President Donald Trump is planning on using his executive powers to cut food stamps for more
than 700,000 Americans.
The United States Department of Agriculture is proposing that states should only be allowed
to waive a current food stamps requirement -- namely, that adults without dependents must work
or participate in a job-training program for at least 20 hours each week if they wish to
collect food stamps for more than three months in a three-year period -- on the condition that
those adults live in areas where unemployment is above 7 percent,
according to The Washington Post . Currently the USDA regulations permit states to waive
that requirement if an adult lives in an area where the unemployment rate is at least 20
percent greater than the national rate. In effect, this means that roughly 755,000 Americans
would potentially lose their waivers that permit them to receive food stamps.
The current unemployment rate is 3.7 percent.
The Trump administration's decision to impose the stricter food stamp requirements through
executive action constitutes an end-run around the legislative process. Although Trump is
expected to sign an $870 billion farm bill later this week -- and because food stamps goes
through the Agriculture Department, it contains food stamp provisions -- the measure does not
include House stipulations restricting the waiver program and imposing new requirements on
parents with children between the ages of six and 12. The Senate version ultimately removed
those provisions, meaning that the version being signed into law does not impose a conservative
policy on food stamps, which right-wing members of Congress were hoping for.
"Congress writes laws, and the administration is required to write rules based on the law,"
Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told The New York Times (Stabenow is the top Democrat on the
Senate's agriculture committee). "Administrative changes should not be driven by ideology. I do
not support unilateral and unjustified changes that would take food away from families."
Matthew Rozsa is a breaking news writer for Salon. He holds an MA in History from
Rutgers University-Newark and is ABD in his PhD program in History at Lehigh University. His
work has appeared in Mic, Quartz and MSNBC.
Swing between extremes, however, consistent in US history, economic predatory dependence on
free/ultra cheap labor with no legal rights. Current instantiation, offshored and illegal and
"temporary" immigrant labor. Note neither party in the US is proposing "immigration reform"
is green card upon hire. Ds merely propose green card for time served for those over X number
of years donated as captive/cheap.
The entitled to cheap/captive now want it in law, national laws and trade agreements.
All privilege/no responsibilities, including taxes.
Doesn't scale. 1929 says so, 2008 says so.
Liberals, the Left, Progressives -- whatever you want to call them suffer from a basic
problem. They don't work together and have no common goals. As the article stated they
complain but offer no real solutions that they can agree on. Should we emphasize gay pride or
should we emphasize good-paying jobs and benefits with good social welfare benefits? Until
they can agree at least on priorities they will never reform the current corrupt system -- it
is too entrenched. Even if the Capitalist Monstrosity we have now self-destructs as the
writer indicates -- nothing good will replace it until the Left get their act together.
"Lesser of two evils" needs to go on the burn pile.
Encumbent congress needs a turn over.
Not showing up to vote is not okay. If people can't think of someone they want to write-in,
"none of the above" is a protest vote. Not voting is silence, which equals consent.
Local elections, beat back Koch/ALEC, hiding on ballots as "Libertarian". "Privatize
everything" is their mantra, so they can further profitize via inescapeable taxes, while
gutting "regulation" - safety and market integrity, with no accountability.
Corporation 101: limited liability. While means we are left holding the bag. As in bailout -
$125 billion in 1990, up to $7.7 trillion in 2008.
Anything the Economist presents as the overriding choice is probably best relegated to
one factor among many. I respect Milanovic's work, but he's seeing things from where we are
now. Remember we've seen populist surges come and go from the witch-burnings and religious
panics of the 17th century to 1890s Bryanism and the 1930s far right, and each time they've
yielded to a more articulate vision, though the last time it cost sixty million dead - not
something we want to see repeated. This time it's hard because dissent still clings to a
"post-ideological" delusion that those on top never succumbed to. But change will come as
what I'd term "post-rational" alternatives fail to deliver. Let's hope it's sooner rather
than later.
"Brexit, too, was primarily a working-class revolt." Thank you Martin, at least someone
writing in the Guardian has got the point!
We voted against the EU's unelected European Central Bank, its unelected European Commission,
its European Court of Justice, its Common Agricultural Policy and its Common Fisheries
Policy.
We voted against the EU's treaty-enshrined 'austerity' (= depression) policies, which have
impoverished Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy.
We voted against the EU/US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, which would
privatise all our public services, which threatens all our rights, and which discriminates
against the countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America.
We voted against the EU's tariffs against African farmers' cheaper produce.
We opposed the City of London Corporation, the Institute of Directors, the CBI, the IMF,
Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley, which all wanted us to
stay in the EU.
We voted against the EU's undemocratic trilogue procedure and its pro-austerity Semester
programme. We voted to leave this undemocratic, privatisation-enforcing, austerity-enforcing
body.
Bailout was because that was public savings, pensions, 401ks, etc. the banks were playing
with, and lost. Bailout is billing all of us for it. Bad, letting the banks/financial
"services" not only survive but continue the exact same practices.
Bailout: $7.2 to $7.7 trillion. Current derivative holdings: $500 trillion.
Not just moral hazard but economic hazard when capitalism basic rule is broken, allow bad
businesses to die of their own accord. Subversion currently called "too big to fail", rather
than tell the public "we lost all your savings, pensions, ...".
Relocating poverty from the East into the West isn't improvement.
Creating sweatshops in the East isn't raising their standard of living.
Creating economies so economically unstable that population declines isn't improvement.
Trying to bury that fact with immigration isn't improvement.
Configuring all of the above for record profit for the benefit of a tiny percentage of the
population isn't improvement.
Gaming tax law to avoid paying into/for extensive business use of federal services and tax
base isn't improvement.
Game over. Time for a reboot.
I am glad you finally concede a point on neo-liberalism. The moral hazard argument is
extremely poor and typical in this era of runaway CEO pay, of a tendency to substitute
self-help fables (a la "The monk who sold his Ferrari) and pop psychology ( a la Moral
Hazard) for credible economic analysis.
The economic crisis is rooted in the profit motive just as capitalist economic growth is.
Lowering of Tarrif barriers, outsourcing, changes in value capture (added value), new
financial instruments, were attempts to restore the falling rate of profit. They did for a
while, but, as always happens with Capitalism, the seeds of the new crisis were in the
solution to the old.
And all the while the state continues growing in an attempt to keep capitalism afloat.
Neoliberalism failed ( or should I say "small state" ) and here is the graph to prove it: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/usgs_chartSp03t.png
Interesting, and I believe accurate, analysis of the economic and political forces afoot.
However it is ludicrous to state that Donald trump, who is a serial corpratist, out-sourcer,
tax avoider and scam artist, actually believes any of those populist principles that you
ascribe so firmly to him. The best and safest outcome of our election, in my opinion, would
be to have a Clinton administration tempered by the influences from the populist wings of
both parties.
Great article, however the elite globalists are in complete denial in the US. Our only choice
is to vote them out of power because the are owned by Wall Street. Both Bernie and Trump
supporters should unite to vote establishment out of Washington.
There were similar observations in the immediate aftermath of 2008, and doubtless before.
Many of us thought the crisis would trigger a rethink of the whole direction of the previous
three decades, but instead we got austerity and a further lurch to the right, or at best
Obama-style stimulus and modest tweaks which were better than the former but still rather
missed the point. I still find it flabbergasting and depressing, but on reflection the 1930s
should have been a warning of not just the economic hazards but also the political fallout,
at least in Europe. The difference was that this time left ideology had all but vacated the
field in the 1980s and was in no position to lead a fightback: all we can hope for is better
late than never.
Yes it is, it's an extremely bad thing destroying the fabric of society. Social science
has documented that even the better off are more happy, satisfied with life and feel safer in
societies (i.e. the Scandinavian) where there is a relatively high degree of economic
equality. Yes, economic inequality is a BAD thing in itself.
Oh, give me a break. Social science will document anything it can publish, no matter how
spurious. If Scandanavia is so great, why are they such pissheads? There has always been
inequality, including in workers' paradises like the Soviet Union and Communist China.
Inequality is what got us where we are today, through natural selection. Phenotype is largely
dependent on genotype, so why shouldn't we pass on material wealth as well as our genes?
Surely it is a parent's right to afford their offspring advantages if they can do so?
Have you got any numbers? Or references for your allegations. I say the average or median
wealth, opportunity, economic circumstance and health measures are substantially better than
a generation (lets say 30 years) ago.
Again I don't think our system is perfect. I don't deny that some in our societies
struggle and don't benefit, particularly the poorly educated, disabled, mentally ill and drug
addicted. I actually agree that we could better target our social redistribution from those
that have to those that need help. I disagree that we need higher taxes, protectionism,
socialism, more public servants, more legislation. Indeed I disagree with proposition that
other systems are better.
George Orwell said, in the 30s, that the price of social justice would include a lowering of
living standards for the working- & middle-classes, at least temporarily, so I follow
your line of thought. However, the outrageous tilt toward the upper .1% has no "adjustment"
fluff to shield it from the harsh despotism it represents. So, do put that in your
statistical pipe and smoke it.
"... I see this in young people all around, 25-35 year old's saddled with $50-100k in debt defining every action and option they have (or don't!). Not everyone gets themselves into this bind, people make poor decisions, but our higher educational institutions readily promote without ample warning and education and the result is what's rumored to be a $1 Trillion student loan debt bubble. This isn't sustainable ..."
"... Educational institutions should not be seen as a profit making enterprise, education should be attainable to all without the fear of untenable costs. ..."
A very scholarly and educational read, well researched and documented. It is very in-depth,
perhaps not for the light hearted but I learned quite a bit about education philosophies
world-wide, their origins, how that effects current thoughts and practices, etc. And how the
United States higher educational institutions have gotten to where they are today, money
printing machines with unsustainable growth and costs being pushed onto those just seeking to
potentially better themselves.
I see this in young people all around, 25-35 year old's
saddled with $50-100k in debt defining every action and option they have (or don't!). Not
everyone gets themselves into this bind, people make poor decisions, but our higher
educational institutions readily promote without ample warning and education and the result
is what's rumored to be a $1 Trillion student loan debt bubble. This isn't sustainable
My years in oversea schools took place long ago, I can't testify nor draw direction
comparisons to the situation we face today. But I can say, that with three young kids
approaching college age we remain highly concerned to terrified what the costs and our kids
futures.
Educational institutions should not be seen as a profit making enterprise, education
should be attainable to all without the fear of untenable costs.
If you're new to the career, chances are you'll be saying "yes" to everything. However, as you gain experience and put in your
time, the word "no" needs to creep into your vocabulary. Otherwise, you'll be exploited.
Of course, you have to use this word with caution. Should the CTO approach and set a task before you, the "no" response might
not be your best choice. But if you find end users-and friends-taking advantage of the word "yes," you'll wind up frustrated and
exhausted at the end of the day.
Be done at the end of the day
I used to have a ritual at the end of every day. I would take off my watch and, at that point,
I was done... no more work. That simple routine saved my sanity more often than not. I highly suggest you develop the means to
inform yourself that, at some point, you are done for the day. Do not be that person who is willing to work through the evening
and into the night... or you'll always be that person.
Don't beat yourself up over mistakes made
You are going to make mistakes. Sometimes will be simple and can be quickly repaired.
Others may lean toward the catastrophic. But when you finally call your IT career done, you will have made plenty of mistakes.
Beating yourself up over them will prevent you from moving forward. Instead of berating yourself, learn from the mistakes so you
don't repeat them.
Always have something nice to say
You work with others on a daily basis. Too many times I've watched IT pros become bitter,
jaded people who rarely have anything nice or positive to say. Don't be that person. If you focus on the positive, people will
be more inclined to enjoy working with you, companies will want to hire you, and the daily grind will be less "grindy."
Measure twice, cut once
How many times have you issued a command or clicked OK before you were absolutely sure you should?
The old woodworking adage fits perfectly here. Considering this simple sentence-before you click OK-can save you from quite a
lot of headache. Rushing into a task is never the answer, even during an emergency. Always ask yourself: Is this the right solution?
At every turn, be honest
I've witnessed engineers lie to avoid the swift arm of justice. In the end, however, you must remember
that log files don't lie. Too many times there is a trail that can lead to the truth. When the CTO or your department boss discovers
this truth, one that points to you lying, the arm of justice will be that much more forceful. Even though you may feel like your
job is in jeopardy, or the truth will cause you added hours of work, always opt for the truth. Always.
Make sure you're passionate about what you're doing
Ask yourself this question: Am I passionate about technology? If not,
get out now; otherwise, that job will beat you down. A passion for technology, on the other hand, will continue to drive you forward.
Just know this: The longer you are in the field, the more likely that passion is to falter. To prevent that from happening, learn
something new.
Don't stop learning
Quick-how many operating systems have you gone through over the last decade? No career evolves faster
than technology. The second you believe you have something perfected, it changes. If you decide you've learned enough, it's time
to give up the keys to your kingdom. Not only will you find yourself behind the curve, all those servers and desktops you manage
could quickly wind up vulnerable to every new attack in the wild. Don't fall behind.
When you feel your back against a wall, take a breath and regroup
This will happen to you. You'll be tasked to upgrade a
server farm and one of the upgrades will go south. The sweat will collect, your breathing will reach panic level, and you'll lock
up like Windows Me. When this happens... stop, take a breath, and reformulate your plan. Strangely enough, it's that breath taken
in the moment of panic that will help you survive the nightmare. If a single, deep breath doesn't help, step outside and take
in some fresh air so that you are in a better place to change course.
Don't let clients see you Google a solution
This should be a no-brainer... but I've watched it happen far too many times.
If you're in the middle of something and aren't sure how to fix an issue, don't sit in front of a client and Google the solution.
If you have to, step away, tell the client you need to use the restroom and, once in the safety of a stall, use your phone to
Google the answer. Clients don't want to know you're learning on their dime.
Economists report that workers are starting to act like millennials on Tinder: They're
ditching jobs with nary a text. "A number of contacts said that they had been 'ghosted,' a
situation in which a worker stops coming to work without notice and then is impossible to
contact," the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago noted in December's Beige Book report,
which tracks employment trends. Advertisement > National data on economic "ghosting" is
lacking. The term, which normally applies to dating, first surfaced on Dictionary.com in 2016. But companies across
the country say silent exits are on the rise. Analysts blame America's increasingly tight labor
market. Job openings have surpassed the number of seekers for eight straight months, and the
unemployment rate has clung to a 49-year low of 3.7% since September. Janitors, baristas,
welders, accountants, engineers -- they're all in demand, said Michael Hicks, a labor economist
at Ball State University in Indiana. More people may opt to skip tough conversations and slide
right into the next thing. "Why hassle with a boss and a bunch of out-processing," he said,
"when literally everyone has been hiring?" Recruiters at global staffing firm Robert Half have
noticed a 10% to 20% increase in ghosting over the last year, D.C. district President Josh
Howarth said. Applicants blow off interviews. New hires turn into no-shows. Workers leave one
evening and never return. "You feel like someone has a high level of interest, only for them to
just disappear," Howarth said. Over the summer, woes he heard from clients emerged in his own
life. A job candidate for a recruiter role asked for a day to mull over an offer, saying she
wanted to discuss the terms with her spouse. Then she halted communication. "In fairness,"
Howarth said, "there are some folks who might have so many opportunities they're considering,
they honestly forget." Keith Station, director of business relations at Heartland Workforce
Solutions, which connects job hunters with companies in Omaha, said workers in his area are
most likely to skip out on low-paying service positions. "People just fall off the face of the
Earth," he said of the area, which has an especially low unemployment rate of 2.8%. Some
employers in Nebraska are trying to head off unfilled shifts by offering apprentice programs
that guarantee raises and additional training over time. "Then you want to stay and watch your
wage grow," Station said. Advertisement > Other recruitment businesses point to solutions
from China, where ghosting took off during the last decade's explosive growth. "We generally
make two offers for every job because somebody doesn't show up," said Rebecca Henderson, chief
executive of Randstad Sourceright, a talent acquisition firm. And if both hires stick around,
she said, her multinational clients are happy to deepen the bench. Though ghosting in the
United States does not yet require that level of backup planning, consultants urge employers to
build meaningful relationships at every stage of the hiring process. Someone who feels invested
in an enterprise is less likely to bounce, said Melissa and Johnathan Nightingale, who have
written about leadership and dysfunctional management. "Employees leave jobs that suck," they
said in an email. "Jobs where they're abused. Jobs where they don't care about the work. And
the less engaged they are, the less need they feel to give their bosses any warning." Some
employees are simply young and restless, said James Cooper, former manager of the Old Faithful
Inn at Yellowstone National Park, where he said people ghosted regularly. A few of his staffers
were college students who lived in park dormitories for the summer. "My favorite," he said,
"was a kid who left a note on the floor in his dorm room that said, 'Sorry bros, had to ghost.'
" Other ghosters describe an inner voice that just says: Nah. Zach Keel, a 26-year-old server
in Austin, Texas, made the call last year to flee a combination bar and cinema after realizing
he would have to clean the place until sunrise. More work, he calculated, was always around the
corner. "I didn't call," Keel said. "I didn't show up. I figured: No point in feeling guilty
about something that wasn't that big of an issue. Turnover is so high, anyway."
But the more common situation is that applicants are ghosted by companies. They apply for a
job and never hear anything in response, not even a rejection. In the U.S., companies are
generally not legally obligated to deliver bad news to job candidates, so many don't.
They also don't provide feedback, because it could open the company up to a legal risk if it
shows that they decided against a candidate for discriminatory reasons protected by law such as
race, gender or disability.
Hiring can be a lengthy process, and rejecting 99 candidates is much more work than
accepting one. But a consistently poor hiring process that leaves applicants hanging can cause
companies to lose out on the best talent and even damage perception of their brand.
Here's what companies can do differently to keep applicants in the loop, and how job seekers
can know that it's time to cut their losses.
What companies can do differently
There are many ways that technology can make the hiring process easier for both HR
professionals and applicants.
Only about half of all companies get back to the candidates they're not planning to
interview, Natalia Baryshnikova, director of product management on the enterprise product team
at SmartRecruiters, tells CNBC Make It .
"Technology has defaults, one change is in the default option," Baryshnikova says. She said
that SmartRecruiters changed the default on its technology from "reject without a note" to
"reject with a note," so that candidates will know they're no longer involved in the
process.
Companies can also use technology as a reminder to prioritize rejections. For the company,
rejections are less urgent than hiring. But for a candidate, they are a top priority. "There
are companies out there that get back to 100 percent of candidates, but they are not yet
common," Baryshnikova says.
How one company is trying to help
WayUp was founded to make the process of applying for a job simpler.
"The No. 1 complaint from candidates we've heard, from college students and recent grads
especially, is that their application goes into a black hole," Liz Wessel, co-founder and CEO
of WayUp, a platform that connects college students and recent graduates with employers, tells
CNBC Make It .
WayUp attempts to increase transparency in hiring by helping companies source and screen
applicants, and by giving applicants feedback based on soft skills. They also let applicants
know if they have advanced to the next round of interviewing within 24 hours.
Wessel says that in addition to creating a better experience for applicants, WayUp's system
helps companies address bias during the resume-screening processes. Resumes are assessed for
hard skills up front, then each applicant participates in a phone screening before their
application is passed to an employer. This ensures that no qualified candidate is passed over
because their resume is different from the typical hire at an organization – something
that can happen in a company that uses computers instead of people to scan resumes .
"The companies we work with see twice as many minorities getting to offer letter," Wessel
said.
When you can safely assume that no news is bad news
First, if you do feel that you're being ghosted by a company after sending in a job
application, don't despair. No news could be good news, so don't assume right off the
bat that silence means you didn't get the job.
Hiring takes time, especially if you're applying for roles where multiple people could be
hired, which is common in entry-level positions. It's possible that an HR team is working
through hundreds or even thousands of resumes, and they might not have gotten to yours yet. It
is not unheard of to hear back about next steps months after submitting an initial
application.
If you don't like waiting, you have a few options. Some companies have application tracking
in their HR systems, so you can always check to see if the job you've applied for has that and
if there's been an update to the status of your application.
Otherwise, if you haven't heard anything, Wessel said that the only way to be sure that you
aren't still in the running for the job is to determine if the position has started. Some
companies will publish their calendar timelines for certain jobs and programs, so check that
information to see if your resume could still be in review.
"If that's the case and the deadline has passed," Wessel says, it's safe to say you didn't
get the job.
And finally, if you're still unclear on the status of your application, she says there's no
problem with emailing a recruiter and asking outright.
"... Somewhat foolishly he deepened the cleavage between himself and ordinary people by both his patrician predilections and the love of lecturing ..."
This is the question that I am often asked and will be asked in two days. So I decided to
write my answers down.
The argument why inequality should not matter is almost always couched in the following
way: if everybody is getting better-off, why should we care if somebody is becoming extremely
rich? Perhaps he deserves to be rich -- or whatever the case, even if he does not deserve, we
need not worry about his wealth. If we do that implies envy and other moral flaws. I have
dealt with the misplaced issue of envy here * (in response to points made by Martin
Feldstein) and here ** (in response to Harry Frankfurt), and do not want to repeat it. So,
let's leave envy out and focus on the reasons why we should be concerned about high
inequality.
The reasons can be formally broken down into three groups: instrumental reasons having to
do with economic growth, reasons of fairness, and reasons of politics.
The relationship between inequality and economic growth is one of the oldest relationships
studied by economists. A very strong presumption was that without high profits there will be
no growth, and high profits imply substantial inequality. We find this argument already in
Ricardo where profit is the engine of economic growth. We find it also in Keynes and
Schumpeter, and then in standard models of economic growth. We find it even in the Soviet
industrialization debates. To invest you have to have profits (that is, surplus above
subsistence); in a privately-owned economy it means that some people have to be wealthy
enough to save and invest, and in a state-directed economy, it means that the state should
take all the surplus.
But notice that throughout the argument is not one in favor of inequality as such. If it
were, we would not be concerned about the use of the surplus. The argument is about a
seemingly paradoxical behavior of the wealthy: they should be sufficiently rich but should
not use that money to live well and consume but to invest. This point is quite nicely, and
famously, made by Keynes in the opening paragraphs of his "The Economic Consequence of the
Peace". For us, it is sufficient to note that this is an argument in favor of inequality
provided wealth is not used for private pleasure.
The empirical work conducted in the past twenty years has failed to uncover a positive
relationship between inequality and growth. The data were not sufficiently good, especially
regarding inequality where the typical measure used was the Gini coefficient which is too
aggregate and inert to capture changes in the distribution; also the relationship itself may
vary in function of other variables, or the level of development. This has led economists to
a cul-de-sac and discouragement so much so that since the late 1990s and early 2000s such
empirical literature has almost ceased to be produced. It is reviewed in more detail in this
paper. ***
More recently, with much better data on income distribution, the argument that inequality
and growth are negatively correlated has gained ground. In a joint paper **** Roy van der
Weide and I show this using forty years of US micro data. With better data and somewhat more
sophisticated thinking about inequality, the argument becomes much more nuanced: inequality
may be good for future incomes of the rich (that is, they become even richer) but it may be
bad for future incomes of the poor (that is, they fall further behind). In this dynamic
framework, growth rate itself is no longer something homogeneous as indeed it is not in the
real life. When we say that the American economy is growing at 3% per year, it simply means
that the overall income increased at that rate, it tells us nothing about how much better
off, or worse off, individuals at different points of income distribution are getting.
Why would inequality have bad effect on the growth of the lower deciles of the
distribution as Roy and I find? Because it leads to low educational (and even health)
achievements among the poor who become excluded from meaningful jobs and from meaningful
contributions they could make to their own and society's improvement. Excluding a certain
group of people from good education, be it because of their insufficient income or gender or
race, can never be good for the economy, or at least it can never be preferable to their
inclusion.
High inequality which effectively debars some people from full participation translates
into an issue of fairness or justice. It does so because it affects inter-generational
mobility. People who are relatively poor (which is what high inequality means) are not able,
even if they are not poor in an absolute sense, to provide for their children a fraction of
benefits, from education and inheritance to social capital, that the rich provide to their
offspring. This implies that inequality tends to persist across generations which in turns
means that opportunities are vastly different for those at the top of the pyramid and those
on the bottom. We have the two factors joining forces here: on the one hand, the negative
effect of exclusion on growth that carries over generations (which is our instrumental reason
for not liking high inequality), and on the other, lack of equality of opportunity (which is
an issue of justice).
High inequality has also political effects. The rich have more political power and they
use that political power to promote own interests and to entrench their relative position in
the society. This means that all the negative effects due to exclusion and lack of equality
of opportunity are reinforced and made permanent (at least, until a big social earthquake
destroys them). In order to fight off the advent of such an earthquake, the rich must make
themselves safe and unassailable from "conquest". This leads to adversarial politics and
destroys social cohesion. Ironically, social instability which then results discourages
investments of the rich, that is it undermines the very action that was at the beginning
adduced as the key reason why high wealth and inequality may be socially desirable.
We therefore reach the end point where the unfolding of actions that were at the first
supposed to produce beneficent outcome destroys by its own logic the original rationale. We
have to go back to the beginning and instead of seeing high inequality as promoting
investments and growth, we begin to see it, over time, as producing exactly the opposite
effects: reducing investments and growth.
"he argument is about a seemingly paradoxical behavior of the wealthy: they should be
sufficiently rich but should not use that money to live well and consume but to invest."
I disagree on this. I do not care if they use the high income to invest or to live well,
as long as it is one or the other.
The one thing I do not want the rich to do is to become a drain of money out of active
circulation. The paradox of thrift. Excess saving by one dooms others into excess debt to
keep the economy liquid.
If you invent a new widget that everyone on earth simply must have, and is willing to give
you $1 per to get it, such that you have $7 billion a year income... good for you!
Now what do you deserve in return?
1) To consumer $7 billion worth of other peoples' production?
Or
2) To trap the rest of humanity in $7 billion a year worth of debt servitude, which will
have your income ever increase as interest is added to your income, a debt servitude from
which it will be mathematically impossible for them to escape since you hold the money that
they must get in order to repay their debts?
The choice of capitalists
to buy paper not products
Wealthy households are obscene
But not macro drags.
When they buy luxury products and personal services
When they buy existing stocks of land paintings and the like of course this is as bad as
buying paper.
But at least that portfolio shifting
Can CO exist with product purchases.
So long as each type of spending remains close to a stable ratio
In my "ideal" tax regimen, steeply progressive income taxes would be avoided by real property
spending or capital investment to get deductions.
This, of course, would lead to over-investment in land, buildings, houses, etc. WHICH is
why my regimen also includes a real property tax (in addition to state and local real estate
taxes). The income tax would not be "avoided" by real property purchases as much as
"delayed".
To avoid 90% income tax, buy diamonds, paintings, expensive autos... then only pay 5% per
year on the real property, spreading the the tax over 20 years. Buy land, buildings, houses,
etc., get hit with the 5%, plus the local real estate taxes.
It really depends on what is consumed. Consumption can lead to malinvestment. For instance,
buying 1960s ferraris does very little for the current economy. This is an exceptionally low
multiplier activity.
inequality have bad effect on the growth of the lower deciles of the distribution as Roy and
I
"
~~BM~
keep in mind that there are many directions of growth. there is growth that benefits the
workers, the rank-and-file. there is growth that benefits the excessively wealthy. but now,
finally there's a third type of growth, the kind of growth that destroys the planet, and
perhaps a 4th a new channel of growth that would help us to preserve the planet. we need to
think about some of these things.
One VERY important item is missing from that list - environmental sustainability - giving
people control over much more resources than they need is a waste of something precious.
Ted Turner owning millions of acres of land he's restoring to prairie sustained by bison,
prairie dogs, wolves, etc is bad?
I wish he had ten times as much land. Or more so a million bison were roaming the west and
supplying lots of bison steaks, hides, etc, as they did for thousands of years before about
1850.
First reflections on the French "événements de décembre"
Because I am suffering from insomnia (due to the jetlag) I decided to write down, in the
middle of the night, my two quick impressions regarding the recent events in France -- events
that watched from outside France seemed less dramatic than within.
I think they raise two important issues: one new, another "old".
It is indeed an accident that the straw that broke the camel's back was a tax on fuel that
affected especially hard rural and periurban areas, and people with relatively modest
incomes. It did so (I understand) not as much by the amount of the increase but by
reinforcing the feeling among many that after already paying the costs of globalization,
neoliberal policies, offshoring, competition with cheaper foreign labor, and deterioration of
social services, now, in addition, they are to pay also what is, in their view and perhaps
not entirely wrongly, seen as an elitist tax on climate change.
This raises a more general issue which I discussed in my polemic with Jason Hickel and
Kate Raworth. Proponents of degrowth and those who argue that we need to do something
dramatic regarding climate change are singularly coy and shy when it comes to pointing out
who is going to bear the costs of these changes. As I mentioned in this discussion with Jason
and Kate, if they were serious they should go out and tell Western audiences that their real
incomes should be cut in half and also explain them how that should be accomplished.
Degrowers obviously know that such a plan is a political suicide, so they prefer to keep
things vague and to cover up the issues under a "false communitarian" discourse that we are
all affected and that somehow the economy will thrive if we all just took full conscience of
the problem--without ever telling us what specific taxes they would like to raise or how they
plan to reduce people's incomes.
Now the French revolt brings this issue into the open. Many western middle classes,
buffeted already by the winds of globalization, seem unwilling to pay a climate change tax.
The degrowers should, I hope, now come up with concrete plans.
The second issue is "old". It is the issue of the cleavage between the political elites
and a significant part of the population. Macron rose on an essentially anti-mainstream
platform, his heterogenous party having been created barely before the elections. But his
policies have from the beginning been pro-rich, a sort of the latter-say Thatcherism. In
addition, they were very elitist, often disdainful of the public opinion. It is somewhat
bizarre that such "Jupiterian" presidency, by his own admission, would be lionized by the
liberal English-language press when his domestic policies were strongly pro-rich and thus not
dissimilar from Trump's. But because Macron's international rhetoric (mostly rhetoric) was
anti-Trumpist, he got a pass on his domestic policies.
Somewhat foolishly he deepened the cleavage between himself and ordinary people by both
his patrician predilections and the love of lecturing others which at times veered into the
absurd (as when he took several minutes to teach a 12-year old kid about the proper way to
address the President). At the time when more than ever Western "couches populaires" wanted
to have politicians that at least showed a modicum of empathy, Macron chose the very opposite
tack of berating people for their lack of success or failure to find jobs (for which they
apparently just needed to cross the road). He thus committed the same error that Hillary
Clinton commuted with her "deplorables" comment. It is no surprise that his approval ratings
have taken a dive, and, from what I understand, even they do not fully capture the extent of
the disdain into which he is held by many.
It is under such conditions that "les evenements" took place. The danger however is that
their further radicalization, and especially violence, undermines their original objectives.
One remembers that May 1968, after driving de Gaulle to run for cover to Baden-Baden, just a
few months later handed him one of the largest electoral victories -- because of
demonstrators' violence and mishandling of that great political opportunity.
"So, harvesting energy from the sun is unsustainable?"
No. I'm saying it is not scale-able.
How are you going to do it? Run diesel fuel powered tractors to dig pit mines to get
metals, to be smelted in fossil fuel powered refineries. Burn fossil fuels to heat sand into
glass. Use toxic solvents purify the glass and to electroplate toxic metals. Then incinerate
the solvents in fossil fuel powered furnaces.
That may get us to a 40% reduction in carbon, but it isn't getting us to 90%
reduction.
Even then, how are you going to get nitrogen fertilizers for farms? Currently we strip H2
from CH4 (natural gas), then mix with nitrogen in the air, apply electricity, poof, nitrogen
fertilizers, and LOTS of CO2. I have yet to see a proposal for large-scale farming that
offers a method of obtaining nitrogen fertilizers without CO2 emissions.
AND, there is still a massive problem of storing the electricity from when the wind is
blowing and sun is shining until times when it isn't.
"So, you are calling for global thermonuclears war to purge 6 billion people from the
planet?"
Nope.
"You clearly believe the solution is not paying workers to work, but to not pay them so
they must die."
I'm all about paying workers to work. I vehemently disagree with liberals when they breach
the idea of "universal basic income"... a great way to end up like the old Soviet Union,
where everyone has money, but waits in long lines to get into stores with nothing on the
shelves for sale.
"The population is too high to support hunter-gathers and subsistence farming for 7
billion people plus."
Correct.
"You have bought into Reagan's free lunch framing and argue less trash, less processing of
6trash to cut costs, so everyone must earn less so they consume less, ideally becoming
dead."
Not even close.
This is where Liberals pissed me off right after Trump won and was still talking "border
adjustment tax". The cry from the likes of Robert Reich was "oh noooo... prices will go up
and hurt the poor." Since when were progressives the "we need low prices" party? I thought we
were the ones that wanted higher prices, if those higher prices were caused by higher wages
to workers!
"I call for evveryone paying high living costs to pay more workers to eliminate the waste of
landfilling what was just mined from the land."
Not sure how that makes it magically possible to cut carbon emissions 90% though.
"... Neoliberalism's presence in higher education is making matters worse for students and the student debt crisis, not better. ..."
"... Cannan and Shumar (2008) focus their attention on resisting, transforming, and dismantling the neoliberal paradigm in higher education. They ask how can market-based reform serve as the solution to the problem neoliberal practices and policies have engineered? ..."
"... What got us to where we are (escalating tuition costs, declining state monies, and increasing neoliberal influence in higher education) cannot get us out of the SI.4 trillion problem. And yet this metaphor may, in fact, be more apropos than most of us on the right, left, or center are as yet seeing because we mistakenly assume the market we have is the only or best one possible. ..."
"... We only have to realize that the emperor has no clothes and reveal this reality. ..."
"... Indeed, the approach our money-dependent and money-driven legislators and policymakers have employed has been neoliberal in form and function, and it will continue to be so unless we help them to see the light or get out of the way. This book focuses on the $1.4+ trillion student debt crisis in the United States. It doesn't share hard and fast solutions per se. ..."
"... In 2011-2012, 50% of bachelor's degree recipients from for-profit institutions borrowed more than $40,000 and about 28% of associate degree recipients from for-profit institutions borrowed more than $30,000 (College Board, 2015a). ..."
Despite tthe fact that necoliberalism brings poor economic growth, inadequate availability
of jobs and career opportunities, and the concentration of economic and social rewards in the
hands of a privileged upper class resistance to it, espcially at universities, remain weak to
non-existant.
The first sign of high levels of dissatisfaction with neoliberalism was the election of
Trump (who, of course, betrayed all his elections promises, much like Obma before him). As a
result, the legitimation of neoliberalism based on references to the efficient
and effective functioning of the market (ideological legitimation) is
exhausted while wealth redistribution practices (material legitimation) are
not practiced and, in fact, considered unacceptable.
Despite these problems, resistance to neoliberalism remains weak.
Strategics and actions of opposition have been shifted from the sphere of
labor to that of the market creating a situation in which the idea of the
superiority and desirability of the market is shared by dominant and
oppositional groups alike. Even emancipatory movements such as women,
race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation have espoused individualistic,
competition-centered, and meritocratic views typical of ncolibcral dis-
courses. Moreover, corporate forces have colonized spaces and discourses
that have traditionally been employed by oppositional groups and move-
ments. However, as systemic instability' continues and capital accumulation
needs to be achieved, change is necessary. Given the weakness of opposi-
tion, this change is led by corporate forces that will continue to further
their interests but will also attempt to mitigate socio-economic contra-
dictions. The unavailability of ideological mechanisms to legitimize
ncolibcral arrangements will motivate dominant social actors to make
marginal concessions (material legitimation) to subordinate groups. These
changes, however, will not alter the corporate co-optation and distortion of
discourses that historically defined left-leaning opposition. As contradic-
tions continue, however, their unsustainability will represent a real, albeit
difficult, possibility for anti-neoliberal aggregation and substantive change.
Connolly (2016) reported that a poll shows that some graduated student loan borrowers
would willingly go to extremes to pay off outstanding student debt. Those extremes include
experiencing physical pain and suffering and even a reduced lifespan. For instance, 35% of
those polled would take one year off life expectancy and 6.5% would willingly cut off their
pinky finger if it meant ridding themselves of the student loan debt they currently held.
Neoliberalism's presence in higher education is making matters worse for students and
the student debt crisis, not better. In their book Structure and Agency in the
Neoliberal University, Cannan and Shumar (2008) focus their attention on resisting,
transforming, and dismantling the neoliberal paradigm in higher education. They ask how can
market-based reform serve as the solution to the problem neoliberal practices and policies
have engineered?
It is like an individual who loses his keys at night and who decides to look only beneath
the street light. This may be convenient because there is light, but it might not be where
the keys are located. This metaphorical example could relate to the student debt crisis.
What got us to where we are (escalating tuition costs, declining state monies, and
increasing neoliberal influence in higher education) cannot get us out of the SI.4 trillion
problem. And yet this metaphor may, in fact, be more apropos than most of us on the right,
left, or center are as yet seeing because we mistakenly assume the market we have is the only
or best one possible.
As Lucille (this volume) strives to expose, the systemic cause of our problem is "hidden
in plain sight," right there in the street light for all who look carefully enough to see.
We only have to realize that the emperor has no clothes and reveal this reality. If
and when a critical mass of us do, systemic change in our monetary exchange relations can
and, we hope, will become our funnel toward a sustainable and socially, economically, and
ecologically just future where public education and democracy can finally become realities
rather than merely ideals.
Indeed, the approach our money-dependent and money-driven legislators and policymakers
have employed has been neoliberal in form and function, and it will continue to be so unless
we help them to see the light or get out of the way. This book focuses on the $1.4+ trillion
student debt crisis in the United States. It doesn't share hard and fast solutions per
se. Rather, it addresses real questions (and their real consequences). Are collegians
overestimating the economic value of going to college?
What are we, they, and our so-called elected leaders failing or refusing to sec and why?
This critically minded, soul-searching volume shares territory with, yet pushes beyond, that
of Akers and Chingos (2016), Baum (2016), Goldrick-Rab (2016), Graebcr (2011), and Johannscn
(2016) in ways that we trust those critically minded authors -- and others concerned with our
mess of debts, public and private, and unfulfilled human potential -- will find enlightening
and even ground-breaking.
... ... ...
In the meantime, college costs have significantly increased over the past fifty years. The
average cost of tuition and fees (excluding room and board) for public four-year institutions
for a full year has increased from 52,387 (in 2015 dollars) for the 1975-1976 academic year,
to 59,410 for 2015-2016. The tuition for public two-year colleges averaged $1,079 in
1975-1976 (in 2015 dollars) and increased to $3,435 for 2015-2016. At private non-profit
four-year institutions, the average 1975-1976 cost of tuition and fees (excluding room and
board) was $10,088 (in 2015 dollars), which increased to $32,405 for 2015-2016 (College
Board, 2015b).
The purchasing power of Pell Grants has decreased. In fact, the maximum Pell Grants
coverage of public four-year tuition and fees decreased from 83% in 1995-1996 to 61% in
2015-2016. The maximum Pell Grants coverage of private non-profit four-year tuition and fees
decreased from 19% in 1995-1996 to 18% in 2015-2016 (College Board, 2015a).
... ... ....
... In 2013-2014, 61% of bachelor's degree recipients from public and private non-profit
four-year institutions graduated with an average debt of $16,300 per graduate. In
2011-2012, 50% of bachelor's degree recipients from for-profit institutions borrowed more
than $40,000 and about 28% of associate degree recipients from for-profit institutions
borrowed more than $30,000 (College Board, 2015a).
Rising student debt has become a key issue of higher education finance among many
policymakers and researchers. Recently, the government has implemented a series of measures
to address student debt. In 2005, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act
(2005) was passed, which barred the discharge of all student loans through bankruptcy for
most borrowers (Collinge, 2009). This was the final nail in the bankruptcy coffin, which had
begun in 1976 with a five-year ban on student loan debt (SLD) bankruptcy and was extended to
seven years in 1990. Then in 1998, it became a permanent ban for all who could not clear a
relatively high bar of undue hardship (Best 6c Best, 2014).
By 2006, Sallie Mae had become the nation's largest private student loan lender, reporting
loan holdings of $123 billion. Its fee income collected from defaulted loans grew from $280
million in 2000 to $920 million in 2005 (Collinge, 2009). In 2007, in response to growing
student default rates, the College Cost Reduction Act was passed to provide loan forgiveness
for student loan borrowers who work full-time in a public service job. The Federal Direct
Loan will be forgiven after 120 payments were made. This Act also provided other benefits for
students to pay for their postsecondary education, such as lowering interest rates of GSL,
increasing the maximum amount of Pell Grant (though, as noted above, not sufficiently to meet
rising tuition rates), as well as reducing guarantor collection fees (Collinge, 2009).
