequality, poverty and the denial of decent existence to the majority of people stands out
as the clarion condemnation of capitalism and its organization of society under private profit.
The human suffering, hardships, austerity and crippled potential that flow from this condition
represent the crisis of our time. Yet instead of an earnest public debate and struggle to
overcome this crisis, we are forced by our elites to focus on false, even surreal problems.
American politics has become paralyzed by an endless elite squabble over whether Russia
meddled in the presidential elections and claims that Russian news media continue to interfere
in American democracy. Of course, the US corporate-controlled news media, who are an integral
part of the plutocracy, lend credibility to this circus. Ditto European corporate-controlled
media.
Then we have President Donald Trump on a world tour berating and bullying other nations to
spend more money on buying American goods and to stop cheating supposed American generosity
over trade. Trump also is prepared to start a nuclear war with North Korea because the latter
is accused of being a threat to global peace – on the basis that the country is building
military defenses. The same for Iran. Trump castigates Iran as a threat to Middle East peace
and warns of a confrontation.
This is the same quality of ludicrous distraction as Britain's premier Theresa May this week
lambasting Russia for "threatening the world order upon which we all depend". By "we" she is
really referring to the elites, not the mass of suffering workers and their families.
May and Trump are indulging in "perception management" taken to absurdity. Or more crudely,
brainwashing.
How can North Korea or Iran be credibly presented as global threats when the American and
British are supporting a genocidal blockade and aerial slaughter in Yemen? The complete
disconnect in reality is testimony to the pernicious system of thought-control that the vast
majority of citizens are enforced to live under.
The biggest disconnect is the obscene inequality of wealth and resources that capitalism has
engendered in the 21 st century. That monstrous dysfunction is also causally related
to why the US and its Western allies like Britain are pushing belligerence and wars around the
planet. It is all part of their elitist denial of reality. The reality that capitalism is the
biggest threat to humanity's future.
Do we let these mentally deficient, deceptive political elites and their media dictate the
nonsense? Or will the mass of people do the right thing and sweep them aside?
"... As it is, the "middle" 59% can replenish their pockets at the expense of top 1% income whose share has ballooned from 10% to 22.5% over recent (de-unionizing) decades. Just reintroduce confiscatory taxation of the kind existing in the Eisenhower era. Say, 90% over $2 million income -- and this time we really mean it -- very top incomes (CEOs, news anchors, er, quarterbacks) now 20X what they were since per capita income only doubled. I predict any social inertia (it's only human nature) on the part of the 59% to jack upper taxes up will be overcome by the friendly persuasion on the part of the 40% -- who want to jack up the price of that burger just a bit more. ..."
"... NY Times' Nate Cohn found that Trump won by trading places with Obama. Obama ran as the black guy (presumably working folks oriented -- were we wrong) against Wall Street Romney; Trump ran as blue collar-acting guy against Wall Street Hillary. True progressive Bernie would have stomped Trump. (Bernie hasn't caught on to re-stocking union density as the only real way to help working people yet -- but at least he won't get in the way while waiting to catch on.) ..."
"... I remember reading an interview of an older person. The interviewer asked what life was like during the Great Depression. And they replied that it wasn't bad if you had a job. ..."
"... This is similar to our situation today. It is not bad if you have a good paying full time job. In that case you have almost no understanding of what some others are complaining about. Income inequality is a sterile term for what happens to other people ..."
"... Candidate Trump addressed the major concern of those 'others', which was their declining spending power. He did that by addressing the economic threats posed by illegal immigration and free trade treaties which allowed companies to move production overseas. ..."
"... The businessman Mohamed El-Erian rejects the populist label for the current multi national voter rebellions, he prefers anti-establishment. And so do I. ..."
"We all know that that the widely touted unemployment rate overstates the strength of
the labor market given so many having dropped out of the labor force, and upward pressure on
wages has remained weak, despite some improvement on that front recently."
Barkley, this understates (too typically I'm afraid) the depth of the "Great Wage
Depression." Everybody (everybody progressive anyway) eternally points to economic growth
benefiting only the upper few percent for decades -- then -- whenever they assess the effect
of the economy upon voters (not you here) they skip right over sink hole wage rates and
keyhole focus right on the unemployment rate (or if we're lucky the real employment rate)
when what voters want is $20/hr jobs plain and simple: high (or at least really livable)
wages.
[cut-and-paste]
Simply put, if fast food can pay $15/hr at 33% (!) labor costs, then, other retail should be
able pay $20/hr at 10-15% labor costs, and, Walmart (God bless it) may be able to pay $25/hr
at 7% labor costs. If this means shifting 10% of overall income to the bottom 40%, that means
scratching 14% of their income from the "middle" 59% (who get roughly 70% of overall income)
-- in higher prices. Which may mean we have been paying the 40% too little for too along. But
if the 40% get labor union organized (where this little speech is going) we may find
ourselves willing to up if we want them to show up at work.
I have always been willing to tell any gang banger (not that I ever run into any) that
side-ways guns and gang signs and all that would look pretty funny in, say, Germany where
they pay people to work. And, that if Walmart were paying $25/hr we wouldn't be hearing about
any of this here.
As it is, the "middle" 59% can replenish their pockets at the expense of top 1% income
whose share has ballooned from 10% to 22.5% over recent (de-unionizing) decades. Just
reintroduce confiscatory taxation of the kind existing in the Eisenhower era. Say, 90% over
$2 million income -- and this time we really mean it -- very top incomes (CEOs, news anchors,
er, quarterbacks) now 20X what they were since per capita income only doubled. I predict any
social inertia (it's only human nature) on the part of the 59% to jack upper taxes up will be
overcome by the friendly persuasion on the part of the 40% -- who want to jack up the price
of that burger just a bit more.
* * * * * *
Super easy way back [ONLY WAY BACK] is restoring healthy labor union density (6%
unions outside gov equates to 20/10 bp). When Democrats take over Congress, we must institute
mandatory union certification and re-certification elections at every work place (stealing a
page from the Republican's anti-union playbook -- see Wisconsin gov workers). I would add the
wrinkle of making the cycle one, three or five years -- plurality rules -- take a lot of
potential rancor out of first time votes in some workplaces.
PS. NY Times' Nate Cohn found that Trump won by trading places with Obama. Obama ran as
the black guy (presumably working folks oriented -- were we wrong) against Wall Street
Romney; Trump ran as blue collar-acting guy against Wall Street Hillary. True progressive
Bernie would have stomped Trump. (Bernie hasn't caught on to re-stocking union density as the
only real way to help working people yet -- but at least he won't get in the way while
waiting to catch on.)
JimH , January 11, 2018 10:39 am
First, I agree with your assessment that President Trump is claiming credit for things
which he has not caused. But this economy is awful for those at the low end of the income
scale. Low pay, high rent, and rising food costs. (Sometimes by subterfuge.)
I remember reading an interview of an older person. The interviewer asked what life was
like during the Great Depression. And they replied that it wasn't bad if you had a job.
This is similar to our situation today. It is not bad if you have a good paying full time
job. In that case you have almost no understanding of what some others are complaining about.
Income inequality is a sterile term for what happens to other people.
Others like those who have not dropped out of the labor force but who are no longer
counted as looking for work because they exhausted their unemployment benefits. (No one
contacts them to see if they are still looking for work.)
Others like those who have full time employment but their wages are low and static.
Others like those who need a full time job but a part time job is all they can get.
Others like those who work but only get by because they applied for food stamps. (SNAP)
Others like those living on Social Security and seeing pitifully tiny COLAs.
Others like older Americans with savings which pay almost no interest.
And others, like all of the above, who see the prices of the things that they consume going
up while the CPI is showing little inflation.
Some of those others live in the rust belt states where they have seen an extended
economic decline.
Neither of the two major political parties addresses those 'others' issues. And because
they are almost completely disconnected from their voters' issues, they did not perceive the
building anger.
Candidate Trump addressed the major concern of those 'others', which was their declining
spending power. He did that by addressing the economic threats posed by illegal immigration
and free trade treaties which allowed companies to move production overseas.
President Trump lost in the polls and won the election. It doesn't really surprise me that
he is continuing to score low in the polls.
Of course, the two major parties can continue on their current paths. And they can blame
their losses on flawed voters. And eventually they will do their complaining from their
homes.
The businessman Mohamed El-Erian rejects the populist label for the current multi national
voter rebellions, he prefers anti-establishment. And so do I.
Varsovian , January 11, 2018 12:14 pm
Oh no, not another extrapolation based on the false economic stats Poland pumped out
pre-2015!!
No-one takes the drastic choice of emigration lightly – especially if you know you're
going to be bottom of the heap in the new country. Can't you find an American to talk about
his forbears escaping poverty in Europe only to face hard times in the New World?
Two million Poles fled Poland's much touted "Economic Miracle". Funnily, they stopped
emigrating when REAL economic growth, wage growth and the setting up of a welfare state
started!
Hard Right crony capitalism with illegal fuel import deals with Putin and falsified public
accounting didn't cause happiness. Despite the figures, Poland wasn't a world leader in the
export of cellphones, for example.
Rosser continues to bark up the wrong tree! Worse – he's making some sort of social
philosophy out of it.
You and I have already been around on this, but I shall point out that the credibility of
sources in Poland that you like to cite have collapsed since the Law and Justice Party you
shill for took over.
The most believable data is that there has been no major economic change in the state of
the Polish economy from before and after the political change, although some minor changes
(which you have hyped while ignoring others not fitting your party line). The big bottom line
is no noticeable change in overall GDP growth in Poland, basically chugging along
unspectacularly in the 1-2% annual range with mild quarterly fluctuations.
So, sorry, I am going to stick with calling this the Poland problem." You folks are the
poster boys for this. Tough, and good luck getting any world leader not also an authoritarian
liar supporting your embarrassing government.
"... managers, janitors, lawyers, nurses, librarians, bartenders, and everyone else who had a job in 2016 ..."
"... Total US Income = $18,750,000,000,000 Combined Wages & Salaries of All Employed Folks = $6,968,053,985,200 Income from Federal Social Benefits = $2,039,300,000,000 ..."
"... Total Income - (Wages & Salaries + Benefits) = $9,763,546,014,800 ..."
"... every commodity ..."
"... every last grain ..."
"... every waste bin ..."
"... every single cappuccino ..."
"... Property income ..."
"... unearned income ..."
"... interest ..."
"... interest, rent, and corporate profits ..."
"... with ..."
"... just as valuable ..."
"... honest work ..."
"... In solidarity, John Laurits ..."
"... If you enjoy these posts, consider buying the writer a cup of coffee ..."
"... or making a monthly donation ..."
"... -- it's like a voluntary subscription directly to an artist & journalist ..."
Working Class w/ No Living Wage: The
Absurd Math of US Income
As the stock market gleefully claws its way to
more record-breaking highs,
Forbes reports
a full 56% of US Americans now have
less than $1,000 to their names -- and 25% have
less than $100
. But the
economy, as they say, is
booming.
Even with 165 million on the
breadline and an hourly minimum wage of only $7.25 nationally, surging Amazon share prices have
added $13 billion to Jeff Bezos' net-worth
since
mid-September. For perspective, $13 billion is enough to pay the student-loan debts of 432,000 millennials.
It's also plenty to end world hunger for a year, according to
the International Institute
for Sustainable Development
. And Bezos -- now the world's richest man -- smashes a bottle of
organic champagne to celebrate his new wind-farm. The question is -- how do markets grow as the wealth of the
people shrinks and wages fall? What do the commentariat mean by "economic growth" when the nation's income can
hardly keep half of its people's heads above water?
The National Income:
How Much Value is Created by the US Economy?
There are a lot of ways to measure economies -- for
example,
gross domestic product
or
GDP
is the value of everything a country produces ( minus the cost to produce it ) and the
employment-rate
measures the number of paying jobs. The
gross national income
or GNI is what you get after adding up all of
the income earned by everyone. GNI includes every citizen ( even in other countries ) and every kind of income
from wages or salaries to social security and unemployment benefits, investment returns, or the sale of assets
like houses and cars.
GNI is basically the total value of all money
paid to everyone, minus the expenses of doing the business everyone is getting paid for. According to the
macroeconomic accounts on the Federal Reserve's website, the GNI was about
$18.7 trillion dollars
in 2016 for the US.
Gross National Wages:
Every Paycheck Combined
Now, how much of America's multi-trillion-dollar
paycheck ends up in the pockets of people who work in the US? Since the "gross national wage" is apparently not
as important to US media-outlets as Jeff Bezos' latest earnings or the many triumphs of the Dow Jones, this
number is a bit more camouflaged. Luckily, the
total number who are employed by all industries and their
average wages or salaries
can be found in the bowels of the Bureau of Labor Statistics' website.
Multiplying these two numbers -- the total employed by all industries and their mean-average yearly
wages -- gives the combined wages and salaries of everyone with a job in the US, from the clerks and mechanics
to the brain-surgeons and corporate executives.
$7 trillion dollars to split between all employed people in the United States.
Everyone who built
everything and provided every service --
managers, janitors, lawyers,
nurses, librarians, bartenders, and everyone else who had a job in 2016
-- collectively earned about $7
trillion of the $18.7 trillion national paycheck.
But who gets the remaining $11,781,946,014,800?
Federal Benefits & Social Welfare
The national income also includes money received
from government benefits, such as disability, retirement, and social security. The Bureau of Labor Statistics
lists the 2016 total federal benefits
received at
$2.0393 trillion.
Total US Income = $18,750,000,000,000
Combined Wages & Salaries of All Employed Folks = $6,968,053,985,200
Income from Federal Social Benefits = $2,039,300,000,000
Total Income - (Wages & Salaries + Benefits) =
$9,763,546,014,800
And about $9.8 trillion is still missing.
Literally All Working People Combined
Earn Less Than Half of American Income
According to the BLS data,
there are an estimated
146 million people who hold some sort of job in the US.
These
146 million workers create
every commodity
, serve
every meal
, harvest
every last
grain
, empty
every waste bin
, teach
every student
, build
every house
,
and pour milk into
every single cappuccino
in the nation. And together
they take
about 37.2%
of the American pie.
All of the so-called
"handouts" from the federal government -- social security, retirement, disability, and other benefits -- only
amount to another 10.8% of the GNI.
The combined income from all employment and federal
benefits still only adds up to 48% of America's paycheck. And that means that the other 52% must be paid to
someone -- or some
thing
-- without a job.
Unearned Income: Landlords, Industrial
Capitalists, & Wall Street Investors
Property
income
-- or, as the classical economists knew it,
unearned income
-- is
earned through ownership ( rather than
wages
, which are earned by time
spent working ). There are three basic types of unearned income.
Rent
is paid to owners of land or other natural resources,
profit
is paid
to owners of capital ( like factories, equipment, machines, etc. ), and
interest
is paid to owners of financial assets ( like stocks, securities, debt, etc. ). The $13 billion
Jeff Bezos made when Amazon share prices increased, for example, was "earned" by owning something rather than
creating something or providing some service.
This type of income is a bit harder to keep
track of -- especially considering that the wealthy seem to be in the habit of using offshore tax-havens and
shell companies ( like those revealed in the
Panama
and
Paradise Papers
) to stash their fortunes. With
that being said, the
US Department of Commerce's accounts
show
nearly $7 trillion
-- or about the same as 146 million
working people made combined -- paid out for
interest, rent, and corporate
profits
. Another trillion and a half or so was paid to "proprietors" or, more colloquially, the
owners.
And now we have a rough sketch of the great
American paycheck:
Are Workers Worthy of Their Wages?
Not in the United States of America!
There are two basic components to the whole
economic activity and wealth of human civilization --
capital
and
labor
.
On one hand there is capital -- all of the natural resources, materials, lands, machines, and everything that
everything is made
of
and made
with
-- and, on the other hand, there are the countless workers whose labor-power transforms that stuff
into the societies we live in.
Without the time, energy, creativity, and
sacrifices made by the 146 million human beings who make everything and offer every service, the wealth of
people like Jeff Bezos would not exist. Business magnates like Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffet, and Bill Gates
need
working classes -- working classes do not need
them
. And yet
Bezos, Buffet, and Gates now possess more wealth than the
bottom 50%
of the nation combined.
Through the prism of the American economy, people like Bezos, Buffet, and Gates are
just as valuable
as the poorest 160 million of the working classes who
collectively labor billions of hours each week.
And
that
is unfair --
that
doesn't add up. The "American Dream" -- the whole idea
about how anyone willing to work hard should be able to prosper or, at the very least, make ends meet -- is
objectively
untrue
. The truth is -- if you want to earn wealth in the
US or even if you only want to earn enough to pay the bills on time --
honest
work
is not a very good strategy.
In solidarity,
John Laurits
If you enjoy these posts, consider buying the writer a cup of coffee
using PayPal
or making a monthly donation
using Patreon
-- it's
like a voluntary subscription directly to an artist & journalist
John Laurits is not an
award-winning journalist. Follow to watch the comic futility of John's quest to defeat capitalism with art
https://www.johnlaurits.com
"... It tells me that the bottom line is that Christmas has become a harder season for White families. We are worse off because of BOTH social and economic liberalism which has only benefited an elite few. The bottom half of the White population is now in total disarray – drug addiction, demoralization, divorce, suicide, abortion, atomization, stagnant wages, declining household income and investments – and this dysfunction is creeping up the social ladder. The worst thing we can do is step on the accelerator. ..."
As we move into 2018, I am swinging away from the Republicans. I don't support the Paul Ryan
"Better Way" agenda. I don't support neoliberal economics. I think we have been going in the
wrong direction since the 1970s and don't want to continue going down this road.
Opioid Deaths: As we all know, the opioid epidemic has become a national crisis and the White working class
has been hit the hardest by it. It is a "sea of despair" out there.
White Mortality: As the family crumbles, religion recedes in his life, and his job prospects dwindle, the
middle aged White working class man is turning to drugs, alcohol and suicide: The White suicide
rate has soared since 2000:
Median Household Income: The average household in the United States is poorer in 2017 than it was in 1997:
Real GDP: Since the late 1990s, real GDP and real median household income have parted
ways:
Productivity and Real Wages: Since the 1970s, the minimum wage has parted ways with
productivity gains in the US economy:
Stock Market: Since 2000, the stock market has soared, but 10% of Americans own 80% of
stocks. The top 1% owns 38% of stocks. In 2007, 3/4th of middle class households were invested
in the stock market, but now only 50% are investors. Overall, 52% of Americans now own stocks,
which is down from 65%. The average American has less than $1,000 in their combined checking
and savings accounts.
Do you know what this tells me?
It tells me that the bottom line is that Christmas has become a harder season for White
families. We are worse off because of BOTH social and economic liberalism which has only
benefited an elite few. The bottom half of the White population is now in total disarray
– drug addiction, demoralization, divorce, suicide, abortion, atomization, stagnant
wages, declining household income and investments – and this dysfunction is creeping up
the social ladder. The worst thing we can do is step on the accelerator.
Paul Ryan and his fellow conservatives look at this and conclude we need MORE freedom. We
need lower taxes, more free trade, more deregulation, weaker unions, more immigration and less
social safety net spending. He wants to follow up tax reform with entitlement reform in 2018. I
can't but see how this is going to make an already bad situation for the White working class
even worse.
I'm not rightwing in the sense that these people are. I think their policies are harmful to
the nation. I don't think they feel any sense of duty and obligation to the working class like
we do. They believe in liberal abstractions and make an Ayn Rand fetish out of freedom whereas
we feel a sense of solidarity with them grounded in race, ethnicity and culture which tempers
class division. We recoil at the evisceration of the social fabric whereas conservatives
celebrate this blind march toward plutocracy.
Do the wealthy need to own a greater share of the stock market? Do they need to own a
greater share of our national wealth? Do we need to loosen up morals and the labor market? Do
we need more White children growing up in financially stressed, broken homes on Christmas? Is
the greatest problem facing the nation spending on anti-poverty programs? Paul Ryan and the
True Cons think so.
Yeah, I don't think so. I also think it is a good thing right now that we aren't associated
with the mainstream Right. In the long run, I bet this will pay off for us. I predict this
platform they have been standing on for decades now, which they call the conservative base, is
going to implode on them. Donald Trump was only the first sign that Atlas is about to
shrug.
(Republished from Occidental Dissent by permission of author or representative)
"... With the election of 2016, symptoms of the long emergency seeped into the political system. Disinformation rules. There is no coherent consensus about what is happening and no coherent proposals to do anything about it. The two parties are mired in paralysis and dysfunction and the public's trust in them is at epic lows. Donald Trump is viewed as a sort of pirate president, a freebooting freak elected by accident, "a disrupter" of the status quo at best and at worst a dangerous incompetent playing with nuclear fire. A state of war exists between the White House, the permanent D.C. bureaucracy, and the traditional news media. Authentic leadership is otherwise AWOL. Institutions falter. The FBI and the CIA behave like enemies of the people. ..."