In 2008, the Higher Education Opportunity Act (2008) was passed to increase transparency
and accountability. This Act required institutions that are participating in federal
financial aid programs to post a college price calculator on their websites in order to
provide better college cost information for students and families (U.S. Department of
Education |U.S. DoE|, 2015a). Due to the recession of 2008, the American Opportunity Tax
Credit of 2009 (AOTC) was passed to expand the Hope Tax Credit program, in which the amount
of tax credit increased to 100% for the first $2,000 of qualified educational expenses and
was reduced to 25% of the second $2,000 in college expenses. The total credit cap increased
from $1,500 to $2,500 per student. As a result, the federal spending on education tax
benefits had a large increase since then (Crandall-Hollick, 2014), benefits that, again, are
reaped only by those who file income taxes.
Creation of docility is what neoliberal education is about. Too specialized slots, as if people can't learn something new. Look
at requirements for the jobs at monster or elsewhere: they are so specific that only people with previous exactly same job expertise
can apply. Especially oputragious are requernets posted by requetng firm. There is something really Orvallian in them. That puts people
into medieval "slots" from which it is difficult to escape.
I saw recently the following requirements for a sysadmin job: "Working knowledge of: Perl, JavaScript, PowerShell, BASH Script,
XML, NodeJS, Python, Git, Cloud Technologies: ( AWS, Azure, GCP), Microsoft Active Directory, LDAP, SQL Server, Structured Query
Language (SQL), HTML, Windows OS, RedHat(Linux), SaltStack, Some experience in Application Quality Testing."
When I see such job posting i think that this is just a covert for H1B hire: there is no such person on the planet
who has "working knowledge" of all those (mostly pretty complex) technologies. It is clearly designed to block potential
candidates from applying.
Neoliberalism looks like a cancer for the society... Unable to provide meaningful employment for people. Or at least look surprisingly close to one. Malignant growth.
Add one -- a BIG ONE–to your list: The utter destruction of the K-12 classroom learning environment: students spend the vast
majority of their time trying to surreptitiously–or blatantly–use their cellphones in class; and if not actually using them, they
are preoccupied with the thought of using them. It has been going on for almost a decade now, and we will start to see the results
in that we will have a population where nobody can do anything that requires focus; it will be as if the entire upcoming population
of college students has ADHD.
Well Lee, you have a clue; but fail the really big picture regarding the abject failure of western education (which is a misnomer).
John Taylor Gatto's book, The Underground History of American Education, lays out the sad fact of "western education"; which has
nothing to do with education; but rather, an indoctrination for inclusion in society as a passive participant.
Docility is paramount in members of U.S. society so as to maintain the status quo; working according to plan, near as I can tell
File system Administration (VERTIAS File system/ VERITAS Cluster FS/ext3/ext4)
Troubleshooting the OS performance related issues
Providing the production support, maintenance, administration & Implementation
Upgrading the System/HBA ´s firmware
Nice To Have
Oracle Virtualization Manager (LDOM)/L2 Linux Administration Skills
Administration of Solaris Zones/Containers
EMC power path software Administration
Administering the VERITAS Cluster
AIX Server Administration
Knowledge / work experience in IBM PowerHA / HMC / LPAR and VIOs
Mandatory Functional Skills
IT-IS Linux Administrator with Puppet Skillset
Veritas Volume Manager, Veritas Cluster
Solaris Administration (L2/L3), Solaris Zones/Containers
AIX Administration with PowerHA knowledge
Total Experience Required
5 to 7 Plus years of experience in Linux Administration with indepth knowledge in Puppet
Unix Midrange Engineer at ACE Insured, Whitehouse Station, NJPosition Summary: rd level support of Chubb's UNIX,
storage, and backup and recovery systems.
As long as RICO statute is not applied to big banks that current situation will continue.
And under neoliberalism it will be never be applied. Universities will continue helping big banks to recruit
new talent. Like in poor neibophood gang leaders recruit street fighter.
Notable quotes:
"... The students not only continue to flock to the amorality skills courses, but also put themselves into mega-debt by student loans to turn themselves not just imaginatively and ethically over to the corporate idolatries, but also to do another double whammy on themselves. ..."
People don't "meekly allow these crimes," Neo. Americans hugely endorse them.
The students not only continue to flock to the amorality skills courses, but also put
themselves into mega-debt by student loans to turn themselves not just imaginatively and
ethically over to the corporate idolatries, but also to do another double whammy on
themselves. They accept the servitude of massive student loan debt, and ensure by
prolonged interest payments on that debt to keep bloating all the most cynically immoral of
high finance.
And then all the other departments of corporate academe have seen how smoothly work the
most rank of corporate habits to ensure most mediocrity for most rank careerisms -- and all
have only increased departmentalism protocols over recent years. Tenure now means nothing
more than max award for most-narrowed specialist minds and for all most-max conformists in
all those niched fields.
Nuthin' "meek" about all this, Neo. The corporate disease, the cubicle culture, the
deference to plutocracy, the reduced literacy, the tracking to numbers -- all has been only
steroided since Citizens United quite flagrantly legally underlined what most genteel in corporate ed have been doing for
years.
willymack > kyushuphil • 6 years ago
Well said, and sadly, TRUE.
zonmoy > kyushuphil • 6 years ago
and how have students been pushed into those programs and the problems pushed on them by the corporate crooks that own
everything including our government.
Sexual harassment in academic contexts
Sexual harassment of women in academic settings is regrettably common and pervasive, and its
consequences are grave. At the same time, it is a remarkably difficult problem to solve. The
"me-too" movement has shed welcome light on specific individual offenders and has generated
more awareness of some aspects of the problem of sexual harassment and misconduct. But we have
not yet come to a public awareness of the changes needed to create a genuinely inclusive and
non-harassing environment for women across the spectrum of mistreatment that has been
documented. The most common institutional response following an incident is to create a program
of training and reporting, with a public commitment to investigating complaints and enforcing
university or institutional policies rigorously and transparently. These efforts are often well
intentioned, but by themselves they are insufficient. They do not address the underlying
institutional and cultural features that make sexual harassment so prevalent.
The problem of sexual harassment in institutional contexts is a difficult one because it
derives from multiple features of the organization. The ambient culture of the organization is
often an important facilitator of harassing behavior -- often enough a patriarchal culture that
is deferential to the status of higher-powered individuals at the expense of lower-powered
targets. There is the fact that executive leadership in many institutions continues to be
predominantly male, who bring with them a set of gendered assumptions that they often fail to
recognize. The hierarchical nature of the power relations of an academic institution is
conducive to mistreatment of many kinds, including sexual harassment. Bosses to administrative
assistants, research directors to post-docs, thesis advisors to PhD candidates -- these unequal
relations of power create a conducive environment for sexual harassment in many varieties. In
each case the superior actor has enormous power and influence over the career prospects and
work lives of the women over whom they exercise power. And then there are the habits of
behavior that individuals bring to the workplace and the learning environment -- sometimes
habits of masculine entitlement, sometimes disdainful attitudes towards female scholars or
scientists, sometimes an underlying willingness to bully others that finds expression in an
academic environment. (A recent issue of the Journal of Social Issues ( link ) devotes
substantial research to the topic of toxic leadership in the tech sector and the "masculinity
contest culture" that this group of researchers finds to be a root cause of the toxicity this
sector displays for women professionals. Research by Jennifer Berdahl, Peter Glick, Natalya
Alonso, and more than a dozen other scholars provides in-depth analysis of this common feature
of work environments.)
The scope and urgency of the problem of sexual harassment in academic contexts is documented
in excellent and expert detail in a recent study report by the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine (
link ). This report deserves prominent discussion at every university.
The study documents the frequency of sexual harassment in academic and scientific research
contexts, and the data are sobering. Here are the results of two indicative studies at Penn
State University System and the University of Texas System:
The Penn State survey indicates that 43.4% of undergraduates, 58.9% of graduate students,
and 72.8% of medical students have experienced gender harassment, while 5.1% of undergraduates,
6.0% of graduate students, and 5.7% of medical students report having experienced unwanted
sexual attention and sexual coercion. These are staggering results, both in terms of the
absolute number of students who were affected and the negative effects that these experiences
had on their ability to fulfill their educational potential. The University of Texas study
shows a similar pattern, but also permits us to see meaningful differences across fields of
study. Engineering and medicine provide significantly more harmful environments for female
students than non-STEM and science disciplines. The authors make a particularly worrisome
observation about medicine in this context:
The interviews conducted by RTI International revealed that unique settings such as medical
residencies were described as breeding grounds for abusive behavior by superiors. Respondents
expressed that this was largely because at this stage of the medical career, expectation of
this behavior was widely accepted. The expectations of abusive, grueling conditions in
training settings caused several respondents to view sexual harassment as a part of the
continuum of what they were expected to endure. (63-64)
The report also does an excellent job of defining the scope of sexual harassment.
Media discussion of sexual harassment and misconduct focuses primarily on egregious acts of
sexual coercion. However, the authors of the NAS study note that experts currently encompass
sexual coercion, unwanted sexual attention, and gender harassment under this category of
harmful interpersonal behavior. The largest sub-category is gender harassment:
"a broad range of verbal and nonverbal behaviors not aimed at sexual cooperation but that
convey insulting, hostile, and degrading attitudes about" members of one gender ( Fitzgerald,
Gelfand, and Drasgow 1995 , 430). (25)
The "iceberg" diagram (p. 32) captures the range of behaviors encompassed by the
concept of sexual harassment. (See Leskinen, Cortina, and Kabat 2011 for
extensive discussion of the varieties of sexual harassment and the harms associated with gender
harassment.)
The report emphasizes organizational features as a root cause of a harassment-friendly
environment.
By far, the greatest predictors of the occurrence of sexual harassment are organizational.
Individual-level factors (e.g., sexist attitudes, beliefs that rationalize or justify
harassment, etc.) that might make someone decide to harass a work colleague, student, or peer
are surely important. However, a person that has proclivities for sexual harassment will have
those behaviors greatly inhibited when exposed to role models who behave in a professional
way as compared with role models who behave in a harassing way, or when in an environment
that does not support harassing behaviors and/or has strong consequences for these behaviors.
Thus, this section considers some of the organizational and environmental variables that
increase the risk of sexual harassment perpetration. (46)
Some of the organizational factors that they refer to include the extreme gender
imbalance that exists in many professional work environments, the perceived absence of
organizational sanctions for harassing behavior, work environments where sexist views and
sexually harassing behavior are modeled, and power differentials (47-49). The authors make the
point that gender harassment is chiefly aimed at indicating disrespect towards the target
rather than sexual exploitation. This has an important implication for institutional change. An
institution that creates a strong core set of values emphasizing civility and respect is less
conducive to gender harassment. They summarize this analysis in the statement of findings as
well:
Organizational climate is, by far, the greatest predictor of the occurrence of sexual
harassment, and ameliorating it can prevent people from sexually harassing others. A
person more likely to engage in harassing behaviors is significantly less likely to do so in
an environment that does not support harassing behaviors and/or has strong, clear,
transparent consequences for these behaviors. (50)
So what can a university or research institution do to reduce and eliminate the
likelihood of sexual harassment for women within the institution? Several remedies seem fairly
obvious, though difficult.
Establish a pervasive expectation of civility and respect in the workplace and the
learning environment
Diffuse the concentrations of power that give potential harassers the opportunity to
harass women within their domains
Ensure that the institution honors its values by refusing the "star culture" common in
universities that makes high-prestige university members untouchable
Be vigilant and transparent about the processes of investigation and adjudication through
which complaints are considered
Create effective processes that ensure that complainants do not suffer retaliation
Consider candidates' receptivity to the values of a respectful, civil, and non-harassing
environment during the hiring and appointment process (including research directors,
department and program chairs, and other positions of authority)
Address the gender imbalance that may exist in leadership circles
As the authors put the point in the final chapter of the report:
Preventing and effectively addressing sexual harassment of women in colleges and
universities is a significant challenge, but we are optimistic that academic institutions can
meet that challenge--if they demonstrate the will to do so. This is because the research
shows what will work to prevent sexual harassment and why it will work. A systemwide change
to the culture and climate in our nation's colleges and universities can stop the pattern of
harassing behavior from impacting the next generation of women entering science, engineering,
and medicine. (169)
"... They are from the social sciences like Political Science or International Relations which are empty of real content. ..."
"... They throw in sometimes some "game theory" to give that an aura of "science", but most of it is BS. ..."
"... Tucker Carlson is the only media individual left that is brave enough to state the truth. So by implication the United States has zero democracy when it comes to our foreign policy. ..."
Being on the affected side as a historian please let me add, that the students' majority studies microhistory, family, company,
or even family members' personal events that is, which adds very little to our understanding of the world. It is overly and openly
supported currently in most universities for a number of reasons.
This is why obviously ideologically biased works about major correspondences such as Piketty's or Niall Ferguson's, not to
mention that young Israeli guy (Yair??) has so much effect. Because basically they are the only ones, or at least the ones with
the chance to publish, who take the great effort of choosing the harder way and making the necessary research. There are too few
willing to take the harder path.
Scientification, or should I say natural scientification of social sciences also does not help, because it promotes the 'publish
or perish' principle. But social sciences aren't like natural sciences, where X hours in a laboratory or experimenting yields
surely X or X/2 publications.
And on the top of that Marxist thinkers and intelligentsia, cast away from all meaningful positions to universities in the
50's and 60's fearing a communist influence have completely overtaken the higher education in the Western Hemisphere. In the Eastern
European countries they managed to keep their positions.
To sum it up while most of your criticism is valid, international relations e.g. has its merit, but are taught mostly by neoliberals
and Marxists, with the known results.
They are from the social sciences like Political Science or International Relations which are empty of real content.
Fully concur. They throw in sometimes some "game theory" to give that an aura of "science", but most of it is BS.
If, just
in case, I am misconstrued as fighting humanities field--I am not fighting it. Literature, language, history are essential for
a truly cultured human. When I speak about "humanities" I personally mean namely Political "Science".
Sir, I stand corrected on the humanities into govt assertion. I do tend to get humanities and social sciences jumbled in my numbers/cost/benefit
based thinking. I am open to people telling me how to do tasks that they have more experience performing and that I might need
to know about. And I have curiosities about people's experiences and perspectives on how the world of men works, but I'm not so
concerned about the world of men that I lose my integrity or soul or generally get sucked into their reality over my own. Of course
that's just me. Someone like Trump seeks approval and high rank amongst men. So, yes, I guess he is susceptible; though I still
think somewhat less than others. This is evident in how he refuses to follow the conventions and expectations of what a president
should look and act like. He is a defiant sort. I like that about him. Of course needing to be defiant is still a need and therefore
a chink in his armor.
I agree with you and I believe their influence has deepen over the two years. The only pro neocon policy he ran on was regime
change in Iran. Terrible idea no doubt. The vote was either potential regime change in Iran or a dangerous escalation with Russia
in Syria. I voted for more time. He seemed to have some sense on Syria and Russia at the time. Of course Clinton was promising
Apocalypse Now. You've stated the Neocon's have insinuated themselves into both parties. R2P and such. They basically control
the foreign policy of both parties due to control by donors, organizational control of DNC, RNC, the moronic narrative, think
tanks, media, probably security services, etc.
Tucker Carlson is the only media individual left that is brave enough to state
the truth. So by implication the United States has zero democracy when it comes to our foreign policy. As far as I can tell the
United States policy toward Russia continues toward escalation. Two current examples being the absurd Mueller "investigation"
into collusion and the Ukraine provocation in the Sea of Azov. Are we heading into the last war?
Engineer here, "worked" on myself and not even by very skilled people. Manipulative people are hard to counteract, if you're not
manipulative yourself the thought process is not intuitive. If you spend most of your life solving problems, you think its everyone's
goal. As I've gotten older I've only solidified my impression that as far as working and living outside of school, the best "education"
to have would be history. Preferably far enough back or away to limit any cultural biases. I'm not sure that college classes would
fill the gap though.
I'll pitch in with a suggestion for those who are for whatever reason not fond of reading: An old history education series called
The Western Tradition. Eugene Weber. A shrewd old guy who was interested in motivations which drove our history and culture. Will
get your kids solid A's in history if nothing else, if you can get them hooked on it. Insightful narrative as opposed to dry facts
helps retention. There are much worse starting points.
Moreover, the most of books which I believe constitute a canon of sorts are mentioned and points made in them brought to bear.
Leviathan, The Prince, Erasmus, how they affected general thought, which makes the viewer want to read them.
Re-reading TE Lawrence at the moment. What to watch a "pro" work? Scary good, he was.
To this day, my favorite college course was "The Century of Darwin" taught by Dr. Brown in the history department of RPI in 1973.
Dr. Brown was a bespectacled, white haired little man who looked like everyone's idea of a history professor. The course examined
the history of scientific discovery, evolving and competing religious and scientific ideas leading up to the general acceptance
of Darwin's works. It was a history of everything course, an intellectually exhilarating experience. I still have the textbooks.
I heartedly recommend those books.
"Darwin's Century" by Loren Eiseley came out in 1958 and was reprinted in 2009 with a new forward
by Stephan Bertman. "The Death of Adam" by John Green first came out in 1960 and was reprinted in 1981. "Genesis and Geology"
by Charles C. Gillespie came out in 1951. My paperback edition was published in 1973 and cost $2.45 new.
Colonel - Boswell's life of Johnson. A giant of a man seen through the eyes of a clever and observant pygmy. And they both know
it.
That makes it an odd book, that interplay between the two. It's also the ultimate in tourism. One is dumped in the middle of
eighteenth century London and very soon it becomes a second home.
For a long time that's all I got out of the book. Johnson himself emerges only slowly. A true intellectual giant with a flawless
acuity of perception, an elephantine memory, and the gift of turning out the perfect exposition, whether a long argument or one
of his famous pithy comments, is the starting point only.
As a person he can easily be read as a slovenly bully, at one time even as an unapologetic hired gun turning out the propaganda
of the day. He was subject to long fits of depression alternating with periods of great industry. As he got older the industry
fell away and he spent much of his time in the coffee house. It was there, often, that Boswell gathered up the materials - a fragment
here, a disquisition there - that allow us to see through to Johnson's outlook.
It was an outlook, or one could call it a philosophy of life, that could not be more needed at this time of frantic and one
sided ideological war.
It was no tidily worked-up outlook. Intensely patriotic yet ever conscious of the failings of his country. Honorable yet accepting
that he lived at a time of great corruption. Loyal yet always yearning after an older dispensation. Robust common sense but fully
recognizing the Transcendent. Narrowly prejudiced yet open to other cultures, recognizing their equal validity and worth while
remaining rooted in his own.
It's an outlook that today would be despised by many because, as far as I can tell, he had no ideology, no millenarian solution
into which all problems can be jammed. Merely a broad and humane normality and a recognition that, ultimately, each pilgrim must
find his own way.
Studying history is very important for your formation as a personality...
Notable quotes:
"... He evidently learned about balance sheets at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania and wishes to apply the principle of the bottom line to everything. I will guess that he resisted taking elective courses in the Humanities as much as he could believing them to be useless. That is unfortunate since such courses tend to provide context for present day decisions. ..."
"... I have known several very rich businessmen of similar type who sent their children to business school with exactly that instruction with regard to literature, history, philosophy, etc. From an espionage case officer's perspective he is an easy mark. If you are regular contact with him all that is needed to recruit him is to convince him that you believe in the "genius" manifested in his mighty ego and swaggering bluster and then slowly feed him what you want him to "know." ..."
"... The number of folks who will pay the price for this are legion in comparison. His accomplices and "advisers" as you intone, will be deemed worthy of a Nuremburg of sorts when viewed in posterity. "Character must under grid talent or talent will cave in." His gut stove pipes him as a leader. I love and respect my dog. He follows his gut, because that is his end-state. It's honest. I will mourn the passing of one and and already rue the day the other was born. ..."
"... He survived as a New York City Boss. He has the same problem as Ronald Reagan. He believes the con. In reality, since the restoration of classical economics, sovereign states are secondary to corporate plutocrats. Yes, he is saluted. He has his finger on the red button. But, he is told what they want them to hear. There are no realists within a 1000 yards of him. The one sure thing is there will be a future disaster be it climate change, economic collapse or a world war. He is not prepared for it. ..."
"... There are other forces that are effective in addition to plutocrats and they are mostly bad. ..."
"... Falling under the sway of those who know the price of everything, but the value of nothing is an unenviable estate. The concentrated wisdom discoverable through a clear-eyed study of the humanities can serve as a corrective, and if one is lucky, as a prophylaxis against thinking of this type. ..."
"... A lot of people come out of humanities programs and into govt with all kinds of dopey notions; like R2P, globalism, open borders, etc. ..."
"... He is in thrall to the Israelis, their allies, the neocons, political donors and the popular media. An easy mark for skilled operators. ..."
"... Engineer here, "worked" on myself and not even by very skilled people. Manipulative people are hard to counteract, if you're not manipulative yourself the thought process is not intuitive. If you spend most of your life solving problems, you think its everyone's goal. As I've gotten older I've only solidified my impression that as far as working and living outside of school, the best "education" to have would be history. Preferably far enough back or away to limit any cultural biases. I'm not sure that college classes would fill the gap though. ..."
"... Read widely. start with something encyclopedic like Will and Ariel Durant's "The Story of Civilization." ..."
"... How about William H. McNeill's Rise of the West. ..."
"... Unlike your brother a good recruiting case officer would never ignore you except maybe at the beginning as a tease. That also works with women that you want personally. ..."
Yes. Trump says that is how he "rolls." The indicators that this is true are everywhere. He does not believe what the "swampies"
tell him. He listens to the State Department, the CIA, DoD, etc. and then acts on ill informed instinct and information provided
by; lobbies, political donors, foreign embassies, and his personal impressions of people who have every reason to want to deceive
him. As I wrote earlier he sees the world through an entrepreneurial hustler's lens.
He crudely assigns absolute dollar values to
policy outcomes and actions which rarely have little to do with the actual world even if they might have related opposed to the arena
of contract negotiations.
He evidently learned about balance sheets at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania
and wishes to apply the principle of the bottom line to everything. I will guess that he resisted taking elective courses in the
Humanities as much as he could believing them to be useless. That is unfortunate since such courses tend to provide context for present
day decisions.
I have known several very rich businessmen of similar type who sent their children to business school with exactly
that instruction with regard to literature, history, philosophy, etc. From an espionage case officer's perspective he is an easy
mark. If you are regular contact with him all that is needed to recruit him is to convince him that you believe in the "genius" manifested
in his mighty ego and swaggering bluster and then slowly feed him what you want him to "know."
That does not mean that he has been
recruited by someone or something but the vulnerability is evident. IMO the mistake he has made in surrounding himself with neocons
and other special pleaders, people like Pompeo and Bolton is evidence that he is very controllable by the clever and subtle. pl
I have an aged wire haired Jack Russel Terrier. He is well past his time. He is almost blind, and is surely deaf. In his earlier
days he was a force of nature. He still is now, but only in the context of food. He is still obsessed with it at every turn. Food
is now his reality and he will not be sidetracked or otherwise distracted by any other stimuli beyond relieving himself when and
where he sees fit. He lives by his gut feeling and damn everything else. There is no reason, no other calculus for him. Trump's
trusting his "gut" is just about as simplistic and equally myopic. My dog is not a tragedy, he shoulders no burden for others
and when he gets to the point of soiling himself or is in pain, he will be held in my arms and wept over for the gift he has been
when the needle pierces his hide. Trump, well, he is a tragedy. He does shoulder a responsibility to millions and millions and
for those to follow after he is long dead and gone. His willful ignorance in the face of reason and science reminds me of the
lieutenant colonel of 2/7 Cav. you spoke of at LZ Buttons.
The number of folks who will pay the price for this are legion in comparison.
His accomplices and "advisers" as you intone, will be deemed worthy of a Nuremburg of sorts when viewed in posterity. "Character
must under grid talent or talent will cave in." His gut stove pipes him as a leader. I love and respect my dog. He follows his
gut, because that is his end-state. It's honest. I will mourn the passing of one and and already rue the day the other was born.
Just after I looked at this post I went to Twitter and this came up. I don't know how long it's been since Jeremy Young was in
grad school but a 35% decline drop in History dissertations is shocking even if it's over a span of 3-4 decades.
View
Hide
Yes. It's either STEM or Social Sciences these days and that is almost as bad as Journalism or Communications Arts. Most media
people are Journalism dummies.
He survived as a New York City Boss. He has the same problem as Ronald Reagan. He believes the con. In reality, since the restoration
of classical economics, sovereign states are secondary to corporate plutocrats. Yes, he is saluted. He has his finger on the red
button. But, he is told what they want them to hear. There are no realists within a 1000 yards of him. The one sure thing is there
will be a future disaster be it climate change, economic collapse or a world war. He is not prepared for it.
Falling under the sway of those who know the price of everything, but the value of nothing is an unenviable estate. The concentrated
wisdom discoverable through a clear-eyed study of the humanities can serve as a corrective, and if one is lucky, as a prophylaxis
against thinking of this type.
I am commending study of the humanities as historically understood, not the "humanities" of
contemporary academia, which is little better than atheistic materialism of the Marxist variety, out of which any place for the
genuinely spiritual has been systematically extirpated in favor of the imposition of some sort of sentimentalism as an ersatz
substitute.
My response to flattery, even if subtle, is, "Yeah? Gee thanks. Now please just tell me what you're really after". I'd think any
experienced man should have arrived at the same reaction at least by the time he's 35. Ditto trusting anyone in an atmosphere
where power and money are there for the taking by the ambitious and clever. As for a balance sheet approach, IMO, there is a real
need for that kind of thinking in govt. Perhaps a happy mix of it + a humanities based perspective.
A lot of people come out of
humanities programs and into govt with all kinds of dopey notions; like R2P, globalism, open borders, etc.
That is what the smart guys all say before really skilled people work on them. Eventually they ask you to tell them what is real.
The Humanities thing stung? I remember the engineer students mocking me at VMI over this.
They are from the social sciences like Political Science or International Relations which are empty of real content.
Fully concur. They throw in sometimes some "game theory" to give that an aura of "science", but most of it is BS. If, just
in case, I am misconstrued as fighting humanities field--I am not fighting it. Literature, language, history are essential for
a truly cultured human. When I speak about "humanities" I personally mean namely Political "Science".
As I wrote earlier the Issue in those Courses is they are actually pure and concentrated Fields...... Political Science, International
Relations are ambigious enough that a candidate can appeal to many Sectors and it is accepted, expected they will be competent....
Whether that be Governance/Diplomacy, Business, Travel etc...
Thus if you have no Idea what you want - those Fields are good to study, learning relatively little.....
If you know what you want - you have a Path.... You can study more concentrated Fields, but you damn well have to hope there
is a Job at the end of the Rainbow (Known at least a couple People who studied only to be told almost immediately - you will not
find Jobs domestically)
Sir, I stand corrected on the humanities into govt assertion. I do tend to get humanities and social sciences jumbled in my numbers/cost/benefit
based thinking. I am open to people telling me how to do tasks that they have more experience performing and that I might need
to know about. And I have curiosities about people's experiences and perspectives on how the world of men works, but I'm not so
concerned about the world of men that I lose my integrity or soul or generally get sucked into their reality over my own. Of course
that's just me. Someone like Trump seeks approval and high rank amongst men. So, yes, I guess he is susceptible; though I still
think somewhat less than others. This is evident in how he refuses to follow the conventions and expectations of what a president
should look and act like. He is a defiant sort. I like that about him. Of course needing to be defiant is still a need and therefore
a chink in his armor.
Engineer here, "worked" on myself and not even by very skilled people. Manipulative people are hard to counteract, if you're
not manipulative yourself the thought process is not intuitive. If you spend most of your life solving problems, you think its
everyone's goal. As I've gotten older I've only solidified my impression that as far as working and living outside of school,
the best "education" to have would be history. Preferably far enough back or away to limit any cultural biases. I'm not sure that
college classes would fill the gap though.
Any advice to help the "marks" out there?
I started developing my BS filter when I recognized that when my older brother was being nice, he wanted something. His normal
approach was to ignore me.
Unlike your brother a good recruiting case officer would never ignore you except maybe at the beginning as a tease. That also
works with women that you want personally.
"... Student loans. Now there's a naked fleecing scam by the moneychangers. High interest, zero risk, no forgiveness. A great racket if you can get it, like Medical Insurance, profiteering guaranteed by Obamacare. ..."
Wonder the same about bankruptcy. IIRC, think the moneychangers' bankruptcy "reform" under
the Bush II regime turned it into a virtual debtors' prison, excluding several kinds of debt
from discharge, including student loans.
Student loans. Now there's a naked fleecing scam by the moneychangers. High interest,
zero risk, no forgiveness. A great racket if you can get it, like Medical Insurance,
profiteering guaranteed by Obamacare.
Hudson perceives things that should be but aren't obvious -- about money, power, and
freedom. The love of money may be the root of all evil, but it's ultimately a weapon wielded
in an insatiable lust for power, absolute, utterly corrupt power, the ownership and
enslavement of others. Inequality is not a flaw of rigged-market cannibalism; it's a feature,
a feature those at the top of the food chain have no intention of "fixing". The US empire,
imo, is the nadir of this evil, a kleptocracy dependent on perpetual mass-murder. The paradox
is, they may be more enslaved to their narcotic than anyone.
"Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose." Janis Joplin
Last week, Iran's chief of civil defense claimed that the Iranian government had
fought off Israeli attempts to infect computer systems with what he described as a new
version of Stuxnet -- the malware reportedly developed jointly by the US and Israel that
targeted Iran's uranium-enrichment program. Gholamreza Jalali, chief of the National Passive
Defense Organization (NPDO), told Iran's IRNA news service, "Recently, we discovered a new
generation of Stuxnet which consisted of several parts... and was trying to enter our
systems."
On November 5, Iran Telecommunications Minister Mohammad-Javad Azari Jahromi accused Israel
of being behind the attack, and he said that the malware was intended to "harm the country's
communication infrastructures." Jahromi praised "technical teams" for shutting down the attack,
saying that the attackers "returned empty-handed." A report from Iran's Tasnim news agency
quoted Deputy Telecommunications Minister Hamid Fattahi as stating that more details of the
cyber attacks would be made public soon.
Jahromi said that Iran would sue Israel over the attack through the International Court of
Justice. The Iranian government has also said it would sue the US in the ICJ over the
reinstatement of sanctions. Israel has
remained silent regarding the accusations .
The claims come a week after the NPDO's Jalali announced that President
Hassan Rouhani's cell phone had been "tapped" and was being replaced with a new, more
secure device. This led to a statement by Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,
exhorting Iran's security apparatus to "confront infiltration through scientific, accurate, and
up-to-date action."
While Iran protests the alleged attacks -- about which the Israeli government has been
silent -- Iranian hackers have continued to conduct their own cyber attacks. A
recent report from security tools company Carbon Black based on data from the company's
incident-response partners found that Iran had been a significant source of attacks in the
third quarter of this year, with one incident-response professional noting, "We've seen a lot
of destructive actions from Iran and North Korea lately, where they've effectively wiped
machines they suspect of being forensically analyzed."
The twin pillars of Iran's foreign policy - America is evil and Wipe Israel off the map -
do not appear to be serving the country very well.
They serve Iran very well, America is an easy target to gather support against, and Israel is
more than willing to play the bad guy (for a bunch of reasons including Israels' policy of
nuclear hegemony in the region and historical antagonism against Arab states).
Israeli hackers offered Cambridge Analytica, the data collection firm that worked on U.S.
President Donald Trump's election campaign, material on two politicians who are heads of
state, the Guardian reported Wednesday, citing witnesses.
While Israelis are not necessarily number one in technical skills -- that award goes to
Russian hackers -- Israelis are probably the best at thinking on their feet and adjusting to
changing situations on the fly, a trait essential for success in a wide range of areas,
including cyber-security, said Forzieri. "In modern attacks, the human factor -- for example,
getting someone to click on a link that will install malware -- constitutes as much as 85% of
a successful attack," he said.
The pro-Israel trolls out in front of this comment section...
You don't have to be pro-Israel to be anti-Iran. Far from it. I think many of Israel's
actions in Palestine are reprehensible, but I also know to (rightly) fear an Islamic
dictatorship who is actively funding terrorism groups and is likely a few years away from
having a working nuclear bomb, should they resume research (which the US actions seem likely
to cause).
The US created the Islamic Republic of Iran by holding a cruel dictator in power rather
than risking a slide into communism. We should be engaging diplomatically, rather than trying
sanctions which clearly don't work. But I don't think that the original Stuxnet was a bad
idea, nor do I think that intense surveillance of what could be a potentially very dangerous
country is a bad one either.
If the Israelis (slash US) did in fact target civilian infrastructure, that's a problem.
Unless, of course, they were bugging them for espionage purposes.
Agree. While Israel is not about to win Humanitarian Nation of the year Award any
time soon, I don't see it going to Iran in a close vote tally either.
"... Every academic critique of neoliberalism is an unacknowledged memoir. We academics occupy a crucial node in the neoliberal system. Our institutions are foundational to neoliberalism's claim to be a meritocracy, insofar as we are tasked with discerning and certifying the merit that leads to the most powerful and desirable jobs. Yet at the same time, colleges and universities have suffered the fate of all public goods under the neoliberal order. We must therefore "do more with less," cutting costs while meeting ever-greater demands. The academic workforce faces increasing precarity and shrinking wages even as it is called on to teach and assess more students than ever before in human history -- and to demonstrate that we are doing so better than ever, via newly devised regimes of outcome-based assessment. In short, we academics live out the contradictions of neoliberalism every day. ..."
"... Whereas classical liberalism insisted that capitalism had to be allowed free rein within its sphere, under neoliberalism capitalism no longer has a set sphere. We are always "on the clock," always accruing (or squandering) various forms of financial and social capital. ..."
Every academic critique of neoliberalism is an unacknowledged memoir. We academics
occupy a crucial node in the neoliberal system. Our institutions are foundational to
neoliberalism's claim to be a meritocracy, insofar as we are tasked with discerning and
certifying the merit that leads to the most powerful and desirable jobs. Yet at the same time,
colleges and universities have suffered the fate of all public goods under the neoliberal
order. We must therefore "do more with less," cutting costs while meeting ever-greater demands.
The academic workforce faces increasing precarity and shrinking wages even as it is called on
to teach and assess more students than ever before in human history -- and to demonstrate that
we are doing so better than ever, via newly devised regimes of outcome-based assessment. In
short, we academics live out the contradictions of neoliberalism every day.
... ... ...
On a more personal level it reflects my upbringing in the suburbs of Flint, Michigan, a city
that has been utterly devastated by the transition to neoliberalism. As I lived through the
slow-motion disaster of the gradual withdrawal of the auto industry, I often heard Henry Ford s
dictum that a company could make more money if the workers were paid enough to be customers as
well, a principle that the major US automakers were inexplicably abandoning. Hence I find it
[Fordism -- NNB] to be an elegant way of capturing the postwar model's promise of creating
broadly shared prosperity by retooling capitalism to produce a consumer society characterized
by a growing middle class -- and of emphasizing the fact that that promise was ultimately
broken.
By the mid-1970s, the postwar Fordist order had begun to breakdown to varying degrees in the
major Western countries. While many powerful groups advocated a response to the crisis that
would strengthen the welfare state, the agenda that wound up carrying the day was
neoliberalism, which was most forcefully implemented in the United Kingdom by Margaret Thatcher
and in the United States by Ronald Reagan. And although this transformation was begun by the
conservative part)', in both countries the left-of-centcr or (in American usage) "liberal"party
wound up embracing neoliberal tenets under Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, ostensibly for the
purpose of directing them toward progressive ends.
With the context of current debates within the US Democratic Party, this means that Clinton
acolytes are correct to claim that "neoliberalism" just is liberalism but only to the extent
that, in the contemporary United States, the term liberalism is little more than a word for
whatever the policy agenda of the Democratic Party happens to be at any given time. Though
politicians of all stripes at times used libertarian rhetoric to sell their policies, the most
clear-eyed advocates of neoliberalism realized that there could be no simple question of a
"return" to the laissez-faire model.
Rather than simply getting the state "out of the way," they both deployed and transformed
state power, including the institutions of the welfare state, to reshape society in accordance
with market models. In some cases creating markets where none had previously existed, as in the
privatization of education and other public services. In others it took the form of a more
general spread of a competitive market ethos into ever more areas of life -- so that we are
encouraged to think of our reputation as a "brand," for instance, or our social contacts as
fodder for "networking." Whereas classical liberalism insisted that capitalism had to be
allowed free rein within its sphere, under neoliberalism capitalism no longer has a set sphere.
We are always "on the clock," always accruing (or squandering) various forms of financial and
social capital.
"... In this book, I provide a somewhat cumbersome definition of neoliberalism and a pithier one, both of which inform the argument running throughout this book. The cumbersome one is as follows: 'the elevation of marked-based principles and techniques of evaluation to the level of state-endorsed norms'. ..."
In this book, I provide a somewhat cumbersome definition of neoliberalism and a pithier
one, both of which inform the argument running throughout this book. The cumbersome one is as
follows: 'the elevation of marked-based principles and techniques of evaluation to the level of
state-endorsed norms'.
What this intends to capture is that, while neoliberal states have extended and liberated
markets in certain areas (for instance, via privatisation and anti-union legislation), the
neoliberal era has been marked just as much by the reform of non-market institutions, so as to
render them market-like or business-like. Consider how competition is deliberately injected
into socialised healthcare systems or universities. Alternatively, how protection of the
environment is pursued by calculating a proxy price for natural public goods, in the
expectation that businesses will then value them appropriately (Fourcade, 2011). It is economic
calculation that spreads into all walks of life under neoliberalism, and not markets as such.
This in turn provides the pithier version: neoliberalism is 'the disenchantment of politics by
economics'.
The crisis of neoliberalism has reversed this ordering. 2008 was an implosion of technical
capabilities on the part of banks and financial regulators, which was largely unaccompanied by
any major political or civic eruption, at least until the consequences were felt in terms of
public sector cuts that accelerated after 2010, especially in Southern Europe. The economic
crisis was spookily isolated from any accompanying political crisis, at least in the beginning.
The eruptions of 2016 therefore represented the long-awaited politicization and publicisation
of a crisis that, until then, had been largely dealt with by the same cadre of experts whose
errors had caused it in the first place.
Faced with these largely unexpected events and the threat of more, politicians and media
pundits have declared that we now need to listen to those people 'left behind by
globalization'. Following the Brexit referendum, in her first speech as Prime Minister, Theresa
May made a vow to the less prosperous members of society, 'we will do everything we can to give
you more control over your lives. When we take the big calls, we'll think not of the powerful,
but you.' This awakening to the demands and voices of marginalized demographics may represent a
new recognition that economic policy cannot be wholly geared around the pursuit of 'national
competitiveness' in the 'global race', a pursuit that in practice meant seeking to prioritise
the interests of financial services and mobile capital. It signals mainstream political
acceptance that inequality cannot keep rising forever. But it is still rooted in a somewhat
economistic vision of politics, as if those people 'left behind by globalisation' simply want
more material wealth and opportunity', plus fewer immigrants competing for jobs. What this
doesn't do is engage with the distinctive political and cultural sociology of events such as
Brexit and Trump, which are fuelled by a spirit of rage, punishment and self-punishment, and
not simply by a desire to get a slightly larger slice of the pie.
This is where, 1 think, we need to pay close attention to a key dimension of neoliberalism,
which 1 focus on at length in this book, namely competition. One of my central arguments here
is that neoliberalism is not simply reducible to 'market fundamentalism', even if there are
areas (such as financial markets) where markets have manifestly attained greater reach and
power since the mid1970s. Instead, the neoliberal state takes the principle of competition and
the ethos of competitiveness (which historically have been found in and around markets), and
seeks to reorganise society around them. Quite how competition and competitiveness are defined
and politically instituted is a matter for historical and theoretical exploration, which is
partly what The Limits of Neoliberalism seeks to do. But at the bare minimum, organising social
relations in terms of 'competition' means that individuals, organisations, cities, regions and
nations are to be tested in terms of their capacity to out-do each other. Not only that, but
the tests must be considered fair in some way, if the resulting inequalities are to be
recognised as legitimate. When applied to individuals, this ideology is often known as
'meritocracy''.
The appeal of this as a political template for society is that, according to its advocates,
it involves the discovery of brilliant ideas, more efficient business models, naturally
talented individuals, new urban visions, successful national strategies, potent entrepreneurs
and so on. Even if this is correct (and the work of Thomas Piketty on how wealth begets wealth
is enough to cast considerable doubt on it) there is a major defect: it consigns the majority
of people, places, businesses and institutions to the status of'losers'. The normative and
existential conventions of a neoliberal society stipulate that success and prowess are things
that are earned through desire, effort and innate ability, so long as social and economic
institutions are designed in such a way as to facilitate this. But the corollary of this is
that failure and weakness are also earned: when individuals and communities fail to succeed,
this is a reflection of inadequate talent or energy on their part.
This has been critically
noted in how 'dependency' and 'welfare' have become matters of shame since the conservative
political ascendency of the 1980s. But this is just one example of how a culture of obligatory
competitiveness exerts a damaging moral psychology, not only in how people look down on others,
but in how they look down on themselves. A culture which valorises 'winning' and
'competitiveness' above all else provides few sources of security or comfort, even to those
doing reasonably well. Everyone could be doing better, and if they're not, they have themselves
to blame. The vision of society as a competitive game also suggests that anyone could very
quickly be doing worse.
Under these neoliberal conditions, remorse becomes directed inwards, producing the
depressive psychological effect (or what Freud termed 'melancholia') whereby people search
inside themselves for the source of their own unhappiness and imperfect lives (Davies, 2015).
Viewed from within the cultural logic of neoliberalism, uncompetitive regions, individuals or
communities are not just 'left behind by globalisation', but are discovered to be inferior in
comparison to their rivals, just like the contestants ejected from a talent show. Rising
household indebtedness compounds this process for those living in financial precarity, by
forcing individuals to pay for their own past errors, illness or sheer bad luck (Davies,
Montgomerie & Wallin, 2015).
In order to understand political upheavals such as Brexit, we need to perform some
sociological interpretation. We need to consider that our socio-economic pathologies do not
simply consist in the fact that opportunity and wealth are hoarded by certain industries (such
as finance) or locales (such as London) or individuals (such as the children of the wealthy),
although all of these things are true. We need also to reflect on the cultural and
psychological implications of how this hoarding has been represented and justified over the
past four decades, namely that it reflects something about the underlying moral worth of
different populations and individuals.
One psychological effect of this is authoritarian attitudes towards social deviance: Brexit
and Trump supporters both have an above-average tendency to support the death penalty, combined
with a belief that political authorities are too weak to enforce justice (Kaufman, 2016).
However, it is also clear that psychological and physical pain have become far more widespread
in neoliberal societies than has been noticed by most people. Statistical studies have shown
how societies such as Britain and the United States have become afflicted by often inexplicable
rising mortality rates amongst the white working class, connected partly to rising suicide
rates, alcohol and drug abuse (Dorling, 2016). The Washington Post identified close geographic
correlations between this trend and support for Donald Trump (Guo, 2016). In sum, a
moral-economic system aimed at identifying and empowering the most competitive people,
institutions and places has become targeted, rationally or otherwise, by the vast number of
people, institutions and places that have suffered not only the pain of defeat but the
punishment of defeat for far too long.
NEOLIBERALISM: DEAD OR ALIVE?
The question inevitably arises, is thus thing called 'neoliberalism' now over? And if not,
when might it be and how would we know? In the UK, the prospect of Brexit combined with the
political priority of reducing immigration means that the efficient movement of capital
(together with that of labour) is being consciously impeded in a way that would have been
unthinkable during the 1990s and early 2000s. 1'he re-emergence of national borders as
obstacles to the flow of goods, finance, services and above all people, represents at least an
interruption in the vision of globalisation that accompanied the heyday of neoliberal policy
making between 1989-2008. If events such as Brexit signal the first step towards greater
national mercantilism and protectionism, then we may be witnessing far more profound
transformations in our model of political economy, the consequences of which could become very
ugly.
Before we reach that point, it is already possible to identify a reorientation of national
economic policy making away from some core tenets of neoliberal doctrine. One of the main case
studies of this book is antitrust law and policy, which has been a preoccupation for neoliberal
intellectuals, reformers and lawyers ever since the 1930s. The rise of the Chicago School view
of competition (which effectively granted far greater legal rights to monopolists, while also
being tougher on cartels) in the American legal establishment from the 1970s onwards, later
repeated in the European Commission, meant that market commitments to neoliberal policy goals
is still less than likely. Free trade areas such as NAETA, policies designed to attract and
please mobile capital, the search for global hegemony surrounding international markets (as
opposed to naked, mercantilist self-interest) may then continue for a few more years. But the
collapse of legitimacy or popularity of these agendas will not be reversed.
Meanwhile, the inability of the Republican Party to defend these policies any longer signals
the ultimate divorce between the political and economic wings of neoliberalism: the
conservative coalition that came into being as Keynesianism declined post-1968, and which got
Ronald Reagan to power, no longer functions in its role of rationalising and de-politicising
economic policy making. If neoliberalism is the 'disenchantment of politics by economics', then
economics is no longer performing its role in rationalising public life. Politics is being
re-enchanted, by images of nationhood, of cultural tradition, of'friends' against enemies, ot
race ana religion, une ot me many political miscalculations mat lea to Brexit was to
under-estimate how many UK citizens would vote for the first time in their lives, enthralled by
the sudden sovereign power that they had been granted in the polling booth, which was entirely
unlike the ritual of representative democracy with a first-past-the-post voting system that
renders most votes irrelevant. The intoxication of popular power and of demagoguery is being
experienced in visceral ways for the first time since 1968, or possibly longer. Wendy Brown
argues that neoliberalism is a 'political rationality'' that was born in direct response to
Fascism during the 1930s and '40s (Brown, 2015). While it would be an exaggeration to say that
the end of neoliberalism represents the re-birth of Fascism, clearly there were a number of
existential dimensions of'the political' that the neoliberals were right to fear, and which we
should now fear once more.
While there is plenty of evidence to suggest that 2016 is a historic turning point indeed as
I've argued here, possibly the second 'book-mark' in the crisis of neoliberalism we need also
to recognise how the seeds of this recent political rupture were sown over time. Indeed, we can
learn a lot about policy paradigms from the way they' go into decline, for they always contain,
tolerate and even celebrate the very activities that later overwhelm or undermine them.
Clearly, the 2008 financial crisis was triggered by activities in the banking sector that were
not fundamentally different from those which had been viewed as laudable for the previous 20
years. Equally, as we witness the return of mercantilism, protectionism, nationalism and
charismatic populism, we need to remember the extent to which neoliberalism accommodated some
of this, up to a point.
The second major case study in this book, in addition to anti-trust policy, is of strategies
for 'national competitiveness'. The executive branch of government has traditionally been
viewed as a problem from the perspective of economic liberalism, seeing as powerful politicians
will instinctively seek to privilege their own territories vis-a-vis others. This is the threat
of mercantilism, which can spin into resolutely anti-liberal policies such as trade tariffs and
the subsidisation of indigenous industries and 'national champions'. These forms of
mercantilism may now be returning, however, the logic of neoliberalism was never quite as
antipathetic to them as orthodox market liberals might have been. Instead, I suggest in Chapter
4, rather than simply seek to thwart or transcend nationalist politics, neoliberalism seizes
and reimagines the nation as one competitive actor amongst many, in a global contest for
'competitiveness', as evaluated by business gurus such as Michael Porter and think tanks such
as the World Economic Eorum. To be sure, these gurus and think tanks have never been anything
but hostile to protectionism; but nevertheless, they have encouraged a form of mild nationalism
as the basis for strategic thinking in economic policy. As David Harvey has argued, 'the
neoliberal state needs nationalism of a certain sort to survive': it draws on aspects of
executive power and nationalist sentiment, in order to steer economic activity towards certain
types of competitive strategies, culture and behaviours and away from others (Harvey, 2005:
85).
There is therefore a deep-lying tension within the politics of neoliberalism between a
'liberal' logic, which seeks to transcend geography, culture and political difference, and a
more contingent, 'violent' logic that seeks to draw on the energies of nationhood and combat,
in the hope of diverting them towards competitive, entrepreneurial production. These two logics
are in conflict with each other, but the story I tell in this book is of how the latter
gradually won out over the long history of neoliberal thought and policy making. Where the
neoliberal intellectuals of the 1930s had a deep commitment to liberal ideals, which they
believed the market could protect, the rise of the post-war Chicago School of economics and the
co-option of neoliberal ideas by business lobbies and conservatives, meant that (what 1 term)
the 'liberal spirit' was gradually lost. There is thus a continuity at work here, in the way
that the crisis of neoliberalism has played out.
Written in 2012-13, the book suggests that neoliberalism has now entered a 'contingent'
state, in which various failures of economic rationality are dealt with through incorporating
an ever broader range of cultural and political resources. The rise of behavioural economics,
for example, represents an attempt to preserve a form of market rationality in the face of
crisis, by incorporating expertise provided by psychologists and neuroscientists. A form of
'neo-communitarianism' emerges, which takes seriously the role of relationships, environmental
conditioning and empathy in the construction of independent, responsible subjects. This remains
an economistic logic, inasmuch as it prepares people to live efficient, productive, competitive
lives. But by bringing culture, community and contingency within the bounds of neoliberal
rationality, one might see things like behavioural economics or 'social neuroscience' and so on
as early symptoms of a genuinely post-liberal politics. Once governments (and publics) no
longer view economics as the best test of optimal policies, then opportunities for post-liberal
experimentation expand rapidly, with unpredictable and potentially frightening consequences. It
was telling that, when the British Home Secretary, Amber Kudd, suggested in October 2016 that
companies be compelled to publicly list their foreign workers, she defended this policy as a
'nudge'.
The Limits of Neoliberalism is a piece of interpretive sociology. It starts from the
recognition that neoliberalism rests on claims to legitimacy, which it is possible to imagine
as valid, even for critics of this system. Inspired by Luc Boltanski, the book assumes that
political-economic systems typically need to offer certain limited forms of hope, excitement
and fairness in order to survive, and cannot operate via domination and exploitation alone. For
similar reasons, we might soon find that we miss some of the normative and political dimensions
of neoliberalism, for example the internationalism that the IiU was founded to promote and the
cosmopolitanism that competitive markets sometimes inculcate. There may be some elements of
neoliberalism that critics and activists need to grasp, refashion and defend, rather than to
simply denounce: this book's Afterword offers some ideas of what this might mean. But if the
book is to be read in a truly post-neoliberal world, 1 hope that in its Interpretive
aspirations, it helps to explain what was internally and normalively coherent about the
political economy known as 'neoliberalism', but also why the system really had no account of
its own preconditions or how to preserve them adequately. The attempt to reduce all of human
life to economic calculation runs up against limits. A political rationality that fails to
recognise politics as a distinctive sphere of human existence was always going to be
dumbfounded, once that sphere took on its own extra-economic life. As Bob Dylan sang to Mr
Jones, so one might now say to neoliberal intellectuals or technocrats: 'something is happening
here, but you don't know what it is'.
... ... ...
Most analyses of neoliberalism have focused on its commitment to 'free markets, deregulation
and trade. I shan't discuss the validity of these portrayals here, although some have
undoubtedly exaggerated the similarities between 'classical' nineteenth-century liberalism and
twentieth-century neoliberalism. The topic addressed here is a different one the character of
neoliberal authority, on what basis does the neoliberal state demand the right to be obeyed, if
not on substantive political grounds? To a large extent, it is on the basis of particular
economic claims and rationalities, constructed and propagated by economic experts. The state
does not necessarily (or at least, not always) cede power to markets, but comes to justify its
decisions, policies and rules in terms that are commensurable with the logic of markets.
Neoliberalism might therefore be defined as the elevation of market-based principles and
techniques of evaluation to the level of state-endorsed norms (Davies, 2013: 37). The authority
of the neoliberal state is heavily dependent on the authority of economics (and economists) to
dictate legitimate courses of action. Understanding that authority and its present crisis
requires us to look at economics, economic policy experts and advisors as critical components
of state institutions.
Since the banking crisis of 2007-09, public denunciations of 'inequality' have increased
markedly. These draw on a diverse range of moral, critical, theoretical, methodological and
empirical resources. Marxist analyses have highlighted growing inequalities as a symptom of
class conflict, which neoliberal policies have greatly exacerbated (Harvey, 2011; Therborn,
2012). Statistical analyses have highlighted correlations between different spheres of
inequality', demonstrating how economic inequality influences social and psychological
wellbeing (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009). Data showing extreme concentrations of wealth have
led political scientists to examine the US political system, as a tool through which inequality
is actively increased (Hacker & Pierson, 2010). Emergent social movements, such as Occupy,
draw a political dividing line between the '99%' and the '1%' who exploit them. Political
leaders and public intellectuals have adopted the language of'fairness' in their efforts to
justify and criticize the various policy interventions which influence the distribution of
economic goods (e.g. Hutton, 2010).
It is important to recognize that these critiques have two quite separate targets, although
the distinction is often blurred. Firstly, there is inequality that exists within reasonably
delineated and separate spheres of society. This means that there are multiple inequalities,
with multiple, potentially incommensurable measures. The inequality that occurs within the
market sphere is separate from the inequality that occurs within the cultural sphere, which is
separate from the inequality' that occurs within the political sphere, and so on. Each sphere
can either unwelcome politically, or impractical (Davies, 2013). Hayek's support for the
welfare state, Simons' commitment to the nationalization of key industries, the ordo-liberal
enthusiasm for the 'social market' demonstrate that the early neoliberals were offering a
justification for what Walzer terms 'monopoly' (separate inequalities in separate spheres) and
not 'dominance' (the power of one sphere over all others).
As the next chapter explores, it was Coasian economics (in tandem with the Chicago School)
that altered this profoundly. The objective perspective of the economist implicitly working for
a university or state regulator would provide the common standard against which activity could
be judged. Of course economics does not replace the price system, indeed economics is very
often entangled with the price system (Callon, 1998; Caliskan, 2010), but the a priori equality
of competitors becomes presumed, as a matter of economic methodology, which stipulates that all
agents are endowed with equal psychological capacities of calculation. It is because this
assumption is maintained when evaluating all institutions and actions that it massively
broadens the terrain of legitimate competition, and opens up vast, new possibilities for
legitimate inequality and legitimate restraint. Walzerian dominance is sanctioned, and not
simply monopoly. The Coasian vision of fair competition rests on an entirely unrealistic
premise, namely that individuals share a common capacity' to calculate and negotiate, rendering
intervention by public authorities typically unnecessary: the social reality of lawyers' fees
is alone enough to undermine this fantasy. Yet in one sense, this is a mode of economic
critique that is imbued with the 'liberal spirit' described earlier. It seeks to evaluate the
efficiency of activities, on the basis of the assumed equal rationality of all, and the
neutrality of the empirical observer.
Like Coase, Schumpeter facilitates a great expansion of the space and time in which the
competitive process takes place. Various 'social' and 'cultural' resources become drawn into
the domain of competition, with the goal being to define the rules that all others must play
by. Monopoly is undoubtedly the goal of competitiveness. But unlike Coase's economics,
Schumpeter's makes no methodological assumption regarding the common rationality' of all
actors. Instead, it makes a romantic assumption regarding the inventive power of some actors
(entrepreneurs), and the restrictive routines of most others. Any objective judgements
regarding valid or invalid actions will be rooted in static methodologies or rules.
Entrepreneurs have no rules, and respect no restraint. They seek no authority or validation for
what they do, but are driven by a pure desire to dominate. In this sense their own immanent
authority comes with a 'violent threat', which is endorsed by the neoliberal state as Chapter 4
discusses.
These theories of competition are not 'ideological' and nor are they secretive. They are not
ideological because they do not seek to disguise how reality is actually constituted or to
distract people from their objective conditions. They have contributed to the construction and
constitution of economic reality, inasmuch as they provide objective and acceptable reports on
what is going on, that succeed in coordinating various actors. Moreover, they are sometimes
performative, not least because of how they inform and format modes of policy, regulation and
governance. Inequality has not arisen by accident or due to the chaos of capitalism or
'globalization'. Theories and methodologies, which validate certain types of dominating and
monopolistic activity, have provided the conventions within which large numbers of academics,
business people and policy makers have operated. They make a shared world possible in the first
place. But nor are any of these theories secret either. They have been published in
peer-reviewed journals, spread via policy papers and universities. Without shared, public
rationalities and methodologies, neoliberalism would have remained a private conspiracy.
Inequality can be denounced by critics of neoliberalism, but it cannot be argued that in an era
that privileges not only market competition but competitiveness in general inequality is not
publicly acceptable.
These theories of competition are not 'ideological' and nor are they secretive. They are not
ideological because they do not seek to disguise how reality is actually constituted or to
distract people from their objective conditions. They have contributed to the construction and
constitution of economic reality, inasmuch as they provide objective and acceptable reports on
what is going on, that succeed in coordinating various actors. Moreover, they are sometimes
performative, not least because of how they inform and format modes of policy, regulation and
governance. Inequality has not arisen by accident or due to the chaos of capitalism or
'globalization'. Theories and methodologies, which validate certain types of dominating and
monopolistic activity, have provided the conventions within which large numbers of academics,
business people and policy makers have operated. They make a shared world possible in the first
place. But nor are any of these theories secret either. They have been published in
peer-reviewed journals, spread via policy papers and universities. Without shared, public
rationalities and methodologies, neoliberalism would have remained a private conspiracy.
Inequality can be denounced by critics of neoliberalism, but it cannot be argued that in an era
that privileges not only market competition but competitiveness in general inequality is not
publicly acceptable.
The contingent neoliberalism that we currently live with is in a literal sense unjustified.
It is propagated without the forms of justification (be they moral or empirical) that either
the early neoliberals or the technical practitioners of neoliberal policy had employed, in
order to produce a reality that 'holds together', as pragmatist sociologists like to say. The
economized social and political reality now only just about 'holds together', because it is
constantly propped up, bailed out, nudged, monitored, adjusted, data-mincd, and altered by
those responsible for rescuing it. It does not survive as a consensual reality: economic
judgements regarding 'what is going on' are no longer 'objective' or 'neutral', to the extent
that they once were. The justice of inequality can no longer be explained with reference to a
competition or to competitiveness, let alone to a market. Thus, power may be exercised along
the very same tramlines that it was during the golden neoliberal years of the 1990s and early
millennium, and the same experts, policies and agencies may continue to speak to the same
public audiences. But the sudden reappearance of those two unruly uneconomic actors, the
Hobbesian sovereign state and the psychological unconscious, suggests that that the project of
disenchanting politics by economics has reached its limit. And yet crisis and critique have
been strategically deferred or accommodated. What resources are there available for this to
change, and to what extent are these distinguishable from neoliberalism's own critical
capacities?
... ... ...
Neoliberalism, as this book has sought to demonstrate, is replete with its own internal
modes of criticism, judgement, measurement and evaluation, which enable actors to reach
agreements about what is going on. These are especially provided by certain traditions of
economics and business strategy, which privilege competitive processes, on the basis that those
processes are uniquely able to preserve an element of uncertainty in social and economic life.
The role of the expert be it in the state, the think tank or university within this programme
is to produce quantitative facts about the current state of competitive reality, such that
actors, firms or whole nations can be judged, compared and ranked. For Hayek and many of the
early neoliberals, markets would do this job instead of expert authorities, with prices the
only facts that were entirely necessary. But increasingly, under the influence of the later
Chicago School and business strategists, the 'winners' and the 'losers' were to be judged
through the evaluations of economics (and associated techniques and measures), rather than of
markets as such. Certain forms of authority are therefore necessary for this game' to be
playable. Economized law is used to test the validity of certain forms of competitive conduct;
audits derived from business strategy are used to test and enthuse the entrepreneurial energies
of rival communities. But the neoliberal programme initially operated such that these forms of
authority could be exercised in a primarily technical sense, without metaphysical appeals to
the common good, individual autonomy or the sovereignty of the state that employed them. As the
previous chapter argued, various crises (primarily, but not exclusively, the 2007-09 financial
crisis) have exposed neoliberalism's tacit dependence on both executive sovereignty and on
certain moral-psychological equipment on the part of individuals. A close reading of neoliberal
texts and policies would have exposed this anyway. In which case, the recent 'discovery' that
neoliberalism depends on and justifies power inequalities, and not markets as such, may be
superficial in nature. Witnessing the exceptional measures that states have taken to rescue the
status quo simply confirms the state-centric nature of neolibcralism, as an anti-political mode
of politics. As Zizek argued in relation to the Wikileaks' exposures of 2011, 'the real
disturbance was at the level of appearances: we can no longer pretend we don't know what
everyone knows we know' (Zizek, 2011b). Most dramatically, neoliberalism now appears naked and
shorn of any pretence to liberalism, that is, it no longer operates with manifest a priori
principles of equivalence, against which all contestants should be judged. Chapter 2 identified
the 'liberal spirit' of neoliberalism with a Rawlsian assumption that contestants are formally
equal before they enter the economic 'game'. Within the Kantian or 'deontological' tradition of
liberalism, this is the critical issue, and it played a part in internal debates within the
early neoliberal movement. For those such as the ordoliberals, who feared the rationalizing
potential of capitalist monopoly, the task was to build an economy around such an a priori
liberal logic. Ensuring some equality of access to the economic game', via the active
regulation of large firms and 'equality of opportunity' for individuals, is how neoliberalism's
liberalism has most commonly been presented politically. As Chapter 3 discussed, the American
tradition of neoliberalism as manifest in Chicago Law and Economics abandoned this sort of
normative liberalism, in favour of a Benthamite utilitarianism, in which efficiency claims
trumped formal arguments. The philosophical and normative elements of neoliberalism have, in
truth, been in decline since the 1950s.
The 'liberal spirit' of neoliberalism was kept faintly alive by the authority that was
bestowed upon methodologies, audits and measures of efficiency analysis. The liberal a priori
just about survived in the purported neutrality of economic method (of various forms), to judge
all contestants equally, even while the empirical results of these judgements have increasingly
benefited alreadydominant competitors. This notion relied on a fundamental epistemological
inconsistency of neoliberalism, between the Hayekian argument that there can be no stable or
objective scientific perspective on economic activity, and the more positivist argument that
economics offers a final and definitive judgement. American neoliberalism broadens the 'arena'
in which competition is understood to take place, beyond definable markets, and beyond the
sphere of the 'economy', enabling cultural, social and political resources to be legitimately
dragged into the economic 'game', and a clustering of various forms of advantage in the same
hands. Monopoly, in Walter's terms, becomes translated into dominance.
The loss of neoliberalisms pretence to liberalism transforms the type of authority that can
be claimed by and on behalf of power, be it business, financial or state power. It means the
abandonment of the globalizing, universalizing, transcendental branch of neoliberalism, in
which certain economic techniques and measures (including, but not only, prices) would provide
a common framework through which all human difference could be mediated and represented.
Instead, cultural and national difference potentially leading to conflict now animates
neoliberalism, but without a commonly recognized principle against which to convert this into
competitive inequality. What I have characterized as the 'violent threat' of neoliberalism has
come to the fore, whereby authority in economic decision making is increasingly predicated upon
the claim that 'we' must beat 'them'. This fracturing of universalism, in favour of political
and cultural particularism, may be a symptom of how capitalist crises often play out (Gamble,
2009). One reason why neoliberalism has survived as well as it has since 2007 is that it has
always managed to operate within two rhetorical registers simultaneously, satisfying both the
demand for liberal universalism and that for political particularism, so when the former falls
apart, a neoliberal discourse of competitive nationalism and the authority of executive
decision is already present and available.
One lesson to be taken from neoliberalism, for political movements which seek to challenge
it, is that both individual agency and collective institutions need to be criticized and
invented simultaneously. Political reform does not have to build on any 'natural' account of
human beings, but can also invent new visions of individual agency. The design and
transformation of institutions, such as markets, regulators and firms, do not need to take
place separately from this project, but in tandem and in dialogue with it. A productive focus
of critical economic enquiry would be those institutions which neolibcral thought has tended to
be entirely silent on. These are the institutions and mechanisms of capitalism which coerce and
coordinate individuals, thereby removing choices from economic situations. The era of applied
neoliberal policy making has recently started to appear as one of rampant 'financialisation'
(Krippner, 2012). So it is therefore peculiar how little attention is paid within neoliberal
discourse to institutions of credit and equity, other than that they should be priced and
distributed via markets. Likewise, the rising power of corporations has been sanctioned by
theories that actually say very little about firms, management, work or organization, but focus
all their attention on the incentives and choices confronting a few 'agents' and 'leaders' at
the very top. Despite having permeated our cultural lives with visions of competition, and also
permeated political institutions with certain economic rationalities, the dominant discourse of
neoliberalism actually contains very little which represents the day-to-day lives and
experiences of those who live with it. This represents a major empirical and analytical
shortcoming of the economic theories that are at work in governing us, and ultimately a serious
vulnerability.
A further lesson to be taken from neoliberalism, for the purposes of a critique of
neoliberalism, is that restrictive economic practices need to be strategically and inventively
targeted and replaced. In the 1930s and 1940s, 'restrictive economic practices' would have
implied planning, labour organization and socialism. Today our economic freedoms are restricted
in very different ways, which strike at the individual in an intimate way, rather than at
individuals collectively. In the twenty-first century, the experience of being an employee or a
consumer or a debtor is often one of being ensnared, not one of exercising any choice or
strategy. Amidst all of the uncertainty of dynamic capitalism, this sense of being trapped into
certain relations seems eminently certain. Releasing individuals from these constraints is a
constructive project, as much as a critical one: this is what the example of the early
neoliberals demonstrates.
Lawyers willing to rewrite the rules of exchange, employment and finance (as, for instance
the ordo-liberals redrafted the rules of the market) could be one of the great forces for
social progress, if they were ever to mobilize in a concerted w'ay. A form of collective
entrepreneurship, which like individual entrepreneurs saw' economic nonnativity as fluid and
changeable, could produce new forms of political economy, with alternative valuation
systems.
The reorganization of state, society, institutions and individuals in terms of competitive
dynamics and rules, succeeded to the extent that it did because it offered both a vision of the
collective and a vision of individual agency simultaneously. It can appear impermeable to
critique or political transformation, if only challenged on one of these terms. For instance,
if a different vision of collective organization is proposed, the neoliberal rejoinder is that
this must involve abandoning individual 'choice' or freedom. Or if a different vision of the
individual is proposed, the neoliberal rejoinder is that this is unrealistic given the
competitive global context. Dispensing with competition, as the template for all politics and
political metaphysics, is therefore only possible if theory proceeds anew, with a
political-economic idea of individual agency and collective organization, at the same time.
What this might allow is a different basis from which to speak of human beings as paradoxically
the same yet different. The problem of politics is that individuals are both private, isolated
actors, with tastes and choices, and part of a collectivity, with rules and authorities. An
alternative answer to this riddle needs to be identified, other than simply more competition
and more competitiveness, in which isolated actors take no responsibility for the collective,
and the collective is immune to the protestations of those isolated actors.
"... creates a parallel society in the countryside that never see these money, but are the pros of having that money there and contributing to the economy outweigh these cons? It would if the money were invested with a view of making a profit from a factory, but I don't think that happens in this case. What do you think? ..."
"... The result is what we Australians call a two-speed economy or a split economy, where one sub-economy caters for the very rich (real estate agents specialising in luxury properties, lots of luxury hotels and playgrounds, boutique shops and restaurants) and the other sub-economy is hidden away, made up of local people who have to rent their homes because they can't afford to buy their own homes, who have to hold down two or more jobs to survive and who supply the staff for the hotels, shops and restaurants frequented by the rich. Eventually the local people start disappearing to find better-paying jobs and the hotels, restaurants, etc start bringing in foreign labour to replace them. ..."
I've lately been wondering about the economics of being a big tax haven like the UK. A place
like the Bahamas, I think benefits from it since there are so few citizens and it's easy to
bribe them, and it costs a lot less than paying taxes back home. But then you move on to
Panama, and the grey area starts. Someone is getting rich there, but the population of Panama
is a lot bigger than that of the Bahamas, and that population is not exactly rich. Does it
create bigger class divisions and also retards politics in terms of trying to develop their
own unique economy not dependent on servicing the rich foreign tax thieves?
Then you get to London and the UK, with their absolutely enormous population. Most of the
people outside of London will never see any of this money, and in London it creates a runaway
housing crisis as the best investment for laundered money is thought to be real estate.
Obviously there is investment in the local economy other than that, such as buying football
clubs and stores, but I don't think that money goes towards funding a pharma start-up or
buying stock in a local car company.
So it exacerbates inequality sure (London real estate is insane and out of reach of most
locals), and creates a parallel society in the countryside that never see these money, but
are the pros of having that money there and contributing to the economy outweigh these cons?
It would if the money were invested with a view of making a profit from a factory, but I
don't think that happens in this case. What do you think?
I think it is an extremely interesting discussion point; one that I would not venture into
without doing a bit of research, but right now I have to leave for work. It's definitely
something we could chew over for a bit, and I imagine Jen will have something for us on it.
Blatnoi, if you get hold of the Nicholas Shaxson book I mentioned before, I recall there's a
chapter that discusses the effect of being a tax haven has on the Channel Islands economy and
Jersey Island in particular. The money that ends up there is in the pockets of a very few
people who use it to buy and real estate as if it were shares on the stock market.
The result
is what we Australians call a two-speed economy or a split economy, where one sub-economy
caters for the very rich (real estate agents specialising in luxury properties, lots of
luxury hotels and playgrounds, boutique shops and restaurants) and the other sub-economy is
hidden away, made up of local people who have to rent their homes because they can't afford
to buy their own homes, who have to hold down two or more jobs to survive and who supply the
staff for the hotels, shops and restaurants frequented by the rich. Eventually the local
people start disappearing to find better-paying jobs and the hotels, restaurants, etc start
bringing in foreign labour to replace them.
I certainly agree with you that a two-speed economy creates and exacerbates class
divisions, and moreover destroys not only local economies in the areas where it operates but
also local societies and cultures.
Aha I Googled "Shaxson", "economy" and "Jersey" and out of what Google threw at me, I
found this account by Bram Wanrooij of his time living in Jersey with his family for six
years:
An excerpt from Wanrooij's post:
".. I have never been so aware of wealth discrepancies as I have in Jersey. And that
says a lot, as I have lived in places like Kenya and Sudan when I was younger. Disparity is
on full display, in combination with a shameless promotion of greed and privilege. Range
Rovers wizz past you, their 4×4 engines sputtering out clouds of pollution, utterly
useless on a small island with a decent infrastructure and no real elevation to speak of. You
even see flashy sports cars; quite amusing when you consider the speed limit is 40 at most.
What are these people trying to prove?
The island caters to the very wealthy, especially reflected in everyday expenses and
housing and travel costs. Getting off the island becomes ever more impossible as your family
grows, with flights to England ridiculously expensive and ferries charging a small fortune
for carrying you across the channel. In this way, Jersey has quickly become a financial and
geographical prison for middle and low earners.
In the six years I've lived here, my family has had to move six times and every time we
had to rent a house which was slightly beyond our budget, even though both my wife and I are
hard workers with honest professions. I have seen qualified, talented people leave because of
this, a phenomenon which makes no sense, neither on a social, nor an economic level "
Comparisons between the Jersey-style financial two-speed economy and economies afflicted
with so-called Dutch disease (typically economies like Saudi Arabia and others dependent on
oil, gas and mineral exploitation) have been made. Characteristics of such economies are
outlined in detail at this link: https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/11977/oil/dutch-disease/
I've lived on the outskirts of London for many years and what I've seen is the city becoming
increasingly hollowed out. You can walk around street after street at night and everywhere is
in darkness – the lights are out because no-one is home, not that evening, not ever.
London is permanently under construction; huge numbers of new buildings have gone up in
recent years – all of them beyond the purchasing power of most Londoners – and
huge numbers of those new buildings have been purchased off plan by overseas investors with
no intention or interest in living in them.
When the money moves in existing communities disintegrate, local councils seek to dump
those in social housing on other, less fashionable boroughs (thus exacerbating housing
problems in those areas) or even outside London so housing can be razed and the land sold to
developers, those renting in the private sector are priced out, local businesses close down
– their market has gone plus insane rent and rates increases etc etc. London used to
have a bit of a 'village' feel to it – distinct areas with settled communities,
traditional butcher-baker-candlestick maker high streets, a sense of community. All gone or
going.
The multimillion-pound wrecks are evidence of a property culture in which the world's
richest people see British property as investments. One Hyde Park, a block of apartments in
Knightsbridge, is another example where more than half the flats are registered with the
council as empty or second homes.
Buying properties in hot-spot areas and leaving them empty – because you plan to trade
and sell them if and when the prices rocket up to levels you want – would be typical
behaviour of people who treat property portfolios like share portfolios. You want to be ready
to sell when the price is right so you don't move tenants into them. Getting rid of tenants
can be a hassle if you want to sell quickly.
Also buying property and deliberately leaving it to rot is a way of using it as a tax
shelter to minimise land and other taxes, lower your income or claim a tax rebate on losses
you make because you're forking out more in land taxes, council rates and other rates than
you are making on the property, depending on the taxation jurisdiction prevailing in the area
or country where you have bought the property.
Apparently, the U.S. authorities believe that by squeezing the corrupt Russian money out
of the Great Britain, they would force those corrupt rich Russians to return their money home
and remake the Russia as a modern Western nation with the rule of law and checks and
balances.
At least, that's what I have heard at anti-Putin forums. So -- and especially so in view
of your article -- that ought to be taken with a grain of salt.
But if that's indeed the idea -- I'm skeptical that it would work. Definitely, it sounds
alright, and if it were implemented, say, 30 years ago -- it might have sort of worked, by
preventing the corrupt Russians to move their assets abroad. Now, I think, they would just
move their fortunes into some other friendly jurisdiction outside of the reach of Uncle Sam
and Russia's authorities.
If getting at dirty money was that easy, I doubt that China would ever need to resort to
such a complex operation as the "Fox Hunt".
Another kick in the sack for Britain, caused by Washington but for which Washington will
suffer no penalty. That Special Relationship certainly is something, isn't it?
I think you're probably right – although I never thought of such a devious motive as
forcing Putin's enemies (in some cases) back to Russia, where they would presumably start
financing the opposition and making trouble, I agree it likely would not work according to
plan. Very likely all it would accomplish is the withdrawal of their money from London, to be
hidden somewhere else.
"... if those employees become unhappy, they can effectively go anywhere they want. ..."
"... IBM's partner/reseller ecosystem is nowhere near what it was since it owned the PC and Server businesses that Lenovo now owns. And IBM's Softlayer/BlueMix cloud is largely tied to its legacy software business, which, again, is slowing. ..."
"... I came to IBM from their SoftLayer acquisition. Their ability to stomp all over the things SoftLayer was almost doing right were astounding. I stood and listened to Ginni say things like, "We purchased SoftLayer because we need to learn from you," and, "We want you to teach us how to do Cloud the right way, since we spent all these years doing things the wrong way," and, "If you find yourself in a meeting with one of our old teams, you guys are gonna be the ones in charge. You are the ones who know how this is supposed to work - our culture has failed at it." Promises which were nothing more than hollow words. ..."
"... Next, it's a little worrisome that the author, now over the whole IBM thing is recommending firing "older people," you know, the ones who helped the company retain its performance in years' past. The smartest article I've read about IBM worried about its cheap style of "acquiring" non-best-of-breed companies and firing oodles of its qualified R&D guys. THAT author was right. ..."
"... Four years in GTS ... joined via being outsourced to IBM by my previous employer. Left GTS after 4 years. ..."
"... The IBM way of life was throughout the Oughts and the Teens an utter and complete failure from the perspective of getting work done right and using people to their appropriate and full potential. ..."
"... As a GTS employee, professional technical training was deemed unnecessary, hence I had no access to any unless I paid for it myself and used my personal time ... the only training available was cheesy presentations or other web based garbage from the intranet, or casual / OJT style meetings with other staff who were NOT professional or expert trainers. ..."
"... As a GTS employee, I had NO access to the expert and professional tools that IBM fricking made and sold to the same damn customers I was supposed to be supporting. Did we have expert and professional workflow / document management / ITIL aligned incident and problem management tools? NO, we had fricking Lotus Notes and email. Instead of upgrading to the newest and best software solutions for data center / IT management & support, we degraded everything down the simplest and least complex single function tools that no "best practices" organization on Earth would ever consider using. ..."
"... And the people management paradigm ... employees ranked annually not against a static or shared goal or metric, but in relation to each other, and there was ALWAYS a "top 10 percent" and a "bottom ten percent" required by upper management ... a system that was sociopathic in it's nature because it encourages employees to NOT work together ... by screwing over one's coworkers, perhaps by not giving necessary information, timely support, assistance as needed or requested, one could potentially hurt their performance and make oneself look relatively better. That's a self-defeating system and it was encouraged by the way IBM ran things. ..."
IBM has not had a particularly great track record when it comes to integrating the cultures
of other companies into its own, and brain drain with a company like Red Hat is a real risk
because if those employees become unhappy, they can effectively go anywhere they want.
They have the skills to command very high salaries at any of the top companies in the
industry.
The other issue is that IBM hasn't figured out how to capture revenue from SMBs -- and that
has always been elusive for them. Unless a deal is worth at least $1 million, and realistically
$10 million, sales guys at IBM don't tend to get motivated.
The 5,000-seat and below market segment has traditionally been partner territory, and when
it comes to reseller partners for its cloud, IBM is way, way behind AWS, Microsoft, Google, or
even (gasp) Oracle, which is now offering serious margins to partners that land workloads on
the Oracle cloud.
IBM's partner/reseller ecosystem is nowhere near what it was since it owned the PC and
Server businesses that Lenovo now owns. And IBM's Softlayer/BlueMix cloud is largely tied to
its legacy software business, which, again, is slowing.
... ... ...
But I think that it is very unlikely the IBM Cloud, even when juiced on Red Hat steroids,
will become anything more ambitious than a boutique business for hybrid workloads when compared
with AWS or Azure. Realistically, it has to be the kind of cloud platform that interoperates
well with the others or nobody will want it.
1. IBM used to value long-term employees. Now they "value" short-term contractors -- but
they still pull them out of production for lots of training that, quite frankly, isn't
exactly needed for what they are doing. Personally, I think that IBM would do well to return
to valuing employees instead of looking at them as expendable commodities, but either way,
they need to get past the legacies of when they had long-term employees all watching a single
main frame.
2. As IBM moved to an army of contractors, they killed off the informal (but important!)
web of tribal knowledge. You know, a friend of a friend who new the answer to some issue, or
knew something about this customer? What has happened is that the transaction costs (as
economists call it) have escalated until IBM can scarcely order IBM hardware for its own
projects, or have SDM's work together.
geek49203_z Number 2 is a problem everywhere. As long-time employees (mostly baby-boomers)
retire, their replacements are usually straight out of college with various non-technical
degrees. They come in with little history and few older-employees to which they can turn for
"the tricks of the trade".
I came to IBM from their SoftLayer acquisition. Their ability to stomp all over the things
SoftLayer was almost doing right were astounding. I stood and listened to Ginni say things
like, "We purchased SoftLayer because we need to learn from you," and, "We want you to teach
us how to do Cloud the right way, since we spent all these years doing things the wrong way,"
and, "If you find yourself in a meeting with one of our old teams, you guys are gonna be the
ones in charge. You are the ones who know how this is supposed to work - our culture has
failed at it." Promises which were nothing more than hollow words.
1. IBM used to value long-term employees. Now they "value" short-term contractors -- but
they still pull them out of production for lots of training that, quite frankly, isn't
exactly needed for what they are doing. Personally, I think that IBM would do well to return
to valuing employees instead of looking at them as expendable commodities, but either way,
they need to get past the legacies of when they had long-term employees all watching a single
main frame.
2. As IBM moved to an army of contractors, they killed off the informal (but important!)
web of tribal knowledge. You know, a friend of a friend who new the answer to some issue, or
knew something about this customer? What has happened is that the transaction costs (as
economists call it) have escalated until IBM can scarcely order IBM hardware for its own
projects, or have SDM's work together.
geek49203_z Number 2 is a problem everywhere. As long-time employees (mostly baby-boomers)
retire, their replacements are usually straight out of college with various non-technical
degrees. They come in with little history and few older-employees to which they can turn for
"the tricks of the trade".
I came to IBM from their SoftLayer acquisition. Their ability to stomp all over the things
SoftLayer was almost doing right were astounding. I stood and listened to Ginni say things
like, "We purchased SoftLayer because we need to learn from you," and, "We want you to teach
us how to do Cloud the right way, since we spent all these years doing things the wrong way,"
and, "If you find yourself in a meeting with one of our old teams, you guys are gonna be the
ones in charge. You are the ones who know how this is supposed to work - our culture has
failed at it." Promises which were nothing more than hollow words.
In the 1970's 80's and 90's I was working in tech support for a company called ROLM. We were
doing communications , voice and data and did many systems for Fortune 500 companies along
with 911 systems and the secure system at the White House. My job was to fly all over North
America to solve problems with customers and integration of our equipment into their business
model. I also did BETA trials and documented systems so others would understand what it took
to make it run fine under all conditions.