"... They chatter about electric driverless car fleets, home delivery drone services, and as-yet-undeveloped modes of energy production to replace problematic fossil fuels, while ignoring the self-evident resource and capital constraints now upon us and even the laws of physics -- especially entropy , the second law of thermodynamics. Their main mental block is their belief in infinite industrial growth on a finite planet, an idea so powerfully foolish that it obviates their standing as technocrats. ..."
"... The universities beget a class of what Nassim Taleb prankishly called "intellectuals-yet-idiots," hierophants trafficking in fads and falsehoods, conveyed in esoteric jargon larded with psychobabble in support of a therapeutic crypto-gnostic crusade bent on transforming human nature to fit the wished-for utopian template of a world where anything goes. In fact, they have only produced a new intellectual despotism worthy of Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot. ..."
"... Until fairly recently, the Democratic Party did not roll that way. It was right-wing Republicans who tried to ban books, censor pop music, and stifle free expression. If anything, Democrats strenuously defended the First Amendment, including the principle that unpopular and discomforting ideas had to be tolerated in order to protect all speech. Back in in 1977 the ACLU defended the right of neo-Nazis to march for their cause (National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43). ..."
"... This is the recipe for what we call identity politics, the main thrust of which these days, the quest for "social justice," is to present a suit against white male privilege and, shall we say, the horse it rode in on: western civ. A peculiar feature of the social justice agenda is the wish to erect strict boundaries around racial identities while erasing behavioral boundaries, sexual boundaries, and ethical boundaries. Since so much of this thought-monster is actually promulgated by white college professors and administrators, and white political activists, against people like themselves, the motives in this concerted campaign might appear puzzling to the casual observer. ..."
"... The evolving matrix of rackets that prompted the 2008 debacle has only grown more elaborate and craven as the old economy of stuff dies and is replaced by a financialized economy of swindles and frauds . Almost nothing in America's financial life is on the level anymore, from the mendacious "guidance" statements of the Federal Reserve, to the official economic statistics of the federal agencies, to the manipulation of all markets, to the shenanigans on the fiscal side, to the pervasive accounting fraud that underlies it all. Ironically, the systematic chiseling of the foundering middle class is most visible in the rackets that medicine and education have become -- two activities that were formerly dedicated to doing no harm and seeking the truth ! ..."
"... Um, forgotten by Kunstler is the fact that 1965 was also the year when the USA reopened its doors to low-skilled immigrants from the Third World – who very quickly became competitors with black Americans. And then the Boom ended, and corporate American, influenced by thinking such as that displayed in Lewis Powell's (in)famous 1971 memorandum, decided to claw back the gains made by the working and middle classes in the previous 3 decades. ..."
"... "Wow – is there ever negative!" ..."
"... You also misrepresent reality to your readers. No, the black underclass is not larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated now than in the 1960's, when cities across the country burned and machine guns were stationed on the Capitol steps. The "racial divide" is not "starker now than ever"; that's just preposterous to anyone who was alive then. And nobody I've ever known felt "shame" over the "outcome of the civil rights campaign". I know nobody who seeks to "punish and humiliate" the 'privileged'. ..."
"... My impression is that what Kunstler is doing here is diagnosing the long crisis of a decadent liberal post-modernity, and his stance is not that of either of the warring sides within our divorced-from-reality political establishment, neither that of the 'right' or 'left.' Which is why, logically, he published it here. National Review would never have accepted this piece ..."
"... "Globalization has acted, meanwhile, as a great leveler. It destroyed what was left of the working class -- the lower-middle class -- which included a great many white Americans who used to be able to support a family with simple labor." ..."
"... Young black people are told by their elders how lucky they are to grow up today because things are much better than when grandpa was our age and we all know this history.\ ..."
"... It's clear that this part of the article was written from absolute ignorance of the actual black experience with no interest in even looking up some facts. Hell, Obama even gave a speech at Howard telling graduates how lucky they were to be young and black Today compared to even when he was their age in the 80's! ..."
"... E.g. Germany. Germany is anything but perfect and its recent government has screwed up with its immigration policies. But Germany has a high standard of living, an educated work force (including unions and skilled crafts-people), a more rational distribution of wealth and high quality universal health care that costs 47% less per capita than in the U.S. and with no intrinsic need to maraud around the planet wasting gobs of taxpayer money playing Global Cop. ..."
"... The larger subtext is that the U.S. house of cards was planned out and constructed as deliberately as the German model was. Only the objective was not to maximize the health and happiness of the citizenry, but to line the pockets of the parasitic Elites. (E.g., note that Mitch McConnell has been a government employee for 50 years but somehow acquired a net worth of over $10 Million.) ..."
On America's 'long emergency' of recession, globalization, and identity politics.
Can a people recover from an excursion into unreality? The USA's sojourn into an alternative universe of the mind accelerated
sharply after Wall Street nearly detonated the global financial system in 2008. That debacle was only one manifestation of an array
of accumulating threats to the postmodern order, which include the burdens of empire, onerous debt, population overshoot, fracturing
globalism, worries about energy, disruptive technologies, ecological havoc, and the specter of climate change.
A sense of gathering crisis, which I call the long emergency , persists. It is systemic and existential. It calls into
question our ability to carry on "normal" life much farther into this century, and all the anxiety that attends it is hard for the
public to process. It manifested itself first in finance because that was the most abstract and fragile of all the major activities
we depend on for daily life, and therefore the one most easily tampered with and shoved into criticality by a cadre of irresponsible
opportunists on Wall Street. Indeed, a lot of households were permanently wrecked after the so-called Great Financial Crisis of 2008,
despite official trumpet blasts heralding "recovery" and the dishonestly engineered pump-up of capital markets since then.
With the election of 2016, symptoms of the long emergency seeped into the political system. Disinformation rules. There is
no coherent consensus about what is happening and no coherent proposals to do anything about it. The two parties are mired in paralysis
and dysfunction and the public's trust in them is at epic lows. Donald Trump is viewed as a sort of pirate president, a freebooting
freak elected by accident, "a disrupter" of the status quo at best and at worst a dangerous incompetent playing with nuclear fire.
A state of war exists between the White House, the permanent D.C. bureaucracy, and the traditional news media. Authentic leadership
is otherwise AWOL. Institutions falter. The FBI and the CIA behave like enemies of the people.
Bad ideas flourish in this nutrient medium of unresolved crisis. Lately, they actually dominate the scene on every side. A species
of wishful thinking that resembles a primitive cargo cult grips the technocratic class, awaiting magical rescue remedies that promise
to extend the regime of Happy Motoring, consumerism, and suburbia that makes up the armature of "normal" life in the USA.
They chatter
about electric driverless car fleets, home delivery drone services, and as-yet-undeveloped modes of energy production to replace
problematic fossil fuels, while ignoring the self-evident resource and capital constraints now upon us and even the laws of physics
-- especially entropy , the second law of thermodynamics. Their main mental block is their belief in infinite industrial growth
on a finite planet, an idea so powerfully foolish that it obviates their standing as technocrats.
The non-technocratic cohort of the thinking class squanders its waking hours on a quixotic campaign to destroy the remnant of
an American common culture and, by extension, a reviled Western civilization they blame for the failure in our time to establish
a utopia on earth. By the logic of the day, "inclusion" and "diversity" are achieved by forbidding the transmission of ideas, shutting
down debate, and creating new racially segregated college dorms. Sexuality is declared to not be biologically determined, yet so-called
cis-gendered persons (whose gender identity corresponds with their sex as detected at birth) are vilified by dint of
not being "other-gendered" -- thereby thwarting the pursuit of happiness of persons self-identified as other-gendered. Casuistry
anyone?
The universities beget a class of what Nassim Taleb prankishly called "intellectuals-yet-idiots," hierophants trafficking in fads
and falsehoods, conveyed in esoteric jargon larded with psychobabble in support of a therapeutic crypto-gnostic crusade bent on transforming
human nature to fit the wished-for utopian template of a world where anything goes. In fact, they have only produced a new intellectual
despotism worthy of Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot.
In case you haven't been paying attention to the hijinks on campus -- the attacks on reason, fairness, and common decency, the
kangaroo courts, diversity tribunals, assaults on public speech and speakers themselves -- here is the key take-away: it's not about
ideas or ideologies anymore; it's purely about the pleasures of coercion, of pushing other people around. Coercion is fun and exciting!
In fact, it's intoxicating, and rewarded with brownie points and career advancement. It's rather perverse that this passion for tyranny
is suddenly so popular on the liberal left.
Until fairly recently, the Democratic Party did not roll that way. It was right-wing Republicans who tried to ban books, censor
pop music, and stifle free expression. If anything, Democrats strenuously defended the First Amendment, including the principle that
unpopular and discomforting ideas had to be tolerated in order to protect all speech. Back in in 1977 the ACLU defended the right
of neo-Nazis to march for their cause (National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43).
The new and false idea that something labeled "hate speech" -- labeled by whom? -- is equivalent to violence floated out of the
graduate schools on a toxic cloud of intellectual hysteria concocted in the laboratory of so-called "post-structuralist" philosophy,
where sundry body parts of Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Judith Butler, and Gilles Deleuze were sewn onto a brain comprised of
one-third each Thomas Hobbes, Saul Alinsky, and Tupac Shakur to create a perfect Frankenstein monster of thought. It all boiled down
to the proposition that the will to power negated all other human drives and values, in particular the search for truth. Under this
scheme, all human relations were reduced to a dramatis personae of the oppressed and their oppressors, the former generally
"people of color" and women, all subjugated by whites, mostly males. Tactical moves in politics among these self-described "oppressed"
and "marginalized" are based on the credo that the ends justify the means (the Alinsky model).
This is the recipe for what we call identity politics, the main thrust of which these days, the quest for "social justice," is
to present a suit against white male privilege and, shall we say, the horse it rode in on: western civ. A peculiar feature of the
social justice agenda is the wish to erect strict boundaries around racial identities while erasing behavioral boundaries, sexual
boundaries, and ethical boundaries. Since so much of this thought-monster is actually promulgated by white college professors and
administrators, and white political activists, against people like themselves, the motives in this concerted campaign might appear
puzzling to the casual observer.
I would account for it as the psychological displacement among this political cohort of their shame, disappointment, and despair
over the outcome of the civil rights campaign that started in the 1960s and formed the core of progressive ideology. It did not bring
about the hoped-for utopia. The racial divide in America is starker now than ever, even after two terms of a black president. Today,
there is more grievance and resentment, and less hope for a better future, than when Martin Luther King made the case for progress
on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963. The recent flash points of racial conflict -- Ferguson, the Dallas police ambush, the
Charleston church massacre, et cetera -- don't have to be rehearsed in detail here to make the point that there is a great deal of
ill feeling throughout the land, and quite a bit of acting out on both sides.
The black underclass is larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated than it was in the 1960s. My theory, for what it's worth,
is that the civil rights legislation of 1964 and '65, which removed legal barriers to full participation in national life, induced
considerable anxiety among black citizens over the new disposition of things, for one reason or another. And that is exactly why
a black separatism movement arose as an alternative at the time, led initially by such charismatic figures as Malcolm X and Stokely
Carmichael. Some of that was arguably a product of the same youthful energy that drove the rest of the Sixties counterculture: adolescent
rebellion. But the residue of the "Black Power" movement is still present in the widespread ambivalence about making covenant with
a common culture, and it has only been exacerbated by a now long-running "multiculturalism and diversity" crusade that effectively
nullifies the concept of a national common culture.
What follows from these dynamics is the deflection of all ideas that don't feed a narrative of power relations between oppressors
and victims, with the self-identified victims ever more eager to exercise their power to coerce, punish, and humiliate their self-identified
oppressors, the "privileged," who condescend to be abused to a shockingly masochistic degree. Nobody stands up to this organized
ceremonial nonsense. The punishments are too severe, including the loss of livelihood, status, and reputation, especially in the
university. Once branded a "racist," you're done. And venturing to join the oft-called-for "honest conversation about race" is certain
to invite that fate.
Globalization has acted, meanwhile, as a great leveler. It destroyed what was left of the working class -- the lower-middle class
-- which included a great many white Americans who used to be able to support a family with simple labor. Hung out to dry economically,
this class of whites fell into many of the same behaviors as the poor blacks before them: absent fathers, out-of-wedlock births,
drug abuse. Then the Great Financial Crisis of 2008 wiped up the floor with the middle-middle class above them, foreclosing on their
homes and futures, and in their desperation many of these people became Trump voters -- though I doubt that Trump himself truly understood
how this all worked exactly. However, he did see that the white middle class had come to identify as yet another victim group, allowing
him to pose as their champion.
The evolving matrix of rackets that prompted the 2008 debacle has only grown more elaborate and craven as the old economy of
stuff dies and is replaced by a financialized economy of swindles and frauds . Almost nothing in America's financial life
is on the level anymore, from the mendacious "guidance" statements of the Federal Reserve, to the official economic statistics of
the federal agencies, to the manipulation of all markets, to the shenanigans on the fiscal side, to the pervasive accounting fraud
that underlies it all. Ironically, the systematic chiseling of the foundering middle class is most visible in the rackets that medicine
and education have become -- two activities that were formerly dedicated to doing no harm and seeking the truth !
Life in this milieu of immersive dishonesty drives citizens beyond cynicism to an even more desperate state of mind. The suffering
public ends up having no idea what is really going on, what is actually happening. The toolkit of the Enlightenment -- reason, empiricism
-- doesn't work very well in this socioeconomic hall of mirrors, so all that baggage is discarded for the idea that reality is just
a social construct, just whatever story you feel like telling about it. On the right, Karl Rove expressed this point of view some
years ago when he bragged, of the Bush II White House, that "we make our own reality." The left says nearly the same thing in the
post-structuralist malarkey of academia: "you make your own reality." In the end, both sides are left with a lot of bad feelings
and the belief that only raw power has meaning.
Erasing psychological boundaries is a dangerous thing. When the rackets finally come to grief -- as they must because their operations
don't add up -- and the reckoning with true price discovery commences at the macro scale, the American people will find themselves
in even more distress than they've endured so far. This will be the moment when either nobody has any money, or there is plenty of
worthless money for everyone. Either way, the functional bankruptcy of the nation will be complete, and nothing will work anymore,
including getting enough to eat. That is exactly the moment when Americans on all sides will beg someone to step up and push them
around to get their world working again. And even that may not avail.
James Howard Kunstler's many books include The Geography of Nowhere, The Long Emergency, Too Much Magic: Wishful Thinking,
Technology, and the Fate of the Nation , and the World Made by Hand novel series. He blogs on Mondays and Fridays at
Kunstler.com .
I think I need to go listen to an old-fashioned Christmas song now.
The ability to be financially, or at least resource, sustaining is the goal of many I know since we share a lack of confidence
in any of our institutions. We can only hope that God might look down with compassion on us, but He's not in the practical plan
of how to feed and sustain ourselves when things play out to their inevitable end. Having come from a better time, we joke about
our dystopian preparations, self-conscious about our "overreaction," but preparing all the same.
Look at it this way: Germany had to be leveled and its citizens reduced to abject penury, before Volkswagen could become the world's
biggest car company, and autobahns built throughout the world. It will be darkest before the dawn, and hopefully, that light that
comes after, won't be the miniature sunrise of a nuclear conflagration.
An excellent summary and bleak reminder of what our so-called civilization has become. How do we extricate ourselves from this
strange death spiral?
I have long suspected that we humans are creatures of our own personal/group/tribal/national/global fables and mythologies. We
are compelled by our genes, marrow, and blood to tell ourselves stories of our purpose and who we are. It is time for new mythologies
and stories of "who we are". This bizarre hyper-techno all-for-profit world needs a new story.
"The black underclass is larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated than it was in the 1960s. My theory, for what it's worth,
is that the civil rights legislation of 1964 and '65, which removed legal barriers to full participation in national life, induced
considerable anxiety among black citizens over the new disposition of things, for one reason or another."
Um, forgotten by Kunstler is the fact that 1965 was also the year when the USA reopened its doors to low-skilled immigrants
from the Third World – who very quickly became competitors with black Americans. And then the Boom ended, and corporate American,
influenced by thinking such as that displayed in Lewis Powell's (in)famous 1971 memorandum, decided to claw back the gains made
by the working and middle classes in the previous 3 decades.
Hey Jim, I know you love to blame Wall Street and the Republicans for the GFC. I remember back in '08 you were urging Democrats
to blame it all on Republicans to help Obama win. But I have news for you. It wasn't Wall Street that caused the GFC. The crisis
actually had its roots in the Clinton Administration's use of the Community Reinvestment Act to pressure banks to relax mortgage
underwriting standards. This was done at the behest of left wing activists who claimed (without evidence, of course) that the
standards discriminated against minorities. The result was an effective repeal of all underwriting standards and an explosion
of real estate speculation with borrowed money. Speculation with borrowed money never ends well.
I have to laugh, too, when you say that it's perverse that the passion for tyranny is popular on the left. Have you ever heard
of the French Revolution? How about the USSR? Communist China? North Korea? Et cetera.
Leftism is leftism. Call it Marxism, Communism, socialism, liberalism, progressivism, or what have you. The ideology is the
same. Only the tactics and methods change. Destroy the evil institutions of marriage, family, and religion, and Man's innate goodness
will shine forth, and the glorious Godless utopia will naturally result.
Of course, the father of lies is ultimately behind it all. "He was a liar and a murderer from the beginning."
When man turns his back on God, nothing good happens. That's the most fundamental problem in Western society today. Not to
say that there aren't other issues, but until we return to God, there's not much hope for improvement.
Hmm. I just wandered over here by accident. Being a construction contractor, I don't know enough about globalization, academia,
or finance to evaluate your assertions about those realms. But being in a biracial family, and having lived, worked, and worshiped
equally in white and black communities, I can evaluate your statements about social justice, race, and civil rights.
Long story short, you pick out fringe liberal ideas, misrepresent them as mainstream among liberals, and shoot them down. Casuistry,
anyone?
You also misrepresent reality to your readers. No, the black underclass is not larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated
now than in the 1960's, when cities across the country burned and machine guns were stationed on the Capitol steps. The "racial
divide" is not "starker now than ever"; that's just preposterous to anyone who was alive then. And nobody I've ever known felt
"shame" over the "outcome of the civil rights campaign". I know nobody who seeks to "punish and humiliate" the 'privileged'.
I get that this column is a quick toss-off before the holiday, and that your strength is supposed to be in your presentation,
not your ideas. For me, it's a helpful way to rehearse debunking common tropes that I'll encounter elsewhere.
But, really, your readers deserve better, and so do the people you misrepresent. We need bad liberal ideas to be critiqued
while they're still on the fringe. But by calling fringe ideas mainstream, you discredit yourself, misinform your readers, and
contribute to stereotypes both of liberals and of conservatives. I'm looking for serious conservative critiques that help me take
a second look at familiar ideas. I won't be back.
I disagree, NoahK, that the whole is incohesive, and I also disagree that these are right-wing talking points.
The theme of this piece is the long crisis in the US, its nature and causes. At no point does this essay, despite it stream
of consciousness style, veer away from that theme. Hence it is cohesive.
As for the right wing charge, though it is true, to be sure, that Kunstler's position is in many respects classically conservative
-- he believes for example that there should be a national consensus on certain fundamentals, such as whether or not there are
two sexes (for the most part), or, instead, an infinite variety of sexes chosen day by day at whim -- you must have noticed that
he condemned both the voluntarism of Karl Rove AND the voluntarism of the post-structuralist crowd.
My impression is that what Kunstler is doing here is diagnosing the long crisis of a decadent liberal post-modernity, and his stance is not that of either
of the warring sides within our divorced-from-reality political establishment, neither that of the 'right' or 'left.' Which is
why, logically, he published it here. National Review would never have accepted this piece. QED.
This malaise is rooted in human consciousness that when reflecting on itself celebrating its capacity for apperception suffers
from the tension that such an inquiry, such an inward glance produces. In a word, the capacity for the human being to be aware
of his or herself as an intelligent being capable of reflecting on aspects of reality through the artful manipulation of symbols
engenders this tension, this angst.
Some will attempt to extinguish this inner tension through intoxication while others through the thrill of war, and it has
been played out since the dawn of man and well documented when the written word emerged.
The malaise which Mr. Kunstler addresses as the problem of our times is rooted in our existence from time immemorial. But the
problem is not only existential but ontological. It is rooted in our being as self-aware creatures. Thus no solution avails itself
as humanity in and of itself is the problem. Each side (both right and left) seeks its own anodyne whether through profligacy
or intolerance, and each side mans the barricades to clash experiencing the adrenaline rush that arises from the perpetual call
to arms.
"Globalization has acted, meanwhile, as a great leveler. It destroyed what was left of the working class -- the lower-middle class
-- which included a great many white Americans who used to be able to support a family with simple labor."
And to whom do we hand
the tab for this? Globalization is a word. It is a concept, a talking point. Globalization is oligarchy by another name. Unfortunately,
under-educated, deplorable, Americans; regardless of party affiliation/ideology have embraced. And the most ironic part?