In 84 IBM bought a percentage of the company and the next year they bought out the
company. When someone said to me "IBM just bought you out , you must thing you died and went
to heaven." My response was "Think of them as being like the Federal Government but making a
profit". They were so heavily structured and hide bound that it was a constant battle working
with them. Their response to any comments was "We are IBM"
I was working on an equipment project in Colorado Springs and IBM took control. I was
immediately advised that I could only talk to the people in my assigned group and if I had a
question outside of my group I had to put it in writing and give it to my manager and if he
thought it was relevant it would be forwarded up the ladder of management until it reached a
level of a manager that had control of both groups and at that time if he thought it was
relevant it would be sent to that group who would send the answer back up the ladder.
I'm a
Vietnam Veteran and I used my military training to get things done just like I did out in the
field. I went looking for the person I could get an answer from.
At first others were nervous
about doing that but within a month I had connections all over the facility and started
introducing people at the cafeteria. Things moved quickly as people started working together
as a unit. I finished my part of the work which was figuring all the spares technicians would
need plus the costs for packaging and service contract estimates. I submitted it to all the
people that needed it. I was then hauled into a meeting room by the IBM management and
advised that I was a disruptive influence and would be removed. Just then the final contracts
that vendors had to sign showed up and it used all my info. The IBM people were livid that
they were not involved.
By the way a couple months later the IBM THINK magazine came out with a new story about a
radical concept they had tried. A cover would not fit on a component and under the old system
both the component and the cover would be thrown out and they would start from scratch doing
it over. They decided to have the two groups sit together and figure out why it would not fit
and correct it on the spot.
Another great example of IBM people is we had a sales contract to install a multi node
voice mail system at WANG computers but we lost it because the IBM people insisted on
bundling in AS0400 systems into the sale to WANG computer. Instead we lost a multi million
dollar contract.
Eventually Siemens bought 50% of the company and eventually full control. Now all we heard
was "That is how we do it in Germany" Our response was "How did that WW II thing work
out".
The author may have more loyalty to Microsoft than he confides, is the first thing noticeable
about this article. The second thing is that in terms of getting rid of those aged IBM
workers, I think he may have completely missed the mark, in fairness, that may be the product
of his IBM experience, The sheer hubris of tech-talking from the middle of the story and
missing the global misstep that is today's IBM is noticeable. As a stockholder, the first
question is, "Where is the investigation to the breach of fiduciary duty by a board that owes
its loyalty to stockholders who are scratching their heads at the 'positive' spin the likes of
Ginni Rometty is putting on 20 quarters of dead losses?" Got that, 20 quarters of losses.
Next, it's a little worrisome that the author, now over the whole IBM thing is
recommending firing "older people," you know, the ones who helped the company retain its
performance in years' past. The smartest article I've read about IBM worried about its cheap
style of "acquiring" non-best-of-breed companies and firing oodles of its qualified R&D
guys. THAT author was right.
IBM's been run into the ground by Ginni, I'll use her first name, since apparently my
money is now used to prop up this sham of a leader, who from her uncomfortable public
announcement with Tim Cook of Apple, which HAS gone up, by the way, has embraced every
political trend, not cause but trend from hiring more women to marginalizing all those
old-time white males...You know the ones who produced for the company based on merit, sweat,
expertise, all those non-feeling based skills that ultimately are what a shareholder is
interested in and replaced them with young, and apparently "social" experts who are pasting
some phony "modernity" on a company that under Ginni's leadership has become more of a pet
cause than a company.
Finally, regarding ageism and the author's advocacy for the same, IBM's been there, done
that as they lost an age discrimination lawsuit decades ago. IBM gave up on doing what it had
the ability to do as an enormous business and instead under Rometty's leadership has tried to
compete with the scrappy startups where any halfwit knows IBM cannot compete.
The company has rendered itself ridiculous under Rometty, a board that collects paychecks
and breaches any notion of fiduciary duty to shareholders, an attempt at partnering with a
"mod" company like Apple that simply bolstered Apple and left IBM languishing and a rejection
of what has a track record of working, excellence, rewarding effort of employees and the
steady plod of performance. Dump the board and dump Rometty.
Four years in GTS ... joined via being outsourced to IBM by my previous employer. Left GTS
after 4 years.
The IBM way of life was throughout the Oughts and the Teens an utter and complete failure
from the perspective of getting work done right and using people to their appropriate and
full potential. I went from a multi-disciplinary team of engineers working across
technologies to support corporate needs in the IT environment to being siloed into a
single-function organization.
My first year of on-boarding with IBM was spent deconstructing
application integration and cross-organizational structures of support and interwork that I
had spent 6 years building and maintaining. Handing off different chunks of work (again,
before the outsourcing, an Enterprise solution supported by one multi-disciplinary team) to
different IBM GTS work silos that had no physical spacial relationship and no interworking
history or habits. What we're talking about here is the notion of "left hand not knowing what
the right hand is doing" ...
THAT was the IBM way of doing things, and nothing I've read
about them over the past decade or so tells me it has changed.
As a GTS employee, professional technical training was deemed unnecessary, hence I had no
access to any unless I paid for it myself and used my personal time ... the only training
available was cheesy presentations or other web based garbage from the intranet, or casual /
OJT style meetings with other staff who were NOT professional or expert trainers.
As a GTS
employee, I had NO access to the expert and professional tools that IBM fricking made and
sold to the same damn customers I was supposed to be supporting. Did we have expert and
professional workflow / document management / ITIL aligned incident and problem management
tools? NO, we had fricking Lotus Notes and email. Instead of upgrading to the newest and best
software solutions for data center / IT management & support, we degraded everything down
the simplest and least complex single function tools that no "best practices" organization on
Earth would ever consider using.
And the people management paradigm ... employees ranked annually not against a static or
shared goal or metric, but in relation to each other, and there was ALWAYS a "top 10 percent"
and a "bottom ten percent" required by upper management ... a system that was sociopathic in
it's nature because it encourages employees to NOT work together ... by screwing over one's
coworkers, perhaps by not giving necessary information, timely support, assistance as needed
or requested, one could potentially hurt their performance and make oneself look relatively
better. That's a self-defeating system and it was encouraged by the way IBM ran things.
The "not invented here" ideology was embedded deeply in the souls of all senior IBMers I
ever met or worked with ... if you come on board with any outside knowledge or experience,
you must not dare to say "this way works better" because you'd be shut down before you could
blink. The phrase "best practices" to them means "the way we've always done it".
IBM gave up on innovation long ago. Since the 90's the vast majority of their software has
been bought, not built. Buy a small company, strip out the innovation, slap an IBM label on
it, sell it as the next coming of Jesus even though they refuse to expend any R&D to push
the product to the next level ... damn near everything IBM sold was gentrified, never cutting
edge.
And don't get me started on sales practices ... tell the customer how product XYZ is a
guaranteed moonshot, they'll be living on lunar real estate in no time at all, and after all
the contracts are signed hand the customer a box of nuts & bolts and a letter telling
them where they can look up instructions on how to build their own moon rocket. Or for XX
dollars more a year, hire a Professional Services IBMer to build it for them.
I have no sympathy for IBM. They need a clean sweep throughout upper management,
especially any of the old True Blue hard-core IBMers.
We tried our best to be SMB partners with IBM & Arrow in the early 2000s ... but could
never get any traction. I personally needed a mentor, but never found one. I still have/wear
some of their swag, and I write this right now on a re-purposed IBM 1U server that is 10
years old, but ... I can't see any way our small company can make $ with them.
Watson is impressive, but you can't build a company on just Watson. This author has some
great ideas, yet the phrase that keeps coming to me is internal politics.
That corrosive reality has & will kill companies, and it will kill IBM unless it is dealt
with.
Turn-arounds are possible (look at MS), but they are hard and dangerous. Hope IBM can
figure it out...
"... Four years in GTS ... joined via being outsourced to IBM by my previous employer. Left GTS after 4 years. ..."
"... The IBM way of life was throughout the Oughts and the Teens an utter and complete failure from the perspective of getting work done right and using people to their appropriate and full potential. ..."
"... As a GTS employee, professional technical training was deemed unnecessary, hence I had no access to any unless I paid for it myself and used my personal time ... the only training available was cheesy presentations or other web based garbage from the intranet, or casual / OJT style meetings with other staff who were NOT professional or expert trainers. ..."
"... As a GTS employee, I had NO access to the expert and professional tools that IBM fricking made and sold to the same damn customers I was supposed to be supporting. Did we have expert and professional workflow / document management / ITIL aligned incident and problem management tools? NO, we had fricking Lotus Notes and email. Instead of upgrading to the newest and best software solutions for data center / IT management & support, we degraded everything down the simplest and least complex single function tools that no "best practices" organization on Earth would ever consider using. ..."
"... And the people management paradigm ... employees ranked annually not against a static or shared goal or metric, but in relation to each other, and there was ALWAYS a "top 10 percent" and a "bottom ten percent" required by upper management ... a system that was sociopathic in it's nature because it encourages employees to NOT work together ... by screwing over one's coworkers, perhaps by not giving necessary information, timely support, assistance as needed or requested, one could potentially hurt their performance and make oneself look relatively better. That's a self-defeating system and it was encouraged by the way IBM ran things. ..."
Four years in GTS ... joined via being outsourced to IBM by my previous employer. Left
GTS after 4 years.
The IBM way of life was throughout the Oughts and the Teens an utter and complete
failure from the perspective of getting work done right and using people to their appropriate
and full potential. I went from a multi-disciplinary team of engineers working across
technologies to support corporate needs in the IT environment to being siloed into a
single-function organization.
My first year of on-boarding with IBM was spent deconstructing application integration and
cross-organizational structures of support and interwork that I had spent 6 years building
and maintaining. Handing off different chunks of work (again, before the outsourcing, an
Enterprise solution supported by one multi-disciplinary team) to different IBM GTS work silos
that had no physical special relationship and no interworking history or habits. What we're
talking about here is the notion of "left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing"
...
THAT was the IBM way of doing things, and nothing I've read about them over the past
decade or so tells me it has changed.
As a GTS employee, professional technical training was deemed unnecessary, hence I had
no access to any unless I paid for it myself and used my personal time ... the only training
available was cheesy presentations or other web based garbage from the intranet, or casual /
OJT style meetings with other staff who were NOT professional or expert trainers.
As a GTS employee, I had NO access to the expert and professional tools that IBM
fricking made and sold to the same damn customers I was supposed to be supporting. Did we
have expert and professional workflow / document management / ITIL aligned incident and
problem management tools? NO, we had fricking Lotus Notes and email. Instead of upgrading to
the newest and best software solutions for data center / IT management & support, we
degraded everything down the simplest and least complex single function tools that no "best
practices" organization on Earth would ever consider using.
And the people management paradigm ... employees ranked annually not against a static
or shared goal or metric, but in relation to each other, and there was ALWAYS a "top 10
percent" and a "bottom ten percent" required by upper management ... a system that was
sociopathic in it's nature because it encourages employees to NOT work together ... by
screwing over one's coworkers, perhaps by not giving necessary information, timely support,
assistance as needed or requested, one could potentially hurt their performance and make
oneself look relatively better. That's a self-defeating system and it was encouraged by the
way IBM ran things.
The "not invented here" ideology was embedded deeply in the souls of all senior IBMers I
ever met or worked with ... if you come on board with any outside knowledge or experience,
you must not dare to say "this way works better" because you'd be shut down before you could
blink. The phrase "best practices" to them means "the way we've always done it".
IBM gave up on innovation long ago. Since the 90's the vast majority of their software has
been bought, not built. Buy a small company, strip out the innovation, slap an IBM label on
it, sell it as the next coming of Jesus even though they refuse to expend any R&D to push
the product to the next level ... damn near everything IBM sold was gentrified, never cutting
edge.
And don't get me started on sales practices ... tell the customer how product XYZ is a
guaranteed moonshot, they'll be living on lunar real estate in no time at all, and after all
the contracts are signed hand the customer a box of nuts & bolts and a letter telling
them where they can look up instructions on how to build their own moon rocket. Or for XX
dollars more a year, hire a Professional Services IBMer to build it for them.
I have no sympathy for IBM. They need a clean sweep throughout upper management,
especially any of the old True Blue hard-core IBMers.
Social pressure to conform is natural in any organization. And universities are not exception. Various people positioned
differently on confiormism-independent_thinking spectrum, so we should not generalize that social pressure makes any
students a conformist, who is afraid to voice his/her opinion. Some small percentage of student can withstand significant social
pressure. But the fact that around 50% can't withstand significant social pressure sounds right.
As more and more college professors express their social and
political views in classrooms, students across the country are feeling increasingly afraid to
disagree according to a survey of 800 full-time undergraduate college students, reported by the
Wall Street Journal ' s James Freeman.
When students were asked if they've had "any professors or course instructors that have
used class time to express their own social or political beliefs that are completely
unrelated to the subject of the course," 52% of respondents said that this occurs "often,"
while 47% responded, "not often."
A majority -- 53% -- also reported that they often "felt intimidated" in sharing their
ideas, opinions or beliefs in class because they were different from those of the professors.
-
WSJ
What's more, 54% of students say they are intimidated expressing themselves when their views
conflict with those of their classmates.
The survey, conducted by McLaughlin & Associates on behalf of Yale's William F. Buckley,
Jr. Program (which counts Freeman among its directors), was undertaken between October 8th and
18th, and included students at both public and private four-year universities across the
country.
This is a problem, suggests Freeman - as unbiased teachers who formerly filled universities
have been replaced by activists who "unfortunately appear to be just as political and
overbearing as one would expect," and that " perhaps the actual parents who write checks can
someday find some way to encourage more responsible behavior. "
As for the students, there's at least a mixed message in the latest survey results. On the
downside, the fact that so many students are afraid of disagreeing with their peers does not
suggest a healthy intellectual atmosphere even outside the classroom. There's more
disappointing news in the answers to other survey questions. For example, 59% of respondents
agreed with this statement:
My college or university should forbid people from speaking on campus who have a history of
engaging in hate speech.
This column does not favor hatred, nor the subjective definition of "hate speech" by college
administrators seeking to regulate it. In perhaps the most disturbing finding in the poll
results, 33% of U.S. college students participating in the survey agreed with this
statement:
If someone is using hate speech or making racially charged comments, physical violence can be
justified to prevent this person from espousing their hateful views.
An optimist desperately searching for a silver lining would perhaps note that 60% of
respondents did not agree that physical violence is justified to silence people speaking what
someone has defined as "hate speech" or "racially charged" comments. But the fact that a third
of college students at least theoretically endorse violence as a response to offensive speech
underlines the threat to free expression on American campuses.
Perhaps more encouraging are the responses to this question:
Generally speaking, do you think the First Amendment, which deals with freedom of speech, is
an outdated amendment that can no longer be applied in today's society and should be changed
or an important amendment that still needs to be followed and respected in today's society?
A full 79% of respondents opted for respecting the First Amendment, while 17% backed a
rewrite.
On a more specific question, free speech isn't winning by the same landslide. When asked if
they would favor or oppose their schools having speech codes to regulate speech for students
and faculty, 54% of U.S. college kids opposed such codes while 38% were in favor.
The free exchange of ideas is in danger on American campuses. And given the unprofessional
behavior of American faculty suggested by this survey, education reformers should perhaps focus
on encouraging free-speech advocates within the student body while adopting a campus slogan
from an earlier era: Don't trust anyone over 30.
this tyranny applies not only to politics and weirdo social world view, it runs thru
everything. Group think is powerful and those not following get excluded, defunded of
resources and ridicule and other punishment.
The education-industrial complex is a massive spending and debt-fed bubble, that has
created a massive political organizing force and teflon monoculture. They are parasites
feeding off government and the debt of students
It's always been like this, at school as a 5 year old ....my little kid was sent to the
headmaster for objecting to making a key ring thing in craft as not one kid had a key. He
spoke a well reasoned argument and of course is at the Supreme Court now. But gained no
respect or nurturing from that school. I also copped it, made career decision to be a
scientist because of the stupidity of an english teacher not knowing same issues prevailed
there. Was thrown out of english honours course so did the exam on my own knowledge and got
first class honours in the state.
At University we all know you feed back what they want if you want to pass. Some want
intelligence and best true understanding others want their crippled stuff. This also applies
if you are a science, physiology researcher. Cutting edge work if not mainstream does not get
published, you have to be part of a recognised institution to be published so no independent
researcher,
There are set ideas and marketing there of eg antioxidants fallacies, need for estrogen,
and until recently How stupid was Lamarck because he espoused the passing down of response to
environment to subsequent generations...Darwin thought this too but idea was suppressed. Then
epigenetics got the new hot thing for grants. Fck them all.
My child and I discussed a version with the principal when he was doing the
bacceaulureate, as from 5 onwards teachers rejected correct answers and wanted their answers.
The excellent advice was to view it all like a driving exam, learn the road rules and give
them back.
students always know the tyranny of the teacher and evaluator. At 6 my kid was sat with
the slow learners and forced to give 30answers a day ' correct' . Ie lies and untruths.
Infinity as answer to how many corners has a cylinder was not only mad bad but
ridiculed.
It's impossible to actually debate someone who has NO FACTS on either side of the
argument....
it winds up like this....
"not even WRONG"
The phrase " not even wrong " describes an argument or explanation that purports to be
scientific but is based on invalid reasoning or speculative premises that can neither be
proven correct nor falsified .
Hence, it refers to statements that cannot be discussed in a rigorous, scientific sense . [1] For a
meaningful discussion on whether a certain statement is true or false, the statement must
satisfy the criterion called "falsifiability" -- the inherent possibility for the statement
to be tested and found false. In this sense, the phrase "not even wrong" is synonymous to
"nonfalsifiable". [1]
The phrase is generally attributed to theoretical physicistWolfgang Pauli , who was
known for his colorful objections to incorrect or careless thinking. [2][3]Rudolf Peierls documents an
instance in which "a friend showed Pauli the paper of a young physicist which he suspected
was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli's views. Pauli remarked sadly, 'It is not
even wrong' ." [4] This is also
often quoted as "That is not only not right; it is not even wrong", or in Pauli's native
German , " Das
ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!". Peierls remarks that quite a few
apocryphal stories of this
kind have been circulated and mentions that he listed only the ones personally vouched for by
him. He also quotes another example when Pauli replied to Lev Landau , "What you said was so confused
that one could not tell whether it was nonsense or not. " [4]
Chemical engineering, engineering structural (optional), basic electrical engineering and
C++ programing and he can make any machine to automatically preform any chemical process out
of his garage. You could probably watch a butt ton of YouTube and a library card and also
learn those skills.
The homogenized culture of colleges today is very similar to what I imagine it was like in
the 1950's, but with a different set of "values" obviously. The 1950's led to the 1960's, and
a complete rejection by many young people of establishment mono-culture. Maybe the young
people eventually will figure out that what they see as SJW counter-culture is actually new
establishment culture, and they will rebel against it in a few years. Probably not,
though.
When I was in the army and got sentence to 2 years less a day in Military prison in
Edmonton, I paid $1.70 a day, which the military were so kind to ring up a tab for me, when I
got released from prison they handed me my bill and made me work it off before I got my
dishonorable discharge
Step back and think about this for a minute. There are plenty of examples of people who were
doing their jobs, IN SPADES, putting in tons of unpaid overtime, and generally doing whatever
was humanly possible to make sure that whatever was promised to the customer was delivered
(within their span of control... I'm not going to get into a discussion of how IBM pulls the
rug out from underneath contracts after they've been signed).
These people were, and still are, high performers, they are committed to the job and the
purpose that has been communicated to them by their peers, management, and customers; and
they take the time (their OWN time) to pick up new skills and make sure that they are still
current and marketable. They do this because they are committed to doing the job to the best
of their ability.... it's what makes them who they are.
IBM (and other companies) are firing these very people ***for one reason and one reason
ONLY***: their AGE. They have the skills and they're doing their jobs. If the same person was
30 you can bet that they'd still be there. Most of the time it has NOTHING to do with
performance or lack of concurrency. Once the employee is fired, the job is done by someone
else. The work is still there, but it's being done by someone younger and/or of a different
nationality.
The money that is being saved by these companies has to come from somewhere. People that
are having to withdraw their retirement savings 20 or so years earlier than planned are going
to run out of funds.... and when they're in nursing homes, guess who is going to be
supporting them? Social security will be long gone, their kids have their own monetary
challenges.... so it will be government programs.... maybe.
This is not just a problem that impacts the 40 and over crowd. This is going to impact our
entire society for generations to come.
The business reality you speak of can be tempered via government actions. A few things:
One of the major hardships here is laying someone off when they need income the most -
to pay for their children's college education. To mitigate this, as a country we could make a
public education free. That takes off a lot of the sting, some people might relish a change
in career when they are in their 50s except that the drop in salary is so steep when changing
careers.
We could lower the retirement age to 55 and increase Social Security to more than a
poverty-level existence.Being laid off when you're 50 or 55 - with little chance to be hired
anywhere else - would not hurt as much.
We could offer federal wage subsidies for older workers to make them more attractive to
hire. While some might see this as a thumb on the scale against younger workers, in reality
it would be simply a counterweight to the thumb that is already there against older
workers.
Universal health care equalizes the cost of older and younger workers.
The other alternative is a market-based life that, for many, will be cruel, brutish, and
short.
As a new engineering graduate, I joined a similar-sized multinational US-based company in the
early '70s. Their recruiting pitch was, "Come to work here, kid. Do your job, keep your nose
clean, and you will enjoy great, secure work until you retire on easy street".
Soon after I started, the company fired hundreds of 50-something employees and put we
"kids" in their jobs. Seeing that employee loyalty was a one way street at that place, I left
after a couple of years. Best career move I ever made.
As a 25yr+ vet of IBM, I can confirm that this article is spot-on true. IBM used to be a
proud and transparent company that clearly demonstrated that it valued its employees as much
as it did its stock performance or dividend rate or EPS, simply because it is good for
business. Those principles helped make and keep IBM atop the business world as the most
trusted international brand and business icon of success for so many years. In 2000, all that
changed when Sam Palmisano became the CEO. Palmisano's now infamous "Roadmap 2015" ran the
company into the ground through its maniacal focus on increasing EPS at any and all costs.
Literally. Like, its employees, employee compensation, benefits, skills, and education
opportunities. Like, its products, product innovation, quality, and customer service. All of
which resulted in the devastation of its technical capability and competitiveness, employee
engagement, and customer loyalty. Executives seemed happy enough as their compensation grew
nicely with greater financial efficiencies, and Palisano got a sweet $270M+ exit package in
2012 for a job well done. The new CEO, Ginni Rometty has since undergone a lot of scrutiny
for her lack of business results, but she was screwed from day one. Of course, that doesn't
leave her off the hook for the business practices outlined in the article, but what do you
expect: she was hand picked by Palmisano and approved by the same board that thought
Palmisano was golden.
In 1994, I saved my job at IBM for the first time, and survived. But I was 36 years old. I
sat down at the desk of a man in his 50s, and found a few odds and ends left for me in the
desk. Almost 20 years later, it was my turn to go. My health and well-being is much better
now. Less money but better health. The sins committed by management will always be: "I was
just following orders".
"... Correction, March 24, 2018: Eileen Maroney lives in Aiken, South Carolina. The name of her city was incorrect in the original version of this story. ..."
Consider, for example, a planning presentation that former IBM executives said was drafted by heads of a business unit carved
out of IBM's once-giant software group and charged with pursuing the "C," or cloud, portion of the company's CAMS strategy.
The presentation laid out plans for substantially altering the unit's workforce. It was shown to company leaders including Diane
Gherson, the senior vice president for human resources, and James Kavanaugh, recently elevated to chief financial officer. Its language
was couched in the argot of "resources," IBM's term for employees, and "EP's," its shorthand for early professionals or recent college
graduates.
Among the goals: "Shift headcount mix towards greater % of Early Professional hires." Among the means: "[D]rive a more aggressive
performance management approach to enable us to hire and replace where needed, and fund an influx of EPs to correct seniority mix."
Among the expected results: "[A] significant reduction in our workforce of 2,500 resources."
A slide from a similar presentation prepared last spring for the same leaders called for "re-profiling current talent" to "create
room for new talent." Presentations for 2015 and 2016 for the 50,000-employee software group also included plans for "aggressive
performance management" and emphasized the need to "maintain steady attrition to offset hiring."
IBM declined to answer questions about whether either presentation was turned into company policy. The description of the planned
moves matches what hundreds of older ex-employees told ProPublica they believe happened to them: They were ousted because of their
age. The company used their exits to hire replacements, many of them young; to ship their work overseas; or to cut its overall headcount.
Ed Alpern, now 65, of Austin, started his 39-year run with IBM as a Selectric typewriter repairman. He ended as a project manager
in October of 2016 when, he said, his manager told him he could either leave with severance and other parting benefits or be given
a bad job review -- something he said he'd never previously received -- and risk being fired without them.
Albert Poggi, now 70, was a three-decade IBM veteran and ran the company's Palisades, New York, technical center where clients
can test new products. When notified in November of 2016 he was losing his job to layoff, he asked his bosses why, given what he
said was a history of high job ratings. "They told me," he said, "they needed to fill it with someone newer."
The presentations from the software group, as well as the stories of ex-employees like Alpern and Poggi, square with internal
documents from two other major IBM business units. The documents for all three cover some or all of the years from 2013 through the
beginning of 2018 and deal with job assessments, hiring, firing and layoffs.
The documents detail practices that appear at odds with how IBM says it treats its employees. In many instances, the practices
in effect, if not intent, tilt against the company's older U.S. workers.
For example, IBM spokespeople and lawyers have said the company never considers a worker's age in making decisions about layoffs
or firings.
But one 2014 document reviewed by ProPublica includes dates of birth. An ex-IBM employee familiar with the process said executives
from one business unit used it to decide about layoffs or other job changes for nearly a thousand workers, almost two-thirds of them
over 50.
Documents from subsequent years show that young workers are protected from cuts for at least a limited period of time. A 2016
slide presentation prepared by the company's global technology services unit, titled "U.S. Resource Action Process" and used to guide
managers in layoff procedures, includes bullets for categories considered "ineligible" for layoff. Among them: "early professional
hires," meaning recent college graduates.
In responding to age-discrimination complaints that ex-employees file with the EEOC, lawyers for IBM say that front-line managers
make all decisions about who gets laid off, and that their decisions are based strictly on skills and job performance, not age.
But ProPublica reviewed spreadsheets that indicate front-line managers hardly acted alone in making layoff calls. Former IBM managers
said the spreadsheets were prepared for upper-level executives and kept continuously updated. They list hundreds of employees together
with codes like "lift and shift," indicating that their jobs were to be lifted from them and shifted overseas, and details such as
whether IBM's clients had approved the change.
An examination of several of the spreadsheets suggests that, whatever the criteria for assembling them, the resulting list of
those marked for layoff was skewed toward older workers. A 2016 spreadsheet listed more than 400 full-time U.S. employees under the
heading "REBAL," which refers to "rebalancing," the process that can lead to laying off workers and either replacing them or shifting
the jobs overseas. Using the job search site LinkedIn, ProPublica was able to locate about 100 of these employees and then obtain
their ages through public records. Ninety percent of those found were 40 or older. Seventy percent were over 50.
IBM frequently cites its history of encouraging diversity in its responses to EEOC complaints about age discrimination. "IBM has
been a leader in taking positive actions to ensure its business opportunities are made available to individuals without regard to
age, race, color, gender, sexual orientation and other categories," a lawyer for the company wrote in a May 2017 letter. "This policy
of non-discrimination is reflected in all IBM business activities."
But ProPublica found at least one company business unit using a point system that disadvantaged older workers. The system awarded
points for attributes valued by the company. The more points a person garnered, according to the former employee, the more protected
she or he was from layoff or other negative job change; the fewer points, the more vulnerable.
The arrangement appears on its face to favor younger newcomers over older veterans. Employees were awarded points for being relatively
new at a job level or in a particular role. Those who worked for IBM for fewer years got more points than those who'd been there
a long time.
The ex-employee familiar with the process said a 2014 spreadsheet from that business unit, labeled "IBM Confidential," was assembled
to assess the job prospects of more than 600 high-level employees, two-thirds of them from the U.S. It included employees' years
of service with IBM, which the former employee said was used internally as a proxy for age. Also listed was an assessment by their
bosses of their career trajectories as measured by the highest job level they were likely to attain if they remained at the company,
as well as their point scores.
The tilt against older workers is evident when employees' years of service are compared with their point scores. Those with no
points and therefore most vulnerable to layoff had worked at IBM an average of more than 30 years; those with a high number of points
averaged half that.
Perhaps even more striking is the comparison between employees' service years and point scores on the one hand and their superiors'
assessments of their career trajectories on the other.
Along with many American employers, IBM has argued it needs to shed older workers because they're no longer at the top of their
games or lack "contemporary" skills.
But among those sized up in the confidential spreadsheet, fully 80 percent of older employees -- those with the most years of
service but no points and therefore most vulnerable to layoff -- were rated by superiors as good enough to stay at their current
job levels or be promoted. By contrast, only a small percentage of younger employees with a high number of points were similarly
rated.
"No major company would use tools to conduct a layoff where a disproportionate share of those let go were African Americans or
women," said Cathy Ventrell-Monsees, senior attorney adviser with the EEOC and former director of age litigation for the senior lobbying
giant AARP. "There's no difference if the tools result in a disproportionate share being older workers."
In addition to the point system that disadvantaged older workers in layoffs, other documents suggest that IBM has made increasingly
aggressive use of its job-rating machinery to pave the way for straight-out firings, or what the company calls "management-initiated
separations." Internal documents suggest that older workers were especially targets.
Like in many companies, IBM employees sit down with their managers at the start of each year and set goals for themselves. IBM
graded on a scale of 1 to 4, with 1 being top-ranked.
Those rated as 3 or 4 were given formal short-term goals known as personal improvement plans, or PIPs. Historically many managers
were lenient, especially toward those with 3s whose ratings had dropped because of forces beyond their control, such as a weakness
in the overall economy, ex-employees said.
But within the past couple of years, IBM appears to have decided the time for leniency was over. For example, a software group
planning document for 2015 said that, over and above layoffs, the unit should seek to fire about 3,000 of the unit's 50,000-plus
workers.
To make such deep cuts, the document said, executives should strike an "aggressive performance management posture." They needed
to double the share of employees given low 3 and 4 ratings to at least 6.6 percent of the division's workforce. And because layoffs
cost the company more than outright dismissals or resignations, the document said, executives should make sure that more than 80
percent of those with low ratings get fired or forced to quit.
Finally, the 2015 document said the division should work "to attract the best and brightest early professionals" to replace up
to two-thirds of those sent packing. A more recent planning document -- the presentation to top executives Gherson and Kavanaugh
for a business unit carved out of the software group -- recommended using similar techniques to free up money by cutting current
employees to fund an "influx" of young workers.
In a recent interview, Poggi said he was resigned to being laid off. "Everybody at IBM has a bullet with their name on it," he
said. Alpern wasn't nearly as accepting of being threatened with a poor job rating and then fired.
Alpern had a particular reason for wanting to stay on at IBM, at least until the end of last year. His younger son, Justin, then
a high school senior, had been named a National Merit semifinalist. Alpern wanted him to be able to apply for one of the company's
Watson scholarships. But IBM had recently narrowed eligibility so only the children of current employees could apply, not also retirees
as it was until 2014.
Alpern had to make it through December for his son to be eligible.
But in August, he said, his manager ordered him to retire. He sought to buy time by appealing to superiors. But he said the manager's
response was to threaten him with a bad job review that, he was told, would land him on a PIP, where his work would be scrutinized
weekly. If he failed to hit his targets -- and his managers would be the judges of that -- he'd be fired and lose his benefits.
Alpern couldn't risk it; he retired on Oct. 31. His son, now a freshman on the dean's list at Texas A&M University, didn't get
to apply.
"I can think of only a couple regrets or disappointments over my 39 years at IBM,"" he said, "and that's one of them."
'Congratulations on Your Retirement!'
Like any company in the U.S., IBM faces few legal constraints to reducing the size of its workforce. And with its no-disclosure
strategy, it eliminated one of the last regular sources of information about its employment practices and the changing size of its
American workforce.
But there remained the question of whether recent cutbacks were big enough to trigger state and federal requirements for disclosure
of layoffs. And internal documents, such as a slide in a 2016 presentation titled "Transforming to Next Generation Digital Talent,"
suggest executives worried that "winning the talent war" for new young workers required IBM to improve the "attractiveness of (its)
culture and work environment," a tall order in the face of layoffs and firings.
So the company apparently has sought to put a softer face on its cutbacks by recasting many as voluntary rather than the result
of decisions by the firm. One way it has done this is by converting many layoffs to retirements.
Some ex-employees told ProPublica that, faced with a layoff notice, they were just as happy to retire. Others said they felt forced
to accept a retirement package and leave. Several actively objected to the company treating their ouster as a retirement. The company
nevertheless processed their exits as such.
Project manager Ed Alpern's departure was treated in company paperwork as a voluntary retirement. He didn't see it that way, because
the alternative he said he was offered was being fired outright.
Lorilynn King, a 55-year-old IT specialist who worked from her home in Loveland, Colorado, had been with IBM almost as long as
Alpern by May 2016 when her manager called to tell her the company was conducting a layoff and her name was on the list.
King said the manager told her to report to a meeting in Building 1 on IBM's Boulder campus the following day. There, she said,
she found herself in a group of other older employees being told by an IBM human resources representative that they'd all be retiring.
"I have NO intention of retiring," she remembers responding. "I'm being laid off."
ProPublica has collected documents from 15 ex-IBM employees who got layoff notices followed by a retirement package and has talked
with many others who said they received similar paperwork. Critics say the sequence doesn't square well with the law.
"This country has banned mandatory retirement," said Seiner, the University of South Carolina law professor and former EEOC appellate
lawyer. "The law says taking a retirement package has to be voluntary. If you tell somebody 'Retire or we'll lay you off or fire
you,' that's not voluntary."
Until recently, the company's retirement paperwork included a letter from Rometty, the CEO, that read, in part, "I wanted to take
this opportunity to wish you well on your retirement While you may be retiring to embark on the next phase of your personal journey,
you will always remain a valued and appreciated member of the IBM family." Ex-employees said IBM stopped sending the letter last
year.
IBM has also embraced another practice that leads workers, especially older ones, to quit on what appears to be a voluntary basis.
It substantially reversed its pioneering support for telecommuting, telling people who've been working from home for years to begin
reporting to certain, often distant, offices. Their other choice: Resign.
David Harlan had worked as an IBM marketing strategist from his home in Moscow, Idaho, for 15 years when a manager told him last
year of orders to reduce the performance ratings of everybody at his pay grade. Then in February last year, when he was 50, came
an internal video from IBM's new senior vice president, Michelle Peluso, which announced plans to improve the work of marketing employees
by ordering them to work "shoulder to shoulder." Those who wanted to stay on would need to "co-locate" to offices in one of six cities.
Early last year, Harlan received an email congratulating him on "the opportunity to join your team in Raleigh, North Carolina."
He had 30 days to decide on the 2,600-mile move. He resigned in June.
David Harlan worked for IBM for 15 years from his home in Moscow, Idaho, where he also runs a drama company. Early last year,
IBM offered him a choice: Move 2,600 miles to Raleigh-Durham to begin working at an office, or resign. He left in June. (Rajah Bose
for ProPublica)
After the Peluso video was leaked to the press, an IBM spokeswoman told the Wall Street Journal that the "
vast
majority " of people ordered to change locations and begin reporting to offices did so. IBM Vice President Ed Barbini said in
an initial email exchange with ProPublica in July that the new policy affected only about 2,000 U.S. employees and that "most" of
those had agreed to move.
But employees across a wide range of company operations, from the systems and technology group to analytics, told ProPublica they've
also been ordered to co-locate in recent years. Many IBMers with long service said that they quit rather than sell their homes, pull
children from school and desert aging parents. IBM declined to say how many older employees were swept up in the co-location initiative.
"They basically knew older employees weren't going to do it," said Eileen Maroney, a 63-year-old IBM product manager from Aiken,
South Carolina, who, like Harlan, was ordered to move to Raleigh or resign. "Older people aren't going to move. It just doesn't make
any sense." Like Harlan, Maroney left IBM last June.
Having people quit rather than being laid off may help IBM avoid disclosing how much it is shrinking its U.S. workforce and where
the reductions are occurring.
Under the federal WARN Act , adopted in the wake
of huge job cuts and factory shutdowns during the 1980s, companies laying off 50 or more employees who constitute at least one-third
of an employer's workforce at a site have to give advance notice of layoffs to the workers, public agencies and local elected officials.
Similar laws in some states where IBM has a substantial presence are even stricter. California, for example, requires advanced
notice for layoffs of 50 or more employees, no matter what the share of the workforce. New York requires notice for 25 employees
who make up a third.
Because the laws were drafted to deal with abrupt job cuts at individual plants, they can miss reductions that occur over long
periods among a workforce like IBM's that was, at least until recently, widely dispersed because of the company's work-from-home
policy.
IBM's training sessions to prepare managers for layoffs suggest the company was aware of WARN thresholds, especially in states
with strict notification laws such as California. A 2016 document entitled "Employee Separation Processing" and labeled "IBM Confidential"
cautions managers about the "unique steps that must be taken when processing separations for California employees."
A ProPublica review of five years of WARN disclosures for a dozen states where the company had large facilities that shed workers
found no disclosures in nine. In the other three, the company alerted authorities of just under 1,000 job cuts -- 380 in California,
369 in New York and 200 in Minnesota. IBM's reported figures are well below the actual number of jobs the company eliminated in these
states, where in recent years it has shuttered, sold off or leveled plants that once employed vast numbers.
By contrast, other employers in the same 12 states reported layoffs last year alone totaling 215,000 people. They ranged from
giant Walmart to Ostrom's Mushroom Farms in Washington state.
Whether IBM operated within the rules of the WARN act, which are notoriously fungible, could not be determined because the company
declined to provide ProPublica with details on its layoffs.
A Second Act, But Poorer
W ith 35 years at IBM under his belt, Ed Miyoshi had plenty of experience being pushed to take buyouts, or early retirement packages,
and refusing them. But he hadn't expected to be pushed last fall.
Miyoshi, of Hopewell Junction, New York, had some years earlier launched a pilot program to improve IBM's technical troubleshooting.
With the blessing of an IBM vice president, he was busily interviewing applicants in India and Brazil to staff teams to roll the
program out to clients worldwide.
The interviews may have been why IBM mistakenly assumed Miyoshi was a manager, and so emailed him to eliminate the one U.S.-based
employee still left in his group.
"That was me," Miyoshi realized.
In his sign-off email to colleagues shortly before Christmas 2016, Miyoshi, then 57, wrote: "I am too young and too poor to stop
working yet, so while this is good-bye to my IBM career, I fully expect to cross paths with some of you very near in the future."
He did, and perhaps sooner than his colleagues had expected; he started as a subcontractor to IBM about two weeks later, on Jan.
3.
Miyoshi is an example of older workers who've lost their regular IBM jobs and been brought back as contractors. Some of them --
not Miyoshi -- became contract workers after IBM told them their skills were out of date and no longer needed.
Employment law experts said that hiring ex-employees as contractors can be legally dicey. It raises the possibility that the layoff
of the employee was not for the stated reason but perhaps because they were targeted for their age, race or gender.
IBM appears to recognize the problem. Ex-employees say the company has repeatedly told managers -- most recently earlier this
year -- not to contract with former employees or sign on with third-party contracting firms staffed by ex-IBMers. But ProPublica
turned up dozens of instances where the company did just that.
Only two weeks after IBM laid him off in December 2016, Ed Miyoshi of Hopewell Junction, New York, started work as a subcontractor
to the company. But he took a $20,000-a-year pay cut. "I'm not a millionaire, so that's a lot of money to me," he says. (Demetrius
Freeman for ProPublica)
Responding to a question in a confidential questionnaire from ProPublica, one 35-year company veteran from New York said he knew
exactly what happened to the job he left behind when he was laid off. "I'M STILL DOING IT. I got a new gig eight days after departure,
working for a third-party company under contract to IBM doing the exact same thing."
In many cases, of course, ex-employees are happy to have another job, even if it is connected with the company that laid them
off.
Henry, the Columbus-based sales and technical specialist who'd been with IBM's "resiliency services" unit, discovered that he'd
lost his regular IBM job because the company had purchased an Indian firm that provided the same services. But after a year out of
work, he wasn't going to turn down the offer of a temporary position as a subcontractor for IBM, relocating data centers. It got
money flowing back into his household and got him back where he liked to be, on the road traveling for business.