Russia
and China (the eventual surviving oligarchies) will eventually have to duke it out to decide which superpower gets to make the
USA it's b*tch (excuse prison reference, but that's where we're headed folks).
And one more irony. Only in American, could Christianity,
which was grew from concepts like compassion, generosity, humility, and benevolence; be re-branded and 'weaponized' to further
greed, bigotry, misogyny, intolerance, and violence/war. Americans fiddled (over same sex marriage, abortion, who has to bake
wedding cakes, and who gets to use which public restroom), while the oligarchs burned the last resources (natural, financial,
and even legal).
"Today, there is more grievance and resentment, and less hope for a better future, than when Martin Luther King made the case
for progress on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963."
Spoken like a white guy who has zero contact with black people. I mean, even a little bit of research and familiarity would
give lie to the idea that blacks are more pessimistic about life today than in the 1960's.
Black millenials are the most optimistic group of Americans about the future. Anyone who has spent any significant time around
older black people will notice that you don't hear the rose colored memories of the past. Black people don't miss the 1980's,
much less the 1950's. Young black people are told by their elders how lucky they are to grow up today because things are much
better than when grandpa was our age and we all know this history.\
It's clear that this part of the article was written from absolute
ignorance of the actual black experience with no interest in even looking up some facts. Hell, Obama even gave a speech at Howard
telling graduates how lucky they were to be young and black Today compared to even when he was their age in the 80's!
Here is the direct quote;
"In my inaugural address, I remarked that just 60 years earlier, my father might not have been served in a D.C. restaurant
-- at least not certain of them. There were no black CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. Very few black judges. Shoot, as Larry Wilmore
pointed out last week, a lot of folks didn't even think blacks had the tools to be a quarterback. Today, former Bull Michael Jordan
isn't just the greatest basketball player of all time -- he owns the team. (Laughter.) When I was graduating, the main black hero
on TV was Mr. T. (Laughter.) Rap and hip hop were counterculture, underground. Now, Shonda Rhimes owns Thursday night, and Beyoncé
runs the world. (Laughter.) We're no longer only entertainers, we're producers, studio executives. No longer small business owners
-- we're CEOs, we're mayors, representatives, Presidents of the United States. (Applause.)
I am not saying gaps do not persist. Obviously, they do. Racism persists. Inequality persists. Don't worry -- I'm going to
get to that. But I wanted to start, Class of 2016, by opening your eyes to the moment that you are in. If you had to choose one
moment in history in which you could be born, and you didn't know ahead of time who you were going to be -- what nationality,
what gender, what race, whether you'd be rich or poor, gay or straight, what faith you'd be born into -- you wouldn't choose 100
years ago. You wouldn't choose the fifties, or the sixties, or the seventies. You'd choose right now. If you had to choose a time
to be, in the words of Lorraine Hansberry, "young, gifted, and black" in America, you would choose right now. (Applause.)"
I love reading about how the Community Reinvestment Act was the catalyst of all that is wrong in the world. As someone in the
industry the issue was actually twofold. The Commodities Futures Modernization Act turned the mortgage securities market into
a casino with the underlying actual debt instruments multiplied through the use of additional debt instruments tied to the performance
but with no actual underlying value. These securities were then sold around the world essentially infecting the entire market.
In order that feed the beast, these NON GOVERNMENT loans had their underwriting standards lowered to rediculous levels. If you
run out of qualified customers, just lower the qualifications. Government loans such as FHA, VA, and USDA were avoided because
it was easier to qualify people with the new stuff. And get paid. The short version is all of the incentives that were in place
at the time, starting with the Futures Act, directly led to the actions that culminated in the Crash. So yes, it was the government,
just a different piece of legislation.
Kunstler itemizing the social and economic pathologies in the United States is not enough. Because there are other models that
demonstrate it didn't have to be this way.
E.g. Germany. Germany is anything but perfect and its recent government has screwed up with its immigration policies. But Germany
has a high standard of living, an educated work force (including unions and skilled crafts-people), a more rational distribution
of wealth and high quality universal health care that costs 47% less per capita than in the U.S. and with no intrinsic need to
maraud around the planet wasting gobs of taxpayer money playing Global Cop.
The larger subtext is that the U.S. house of cards was planned out and constructed as deliberately as the German model was.
Only the objective was not to maximize the health and happiness of the citizenry, but to line the pockets of the parasitic Elites.
(E.g., note that Mitch McConnell has been a government employee for 50 years but somehow acquired a net worth of over $10 Million.)
P.S. About the notionally high U.S. GDP. Factor out the TRILLIONS inexplicably hoovered up by the pathological health care
system, the metastasized and sanctified National Security State (with its Global Cop shenanigans) and the cronied-up Ponzi scheme
of electron-churn financialization ginned up by Goldman Sachs and the rest of the Banksters, and then see how much GDP that reflects
the actual wealth of the middle class is left over.
Right-Wing Dittoheads and Fox Watchers love to blame the Community Reinvestment Act. It allows them to blame both poor black people
AND the government. The truth is that many parties were to blame.
One of the things I love about this rag is that almost all of the comments are included.
You may be sure that similar commenting privilege doesn't exist most anywhere else.
Any disfavor regarding the supposed bleakness with the weak hearted souls aside, Mr K's broadside seems pretty spot on to me.
I think the author overlooks the fact that government over the past 30 to 40 years has been tilting the playing field ever more
towards the uppermost classes and against the middle class. The evisceration of the middle class is plain to see.
If the the common man had more money and security, lots of our current intrasocial conflicts would be far less intense.
Andrew Imlay: You provide a thoughtful corrective to one of Kunstler's more hyperbolic claims. And you should know that his jeremiad
doesn't represent usual fare at TAC. So do come back.
Whether or not every one of Kunstler's assertions can withstand a rigorous fact-check, he is a formidable rhetorician. A generous
serving of Weltschmerz is just what the season calls for.
America is stupefied from propaganda on steroids for, largely from the right wing, 25? years of Limbaugh, Fox, etc etc etc Clinton
hate x 10, "weapons of mass destruction", "they hate us because we are free", birtherism, death panels, Jade Helm, pedophile pizza, and more Clinton hate porn.
Americans have been taught to worship the wealthy regardless of how they got there. Americans have been taught they are "Exceptional" (better, smarter, more godly than every one else) in spite of outward appearances.
Americans are under educated and encouraged to make decisions based on emotion from constant barrage of extra loud advertising
from birth selling illusion.
Americans brain chemistry is most likely as messed up as the rest of their bodies from junk or molested food. Are they even
capable of normal thought?
Donald Trump has convinced at least a third of Americans that only he, Fox, Breitbart and one or two other sources are telling
the Truth, every one else is lying and that he is their friend.
Is it possible we are just plane doomed and there's no way out?
I loathe the cotton candy clown and his Quislings; however, I must admit, his presence as President of the United States has forced
everyone (left, right, religious, non-religious) to look behind the curtain. He has done more to dis-spell the idealism of both
liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, rich and poor, than any other elected official in history. The sheer amount
of mind-numbing absurdity resulting from a publicity stunt that got out of control ..I am 70 and I have seen a lot. This is beyond
anything I could ever imagine. America is not going to improve or even remain the same. It is in a 4 year march into worse, three
years to go.
Mr. Kuntzler has an honest and fairly accurate assessment of the situation. And as usual, the liberal audience that TAC is trying
so hard to reach, is tossing out their usual talking points whilst being in denial of the situation.
The Holy Bible teaches us that repentance is the first crucial step on the path towards salvation. Until the progressives,
from their alleged "elite" down the rank and file at Kos, HuffPo, whatever, take a good, long, hard look at the current national
dumpster fire and start claiming some responsibility, America has no chance of solving problems or fixing anything.
Kunstler must have had a good time writing this, and I had a good time reading it. Skewed perspective, wild overstatement, and
obsessive cherry-picking of the rare checkable facts are mixed with a little eye of newt and toe of frog and smothered in a oar
and roll of rhetoric that was thrilling to be immersed in. Good work!
aah, same old Kunstler, slightly retailored for the Trump years.
for those of you familiar with him, remember his "peak oil" mania from the late 00s and early 2010s? every blog post was about
it. every new year was going to be IT: the long emergency would start, people would be Mad Maxing over oil supplies cos prices
at the pump would be $10 a gallon or somesuch.
in this new rant, i did a control-F for "peak oil" and hey, not a mention. I guess even cranks like Kunstler know when to give
a tired horse a rest.
Kunstler once again waxes eloquent on the American body politic. Every word rings true, except when it doesn't. At times poetic,
at other times paranoid, Kunstler does us a great service by pointing a finger at the deepest pain points in America, any one
of which could be the geyser that brings on catastrophic failure.
However, as has been pointed out, he definitely does not hang out with black people. For example, the statement:
But the residue of the "Black Power" movement is still present in the widespread ambivalence about making covenant with a common
culture, and it has only been exacerbated by a now long-running "multiculturalism and diversity" crusade that effectively nullifies
the concept of a national common culture.
The notion of a 'national common culture' is interesting but pretty much a fantasy that never existed, save colonial times.
Yet Kunstler's voice is one that must be heard, even if he is mostly tuning in to the widespread radicalism on both ends of
the spectrum, albeit in relatively small numbers. Let's face it, people are in the streets marching, yelling, and hating and mass
murders keep happening, with the regularity of Old Faithful. And he makes a good point about academia loosing touch with reality
much of the time. He's spot on about the false expectations of what technology can do for the economy, which is inflated with
fiat currency and God knows how many charlatans and hucksters. And yes, the white working class is feeling increasingly like a
'victim group.'
While Kunstler may be more a poet than a lawyer, more songwriter than historian, my gut feeling is that America had better
take notice of him, as The American ship of state is being swept by a ferocious tide and the helmsman is high on Fentanyl (made
in China).
Re: The crisis actually had its roots in the Clinton Administration's use of the Community Reinvestment Act
Here we go again with this rotting zombie which rises from its grave no matter how many times it has been debunked by statisticians
and reputable economists (and no, not just those on the left– the ranks include Bruce Bartlett for example, a solid Reaganist).
To reiterate again : the CRA played no role in the mortgage boom and bust. Among other facts in the way of that hypothesis is
the fact that riskiest loans were being made by non-bank lenders (Countrywide) who were not covered by the CRA which only applied
to actual banks– and the banks did not really get into the game full tilt, lowering their lending standards, until late in the
game, c. 2005, in response to their loss of business to the non-bank lenders. Ditto for the GSEs, which did not lower their standards
until 2005 and even then relied on wall Street to vet the subprime loans they were buying.
To be sure, blaming Wall Street for everything is also wrong-headed, though wall Street certainly did some stupid, greedy and
shady things (No, I am not letting them off the hook!) But the cast of miscreants is numbered in the millions and it stretches
around the planet. Everyone (for example) who got into the get-rich-quick Ponzi scheme of house flipping, especially if they lied
about their income to do so. And everyone who took out a HELOC (Home Equity Line of Credit) and foolishly charged it up on a consumption
binge. And shall we talk about the mortgage brokers who coached people into lying, the loan officers who steered customers into
the riskiest (and highest earning) loans they could, the sellers who asked palace-prices for crackerbox hovels, the appraisers
who rubber-stamped such prices, the regulators who turned a blind eye to all the fraud and malfeasance, the ratings agencies who
handed out AAA ratings to securities full of junk, the politicians who rejoiced over the apparent "Bush Boom" well, I could continue,
but you get the picture.
"The Holy Bible teaches us that repentance is the first crucial step on the path towards salvation. Until the progressives, from
their alleged "elite" down the rank and file at Kos, HuffPo, whatever, take a good, long, hard look at the current national dumpster
fire and start claiming some responsibility, America has no chance of solving problems or fixing anything."
Pretty sure that calling other people to repent of their sin of disagreeing with you is not quite what the Holy Bible intended.
Nice illustration of ideologically based ostrakism as practiced in Academia: "Larry [Summers] leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice. I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could
be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don't listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People
- powerful people - listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: they don't criticize
other insiders."
Notable quotes:
"... A more probable school of thought is that this game was created as a con and a cover for the status quo capitalist establishment to indulge themselves in their hard money and liquidity fetishes, consequences be damned. ..."
"... The arguments over internal and external consistency of models is just a convenient misdirection from what policy makers are willing to risk and whose interests they are willing to risk policy decisions for ..."
"... Mathematical masturbations are just a smoke screen used to conceal a simple fact that those "economists" are simply banking oligarchy stooges. Hired for the specific purpose to provide a theoretical foundation for revanschism of financial oligarchy after New Deal run into problems. Revanschism that occurred in a form of installing neoliberal ideology in the USA in exactly the same role which Marxism was installed in the USSR. With "iron hand in velvet gloves" type of repressive apparatus to enforce it on each and every university student and thus to ensure the continues, recurrent brainwashing much like with Marxism on the USSR universities. ..."
"... To ensure continuation of power of "nomenklatura" in the first case and banking oligarchy in the second. Connections with reality be damned. Money does not smell. ..."
"... Economic departments fifth column of neoliberal stooges is paid very good money for their service of promoting and sustaining this edifice of neoliberal propaganda. Just look at Greg Mankiw and Rubin's boys. ..."
"... "Larry [Summers] leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice. I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don't listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People - powerful people - listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: they don't criticize other insiders." ..."
At the risk of oversimplifying might it not be as simple as stronger leanings towards IS-LM and kind are indicative of a bias
towards full employment and stronger leanings towards DSGE, microfoundations, and kind are indicative of a bias towards low inflation?
IN general I consider over-simplification a fault, if and only if, it is a rigidly adhered to final position. This is to say
that over-simplification is always a good starting point and never a good ending point. If in the end your problem was simple
to begin with, then the simplified answer would not be OVER-simplified anyway. It is just as bad to over-complicate a simple problem
as it is to over-simplify a complex problem. It is easier to build complexity on top of a simple foundation than it is to extract
simplicity from a complex foundation.
A lot of the Chicago School initiative into microfoundations and DSGE may have been motivated by a desire to bind Keynes in
a NAIRU straight-jacket. Even though economic policy making is largely done just one step at a time then that is still one step
too much if it might violate rentier interests.
Darryl FKA Ron -> Barry...
There are two possible (but unlikely) schools of (generously attributed to as) thought for which internal consistency might
take precedence over external consistency. One such school wants to consider what would be best in a perfect world full of perfect
people and then just assume that is best for the real world just to let the chips fall where they may according to the faults
and imperfections of the real world. The second such school is the one whose eyes just glaze over mesmerized by how over their
heads they are and remain affraid to ask any question lest they appear stupid.
A more probable school of thought is that this game was created as a con and a cover for the status quo capitalist establishment
to indulge themselves in their hard money and liquidity fetishes, consequences be damned.
Richard H. Serlin
Consistency sounds so good, Oh, of course we want consistency, who wouldn't?! But consistent in what way? What exactly do you
mean? Consistent with reality, or consistent with people all being superhumans? Which concept is usually more useful, or more
useful for the task at hand?
Essentially, they want models that are consistent with only certain things, and often because this
makes their preferred ideology look far better. They want models, typically, that are consistent with everyone in the world having
perfect expertise in every subject there is, from finance to medicine to engineering, perfect public information, and perfect
self-discipline, and usually on top, frictionless and perfectly complete markets, often perfectly competitive too.
But a big thing to note is that perfectly consistent people means a level of perfection in expertise, public information, self-discipline,
and "rationality", that's extremely at odds with how people actually are. And as a result, this can make the model extremely misleading
if it's interpreted very literally (as so often it is, especially by freshwater economists), or taken as The Truth, as Paul Krugman
puts it.
You get things like the equity premium "puzzle", which involves why people don't invest more in stocks when the risk-adjusted
return appears to usually be so abnormally good, and this "puzzle" can only be answered with "consistency", that people are all
perfectly expert in finance, with perfect information, so they must have some mysterious hidden good reason. It can't be at all
that it's because 65% of people answered incorrectly when asked how many reindeer would remain if Santa had to lay off 25% of
his eight reindeer ( http://richardhserlin.blogspot.com/2013/12/surveys-showing-massive-ignorance-and.html ).
Yes, these perfect optimizer consistency models can give useful insights, and help to see what is best, what we can do better,
and they can, in some cases, be good as approximations. But to say they should be used only, and interpreted literally, is, well,
inconsistent with optimal, rational behavior -- of the economist using them.
Richard H. Serlin -> Richard H. Serlin...
Of course, unless the economist using them is doing so to mislead people into supporting his libertarian/plutocratic ideology.
dilbert dogbert
As an old broken down mech engineer, I wonder why all the pissing and moaning about micro foundations vs aggregation. In strength
of materials equations that aggregate properties work quite well within the boundaries of the questions to be answered. We all
know that at the level of crystals, materials have much complexity. Even within crystals there is deeper complexities down to
the molecular levels. However, the addition of quantum mechanics adds no usable information about what materials to build a bridge
with.
But, when working at the scale of the most advanced computer chips quantum mechanics is required. WTF! I guess in economics
there is no quantum mechanics theories or even reliable aggregation theories.
Poor economists, doomed to argue, forever, over how many micro foundations can dance on the head of a pin.
RGC -> dilbert dogbert...
Endless discussions about how quantum effects aggregate to produce a material suitable for bridge building crowd out discussions
about where and when to build bridges. And if plutocrats fund the endless discussions, we get the prominent economists we have
today.
Darryl FKA Ron -> dilbert dogbert...
"...I guess in economics there is no quantum mechanics theories or even reliable aggregation theories..."
[I guess it depends upon what your acceptable confidence interval on reliability is. Most important difference that controls
all the domain differences between physical science and economics is that underlying physical sciences there is a deterministic
methodology for which probable error is merely a function of the inaccuracy in input metrics WHEREAS economics models are incomplete
probabilistic estimating models with no ability to provide a complete system model in a full range of circumstances.
YOu can design and build a bridge to your load and span requirements with alternative models for various designs with confidence
and highly effective accuracy repeatedly. No ecomomic theory, model, or combination of models and theories was ever intended to
be used as the blueprint for building an economy from the foundation up.
With all the formal trappings of economics the only effective usage is to decide what should be done in a given set of predetermined
circumstance to reach some modest desired effect. Even that modest goal is exposed to all kinds of risks inherent in assumptions,
incomplete information, externalities, and so on that can produce errors of uncertain potential bounds.
Nonetheless, well done economics can greatly reduce the risks encountered in the random walk of economics policy making. So
much so is this true, that the bigger questions in macro-economics policy making is what one is willing to risk and for whom.
The arguments over internal and external consistency of models is just a convenient misdirection from what policy makers
are willing to risk and whose interests they are willing to risk policy decisions for.]
Darryl FKA Ron -> Peter K....
unless you have a model which maps the real world fairly closely like quantum mechanics.
[You set a bar too high. Macro models at best will tell you what to do to move the economy in the direction that you seek to
go. They do not even ocme close to the notion of a theory of everything that you have in physics, even the theory of every little
thing that is provided by quantum mechanics. Physics is an empty metaphor for economics. Step one is to forgo physics envy in
pursuit of understanding suitable applications and domain constraints for economics models.
THe point is to reach a decision and to understand cause and effect directions. All precision is in the past and present. The
future is both imprecise and all that there is that is available to change.
For the most part an ounce of common sense and some simple narrative models are all that are essential for making those policy
decisions in and of themselves. HOWEVER, nation states are not ruled by economist philosopher kings and in the process of concensus
decision making by (little r)republican governments then human language is a very imprecise vehicle for communicating logic and
reason with respect to the management of complex systems. OTOH, mathematics has given us a universal language for communicating
logic and reason that is understood the same by everyone that really understands that language at all. Hence mathematical models
were born for the economists to write down their own thinking in clear precise terms and check their own work first and then share
it with others so equipped to understand the language of mathematics. Krugman has said as much many times and so has any and every
economist worth their salt.]
likbez -> Syaloch...
I agree with Pgl and PeterK. Certain commenters like Darryl seem convinced that the Chicago School (if not all of econ) is driven
by sinister, class-based motives to come up justifications for favoring the power elite over the masses. But based on what I've
read, it seems pretty obvious that the microfoundation guys just got caught up in their fancy math and their desire to produce
more elegant, internally consistent models and lost sight of the fact that their models didn't track reality.
That's completely wrong line of thinking, IMHO.
Mathematical masturbations are just a smoke screen used to conceal a simple fact that those "economists" are simply banking
oligarchy stooges. Hired for the specific purpose to provide a theoretical foundation for revanschism of financial oligarchy after
New Deal run into problems. Revanschism that occurred in a form of installing neoliberal ideology in the USA in exactly the same
role which Marxism was installed in the USSR.
With "iron hand in velvet gloves" type of repressive apparatus to enforce it on each and every university student and thus to
ensure the continues, recurrent brainwashing much like with Marxism on the USSR universities.
To ensure continuation of power of "nomenklatura" in the first case and banking oligarchy in the second. Connections with reality
be damned. Money does not smell.
Economic departments fifth column of neoliberal stooges is paid very good money for their service of promoting and sustaining
this edifice of neoliberal propaganda. Just look at Greg Mankiw and Rubin's boys.
But the key problem with neoliberalism is that the cure is worse then disease. And here mathematical masturbations are very
handy as a smoke screen to hide this simple fact.
likbez -> likbez...
Here is how Rubin's neoliberal boy Larry explained the situation to Elizabeth Warren:
"Larry [Summers] leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice. I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could
be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don't listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People
- powerful people - listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: they don't criticize
other insiders."
We accompanied that with a prank in which we posed as Potanin calling the Washington Wizards
for courtside seats, Harvard University business school to purchase a degree, and the Augusta
National Golf Club -- brandishing Hiatt's article for access:
eXile : I am Russian banker, so-called robber baron capitalist, am interested in
purchasing your degree.
Harvard : ( pause ) Uh, sir, you can't buy the degree, but you can enroll in our
program. It's an intensive 9 week program, and you receive a certificate, not a degree.
eXile : No, this is no good. Do you realize who I am? Fred Hiatt wrote about me in today
Washington Post, that I am not typical robber baron. I am ze baby billionaire.
Harvard : We read a lot about Russia and it sounds very exciting.
eXile : Of course it exciting. Now I vant Harvard degree.
Harvard : You can't buy a degree.
eXile : Maybe instead I build nice cafe for you on campus. Or I can donate small nightclub
for Harvard degree.
Harvard : Sir, Harvard is a 350-year-old institution. It's not all just about money. We've
turned down princes.
"... The U.S. has a retirement crisis on its hands, and with the far right controlling the executive branch and both houses of Congress, as well as dozens of state governments, things promise to grow immeasurably worse. ..."
"... It wasn't supposed to be this way. Past progressive presidents, notably Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson, took important steps to make life more comfortable for aging Americans. FDR signed the Social Security Act of 1935 into law as part of his New Deal, and when LBJ passed Medicare in 1965, he established a universal health care program for those 65 and older. But the country has embraced a neoliberal economic model since the election of Ronald Reagan, and all too often, older Americans have been quick to vote for far-right Republicans antagonistic to the social safety net. ..."
"... Since then, Ryan has doubled down on his delusion that the banking sector can manage Social Security and Medicare more effectively than the federal government. Republican attacks on Medicare have become a growing concern: according to EBRI, only 38 percent of workers are confident the program will continue to provide the level of benefits it currently does. ..."
"... As 2017 winds down, Americans with health problems are still in the GOP's crosshairs -- this time because of so-called tax reform. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (both the House and Senate versions) includes provisions that would undermine Obamacare and cause higher health insurance premiums for older Americans. According to AARP, "Older adults ages 50-64 would be at particularly high risk under the proposal, facing average premium increases of up to $1,500 in 2019 as a result of the bill." ..."
"... Countless Americans who are unable to afford those steep premiums would lose their insurance. The CBO estimates that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would cause the number of uninsured under 65 to increase 4 million by 2019 and 13 million by 2027. The bill would also imperil Americans 65 and over by cutting $25 billion from Medicare . ..."
"... Analyzing W2 tax records in 2012, U.S. Census Bureau researchers Michael Gideon and Joshua Mitchell found that only 14 percent of private-sector employers in the U.S. were offering a 401(k) or similar retirement packages to their workers. That figure was thought to be closer to 40 percent, but Gideon and Mitchell discovered the actual number was considerably lower when smaller businesses were carefully analyzed, and that larger companies were more likely to offer 401(k) plans than smaller ones. ..."
"... Today, millions of Americans work in the gig economy who don't have full-time jobs or receive W2s, but instead receive 1099s for freelance work. ..."
"... The combination of stagnant wages and an increasingly high cost of living have been especially hellish for Americans who are trying to save for retirement. The United States' national minimum wage, a mere $7.25 per hour, doesn't begin to cover the cost of housing at a time when rents have soared nationwide. Never mind the astronomical prices in New York City, San Francisco or Washington, D.C. Median rents for one-bedroom apartments are as high as $1,010 per month in Atlanta, $960 per month in Baltimore, $860 per month in Jacksonville and $750 per month in Omaha, according to ApartmentList.com. ..."
"... yeah, Canada has a neoliberal infestation that is somewhere between the US and the UK. France has got one too, but it is less advanced. I'll enjoy my great healthcare, public transportation, and generous paid time off while I can. ..."
"... Europeans may scratch their heads, but they should recall their own histories and the long struggle to the universal benefits now enjoyed. Americans are far too complacent. This mildness is viewed by predators as weakness and the attacks will continue. ..."
"... Not sure if many of the readers here watch non-cable national broadcast news, but Pete Peterson and his foundation are as everpresent an advertiser as the pharma industry. Peterson is the strongest, best organized advocate for gutting social services, social security, and sending every last penny out of the tax-mule consumer's pocket toward wall street. The guy needs an equivalent counterpoint enemy. ..."
"... The social advantages that we still enjoy were fought in the streets, and on the "bricks" flowing with the participants blood. 8 hr. day; women's right to vote; ability and right for groups of laborers to organize; worker safety laws ..and so many others. There is no historical memory on how those rights were achieved. We are slowly slipping into an oligarchy greased by the idea that the physical possession of material things is all that matters. Sheeple, yes. ..."
"... Mmm, I think American voters get what they want in the end. They want their politicians because they believe the lies. 19% of Americans believe they are in the top 1% of wealth. A huge percentage of poor people believe they or their kids will (not can, but will) become wealthy. Most Americans can't find France on a map. ..."
"... I may have been gone for about thirty years, but that has only sharpened my insights into America. It's very hard to see just how flawed America is from the inside but when you step outside and have some perspective, it's frightening. ..."
"... Our government, beginning with Reagan, turned its back on promoting the general welfare. The wealthy soon learned that their best return on investment was the "purchase" of politicians willing to pass the legislation they put in their hands. Much of their investment included creating the right wing media apparatus. ..."
"... The Class War is real. It has been going on for 40 years, with the Conservative army facing virtually no resistance. Conservatives welcome Russia's help. Conservatives welcome barriers to people voting. Conservatives welcome a populace that believes lies that benefit them. Conservatives welcome the social and financial decline of the entire middle class and poor as long as it profits the rich financially, and by extension enhances their power politically. ..."
"... "Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day, but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery" Thomas Jefferson. Rights of British America, 1774 ME 1:193, Papers 1:125 ..."
"... yes, my problem with the post as well, completely ignores democrat complicity the part where someone with a 26k salary will pay 16k in insurance? No they won't, the system would collapse in that case which will be fine with me. ..."
"... As your quote appears to imply, it's not a problem that can be solved by voting which, let's not forget, is nothing more than expressing an opinion. I am not sticking around just to find out if economically-crushed, opiod-, entertainment-, social media-addled Americans are actually capable of rolling out tumbrils for trips to the guillotines in the city squares. I strongly suspect not. ..."
"... This is the country where, after the banks crushed the economy in 2008, caused tens of thousands to lose their jobs, and then got huge bailouts, the people couldn't even be bothered to take their money out of the big banks and put it elsewhere. Because, you know, convenience! Expressing an opinion, or mobilizing others to express an opinion, or educating or proselytizing others about what opinion to have, is about the limit of what they are willing, or know how to do. ..."
Yves here. I imagine many readers are acutely aware of the problems outlined in this article, if not beset by them already. By
any rational standard, I should move now to a much cheaper country that will have me. I know individuals who live most of the year
in third-world and near-third world countries, but they have very cheap ways of still having a toehold in the US and not (yet or
maybe ever) getting a long-term residence visa. Ecuador is very accommodating regarding retirement visas, and a Social Security level
income goes far there, but yours truly isn't retiring any time soon. And another barrier to an international move (which recall I
did once, so I have some appreciation for what it takes), is that one ought to check out possible destinations but if you are already
time and money and energy stressed, how do you muster the resources to do that at all, let alone properly?
Aside from the potential to greatly reduce fixed costs, a second impetus for me is Medicare. I know for most people, getting on
Medicare is a big plus. I have a very rare good, very old insurance policy. When you include the cost of drug plans, Medicare is
no cheaper than what I have now, and considerably narrows my network. Moreover, I expect it to be thoroughly crapified by ten years
from now (when I am 70), which argues for getting out of Dodge sooner rather than later.
And that's before you get to another wee problem Lambert points out that I would probably not be happy in a third world or high
end second world country. But the only bargain "world city" I know of is Montreal. I'm not sure it would represent enough of an all-in
cost saving to justify the hassle of an international move and the attendant tax compliance burdens .and that charitably assumes
I could even find a way to get permanent residence. Ugh.
By Alex Henderson, who has written for the L.A. Weekly, Billboard, Spin, Creem, the Pasadena Weekly and many other publications.
Follow him on Twitter @alexvhenderson. Originally published at
Alternet
Millions can no longer afford to retire, and may never be able when the GOP passes its tax bill.
The news is not good for millions of aging Baby Boomers and Gen Xers in the United States who are moving closer to retirement
age. According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute's annual report on retirement preparedness for 2017, only 18 percent of
U.S.-based workers feel "very confident" about their
ability to retire comfortably ; Craig Copeland,
senior research associate for EBRI and the report's co-author, cited "debt, lack of a retirement plan at work, and low savings" as
"key factors" in workers' retirement-related anxiety. The Insured Retirement Institute finds a mere 23 percent of Baby Boomers and
24 percent of Gen Xers are confident that their savings will last in retirement. To make matters worse, more than 40 percent of Boomers
and over 30 percent of Gen Xers report having
no retirement savings whatsoever .
The U.S. has a
retirement crisis on its hands, and with the far right controlling the executive branch and both houses of Congress, as well
as dozens of state governments, things promise to grow immeasurably worse.
It wasn't supposed to be this way. Past progressive presidents, notably Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson, took
important steps to make life more comfortable for aging Americans. FDR signed the Social Security Act of 1935 into law as part of
his New Deal, and when LBJ passed Medicare in 1965, he established a universal health care program for those 65 and older. But the
country has embraced a neoliberal economic model since the election of Ronald Reagan, and all too often, older Americans have been
quick to vote for far-right Republicans antagonistic to the social safety net.
In the 2016 presidential election, 55 percent of voters 50 and older
cast their ballots for Donald Trump
against just 44 percent for Hillary Clinton. (This was especially true of older white voters; 90 percent of black voters 45 and older,
as well as 67 percent of Latino voters in the same age range voted Democratic.)
Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-VT) economic proposals may have been wildly popular with millennials, but no demographic has a greater
incentive to vote progressive than Americans facing retirement. According to research conducted by the American Association of Retired
Persons, the three greatest concerns of Americans 50 and older are Social Security, health care costs and caregiving for loved ones
-- all areas that have been targeted by Republicans.
House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan, a
devotee of social Darwinist Ayn Rand , has made no secret of his desire to
privatize
Social Security and replace traditional Medicare with a voucher program. Had George W. Bush had his way and turned Social Security
over to Wall Street, the economic crash of September 2008 might have left millions of senior citizens homeless.
Since then, Ryan has doubled down on his delusion that the banking sector can manage Social Security and Medicare more effectively
than the federal government. Republican attacks on Medicare have become a growing concern: according to EBRI, only 38 percent of
workers are confident the program will continue to provide the level of benefits it currently does.
The GOP's obsession with abolishing the Affordable Care Act is the most glaring example of its disdain for aging Americans. Yet
Obamacare has been a blessing for Boomers and Gen Xers who have preexisting conditions. The ACA's guaranteed issue plans make no
distinction between a 52-year-old American with diabetes, heart disease or asthma and a 52-year-old who has never had any of those
illnesses. And AARP notes that under the ACA, the uninsured rate for Americans 50 and older decreased from 15 percent in 2013 to
9 percent in 2016.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the replacement bills Donald Trump hoped to ram through Congress this year would
have resulted in staggering
premium hikes for Americans over 50. The CBO's analysis of the American Health Care Act, one of the earlier versions of Trumpcare,
showed that a 64-year-old American making $26,500 per year could have gone from paying $1,700 annually in premiums to just over $16,000.
The CBO also estimated that the GOP's American Health Care Act would have deprived
23 million Americans of health insurance by 2026.
As 2017 winds down, Americans with health problems are still in the GOP's crosshairs -- this time because of so-called tax
reform. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (both the House and Senate versions) includes provisions that would undermine Obamacare and cause
higher health insurance premiums for older Americans. According to AARP, "Older adults ages 50-64 would be at
particularly high risk under the proposal, facing average premium increases of up to $1,500 in 2019 as a result of the bill."
The CBO estimates that the bill will cause premiums to spike an average of 10 percent overall, with average premiums increasing
$890 per year for a 50-year-old, $1,100 per year for a 55-year-old, $1,350 per year for a 60-year-old and $1,490 per year for a 64-year-old.
Premium increases, according to the CBO, would vary from state to state; in Maine, average premiums for a 64-year-old would rise
as much as $1,750 per year.
Countless Americans who are unable to afford those steep premiums would lose their insurance. The CBO estimates that the Tax
Cuts and Jobs Act would cause the number of uninsured under 65 to increase 4 million by 2019 and 13 million by 2027. The bill would
also imperil Americans 65 and over by
cutting $25 billion from
Medicare .
As morally reprehensible as the GOP's tax legislation may be, it is merely an acceleration of the redistribution of wealth from
the bottom to the top that America has undergone since the mid-1970s. (President Richard Nixon may have been a paranoid right-winger
with authoritarian tendencies, but he expanded Medicare and supported universal health care.) Between the decline of labor unions,
age discrimination, stagnant wages, an ever-rising cost of living, low interest rates, and a shortage of retirement accounts, millions
of Gen Xers and Baby Boomers may never be able to retire.
Traditional
defined-benefit
pensions were once a mainstay of American labor, especially among unionized workers. But according to Pew Charitable Trusts,
only
13 percent of Baby Boomers still have them (among millennials, the number falls to 6 percent). In recent decades, 401(k) plans
have become much more prominent, yet a majority of American workers don't have them either.
Analyzing W2 tax records in 2012, U.S. Census Bureau researchers Michael Gideon and Joshua Mitchell found that only 14 percent
of private-sector employers in the U.S. were offering a 401(k) or similar retirement packages to their workers. That figure was thought
to be closer to 40 percent, but Gideon and Mitchell discovered the actual number was considerably lower when smaller businesses were
carefully analyzed, and that larger companies were more likely to offer 401(k) plans than smaller ones.
Today, millions of Americans work in the gig economy who don't have full-time jobs or receive W2s, but instead receive 1099s
for freelance work. Tax-deferred SEP-IRAs were once a great, low-risk way for freelancers to save for retirement without relying
exclusively on Social Security, but times have changed since the 1980s and '90s when interest rates were considerably higher for
certificates of deposit and savings accounts. According to Bankrate.com,
average rates for one-year
CDs dropped from 11.27 percent in 1984 to 8.1 percent in 1990 to 5.22 percent in 1995 to under 1 percent in 2010, where it currently
remains.
The combination of stagnant wages and an increasingly high cost of living have been especially hellish for Americans who are
trying to save for retirement. The United States' national minimum wage, a mere $7.25 per hour, doesn't begin to cover the cost of
housing at a time when rents have soared nationwide. Never mind the astronomical prices in New York City, San Francisco or Washington,
D.C. Median rents for one-bedroom apartments
are as high as $1,010 per month in Atlanta, $960 per month in Baltimore, $860 per month in Jacksonville and $750 per month in Omaha,
according to ApartmentList.com.
That so many older Americans are renting at all is ominous in its own right. FDR made home ownership a primary goal of the New
Deal, considering it a key component of a thriving middle class. But last year, the Urban Institute found that 19 million Americans
who previously owned a home are now renting, 31 percent between the ages of 36 and 45. Laurie Goodman, one of the study's authors,
contends the Great Recession has "permanently raised the number of renters," and that the explosion of foreclosures has hit Gen Xers
especially hard.
The severity of the U.S. retirement crisis is further addressed in journalist
Jessica Bruder's new book
"Nomadland: Surviving America in the 21st Century," which follows Americans in their 50s, 60s and even 70s
living in RVs or vans , barely eking out a living doing
physically demanding, seasonal temp work from harvesting sugar beets to cleaning toilets at campgrounds. Several had high-paying
jobs before their lives were blown apart by the layoffs, foreclosures and corporate downsizing of the Great Recession. Bruder speaks
with former college professors and software professionals who now find themselves destitute, teetering on the brink of homelessness
and forced to do backbreaking work for next to nothing. Unlike the big banks, they never received a bailout.
These neo-nomads recall the transients of the 1930s, themselves victims of Wall Street's recklessness. But whereas FDR won in
a landslide in 1932 and aggressively pursued a program of progressive economic reforms, Republicans in Congress have set out to shred
what little remains of the social safety net, giving
huge tax breaks
to millionaires and billionaires . The older voters who swept Trump into office may have signed their own death warrants.
If aging Americans are going to be saved from this dystopian future, the U.S. will have to forge a new Great Society. Programs
like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will need to be strengthened, universal health care must become a reality and age discrimination
in the workplace will have to be punished as a civil rights violation like racial and gender-based discrimination. If not, millions
of Gen Xers and Boomers will spend their golden years scraping for pennies.
I certainly will never go back to the States for these and other reasons. I have a friend, also an American citizen, who travels
frequently back to California to visit his son. He is truly worried about getting sick or having an accident when he is there
since he knows it might bankrupt him. As he jokes, he would be happy to have another heart attack here in France since it's free!
For those of you who have traveled the world and talked to people, you probably know that most foreigners are perplexed by
America's attitude to health care and social services. The richest nation in the world thinks that health and social security
(in the larger sense of not being forced into the street) are not rights at all. Europeans scratch their heads at this.
The only solution is education and information, but they are appalling in America. America remains the most ignorant and worst
educated of the developed nations and is probably beaten by many developing nations. It is this ignorance and stupidity that gets
Americans to vote for the likes of Trump or any of the other rapacious millionaires they send to office every year.
A first step would be for Americans to insist that Congress eliminate its incredibly generous and life-long healthcare plans
for elected officials. They should have to do what the rest of Americans do. Of course, since about 95% of Congress are millionaires,
it might not be effective. But it's a start.
France has its share of problems, but boy do they pale next to the problems in America or even Canada. Life here is overall
quite pleasant and I have no desire to go back to N.A.
yeah, Canada has a neoliberal infestation that is somewhere between the US and the UK. France has got one too, but it is
less advanced. I'll enjoy my great healthcare, public transportation, and generous paid time off while I can.
The newest neoliberal effort in Canada was put forward by our
Minister of Finance (a millionaire) who is touting a bill that will get rid of defined benefit pension plans given to public
employees for so-called target benefit pension plans. The risk for target plans is taken by the recipient. Morneau's former firm
promotes target benefit pension plans and the change could benefit Morneau himself as he did not put his assets from his firm
in a blind trust. At the very least, he has a conflict of interest and should probably resign.
There is always an insidious group of wealthy people here who would like to re-make the world in their own image. I fear for
the future.
Europeans may scratch their heads, but they should recall their own histories and the long struggle to the universal benefits
now enjoyed. Americans are far too complacent. This mildness is viewed by predators as weakness and the attacks will continue.
We really should be able to turn this around, and have an obligation to ourselves and our 'nation state' , IF there were a
group of folks running on a fairness, one-for-all, all-for-one platform. That sure isn't the present two-sides-of-the-same-coin
Democraps and Republicrunts.
Not sure if many of the readers here watch non-cable national broadcast news, but Pete Peterson and his foundation are
as everpresent an advertiser as the pharma industry. Peterson is the strongest, best organized advocate for gutting social services,
social security, and sending every last penny out of the tax-mule consumer's pocket toward wall street. The guy needs an equivalent
counterpoint enemy.
Check it out, and be vigilant in dispelling his message and mission. Thanks for running this article.
Running away: the almost-haves run to another nation state, the uber-wealthy want to leave the earth, or live in their private
Idaho in the Rockies or on the Ocean. What's left for the least among us? Whatever we create? https://www.pgpf.org/
I think pathologically optimistic is a better term than complacent. Every time someone dumps on them, their response is usually
along the lines of "Don't worry, it'll get better," "Everything works itself out in the end," "maybe we'll win the lottery," my
personal favorite "things will get better, just give it time" (honestly it's been 40 years of this neoliberal bullcrap, how much
more time are we supposed to give it?), "this is just a phase" or "we can always bring it back later and better than ever." The
last one is most troubling because after 20 years of witnessing things in the public sphere disappearing, I've yet to see a single
thing return in any form at all.
I'm not sure where this annoying optimism came from but I sure wish it would go away.
The "optimism" comes from having a lack of historical memory. So many social protections that we have/had is seen as somehow
coming out of the ether benevolently given without any social struggles. The lack of historical education on this subject in particular
is appalling. Now, most would probably look for an "APP" on their "dumbphones" to solve the problem.