The compensation most ex-IBM employees make as contractors isn't comparable. While Henry said he collected the same dollar amount,
it didn't include health insurance, which cost him $1,325 a month. Miyoshi said his paycheck is 20 percent less than what he made
as an IBM regular.
"I took an over $20,000 hit by becoming a contractor. I'm not a millionaire, so that's a lot of money to me," Miyoshi said.
And lower pay isn't the only problem ex-IBM employees-now-subcontractors face. This year, Miyoshi's payable hours have been cut
by an extra 10 "furlough days." Internal documents show that IBM repeatedly furloughs subcontractors without pay, often for two,
three or more weeks a quarter. In some instances, the furloughs occur with little advance notice and at financially difficult moments.
In one document, for example, it appears IBM managers, trying to cope with a cost overrun spotted in mid-November, planned to dump
dozens of subcontractors through the end of the year, the middle of the holiday season.
Former IBM employees now on contract said the company controls costs by notifying contractors in the midst of projects they have
to take pay cuts or lose the work. Miyoshi said that he originally started working for his third-party contracting firm for 10 percent
less than at IBM, but ended up with an additional 10 percent cut in the middle of 2017, when IBM notified the contractor it was slashing
what it would pay.
For many ex-employees, there are few ways out. Henry, for example, sought to improve his chances of landing a new full-time job
by seeking assistance to finish a college degree through a federal program designed to retrain workers hurt by offshoring of jobs.
But when he contacted the Ohio state agency that administers the Trade Adjustment Assistance, or TAA, program, which provides
assistance to workers who lose their jobs for trade-related reasons, he was told IBM hadn't submitted necessary paperwork. State
officials said Henry could apply if he could find other IBM employees who were laid off with him, information that the company doesn't
provide.
TAA is overseen by the Labor Department but is operated by states under individual agreements with Washington, so the rules can
vary from state to state. But generally employers, unions, state agencies and groups of employers can petition for training help
and cash assistance. Labor Department data compiled by the advocacy group Global Trade Watch shows that employers apply in about
40 percent of cases. Some groups of IBM workers have obtained retraining funds when they or their state have applied, but records
dating back to the early 1990s show IBM itself has applied for and won taxpayer assistance only once, in 2008, for three Chicago-area
workers whose jobs were being moved to India.
Teasing New Jobs
A s IBM eliminated thousands of jobs in 2016, David Carroll, a 52-year-old Austin software engineer, thought he was safe.
His job was in mobile development, the "M" in the company's CAMS strategy. And if that didn't protect him, he figured he was only
four months shy of qualifying for a program that gives employees who leave within a year of their three-decade mark access to retiree
medical coverage and other benefits.
But the layoff notice Carroll received March 2 gave him three months -- not four -- to come up with another job. Having been a
manager, he said he knew the gantlet he'd have to run to land a new position inside IBM.
Still, he went at it hard, applying for more than 50 IBM jobs, including one for a job he'd successfully done only a few years
earlier. For his effort, he got one offer -- the week after he'd been forced to depart. He got severance pay but lost access to what
would have been more generous benefits.
Edward Kishkill, then 60, of Hillsdale, New Jersey, had made a similar calculation.
A senior systems engineer, Kishkill recognized the danger of layoffs, but assumed he was immune because he was working in systems
security, the "S" in CAMS and another hot area at the company.
The precaution did him no more good than it had Carroll. Kishkill received a layoff notice the same day, along with 17 of the
22 people on his systems security team, including Diane Moos. The notice said that Kishkill could look for other jobs internally.
But if he hadn't landed anything by the end of May, he was out.
With a daughter who was a senior in high school headed to Boston University, he scrambled to apply, but came up dry. His last
day was May 31, 2016.
For many, the fruitless search for jobs within IBM is the last straw, a final break with the values the company still says it
embraces. Combined with the company's increasingly frequent request that departing employees train their overseas replacements, it
has left many people bitter. Scores of ex-employees interviewed by ProPublica said that managers with job openings told them they
weren't allowed to hire from layoff lists without getting prior, high-level clearance, something that's almost never given.
ProPublica reviewed documents that show that a substantial share of recent IBM layoffs have involved what the company calls "lift
and shift," lifting the work of specific U.S. employees and shifting it to specific workers in countries such as India and Brazil.
For example, a document summarizing U.S. employment in part of the company's global technology services division for 2015 lists nearly
a thousand people as layoff candidates, with the jobs of almost half coded for lift and shift.
Ex-employees interviewed by ProPublica said the lift-and-shift process required their extensive involvement. For example, shortly
after being notified she'd be laid off, Kishkill's colleague, Moos, was told to help prepare a "knowledge transfer" document and
begin a round of conference calls and email exchanges with two Indian IBM employees who'd be taking over her work. Moos said the
interactions consumed much of her last three months at IBM.
Next Chapters
W hile IBM has managed to keep the scale and nature of its recent U.S. employment cuts largely under the public's radar, the company
drew some unwanted attention during the 2016 presidential campaign, when then-candidate
Donald Trump lambasted it for eliminating 500 jobs in Minnesota, where the company has had a presence for a half century, and
shifting the work abroad.
The company also has caught flak -- in places like
Buffalo, New
York ;
Dubuque, Iowa ; Columbia,
Missouri , and
Baton Rouge, Louisiana -- for promising jobs in return for state and local incentives, then failing to deliver. In all, according
to public officials in those and other places, IBM promised to bring on 3,400 workers in exchange for as much as $250 million in
taxpayer financing but has hired only about half as many.
After Trump's victory, Rometty, in a move at least partly aimed at courting the president-elect, pledged to hire 25,000 new U.S.
employees by 2020. Spokesmen said the hiring would increase IBM's U.S. employment total, although, given its continuing job cuts,
the addition is unlikely to approach the promised hiring total.
When The New York Times ran a story last fall saying IBM now has
more employees in India than the U.S.,
Barbini, the corporate spokesman, rushed to declare, "The U.S. has always been and remains IBM's center of gravity." But his stream
of accompanying tweets and graphics focused
as much on the company's record for racking up patents as hiring people.
IBM has long been aware of the damage its job cuts can do to people. In a series of internal training documents to prepare managers
for layoffs in recent years, the company has included this warning: "Loss of a job often triggers a grief reaction similar to what
occurs after a death."
Most, though not all, of the ex-IBM employees with whom ProPublica spoke have weathered the loss and re-invented themselves.
Marjorie Madfis, the digital marketing strategist, couldn't land another tech job after her 2013 layoff, so she headed in a different
direction. She started a nonprofit called Yes She Can Inc. that provides job skills development for young autistic women, including
her 21-year-old daughter.
After almost two years of looking and desperate for useful work, Brian Paulson, the widely traveled IBM senior manager, applied
for and landed a position as a part-time rural letter carrier in Plano, Texas. He now works as a contract project manager for a Las
Vegas gaming and lottery firm.
Ed Alpern, who started at IBM as a Selectric typewriter repairman, watched his son go on to become a National Merit Scholar at
Texas A&M University, but not a Watson scholarship recipient.
Lori King, the IT specialist and 33-year IBM veteran who's now 56, got in a parting shot. She added an addendum to the retirement
papers the firm gave her that read in part: "It was never my plan to retire earlier than at least age 60 and I am not committing
to retire. I have been informed that I am impacted by a resource action effective on 2016-08-22, which is my last day at IBM, but
I am NOT retiring."
King has aced more than a year of government-funded coding boot camps and university computer courses, but has yet to land a new
job.
David Harlan still lives in Moscow, Idaho, after refusing IBM's "invitation" to move to North Carolina, and is artistic director
of the Moscow Art Theatre (Too).
Ed Miyoshi is still a technical troubleshooter working as a subcontractor for IBM.
Ed Kishkill, the senior systems engineer, works part time at a local tech startup, but pays his bills as an associate at a suburban
New Jersey Staples store.
This year, Paul Henry was back on the road, working as an IBM subcontractor in Detroit, about 200 miles from where he lived in
Columbus. On Jan. 8, he put in a 14-hour day and said he planned to call home before turning in. He died in his sleep.
Correction, March 24, 2018: Eileen Maroney lives in Aiken, South Carolina. The name of her city was incorrect in the original
version of this story.
Do you have information about age discrimination at IBM?
Peter Gosselin joined ProPublica as a contributing
reporter in January 2017 to cover aging. He has covered the U.S. and global economies for, among others, the Los Angeles Times and
The Boston Globe, focusing on the lived experiences of working people. He is the author of "High Wire: The Precarious Financial Lives
of American Families."
Ariana Tobin is an engagement reporter at ProPublica,
where she works to cultivate communities to inform our coverage. She was previously at The Guardian and WNYC. Ariana has also worked
as digital producer for APM's Marketplace and contributed
to outlets including The
New Republic , On Being , the
St. Louis
Beacon and Bustle .
There's not a word of truth quoted in this article. That is, quoted from IBM spokespeople. It's the culture there now. They don't
even realize that most of their customers have become deaf to the same crap from their Sales and Marketing BS, which is even worse
than their HR speak.
The sad truth is that IBM became incapable of taking its innovation (IBM is indeed a world beating, patent generating machine)
to market a long time ago. It has also lost the ability (if it ever really had it) to acquire other companies and foster their
innovation either - they ran most into the ground. As a result, for nearly a decade revenues have declined and resource actions
grown. The resource actions may seem to be the ugly problem, but they're only the symptom of a fat greedy and pompous bureaucracy
that's lost its ability to grow and stay relevant in a very competitive and changing industry. What they have been able to perfect
and grow is their ability to downsize and return savings as dividends (Big Sam Palmisano's "innovation"). Oh, and for senior management
to line their pockets.
Nothing IBM is currently doing is sustainable.
If you're still employed there, listen to the pain in the words of your fallen comrades and don't knock yourself out trying
to stay afloat. Perhaps learn some BS of your own and milk your job (career? not...) until you find freedom and better pastures.
If you own stock, do like Warren Buffett, and sell it while it still has some value.
This is NOTHING NEW! All major corporations have and will do this at some point in their existence. Another industry that does
this regularly every 3 to 5 years is the pharamaceutical industry. They'll decimate their sales forces in order to, as they like
to put it, "right size" the company.
They'll cloak it as weeding out the low performers, but they'll try to catch the "older" workers in the net as well.
"... I took an early retirement package when IBM first started downsizing. I had 30 years with them, but I could see the writing on the wall so I got out. I landed an exec job with a biotech company some years later and inherited an IBM consulting team that were already engaged. I reviewed their work for 2 months then had the pleasure of terminating the contract and actually escorting the team off the premises because the work product was so awful. ..."
"... Every former or prospective IBM employee is a potential future IBM customer or partner. How you treat them matters! ..."
"... I advise IBM customers now. My biggest professional achievements can be measured in how much revenue IBM lost by my involvement - millions. Favorite is when IBM paid customer to stop the bleeding. ..."
I took an early retirement package when IBM first started downsizing. I had 30 years
with them, but I could see the writing on the wall so I got out. I landed an exec job with a
biotech company some years later and inherited an IBM consulting team that were already
engaged. I reviewed their work for 2 months then had the pleasure of terminating the contract
and actually escorting the team off the premises because the work product was so
awful.
They actually did a presentation of their interim results - but it was a 52 slide package
that they had presented to me in my previous job but with the names and numbers changed.
see more
Intellectual Capital Re-Use! LOL! Not many people realize in IBM that many, if not all of the
original IBM Consulting Group materials were made under the Type 2 Materials clause of the
IBM Contract, which means the customers actually owned the IP rights of the documents. Can
you imagine the mess if just one customer demands to get paid for every re-use of the IP that
was developed for them and then re-used over and over again?
Beautiful! Yea, these companies so fast to push experienced people who have dedicated their
lives to the firm - how can you not...all the hours and commitment it takes - way
underestimate the power of the network of those left for dead and their influence in that
next career gig. Memories are long...very long when it comes to experiences like this.
I advise IBM customers now. My biggest professional achievements can be measured in how
much revenue IBM lost by my involvement - millions. Favorite is when IBM paid customer to
stop the bleeding.
Under neoliberlaism the idea of loyalty between a corporation and an employee makes no more sense than loyalty between a motel and its guests.
Notable quotes:
"... Any expectation of "loyalty", that two-way relationship of employee/company from an earlier time, was wishful thinking ..."
"... With all the automation going on around the world, these business leaders better worry about people not having money to buy their goods and services plus what are they going to do with the surplus of labor ..."
"... This is the nail in the coffin. As an IT manager responsible for selecting and purchasing software, I will never again recommend IBM products ..."
"... The way I saw it, every time I received a paycheck from IBM in exchange for two weeks' work, we were (almost) even. I did not owe them anything else and they did not owe me anything. The way I saw it, every time I received a paycheck from IBM in exchange for two weeks' work, we were (almost) even. I did not owe them anything else and they did not owe me anything. The idea of loyalty between a corporation and an at-will employee makes no more sense than loyalty between a motel and its guests. ..."
"... The annual unemployment rate topped 8% in 1975 and would reach nearly 10% in 1982. The economy seemed trapped in the new nightmare of stagflation," so called because it combined low economic growth and high unemployment ("stagnation") with high rates of inflation. And the prime rate hit 20% by 1980. ..."
I started at IBM 3 days out of college in 1979 and retired in 2017. I was satisfied with my choice and never felt mistreated because
I had no expectation of lifetime employment, especially after the pivotal period in the 1990's when IBM almost went out of business.
The company survived that period by dramatically restructuring both manufacturing costs and sales expense including the firing
of tens of thousands of employees. These actions were well documented in the business news of the time, the obvious alternative
was bankruptcy.
I told the authors that anyone working at IBM after 1993 should have had no expectation of a lifetime career. Downsizing, outsourcing,
movement of work around the globe was already commonplace at all such international companies. Any expectation of "loyalty",
that two-way relationship of employee/company from an earlier time, was wishful thinking .
I was always prepared to be sent packing, without cause, at any time and always had my resume up-to-date. I stayed because
of interesting work, respectful supervisors, and adequate compensation.
The "resource action" that forced my decision to retire was no surprise, the company that hired me had been gone for decades.
With all the automation going on around the world, these business leaders better worry about people not having money to buy
their goods and services plus what are they going to do with the surplus of labor
I had, more or less, the same experience at Cisco. They paid me to quit. Luckily, I was ready for it.
The article mentions IBMs 3 failures. So who was it that was responsible for not anticipating the transitions? It is hard enough
doing what you already know. Perhaps companies should be spending more on figuring out "what's next" and not continually playing
catch-up by dumping the older workers for the new.
I was laid off by IBM after 29 years and 4 months. I had received a division award in previous year, and my last PBC appraisal
was 2+ (high performer.) The company I left was not the company I started with. Top management--starting with Gerstner--has steadily
made IBM a less desirable place to work. They now treat employees as interchangeable assets and nothing more. I cannot/would not
recommend IBM as an employer to any young programmer.
Truly awesome work. I do want to add one thing, however--the entire rhetoric about "too many old white guys" that has become so
common absolutely contributes to the notion that this sort of behavior is not just acceptable but in some twisted way admirable
as well.
Is anyone surprised that so many young people don't think capitalism is a good system any more?
I ran a high technology electronic systems company for years. We ran it "the old way." If you worked hard, and tried, we would
bend over backwards to keep you. If technology or business conditions eliminated your job, we would try to train you for a new
one. Our people were loyal, not like IBMers today. I honestly think that's the best way to be profitable.
People afraid of being unjustly RIFFed will always lack vitality.
I'm glad someone is finally paying attention to age discrimination. IBM apparently is just one of many organizations that discriminate.
I'm in the middle of my own fight with the State University of New York (SUNY) over age discrimination. I was terminated by
a one of the technical colleges in the SUNY System. The EEOC/New York State Division of Human Rights (NYDHR) found that "PROBABLE
CAUSE (NYDHR's emphasis) exists to believe that the Respondent (Alfred State College - SUNY) has engaged in or is engaging in
the unlawful discriminatory practice complained of." Investigators for NYDHR interviewed several witnesses, who testified that
representatives of the college made statements such as "we need new faces", "three old men" attending a meeting, an older faculty
member described as an "albatross", and "we ought to get rid of the old white guys". Witnesses said these statements were made
by the Vice President of Academic Affairs and a dean at the college.
This saga at IBM is simply a microcosm of our overall economy. Older workers get ousted in favor of younger, cheaper workers;
way too many jobs get outsourced; and so many workers today [young and old] can barely land a full-time job. This is the behavior that our system incentivises (and gets away with) in this post Reagan Revolution era where deregulation is
lauded and unions have been undermined & demonized. We need to seriously re-work 'work', and in order to do this we need to purge
Republicans at every level, as they CLEARLY only serve corporate bottom-lines - not workers - by championing tax codes that reward
outsourcing, fight a livable minimum wage, eliminate pensions, bust unions, fight pay equity for women & family leave, stack the
Supreme Court with radical ideologues who blatantly rule for corporations over people all the time, etc. etc. ~35 years of basically
uninterrupted Conservative economic policy & ideology has proven disastrous for workers and our quality of life. As goes your
middle class, so goes your country.
I am a retired IBM manager having had to execute many of these resource reduction programs.. too many.. as a matter of fact. ProPUBLICA....You
nailed it!
IBM has always treated its customer-facing roles like Disney -- as cast members who need to match a part in a play. In the 60s
and 70s, it was the white-shirt, blue-suit white men whom IBM leaders thought looked like mainframe salesmen. Now, rather than
actually build a credible cloud to compete with Amazon and Microsoft, IBM changes the cast to look like cloud salespeople. (I
work for Microsoft. Commenting for myself alone.)
I am a survivor, the rare employee who has been at IBM for over 35 years. I have seen many, many layoff programs over 20 years
now. I have seen tens of thousands people let go from the Hudson Valley of N.Y. Those of us who have survived, know and lived
through what this article so accurately described. I currently work with 3 laid off/retired and rehired contractors. I have seen
age discrimination daily for over 15 years. It is not only limited to layoffs, it is rampant throughout the company. Promotions,
bonuses, transfers for opportunities, good reviews, etc... are gone if you are over 45. I have seen people under 30 given promotions
to levels that many people worked 25 years for. IBM knows that these younger employees see how they treat us so they think they
can buy them off. Come to think of it, I guess they actually are! They are ageist, there is no doubt, it is about time everyone
knew. Excellent article.
Nice article, but seriously this is old news. IBM has been at this for ...oh twenty years or more. I don't really have a problem with it in terms of a corporation trying to make money. But I do have a problem with how IBM also
likes to avoid layoffs by giving folks over 40 intentionally poor reviews, essentially trying to drive people out. Just have the
guts to tell people, we don't need you anymore, bye. But to string people along as the overseas workers come in...c'mon just be
honest with your workers. High tech over 40 is not easy...I suggest folks prep for a career change before 50. Then you can have the last laugh on a company
like IBM.
From pages 190-191 of my novel, Ordinary Man (Amazon):
Throughout
it all, layoffs became common, impacting mostly older employees with many years
of service. These job cuts were dribbled out in small numbers to conceal them
from the outside world, but employees could plainly see what was going on.
The laid off
employees were supplanted by offshoring work to low-costs countries and hiring
younger employees, often only on temporary contracts that offered low pay and
no benefits – a process pejoratively referred to by veteran employees as
"downsourcing." The recruitment of these younger workers was done under the
guise of bringing in fresh skills, but while many of the new hires brought new
abilities and vitality, they lacked the knowledge and perspective that comes
with experience.
Frequently,
an older more experienced worker would be asked to help educate newer
employees, only to be terminated shortly after completing the task. And the new
hires weren't fooled by what they witnessed and experienced at OpenSwitch,
perceiving very quickly that the company had no real interest in investing in
them for the long term. To the contrary, the objective was clearly to grind as
much work out of them as possible, without offering any hope of increased
reward or opportunity.
Most of the
young recruits left after only a year or two – which, again, was part of the
true agenda at the company. Senior management viewed employees not as talent,
but simply as cost, and didn't want anyone sticking around long enough to move
up the pay scale.
This is the nail in the coffin. As an IT manager responsible for selecting and purchasing software, I will never again recommend
IBM products. I love AIX and have worked with a lot if IBM products but not anymore. Good luck with the millennials though...
I worked for four major corporations (HP, Intel, Control Data Corporation, and Micron Semiconductor) before I was hired by IBM
as a rare (at that time) experienced new hire.
Even though I ended up working for IBM for 21 years, and retired in 2013, because
of my experiences at those other companies, I never considered IBM my "family."
The way I saw it, every time I received a paycheck
from IBM in exchange for two weeks' work, we were (almost) even. I did not owe them anything else and they did not owe me anything.
The way I saw it, every time I received a paycheck
from IBM in exchange for two weeks' work, we were (almost) even. I did not owe them anything else and they did not owe me anything.
The idea of loyalty between a corporation and an at-will employee makes no more sense than loyalty between a motel and its guests.
It is a business arrangement, not a love affair. Every individual needs to continually assess their skills and their value to
their employer. If they are not commensurate, it is the employee's responsibility to either acquire new skills or seek a new employer.
Your employer will not hesitate to lay you off if your skills are no longer needed, or if they can hire someone who can do your
job just as well for less pay. That is free enterprise, and it works for people willing to take advantage of it.
I basically agree. But why should it be OK for a company to fire you just to replace you with a younger you? If all that they
accomplish is lowering their health care costs (which is what this is really about). If the company is paying about the same for
the same work, why is firing older workers for being older OK?
Good question. The point I was trying to make is that people need to watch out for themselves and not expect their employer to
do what is "best" for the employee. I think that is true whatever age the employee happens to be.
Whether employers should be able to discriminate against (treat differently) their employees based on age, gender, race, religion,
etc. is a political question. Morally, I don't think they should discriminate. Politically, I think it is a slippery slope when
the government starts imposing regulations on free enterprise. Government almost always creates more problems than they fix.
Sorry, but when you deregulate the free enterprise, it created more problems than it fixes and that is a fact that has been proven
for the last 38 years.
That's just plain false. Deregulation creates competiiton. Competition for talented and skilled workers creates opportunities
for those that wish to be employed and for those that wish to start new ventures. For example, when Ma Bell was regulated and
had a monopoly on telecommunications there was no innovation in the telecom inudstry. However, when it was deregulated, cell phones,
internet, etc exploded ... creating billionaires and millionaires while also improving the quality of life.
No, it happens to be true. When Reagan deregulate the economy, a lot of those corporate raiders just took over the companies,
sold off the assets, and pocketed the money. What quality of life? Half of American lived near the poverty level and the wages
for the workers have been stagnant for the last 38 years compared to a well-regulated economy in places like Germany and the Scandinavian
countries where the workers have good wages and a far better standard of living than in the USA. Why do you think the Norwegians
told Trump that they will not be immigrating to the USA anytime soon?
What were the economic conditions before Regan? It was a nightmare before Regan. The annual unemployment rate topped 8% in 1975 and would reach nearly 10% in 1982. The economy seemed trapped in the new nightmare
of stagflation," so called because it combined low economic growth and high unemployment ("stagnation") with high rates of inflation.
And the prime rate hit 20% by 1980.
At least we had a manufacturing base in the USA, strong regulations of corporations, corporate scandals were far and few, businesses
did not go under so quickly, prices of goods and services did not go through the roof, people had pensions and could reasonably
live off them, and recessions did not last so long or go so deep until Reagan came into office. In Under Reagan, the jobs were
allowed to be send overseas, unions were busted up, pensions were reduced or eliminated, wages except those of the CEOs were staganent,
and the economic conditions under Bush, Senior and Bush, Jr. were no better except that Bush, Jr, was the first president to have
a net minus below zero growth, so every time we get a Republican Administration, the economy really turns into a nightmare. That
is a fact.
You have the Republicans in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin using Reaganomics and they are economic disaster areas.
You had an industrial base in the USA, lots of banks and savings and loans to choose from, lots of mom and pop stores, strong
government regulation of the economy, able to live off your pensions, strong unions and employment laws along with the court system
to back you up against corporate malfeasance. All that was gone when Reagan and the two Bushes came into office.
Amazingly accurate article. The once great IBM now a dishonest and unscrupulous corporation concerned more about earnings per
share than employees, customers, or social responsibility. In Global Services most likely 75% or more jobs are no longer in the
US - can't believe a word coming out of Armonk.
I'm not sure there was ever a paradise in employment. Yeah, you can say there was more job stability 50 or 60 years ago, but that
applied to a much smaller workforce than today (mostly white men). It is a drag, but there are also lot more of us old farts than
there used to be and we live a lot longer in retirement as well. I don't see any magic bullet fix either.
Great article. What's especially infuriating is that the industry continues to claim that there is a shortage of STEM workers.
For example, google "claim of 1.4 million computer science jobs with only 400,000 computer science graduates to fill them". If
companies would openly say, "we have plenty of young STEM workers and prefer them to most older STEM workers", we could at least
start addressing the problem. But they continue to promote the lie of there being a STEM shortage. They just want as big a labor
pool as possible, unemployed workers be damned.
I've worked there 17 years and have worried about being layed off for about 11 of them. Moral is in the toilet. Bonuses for the
rank and file are in the under 1% range while the CEO gets millions. Pay raises have been non existent or well under inflation
for years. Adjusting for inflation, I make $6K less than I did my first day. My group is a handful of people as at least 1/2 have
quit or retired. To support our customers, we used to have several people, now we have one or two and if someone is sick or on
vacation, our support structure is to hope nothing breaks. We can't keep millennials because of pay, benefits and the expectation
of being available 24/7 because we're shorthanded. As the unemployment rate drops, more leave to find a different job, leaving
the old people as they are less willing to start over with pay, vacation, moving, selling a house, pulling kids from school, etc.
The younger people are generally less likely to be willing to work as needed on off hours or to pull work from a busier colleague.
I honestly have no idea what the plan is when the people who know what they are doing start to retire, we are way top heavy with
30-40 year guys who are on their way out, very few of the 10-20 year guys due to hiring freezes and we can't keep new people past
2-3 years. It's like our support business model is designed to fail.
Make no mistake. The three and four letter acronyms and other mushy corporate speak may differ from firm to firm, but this is
going on in every large tech company old enough to have a large population of workers over 50. I hope others will now be exposed.
This article hits the nail right on the head, as I come up on my 1 year anniversary from being....ahem....'retired' from 23 years
at IBM....and I'll be damned if I give them the satisfaction of thinking this was like a 'death' to me. It was the greatest thing
that could have ever happened. Ginny and the board should be ashamed of themselves, but they won't be.
Starting around age 40 you start to see age discrimination. I think this is largely due to economics, like increased vacation
times, higher wages, but most of all the perception that older workers will run up the medical costs. You can pass all the age
related discrimination laws you want, but look how ineffective that has been.
If you contrast this with the German workforce, you see that they have more older workers with the skills and younger workers
without are having a difficult time getting in. So what's the difference? There are laws about how many vacation weeks that are
given and there is a national medical system that everyone pays, so discrimination isn't seen in the same light.
The US is the only hold out maybe with South Africa that doesn't have a good national medical insurance program for everyone.
Not only do we pay more than the rest of the world, but we also have discrimination because of it.
This is very good, and this is IBM. I know. I was plaintiff in Gundlach v. IBM Japan, 983 F.Supp.2d 389, which involved their
violating Japanese labor law when I worked in Japan. The New York federal judge purposely ignored key points of Japanese labor
law, and also refused to apply Title VII and Age Discrimination in Employment to the parent company in Westchester County. It
is a huge, self-described "global" company with little demonstrated loyalty to America and Americans. Pennsylvania is suing them
for $170 million on a botched upgrade of the state's unemployment system.
In early 2013 I was given a 3 PBC rating for my 2012 performance, the main reason cited by my manager being that my team lead
thought I "seemed distracted". Five months later I was included in a "resource action", and was gone by July. I was 20 months
shy of 55. Younger coworkers were retained. That was about two years after the product I worked on for over a decade was off-shored.
Through a fluke of someone from the old, disbanded team remembering me, I was rehired two years later - ironically in a customer
support position for the very product I helped develop.
While I appreciated my years of service, previous salary, and previous benefits being reinstated, a couple years into it I
realized I just wasn't cut out for the demands of the job - especially the significant 24x7 pager duty. Last June I received email
describing a "Transition to Retirement" plan I was eligible for, took it, and my last day will be June 30. I still dislike the
job, but that plan reclassified me as part time, thus ending pager duty for me. The job still sucks, but at least I no longer
have to despair over numerous week long 24x7 stints throughout the year.
A significant disappointment occurred a couple weeks ago. I was discussing healthcare options with another person leaving the
company who hadn't been resource-actioned as I had, and learned the hard way I lost over $30,000 in some sort of future medical
benefit account the company had established and funded at some point. I'm not sure I was ever even aware of it. That would have
funded several years of healthcare insurance during the 8 years until I'm eligible for Medicare. I wouldn't be surprised if their
not having to give me that had something to do with my seeming "distracted" to them. <rolls eyes="">
What's really painful is the history of that former account can still be viewed at Fidelity, where it associates my departure
date in 2013 with my having "forfeited" that money. Um, no. I did not forfeit that money, nor would I have. I had absolutely no
choice in the matter. I find the use of the word 'forfeited' to describe what happened as both disingenuous and offensive. That
said, I don't know whether's that's IBM's or Fidelity's terminology, though.
Jeff, You should call Fidelity. I recently received a letter from the US Department of Labor that they discovered that IBM was
"holding" funds that belonged to me that I was never told about. This might be similar or same story .
"... As long as companies pay for their employees' health insurance they will have an incentive to fire older employees. ..."
"... The answer is to separate health insurance from employment. Companies can't be trusted. Not only health care, but retirement is also sorely abused by corporations. All the money should be in protected employee based accounts. ..."
American companies pay health insurance premiums based on their specific employee profiles. Insurance companies compete with each
other for the business, but costs are actual. And based on the profile of the pool of employees. So American companies fire older
workers just to lower the average age of their employees. Statistically this is going to lower their health care costs.
As long as companies pay for their employees' health insurance they will have an incentive to fire older employees.
They have an incentive to fire sick employees and employees with genetic risks. Those are harder to implement as ways to
lower costs. Firing older employees is simple to do, just look up their ages.
The answer is to separate health insurance from employment. Companies can't be trusted. Not only health care, but retirement
is also sorely abused by corporations. All the money should be in protected employee based accounts.
By the way, most tech companies are actually run by older people. The goal is to broom out mid-level people based on age. Nobody
is going to suggest to a sixty year old president that they should self fire, for the good of the company.
"... It's no coincidence whatsoever that Diane Gherson, mentioned prominently in the article, blasted out an all-employees email crowing about IBM being a great place to work according to (ahem) LinkedIn. I desperately want to post a link to this piece in the corporate Slack, but that would get me fired immediately instead of in a few months at the next "resource action." It's been a whole 11 months since our division had one, so I know one is coming soon. ..."
"... I used to say when I was there that: "After every defeat, they pin medals on the generals and shoot the soldiers". ..."
"... 1990 is also when H-1B visa rules were changed so that companies no longer had to even attempt to hire an American worker as long as the job paid $60,000, which hasn't changed since. This article doesn't even mention how our work visa system facilitated and even rewarded this abuse of Americans. ..."
"... Well, starting in the 1980s, the American management was allowed by Reagan to get rid of its workforce. ..."
"... It's all about making the numbers so the management can present a Potemkin Village of profits and ever-increasing growth sufficient to get bonuses. There is no relation to any sort of quality or technological advancement, just HR 3-card monte. They have installed air bearing in Old Man Watson's coffin as it has been spinning ever faster ..."
"... Corporate America executive management is all about stock price management. Their bonus's in the millions of dollars are based on stock performance. With IBM's poor revenue performance since Ginny took over, profits can only be maintained by cost reduction. Look at the IBM executive's bonus's throughout the last 20 years and you can see that all resource actions have been driven by Palmisano's and Rominetty's greed for extravagant bonus's. ..."
"... Also worth noting is that IBM drastically cut the cap on it's severance pay calculation. Almost enough to make me regret not having retired before that changed. ..."
"... Yeah, severance started out at 2 yrs pay, went to 1 yr, then to 6 mos. and is now 1 month. ..."
"... You need to investigate AT&T as well, as they did the same thing. I was 'sold' by IBM to AT&T as part of he Network Services operation. AT&T got rid of 4000 of the 8000 US employees sent to AT&T within 3 years. Nearly everyone of us was a 'senior' employee. ..."
dragonflap• 7
months ago I'm a 49-year-old SW engineer who started at IBM as part of an acquisition in 2000. I got laid off in 2002 when IBM
started sending reqs to Bangalore in batches of thousands. After various adventures, I rejoined IBM in 2015 as part of the "C" organization
referenced in the article.
It's no coincidence whatsoever that Diane Gherson, mentioned prominently in the article, blasted out an all-employees email
crowing about IBM being a great place to work according to (ahem) LinkedIn. I desperately want to post a link to this piece in the
corporate Slack, but that would get me fired immediately instead of in a few months at the next "resource action." It's been a whole
11 months since our division had one, so I know one is coming soon.
The lead-in to this piece makes it sound like IBM was forced into these practices by inescapable forces. I'd say not, rather
that it pursued them because a) the management was clueless about how to lead IBM in the new environment and new challenges so
b) it started to play with numbers to keep the (apparent) profits up....to keep the bonuses coming. I used to say when I was
there that: "After every defeat, they pin medals on the generals and shoot the soldiers".
And then there's the Pig with the Wooden Leg shaggy dog story that ends with the punch line, "A pig like that you don't eat
all at once", which has a lot of the flavor of how many of us saw our jobs as IBM die a slow death.
IBM is about to fall out of the sky, much as General Motors did. How could that happen? By endlessly beating the cow to get
more milk.
IBM was hiring right through the Great Depression such that It Did Not Pay Unemployment Insurance. Because it never laid people
off, Because until about 1990, your manager was responsible for making sure you had everything you needed to excel and grow....and
you would find people that had started on the loading dock and had become Senior Programmers. But then about 1990, IBM starting
paying unemployment insurance....just out of the goodness of its heart. Right.
1990 is also when H-1B visa rules were changed so that companies no longer had to even attempt to hire an American worker
as long as the job paid $60,000, which hasn't changed since. This article doesn't even mention how our work visa system facilitated
and even rewarded this abuse of Americans.
I found that other Ex-IBMer's respect other Ex-IBMer's work ethics, knowledge and initiative.
Other companies are happy to get them as a valueable resource. In '89 when our Palo Alto Datacenter moved, we were given two
options: 1.) to become a Programmer (w/training) 2.) move to Boulder or 3.) to leave.
I got my training with programming experience and left IBM in '92, when for 4 yrs IBM offerred really good incentives for leaving
the company. The Executives thought that the IBM Mainframe/MVS z/OS+ was on the way out and the Laptop (Small but Increasing Capacity)
Computer would take over everything.
It didn't. It did allow many skilled IBMers to succeed outside of IBM and help built up our customer skill sets. And like many,
when the opportunity arose to return I did. In '91 I was accidentally given a male co-workers paycheck and that was one of the
reasons for leaving. During my various Contract work outside, I bumped into other male IBMer's that had left too, some I had trained,
and when they disclosed that it was their salary (which was 20-40%) higher than mine was the reason they left, I knew I had made
the right decision.
Women tend to under-value themselves and their capabilities. Contracting also taught me that companies that had 70% employees
and 30% contractors, meant that contractors would be let go if they exceeded their quarterly expenditures.
I first contracted with IBM in '98 and when I decided to re-join IBM '01, I had (3) job offers and I took the most lucrative
exciting one to focus on fixing & improving DB2z Qry Parallelism. I developed a targeted L3 Technical Change Team to help L2 Support
reduce Customer problems reported and improve our product. The instability within IBM remained and I saw IBM try to eliminate
aging, salaried, benefited employees. The 1.) find a job within IBM ... to 2.) to leave ... was now standard.
While my salary had more than doubled since I left IBM the first time, it still wasn't near other male counterparts. The continual
rating competition based on salary ranged titles and timing a title raise after a round of layoffs, not before. I had another
advantage going and that was that my changed reduced retirement benefits helped me stay there. It all comes down to the numbers
that Mgmt is told to cut & save IBM. While much of this article implies others were hired, at our Silicon Valley Location and
other locations, they had no intent to backfill. So the already burdened employees were laden with more workloads & stress.
In the early to mid 2000's IBM setup a counter lab in China where they were paying 1/4th U.S. salaries and many SVL IBMers
went to CSDL to train our new world 24x7 support employees. But many were not IBM loyal and their attrition rates were very high,
so it fell to a wave of new-hires at SVL to help address it.
It's all about making the numbers so the management can present a Potemkin Village of profits and ever-increasing growth
sufficient to get bonuses. There is no relation to any sort of quality or technological advancement, just HR 3-card monte. They
have installed air bearing in Old Man Watson's coffin as it has been spinning ever faster
Corporate America executive management is all about stock price management. Their bonus's in the millions of dollars are
based on stock performance. With IBM's poor revenue performance since Ginny took over, profits can only be maintained by cost
reduction. Look at the IBM executive's bonus's throughout the last 20 years and you can see that all resource actions have been
driven by Palmisano's and Rominetty's greed for extravagant bonus's.
Bravo ProPublica for another "sock it to them" article - journalism in honor of the spirit of great newspapers everywhere that
the refuge of justice in hard times is with the press.
Also worth noting is that IBM drastically cut the cap on it's severance pay calculation. Almost enough to make me regret
not having retired before that changed.
You need to investigate AT&T as well, as they did the same thing. I was 'sold' by IBM to AT&T as part of he Network Services
operation. AT&T got rid of 4000 of the 8000 US employees sent to AT&T within 3 years. Nearly everyone of us was a 'senior' employee.
As a permanent old contractor and free-enterprise defender myself, I don't blame IBM a bit for wanting to cut the fat. But
for the outright *lies, deception and fraud* that they use to break laws, weasel out of obligations... really just makes me want
to shoot them... and I never even worked for them.
Where I worked, In Rochester,MN, people have known what is happening for years. My last years with IBM were the most depressing
time in my life.
I hear a rumor that IBM would love to close plants they no longer use but they are so environmentally polluted that it is cheaper
to maintain than to clean up and sell.
One of the biggest driving factors in age discrimination is health insurance costs, not salary. It can cost 4-5x as much to
insure and older employee vs. a younger one, and employers know this. THE #1 THING WE CAN DO TO STOP AGE DISCRIMINATION IS TO
MOVE AWAY FROM OUR EMPLOYER-PROVIDED INSURANCE SYSTEM. It could be single-payer, but it could also be a robust individual market
with enough pool diversification to make it viable. Freeing employers from this cost burden would allow them to pick the right
talent regardless of age.
The American business have constantly fought against single payer since the end of World War II and why should I feel sorry
for them when all of a sudden, they are complaining about health care costs? It is outrageous that workers have to face age discrimination;
however, the CEOs don't have to deal with that issue since they belong to a tiny group of people who can land a job anywhere else.
Single payer won't help. We have single payer in Canada and just as much age discrimination in employment. Society in general
does not like older people so unless you're a doctor, judge or pharmacist you will face age bias. It's even worse in popular culture
never mind in employment.
Thanks for the great article. I left IBM last year. USA based. 49. Product Manager in one of IBMs strategic initiatives, however
got told to relocate or leave. I found another job and left. I came to IBM from an acquisition. My only regret is, I wish I had
left this toxic environment earlier. It truely is a dreadful place to work.
The methodology has trickled down to smaller companies pursuing the same net results for headcount reduction. The similarities
to my experience were painful to read. The grief I felt after my job was "eliminated" 10 years ago while the Recession was at
its worst and shortly after my 50th birthday was coming back. I never have recovered financially but have started writing a murder
mystery. The first victim? The CEO who let me go. It's true. Revenge is best served cold.
Well written . people like me have experienced exactly what you wrote. IBM is a shadow of it's former greatness and I have
advised my children to stay away from IBM and companies like it as they start their careers. IBM is a corrupt company. Shame on
them !
I suspect someone will end up hunt them down with an axe at some point. That's the only way they'll probably learn. I don't
know about IBM specifically, but when Carly Fiorina ran HP, she travelled with and even went into engineering labs with an armed
security detail.
Was let go after 34 years of service. Mine Resource Action latter had additional lines after '...unless you are offered ...
position within IBM before that date.' , implying don't even try to look for a position. They lines were ' Additional business
controls are in effect to manage the business objectives of this resource action, therefore, job offers within (the name of division)
will be highly unlikely.'.
I've worked for a series of vendors for over thirty years. A job at IBM used to be the brass ring; nowadays, not so much.
I've heard persistent rumors from IBMers that U.S. headcount is below 25,000 nowadays. Given events like the recent downtime
of the internal systems used to order parts (5 or so days--website down because staff who maintained it were let go without replacements),
it's hard not to see the spiral continue down the drain.
What I can't figure out is whether Rometty and cronies know what they're doing or are just clueless. Either way, the result
is the same: destruction of a once-great company and brand. Tragic.
Well, none of these layoffs/ageist RIFs affect the execs, so they don't see the effects, or they see the effects but attribute
them to some other cause.
(I'm surprised the article doesn't address this part of the story; how many affected by layoffs are exec/senior management?
My bet is very few.)
I was a D-banded exec (Director-level) who was impacted and I know even some VPs who were affected as well, so they do spread
the pain, even in the exec ranks.
That's different than I have seen in companies I have worked for (like HP). There RIFs (Reduction In Force, their acronym for
layoff) went to the director level and no further up.
IMHO this is perilous for RHEL. It would be very easy for IBM to fire most of the
developers and just latch on to the enterprise services stuff to milk it till its dry.
Why would you say that? IBM is renowned for their wonderful employee relations.
</s>
If I were a Red Hat employee over 40, I'd be sweating right now.
blockquote> We run just about everything on CentOS around here, downstream of
RHEL. Should we be worried?
I don't think so, at least no more than you should have already been. IBM has adopted RHEL
as their standard platform for a lot of things, all the way up to big-iron mainframes. Not to
mention, over the two decades, they've done a hell of a lot of enhancements to Linux that are
a big part of why it scales so well (Darl Mcbride just felt like someone walked over his
grave. Hey, let's jump on it a bit too!).
Say what you like about IBM (like they've turned into a super-shitty place to work for or
be a customer of), but they've been a damn good friend to Linux. If I actually worked for Red
Hat though, I would be really unhappy because you can bet that "independence" will last a few
quarters before everyone gets outsourced to Brazil.
Brazil is too expensive. Last time I heard, they were outsourcing from Brazil to chapear
LA countries...
IBM are paying around 12x annual revenue for Red Hat which is a significant multiple so
they will have to squeeze more money out of the business somehow. Either they grow
customers or they increase margins or both.
IBM had little choice but to do something like this. They are in a terminal spiral
thanks to years of bad leadership. The confused billing of the purchase smacks of rush, so
far I have seen Red Hat described as a cloud company, an info sec company, an open source
company...
So IBM are buying Red Hat as a last chance bid to avoid being put through the PE
threshing machine. Red Hat get a ludicrous premium so will take the money.
And RH customers will want to check their contracts...
They will lay off Redhat staff to cut costs and replace them with remote programmers
living in Calcutta. To big corporations a programmer is a fungible item, if you can swap
programmer A woth programmer B at 1/4 the cost its a big win and you beat earnings estimate
by a penny.
No good will come from this. IBM's corporate environment and financial near-sightedness
will kill Red Hat. Time to start looking for a new standard bearer in Linux for business.
This will kill both companies. Red has trouble making money and IBM has trouble not
messing up what good their is and trouble making money. They both die, but a slow, possibly
accelerating, death.
F or nearly a half century, IBM came as close as any company to bearing the torch for the American Dream.
As the world's dominant technology firm, payrolls at International Business Machines Corp. 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.
Among ProPublica's findings, IBM:
Denied older workers information the law says they need in order to decide whether they've been victims of age bias, and required
them to sign away the right to go to court or join with others to seek redress. Targeted people for layoffs and firings with techniques
that tilted against older workers, even when the company rated them high performers. In some instances, the money saved from the
departures went toward hiring young replacements. Converted job cuts into retirements and took steps to boost resignations and firings.
The moves reduced the number of employees counted as layoffs, where high numbers can trigger public disclosure requirements. Encouraged
employees targeted for layoff to apply for other IBM positions, while quietly advising managers not to hire them and requiring many
of the workers to train their replacements. Told some older employees being laid off that their skills were out of date, but then
brought them back as contract workers, often for the same work at lower pay and fewer benefits.
IBM declined requests for the numbers or age breakdown of its job cuts. ProPublica provided the company with a 10-page summary
of its findings and the evidence on which they were based. IBM spokesman Edward Barbini said that to respond the company needed to
see copies of all documents cited in the story, a request ProPublica could not fulfill without breaking faith with its sources. Instead,
ProPublica provided IBM with detailed descriptions of the paperwork. Barbini declined to address the documents or answer specific
questions about the firm's policies and practices, and instead issued the following statement:
"We are proud of our company and our employees' ability to reinvent themselves era after era, while always complying with the
law. Our ability to do this is why we are the only tech company that has not only survived but thrived for more than 100 years."
With nearly 400,000 people worldwide, and tens of thousands still in the U.S., IBM remains a corporate giant. How it handles the
shift from its veteran baby-boom workforce to younger generations will likely influence what other employers do. And the way it treats
its experienced workers will eventually affect younger IBM employees as they too age.
Fifty years ago, Congress made it illegal with the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act , or ADEA, to treat older workers differently than younger ones with only a few exceptions, such as jobs that
require special physical qualifications. And for years, judges and policymakers treated the law as essentially on a par with prohibitions
against discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation and other categories.
In recent decades, however, the courts have responded to corporate pleas for greater leeway to meet global competition and satisfy
investor demands for rising profits by expanding the exceptions and
shrinking
the protections against age bias .
"Age discrimination is an open secret like sexual harassment was until recently," said Victoria Lipnic, the acting chair of the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, the independent federal agency that administers the nation's workplace anti-discrimination
laws.
"Everybody knows it's happening, but often these cases are difficult to prove" because courts have weakened the law, Lipnic said.
"The fact remains it's an unfair and illegal way to treat people that can be economically devastating."
Many companies have sought to take advantage of the court rulings. But the story of IBM's downsizing provides an unusually detailed
portrait of how a major American corporation systematically identified employees to coax or force out of work in their 40s, 50s and
60s, a time when many are still productive and need a paycheck, but face huge hurdles finding anything like comparable jobs.
The dislocation caused by IBM's cuts has been especially great because until recently the company encouraged its employees to
think of themselves as "IBMers" and many operated under the assumption that they had career-long employment.
When the ax suddenly fell, IBM provided almost no information about why an employee was cut or who else was departing, leaving
people to piece together what had happened through websites, listservs and Facebook groups such as "Watching IBM" or "Geographically
Undesirable IBM Marketers," as well as informal support groups.
Marjorie Madfis, at the time 57, was a New York-based digital marketing strategist and 17-year IBM employee when she and six other
members of her nine-person team -- all women in their 40s and 50s -- were laid off in July 2013. The two who remained were younger
men.
Since her specialty was one that IBM had said it was expanding, she asked for a written explanation of why she was let go. The
company declined to provide it.
"They got rid of a group of highly skilled, highly effective, highly respected women, including me, for a reason nobody knows,"
Madfis said in an interview. "The only explanation is our age."
Brian Paulson, also 57, a senior manager with 18 years at IBM, had been on the road for more than a year overseeing hundreds of
workers across two continents as well as hitting his sales targets for new services, when he got a phone call in October 2015 telling
him he was out. He said the caller, an executive who was not among his immediate managers, cited "performance" as the reason, but
refused to explain what specific aspects of his work might have fallen short.
It took Paulson two years to land another job, even though he was equipped with an advanced degree, continuously employed at high-level
technical jobs for more than three decades and ready to move anywhere from his Fairview, Texas, home.
"It's tough when you've worked your whole life," he said. "The company doesn't tell you anything. And once you get to a certain
age, you don't hear a word from the places you apply."
Paul Henry, a 61-year-old IBM sales and technical specialist who loved being on the road, had just returned to his Columbus home
from a business trip in August 2016 when he learned he'd been let go. When he asked why, he said an executive told him to "keep your
mouth shut and go quietly."
Henry was jobless more than a year, ran through much of his savings to cover the mortgage and health insurance and applied for
more than 150 jobs before he found a temporary slot.
"If you're over 55, forget about preparing for retirement," he said in an interview. "You have to prepare for losing your job
and burning through every cent you've saved just to get to retirement."
IBM's latest actions aren't anything like what most ex-employees with whom ProPublica talked expected from their years of service,
or what today's young workers think awaits them -- or are prepared to deal with -- later in their careers.
"In a fast-moving economy, employers are always going to be tempted to replace older workers with younger ones, more expensive
workers with cheaper ones, those who've performed steadily with ones who seem to be up on the latest thing," said Joseph Seiner,
an employment law professor at the University of South Carolina and former appellate attorney for the EEOC.
"But it's not good for society," he added. "We have rules to try to maintain some fairness in our lives, our age-discrimination
laws among them. You can't just disregard them."
"... Adjusting for inflation, I make $6K less than I did my first day. My group is a handful of people as at least 1/2 have quit or retired. To support our customers, we used to have several people, now we have one or two and if someone is sick or on vacation, our support structure is to hope nothing breaks. ..."
I've worked there 17 years and have worried about being layed off for about 11 of them. Moral is in the toilet. Bonuses for the
rank and file are in the under 1% range while the CEO gets millions. Pay raises have been non existent or well under inflation
for years.
Adjusting for inflation, I make $6K less than I did my first day. My group is a handful of people as at least 1/2 have
quit or retired. To support our customers, we used to have several people, now we have one or two and if someone is sick or on
vacation, our support structure is to hope nothing breaks.
We can't keep millennials because of pay, benefits and the expectation of being available 24/7 because we're shorthanded. As
the unemployment rate drops, more leave to find a different job, leaving the old people as they are less willing to start over
with pay, vacation, moving, selling a house, pulling kids from school, etc.
The younger people are generally less likely to be willing to work as needed on off hours or to pull work from a busier colleague.
I honestly have no idea what the plan is when the people who know what they are doing start to retire, we are way top heavy
with 30-40 year guys who are on their way out, very few of the 10-20 year guys due to hiring freezes and we can't keep new people
past 2-3 years. It's like our support business model is designed to fail.
As a 25yr+ vet of IBM, I can confirm that this article is spot-on true. IBM used to be a proud and transparent company that clearly
demonstrated that it valued its employees as much as it did its stock performance or dividend rate or EPS, simply because it is
good for business. Those principles helped make and keep IBM atop the business world as the most trusted international brand and
business icon of success for so many years. In 2000, all that changed when Sam Palmisano became the CEO. Palmisano's now infamous
"Roadmap 2015" ran the company into the ground through its maniacal focus on increasing EPS at any and all costs. Literally.
Like, its employees, employee compensation, benefits, skills, and education opportunities. Like, its products, product innovation,
quality, and customer service.
All of which resulted in the devastation of its technical capability and competitiveness, employee engagement, and customer
loyalty. Executives seemed happy enough as their compensation grew nicely with greater financial efficiencies, and Palisano got
a sweet $270M+ exit package in 2012 for a job well done.
The new CEO, Ginni Rometty has since undergone a lot of scrutiny for her lack of business results, but she was screwed from
day one. Of course, that doesn't leave her off the hook for the business practices outlined in the article, but what do you expect:
she was hand picked by Palmisano and approved by the same board that thought Palmisano was golden.
People (and companies) who have nothing to hide, hide nothing. People (and companies) who are proud of their actions, share
it proudly. IBM believes it is being clever and outsmarting employment discrimination laws and saving the company money while
retooling its workforce. That may end up being so (but probably won't), but it's irrelevant. Through its practices, IBM has lost
the trust of its employees, customers, and ironically, stockholders (just ask Warren Buffett), who are the very(/only) audience
IBM was trying to impress. It's just a huge shame.
I agree with many who state the report is well done. However, this crap started in the early 1990s. In the late 1980s, IBM offered
decent packages to retirement eligible employees. For those close to retirement age, it was a great deal - 2 weeks pay for every
year of service (capped at 26 years) plus being kept on to perform their old job for 6 months (while collecting retirement, until
the government stepped in an put a halt to it). Nobody eligible was forced to take the package (at least not to general knowledge).
The last decent package was in 1991 - similar, but not able to come back for 6 months. However, in 1991, those offered the package
were basically told take it or else. Anyone with 30 years of service or 15 years and 55 was eligible and anyone within 5 years
of eligibility could "bridge" the difference. They also had to sign a form stating they would not sue IBM in order to get up to
a years pay - not taxable per IRS documents back then (but IBM took out the taxes anyway and the IRS refused to return - an employee
group had hired lawyers to get the taxes back, a failed attempt which only enriched the lawyers). After that, things went downhill
and accelerated when Gerstner took over. After 1991, there were still a some workers who could get 30 years or more, but that
was more the exception. I suspect the way the company has been run the past 25 years or so has the Watsons spinning in their graves.
Gone are the 3 core beliefs - "Respect for the individual", "Service to the customer" and "Excellence must be a way of life".
IBM's policy reminds me of the "If a citizen = 30 y.o., then mass execute such, else if they run then hunt and kill them one by
one" social policy in the Michael York movie "Logan's Run."
From Wiki, in case you don't know: "It depicts a utopian future society on the surface, revealed as a dystopia where the population
and the consumption of resources are maintained in equilibrium by killing everyone who reaches the age of 30. The story follows
the actions of Logan 5, a "Sandman" who has terminated others who have attempted to escape death, and is now faced with termination
himself."
Perhaps someone can explain this... Red Hat's revenue and assets barely total about $5B.
Even factoring in market share and capitalization, how the hey did IBM come up with $34B
cash being a justifiable purchase price??
Honestly, why would Red Hat have said no?
You don't trade at your earnings, you trade at your share price, which for Red Hat and
many other tech companies can be quite high on Price/Earnings. They were trading at 52 P/E.
Investors factor in a bunch of things involving future growth, and particularly for any
companies in the cloud can quite highly overvalue things.
A 25 year old company trading at a P/E of 52 was already overpriced, buying at more than 2x
that is insane. This might just be the deal that kills IBM because there's no way that they
don't do a writedown of 90% of the value of this acquisition within 5 years.
3 hours ago
afidel wrote: show nested quotes
Kilroy420 wrote: Perhaps someone can explain this... Red Hat's revenue and assets barely
total about $5B. Even factoring in market share and capitalization, how the hey did IBM come up
with $34B cash being a justifiable purchase price??
Honestly, why would Red Hat have said no?
You don't trade at your earnings, you trade at your share price, which for Red Hat and many
other tech companies can be quite high on Price/Earnings. They were trading at 52 P/E.
Investors factor in a bunch of things involving future growth, and particularly for any
companies in the cloud can quite highly overvalue things.
A 25 year old company trading at a P/E of 52 was already overpriced, buying at more than 2x
that is insane. This might just be the deal that kills IBM because there's no way that they
don't do a writedown of 90% of the value of this acquisition within 5 years.
OK. I did 10 years at IBM Boulder..
The problem isn't the purchase price or the probable write-down later.
The problem is going to be with the executives above it. One thing I noticed at IBM is that
the executives needed to put their own stamp on operations to justify their bonuses. We were on
a 2 year cycle of execs coming in and saying "Whoa.. things are too centralized, we need to
decentralize", then the next exec coming in and saying "things are too decentralized, we need
to centralize".
No IBM exec will get a bonus if they are over RedHat and exercise no authority over it. "We
left it alone" generates nothing for the PBC. If they are in the middle of a re-org, then the
specific metrics used to calculate their bonus can get waived. (Well, we took an unexpected hit
this year on sales because we are re-orging to better optimize our resources). With that P/E,
no IBM exec is going to get a bonus based on metrics. IBM execs do *not* care about what is
good for IBM's business. They are all about gaming the bonuses. Customers aren't even on the
list of things they care about.
I am reminded of a coworker who quit in frustration back in the early 2000's due to just
plain bad management. At the time, IBM was working on Project Monterey. This was supposed to be
a Unix system across multiple architectures. My coworker sent his resignation out to all hands
basically saying "This is stupid. we should just be porting Linux". He even broke down the
relative costs. Billions for Project Monterey vs thousands for a Linux port. Six months later,
we get an email from on-high announcing this great new idea that upper management had come up
with. It would be far cheaper to just support Linux than write a new OS.. you'd think that
would be a great thing, but the reality is that all it did was create the AIX 5L family, which
was AIX 5 with an additional CD called Linux ToolBox, which was loaded with a few Linux
programs ported to a specific version of AIX, but never kept current. IBM can make even great
decisions into bad decisions.
In May 2007, IBM announced the transition to LEAN. Sounds great, but this LEAN was not on
the manufacturing side of the equation. It was in e-Business under Global Services. The new
procedures were basically call center operations. Now, prior to this, IBM would have specific
engineers for specific accounts. So, Major Bank would have that AIX admin, that Sun admin, that
windows admin, etc. They knew who to call and those engineers would have docs and institutional
knowledge of that account. During the LEAN announcement, Bob Moffat described the process.
Accounts would now call an 800 number and the person calling would open a ticket. This would
apply to *any* work request as all the engineers would be pooled and whoever had time would get
the ticket. So, reset a password - ticket. So, load a tape - ticket. Install 20 servers -
ticket.
Now, the kicker to this was that the change was announced at 8AM and went live at noon. IBM
gave their customers who represented over $12 Billion in contracts 4 *hours* notice that they
were going to strip their support teams and treat them like a call center. (I will leave it as
an exercise to the reader to determine if they would accept that kind of support after spending
hundreds of millions on a support contract).
(The pilot program for the LEAN process had its call center outsourced overseas, if that
helps you try to figure out why IBM wanted to get rid of dedicated engineers and move to a
call-center operation).
When it comes to employment claims, studies have found that arbitrators overwhelmingly favor
employers.
Research by Cornell University law and labor relations specialist Alexander Colvin found
that workers win
only 19 percent of the time when their cases are arbitrated. By contrast,
they win 36 percent of the time when they go to federal court, and 57 percent in state
courts. Average payouts when an employee wins follow a similar pattern.
Given those odds, and having signed away their rights to go to court, some laid-off IBM
workers have chosen the one independent forum companies can't deny them: the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission. That's where Moos, the Long Beach systems security
specialist, and several of her colleagues, turned for help when they were laid off. In their
complaints to the agency, they said they'd suffered age discrimination because of the company's
effort to "drastically change the IBM employee age mix to be seen as a startup."
In its formal reply to the EEOC, IBM said that age couldn't have been a factor in their
dismissals. Among the reasons it cited: The managers who decided on the layoffs were in their
40s and therefore older too.
This makes for absolutely horrifying, chills-down-your-spine reading. A modern corporate horror story - worthy of a 'Black Mirror'
episode. Phenomenal reporting by Ariana Tobin and Peter Gosselin. Thank you for exposing this. I hope this puts an end to this
at IBM and makes every other company and industry doing this in covert and illegal ways think twice about continuing.
Agree..a well written expose'. I've been a victim of IBM's "PIP" (Performance Improvement Plan) strategy, not because of my real
performance mind you, but rather, I wasn't billing hours between projects and it was hurting my unit's bottom line. The way IBM
instructs management to structure the PIP, it's almost impossible to dig your way out, and it's intentional. If you have a PIP
on your record, nobody in IBM wants to touch you, so in effect you're already gone.
I see the PIP problem as its nearly impossible to take the fact that we know PIP is a scam to court. IBM will say its an issue
with you, your performance nose dived and your manager tried to fix that. You have to not only fight those simple statements,
but prove that PIP is actually systematic worker abuse.
Cindy, they've been doing this for at least 15-20 years, or even longer according to some of the previous comments. It is
in fact a modern corporate horror story; it's also life at a modern corporation, period.
After over 35 years working there, 19 of them as a manager sending out more of those notification letters than I care to remember,
I can vouch for the accuracy of this investigative work. It's an incredibly toxic and hostile environment and has been for the
last 5 or so years. One of the items I was appraised on annually was how many US jobs I moved offshore. It was a relief when I
received my notification letter after a two minute phone call telling me it was on the way. Sleeping at night and looking myself
in the mirror aren't as hard as they were when I worked there.
IBM will never regain any semblance of their former glory (or profit) until they begin to treat employees well again.
With all the offshoring and resource actions with no backfill over the last 10 years, so much is broken. Customers suffer almost
as much as the employees.
I don't know how in the world they ended up on that LinkedIn list. Based on my fairly recent experience there are a half dozen
happy employees in the US, and most of them are C level.
Well done. It squares well with my 18 years at IBM, watching resource action after resource action and hearing what my (unusually
honest) manager told me. Things got progressively worse from 2012 onward. I never realized how stressful it was to live under
the shadow of impending layoffs until I finally found the courage to leave in 2015. Best decision I've made.
IBM answers to its shareholders, period. Employees are an afterthought - simply a means to an end. It's shameful. (That's not
to say that individual people managers feel that way. I'm speaking about IBM executives.)
Well, they almost answer to their shareholders, but that's after the IBM executives take their share. Ginni's compensation is
tied to stock price (apparently not earnings) and buy backs maintain the stock price.
If the criteria for layoff is being allegedly overpaid and allegedly a poor performer, then it follows that Grinnin' Jenny should
have been let go long ago.
Just another fine example of how people become disposable.
And, when it comes to cost containment and profit maximization, there is no place for ethics in American business.
Businesses can lie just as well as politicians.
Millennials are smart to avoid this kind of problem by remaining loyal only to themselves. Companies certainly define anyone
as replaceable - even their over-paid CEO's.
The millennials saw what happen to their parents and grandparents getting screwed over after a life time of work and loyalty.
You can't blame them for not caring about so called traditional American work ethics and then they are attacked for not having
them when the business leaders threw away all those value decades ago.
Some of these IBM people have themselves to blame for cutting their own economic throats for fighting against unions, putting
in politicians who are pro-business and thinking that their education and high paying white collar STEM jobs will give them economic
immunity.
If America was more of a free market and free enterprise instead of being more of a close market of oligarchies and monopolies,
and strong government regulations, companies would think twice about treating their workforce badly because they know their workforce
would leave for other companies or start up their own companies without too much of a hassle.
Under the old IBM you could not get a union as workers were treated with dignity and respect - see the 3 core beliefs. Back
then a union would not have accomplished anything.
Doesn't matter if it was the old IBM or new IBM, you wonder how many still actually voted against their economic interests in
the political elections that in the long run undermine labor rights in this country.
So one shouldn't vote? Neither party cares about the average voter except at election time. Both sell out to Big Business - after
all, that's where the big campaign donations come from. If you believe only one party favors Big Business, then you have been
watching to much "fake news". Even the unions know they have been sold out by both and are wising up. How many of those jobs were
shipped overseas the past 25 years.
No, they should have been more active in voting for politicians who would look after the workers' rights in this country for the
last 38 years plus ensuring that Congressional people and the president would not be packing the court system with pro-business
judges. Sorry, but it is the Big Business that have been favoring the Republican Party for a long, long time and the jobs have
been shipped out for the last 38 years.
Age discrimination has been standard operating procedure in IT for at least 30 years. And
there are no significant consequences, if any consequences at all, for doing it in a blatant
fashion. The companies just need to make sure the quota of H1B visas is increased when they
are doing this on an IBM scale!
Age discrimination and a myriad other forms of discrimination have been standard operating
procedure in the US. Period. Full stop. No need to equivocate.
It not Watson family gone it is New Deal Capitalism was replaced with the neoliberalism
Notable quotes:
"... Except when your employer is the one preaching associate loyalty and "we are family" your entire career. Then they decide you've been too loyal and no longer want to pay your salary and start fabricating reasons to get rid of you. ADP is guilty of these same practices and eliminating their tenured associates. Meanwhile, the millennials hired play ping pong and text all day, rather than actually working. ..."
A quick search of the article doesn't find the word "buy backs" but this is a big part of the
story. IBM spent over $110 BILLION on stock buy backs between 2000 and 2016. That's the
number I found, but it hasn't stopped since. If anything it has escalated.
This is very common among large corporations. Rather than spend on their people, they
funnel billions into stock buy backs which raises or at least maintains the stock value so
execs can keep cashing in. It's really pretty disgraceful. This was only legalized in 1982,
which not-so-coincidentally is not long after real wages stalled, and have stalled ever
since.
Thanks for this bit of insanely true reporting. When laid off from Westinghouse after 14
years of stellar performance evaluations I was flummoxed by the execs getting million-dollar
bonuses as we were told the company wasn't profitable enough to maintain its senior
engineering staff. It sold off every division eventually as the execs (many of them newly
hired) reaped even more bonuses.
Thank you ... very insightful of you. As an IBMer and lover of Spreadsheets / Statistics /
Data Specalist ... I like reading Annual Reports. Researching these Top Execs, BOD and
compare them to other Companies across-the-board and industry sectors. You'll find a Large
Umbrella there.
There is a direct tie and inter-changeable pieces of these elites over the past 55 yrs.
Whenever some Corp/ Political/ Government shill (wannbe) needs a payoff, they get placed into
high ranking top positions for a orchestrating a predescribed dark nwo agenda. Some may come
up the ranks like Ginny, but ALL belong to Council for Foreign Relations and other such high
level private clubs or organizations. When IBM sells off their Mainframe Manufacturing
(Poughkeepsie) to an elite Saudi, under an American Co. sounding name of course, ... and the
U.S. Government ... doesn't balk ... that has me worried for our 1984 future.
Yeah, it is amazing how they stated that they don't need help from the government when in
reality they do need government to pass laws that favor them, pack the court system where
judges rule in their favor and use their private police and the public sector police to keep
the workers down.
I wonder how many billions (trillions?) have been funneled from corporate workers pockets
this way? It seems all corporations are doing it these days. Large-scale transfer of wealth
from the middle class to the wealthy.
Not anymore. With most large companies, you've never been able to say they are "family."
Loyalty used to be a thing though. I worked at a company where I saw loyalty vanish over a 10
year period.
Except when your employer is the one preaching associate loyalty and "we are family" your
entire career. Then they decide you've been too loyal and no longer want to pay your salary
and start fabricating reasons to get rid of you. ADP is guilty of these same practices and
eliminating their tenured associates. Meanwhile, the millennials hired play ping pong and
text all day, rather than actually working.
Yeah, and how many CEOs actually work to make their companies great instead of running them
into the ground, thinking about their next job move, and playing golf
I have to disagree with you. I started with IBM on their rise up in those earlier days, and
we WERE valued and shown that we were valued over and over through those glorious years. It
did feel like we were in a family, our families mattered to them, our well-being. They gave
me a month to find a perfect babysitter when they hired me before I had to go to work!
They
helped me find a house in a good school district for my children. They bought my house when I
was moving to a new job/location when it didn't sell within 30 days.
They paid the difference
in the interest rate of my loan for my new house from the old one. I can't even begin to list
all the myriad of things that made us love IBM and the people we worked with and for, and
made us feel a part of that big IBM family.
Did they change, yes, but the dedication we gave
was freely given and we mutually respected each other. I was lucky to work for them for
decades before that shift when they changed to be just like every other large corporation.
The Watson family held integrity, equality, and knowledge share as a formidable synthesis of
company ethics moving a Quality based business forward in the 20th to 21st century. They also
promoted an (volunteer) IBM Club to help promote employee and family activities
inside/outside of work which they by-en-large paid for. This allowed employees to meet and
see other employees/families as 'Real' & "Common-Interest" human beings. I participated,
created, and organized events and documented how-to-do-events for other volunteers. These
brought IBMers together inside or outside of their 'working' environment to have fun, to
associate, to realize those innate qualities that are in all of us. I believe it allowed for
better communication and cooperation in the work place.
To me it was family. Some old IBMers might remember when Music, Song, Skits were part of IBM
Branch Office meetings. As President of the IBM Clubs Palo Alto branch (7 yrs.), I used our
Volunteer Club Votes to spend ALL that IBM donated money, because they
<administratively> gave it back to IBM if we didn't.
Without a strong IBM Club
presence, it gets whittled down to 2-3 events a year. For a time WE WERE a FAMILY.
Absolutely! Back when white shirts/black suits were a requirement. There was a country club
in Poughkeepsie, softball teams, Sunday brunch, Halloween parties in the fall, Christmas
parties in December where thousands of age appropriate Fisher Price toys were given out to
employee's kids. Today "IBMer" is used by execs as a term of derision. Employees are
overworked and under appreciated and shortsighted, overpaid executives rule the roost. The
real irony is that talented, vital employees are being retired for "costing too much" while
dysfunctional top level folk are rewarded with bonuses and stock when they are let go. And
it's all legal. It's disgraceful.
I recall, back in the mid-1960s, encountering employees of major major corporations like IBM,
US Steel, the Big Three in Detroit, etc, There was a certain smugness there. I recall hearing
bragging about the awesome retirement incomes. Yes, I was jealous. But I also had a clear eye
as to the nature of the beast they were working for, and I kept thinking of the famous
limerick:
There was a young lady of Niger Who smiled as she rode on a Tiger; They came back from the ride With the lady inside, And the smile on the face of the Tiger.
As an ex-IBM employee, I was given a package ( 6 months pay and a "transition" course)
because I was getting paid too much or so I was told. I was part of a company (oil industry)
that outsourced it's IT infrastructure support personnel and on several occasions was told by
my IBM management that they just don't know what to do with employees who make the kind of
money I do when we can do it much cheaper somewhere else (meaning offshore).
Eventually all
the people who I worked with that were outsourced to IBM were packaged off and all of our
jobs were sent offshore. I just turned 40 and found work back in the oil industry. In the
short time I was with IBM I found their benefits very restricted, their work policies very
bureaucratic and the office culture very old boys club.
If you weren't part of IBM and were
an outsourced employee, you didn't fit in. At the time I thought IBM was the glory company in
IT to work for, but quickly found out they are just a dinosaur. It's just a matter of time
for them.
"... There's not an intrinsic advantage to being of a certain nationality, American included. Sure, there are a lot of bad companies and bad programmers coming from India, but there are plenty of incompetent developers right here too. ..."
"... A huge problem with the good developers over there is the lack of English proficiency and soft skills. However, being born or graduated in Calcutta (or anywhere else for that matter) is not a determination of one's skill. ..."
"... I get what the intention of the first comment was intended to be, but it still has that smugness that is dangerous to the American future. As the world becomes more interconnected, and access to learning improves, when people ask you why are you better than that other guy, the answer better be something more than "well, I'm American and he is from Calcutta" because no one is going to buy that. The comment could've said that to a bean counter a solid developer with 10 years of experience is worth the same as a junior dev who just came out of school and make the same point. What exactly was the objective of throwing in Calcutta over there? ..."
"... I have dealt with this far too much these VPs rarely do much work and simply are hit on bottom line ( you are talking about 250k+), but management in US doesn't want to sit off hours and work with India office so they basically turn a blind eye on them. ..."
No good will come from this. IBM's corporate environment and financial near-sightedness will kill Red Hat. Time
to start looking for a new standard bearer in Linux for business.
I agree. Redhat has dev offices all over. A lot of them in higher cost areas of the US and Europe. There's no way
IBM doesn't consolidate and offshore a bunch of that work.
This. To a bean counter a developer in a RH office in North America or Europe who's been coding for RH for 10 years
is valued same as a developer in Calcutta who just graduated from college. For various definitions of word 'graduated'.
I'm just waiting until some major company decides that some of the nicer parts of middle America/Appalachia can be a
LOT cheaper, still nice, and let them pay less in total while keeping some highly skilled employees.
I don't know about that. Cities can be expensive but part of the reason is that a lot of people want to live there, and
supply/demand laws start acting. You'll be able to get some talent no doubt, but a lot of people who live nearby big cities
wouldn't like to leave all the quality of life elements you have there, like entertainment, cultural events, shopping, culinary
variety, social events, bigger dating scene, assorted array of bars and night clubs, theatre, opera, symphonies, international
airports... you get the drift.
I understand everyone is different, but you would actually need to pay me more to move to a smaller town in middle America.
I also work with people who would take the offer without hesitation, but in my admittedly anecdotal experience, more tech people
prefer the cities than small towns. Finally, if you do manage to get some traction in getting the people and providing the
comforts, then you're just going to get the same increase in cost of living wherever you are because now you're just in one
more big city.
Costs of life are a problem, but we need to figure out how to properly manage them, instead of just saying "lets move them
somewhere else". Also we shouldn't discount the capability of others, because going by that cost argument outsourcing becomes
attractive. The comment you're replying to tries to diminish Indian engineers, but the reverse can still be true. A developer
in India who has been working for 10 years costs even less than an American who just graduated, for various definitions of
graduated. There's over a billion people over there, and the Indian Institutes of Technology are nothing to scoff at.
There's not an intrinsic advantage to being of a certain nationality, American included. Sure, there are a lot of bad
companies and bad programmers coming from India, but there are plenty of incompetent developers right here too. It's just
that there are a lot more in general over there and they would come for cheap, so in raw numbers it seems overwhelming, but
that sword cuts both ways, the raw number of competent ones is also a lot.
About 5% of the American workforce are scientists and engineers, which make a bit over 7 million people. The same calculation
in India brings you to almost 44 million people.
A huge problem with the good developers over there is the lack of English proficiency and soft skills. However, being
born or graduated in Calcutta (or anywhere else for that matter) is not a determination of one's skill.
I get what the intention of the first comment was intended to be, but it still has that smugness that is dangerous to
the American future. As the world becomes more interconnected, and access to learning improves, when people ask you why are
you better than that other guy, the answer better be something more than "well, I'm American and he is from Calcutta" because
no one is going to buy that. The comment could've said that to a bean counter a solid developer with 10 years of experience
is worth the same as a junior dev who just came out of school and make the same point. What exactly was the objective of throwing
in Calcutta over there? Especially when we then move to a discussion about how costly it is to pay salaries in America.
Sounds a bit counterproductive if you ask me.
I think a lot of the dislike for Indian developers is that they usually are the outsourced to cheap as possible code monkey
developers. Which can be a problem anywhere, for sure, but at least seem exacerbated by US companies outsourcing there. In my
limited experience, they're either intelligent and can work up to working reasonably independently and expanding on a ticket intelligently.
Or they're copy a pasta code monkey and need pretty good supervision of the code that's produced. Add in the problem if timezones
and folks who may not understand English that great, or us not understanding their English, and it all gives them a bad name.
Yet I agree, I know some quite good developers. Ones that didn't go to a US college.
My impression, totally anecdotal, is that unless you can hire or move a very good architect/lead + project/product manager
over there so you can interact in real-time instead of with a day delay, it's just a huge PITA and slows things down. Personally
I'd rather hire a couple of seemingly competent 3 years out of college on their 2nd job (because they rarely stay very long at
their first one, right?) and pay from there.
Companies/management offshore because it keep revenue per employee and allows them to be promoted by inflating their direct
report allowing them to build another "cheap" pyramid hierarchy. A manager in US can become a director or VP easily by having
few managers report to him from India. Even better this person can go to India ( they are most often Indian) and claim to lead
the India office and improve outsourcing while getting paid US salary.
I have dealt with this far too much these VPs rarely do much work and simply are hit on bottom line ( you are talking about
250k+), but management in US doesn't want to sit off hours and work with India office so they basically turn a blind eye on them.
Outstanding. I had to train people in IBM India to do my job when (early) "retired". I actually found a new internal job in IBM,
the hiring manager wrote/chat that I was a fit. I was denied the job because my current group said I had to transfer and the receiving
group said I had to be on a contract, stalemate! I appealed and group HR said sorry, can't do and gave me one reason after another,
that I could easily refute, then they finally said the job was to be moved overseas. Note most open jobs posted were categorized
for global resources. I appealed to Randy (former HR SVP) and no change. At least I foced them to finally tell the truth. I had
also found another job locally near home and received an email from the HR IBM person responsible for the account saying no, they
were considering foreigners first, if they found no one suitable they would then consider Americans. I appealed to my IBM manager
who basically said sorry, that is how things are now. All in writing, so no more pretending it is a skill issue. People, it is
and always has been about cheap labor. I recall when a new IBM technology began, Websphere, and I was sent for a month's training.
Then in mid-2000's training and raises pretty much stopped and that was when resource actions were stepped up.
IBM is bad, but it's just the tip of the iceberg. I worked for a major international company that dumped almost the entire IT
workforce and replaced them with "managed services", almost exclusively H-1B workers from almost exclusively India. This has been
occurring for decades in many, MANY businesses around the country large and small. Even this article seems to make a special effort
to assure us that "some" workers laid off in America were replaced with "younger, less experienced, lower-paid American workers
and moving many other jobs overseas." How many were replaced with H-1B, H-4 EAD, OPT, L-1, etc? It's by abusing these work visa
programs that companies facilitate moving the work overseas in the first place. I appreciate this article, but I think it's disingenuous
for ProPublica to ignore the elephant in the room - work visa abuse. Why not add a question or two to your polls about that? It
wouldn't be hard. For example, "Do you feel that America's work visa programs had an impact on your employment at IBM? Do you
feel it has had an impact on your ability to regain employment after leaving IBM?" I'd like to see the answer to THOSE questions.
These practices are "interesting". And people still wonder why there are so many deadly amok
runs at US companies? What do they expect when they replace old and experienced workers with
inexperienced millenials, who often lack basic knowledge about their job? Better performance?
This will run US tech companies into the ground. This sort of "American" HR management is
gaining ground here in Germany as well, its troubling. And on top they have to compete against
foreign tech immigrants from middle eastern and asian companies. Sure fire recipe for social
unrest and people voting for right-wing parties.
I too was a victim of IBM's underhanded trickery to get rid of people...39 years with IBM,
a top performer. I never got a letter telling me to move to Raleigh. All i got was a phone
call asking me if i wanted to take the 6 month exception to consider it. Yet, after taking the
6 month exception, I was told I could no longer move, the colocation was closed. Either I find
another job, not in Marketing support (not even Marketing) or leave the company. I received no
letter from Ginni, nothing. I was under the impression I could show up in Raleigh after the
exception period. Not so. It was never explained....After 3 months I will begin contracting
with IBM. Not because I like them, because I need the money...thanks for the article.
dropped in 2013 after 22 years. IBM stopped leading in the late 1980's, afterwards it
implemented "market driven quality" which meant listen for the latest trends, see what other
people were doing, and then buy the competition or drive them out of business. "Innovation that
matters": it's only interesting if an IBM manager can see a way to monetize it.
That's a low standard. It's OK, there are other places that are doing better. In fact, the
best of the old experienced people went to work there. Newsflash: quality doesn't change with
generations, you either create it or you don't.
Sounds like IBM is building its product portfolio to match its desired workforce. And of
course, on every round of layoffs, the clear criterion was people who were compliant and
pliable - who's ready to follow orders ? Best of luck.
I agree with many who state the report is well done. However, this crap started in the early
1990s. In the late 1980s, IBM offered decent packages to retirement eligible employees. For
those close to retirement age, it was a great deal - 2 weeks pay for every year of service
(capped at 26 years) plus being kept on to perform their old job for 6 months (while
collecting retirement, until the government stepped in an put a halt to it). Nobody eligible
was forced to take the package (at least not to general knowledge). The last decent package
was in 1991 - similar, but not able to come back for 6 months.
However, in 1991, those offered the package were basically told take it or else. Anyone
with 30 years of service or 15 years and 55 was eligible and anyone within 5 years of
eligibility could "bridge" the difference.
They also had to sign a form stating they would not sue IBM in order to get up to a years
pay - not taxable per IRS documents back then (but IBM took out the taxes anyway and the IRS
refused to return - an employee group had hired lawyers to get the taxes back, a failed
attempt which only enriched the lawyers).
After that, things went downhill and accelerated when Gerstner took over. After 1991,
there were still a some workers who could get 30 years or more, but that was more the
exception. I suspect the way the company has been run the past 25 years or so has the Watsons
spinning in their graves. Gone are the 3 core beliefs - "Respect for the individual",
"Service to the customer" and "Excellence must be a way of life".
could be true... but i thought Watson was the IBM data analytics computer thingy... beat two
human players at Jeopardy on live tv a year or two or so back.. featured on 60 Minutes just
around last year.... :
IBM's policy reminds me of the "If a citizen = 30 y.o., then mass execute such, else if they
run then hunt and kill them one by one" social policy in the Michael York movie "Logan's
Run."
From Wiki, in case you don't know: "It depicts a utopian future society on the surface,
revealed as a dystopia where the population and the consumption of resources are maintained
in equilibrium by killing everyone who reaches the age of 30. The story follows the actions
of Logan 5, a "Sandman" who has terminated others who have attempted to escape death, and is
now faced with termination himself."
"... The annual unemployment rate topped 8% in 1975 and would reach nearly 10% in 1982. The economy seemed trapped in the new nightmare of stagflation," so called because it combined low economic growth and high unemployment ("stagnation") with high rates of inflation. And the prime rate hit 20% by 1980. ..."
If anything, IBM is behind the curve. I was terminated along with my entire department from a
major IBM subcontractor, with all affected employees "coincidentally" being over 50. By
"eliminating the department" and forcing me to sign a waiver to receive my meager severance,
they avoided any legal repercussions. 18 months later on the dot (the minimum legal time
period), my workload was assigned to three new hires, all young. Interestingly, their
combined salaries are more than mine, and I could have picked up all their work for about
$200 in training (in social media posting, something I picked up on my own last year and am
doing quite well, thank you).