The social advantages that we still enjoy were fought in the streets, and on the "bricks" flowing with the participants
blood. 8 hr. day; women's right to vote; ability and right for groups of laborers to organize; worker safety laws ..and so many
others. There is no historical memory on how those rights were achieved. We are slowly slipping into an oligarchy greased by the
idea that the physical possession of material things is all that matters. Sheeple, yes.
WOW! You must have been outside the U.S. for a long time. Your comment seems to suggest we still have some kind of democracy
here. We don't get to pick which rapacious millionaires we get to vote for and it doesn't matter any way since whichever one we
pick from the sad offerings ends up with policies dictated from elsewhere.
Mmm, I think American voters get what they want in the end. They want their politicians because they believe the lies.
19% of Americans believe they are in the top 1% of wealth. A huge percentage of poor people believe they or their kids will (not
can, but will) become wealthy. Most Americans can't find France on a map.
So, yes, you DO get to pick your rapacious millionaire. You send the same scumbags back to Washington every year because it's
not him, it the other guys who are the problem. One third of Americans support Trump! Really, really support him. They think he
is Jesus, MacArthur and Adam Smith all rolled up into one.
I may have been gone for about thirty years, but that has only sharpened my insights into America. It's very hard to see
just how flawed America is from the inside but when you step outside and have some perspective, it's frightening.
The Democrat party isn't a reform party. Thinking it is so, is because of the "No Other Choice" meme. Not saying that the Republican
party works in my favor. They don't. Political reform goes deeper than reforming either main party. It means going to a European
plurality system (with its own downside). That way growing Third parties will be viable, if they have popular, as opposed to millionaire,
support. I don't see this happening, because of Citizens United, but if all you have is hope, then you have to go with that.
Had George W. Bush had his way and turned Social Security over to Wall Street, the economic crash of September 2008 might
have left millions of senior citizens homeless.
Substitute Bill Clinton for George Bush in that sentence and it works just as well. Neoliberalism is a bipartisan project.
And many of the potential and actual horrors described above arise from the price distortions of the US medical system with
Democratic acquiescence in said system making things worse. The above article reads like a DNC press release.
And finally while Washington politicians of both parties have been threatening Social Security for years that doesn't mean
its third rail status has been repealed. The populist tremors of the last election -- which have caused our elites to lose their
collective mind -- could be a mere prelude to what will happen in the event of a full scale assault on the safety net.
Substitute Obama's quest for a Grand Bargain as well.
Our government, beginning with Reagan, turned its back on promoting the general welfare. The wealthy soon learned that
their best return on investment was the "purchase" of politicians willing to pass the legislation they put in their hands. Much
of their investment included creating the right wing media apparatus.
The Class War is real. It has been going on for 40 years, with the Conservative army facing virtually no resistance. Conservatives
welcome Russia's help. Conservatives welcome barriers to people voting. Conservatives welcome a populace that believes lies that
benefit them. Conservatives welcome the social and financial decline of the entire middle class and poor as long as it profits
the rich financially, and by extension enhances their power politically.
If retirees flee our country that will certainly please the Conservatives as that will be fewer critics (enemies). Also less
need or demand for social programs.
"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day, but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished
period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing
[a people] to slavery" Thomas Jefferson. Rights of British America, 1774 ME 1:193, Papers 1:125
yes, my problem with the post as well, completely ignores democrat complicity the part where someone with a 26k salary
will pay 16k in insurance? No they won't, the system would collapse in that case which will be fine with me.
"President Richard Nixon may have been a paranoid right-winger with authoritarian tendencies, but he expanded Medicare and
supported universal health care."
"Gimme that old time Republican!"
One of the reasons I love NC is that most political economic analysis is often more harsh on the Democrats than the Repubs
so I am a bit dismayed how this article is way too easy on Team D. How many little (and not so little) knives in the back from
Clinton and Obama? Is a knife in the chest that much worse?
This entire thread is simply heartbreaking, Americans have had their money, their freedom, their privacy, their health, and
sometimes their very lives taken away from them by the State. But the heartbreaking part is that they feel they are powerless
to do anything at all about it so are just trying to leave.
But "People should not fear the government; the government should fear the people"
As your quote appears to imply, it's not a problem that can be solved by voting which, let's not forget, is nothing more
than expressing an opinion. I am not sticking around just to find out if economically-crushed, opiod-, entertainment-, social
media-addled Americans are actually capable of rolling out tumbrils for trips to the guillotines in the city squares. I strongly
suspect not.
This is the country where, after the banks crushed the economy in 2008, caused tens of thousands to lose their jobs, and
then got huge bailouts, the people couldn't even be bothered to take their money out of the big banks and put it elsewhere. Because,
you know, convenience! Expressing an opinion, or mobilizing others to express an opinion, or educating or proselytizing others
about what opinion to have, is about the limit of what they are willing, or know how to do.
"... And, recent studies have shown, the longer you're out of work - especially if you're older and out of work - the harder it becomes to get a job offer. ..."
I thought this was an interesting article. Apologies if this has been posted on NC
already.
A stunning 33% of job seekers ages 55 and older are long-term unemployed, according to
the AARP Public Policy Institute. The average length of unemployment for the roughly 1.2
million people 55+ who are out of work: seven to nine months. "It's emotionally devastating
for them," said Carl Van Horn, director of Rutgers University's John J. Heldrich Center for
Workforce Development, at a Town Hall his center and the nonprofit WorkingNation held
earlier this year in New Brunswick, N.J.
... ... ...
The fight faced by the long-term unemployed
And, recent studies have shown, the longer you're out of work - especially if you're older and out of work - the harder
it becomes to get a job offer.
The job-finding rate declines by roughly 50% within eight months of unemployment, according to a 2016 paper by economists
Gregor Jarosch of Stanford University and Laura Pilossoph of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. "Unemployment duration
has a strongly negative effect on the likelihood of subsequent employment," wrote researchers from the University of
Maryland and the U.S. Census Bureau in another 2016 paper.
"Once upon a time, you could take that first job and it would lead to the next job and the job after that," said Town
Hall panelist John Colborn, chief operating officer at the nonprofit JEVS Human Services, of Philadelphia. "The notion of a
career ladder offered some hope of getting back into the labor market. The rungs of the ladder are getting harder and harder
to find and some of them are broken."
In inner cities, said Kimberly McClain, CEO of The Newark Alliance, "there's an extra layer beyond being older and out of
work. There are issues of race and poverty and being defined by your ZIP Code. There's an incredible sense of urgency."
... ... ...
Filling a work gap
If you are over 50, unemployed and have a work gap right now, the Town Hall speakers said, fill it by volunteering,
getting an internship, doing project work, job-shadowing someone in a field you want to be in or taking a class to re-skill.
These kind of things "make a candidate a lot more attractive," said Colborn. Be sure to note them in your cover letter and
résumé.
Town Hall panelist Amanda Mullan, senior vice president and chief human resources officer of the New Jersey Resources
Corp. (a utility company based in Wall, N.J.), said that when her company is interviewing someone who has been out of work
lately, "we will ask: 'What have you done during that time frame?' If we get 'Nuthin,' that shows something about the
individual, from a motivational perspective."
... ... ...
The relief of working again
Finally finding work when you're over 50 and unemployed for a stretch can be a relief for far more than financial
reasons.
"Once I landed my job, the thing I most looked forward to was the weekend," said Konopka. "Not to relax, but because I
didn't have to think about finding a job anymore. That's 24/7 in your head. You're always thinking on a Saturday: 'If I'm
not doing something to find a job, will there be a posting out there?'"
At 5:30 every morning, Tony Gwiazdowski rolls out of bed, brews a pot of coffee and carefully arranges his laptop, cell phone
and notepad like silverware across the kitchen table.
And then he waits.
Gwiazdowski, 57, has been waiting for 16 months. Since losing his job as a transportation sales manager in February 2009, he wakes
each morning to the sobering reminder that, yes, he is still unemployed. So he pushes aside the fatigue, throws on some clothes and
sends out another flurry of resumes and cheery cover letters.
But most days go by without a single phone call. And around sundown, when he hears his neighbors returning home from work, Gwiazdowski
-- the former mayor of Hillsborough -- can't help but allow himself one tiny sigh of resignation.
"You sit there and you wonder, 'What am I doing wrong?'" said Gwiazdowski, who finds companionship in his 2-year-old golden retriever,
Charlie, until his wife returns from work.
"The worst moment is at the end of the day when it's 4:30 and you did everything you could, and the phone hasn't rung, the e-mails
haven't come through."
Gwiazdowski is one of a growing number of chronically unemployed workers in New Jersey and across the country who are struggling
to get through what is becoming one long, jobless nightmare -- even as the rest of the economy has begun to show signs of recovery.
Nationwide, 46 percent of the unemployed -- 6.7 million Americans -- have been without work for at least half a year, by far the
highest percentage recorded since the U.S. Labor Department began tracking the data in 1948.
In New Jersey, nearly 40 percent of the 416,000 unemployed workers last year fit that profile, up from about 20 percent in previous
years, according to the department, which provides only annual breakdowns for individual states. Most of them were unemployed for
more than a year.
But the repercussions of chronic unemployment go beyond the loss of a paycheck or the realization that one might never find the
same kind of job again. For many, the sinking feeling of joblessness -- with no end in sight -- can take a psychological toll, experts
say.
Across the state, mental health crisis units saw a 20 percent increase in demand last year as more residents reported suffering
from unemployment-related stress, according to the New Jersey Association of Mental Health Agencies.
"The longer the unemployment continues, the more impact it will have on their personal lives and mental health," said Shauna Moses,
the association's associate executive director. "There's stress in the marriage, with the kids, other family members, with friends."
And while a few continue to cling to optimism, even the toughest admit there are moments of despair: Fear of never finding work,
envy of employed friends and embarassment at having to tell acquaintances that, nope, still no luck.
"When they say, 'Hi Mayor,' I don't tell a lot of people I'm out of work -- I say I'm semi-retired," said Gwiazdowski, who maxed
out on unemployment benefits several months ago.
"They might think, 'Gee, what's wrong with him? Why can't he get a job?' It's a long story and maybe people really don't care
and now they want to get away from you."
SECOND TIME AROUND
Lynn Kafalas has been there before, too. After losing her computer training job in 2000, the East Hanover resident took four agonizing
years to find new work -- by then, she had refashioned herself into a web designer.
That not-too-distant experience is why Kafalas, 52, who was laid off again eight months ago, grows uneasier with each passing
day. Already, some of her old demons have returned, like loneliness, self-doubt and, worst of all, insomnia. At night, her mind races
to dissect the latest interview: What went wrong? What else should she be doing? And why won't even Barnes & Noble hire her?
"It's like putting a stopper on my life -- I can't move on," said Kafalas, who has given up karate lessons, vacations and regular
outings with friends. "Everything is about the interviews."
And while most of her friends have been supportive, a few have hinted to her that she is doing something wrong, or not doing enough.
The remarks always hit Kafalas with a pang.
In a recent study, researchers at Rutgers University found that the chronically unemployed are prone to high levels of stress,
anxiety, depression, loneliness and even substance abuse, which take a toll on their self-esteem and personal relationships.
"They're the forgotten group," said Carl Van Horn, director of the John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers,
and a co-author of the report. "And the longer you are unemployed, the less likely you are to get a job."
Of the 900 unemployed workers first interviewed last August for the study, only one in 10 landed full-time work by March of this
year, and only half of those lucky few expressed satisfaction with their new jobs. Another one in 10 simply gave up searching.
Among those who were still unemployed, many struggled to make ends meet by borrowing from friends or family, turning to government
food stamps and forgoing health care, according to the study.
More than half said they avoided all social contact, while slightly less than half said they had lost touch with close friends.
Six in 10 said they had problems sleeping.
Kafalas says she deals with her chronic insomnia by hitting the gym for two hours almost every evening, lifting weights and pounding
the treadmill until she feels tired enough to fall asleep.
"Sometimes I forget what day it is. Is it Tuesday? And then I'll think of what TV show ran the night before," she said. "Waiting
is the toughest part."
AGE A FACTOR
Generally, the likelihood of long-term unemployment increases with age, experts say. A report by the National Employment Law Project
this month found that nearly half of those who were unemployed for six months or longer were at least 45 years old. Those between
16 and 24 made up just 14 percent.
Tell that to Adam Blank, 24, who has been living with his girlfriend and her parents at their Martinsville home since losing his
sales job at Best Buy a year and half ago.
Blank, who graduated from Rutgers with a major in communications, says he feels like a burden sometimes, especially since his
girlfriend, Tracy Rosen, 24, works full-time at a local nonprofit. He shows her family gratitude with small chores, like taking out
the garbage, washing dishes, sweeping floors and doing laundry.
Still, he often feels inadequate.
"All I'm doing on an almost daily basis is sitting around the house trying to keep myself from going stir-crazy," said Blank,
who dreams of starting a social media company.
When he is feeling particularly low, Blank said he turns to a tactic employed by prisoners of war in Vietnam: "They used to build
dream houses in their head to help keep their sanity. It's really just imagining a place I can call my own."
LESSONS LEARNED
Meanwhile, Gwiazdowski, ever the optimist, says unemployment has taught him a few things.
He has learned, for example, how to quickly assess an interviewer's age and play up or down his work experience accordingly --
he doesn't want to appear "threatening" to a potential employer who is younger. He has learned that by occasionally deleting and
reuploading his resume to job sites, his entry appears fresh.
"It's almost like a game," he said, laughing. "You are desperate, but you can't show it."
But there are days when he just can't find any humor in his predicament -- like when he finishes a great interview but receives
no offer, or when he hears a fellow job seeker finally found work and feels a slight twinge of jealousy.
"That's what I'm missing -- putting on that shirt and tie in the morning and going to work," he said.
The memory of getting dressed for work is still so vivid, Gwiazdowski says, that he has to believe another job is just around
the corner.
"You always have to hope that that morning when you get up, it's going to be the day," he said.
"Today is going to be the day that something is going to happen."
I collect from the state of iowa, was on tier I and when the gov't recessed without passing extension, iowa stopped paying
tier I claims that were already open, i was scheduled to be on tier I until july 15th, and its gone now, as a surprise, when i
tried to claim my week this week i was notified. SURPRISE, talk about stress.
This is terrible....just wait until RIF'd teachers hit the unemployment offices....but then, this is what NJ wanted...fired
teachers who are to blame for the worst recession our country has seen in 150 years...thanks GWB.....thanks Donald Rumsfeld......thanks
Dick Cheney....thanks Karl "Miss Piggy" Rove...and thank you Mr. Big Boy himself...Gov Krispy Kreame!
For readers who care about this nation's unemployed- Call your Senators to pass HR 4213, the "Extenders" bill. Unfortunately,
it does not add UI benefits weeks, however it DOES continue the emergency federal tiers of UI. If it does not pass this week many
of us are cut off at 26 wks. No tier 1, 2 -nothing.
The longer you are unemployed, the more you are effected by those factors.
Notable quotes:
"... The good news is that only a relatively small number of people are seriously affected by the stress of unemployment to the extent they need medical assistance. Most people don't get to the serious levels of stress, and much as they loathe being unemployed, they suffer few, and minor, ill effects. ..."
"... Worries about income, domestic problems, whatever, the list is as long as humanity. The result of stress is a strain on the nervous system, and these create the physical effects of the situation over time. The chemistry of stress is complex, but it can be rough on the hormonal system. ..."
"... Not at all surprisingly, people under stress experience strong emotions. It's a perfectly natural response to what can be quite intolerable emotional strains. It's fair to say that even normal situations are felt much more severely by people already under stress. Things that wouldn't normally even be issues become problems, and problems become serious problems. Relationships can suffer badly in these circumstances, and that, inevitably, produces further crises. Unfortunately for those affected, these are by now, at this stage, real crises. ..."
"... Some people are stubborn enough and tough enough mentally to control their emotions ruthlessly, and they do better under these conditions. Even that comes at a cost, and although under control, the stress remains a problem. ..."
"... One of the reasons anger management is now a growth industry is because of the growing need for assistance with severe stress over the last decade. This is a common situation, and help is available. ..."
"... Depression is universally hated by anyone who's ever had it. ..."
"... Very important: Do not, under any circumstances, try to use drugs or alcohol as a quick fix. They make it worse, over time, because they actually add stress. Some drugs can make things a lot worse, instantly, too, particularly the modern made-in-a-bathtub variety. They'll also destroy your liver, which doesn't help much, either. ..."
"... You don't have to live in a gym to get enough exercise for basic fitness. A few laps of the pool, a good walk, some basic aerobic exercises, you're talking about 30-45 minutes a day. It's not hard. ..."
It's almost impossible to describe the various psychological impacts, because there are so many. There are sometimes serious consequences,
including suicide, and, some would say worse, chronic depression.
There's not really a single cause and effect. It's a compound effect, and unemployment, by adding stress, affects people, often
badly.
The world doesn't need any more untrained psychologists, and we're not pretending to give medical advice. That's for professionals.
Everybody is different, and their problems are different. What we can do is give you an outline of the common problems, and what
you can do about them.
The good news is that only a relatively small number of people are seriously affected by the stress of unemployment to the extent
they need medical assistance. Most people don't get to the serious levels of stress, and much as they loathe being unemployed, they
suffer few, and minor, ill effects.
For others, there are a series of issues, and the big three are:
Stress
Anger, and other negative emotions
Depression
Stress
Stress is Stage One. It's a natural result of the situation. Worries about income, domestic problems, whatever, the list is as
long as humanity. The result of stress is a strain on the nervous system, and these create the physical effects of the situation
over time. The chemistry of stress is complex, but it can be rough on the hormonal system.
Over an extended period, the body's natural hormonal balances are affected, and this can lead to problems. These are actually
physical issues, but the effects are mental, and the first obvious effects are, naturally, emotional.
Anger, and other negative emotions
Not at all surprisingly, people under stress experience strong emotions. It's a perfectly natural response to what can be quite
intolerable emotional strains. It's fair to say that even normal situations are felt much more severely by people already under stress.
Things that wouldn't normally even be issues become problems, and problems become serious problems. Relationships can suffer badly in these circumstances, and that, inevitably, produces further crises. Unfortunately for those
affected, these are by now, at this stage, real crises.
If the actual situation was already bad, this mental state makes it a lot worse. Constant aggravation doesn't help people to keep
a sense of perspective. Clear thinking isn't easy when under constant stress.
Some people are stubborn enough and tough enough mentally to control their emotions ruthlessly, and they do better under these
conditions. Even that comes at a cost, and although under control, the stress remains a problem.
One of the reasons anger management is now a growth industry is because of the growing need for assistance with severe stress
over the last decade. This is a common situation, and help is available.
If you have reservations about seeking help, bear in mind it can't possibly be any worse than the problem.
Depression
Depression is universally hated by anyone who's ever had it. This is the next stage, and it's caused by hormonal imbalances which
affect serotonin. It's actually a physical problem, but it has mental effects which are sometimes devastating, and potentially life
threatening.
The common symptoms are:
Difficulty in focusing mentally, thoughts all over the place in no logical order
Fits of crying for no known reason
Illogical, or irrational patterns of thought and behavior
Sadness
Suicidal thinking
It's a disgusting experience. No level of obscenity could possibly describe it. Depression is misery on a level people wouldn't
conceive in a nightmare. At this stage the patient needs help, and getting it is actually relatively easy. It's convincing the person they need to do something about it that's difficult. Again, the mental state is working against the person. Even admitting there's a problem is hard for many people in this condition.
Generally speaking, a person who is trusted is the best person to tell anyone experiencing the onset of depression to seek help. Important: If you're experiencing any of those symptoms:
Get on the phone and make an appointment to see your doctor. It takes half an hour for a diagnosis, and you can be on your
way home with a cure in an hour. You don't have to suffer. The sooner you start to get yourself out of depression, the better.
Avoid any antidepressants with the so-called withdrawal side effects. They're not too popular with patients, and are under
some scrutiny. The normal antidepressants work well enough for most people.
Very important: Do not, under any circumstances, try to use drugs or alcohol as a quick fix. They make it worse, over time, because they actually add stress. Some drugs can make things a lot worse, instantly, too, particularly
the modern made-in-a-bathtub variety. They'll also destroy your liver, which doesn't help much, either.
Alcohol, in particular, makes depression much worse. Alcohol is a depressant, itself, and it's also a nasty chemical mix with
all those stress hormones.
If you've ever had alcohol problems, or seen someone with alcohol wrecking their lives, depression makes things about a million
times worse.
Just don't do it. Steer clear of any so-called stimulants, because they don't mix with antidepressants, either.
Unemployment and staying healthy
The above is what you need to know about the risks of unemployment to your health and mental well being.
These situations are avoidable.
Your best defense against the mental stresses and strains of unemployment, and their related problems is staying healthy.
We can promise you that is nothing less than the truth. The healthier you are, the better your defenses against stress, and the
more strength you have to cope with situations.
Basic health is actually pretty easy to achieve:
Diet
Eat real food, not junk, and make sure you're getting enough food. Your body can't work with resources it doesn't have. Good food
is a real asset, and you'll find you don't get tired as easily. You need the energy reserves.
Give yourself a good selection of food that you like, that's also worth eating.
The good news is that plain food is also reasonably cheap, and you can eat as much as you need. Basic meals are easy enough to
prepare, and as long as you're getting all the protein veg and minerals you need, you're pretty much covered.
You can also use a multivitamin cap, or broad spectrum supplements, to make sure you're getting all your trace elements. Also
make sure you're getting the benefits of your food by taking acidophilus or eating yogurt regularly.
Exercise
You don't have to live in a gym to get enough exercise for basic fitness. A few laps of the pool, a good walk, some basic aerobic
exercises, you're talking about 30-45 minutes a day. It's not hard.
Don't just sit and suffer
If anything's wrong, check it out when it starts, not six months later. Most medical conditions become serious when they're allowed
to get worse.
For unemployed people the added risk is also that they may prevent you getting that job, or going for interviews. If something's
causing you problems, get rid of it.
Nobody who's been through the blender of unemployment thinks it's fun.
Anyone who's really done it tough will tell you one thing:
Don't be a victim. Beat the problem, and you'll really appreciate the feeling.
"... According to Amazon's metrics, I was one of their most productive order pickers -- I was a machine, and my pace would accelerate throughout the course of a shift. What they didn't know was that I stayed fast because if I slowed down for even a minute, I'd collapse from boredom and exhaustion ..."
"... toiling in some remote corner of the warehouse, alone for 10 hours, with my every move being monitored by management on a computer screen. ..."
"... ISS could simply deactivate a worker's badge and they would suddenly be out of work. They treated us like beggars because we needed their jobs. Even worse, more than two years later, all I see is: Jeff Bezos is hiring. ..."
"... I have never felt more alone than when I was working there. I worked in isolation and lived under constant surveillance ..."
"... That was 2012 and Amazon's labor and business practices were only beginning to fall under scrutiny. ..."
"... I received $200 a week for the following six months and I haven't had any source of regular income since those benefits lapsed. I sold everything in my apartment and left Pennsylvania as fast as I could. I didn't know how to ask for help. I didn't even know that I qualified for food stamps. ..."
Nichole Gracely has a master's degree and was one of Amazon's best order pickers. Now, after
protesting the company, she's homeless.
I am homeless. My worst days now are better than my best days working at Amazon.
According to Amazon's metrics, I was one of their most productive order pickers -- I was a machine,
and my pace would accelerate throughout the course of a shift. What they didn't know was that
I stayed fast because if I slowed down for even a minute, I'd collapse from boredom and exhaustion.
During peak season, I trained incoming temps regularly. When that was over, I'd be an ordinary
order picker once again, toiling in some remote corner of the warehouse, alone for 10 hours,
with my every move being monitored by management on a computer screen.
Superb performance did not guarantee job security. ISS is the temp agency that provides warehouse
labor for Amazon and they are at the center of the SCOTUS case Integrity Staffing Solutions
vs. Busk. ISS could simply deactivate a worker's badge and they would suddenly be out of work.
They treated us like beggars because we needed their jobs. Even worse, more than two years later,
all I see is: Jeff Bezos is hiring.
I have never felt more alone than when I was working there. I worked in isolation and lived
under constant surveillance. Amazon could mandate overtime and I would have to comply with any
schedule change they deemed necessary, and if there was not any work, they would send us home
early without pay. I started to fall behind on my bills.
At some point, I lost all fear. I had already been through hell. I protested Amazon. The
gag order was lifted and I was free to speak. I spent my last days in a lovely apartment constructing
arguments on discussion boards, writing articles and talking to reporters. That was 2012 and
Amazon's labor and business practices were only beginning to fall under scrutiny. I walked away
from Amazon's warehouse and didn't have any other source of income lined up.
I cashed in on my excellent credit, took out cards, and used them to pay rent and buy food
because it would be six months before I could receive my first unemployment compensation check.
I received $200 a week for the following six months and I haven't had any source of regular
income since those benefits lapsed. I sold everything in my apartment and left Pennsylvania
as fast as I could. I didn't know how to ask for help. I didn't even know that I qualified for
food stamps.
I furthered my Amazon protest while homeless in Seattle. When the Hachette dispute flared
up I "flew a sign," street parlance for panhandling with a piece of cardboard: "I was an order
picker at amazon.com. Earned degrees. Been published. Now,
I'm homeless, writing and doing this. Anything helps."
I have made more money per word with my signs than I will probably ever earn writing, and
I make more money per hour than I will probably ever be paid for my work. People give me money
and offer well wishes and I walk away with a restored faith in humanity.
I flew my protest sign outside Whole Foods while Amazon corporate employees were on lunch
break, and they gawked. I went to my usual flying spots around Seattle and made more money per
hour protesting Amazon with my sign than I did while I worked with them. And that was in Seattle.
One woman asked, "What are you writing?" I told her about the descent from working poor to homeless,
income inequality, my personal experience. She mentioned Thomas Piketty's book, we chatted a
little, she handed me $10 and wished me luck. Another guy said, "Damn, that's a great story!
I'd read it," and handed me a few bucks.
"... Total 2015 gross passenger payments were 200% higher than 2014, but Uber corporate revenue improved 300% because Uber cut the driver share of passenger revenue from 83% to 77%. This was an effective $500 million wealth transfer from drivers to Uber's investors. ..."
"... Uber's P&L gains were wiped out by higher non-EBIDTAR expense. Thus the 300% Uber revenue growth did not result in any improvement in Uber profit margins. ..."
"... In 2016, Uber unilaterally imposed much larger cuts in driver compensation, costing drivers an additional $3 billion. [6] Prior to Uber's market entry, the take home pay of big-city cab drivers in the US was in the $12-17/hour range, and these earnings were possible only if drivers worked 65-75 hours a week. ..."
"... An independent study of the net earnings of Uber drivers (after accounting for the costs of the vehicles they had to provide) in Denver, Houston and Detroit in late 2015 (prior to Uber's big 2016 cuts) found that driver earnings had fallen to the $10-13/hour range. [7] Multiple recent news reports have documented how Uber drivers are increasing unable to support themselves from their reduced share of passenger payments. [8] ..."
"... Since mass driver defections would cause passenger volume growth to collapse completely, Uber was forced to reverse these cuts in 2017 and increased the driver share from 68% to 80%. This meant that Uber's corporate revenue, which had grown over 300% in 2015 and over 200% in 2016 will probably only grow by about 15% in 2017. ..."
"... Socialize the losses, privatize the gains, VC-ize the subsidies. ..."
"... The cold hard truth is that Uber is backed into a corner with severely limited abilities to tweak the numbers on either the supply or the demand side: cut driver compensation and they trigger driver churn (as has already been demonstrated), increase fare prices for riders and riders defect to cheaper alternatives. ..."
"... "Growth and Efficiency" are the sine qua non of Neoliberalism. Kalanick's "hype brilliance" was to con the market with "revenue growth" and signs ..."
Uber lost $2.5 billion in 2015, probably lost $4 billion in 2016, and is on track to lose $5
billion in 2017.
The top line on the table below shows is total passenger payments, which must be split
between Uber corporate and its drivers. Driver gross earnings are substantially higher than
actual take home pay, as gross earning must cover all the expenses drivers bear, including
fuel, vehicle ownership, insurance and maintenance.
Most of the "profit" data released by Uber over time and discussed in the press is not true
GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) profit comparable to the net income numbers
public companies publish but is EBIDTAR contribution. Companies have significant leeway as to
how they calculate EBIDTAR (although it would exclude interest, taxes, depreciation,
amortization) and the percentage of total costs excluded from EBIDTAR can vary significantly
from quarter to quarter, given the impact of one-time expenses such as legal settlements and
stock compensation. We only have true GAAP net profit results for 2014, 2015 and the 2nd/3rd
quarters of 2017, but have EBIDTAR contribution numbers for all other periods.
[5]
Uber had GAAP net income of negative $2.6 billion in 2015, and a negative profit margin of
132%. This is consistent with the negative $2.0 billion loss and (143%) margin for the year
ending September 2015 presented in part one of the NC Uber series over a year ago.
No GAAP profit results for 2016 have been disclosed, but actual losses likely exceed $4
billion given the EBIDTAR contribution of negative $3.2 billion. Uber's GAAP losses for the 2nd
and 3rd quarters of 2017 were over $2.5 billion, suggesting annual losses of roughly $5
billion.
While many Silicon Valley funded startups suffered large initial losses, none of them lost
anything remotely close to $2.6 billion in their sixth year of operation and then doubled their
losses to $5 billion in year eight. Reversing losses of this magnitude would require the
greatest corporate financial turnaround in history.
No evidence of significant efficiency/scale gains; 2015 and 2016 margin improvements
entirely explained by unilateral cuts in driver compensation, but losses soared when Uber had
to reverse these cuts in 2017.
Total 2015 gross passenger payments were 200% higher than 2014, but Uber corporate
revenue improved 300% because Uber cut the driver share of passenger revenue from 83% to 77%.
This was an effective $500 million wealth transfer from drivers to Uber's investors. These
driver compensation cuts improved Uber's EBIDTAR margin, but Uber's P&L gains were
wiped out by higher non-EBIDTAR expense. Thus the 300% Uber revenue growth did not result in
any improvement in Uber profit margins.
In 2016, Uber unilaterally imposed much larger cuts in driver compensation, costing
drivers an additional $3 billion.
[6] Prior to Uber's market entry, the take home pay of big-city cab drivers in the US was
in the $12-17/hour range, and these earnings were possible only if drivers worked 65-75 hours a
week.
An independent study of the net earnings of Uber drivers (after accounting for the costs
of the vehicles they had to provide) in Denver, Houston and Detroit in late 2015 (prior to
Uber's big 2016 cuts) found that driver earnings had fallen to the $10-13/hour range.
[7] Multiple recent news reports have documented how Uber drivers are increasing unable to
support themselves from their reduced share of passenger payments.
[8]
A business model where profit improvement is hugely dependent on wage cuts is unsustainable,
especially when take home wages fall to (or below) minimum wage levels. Uber's primary focus
has always been the rate of growth in gross passenger revenue, as this has been a major
justification for its $68 billion valuation. This growth rate came under enormous pressure in
2017 given Uber efforts to raise fares, major increases in driver turnover as wages fell,
[9] and the avalanche of adverse publicity it was facing.
Since mass driver defections would cause passenger volume growth to collapse completely,
Uber was forced to reverse these cuts in 2017 and increased the driver share from 68% to 80%.
This meant that Uber's corporate revenue, which had grown over 300% in 2015 and over 200% in
2016 will probably only grow by about 15% in 2017.
"Uber's business model can never produce sustainable profits"
Two words not in my vocabulary are "Never" and "Always", that is a pretty absolute
statement in an non-absolute environment. The same environment that has produced the "Silicon
Valley Growth Model", with 15x earnings companies like NVIDA, FB and Tesla (Average
earnings/stock price ratio in dot com bubble was 10x) will people pay ridiculous amounts of
money for a company with no underlying fundamentals you damn right they will! Please stop
with the I know all no body knows anything, especially the psychology and irrationality of
markets which are made up of irrational people/investors/traders.
My thoughts exactly. Seems the only possible recovery for the investors is a perfectly
engineered legendary pump and dump IPO scheme. Risky, but there's a lot of fools out there
and many who would also like to get on board early in the ride in fear of missing out on all
the money to be hoovered up from the greater fools. Count me out.
The author clearly distinguishes between GAAP profitability and valuations, which is after
all rather the point of the series. And he makes a more nuanced point than the half sentence
you have quoted without context or with an indication that you omitted a portion. Did you
miss the part about how Uber would have a strong incentive to share the evidence of a network
effect or other financial story that pointed the way to eventual profit? Otherwise (my words)
it is the classic sell at a loss, make it up with volume path to liquidation.
apples and oranges comparison, nvidia has lots and lots of patented tech that produces
revenue, facebook has a kajillion admittedly irrational users, but those users drive massive
ad sales (as just one example of how that company capitalizes itself) and tesla makes an
actual car, using technology that inspires it's buyers (the put your money where your mouth
is crowd and it can't be denied that tesla, whatever it's faults are, battery tech is not one
of them and that intellectual property is worth a lot, and tesla's investors are in on that
real business, profitable or otherwise)
Uber is an iphone app. They lose money and have no
path to profitability (unless it's the theory you espouse that people are unintelligent so
even unintelligent ideas work to fleece them). This article touches on one of the great
things about the time we now inhabit, uber drivers could bail en masse, there are two sides
to the low attachment employees who you can get rid of easily. The drivers can delete the
uber app as soon as another iphone app comes along that gets them a better return
For many air travelers, getting to and from the airport has long been part of the whole
miserable experience. Do they drive and park in some distant lot? Take mass transit or a
taxi? Deal with a rental car?
Ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft are quickly changing those calculations. That
has meant a bit less angst for travelers.
But that's not the case for airports. Travelers' changing habits, in fact, have begun to
shake the airports' financial underpinnings. The money they currently collect from
ride-hailing services do not compensate for the lower revenues from the other sources.
At the same time, some airports have had to add staff to oversee the operations of the
ride-hailing companies, the report said. And with more ride-hailing vehicles on the roads
outside terminals,
there's more congestion.
Socialize the losses, privatize the gains, VC-ize the subsidies.
The cold hard truth is that Uber is backed into a corner with severely limited abilities
to tweak the numbers on either the supply or the demand side: cut driver compensation and
they trigger driver churn (as has already been demonstrated), increase fare prices for riders
and riders defect to cheaper alternatives. The only question is how long can they keep the
show going before the lights go out, slick marketing and propaganda can only take you so far,
and one assumes the dumb money has a finite supply of patience and will at some point begin
asking the tough questions.
The irony is that Uber would have been a perfectly fine, very profitable mid-sized company
if Uber stuck with its initial model -- sticking to dense cities with limited parking,
limiting driver supply, and charging a premium price for door-to-door delivery, whether by
livery or a regular sedan. And then perhaps branching into robo-cars.
But somehow Uber/board/Travis got suckered into the siren call of self-driving cars,
triple-digit user growth, and being in the top 100 US cities and on every continent.
I've shared a similar sentiment in one of the previous posts about Uber. But operating
profitably in decent sized niche doesn't fit well with ambitions of global domination. For
Uber to be "right-sized", an admission of folly would have to be made, its managers and
investors would have to transcend the sunk cost fallacy in their strategic decision making,
and said investors would have to accept massive hits on their invested capital. The cold,
hard reality of being blindsided and kicked to the curb in the smartphone business forced
RIM/Blackberry to right-size, and they may yet have a profitable future as an enterprise
facing software and services company. Uber would benefit from that form of sober mindedness,
but I wouldn't hold my breath.
I know nothing about Softbank or its management, but I do know that the Japanese were the
dumb money rubes in the late '80's, overpaying for trophy real estate they lost billions
on.
Until informed otherwise, that's my default assumption
Softbank possibly looking to buy more Uber shares at a 30% discount is very odd. Uber had
a Series G funding round in June 2016 where a $3.5
billion investment from Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund resulted in its current $68
billion valuation. Now apparently Softbank wants to lead a new $6 billion funding round to
buy the shares of Uber employees and early investors at a 30% discount from this last
"valuation". It's odd because Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund has pledged
$45 billion to SoftBank's Vision Fund , an amount which was supposed to come from the
proceeds of its pending Aramco IPO. If the Uber bid is linked to SoftBank's Vision Fund, or
KSA money, then its not clear why this investor might be looking to literally 'double down'
from $3.5 billion o $6 billion on a declining investment.
"Growth and Efficiency" are the sine qua non of Neoliberalism. Kalanick's "hype
brilliance" was to con the market with "revenue growth" and signs of efficiency, and
hopes of greater efficiency, and make most people just overlook the essential fact
that Uber is the most unprofitable company of all time!
What comprises "Uber Expenses"? 2014 – $1.06 billion; 2015 $3.33 billion; 2016 $9.65
billion; forecast 2017 $11.418 billion!!!!!! To me this is the big question – what are
they spending $10 billion per year on?
ALso – why did driver share go from 68% in 2016 to 80% in 2017? If you use 68% as in
2016, 2017 Uber revenue is $11.808 billion, which means a bit better than break-even EBITDA,
assuming Uber expenses are as stated $11.428 billion.
Perhaps not so bleak as the article presents, although I would not invest in this
thing.
I have the same question: What comprises over 11 billion dollars in expenses in 2017?
Could it be they are paying out dividends to the early investors? Which would mean they are
cannibalizing their own company for the sake of the VC! How long can this go on before
they'll need a new infusion of cash?
Oh article does answer your 2nd question. Read this paragraph:-
Since mass driver defections would cause passenger volume growth to collapse completely
, Uber was forced to reverse these cuts in 2017 and increased the driver share from 68% to
80%. This meant that Uber's corporate revenue, which had grown over 300% in 2015 and over
200% in 2016 will probably only grow by about 15% in 2017.
As for the 1st, read this line in the article:-
There are undoubtedly a number of things Uber could do to reduce losses at the margin,
but it is difficult to imagine it could suddenly find the $4-5 billion in profit
improvement needed merely to reach breakeven.
in addition to all the points listed in the article/comments, the absolute biggest flaw
with Uber is that Uber HQ conditioned its customers on (a) cheap fares and (b) that a car is
available within minutes (1-5 if in a big city).
Those two are not mutually compatible in the long-term.
Thus (a) "We cost less" and (b) "We're more convenient" -- aren't those also the
advantages that Walmart claims and feeds as a steady diet to its ever hungry consumers? Often
if not always, disruption may repose upon delusion.
When this Uber madness blows up, I wonder if people will finally begin to discuss the
brutal reality of Silicon Valley's so called "disruption".
It is heavily built in around the idea of economic exploitation. Uber drivers are often,
especially when the true costs to operate an Uber including the vehicle depreciation are
factored in, making not very much per hour driven, especially if they don't get the surge
money.
Instacart is another example. They are paying the deliver operators very little.
At a fundamental level, I think that the Silicon Valley "disruption" model only works for
markets (like software) where the marginal cost for production is de minimus and the
products can be protected by IP laws. Volume and market power really work in those cases. But
out here in meat-space, where actual material and labor are big inputs to each item sold, you
can never just sit back on your laurels and rake in the money. Somebody else will always be
able to come and and make an equivalent product. If they can do it more cheaply, you are in
trouble.
There aren't that many areas in goods and services where the marginal costs are very
low.
Software is actually quite unique in that regard, costing merely the bandwidth and
permanent storage space to store.
Let's see:
1. From the article, they cannot go public and have limited ways to raise more money. An
IPO with its more stringent disclosure requirements would expose them.
2. They tried lowering driver compensation and found that model unsustainable.
3. There are no benefits to expanding in terms of economies of scale.
From where I am standing, it looks like a lot of industries gave similar barriers. Silicon
Valley is not going to be able to disrupt those.
Tesla, another Silicon Valley company seems to be struggling to mass produce its Model 3
and deliver an electric car that breaks even, is reliable, while disrupting the industry in
the ways that Elon Musk attempted to hype up.
So that basically leaves services and manufacturing out for Silicon Valley disruption.
UBER has become a "too big to fail" startup because of all the different tentacles of
capital from various Tier 1 VCs and investment bankers.
VCs have admitted openly that UBER is a subsidized business, meaning it's product is sold
below market value, and the losses reflect that subsidization. The whole "2 sided platform"
argument is just marketecture to hustle more investors. It's a form of service "dumping" that
puts legacy businesses into bankruptcy. Back during the dotcom bubble one popular investment
banker (Paul Deninger) characterized this model as "Terrorist Competition", i.e. coffers full
of invested cash to commoditize the market and drive out competition.
UBER is an absolute disaster that has forked the startup model in Silicon Valley in order
to drive total dependence on venture capital by founders. And its current diversification
into "autonomous vehicles", food delivery, et al are simply more evidence that the company
will never be profitable due to its whacky "blitzscaling" approach of layering on new
"businesses" prior to achieving "fit" in its current one.
It's economic model has also metastasized into a form of startup cancer that is killing
Silicon Valley as a "technology" innovator. Now it's all cargo cult marketing BS tied to
"strategic capital".
UBER is the victory of venture capital and user subsidized startups over creativity by
real entrepreneurs.
It's shadow is long and that's why this company should be ..wait for it UNBUNDLED (the new
silicon valley word attached to that other BS religion called "disruption"). Call it a great
unbundling and you can break up this monster corp any way you want.
2. The elevator pitch for Uber: subsidize rides to attract customers, put the competition
out of business, and then enjoy an unregulated monopoly, all while exploiting economically
ignorant drivers–ahem–"partners."