And my former colleagues are not alone. A lot of friends of mine have had similar
outcomes, and as the article states, no one will hire people my age willingly in my old
capacity. Luckily again, I've pivoted into copywriting--a discipline where age is still
associated with quality ("dang kids can't spell anymore!"). But I'm doing it freelance, with
the commensurate loss of security, benefits, and predictability of income.
So if IBM is doing this now, they are laggards. But because they're so big, there's a much
more obvious paper trail.
One of the most in-depth, thoughtful and enlightening pieces of journalism I've seen. Having
worked on Capitol Hill during the early 1980's for the House and Senate Aging Committees, we
worked hard to abolish the remnants of mandatory retirement and to strengthen the protections
under the ADEA. Sadly, the EEOC has become a toothless bureaucracy when it comes to age
discrimination cases and the employers, as evidenced by the IBM case, have become
sophisticated in hiding what they're doing to older workers. Peter's incredibly well
researched article lays the case out for all to see. Now the question is whether the
government will step up to its responsibilities and protect older workers from this kind of
discrimination in the future. Peter has done a great service in any case.
The US tech sector has mostly ignored US citizen applicants, of all ages, since the early
2000s. Instead, preferring to hire foreign nationals. The applications of top US citizen
grads are literally thrown in the garbage (or its electronic equivalent) while companies like
IBM have their hiring processes dominated by Indian nationals. IBM is absolutely a
poster-child for H-1B, L-1, and OPT visa abuse.
Bottom line is we have entered an era when there are only two classes who are protected in
our economy; the Investor Class and the Executive Class. With Wall Street's constant demand
for higher profits and increased shareholder value over all other business imperatives, rank
and file workers have been relegated to the class of expendable resource. I propose that all
of us over fifty who have been riffed out of Corporate America band together for the specific
purpose of beating the pants off them in the marketplace. The best revenge is whooping their
youngster butts at the customer negotiating table. By demonstrating we are still flexible and
nimble, yet with the experience to avoid the missteps of misspent youth, we prove we can
deliver value well beyond what narrow-minded bean counters can achieve.
I started at IBM 3 days out of college in 1979 and retired in 2017. I was satisfied with my
choice and never felt mistreated because I had no expectation of lifetime employment,
especially after the pivotal period in the 1990's when IBM almost went out of business. The
company survived that period by dramatically restructuring both manufacturing costs and sales
expense including the firing of tens of thousands of employees. These actions were well
documented in the business news of the time, the obvious alternative was bankruptcy.
I told the authors that anyone working at IBM after 1993 should have had no expectation of
a lifetime career. Downsizing, outsourcing, movement of work around the globe was already
commonplace at all such international companies. Any expectation of "loyalty", that two-way
relationship of employee/company from an earlier time, was wishful thinking. I was always
prepared to be sent packing, without cause, at any time and always had my resume up-to-date.
I stayed because of interesting work, respectful supervisors, and adequate compensation. The
"resource action" that forced my decision to retire was no surprise, the company that hired
me had been gone for decades.
With all the automation going on around the world, these business leaders better worry about
people not having money to buy their goods and services plus what are they going to do with
the surplus of labor
I had, more or less, the same experience at Cisco. They paid me to quit. Luckily, I was ready
for it.
The article mentions IBMs 3 failures. So who was it that was responsible for not
anticipating the transitions? It is hard enough doing what you already know. Perhaps
companies should be spending more on figuring out "what's next" and not continually playing
catch-up by dumping the older workers for the new.
I was laid off by IBM after 29 years and 4 months. I had received a division award in
previous year, and my last PBC appraisal was 2+ (high performer.) The company I left was not
the company I started with. Top management--starting with Gerstner--has steadily made IBM a
less desirable place to work. They now treat employees as interchangeable assets and nothing
more. I cannot/would not recommend IBM as an employer to any young programmer.
Truly awesome work. I do want to add one thing, however--the entire rhetoric about "too many
old white guys" that has become so common absolutely contributes to the notion that this sort
of behavior is not just acceptable but in some twisted way admirable as well.
Is anyone surprised that so many young people don't think capitalism is a good system any
more?
I ran a high technology electronic systems company for years. We ran it "the old way." If
you worked hard, and tried, we would bend over backwards to keep you. If technology or
business conditions eliminated your job, we would try to train you for a new one. Our people
were loyal, not like IBMers today. I honestly think that's the best way to be profitable.
People afraid of being unjustly RIFFed will always lack vitality.
I'm glad someone is finally paying attention to age discrimination. IBM apparently is just
one of many organizations that discriminate.
I'm in the middle of my own fight with the State University of New York (SUNY) over age
discrimination. I was terminated by a one of the technical colleges in the SUNY System. The
EEOC/New York State Division of Human Rights (NYDHR) found that "PROBABLE CAUSE (NYDHR's
emphasis) exists to believe that the Respondent (Alfred State College - SUNY) has engaged in
or is engaging in the unlawful discriminatory practice complained of." Investigators for
NYDHR interviewed several witnesses, who testified that representatives of the college made
statements such as "we need new faces", "three old men" attending a meeting, an older faculty
member described as an "albatross", and "we ought to get rid of the old white guys".
Witnesses said these statements were made by the Vice President of Academic Affairs and a
dean at the college.
This saga at IBM is simply a microcosm of our overall economy. Older workers get ousted in
favor of younger, cheaper workers; way too many jobs get outsourced; and so many workers
today [young and old] can barely land a full-time job.
This is the behavior that our system incentivises (and gets away with) in this post Reagan
Revolution era where deregulation is lauded and unions have been undermined & demonized.
We need to seriously re-work 'work', and in order to do this we need to purge Republicans at
every level, as they CLEARLY only serve corporate bottom-lines - not workers - by championing
tax codes that reward outsourcing, fight a livable minimum wage, eliminate pensions, bust
unions, fight pay equity for women & family leave, stack the Supreme Court with radical
ideologues who blatantly rule for corporations over people all the time, etc. etc. ~35 years
of basically uninterrupted Conservative economic policy & ideology has proven disastrous
for workers and our quality of life. As goes your middle class, so goes your country.
I am a retired IBM manager having had to execute many of these resource reduction programs..
too many.. as a matter of fact. ProPUBLICA....You nailed it!
IBM has always treated its customer-facing roles like Disney -- as cast members who need to
match a part in a play. In the 60s and 70s, it was the white-shirt, blue-suit white men whom
IBM leaders thought looked like mainframe salesmen. Now, rather than actually build a
credible cloud to compete with Amazon and Microsoft, IBM changes the cast to look like cloud
salespeople. (I work for Microsoft. Commenting for myself alone.)
I am a survivor, the rare employee who has been at IBM for over 35 years. I have seen many,
many layoff programs over 20 years now. I have seen tens of thousands people let go from the
Hudson Valley of N.Y. Those of us who have survived, know and lived through what this article
so accurately described. I currently work with 3 laid off/retired and rehired contractors. I
have seen age discrimination daily for over 15 years. It is not only limited to layoffs, it
is rampant throughout the company. Promotions, bonuses, transfers for opportunities, good
reviews, etc... are gone if you are over 45. I have seen people under 30 given promotions to
levels that many people worked 25 years for. IBM knows that these younger employees see how
they treat us so they think they can buy them off. Come to think of it, I guess they actually
are! They are ageist, there is no doubt, it is about time everyone knew. Excellent article.
Nice article, but seriously this is old news. IBM has been at this for ...oh twenty years or
more.
I don't really have a problem with it in terms of a corporation trying to make money. But I
do have a problem with how IBM also likes to avoid layoffs by giving folks over 40
intentionally poor reviews, essentially trying to drive people out. Just have the guts to
tell people, we don't need you anymore, bye. But to string people along as the overseas
workers come in...c'mon just be honest with your workers.
High tech over 40 is not easy...I suggest folks prep for a career change before 50. Then you
can have the last laugh on a company like IBM.
From pages 190-191 of my novel, Ordinary Man (Amazon):
Throughout
it all, layoffs became common, impacting mostly older employees with many years
of service. These job cuts were dribbled out in small numbers to conceal them
from the outside world, but employees could plainly see what was going on.
The laid off
employees were supplanted by offshoring work to low-costs countries and hiring
younger employees, often only on temporary contracts that offered low pay and
no benefits – a process pejoratively referred to by veteran employees as
"downsourcing." The recruitment of these younger workers was done under the
guise of bringing in fresh skills, but while many of the new hires brought new
abilities and vitality, they lacked the knowledge and perspective that comes
with experience.
Frequently,
an older more experienced worker would be asked to help educate newer
employees, only to be terminated shortly after completing the task. And the new
hires weren't fooled by what they witnessed and experienced at OpenSwitch,
perceiving very quickly that the company had no real interest in investing in
them for the long term. To the contrary, the objective was clearly to grind as
much work out of them as possible, without offering any hope of increased
reward or opportunity.
Most of the
young recruits left after only a year or two – which, again, was part of the
true agenda at the company. Senior management viewed employees not as talent,
but simply as cost, and didn't want anyone sticking around long enough to move
up the pay scale.
This is the nail in the coffin. As an IT manager responsible for selecting and purchasing
software, I will never again recommend IBM products. I love AIX and have worked with a lot if
IBM products but not anymore. Good luck with the millennials though...
I worked for four major corporations (HP, Intel, Control Data Corporation, and Micron
Semiconductor) before I was hired by IBM as a rare (at that time) experienced new hire. Even
though I ended up working for IBM for 21 years, and retired in 2013, because of my
experiences at those other companies, I never considered IBM my "family." The way I saw it,
every time I received a paycheck from IBM in exchange for two weeks' work, we were (almost)
even. I did not owe them anything else and they did not owe me anything. The idea of loyalty
between a corporation and an at-will employee makes no more sense than loyalty between a
motel and its guests. It is a business arrangement, not a love affair. Every individual needs
to continually assess their skills and their value to their employer. If they are not
commensurate, it is the employee's responsibility to either acquire new skills or seek a new
employer. Your employer will not hesitate to lay you off if your skills are no longer needed,
or if they can hire someone who can do your job just as well for less pay. That is free
enterprise, and it works for people willing to take advantage of it.
I basically agree. But why should it be OK for a company to fire you just to replace you with
a younger you? If all that they accomplish is lowering their health care costs (which is what
this is really about). If the company is paying about the same for the same work, why is
firing older workers for being older OK?
Good question. The point I was trying to make is that people need to watch out for themselves
and not expect their employer to do what is "best" for the employee. I think that is true
whatever age the employee happens to be.
Whether employers should be able to discriminate against (treat differently) their
employees based on age, gender, race, religion, etc. is a political question. Morally, I
don't think they should discriminate. Politically, I think it is a slippery slope when the
government starts imposing regulations on free enterprise. Government almost always creates
more problems than they fix.
Sorry, but when you deregulate the free enterprise, it created more problems than it fixes
and that is a fact that has been proven for the last 38 years.
That's just plain false. Deregulation creates competiiton. Competition for talented and
skilled workers creates opportunities for those that wish to be employed and for those that
wish to start new ventures. For example, when Ma Bell was regulated and had a monopoly on
telecommunications there was no innovation in the telecom inudstry. However, when it was
deregulated, cell phones, internet, etc exploded ... creating billionaires and millionaires
while also improving the quality of life.
No, it happens to be true. When Reagan deregulate the economy, a lot of those corporate
raiders just took over the companies, sold off the assets, and pocketed the money. What
quality of life? Half of American lived near the poverty level and the wages for the workers
have been stagnant for the last 38 years compared to a well-regulated economy in places like
Germany and the Scandinavian countries where the workers have good wages and a far better
standard of living than in the USA. Why do you think the Norwegians told Trump that they will
not be immigrating to the USA anytime soon?
What were the economic conditions before Regan? It was a nightmare before Regan.
The annual unemployment rate topped 8% in 1975 and would reach nearly 10% in 1982. The
economy seemed trapped in the new nightmare of stagflation," so called because it combined
low economic growth and high unemployment ("stagnation") with high rates of inflation. And
the prime rate hit 20% by 1980.
At least we had a manufacturing base in the USA, strong regulations of corporations,
corporate scandals were far and few, businesses did not go under so quickly, prices of goods
and services did not go through the roof, people had pensions and could reasonably live off
them, and recessions did not last so long or go so deep until Reagan came into office. In
Under Reagan, the jobs were allowed to be send overseas, unions were busted up, pensions were
reduced or eliminated, wages except those of the CEOs were staganent, and the economic
conditions under Bush, Senior and Bush, Jr. were no better except that Bush, Jr, was the
first president to have a net minus below zero growth, so every time we get a Republican
Administration, the economy really turns into a nightmare. That is a fact.
You have the Republicans in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin using Reaganomics and they are
economic disaster areas.
You had an industrial base in the USA, lots of banks and savings and loans to choose from,
lots of mom and pop stores, strong government regulation of the economy, able to live off
your pensions, strong unions and employment laws along with the court system to back you up
against corporate malfeasance. All that was gone when Reagan and the two Bushes came into
office.
Amazingly accurate article. The once great IBM now a dishonest and unscrupulous corporation
concerned more about earnings per share than employees, customers, or social responsibility.
In Global Services most likely 75% or more jobs are no longer in the US - can't believe a
word coming out of Armonk.
I'm not sure there was ever a paradise in employment. Yeah, you can say there was more job
stability 50 or 60 years ago, but that applied to a much smaller workforce than today (mostly
white men). It is a drag, but there are also lot more of us old farts than there used to be
and we live a lot longer in retirement as well. I don't see any magic bullet fix either.
Great article. What's especially infuriating is that the industry continues to claim that
there is a shortage of STEM workers. For example, google "claim of 1.4 million computer
science jobs with only 400,000 computer science graduates to fill them". If companies would
openly say, "we have plenty of young STEM workers and prefer them to most older STEM
workers", we could at least start addressing the problem. But they continue to promote the
lie of there being a STEM shortage. They just want as big a labor pool as possible,
unemployed workers be damned.
I've worked there 17 years and have worried about being layed off for about 11 of them. Moral
is in the toilet. Bonuses for the rank and file are in the under 1% range while the CEO gets
millions. Pay raises have been non existent or well under inflation for years. Adjusting for
inflation, I make $6K less than I did my first day. My group is a handful of people as at
least 1/2 have quit or retired. To support our customers, we used to have several people, now
we have one or two and if someone is sick or on vacation, our support structure is to hope
nothing breaks. We can't keep millennials because of pay, benefits and the expectation of
being available 24/7 because we're shorthanded. As the unemployment rate drops, more leave to
find a different job, leaving the old people as they are less willing to start over with pay,
vacation, moving, selling a house, pulling kids from school, etc. The younger people are
generally less likely to be willing to work as needed on off hours or to pull work from a
busier colleague. I honestly have no idea what the plan is when the people who know what they
are doing start to retire, we are way top heavy with 30-40 year guys who are on their way
out, very few of the 10-20 year guys due to hiring freezes and we can't keep new people past
2-3 years. It's like our support business model is designed to fail.
Make no mistake. The three and four letter acronyms and other mushy corporate speak may
differ from firm to firm, but this is going on in every large tech company old enough to have
a large population of workers over 50. I hope others will now be exposed.
This article hits the nail right on the head, as I come up on my 1 year anniversary from
being....ahem....'retired' from 23 years at IBM....and I'll be damned if I give them the
satisfaction of thinking this was like a 'death' to me. It was the greatest thing that could
have ever happened. Ginny and the board should be ashamed of themselves, but they won't be.
Starting around age 40 you start to see age discrimination. I think this is largely due to
economics, like increased vacation times, higher wages, but most of all the perception that
older workers will run up the medical costs. You can pass all the age related discrimination
laws you want, but look how ineffective that has been.
If you contrast this with the German workforce, you see that they have more older workers
with the skills and younger workers without are having a difficult time getting in. So what's
the difference? There are laws about how many vacation weeks that are given and there is a
national medical system that everyone pays, so discrimination isn't seen in the same
light.
The US is the only hold out maybe with South Africa that doesn't have a good national
medical insurance program for everyone. Not only do we pay more than the rest of the world,
but we also have discrimination because of it.
This is very good, and this is IBM. I know. I was plaintiff in Gundlach v. IBM Japan, 983
F.Supp.2d 389, which involved their violating Japanese labor law when I worked in Japan. The
New York federal judge purposely ignored key points of Japanese labor law, and also refused
to apply Title VII and Age Discrimination in Employment to the parent company in Westchester
County. It is a huge, self-described "global" company with little demonstrated loyalty to
America and Americans. Pennsylvania is suing them for $170 million on a botched upgrade of
the state's unemployment system.
In early 2013 I was given a 3 PBC rating for my 2012 performance, the main reason cited by my
manager being that my team lead thought I "seemed distracted". Five months later I was
included in a "resource action", and was gone by July. I was 20 months shy of 55. Younger
coworkers were retained. That was about two years after the product I worked on for over a
decade was off-shored.
Through a fluke of someone from the old, disbanded team remembering me, I was rehired two
years later - ironically in a customer support position for the very product I helped
develop.
While I appreciated my years of service, previous salary, and previous benefits being
reinstated, a couple years into it I realized I just wasn't cut out for the demands of the
job - especially the significant 24x7 pager duty. Last June I received email describing a
"Transition to Retirement" plan I was eligible for, took it, and my last day will be June 30.
I still dislike the job, but that plan reclassified me as part time, thus ending pager duty
for me. The job still sucks, but at least I no longer have to despair over numerous week long
24x7 stints throughout the year.
A significant disappointment occurred a couple weeks ago. I was discussing healthcare
options with another person leaving the company who hadn't been resource-actioned as I had,
and learned the hard way I lost over $30,000 in some sort of future medical benefit account
the company had established and funded at some point. I'm not sure I was ever even aware of
it. That would have funded several years of healthcare insurance during the 8 years until I'm
eligible for Medicare. I wouldn't be surprised if their not having to give me that had
something to do with my seeming "distracted" to them. <rolls eyes="">
What's really painful is the history of that former account can still be viewed at
Fidelity, where it associates my departure date in 2013 with my having "forfeited" that
money. Um, no. I did not forfeit that money, nor would I have. I had absolutely no choice in
the matter. I find the use of the word 'forfeited' to describe what happened as both
disingenuous and offensive. That said, I don't know whether's that's IBM's or Fidelity's
terminology, though.
Jeff, You should call Fidelity. I recently received a letter from the US Department of Labor
that they discovered that IBM was "holding" funds that belonged to me that I was never told
about. This might be similar or same story.
Great article. And so so close to home. I worked at IBM for 23 years until I became yet
another statistic -- caught up in one of their many "RA's" -- Resource Actions. I also can
identify with the point about being encouraged to find a job internally yet hiring managers
told to not hire. We were encouraged to apply for jobs outside the US -- Europe mainly -- as
long as we were willing to move and work at the prevailing local wage rate. I was totally
fine with that as my wife had been itching for some time for a chance to live abroad. I
applied for several jobs across Europe using an internal system IBM set up just for that
purpose. Never heard a word. Phone calls and internal e-mails to managers posting jobs in the
internal system went unanswered. It turned out to be a total sham as far as I was concerned.
IBM has laid off hundreds of thousands in the last few decades. Think of the MILLIONS of
children, spouses, brothers/sisters, aunts/uncles, and other family members of laid-off
people that were affected. Those people are or will be business owners and in positions to
make technology decisions. How many of them will think "Yeah, right, hire IBM. They're the
company that screwed daddy/mommy". I fully expect -- and I fully hope -- that I live to see
IBM go out of business. Which they will, sooner or later, as they are living off of past
laurels -- billions in the bank, a big fat patent portfolio, and real estate that they
continue to sell off or rent out. If you do hire IBM, you should fully expect that they'll
send some 20-something out to your company a few weeks after you hire them, that person will
be reading "XYZ for Dummys" on the plane on the way to your offices and will show up as your
IBM 'expert'.
> I was given the choice, retire or get a bad review and get fired, no severance. I
retired and have not been employed since because of my age. Got news for these business
people, experience trumps inexperience. Recently, I have developed several commercial Web
sites using cloud technology. In your face IBM.
> This could well have been written about Honeywell. Same tactics exactly. I laid myself
off and called it retirement after years of shoddy treatment and phonied up employee
evaluations. I took it personally until I realized that this is just American Management in
action. I don't know how they look themselves in the mirror in the morning.
> As an HR professional, I get sick when I hear of these tactics. Although this is not the
first company to use this strategy to make a "paradigm shift". Where are the geniuses at
Harvard, Yale, or the Wharton school of business (where our genius POTUS attended)? Can't
they come up with a better model of how to make these changes in an organization without
setting up the corp for a major lawsuit or God forbid ......they treat their employees with
dignity and respect.
> They are not trained at our business schools to think long-term or look for solutions to
problems or turn to the workforce for solutions. They are trained to maximizes the profits
and let society subsidies their losses and costs.
> Isn't it interesting that you are the first one (here or anywhere else that I've seen)
to talk about the complicity of Harvard and Yale in the rise of the Oligarchs.
Perhaps we should consider reevaluation of their lofty perch in American Education. Now if
we could only think of a way to expose the fraud.
"... In the early 1980's President Regan fired the striking air traffic controllers. This sent the message to management around the USA that it was OK to abuse employees in the workplace. By the end of the 1980's unions were totally emasculated and you had workers "going postal" in an abusive workplace. When unions were at their peak of power, they could appeal to the courts and actually stop a factory from moving out of the country by enforcing a labor contact. ..."
"... The American workplace is a nuthouse. Each and every individual workplace environment is like a cult. ..."
"... The American workplace is just a byproduct of the militarization of everyday life. ..."
"... Silicon Valley and Wall Street handed billions of dollars to this arrogant, ignorant Millennial Elizabeth Holmes. She abused any employee that questioned her. This should sound familiar to any employee who has had an overbearing know-it-all, bully boss in the workplace. Hopefully she will go to jail and a message will be sent that any young agist bully will not be given the power of god in the workplace. ..."
In the early 1980's President Regan fired the striking air traffic controllers. This
sent the message to management around the USA that it was OK to abuse employees in the
workplace. By the end of the 1980's unions were totally emasculated and you had workers
"going postal" in an abusive workplace. When unions were at their peak of power, they could
appeal to the courts and actually stop a factory from moving out of the country by enforcing
a labor contact.
Today we have a President in the White House who was elected on a platform of "YOU'RE
FIRED." Not surprisingly, Trump was elected by the vast majority of selfish lowlives in this
country. The American workplace is a nuthouse. Each and every individual workplace
environment is like a cult.
That is not good for someone like me who hates taking orders from people. But I have seen
it all. Ten years ago a Manhattan law firm fired every lawyer in a litigation unit except an
ex-playboy playmate. Look it up it was in the papers. I was fired from a job where many of my
bosses went to federal prison and then I was invited to the Christmas Party.
What are the salaries of these IBM employees and how much are their replacements making?
The workplace becomes a surrogate family. Who knows why some people get along and others
don't. My theory on agism in the workplace is that younger employees don't want to be around
their surrogate mother or father in the workplace after just leaving the real home under the
rules of their real parents.
The American workplace is just a byproduct of the militarization of everyday life. In the
1800's, Herman Melville wrote in his beautiful book "White Jacket" that one of the most
humiliating aspects of the military is taking orders from a younger military officer. I read
that book when I was 20. I didn't feel the sting of that wisdom until I was 40 and had a 30 year old appointed as
my supervisor who had 10 years less experience than me.
By the way, the executive that made
her my supervisor was one of the sleaziest bosses I have ever had in my career. Look at the
tech giant Theranos. Silicon Valley and Wall Street handed billions of dollars to this
arrogant, ignorant Millennial Elizabeth Holmes. She abused any employee that questioned her.
This should sound familiar to any employee who has had an overbearing know-it-all, bully boss
in the workplace. Hopefully she will go to jail and a message will be sent that any young agist bully will not be given the power of god in the workplace.
Four years ago, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) warned
of "the worst rental affordability crisis ever," citing data that:
"About half of renters spend more than 30% of their income on rent, up from 18% a decade
ago, according to newly released research by Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies.
Twenty-seven percent of renters are paying more than half of their income on rent."
This is a significant problem for US consumers, and especially millennials, because as we
have noted repeatedly over the past year, and a new
report confirms , "rent increases continue to outpace workers' wage growth, meaning the
situation is getting worse."
In the second quarter of 2017, median asking rents jumped 5% from $864 to $910. In the first
half of 2018, they have remained at levels crushing the American worker.
While the surge in median asking rents has triggered an affordability crisis, new data now
shows just how much a person must make per month to afford rent.
According to HowMuch.Net, an American should budget 25% to 30% of monthly income for rent,
but as shown by the New Deal Democrat, workers are budgeting about 50% more of their salaries
than a decade earlier. The report specifically looked at the nation's capital, where a person
must make approximately $8,500 per month to afford rent.
In California, the state with the largest housing bubble, the monthly income to afford rent
is roughly $8,300, followed by Hawaii at $7,800 and New York at $7,220.
In contrast, the Rust Belt and the Southeastern region of the United States, one needs to
make only $3,500 per month to afford rent.
"Based on the rule of applying no more than one-third of income to housing, people living
in the Northeast must earn at least twice as much as those living in the South just to afford
rent for what each market considers an average home," HowMuch.net's Raul Amoros told
MarketWatch .
Which, however, is not to say that owning a house is a viable alternative to renting. In
fact, as Goldman notes in its latest Housing and Mortgage Monitor, "buying is looking
increasingly less affordable vs. renting with home prices growing faster than rents."
In short: the situation is not likely to improve in the short-term.
A
sign of relief could be coming in the second half of 2019 or entering into 2020 when the US
economy is expected to enter a slowdown, if not outright recession. This would reverse the real
estate market, thus providing a turning point in rents that would give renters relief after a
near decade of overinflated prices.
"... While I am generally not in favor of bankruptcy discrimination, the ineligibility of bankrupt colleges for taxpayer funding is eminently sensible ..."
The Bezzle: "For-profit college chain files (for receivership)" [
Credit Slips ].
"While I am generally not in favor of bankruptcy discrimination, the ineligibility of
bankrupt colleges for taxpayer funding is eminently sensible.
Given the weakness of
institutional gatekeeping and the political challenges to shutting down predatory schools, and
the for-profit college business model in which taxpayer grants and loans are used to prepay
tuitions for students who are frequently misled about career chances, we don't need bankruptcy
to give these failing schools a new lease on life." • Ouch.
About half of nonelderly Americans have one or more pre-existing health conditions,
according to a recent brief by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS,
that examined the prevalence of conditions that would have resulted in higher rates,
condition exclusions, or coverage denials before the ACA. Approximately 130 million
nonelderly people have pre-existing conditions nationwide, and, as shown in the table
available below, there is an average of more than 300,000 per congressional district.
Nationally, the most common pre-existing conditions were high blood pressure (44 million
people), behavioral health disorders (45 million people), high cholesterol (44 million
people), asthma and chronic lung disease (34 million people), and osteoarthritis and other
joint disorders (34 million people).
While people with Medicaid or employer-based plans would remain covered regardless of
medical history, the repeal of pre-ex protections means that the millions with pre-existing
conditions would face higher rates if they ever needed individual market coverage. The
return of pre-ex discrimination would hurt older Americans the most. As noted earlier,
while about 51 percent of the nonelderly population had at least one pre-existing condition
in 2014, according to the HHS brief, the rate was 75 percent of those ages 45 to 54 and 84
percent among those ages 55 to 64. But even millions of younger people, including 1 in 4
children, would be affected by eliminating this protection.
Which is why popular anger and resentment must constantly be directed outward, at an external
enemy. Wake up, Americans – Russia and China are robbing you of your American Dream!!
It's their fault, not that of your own elites and/or the political system that assures their
place!!
In at least one area, though, Unz is full of it.
This perhaps explains why so many sons and daughters of top Chinese leaders attend
college in the West: enrolling them at a third-rate Chinese university would be a tremendous
humiliation, while our own corrupt admissions practices get them an easy spot at Harvard or
Stanford, sitting side by side with the children of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and George W.
Bush.
It is not as easy as he makes out, as a timely lawsuit suggests – Asian-Americans
often have to tiptoe through an admissions minefield whose process is exquisitely designed to
discover their ethnic background, so that Asian admissions can be limited. According to this
reference, basing its conclusions on an internal study conducted by Harvard itself, if that
institution looked only at academic standards when filling its admissions, Asians and
Asian-Americans would make up 43% of its student body. Instead, it's maybe half that.
It is uniquely-American irony that the driving force behind the initiative is Ed Blum,
about as far from a populist as you could get, who is pushing the lawsuit as a means of
wrecking any correction of the system; it's designed to lose.
I must have missed that bit, but if so, how does he reconcile that with children of the
Chinese leadership just coasting into the Ivy League as if the admissions process were a
slide?
In Australia here anyway, some universities have very large international student intakes to
the extent that in some institutions, overseas students (mostly from China and India)
constitute as much as or more than 40% of the entire student population. http://www.universityrankings.com.au/international-student-numbers.html
A major part of the reason must be that as government funding to universities here
continues to decrease, universities are forced to make up the shortfall by relying on full
fee-paying students and international students and their families can be exploited in this
way by being forced to pay upfront for their education.
No doubt, being private educational institutions, Ivy League universities view the
children of Chinese political elites as similar gold mines and the admission standards
required of such potential students are likely to be very different from what is applied to
students coming out of American high schools.
Dear Patient Observer: I try to give credit where credit is due; so any sociological theory
that is factual and based on mathematics deserves to be aired in public.
My beef with Unz is their overall fascist slant. Some of the articles are so viciously
anti-Jewish, that one is simply forced to ask: "What is your end game? A second Holocaust?"
(which the more Nazi of the commenters are forced into Zugzwang, because they deny the first
one even happened, and yet call for a second one )
Having said that, I call upon people to perform a simple thought experiment: Imagine it were
actually proved scientifically factual (beyond a statistical doubt) that certain ethnic
groups were intellectual "smarter" in the arena of, say, college success. (For example, Jews
or "Asians".) Then what should be the policy ensuing? Should governments institute quotas to
make sure the "dumber" ethnos get their share of the college degrees? Or just let nature take
its course?
I reckon the answer would depend on the government in question, and the whole damn history.
When the Soviet Union decided (in the late 70's and 1980's) to limit Jews to certain quotas
in university admissions, they were raked over the coals by Westies. And yet when Westie
institutions attempt to set ethnic quotas, then it might be reasonable.
Where do I stand on this issue? I honestly don't know but I admit that I don't have the
answers
I told this story before but will do so again as it has relevancy. My 2nd term calculus
graduate assistance was a young woman; perhaps 18 years old. Her name was Stern or Sternberg.
She was socially awkward, clearly uncomfortable in the classroom and not good at teaching
A few years later, I read a story in a regional newspaper about her. The headline was
something like "Is this Perfection?". Anyway, the story indicated that she graduated from the
University at the age of 16. She was the product of an experiment by her parents. From
conception onward, she was exposed to every sort of stimulation to build her intellectual
development – classical music played while in the womb, every sort of pre-school
educational stimulation and constant urging to excel in academics.
My take is most "ethnic" intellectual achievement is the product of sociological factors.
Overbearing Jewish moms or Asian tiger moms are likely a major factor in such academic
achievements. In my value system, that behavior is destructive to the kids psychological
well-being. Not worth it in the long run I believe.
Asians I personally know tell me that Asian kids are not genetically smarter than anyone
else. Their parents value education, and make them work harder than most western kids do. Got
spare time? Study. Already mastered the subject? Take up another. When you're good at all of
them, then you can take a break.
A friend of mine who was a junior officer in the Navy is Chinese. She consented to be
interviewed by a Chinese magazine, because of her position as a military officer, but it was
clear to her that her interviewers were a little disappointed that she was not fluent in
Mandarin. When they proceeded with the interview in English, they wanted to know, "Why you no
doctor? Why you no Rawyer?"
But isn't the selection of African or Asian students who may study in Europe or the USA based
more on class? Surely, if you are a Chinese or African – black, brown,
sky-blue-with-pink-polka-dots or whatever, you must be bourgeois if you have been allowed to
study at Yale or Oxford etc.
In the UK, the working class is becoming increasingly uneducated, and class is not
ethnicity.
"... Our US students have been taught since at least grade 6, but mostly since school began, that there are only certain acceptable ideas, and genuflecting to those ideas is what makes you the Top Student, the Front Row kid, the one who checks all the boxes to get into Brown or Oberlin or Yale. ..."
"... My brother is a biology professor at an elite liberal arts college in the Midwest. He uses no pronouns with his students, as the demands escalate and change daily. A whole cluster of young female students in the physics department have suddenly declared themselves trans. ..."
"... He says that it is impossible -- absolutely impossible -- to question what is happening in society concerning the abandonment of human biological facts or to have a rational debate about any of this on campus, either among the faculty or with the students. ..."
"... This is 100% correct and also the result of our K-12 education system doing what it was designed to do: engineer certain social outcomes. ..."
"... I grew in a period of suffocating conformity, the dregs of the Cold War hysteria that communists are hiding under your bed and in your anxiety closet to burst out and turn your local church into a museum pretending that a Russian invented the telephone. ..."
"... Somehow, quite a few of us found the means to stand up, to challenge, to question, to dismiss, to lampoon, and most of all, to turn back mindless adjectives accusing us of Thining The Wrong Way. I doubt that any generation coming up now is so mindlessly conformist as the writer insinuates. ..."
"... I also find it ironic that a piece called "Creating A-Plus Conformists" is published by the author of "The Benedict Option". I can't think of a greater force for creating conformity than religious orthodoxy. ..."
"... I have no idea who Alice is. But as a college professor, I find this to be (and this is being charitable) exaggerated nonsense. Has Alice actually ever stood in front of and talked to class of college freshman? ..."
Reader Alice comments on the hyperpoliticization of college students:
Understand: they *arrive at universities thinking this way*.
Our US students have been taught since at least grade 6, but mostly since school began,
that there are only certain acceptable ideas, and genuflecting to those ideas is what makes
you the Top Student, the Front Row kid, the one who checks all the boxes to get into Brown or
Oberlin or Yale.
The "best and brightest" accepted to these schools are kids who, consciously or
unconsciously, have learned to excel in places by accepting as true the acceptable ideas and
never bringing up the unacceptable. Some thoughts are just too dangerous to have.
Trajectories that are good for one's future to the Ivies don't allow you to engage these
unacceptable ideas. So in school and in other places where one deals with adults, these front
row kids learn to believe, or at least be comfortable with parroting, these acceptable ideas.
Just as there's a correct answer to a calculus question, there's a correct answer to
questions such as why one country is more successful than another, why there are measurable
differences in incarceration rates by race (even as there's also a contradictory answer to
the question of what is a race), what a nation owes non-citizens vs. citizens, how much
training can alter [ ], are sex differences on average innate, are there two sexes, etc.
Meanwhile, if you hear something unacceptable, you've also been equipped with the trump
card to demolish the argument: arguer is racist, sexist, bigot. So the Overton window is big
for trans rights and little for the role of, say, duty to ones' elders, big for
microaggression but little for the personality differences of men and women.
Whether they believe it or not at the beginning is irrelevant. They make the appropriate
verbal gestures, they get a reward. After 6-12 years of doing so, they're not capable of
engaging in debate or rhetoric, argument from evidence, even following a line of reasoning or
recognizing a fallacy. They've never done it, and anyone who tried was actively shut down
either calls of "my truth".
On the past, ignorance and obnoxious self regard were demolished by profs rather quickly.
What's changed is college profs no longer push back on this crap. They no longer demand
argument, reason, and counter argument. They simply are stunned that they share no overlap of
consciousness with the students they bequeathed to themselves. They are afraid of them and
afraid to stand up to the students or spineless weasel administrators.
I live on the east coast and can only tell you what we see. The public schools teach gender
identity ideology, starting in elementary. I didn't even know what that is until our autistic
daughter suddenly decided that she's "really a guy", along with a cluster of her school
friends, when she was 16. They are 19 now, and two of her friends have had irreversible
surgery which has made them sterile.
My brother is a biology professor at an elite liberal arts college in the Midwest. He uses
no pronouns with his students, as the demands escalate and change daily. A whole cluster of
young female students in the physics department have suddenly declared themselves trans. The
mantra of "supporting women in physics!" swiftly changed to "supporting transgender people in
physics!"
He says that it is impossible -- absolutely impossible -- to question what is
happening in society concerning the abandonment of human biological facts or to have a
rational debate about any of this on campus, either among the faculty or with the
students.
The unthinkable has happened. An ideology which would have been laughed at as ridiculous
on college campuses in the 1980s is now driving social, legal, and medical practice
throughout our entire country. If you haven't been affected by this yet, then you will be.
Soon.
This is 100% correct and also the result of our K-12 education system doing what it was
designed to do: engineer certain social outcomes.
Conservative calls to "de-fund college" over this are misplaced.
Also, the reason that college professors don't stand up to this is because they know that
the administration won't have their back if a student accuses them of being
racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic. And the administrator won't have their back due to the
desire to avoid bad press and students protesting on campus. Give the (vocal) students what
they want so everyone stays happy.
I could not disagree with this more strongly. This is the false argument of broad
generalization. The vast majority of schools are not en masses teaching radical SJW thought
control. They are doing their best to teach AT ALL given the federal over reach into state
public education and the excessive focus on testing and scores and the impact that has on
funding.
And certainly anecdote does not equal accumulative data but our personal experience of
high school
For our children is that there is zero indoctrination of SJW values coming from the teachers
of the institution. Certainly the peer group has SJW people and activities but I'm here to
declare that not one teacher or one principal in my district has for e fed my children any
SJW dogma. In fact I can list multiple examples of Tim's when I've wondered how teachers got
away with things like singing Christian or Jewish music at a choir concert or teaching the
Our Father prayer in German or studying the great schism and having my kids present the
Orthodox side of the story in World History.
Who knows. Maybe I live in an anomaly. But I wonder if the hyping of crazy SJW stories of
abuse in schools has created an image in people's minds that ALL schools are crazy SJW
hotbeds.
It's just not true. Public education IS in crisis due to ridiculous over testing and
funding that is abysmal. And the majority of people who work in public ed are really just
hanging on by their fingernails trying to do their best and make rent!!!
Sure there's a crazy teacher, waka-doodle principal or spineless superintendent that makes
the news. And certainly the NEA is an bastion of left leaning ideas, but to make this huge
sweep that the kids arriving at University were indoctrinated by their 1st grade teacher and
on up through their childhood is just absolutely not true.
A hundred years or so ago, I was in high school debate. One of the good things about that is
we had to learn how to argue either for or against the same thing with equal conviction.
Because we were young and inexperienced, i.e. stupid, most of us were pretty liberal, but the
idea that there was only one way to think about a problem was completely foreign.
Well, the writer of that comment paints a picture. But that assumes facts not in evidence. I
don't have a statistical overview of all the high schools in the country, but I know enough
about enough students at enough of them to question whether the above description is The
Truth About The Meaning Of Life And Everything.
I grew in a period of suffocating conformity, the dregs of the Cold War hysteria that
communists are hiding under your bed and in your anxiety closet to burst out and turn your
local church into a museum pretending that a Russian invented the telephone.
Somehow, quite a few of us found the means to stand up, to challenge, to question, to
dismiss, to lampoon, and most of all, to turn back mindless adjectives accusing us of Thining
The Wrong Way. I doubt that any generation coming up now is so mindlessly conformist as the
writer insinuates.
There are two answers to being reflexively called "racist, sexist, bigot."
1) So what?
2) Prove it.
I prefer the second option, but there are other adjectival nouns I would respond to with
the first.
This situation will not last. The Social Justice canon is too clearly false and modern people
are too rebellious to shoulder it for long. One of the characteristics of liquid modernity is
that the pendulum swings more freely than it ever has before. It will be interesting to see,
when the Social Justice narrative finally collapses, how much of our foundational mythology
goes along with it.
As far as I can tell, our modern dysfunction is a very consistent and rational result of
one simple foundational lie: "All men are created equal." The intent of this lie may have
been noble but it is self-evidently false. And the Social Justice narrative rests very
comfortably upon it. I can't see how it survives the collapse of Social Justice no matter how
badly we desire to maintain it.
P.S. I understand the reflexive anger and distrust that most readers will feel upon
reading this post. This is certainly a painful idea to grapple with. It is embedded deeply
into our many intersecting identities. But what would you say to someone claiming that all
pots are created equal? Would you posit that anyone denying this claim is a wok supremacist?