3. But more than one can play that game, and
4. Cab and livery companies are finding ways to survive!
If subsidizing rides is counted as an expense, (not being an accountant, I would guess it
so), then whether the subsidy goes to the driver or the passenger, that would account for the
ballooning expenses, to answer my own question. Otherwise, the overhead for operating what
Uber describes as a tech company should be minimal: A billion should fund a decent
headquarters with staff, plus field offices in, say, 100 U.S. cities. However, their global
pretensions are probably burning cash like crazy. On top of that, I wonder what the exec
compensation is like?
After reading HH's initial series, I made a crude, back-of-the-envelope calculation that
Uber would run out of money sometime in the third fiscal quarter of 2018, but that was based
on assuming losses were stabilizing in the range of 3 billion a year. Not so, according to
the article. I think crunch time is rapidly approaching. If so, then SoftBank's tender offer
may look quite appetizing to VC firms and to any Uber employee able to cash in their options.
I think there is a way to make a re-envisioned Uber profitable, and with a more independent
board, they may be able to restructure the company to show a pathway to profitability before
the IPO. But time is running out.
A not insignificant question is the recruitment and retention of the front line
"partners." It would seem to me that at some point, Uber will run out of economically
ignorant drivers with good manners and nice cars. I would be very interested to know how many
drivers give up Uber and other ride-sharing gigs once the 1099's start flying at the
beginning of the year. One of the harsh realities of owning a business or being an contractor
is the humble fact that you get paid LAST!
We became instant Uber riders while spending holidays with relatives in San Diego. While
their model is indeed unique from a rider perspective, it was the driver pool that fascinates
me. These are not professional livery drivers, but rather freebooters of all stripes driving
for various reasons. The remuneration they receive cannot possibly generate much income after
expenses, never mind the problems associated with IRS filing as independent contractors.
One guy was just cruising listening to music; cooler to get paid for it than just sitting
home! A young lady was babbling and gesticulating non stop about nothing coherent and
appeared to be on some sort of stimulant. A foreign gentleman, very professional, drove for
extra money when not at his regular job. He was the only one who had actually bought a new
Prius for this gig, hoping to pay it off in two years.
This is indeed a brave new world. There was a period in Nicaragua just after the Contra
war ended when citizens emerged from their homes and hit the streets in large numbers,
desperately looking for income. Every car was a taxi and there was a bipedal mini Walmart at
every city intersection as individuals sold everything and anything in a sort of euphoric
optimism towards the future. Reality just hadn't caught up with them yet .
U6 underemployment rate rose +0.1% from 7.9% to 8.0%
Here are the headlines on wages and the chronic heightened underemployment: Wages and
participation rates
Not in Labor Force, but Want a Job Now: rose +53,000 from 5.175 million to 5.238
million
Part time for economic reasons: rose +48,000 from 4.753 million to 4.801 million
Employment/population ratio ages 25-54: rose +0.2% from 78.8% to 79.0%
Average Weekly Earnings for Production and Nonsupervisory Personnel: rose +$.0.5 from a
downwardly revised $22.19 to $22.24, up +2.4% YoY. (Note: you may be reading different
information about wages elsewhere. They are citing average wages for all private workers. I
use wages for nonsupervisory personnel, to come closer to the situation for ordinary
workers.)
Holding Trump accountable on manufacturing and mining jobs
Trump specifically campaigned on bringing back manufacturing and mining jobs. Is he keeping
this promise?
Manufacturing jobs rose by +31,000 for an average of +15,000 a month vs. the last seven
years of Obama's presidency in which an average of 10,300 manufacturing jobs were added
each month.
Coal mining jobs fell -400 for an average of -15 a month vs. the last seven years of
Obama's presidency in which an average of -300 jobs were lost each month
September was revised upward by +20,000. October was revised downward by -17,000, for a
net change of +3,000.
likbez December 9, 2017 7:52 pm
There are now large categories of jobs, both part-time and full time, that can't provide
for living and are paying below or close to minimum wage (plantation economy jobs). it
looks like under neoliberalism this is the fastest growing category of jobs.
Examples are Uber and Lift jobs (which are as close to predatory scam as one can get) .
Many jobs in service industry, especially retail. See for example
"... What happened to the old "sysadmin" of just a few years ago? We've split what used to be the sysadmin into application teams, server teams, storage teams, and network teams. There were often at least a few people, the holders of knowledge, who knew how everything worked, and I mean everything. ..."
"... Now look at what we've done. Knowledge is so decentralized we must invent new roles to act as liaisons between all the IT groups. Architects now hold much of the high-level "how it works" knowledge, but without knowing how any one piece actually does work. In organizations with more than a few hundred IT staff and developers, it becomes nearly impossible for one person to do and know everything. This movement toward specializing in individual areas seems almost natural. That, however, does not provide a free ticket for people to turn a blind eye. ..."
"... Does your IT department function as a unit? Even 20-person IT shops have turf wars, so the answer is very likely, "no." As teams are split into more and more distinct operating units, grouping occurs. One IT budget gets split between all these groups. Often each group will have a manager who pitches his needs to upper management in hopes they will realize how important the team is. ..."
"... The "us vs. them" mentality manifests itself at all levels, and it's reinforced by management having to define each team's worth in the form of a budget. One strategy is to illustrate a doomsday scenario. If you paint a bleak enough picture, you may get more funding. Only if you are careful enough to illustrate the failings are due to lack of capital resources, not management or people. A manager of another group may explain that they are not receiving the correct level of service, so they need to duplicate the efforts of another group and just implement something themselves. On and on, the arguments continue. ..."
What happened to the old "sysadmin" of just a few years ago? We've split what used to be the sysadmin into application teams,
server teams, storage teams, and network teams. There were often at least a few people, the holders of knowledge, who knew how everything
worked, and I mean everything. Every application, every piece of network gear, and how every server was configured -- these
people could save a business in times of disaster.
Now look at what we've done. Knowledge is so decentralized we must invent new roles to act as liaisons between all the IT
groups. Architects now hold much of the high-level "how it works" knowledge, but without knowing how any one piece actually does
work. In organizations with more than a few hundred IT staff and developers, it becomes nearly impossible for one person to do and
know everything. This movement toward specializing in individual areas seems almost natural. That, however, does not provide a free
ticket for people to turn a blind eye.
Specialization
You know the story: Company installs new application, nobody understands it yet, so an expert is hired. Often, the person with
a certification in using the new application only really knows how to run that application. Perhaps they aren't interested in
learning anything else, because their skill is in high demand right now. And besides, everything else in the infrastructure is
run by people who specialize in those elements. Everything is taken care of.
Except, how do these teams communicate when changes need to take place? Are the storage administrators teaching the Windows
administrators about storage multipathing; or worse logging in and setting it up because it's faster for the storage gurus to
do it themselves? A fundamental level of knowledge is often lacking, which makes it very difficult for teams to brainstorm about
new ways evolve IT services. The business environment has made it OK for IT staffers to specialize and only learn one thing.
If you hire someone certified in the application, operating system, or network vendor you use, that is precisely what you get.
Certifications may be a nice filter to quickly identify who has direct knowledge in the area you're hiring for, but often they
indicate specialization or compensation for lack of experience.
Resource Competition
Does your IT department function as a unit? Even 20-person IT shops have turf wars, so the answer is very likely, "no."
As teams are split into more and more distinct operating units, grouping occurs. One IT budget gets split between all these groups.
Often each group will have a manager who pitches his needs to upper management in hopes they will realize how important the team
is.
The "us vs. them" mentality manifests itself at all levels, and it's reinforced by management having to define each team's
worth in the form of a budget. One strategy is to illustrate a doomsday scenario. If you paint a bleak enough picture, you may
get more funding. Only if you are careful enough to illustrate the failings are due to lack of capital resources, not management
or people. A manager of another group may explain that they are not receiving the correct level of service, so they need to duplicate
the efforts of another group and just implement something themselves. On and on, the arguments continue.
Most often, I've seen competition between server groups result in horribly inefficient uses of hardware. For example, what
happens in your organization when one team needs more server hardware? Assume that another team has five unused servers sitting
in a blade chassis. Does the answer change? No, it does not. Even in test environments, sharing doesn't often happen between IT
groups.
With virtualization, some aspects of resource competition get better and some remain the same. When first implemented, most
groups will be running their own type of virtualization for their platform. The next step, I've most often seen, is for test servers
to get virtualized. If a new group is formed to manage the virtualization infrastructure, virtual machines can be allocated to
various application and server teams from a central pool and everyone is now sharing. Or, they begin sharing and then demand their
own physical hardware to be isolated from others' resource hungry utilization. This is nonetheless a step in the right direction.
Auto migration and guaranteed resource policies can go a long way toward making shared infrastructure, even between competing
groups, a viable option.
Blamestorming
The most damaging side effect of splitting into too many distinct IT groups is the reinforcement of an "us versus them" mentality.
Aside from the notion that specialization creates a lack of knowledge, blamestorming is what this article is really about. When a project is delayed, it is all too easy to blame another group. The SAN people didn't allocate storage on time,
so another team was delayed. That is the timeline of the project, so all work halted until that hiccup was restored. Having someone
else to blame when things get delayed makes it all too easy to simply stop working for a while.
More related to the initial points at the beginning of this article, perhaps, is the blamestorm that happens after a system
outage.
Say an ERP system becomes unresponsive a few times throughout the day. The application team says it's just slowing down, and
they don't know why. The network team says everything is fine. The server team says the application is "blocking on IO," which
means it's a SAN issue. The SAN team say there is nothing wrong, and other applications on the same devices are fine. You've ran
through nearly every team, but without an answer still. The SAN people don't have access to the application servers to help diagnose
the problem. The server team doesn't even know how the application runs.
See the problem? Specialized teams are distinct and by nature adversarial. Specialized staffers often relegate
themselves into a niche knowing that as long as they continue working at large enough companies, "someone else" will take care
of all the other pieces.
I unfortunately don't have an answer to this problem. Maybe rotating employees between departments will help. They gain knowledge
and also get to know other people, which should lessen the propensity to view them as outsiders
On the topic of outsourcing, IMO it can be cheaper if done right. On paper it always seems like a great idea, but in practice
it's not always the best idea financially and/or getting the same or better result in comparison to keeping it in-house. I've worked
for companies where they have outsourced a particular department/function to companies where I am the one the job is outsourced to.
My observation has been the success of getting projects done (e.g.: programing) or facilitating a role (e.g.: sys admin) rely on a few
factors regardless of outsourcing or not.
Notable quotes:
"... On the topic of outsourcing, IMO it can be cheaper if done right. On paper it always seems like a great idea, but in practice it's not always the best idea financially and/or getting the same or better result in comparison to keeping it in-house. I've worked for companies where they have outsourced a particular department/function to companies where I am the one the job is outsourced to. My observation has been the success of getting projects done (e.g.: programing) or facilitating a role (e.g.: sys admin) rely on a few factors regardless of outsourcing or not. ..."
On the topic of outsourcing, IMO it can be cheaper if done right. On paper it always seems like a great idea, but in practice
it's not always the best idea financially and/or getting the same or better result in comparison to keeping it in-house. I've
worked for companies where they have outsourced a particular department/function to companies where I am the one the job is outsourced
to. My observation has been the success of getting projects done (e.g.: programing) or facilitating a role (e.g.: sys admin) rely
on a few factors regardless of outsourcing or not.
The first is a golden rule of sorts on doing anything:
Cheap
Quality
Fast
You can only pick two; NO exceptions. I've encountered so many upper management types that foolishly think they can get away
with having all three. In my experience 9/10 of the time it turns out a lack of quality bites them in the butt sometime down the
road when they assumed they somehow managed to achieve all three.
The second is communication. Mostly everyone in at least the US has experienced the pain of being subjected to some company's
outsourced customer service and/or tech support that can't effectively communicate with both parties on the same page of understanding
one another. I really shouldn't need to explain why communication, understanding one another is so important. Sadly this is something
I have to constantly explain to my current boss with events like today where my non-outsourced colleague rebooted a number of
production critical servers when he was asked to reboot just one secondary server.
Third is the employee's skill in doing the job. Again, another obvious one, but I've observed that it isn't always on the hiring
menu. Additionally I've seen some people that interview well, but couldn't create a "Hello World" HTML page for a web developer
position as an example. There's no point in hiring or keeping a hired individual to do a job that they lack the skill to do; even
if it's an entry-level position with training, that person should be willing to put for the effort to learn and take notes. I
accept that everyone has their own unique skills that can aide or hinder their ability to learn and be proficient with a particular
task. However, I firmly believe anyone can learn to do anything as long as they put their mind to it. I barely have any artistic
ability and my drawing skills are stick figures at best (XKCD is miles ahead of me); if I were to put forth the effort to learn
how to draw and paint, I could become a good artist. I taught an A+ technician certification class at a tech school a while back
and I had a retired Marine that served in the Vietnam War as one of my students. One could argue his best skill was killing and
blowing stuff up. He worked hard and learned to be a technician and passed CompTIA's certification test without a problem. That
leads me to the next point.
Lastly is attitude of the end employee doing the actual work. It boggles my mind how so many managers loose the plot when it
comes to employee morale and motivation. Productivity generally is improved when those two are improved and it usually doesn't
have to involve spending a bunch of money. The employee's attitude should be getting the work done correctly in a reasonable amount
of time. Demanding it is a poor approach. Poisoning an employee will result in poisoning the company in a small manner all the
way up to the failure of the company. Employees should be encouraged through actual morale improvements, positive motivation,
and incentives for doing more work at the same and/or better quality level.
Outsourcing or keeping things in house can be successful and possibly economical if approached correctly with the appropriate
support of upper management.
How dramatic? Isn't outsourcing done (like it or not) to reduce costs?
Outsourcing is done to reduce the projected costs that PHBs see. In reality, outsourcing can lead to increased costs and delays
due to time zone differences and language/cultural barriers.
I have seen it work reasonably well, but only when the extra effort and delays caused by the increased need for rework that
comes from complex software projects. If you are working with others on software, it is so much quicker to produce quality software
if the person who knows the business requirements is sitting right next to the person doing design and the person cutting code
and the person doing the testing, etc, etc.
If these people or groups are scattered around the world with different cultures and native languages, communication can suffer,
increasing misunderstanding and reducing the quality. I have personally seen this lead to massive increase in code defects in
a project that went from in house development to outsourced.
Also, time zone differences cause problems. I have noticed that the further west people live, the less likely they are to take
into account how far behind they are. Working with people who fail to realise that their Monday morning is the next day for someone
else, or that by the time they are halfway through Friday, others are already on their weekend is not only frustrating, it leads
to slow turn around of bug fixes, etc.
Yeah, I'm told outsourcing keeps costs down, but I am yet to see conclusive evidence of that in the real world. At least in
complex development. YMMV for support/call centre stuff.
Stagnation that is gripping several of the world's largest economies should be viewed as a secular, long term phenomenon, not
something transient. It is connected with the neoliberalism entering a new phase of its development, when New Deal was already
devoured, 90% or so of population standard of living slides and thus there are no direct mechanisms to increase consumer demand.
Notable quotes:
"... Stagnation is gripping several of the world's largest economies and many view this as secular, not transient. ..."
"... Above all, ideology must conceal, denigrate, diminish, slander and distract from the ONE effective strategy that workers collectively have. This is the spectre that haunts all economics. ..."
"... For many of those who consume the bottom layers of it, what they are ingesting is a barbarous Pink Slime cultural sludge that makes them stupid, frivolous, dependent, impulsive and emotionally erratic – something like perpetual 15 year olds. ..."
"... In the center, we have the neoliberals, who are convinced that our world will spontaneously and beneficially organize itself if only we turn the macroeconomic tumblers and stumble on the right interest rate, or inflation rate, or some other version of the One Parameter to Rule Them All mindset. They are also too devoted to the religion of demand-goosing: the idea that everything will be all right as long as we generate enough "demand" – as though it makes no difference whether people are demanding high fructose cotton candy or the collected works of Shakespeare. ..."
"... Profits and income share at the top soared; wages and income share at the bottom fell, and employment was maintained by speculative bubbles and increasing debt until the last bubble burst, and the system collapsed. ..."
"... How is an increasing deficit and QE supposed to solve our problems in this situation other than by propping up a failed system that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer by increasing government debt? ..."
"... It seems quite clear to me that it is going to take a very long time for the system to adjust to this situation in the absence of a fall in the value of the dollar and the concentration of income. That kind of adjustment means reallocating resources in a very dramatic way so as to accommodate an economy in which resources are allocated to serve the demands of the wealthy few in the absence of the ability of those at the bottom to expand their debt relative to income. ..."
"... It was the fall in the concentration of income that led to mass markets (large numbers of people with purchasing power out of income) that made investment profitable after WW II in the absence of speculative bubbles, and it was the increase in the concentration of income that led to the bubble economy we have today that has led us into the Great Recession. ..."
"... I think neoliberalism naturally leads to secular stagnation. This is the way any economic system that is based on increasing of inequality should behave: after inequality reached certain critical threshold, the economy faces extended period of low growth reflecting persistently weak private demand. ..."
"... The focus on monetary policy and the failure to enact fiscal policy options is structural defect of neoliberalism ideology and can't be changed unless neoliberal ideology is abandoned. Which probably will not happen unless another huge crisis hit the USA. 2008 crisis, while discrediting neoliberalism, was clearly not enough for the abandonment of this ideology. Like in most cults adherents became more fanatical believers after the prophecy did not materialized. ..."
"... In a way behaviour of the USA elite in this respect is as irrational as behavior of the USSR elite. My impression is that they will stick to neoliberal ideology to the bitter end. But at the same time they are much more reckless. Recent attempt to solve economic problems by unleashing a new wars and relying of war time mobilization so far did not work. Including the last move is this game: Russia did not bite the offer for military confrontation that the USA clearly made by instilling coup d'état in Ukraine. ..."
This column argues that many economies need both demand-side stimulus and supply-side reform to close the output gap and restore
potential-output growth. A combined monetary-fiscal stimulus – i.e. helicopter money – is needed to close the output gap, and
this should be accompanied with extensive debt restructuring, policies to halt rising inequality, and additional public infrastructure
investment.
Selected Skeptical Comments
Sandwichman -> anne:
Workers, collectively, have a single, incontrovertible lever for effecting change -- withholding their labor power. Nothing
-- not even imprisonment or death -- can prevent workers from withholding their labor power! Kill me and see how much work you
can get out of me.
This is the elementary fact that the elites don't want workers to know. "It is futile!" "It is a fallacy!" "You will only hurt
yourselves!"
Once one comprehends the strategic importance of making the withholding of labor power taboo, everything else falls into place.
Economics actually makes sense as a persuasive discourse to dissuade from the withholding of labor power.
Above all, ideology must conceal, denigrate, diminish, slander and distract from the ONE effective strategy that workers
collectively have. This is the spectre that haunts all economics.
Dan Kervick:
Good stuff by Buiter et al, but here are some suggested additions to the litany of supply side woes:
1. Ineffective economic organization, both inside corporate firms and outside of them.
a. Many corporations are now quite dysfunctional as engines of long-term value creation – but not dysfunctional as vehicles
of short-term value extraction for their absurdly over-incentivized key stakeholders.
b. The developed world societies are facing an extreme failure of strategic economic leadership, at both the national and global
level, and at both the formal level of government and the informal level of visionary public intellectuals and industrial "captains".
There is no coherent consensus on which way lies the direction of progress. Since nobody is setting the agenda for what the future
looks like, risk trumps confidence everywhere and nobody knows what to invest in.
2. Dyspeptic dystopianism. The intellectual culture of our times is polluted by obsessive, nail-biting negativity and
demoralizing storylines preaching hopelessness: the robots are going to destroy all the jobs; the Big One is going to bury everything,
the real "neutral" interest rate is preposterously negative, etc. etc. etc. With so much doom and gloom in the air, there is no
reason to invest wealth, rather than consume it. Robert Schiller touched on this at a recent talk at LSE.
3. The popular culture of 2015 America is – as in so many other areas - a tale of two cultural cities.For many
of those who consume the bottom layers of it, what they are ingesting is a barbarous Pink Slime cultural sludge that makes them
stupid, frivolous, dependent, impulsive and emotionally erratic – something like perpetual 15 year olds. People like this
can be duped by the most shallow demagoguery and consumerist manipulation, and can't organize themselves to pursue their enlightened
self-interest. Enlightened artists and cultural custodians need to step up, organize and find a way to seize the American mind
back from the clutches of consumer capitalist garbage-mongers and philistine society-wreckers.
4. Laissez faire backwardness. We are struggling under left-right-center conspiracy of Pollyanna freedom fools, who
despite their constant kvetching at one another all share in common the view that progress is self-organizing.
On the left we have the Chomsky and Graeber-style "libertarian socialists" who are convinced we could have a functioning and
prosperous society in which seemingly every action is voluntary and spontaneous, nobody is ever compelled to do anything that
their delicate little hearts don't throb to do, and who seemingly have no idea of what it takes even to run a carrot farm.
On the right, we have the clueless paranoid libertarians who think the whole world should revolve around their adolescent desire
not to be "tread on", and seem to have no idea of what it takes – and what it took historically - to build a livable civilization.
In the center, we have the neoliberals, who are convinced that our world will spontaneously and beneficially organize itself
if only we turn the macroeconomic tumblers and stumble on the right interest rate, or inflation rate, or some other version of
the One Parameter to Rule Them All mindset. They are also too devoted to the religion of demand-goosing: the idea that everything
will be all right as long as we generate enough "demand" – as though it makes no difference whether people are demanding high
fructose cotton candy or the collected works of Shakespeare.
5. I'm an optimist! This is all going to change. We have nearly reached Peak Idiocracy. We're on the verge of a new age of
social organization and planning and a return to mixed economy common sense and public-spirited mobilization and adulthood. This
will happen because ultimately all of those teenagers will stop denying reality, and stop struggling to escape the realization
that a more organized and thoughtfully planned way of life is the only thing that will work in our small, resource strapped, crowded
21st century planet.
George H. Blackford:
Since the 80s, US companies have been buying abroad to sell at home as foreign countries used our trade deficits to depress
their exchange rates. Profits and income share at the top soared; wages and income share at the bottom fell, and employment
was maintained by speculative bubbles and increasing debt until the last bubble burst, and the system collapsed.
There seem to be no more bubbles in the offing. The dollar is overvalued. Debt relative to income is unprecedented, and the
concentration of income has created stagnation for lack of investment opportunities.
How is an increasing deficit and QE supposed to solve our problems in this situation other than by propping up a failed
system that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer by increasing government debt? Does anyone really believe this sort
of thing can go on forever in the absence of a fall in the value of the dollar and in the concentration of income? Who's going
to be left holding the bag when this system collapses again?
It seems quite clear to me that it is going to take a very long time for the system to adjust to this situation in the
absence of a fall in the value of the dollar and the concentration of income. That kind of adjustment means reallocating resources
in a very dramatic way so as to accommodate an economy in which resources are allocated to serve the demands of the wealthy few
in the absence of the ability of those at the bottom to expand their debt relative to income.
We didn't smoothly transition from an agricultural economy to one based on manufacturing. That transition was plagued with
a great deal of civil unrest, speculative bubbles, booms and busts that eventually led to a collapse of the system and the Great
Depression.
And we didn't smoothly transition out of the Great Depression. That was ended by WW II and dramatic changes in our economic
system, the most dramatic changes being the role and size of government and the fall in the concentration of income for thirty-five
years after 1940.
It was the fall in the concentration of income that led to mass markets (large numbers of people with purchasing power
out of income) that made investment profitable after WW II in the absence of speculative bubbles, and it was the increase in the
concentration of income that led to the bubble economy we have today that has led us into the Great Recession.
What this means to me is that we are not going to get out of the mess we are in today in the absence of some kind of catastrophe
comparable to WW II if we, and the rest of the world, do not come to grips with the fundamental problem we face in this modern
age, namely, the trade deficit and the concentration of income.
I think neoliberalism naturally leads to secular stagnation. This is the way any economic system that is based on increasing
of inequality should behave: after inequality reached certain critical threshold, the economy faces extended period of low growth
reflecting persistently weak private demand.
An economic cycle enters recession when total spending falls below expected by producers and they realize that production level
is too high relative to demand. What we have under neoliberalism is kind of Marx constant crisis of overproduction.
The focus on monetary policy and the failure to enact fiscal policy options is structural defect of neoliberalism ideology
and can't be changed unless neoliberal ideology is abandoned. Which probably will not happen unless another huge crisis hit the
USA. 2008 crisis, while discrediting neoliberalism, was clearly not enough for the abandonment of this ideology. Like in most
cults adherents became more fanatical believers after the prophecy did not materialized.
The USA elite tried partially alleviate this problem by resorting to military Keynesianism as a supplementary strategy. But
while military budget was raised to unprecedented levels, it can't reverse the tendency. Persistent high output gap is now a feature
of the US economy, not a transitory state.
"Top everything" does not help iether (top cheap oil is especially nasty factor). Recent pretty clever chess gambit to artificially
drop oil price playing Russian card, and sacrificing US shall industry like a pawn (remember that Saudi Arabia is the USA client
state) was a very interesting move, but still expectation are now so low that cheap gas stimulus did not work as expected in the
USA. It would be interesting to see how quickly oil will return to early 2014 price level because of that. That will be the sign
that gambit is abandoned.
In a way behaviour of the USA elite in this respect is as irrational as behavior of the USSR elite. My impression is that
they will stick to neoliberal ideology to the bitter end. But at the same time they are much more reckless. Recent attempt to
solve economic problems by unleashing a new wars and relying of war time mobilization so far did not work. Including the last
move is this game: Russia did not bite the offer for military confrontation that the USA clearly made by instilling coup d'état
in Ukraine.
Now it look like there is a second attempt to play "madman" card after Nixon's administration Vietnam attempt to obtain concession
from the USSR by threatening to unleash the nuclear war.
It was Open Access week last week, but I was too busy trying to meet the deadline today for submitting my book manuscript to
Open Book Publishers . That sounds like a good excuse if one cares
about open access, right? I slept too little for too many days, so don't expect any creative thoughts or subtle analyses from me
tonight. But here's two interesting things I discovered while having a look on the web figuring out whether anything interesting
happend during Open Access week.
First, Cambridge University digitalised the PhD dissertation
of Stephen Hawking and put it online. Apparently the website crashed when that got announced. Any Cambridge University alumni
who want to make their PhD dissertation Open Access
are invited doing so (no more need to go to the reading room and sign a fat notebook that one has accessed a particular PhD dissertation,
as I once did. Although, I should confess, it felt like an adventure. But it's highly inefficient obviously).
Second, for some weeks now, Open Book Publishers has been offering the PDFs of all of their books open access, to celebrate the
100th book they published (their regular regime is to have the books as html open access and selling the PDFs for a few pounds, or
else the author can pay a fee for making the PDF open access).
Importantly, this may only last for another a day or two (I am drawing from my memory when I saw a tweet on that about two months
ago), so while it lasts it may be worth checking out their collection of books in the humanities and the social sciences, such as
Naom Chomsky's Delhi Lectures , Ruth Finnegan's book
on Oral literature in Africa or
textbooks on maths for university .
All for nothing. Because, as their slogan goes, knowledge is for sharing .
Worth mentioning in this context: the CORE project released the final version of their impressive economics textbook "The Economy",
freely (as in CC by-nc-dd licensed) available at http://www.core-econ.org/the-economy/
I think that having open access publishers is great, and I would love to have books published this way. Here's the concern: I
suspect that my University's promotions committee, etc, will view this kind of publication as "inferior" to one with some snazzy
University Press.
I was wondering whether anyone has any advice about how to handle the fact that there are perverse incentives to publish your
work in a format which will cost someone £70, rather than for free?
I don't see a way of changing the situation Steve mentions except by having well established scholars who don't need to worry
about those kinds of thing take the lead. Eg, Ingrid. and David Velleman (who has two books with Open Book, which I greedily downloaded).
And Sam Bowles! -- thanks for the tip ccc, I knew about this from Bowles and had seen parts of it, but not the whole thing which
looks great!
Steve, I fully understand the worry – and even for me (tenured full professor) there is a "status cost" to be paid by not publishing
with an established University Press. But it's a vicious circle that has to be broken – and I agree with Harry, that those of
us who can "afford" to publish Open Access, should do so, in order to try to contribute to the status of the Open Access Press.
I should say that in terms of refereeing – I've published two co-edited books, one with OUP, one with CUP – and the refereeing
process at Open Books was the same, if not better. And a very important advantage of publishing with a publisher such as Open
Books is the much shorter time between delivering the final manuscript and publication – if you do all your work properly, it's
a matter of weeks or a few months, not, as with the established University Presses, (almost) a year (I've always wondered what
the hell happens in that year, especially if they turn back the proofs which are full with typo's!)
I've been thinking someone should write a paper with the title: "If you have tenure, why don't you publish Open Access?"
@3,4: Possibly the switch to open access needs to be done at an institutional level, rather than by individuals.
e.g. A declaration by government evaluations such as the REF that publications won't be counted unless they are open access,
followed by a declaration by your department that publications from now onwards won't be counted for promotions unless they are
open access, might create the right incentives.
[There are potential issues regarding fairness towards academics who are moving between universities . how do you fairly compare
job candidates when one is from a university that demanded open access publication, and another is from a university that didn't?]
Not to make too much of the obvious, given that I'm writing a blog comment, but blogs offer some great opportunities here.
CT readers got to see nearly all of Zombie Economics before the book appeared, and if I ever finish Economics in
Two Lessons it will be long after much of it was posted here.
"This overly narrow hiring spec then leads to absurd, widespread complaint that companies can't find people with the right skills"
. In the IT job markets such postings are often called purple squirrels
Notable quotes:
"... In particular, there seems to be an extremely popular variant of the above where the starting proposition "God makes moral people rich" is improperly converted to "Rich people are more moral" which is then readily negated to "Poor people are immoral" and then expanded to "Poor people are immoral, thus they DESERVE to suffer for it". It's essentially the theological equivalent of dividing by zero ..."
"... That said, the ranks of the neoliberals are not small. They constitute what Jonathan Schell calls a "mass minority." I suspect the neoliberals have about the same level of popular support that the Nazis did at the time of their takeover of Germany in 1932, or the Bolsheviks had in Russia at the time of their takeover in 1917, which is about 20 or 25% of the total population. ..."
"... The ranks of the neoliberals are made to appear far greater than they really are because they have all but exclusive access to the nation's megaphone. The Tea Party can muster a handful of people to disrupt a town hall meeting and it gets coast to coast, primetime coverage. But let a million people protest against bank bailouts, and it is ignored. Thus, by manipulation of the media, the mass minority is made to appear to be much larger than it really is. ..."
Over the past three decades, large parts of our culture here in the US have internalized the lessons of the new Social Darwinism,
with a significant body of literature to explain and justify it. Many of us have internalized, without even realizing it,
the ideas of "dog eat dog", "every man for himself", "society should be structured like the animal kingdom, where the weak and
sick simply die because they cannot compete, and this is healthy", and "everything that happens to you is your own fault. There
is no such thing as circumstance that cannot be overcome, and certainly no birth lottery."
The levers pulled by politicians and the Fed put these things into practice, but even if we managed get different (better)
politicians or Fed chairmen, ones who weren't steeped in this culture and ideology, we'd still be left with the culture in the
population at large, and things like the "unemployed stigma" are likely to die very, very hard. Acceptance of the "just-world
phenomenon" here in the US runs deep.
perfect stranger:
"Religion is just as vulnerable to corporate capture as is the government or the academy."
This is rather rhetorical statement, and wrong one. One need to discern spiritual aspect of religion from the religion as a
tool.
Religion, as is structured, is complicit: in empoverishment, obedience, people's preconditioning, and legislative enabler in
the institutions such as Supreme – and non-supreme – Court(s). It is a form of PR of the ruling class for the governing class.
DownSouth:
perfect stranger,
Religion, just like human nature, is not that easy to put in a box.
For every example you can cite where religion "is complicit: in empoverishment, obedience, people's preconditioning, and legislative
enabler in the institution," I can point to an example of where religion engendered a liberating, emancipatory and revolutionary
spirit.
Examples:
•Early Christianity •Nominalism •Early Protestantism •Gandhi •Martin Luther King
Now granted, there don't seem to be any recent examples of this of any note, unless we consider Chris Hedges a religionist,
which I'm not sure we can do. Would it be appropriate to consider Hedges a religionist?
perfect stranger:
Yes, that maybe, just maybe be the case in early stages of forming new religion(s). In case of Christianity old rulers from
Rome were trying to save own head/throne and the S.P.Q.R. imperia by adopting new religion.
You use examples of Gandhi and MLK which is highly questionable both were fighters for independence and the second, civil rights.
In a word: not members of establishment just as I said there were (probably) seeing the religion as spiritual force not tool of
enslavement.
In particular, there seems to be an extremely popular variant of the above where the starting proposition "God makes moral
people rich" is improperly converted to "Rich people are more moral" which is then readily negated to "Poor people are immoral"
and then expanded to "Poor people are immoral, thus they DESERVE to suffer for it". It's essentially the theological equivalent
of dividing by zero
DownSouth:
Rex,
I agree.
Poll after poll after poll has shown that a majority of Americans, and a rather significant majority, reject the values, attitudes,
beliefs and opinions proselytized by the stealth religion we call "neoclassical economics."
That said, the ranks of the neoliberals are not small. They constitute what Jonathan Schell calls a "mass minority." I
suspect the neoliberals have about the same level of popular support that the Nazis did at the time of their takeover of Germany
in 1932, or the Bolsheviks had in Russia at the time of their takeover in 1917, which is about 20 or 25% of the total population.
The ranks of the neoliberals are made to appear far greater than they really are because they have all but exclusive access
to the nation's megaphone. The Tea Party can muster a handful of people to disrupt a town hall meeting and it gets coast to coast,
primetime coverage. But let a million people protest against bank bailouts, and it is ignored. Thus, by manipulation of the media,
the mass minority is made to appear to be much larger than it really is.
The politicians love this, because as they carry water for their pet corporations, they can point to the Tea Partiers and say:
"See what a huge upwelling of popular support I am responding to."
JTFaraday:
Well, if that's true, then the unemployed are employable but the mass mediated mentality would like them to believe they
are literally and inherently unemployable so that they underestimate and under-sell themselves.
This is as much to the benefit of those who would like to pick up "damaged goods" on the cheap as those who promote the unemployment
problem as one that inheres in prospective employees rather than one that is a byproduct of a bad job market lest someone be tempted
to think we should address it politically.
That's where I see this blame the unemployed finger pointing really getting traction these days.
attempter:
I apologize for the fact that I only read the first few paragraphs of this before quitting in disgust.
I just can no longer abide the notion that "labor" can ever be seen by human beings as a "cost" at all. We really need to refuse
to even tolerate that way of phrasing things. Workers create all wealth. Parasites have no right to exist. These are facts, and
we should refuse to let argument range beyond them.
The only purpose of civilization is to provide a better way of living and for all people. This includes the right and full
opportunity to work and manage for oneself and/or as a cooperative group. If civilization doesn't do that, we're better off without
it.
psychohistorian:
I am one of those long term unemployed.
I suppose my biggest employment claim would be as some sort of IT techie, with numerous supply chain systems and component
design, development, implementation, interfaces with other systems and ongoing support. CCNP certification and a history of techiedom
going back to WEYCOS.
I have a patent (6,209,954) in my name and 12+ years of beating my head against the wall in an industry that buys compliance
with the "there is no problem here, move on now" approach.
Hell, I was a junior woodchuck program administrator back in the early 70's working for the Office of the Governor of the state
of Washington on CETA PSE or Public Service Employment. The office of the Governor ran the PSE program for 32 of the 39 counties
in the state that were not big enough to run their own. I helped organize the project approval process in all those counties to
hire folk at ( if memory serves me max of $833/mo.) to fix and expand parks and provide social and other government services as
defined projects with end dates. If we didn't have the anti-public congress and other government leadership we have this could
be a current component in a rational labor policy but I digress.
I have experience in the construction trades mostly as carpenter but some electrical, plumbing, HVAC, etc. also.
So, of course there is some sort of character flaw that is keeping me and all those others from employment ..right. I may have
more of an excuse than others, have paid into SS for 45 years but still would work if it was available ..taking work away from
other who may need it more .why set up a society where we have to compete as such for mere existence???????
One more face to this rant. We need government by the people and for the people which we do not have now. Good, public focused,
not corporate focused government is bigger than any entities that exist under its jurisdiction and is kept updated by required
public participation in elections and potentially other things like military, peace corps, etc. in exchange for advanced education.
I say this as someone who has worked at various levels in both the public and private sectors there are ignorant and misguided
folks everywhere. At least with ongoing active participation there is a chance that government would, once constructed, be able
to evolve as needed within public focus .IMO.
Ishmael:
Some people would say I have been unemployed for 10 years. In 2000 after losing the last of my four CFO gigs for public companies
I found it necessary to start consulting. This has lead to two of my three biggest winning years. I am usually consulting on cutting
edge area of my profession and many times have large staffs reporting to me that I bring on board to get jobs done. For several
years I subcontacted to a large international consulting firm to clean up projects which went wrong. Let me give some insight
here.
First, most good positions have gate keepers who are professional recruiters. It is near impossible to get
by them and if you are unemployed they will hardly talk to you. One time talking to a recruiter at Korn Fery I was interviewing
for a job I have done several times in an industry I have worked in several times. She made a statement that I had never worked
at a well known company. I just about fell out of my chair laughing. At one time I was a senior level executive for the largest
consulting firm in the world and lived on three continents and worked with companies on six. In addition, I had held senior
positions for 2 fortune 500 firms and was the CFO for a company with $4.5 billion in revenue. I am well known at several PE
firms and the founder of one of the largest mentioned in a meeting that one of his great mistakes was not investing in a very
successful LBO (return of in excess of 20 multiple to investors in 18 months) I was the CFO for. In a word most recruiters
are incompetent.
Second, most CEO's any more are just insecure politicians. One time during an interview I had a CEO asked
me to talk about some accomplishments. I was not paying to much attention as I rattled off accomplishments and the CEO went
nuclear and started yelling at me that he did not know where I thought I was going with this job but the only position above
the CFO job was his and he was not going anywhere. I assured him I was only interested in the CFO position and not his, but
I knew the job was over. Twice feed back that I got from recruiters which they took at criticism was the "client said I seemed
very assured of myself."
Third, government, banking, business and the top MBA schools are based upon lying to move forward. I remember
a top human resource executive telling me right before Enron, MCI and Sarbanes Oxley that I needed to learn to be more flexible.
My response was that flexibility would get me an orange jump suit. Don't get me wrong, I have a wide grey zone, but it use
to be in business the looked for people who could identify problems early and resolve them. Now days I see far more of a demand
for people who can come up with PR spins to hide them. An attorney/treasurer consultant who partnered with me on a number of
consulting jobs told me some one called me "not very charming." He said he asked what that meant, and the person who said that
said, "Ish walks into a meeting and within 10 minutes he is asking about the 10,000 pound guerilla sitting in the room that
no one wants to talk about." CEO do not want any challenges in their organization.
Fourth, three above has lead to the hiring of very young and inexperienced people at senior levels. These
people are insecure and do not want more senior and experienced people above them and than has resulted in people older than
45 not finding positions.
Fifth, people are considered expendable and are fired for the lamest reasons anymore. A partner at one of
the larger and more prestigious recruiting firms one time told me, "If you have a good consulting business, just stick
with it. Our average placement does not last 18 months any more." Another well known recruiter in S. Cal. one time
commented to me, "Your average consulting gig runs longer than our average placement."
With all of that said, I have a hard time understanding such statements as "@attempter "Workers create all wealth. Parasites
have no right to exist." What does that mean? Every worker creates wealth. There is no difference in people. Sounds like communism
to me. I make a good living and my net worth has grown working for myself. I have never had a consulting gig terminated by the
client but I have terminated several. Usually, I am brought in to fix what several other people have failed at. I deliver basically
intellectual properties to companies. Does that mean I am not a worker. I do not usually lift anything heavy or move equipment
but I tell people what and where to do it so does that make me a parasite.
Those people who think everyone is equal and everyone deserves equal pay are fools or lazy. My rate is high, but what usually
starts as short term projects usually run 6 months or more because companies find I can do so much more than what most of their
staff can do and I am not a threat.
I would again like to have a senior challenging role at a decent size company but due to the reasons above will probably never
get one. However, you can never tell. I am currently consulting for a midsize very profitable company (grew 400% last year) where
I am twice the age of most people there, but everyone speaks to me with respect so you can never tell.
Lidia:
Ishmael, you're quite right. When I showed my Italian husband's resume to try and "network" in the US, my IT friends assumed
Softpanorama
JamesT said in reply to Terry... Terry
John Laurits
Extra Newsfeed
CharliePeach🍑 Related reads 7 Effective Communication Techniques That Will Make You Excellent
Karim Elsheikh Also tagged Politics Don't Count America Out
John McCain Responses Conversation between Martha Menard, PhD and John Laurits .
Martha Menard, PhD Dec 6
John Laurits Dec 6
LaMar Going Nov 30
I am weary of half-truths, lies and ignorance from writers like this.3 responsesJoshua Shepard Dec 1
Joe Psotka Dec 5
Allyson Saad Nov 29
Elsie Brown Dec 6 interest is paid to owners of financial assets ( like stocks, securities, debt, etc. ). The $13 billion Jeff Bezos made when Amazon share prices increased, for example, was "earned" ...
Regina Bash-Taqi Dec 6
alex carter Dec 2
Rod Ruger Dec 6
Sceptical Meerkat Dec 9
Rick Fischer Dec 9