No. If two things are not interchangeable, then they are not equal. But this does not mean
that one is ultimately superior to the other. Human equality is a comfortable illusion. But
we can find better reasons to treat one another with the proper respect and kindness. And in
the process we might build a more perfect civilization.
The natural follow up for those in power to saying "Some men are more equal than others"
is to say "therefore the better men are the ones in power."
No. Being born poor makes it much, much harder to succeed. Having connections puts
incompetents and immoral people in power. We need to understand that the rich and powerful
*are* usually born with silver spoons in their mouths. Injustice is real. Face it.
College students today are the first generation in US history to have grown up with openly
gay friends and neighbors. They know, from lived experience, that there is nothing wrong with
gay people. They know it in their bones.
So, yah, they think differently than we do on sexual issues, and they tune us out when we say
things they know to be false.
"Kids, I don't know what's wrong with the kids these days".
So a reader send this in without citing any Support for her conclusions and you tack on a
headline about conformism and print it.
One could easily write a companion piece about homeschooled kids going off to some
evangelical college where they set aside all reason and accept creationism and the Bible as
the sole arbiter of truth. But those kids aren't going to get into "Brown or Oberlin or
Yale".
That's where Alice tips her hand. This has nothing to do with the brainwashing or
indoctrination of our youth, but that the Brown, Oberlin and Yale graduates are going to end
up running this country, while Alice doesn't get, and isn't in anyway entitled too, tell them
what to think.
Our US students have been taught since at least grade 6, but mostly since school began,
that there are only certain acceptable ideas, and genuflecting to those ideas is what makes
you the Top Student, the Front Row kid, the one who checks all the boxes to get into Brown or
Oberlin or Yale.
There has never been a time in history that this hasn't been true.
Rod, the comment is okay, but seems to lack an actual article written around it. Looks quite
incomplete both from a literary perspective and from the perspective of the idea.
This may sound mawkish, and it's based on just a few years teaching undergrads when I was in
grad school, but I think there are a lot of college students who want to be able to say or
write something more than the party line, but often they don't know how and have managed to
go through high school without having read anything. My students, of both sexes and all
races, included a good number of kids who, once I made it clear enough that I didn't want to
hear any canned "diversity is excellence" crap or whatever, seemed pretty happy that they
could try writing about something else for a change.
There are always the sycophantic
apple-polishers whose whole shtick is regurgitating the conventional wisdom at every
opportunity, but people hate that kind of person (see Hillary Clinton).
You could spend some time reading your kids' AP World History and AP US History textbooks
to discover the "analytical" grid that everything is rammed through. Good for you/your kids if your local teachers don't teach it in that manner, but trust me, the AP test
questions are geared toward certain ideological answers.
Also, when Alice mentioned "My truth" I wondered if she has also had a kid in an elite
college prep school. If so, it sure sounds like she and I have come to the same conclusions
from experience.
Working in IT I get to talk to a lot of young people coming out of college with a variety of
degrees. Most have no idea what Alice is talking about. Perhaps if you go for something like
a sociology or general liberal arts degree at the most liberal schools in the nation this is
true but real students are worried about their fields of study (business, software, UX
design, etc.) and the courses that might teach these types of things are fluff electives they
skate through and ignore as much as possible.
I also find it ironic that a piece called "Creating A-Plus Conformists" is published by
the author of "The Benedict Option". I can't think of a greater force for creating conformity
than religious orthodoxy.
This post is one big exercise in confirmation bias. There are no facts, just assertions
stated firmly enough to convince the already-convinced. I expect better from The American
Conservative.
The fact that it's supposedly an example of other peoples' conformity is just the
ironic icing on the non-self-aware cake.
"But what would you say to someone claiming that all pots are created equal?"
That pots are objects with objective value and none inherent, while people are subjects who
invest value in objects and possessed of inherent worth that is not objectively comparable,
so we shorthand render it "equality". You know, the reason conservatives are supposed to hate
'borshun.
Actual studies shows actually, what happens in college is professors move left-wing students
slightly to the right and right-wing students slightly to the left.
Hi Rod, sorry about the typos in the original! Thanks for the raising the comment. I hope
it's fruitful.
To some folks saying 'this is an overgeneralization', my comments were in the post re:
what's happening at the elite institutions, and so were directed to the set of kids on k-12
that intend to get to such institutions. Those elite univs are more likely to select students
with this SJW profile on the first place, yes. But again, the kids intending to go to such
places know this is the profile.
To those questioning whether every k-12 school is like this, I ask you to look at the
required courses in teaching colleges and master's programs that credential teachers. It's
SJWism everywhere all the time, in every single discipline. Math class is about racial
equity. Reading class is about gender equity. There's no other lens through which teachers
are taught, so this is the lens through which they teach. Read the journals in teaching and
see the articles.
To those questioning whether every college is like this, I suggest you look more closely
at your community college's bookstore.
I'm in a southern state that voted for Trump. The big city cc offers this required English
class,
ENG-111: Writing and Inquiry
'This course is designed to develop the ability to produce clear writing in a variety of
genres and formats using a recursive process. Emphasis includes inquiry, analysis, effective
use of rhetorical strategies, thesis development, audience awareness, and revision. Upon
completion, students should be able to produce unified, coherent, well-developed essays using
standard written English. This course will also introduce students to the skills needed to
produce a college-level research essay.'
Seems a reasonable course, right? Freshman English.
The Reader for the course in 2017:
Sex Ed
Family Values
Oh, Come On, Men Aren't Finished
Wonder Woman by Gloria Steinem
Sex, Lies and Conversation: why Is It So Hard to Talk to Each Other?
Again, you can claim I'm cherry picking, but you will find this in every city in every
state.
Or just listen to vacuous comments of middle school admins. Look at when districts give
days off to kids to bus them to anti Trump rallies, and ask yourself if such a place is real
pushing a socratic discussion about these points of view.
If you listen closely, you will understand this is everywhere.
Andrew in MD: "If two things are not interchangeable, then they are not equal." Is interchangeability the sole criteron of equality? Could a person argue that since all people are sinners/fallen, they are, therefore, equal?
Or are some more sinning or fallen?
The Buddha demonstrated that all people are empty of self – why cannot that suffice
for the establishment of equality?
Andrew in MD: some great American (John Randolph?) once said "I do not believe that all men
are equal, for the simple reason that it isn't true". So, nothing anger-producing in your
post. If giving up this noble lie is what is needed to consign SJWism to the ideological
trash bin along with other totalitarian ideologies like Maoism, then out it goes.
When I was, in my late college years through my first ten or so years in The Real World, I
was a doctrinaire conservative Republican, although not a member of any church or religion.
In a way, this did me some good, because I was attending some elite, some not-so-elite,
and all very leftish educational institutions. Often my grades suffered, but I had to learn
to marshal facts and formulate arguments that people did not want to hear. Often this was
pretty easy, because the people I was arguing with had never really thought about what they
believed or why, much less the unspoken assumptions underlying those beliefs, and they had
never heard them challenged.
Usually the response was sputtering outrage, but that's a poor substitute for logical
argument, especially when I am almost autistic in how little I care what other people think
of me. In fact, if you react by being even calmer and more logical, the other person will
dissolve into a spitting mad Donald Duck meltdown.
If I had simply gone with the flow, all that was necessary was to recite the correct
dogmas and platitudes with adequate conviction and I would have been greeted with
hosannas.
They say that a person becomes more conservative as they get older, but the opposite
happened to me. I suppose because I enjoy challenging my own beliefs, finding facts that
don't fit my own theories and then trying to make sense of them.
I learned that theory didn't always apply in real world conditions and pat answers don't
always translate into solutions. (Apply "markets in all the things" to healthcare, for
instance.)
They also say that a person becomes more conservative as they become more successful, but
that wasn't the case for me either. I suppose to a certain extent, I am successful because I
was lucky.
Honestly, what Shelley wrote sounds more accurate than what Alice did, although I think there
is at least a grain of truth in Alice's post, too. And the poster at another one of Rod's
pieces who put more of the blame on the Internet than on schools and teachers at any level
made sense, too.
As much as I find the content on AmCon to be generally thought provoking, the complaint
expressed by "Alice" is a recurring sentiment that I think "conservatives" use to cover up
shoddy arguments
"I have all these really great ideas and deep insights about race and gender, but every
time I try to express them, I get called a bigot, and I'm totally not a bigot, but those
dastardly liberals won't even let me make my argument because they are always shouting me
down and calling me a bigot, so me and the vast majority of ordinary folks who also agree
with me are effectively silenced a shrill few elites, which is totally unfair! Anyone else
feel this way? Sad!"
Point #1
Something doesn't jive about the general premise. Summarizing Alice's post as "All the kids
today are totally brainwashed by SJWs, and everyone mindlessly goes along with whatever the
PC police say". On a related note, last week's major news item was essentially "ordinary
Americans were recently polled and 92% of them don't support political correctness and they
are totally sick of identity politics and fed up with SJWs -- #WalkAway #RedWave #MAGA"
Am I missing something? Because those don't seem to make sense to be occurring in the same
place at the same time. "The kids are totally brainwashed by identity politics and are just a
bunch of useful idiots for the Left", BUT "they also see right through it, see that it's a
sham, and they thoroughly reject it". Also, "The ordinary folks are cowering in fear, there's
nothing they can do about it, the situation is beyond hopeless because the SJWs have
effectively silenced all dissent", BUT "there's a revolution about to burst forth because so
many ordinary people are mad as hell and not going to take it any more and in November they
are going to vote hardcore against all this identity stuff and kick these knuckleheads out of
power."
Doesn't make sense. It's one or the other, not both.
Point #2
I don't instinctively believe that all Republicans and Conservatives are bigots. I'm a
Conservative. I don't think I'm a bigot. But I do get a little skeptical of a particular
handful of my fellow conservatives who always seem to be running around complaining
"everyone's always calling me a bigot, everyone's always calling me a bigot, I'm totally not
a bigot, but everyone's always calling me a bigot when I express my ideas".
Well, okay, what exactly are these wonderful, totally not bigoted ideas that you have?
Would you like to share them with us?
For example, Alice (or anyone else), please illuminate us with the answer to one of the
questions that you raised in your post, one of those off-limits questions where people are
always unfairly saying that your answer is racist: why there are measurable differences in incarceration rates by race?
Help me to understand, in your own, totally not-bigoted words, what is the answer that we
all need the hear, the answer that the SJWs won't let us hear? I promise, promise, promise
that I will not call you a racist. This is a safe space for you.
I have no idea who Alice is. But as a college professor, I find this to be (and this is being
charitable) exaggerated nonsense. Has Alice actually ever stood in front of and talked to
class of college freshman?
The upside is that all the good little Maoists will starve, come some real crises in our
society. Good for them that they can make up micro aggressions out of nothing, not so good
for them that they won't be able to feed their soy faces when things begin to break down in
this nation.
I figured we'd already gone around the useless bend with these people years ago when I was
trapped someplace and MTV was playing. Some yoyo on the TV was talking about a show he was
producing and soooooo scared that it wasn't going to go right and freaking out and all this,
basically over nothing. I then noticed more and more of this type of behavior once I started
looking for it. Lots of younger and younger people living in fear of absolutely nothing just
fear for its own sake.
Learned fear and helplessness, nothing less or more. You have an increasingly large number
of kids who are raised up as sheltered as possible and who have no real will or ability to
take care of themselves. Couple that with the ideological vampires that roam higher education
these days and you wind up with people who don't really care about whatever cause they're
promoting, or what they're protesting, but it becomes all abut trying to drive out any
dissenting sound from a basis of fear.
The soy boys are wretched creatures at best, and the harpies who lead them about by the
nose are just as pitiful. Kinda dangerous, but only to a point, because all of them value
their own skin more than real confrontation or principles (this is kinda true of the
alt-right, too, which is why the media always suffers meltdowns at violence that wouldn't
even merit a mention in Freikorps-riddled Germany, where the Browns and Reds duke it out
regularly and Hitler brandished a pistol, not a Twitter hissy fit).
There's really no upside, just the irritation of living with these people on a daily basis
and trying to tune out their BS. Maybe the social credit system will get rolling here and
some point, which will be a clue to move to the sticks and learn how to raise organic produce
and enjoy the simpler things. Lord knows, none of them are going to want to risk getting mud
on their hipster work boots by being in the real country.
I'm sure Reader Alice is identifying a real phenomenon, but it's funny to see a traditional
Christian publishing it. Are we saying the other side is a haven of consistently
rational debate ?
I teach high school kids for a living. My school is in a high income area and nearly 100% of
the kids are college bound, many of them to very selective universities. My experience is
that our stronger students take challenging and reasonably balanced courses – they do
not arrive to college as leftist zombies. Our weaker students sometimes find a home with the
leftists and realize that they can be praised by adults and sometimes even given high grades
in politicized but low level classes. These are the ones I worry about. I have a good view of
the next generation, and from where I sit the most capable 17 year olds are for more
influenced by Lin Manuel Miranda than by Ta Nehisi Coates – and I find that fairly
encouraging.
I taught high school English in the California Bay Area and even there, I encountered only a
couple teachers who could be said to have any kind of liberal agenda and to have included it
in the classroom. My 3 kids have gone to California public schools (2 of them are currently
in high school), in the Bay Area and the Sacramento regions, and we haven't experienced any
of what the writer of this post describes. It's been my experience that kids get their
political leanings these days mostly from their peers, their media heroes and social media.
Now, college is another matter entirely, but I don't need to tell anyone here that.
I remember well the time I made the perfectly wise and rational statement in history class
that "might makes right," which of course it does. My poor teacher, at his usual loss for
words in dealing with my divine wisdom sputtered some foolishness to the effect that, "Hitler
had might. Was he right?'
To which I responded, as the Young Voice of God, "Hitler lost."
The look on the poor man's face was worth the price of admission for he had chosen exactly
the wrong example to use. He slumped back, defeated, for he had proven me right.
Fear not. The young will grow up and, as their compatriots in Christian schools will,
learn to see past the platitudes, knowing that the very idea of justice is a vile thing,
incompatible with their personal freedom, and they will end up despising it from their very
bones.
Jonathan Haidt has pointed out a key reason why we get such mixed messages about what is
really happening.
Millennials get blamed for a lot of this, but most of this stuff is actually the arrival
of the first of the immediate post-millennial generation at college, just within the last
couple of years.
He points out that this is the first generation to have gone through formative late
childhood/early adolescent years experiencing the destructive impact social media throughout
their development. (Previous generations encountered it after they were just that bit older
and more emotionally stable.)
I can look back at my kids, who were born smack-dab in the middle of the millennial
generation, and their high school experience wasn't remotely like anything described above.
Granted, they grew up in Old West country, but it was at a very large high school–and
as this blog repeatedly points out, nowhere is sheltered from the modern diseases. Their
teachers were certainly overwhelmingly liberal, as is true pretty much everywhere these days,
no matter how red the state.
If Haidt is right, the experience my millennial kids had (and the experiences that many
readers of this blog will be appealing to) is *completely* irrelevant. There is something
brand-new just arrived on the scene, and only in the last 2-3 years.
We can argue about whether teachers caused it, culture caused it, social media caused it,
parents caused it The question is what we are going to do about it.
I find this really, really hard to believe. Also, I think I can state (with some degree of
confidence) that Alice does, in fact, believe that there is only one answer to her questions
about incarceration, national success, etc.
The "best and brightest" come in a few different flavors. A lot of them are the kids who
do everything absolutely right, don't seem to rock any particular boats, and are often pretty
conservative in various ways, including politically.
Others are those fueled by a desire for justice and reforms, because they've been on the
receiving end of injustice, or they've witnessed it and felt sympathy/empathy. These are the
ones who often clash with administrators and/or the more entitled demographics among their
peers. They're the ones standing by their controversial school newspaper articles, the ones
organizing the gay-straight (etc.) alliances in the face of often serious threat, and so on.
This isn't happening because they've been indoctrinated, though they may have been inspired
by that one English or History teacher.
As others have said Rod, you've stumbled across the NPC meme. No doubt someone will be along
to tell you about how you are dehumanizing people, because having an NPC avatar will get you
banned from twitter but calling white people dogs will get you on the editorial board of the
NYT.
For those unfamiliar with it, NPC means Non-Player-Character. It comes from video games,
although I've read that it appeared in DnD before that. In any case it is mostly relevant to
RPG games here. In an RPG game, the player will encounter many NPCs who have a few scripted
responses that they will repeat whenever the player talks to them. The meme is that SJWs do
not think for themselves, and simply respond to everything with a few scripted responses to
any political debate, usually some variation of an 'ist' or an 'ism' or white privilege or
lived experience. It has been an effective meme for mocking the left, which is why twitter
moved so quickly to shut it down.
So the Overton window is big for trans rights and little for the role of, say, duty to
ones' elders, big for microaggression but little for the personality differences of men and
women.
This is exactly right, and is actually the reason why the experience of becoming
"red-pilled" can be so exhilarating and freeing for many people. Suddenly there are huge
areas of discussion and debate that you can explore. It is especially potent because often
these areas were once filed under "common sense" or "fairness". Examples include the
differences between men and women which are evident to most toddlers, or the intrinsic
unfairness of judging people guilty for crimes that were committed hundreds of years before
they were born.
The euphoria of this rediscovered freedom can lead people to over-correct, and go very far
into conspiracy theories in search of more "truths" which have been considered off-limits.
I've seen this in an acquaintance who went far down the rabbit-hole of holocaust denial
theories and neo-nazism. I think it became a rush for him to go where others fear to tread,
and I think it is somehow connected to the red-pill experience.
[NFR: I found the graphic when I typed "conformity" into Shutterstock's search engine.
-- RD]
Shelley, I don't mean this as an insult, but you are 100% completely out of touch on this
issue. My sense is that you don't want to know the truth. This is evidenced by statements
like this:
"For our children is that there is zero indoctrination of SJW values coming from the
teachers of the institution. Certainly the peer group has SJW people and activities but I'm
here to declare that not one teacher or one principal in my district has for e fed my
children any SJW dogma."
First of all, this is anecdotal. Secondly, I can ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE you that your
absolutist statement is wrong. Your assertion that you know every single thing that
teachers/administrators have "fed" to your children shows how unserious you are about soberly
assessing/investigating the situation. You are operating on selective evidence and faith.
We are living in a time where our schools, the mainstream media, the entertainment
industry, high ed, and The Democratic party are united in a vitriolic, hysterical insistence
that citizens of all ages support The Narrative, OR ELSE.
I think your mindset is shared by many who simply can't accept the fact that what should
be the fringe rantings of the occasional "waka-doodle" has become the norm in the leftist
controlled institutions I listed above. I hope you all wake up, and see the extremist agenda
and actual violence that the left is supporting. If you don't, we will descend into actual
civil war. That probably sounds crazy to you, too. I wish you were right.
"This situation will not last. The Social Justice canon is too clearly false and modern
people are too rebellious to shoulder it for long."
Agree ..I would call it the social justice Koran though ..but unlike the Islamic Koran
(Qu'ran) it keeps changing all the time.
One day you're an "ally" the next day you find yourself a "nazi"
Seriously ..just go around campus today saying lines from Obama speeches back in 2008 ."I
believe marriage is between a man and a woman" and "immigration must be controlled and the
violence on the southern border must be stopped"
Thats now "hate speech"
At least the wahhabis tend to stick to one set of rules.
As someone who has spent most of my life in education and higher education, it is not my
experience that there is some sort of universal SJW indoctrination. In reality what basically
happens is this:
Certain professions at the commanding heights of the culture (journalism,
entertainment, academia etc ) are inherently cosmopolitan and tend to disproportionately
appeal to liberals/leftists.
Therefore, most college profs, students, and academic types end up being Nice Moderate
Liberals. Most are not dogmatic or hateful, and are willing to entertain rational
argumentation (to a point). Many–especially the students–are apolitical.
However, centrist liberal hegemony is largely defenseless against radical SJWs,
especially if they are ethnic minorities/women making accusations of racism/sexism, and the
Nice Moderate Liberals get bullied (sometimes quite literally) into going along with the SJW
agenda.
So, for instance, during the big SJW freakouts in places like Yale and Evergreen State,
the SJWs were not protesting and shutting down conservatives (too few of them to really
matter). They were protesting/assaulting/shutting down moderate liberals.
I was and still am a teacher (worked in public schools). Some teachers are liberal, some are
conservative. Personal politics does not come into the classroom unless a teacher brings it
in. However, standardized testing, funding, and infrastructure spending are all political
realities that affect teachers.
The idea that there are teachers indoctrinating your children is a conservative boogeyman.
There are a few bad teachers, but they are usually apathetic, not passionate. There are also
a few doctors who have sexually abused their clients, but that doesn't demonize the whole
health profession.
If parents are so concerned about transmitting values, they are free to homeschool, but it
would involve living on one income and re-prioritizing their finances. Many people are not
really that concerned about it, but it's easy to decry the fictional bad teachers they
imagine are stalking the schools. If public schools did not exist, all of these parents would
be forced to educate their own children, and they would realize a small sampling of what
teachers contend with on a daily basis.
Please stop painting a false picture of the profession. Public education is a genuine good
of democracy. If it disappears completely, people will one day realize what they have
lost.
I would like to echo reader G's sentiment – paraphrasing G, you've stated your
arguments in a detached way, without giving any samples of your own thinking. It's as if you
seek some implied consensus on conclusions you are, for some reason, unwilling to share. Your
arguments seem to be:
(a) Grade and high school age students are being indoctrinated into "certain acceptable
ideas", which they carry to the university;
(b) Universities confirm and deepen this indoctrination: "Some thoughts are just too
dangerous to have";
(c) Science and engineering fields lead to objectively correct, singular solutions to
given questions. The humanities try to mimic them, by insisting that there are singular
solutions to more complex questions as well;
(d) Here you do give us a few hints of these complex questions: some countries are more
successful than others, incarceration rates vary by race, what is the correct treatment of
non-citizens, the number of sexes, and possibly, a question on IQ;
If I've misunderstood any of your arguments, please correct me. I would also like to echo
G's invitation for you to provide a sample of your own thinking on any of these questions.
Should you respond, I too promise not to engage in polemics. To encourage you, Alice, for
what it's worth, these are my early thoughts on why "one country is more successful than
another":
At an individual's level, the basic idea of "success" is biological survival and
procreation. At the level of a country (and by that, I mean a nation which embodies a certain
culture), it is cultural survival, and handing down of its culture to succeeding generations
for preservation and improvement. Thus, at this basic level, the most successful countries
are those that faced adversity, even dissolution as states (some for several generations),
and still managed to preserve, improve, and pass on their culture till more favorable times.
This is one proof, perhaps the strongest, of cultural resilience;
Other measures of "success" are more ephemeral. All countries, if they survive long
enough, experience cycles of economic and military ups and downs, cultural rots and
regenerations, and demographic changes, to list a few examples. Thus, history decrees that in
these matters, no country can expect to be "number one" in perpetuity. In my mind, such
passing things are not good indicators of "success". For countries, success depends on those
cultural factors that are transmittable and willingly accepted (even embraced and cherished)
by succeeding generations. It also depends of each generation to have the wherewithal to
continuously adapt and improve them. The next question would be, what are these factors?
Has anyone considered that these kids (who are certainly no where close to a majority) might
be picking up these values at home? Leftwing people also have kids.
from where I sit the most capable 17 year olds are far more influenced by Lin Manuel
Miranda than by Ta Nehisi Coates – and I find that fairly encouraging.
Publicly standing up against the Bush administration was not the sort of thing that was an
unthinking default at the time. I don't think it was the way to get into the best
universities. I don't think it was a path prescribed by teachers and the corporate media
(though lots of conservatives claimed otherwise).
It represented a struggle for social justice, and an unpopular one at that.
"... The federal student loan system creates perverse incentives that enable bad actors to prey on students. Without adequate protections for students, these predatory corporations will continue to base their business models on the availability of these loans, with little commitment to providing quality education. ..."
"... These Obama-era protections and remedies were being blocked by Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss rejected a request by for-profit college representatives to halt the regulations. Even with the win, the answer from the Department of Education is arrogant in response. Student loan servicers do not hesitate a moment to penalize a borrower with penalties and fees if the are late. ..."
"... DeVos and conservatives have said the Obama-era policies are unfair to colleges and too costly for taxpayers. She has proposed creating a stricter standard for fraud claims and eliminating the ban on mandatory arbitration agreements ..."
A
Federal Court cleared the way for students who have been defrauded by for-profit
institutions (I hesitate to call them schools).
"This court ruling is a major victory for thousands of students across the country who
were defrauded by predatory for-profit colleges taking advantage of our broken student loan
system. We commend Attorney General Maura Healey for her leadership fighting for students who
were left with thousands of dollars in debt after their for-profit colleges collapsed.
The federal student loan system creates perverse incentives that enable bad actors to
prey on students. Without adequate protections for students, these predatory corporations
will continue to base their business models on the availability of these loans, with little
commitment to providing quality education. "
These Obama-era protections and remedies were being blocked by Secretary of Education Betsy
DeVos. U.S. District Judge Randolph
Moss rejected a request by for-profit college representatives to halt the regulations. Even
with the win, the answer from the Department of Education is arrogant in response. Student loan
servicers do not hesitate a moment to penalize a borrower with penalties and fees if the are
late.
"DeVos and conservatives have said the Obama-era policies are unfair to colleges and too
costly for taxpayers. She has proposed creating a stricter standard for fraud claims and
eliminating the ban on mandatory arbitration agreements.
But DeVos' push to finalize those revised regulations has hit an unexpected snag that will
delay having a replacement policy on the books by another year. The Education Department said
it won't meet a key Nov. 1 regulatory deadline, meaning that the replacement regulations
aren't likely to take effect until July 2020 at the earliest."
Hopefully the State Attorneys and others can convince the Judge to hold Betsy DeVos in
contempt for not activating the court's requirements in a reasonable amount of time less than 2
years.
likbez , October 19, 2018 1:15 pm
Under neoliberalism any such victory is temporary and will be eventually rolled
back
Adding to what you just said, let me just put this out there as a teacher, and not trying
to wag a Big White Triumphal Exceptionalist Stick, our US kids are dumb as rocks too, but
this is based on actual experience, and documented records:
My East Asian students showed up to class with no textbooks. They can't afford them in
their eyes. $75USD is 1,000,000 rupiahs! When I sighed and said, 'OK, I'll add one more prep
to my 16-hour day, and print copies in the teacher's lounge for $25 apiece, if anyone wants
one, see me after class.'
An East Asian kid came up to me with a $20, and I'm like, what? He says, and I quote,
"Does this mean I'll get an A?"
I always try to learn the local lingo, and be non-judgmental, but I am a teacher and grading
is part of the job and you have to hold the line. So I said, 'No!' He got rather upset,
thinking I was raising my asking price! $20 always worked for him to get an A before,
back in East Asia.
So now I'm getting perturbed. These kids all had 4.0 GPAs when they got into our school,
here they were barely passing in my class. Is it ESL language? Is it my presentation? So I
got hold of an East Asian teacher and got the East Asian grading rubric: >70% is an A,
>80% is an A+! That's nuts! In the USA, 70% is just barely passing, and you need 95% for
an A+! So there was zero parity between rubrics. They're passing them through as 4.0's for
bribes and H-2B student visa fees!
So I mention this to my Dean, he smiles, and says, 'You're job is just to make sure they
all pass." H-2Bs is a big, big money maker for US colleges. I had to give them the final exam
three times, dumbing it down each time. The last time, we read the exam questions and the
answers out loud together, then I gave them the test. Two of them STILL did not pass, and I
got called in and got my ass chewed!
That's why you see so many smiling East Asian students everywhere. Half of the classes, at
least, are East Asian. So when an East Asian 'college' (sic) graduate claiming an A+ East
Asian GPA, their East Asian colleges even docent the after-graduation testing for graduate
school! They don't have independent SAT or GRE exam boards, their colleges do the
grading!
But let's drill down one more layer. I got to meet the now-a-Green Card mother of one of
my students, and we had a little Asian food buffet and then she's asking me how her kid is
doing, and you know, what do you say? Then she tells me, they paid $20,000USD to get the
visas! Their whole family back in East Asia is in hock to the human-trafficker mafiyas, and
that's why the "A+" schtick and why the 'just make sure they pass' pipeline, is to get them
over here so they can do IT coding or pluck chickens or drive for Uber or whatever ,
to keep their family in East Asia from being bludgeoned.
So let's build a $TRILLION wall, for East Asians to fly over by the jumbo-jet load, 10
plane flights every day, and we'll call it MAGA! and WINNING! and 'lowest unemployment on
record' ... because all the new jobs are going to East Asians.
E pluribus now get back to work. Oh, and remember to vote! Really get high-fever pitched!
DRINK THE RED AND BLUE KOOLAID!
"... Scholarship based less upon finding truth and more upon attending to social grievances has become firmly established, if not fully dominant, within these fields, and their scholars increasingly bully students, administrators, and other departments into adhering to their worldview. ..."
"... This worldview is not scientific, and it is not rigorous. For many, this problem has been growing increasingly obvious, but strong evidence has been lacking. For this reason, the three of us just spent a year working inside the scholarship we see as an intrinsic part of this problem." ..."
"... We spent that time writing academic papers and publishing them in respected peer-reviewed journals associated with fields of scholarship loosely known as "cultural studies" or "identity studies" (for example, gender studies) or "critical theory" because it is rooted in that postmodern brand of "theory" which arose in the late sixties. ..."
Three scholars wrote 20 fake papers using fashionable jargon to argue for ridiculous
conclusions.
Harvard University's Yascha Mounk writing for The Atlantic:
"Over the past 12 months, three scholars -- James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter
Boghossian -- wrote 20 fake papers using fashionable jargon to argue for ridiculous
conclusions, and tried to get them placed in high-profile journals in fields including gender
studies, queer studies, and fat studies. Their success rate was remarkable
Sokal Squared doesn't just expose the low standards of the journals that publish this kind of
dreck, though. It also demonstrates the extent to which many of them are willing to license
discrimination if it serves ostensibly progressive goals.
This tendency becomes most evident in an article that advocates extreme measures to
redress the "privilege" of white students.
Exhorting college professors to enact forms of "experiential reparations," the paper
suggests telling privileged students to stay silent, or even BINDING THEM TO THE FLOOR IN
CHAINS
If students protest, educators are told to "take considerable care not to validate
privilege, sympathize with, or reinforce it and in so doing, recenter the needs of privileged
groups at the expense of marginalized ones. The reactionary verbal protestations of those who
oppose the progressive stack are verbal behaviors and defensive mechanisms that mask the
fragility inherent to those inculcated in privilege."
In an article for Areo magazine, the authors of the hoax explain their motivation:
"Something has gone wrong in the university -- especially in certain fields within the
humanities.
Scholarship based less upon finding truth and more upon attending to social grievances
has become firmly established, if not fully dominant, within these fields, and their scholars
increasingly bully students, administrators, and other departments into adhering to their
worldview.
This worldview is not scientific, and it is not rigorous. For many, this problem has
been growing increasingly obvious, but strong evidence has been lacking. For this reason, the
three of us just spent a year working inside the scholarship we see as an intrinsic part of
this problem."
We spent that time writing academic papers and publishing them in respected
peer-reviewed journals associated with fields of scholarship loosely known as "cultural
studies" or "identity studies" (for example, gender studies) or "critical theory" because it
is rooted in that postmodern brand of "theory" which arose in the late sixties.
As a result of this work, we have come to call these fields "grievance studies" in
shorthand because of their common goal of problematizing aspects of culture in minute detail
in order to attempt diagnoses of power imbalances and oppression rooted in identity.
We undertook this project to study, understand, and expose the reality of grievance
studies, which is corrupting academic research.
Because open, good-faith conversation around topics of identity such as gender, race, and
sexuality (and the scholarship that works with them) is nearly impossible, our aim has been
to reboot these conversations.''
To read more, see Areo magazine + "academic grievance studies and the corruption of
scholarship"
Employment at less than a living wage is not "employment."
True, this "living wage" issue has become now America's chronic illness. Once one begins
to look at the real estate dynamics, even for a good earners living in such places as
Seattle, Portland (not to speak of L.A. or SF) becomes simply not affordable, forget buying
anything decent. Hell, many rents are higher than actual mortgages, however insane they
already are.
A lot of people see society in organic terms, and think the maintenance of the whole
over-rides the welfare of any particular bit – even if that particular bit happens to be
themselves (Trump recently hit this theme when he tweeted that "patriotic" Americans were
prepared to sacrifice for the greater good in the trade war).
Heirarchy is probably unavoidable, not for reasons of individual difference but because
one-to-many organisation is the only form that scales readily. We can all have an equal voice on
a jury, but not when building a henge or a operating a car-factory.
Notable quotes:
"... A lot of non-conservatives have a very difficult time grappling with the notion that a commitment to inequality, that a belief in the inherent superiority of some people over others, that one group has the the right to rule and dominate others, is a moral belief. ..."
"... Since, according to this argument, you are amongst other things, your social class, I cannot judge your moral actions unless I understand your social circumstances. But morality is a form of judgement, or to put it another way a ranking. Morality is means nothing unless I can say: 'you are more moral then him, she is more moral than you' and so on. (Nietzsche: 'Man is Man the esteemer' i.e. someone who ranks his or her fellow human beings: human beings cannot be morally equal or the phrase has no meaning). ..."
"... Therefore, unless people have a role in life (i.e. butcher, baker, candlestick maker) then morality collapses (this is the weak point in the argument and if you wanted to tear the whole edifice down you would start here). ..."
"... And of course this social order must be hierarchical, or else anyone can be anything one wants to be, and in that case, who will sweep the streets? ' ..."
"... In other words Conservatives believe that without hierarchy, without ranking and without a stratified (and therefore meaningful) social order, morality actually disintegrates. You simply cannot have a morality without these things: everything retreats into the realm of the subjective. Conservatives don't believe that things like the Khmer Rouge's Killing Fields, the Great Terror, the Cultural Revolution are bad things that happened to happen: they believe that they are the necessary and inevitable end result of atheistical, relativistic, egalitarian politics. ..."
"... To the Right, the Left has no morality, as they understand the term, and cannot in fact do so. Leftist morality is a contradiction in terms, in this worldview. ..."
I think this is an incredibly important point here:
'One last point: A lot of non-conservatives have a very difficult time grappling with
the notion that a commitment to inequality, that a belief in the inherent superiority of some
people over others, that one group has the the right to rule and dominate others, is a moral
belief. For many people, particularly on the left, that idea is not so much immoral as
it is beyond the pale of morality itself. So that's where the charge that I'm being
dismissive or reductive comes from, I'm convinced. Because I say the animating idea of the
right is not freedom or virtue or limited government but instead power and privilege, people,
and again I see this mostly from liberals and the left, think I'm making some sort of claim
about conservatism as a criminal, amoral enterprise, devoid of principle altogether, whereas
I firmly believe I'm trying to do the exact opposite: to focus on where exactly the moral
divide between right and left lies.'
Both the Right and the Left, think that they are moral. And yet they disagree about moral
issues. How can this be?
The solution to this problem is to see that when Rightists and Leftists use the word
'moral' they are using the word in two different (and non compatible) senses. I won't dwell
on what the Left mean by morality: I'm sure most of you will be familiar with, so to speak,
your own moral code.
What the Right mean by morality is rather different, and is more easily seen in 'outliers'
e.g. right wing intellectuals like Evelyn Waugh and T.S. Eliot rather than politicians.
Intellectuals can be rather more open about their true beliefs.
The first key point is to understand the hostility towards 'abstraction': and what
purposes this serves. Nothing is more alien to right wing thought that the idea of an
Abstract Man: right wing thought is situational, contextual (one might even call it
relativistic) to the core. de Maistre states this most clearly: 'The (French) constitution of
1795, like its predecessors, has been drawn up for Man. Now, there is no such thing in the
world as Man . In the course of my life, I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, etc.; I
am even aware, thanks to Montesquieu, that one can be a Persian. But, as for Man, I declare
that I have never met him in my life.'
This sounds postmodern to us, even Leftist (and of course Marx might have given highly
provisional approval to this statement). But the question is not: is this statement true?
It's: 'what do the right do with this statement?'
Again to quote another reactionary thinker Jose Ortega y Gasseett: 'I am myself plus my
circumstances'. Again this is simply a definition of contextualism. So what are your
circumstances? They are, amongst other things, your social circumstances: i.e. your social
class.
Since, according to this argument, you are amongst other things, your social
class, I cannot judge your moral actions unless I understand your social circumstances. But
morality is a form of judgement, or to put it another way a ranking. Morality is means
nothing unless I can say: 'you are more moral then him, she is more moral than you' and so
on. (Nietzsche: 'Man is Man the esteemer' i.e. someone who ranks his or her fellow human
beings: human beings cannot be morally equal or the phrase has no meaning).
But I can't hermeneutically see what moral role you must play in life, I cannot judge you,
unless I have some criteria for this judgement, and for this I must know what your
circumstances are.
Therefore, unless people have a role in life (i.e. butcher, baker, candlestick maker)
then morality collapses (this is the weak point in the argument and if you wanted to tear the
whole edifice down you would start here). Because unless we know what one's social role
is then we can't assess whether or not people are living 'up to' that role. And of course
this social order must be hierarchical, or else anyone can be anything one wants to be, and
in that case, who will sweep the streets? '
And if anyone has any smart arse points to raise about that idea, God usually gets roped
in to function, literally, as a Deux ex Machina.
' The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
He made them, high or lowly,
And ordered their estate.'
Clive James put it best when discussing Waugh: 'With no social order, there could be no
moral order. People had to know their place before they knew their duty he (and, more
importantly society) needed a coherent social system (i.e. an ordered social system, a
hierarchical social system)'
In other words Conservatives believe that without hierarchy, without ranking and
without a stratified (and therefore meaningful) social order, morality actually
disintegrates. You simply cannot have a morality without these things: everything retreats
into the realm of the subjective. Conservatives don't believe that things like the Khmer
Rouge's Killing Fields, the Great Terror, the Cultural Revolution are bad things that
happened to happen: they believe that they are the necessary and inevitable end result of
atheistical, relativistic, egalitarian politics. Social 'levelling', destroying
meaningful (i.e. hierarchical ('organic' is the euphemism usually used)) societies will
usually, not always but usually, lead to genocide and/or civil war. Hence the hysteria that
seizes most Conservatives when the word relativism is used. And their deep fear of
postmodernism, a small scale, now deeply unfashionable art movement with a few (very few)
philosophical adherents: as it destroys hierarchy and undermines one's capacity to judge and
therefore order one's fellow human beings, it will tend to lead to the legalisation of
pedophilia, the legalisation of rape, the legalisation of murder, war, genocide etc, because,
to repeat, morality depends on order. No social order= no morality.
Hence the Right's deep suspicion of the left's morality. To the Right, the Left
has no morality, as they understand the term, and cannot in fact do so. Leftist
morality is a contradiction in terms, in this worldview.
Pervasive racketeering rules because we allow it to, especially in education and medicine. Both are self-destructing under the
weight of their own money-grubbing schemes.
Notable quotes:
"... Because of the loans' disgracefully high interest rates, my family and I have paid more or less the equivalent of my debt itself in the years since I graduated, making monthly payments in good faith -- even in times of unemployment and extreme duress -- to lenders like Citigroup, a bank that was among the largest recipients of federal bailout money in 2008 and that eventually sold off my debt to other lenders. This ruinous struggle has been essentially meaningless: I now owe more than what I started out owing, not unlike my parents with their mortgage . ..."
"... By Daniela Senderowicz. Originally published in Yes! Magazine ..."
"... Activists are building meaningful connections among borrowers to counter the taboo of admitting they can't pay their bills. ..."
"... Gamblers and reality TV stars can claim bankruptcy protections when in financial trouble, but 44 million student loan borrowers can't. Unemployed, underpaid, destitute, sick, or struggling borrowers simply aren't able to start anew. ..."
"... With a default rate approaching 40 percent , one would expect armies of distressed borrowers marching in the streets demanding relief from a system that has singled out their financial anguish. Distressed student debtors, however, seem to be terror-struck about coming forward to a society that, they say, ostracizes them for their inability to keep up with their finances. ..."
"... When we spoke to several student borrowers, almost none were willing to share their names. "I can't tell anyone how much I'm struggling," says a 39-year-old Oregon physician who went into student loan default after his wife's illness drained their finances. He is terrified of losing his patients and reputation if he speaks out about his financial problems. ..."
"... Debtors are isolated, anxious, and in the worst cases have taken their own lives . Simone confirms that she has "worked with debtors who were suicidal or had psychological breakdowns requiring psychiatric hospitalization." ..."
"... "Alienation impacts mental health issues," says New York mental health counselor Harriet Fraad. "As long as they blame themselves within the system, they're lost." ..."
"... A recent manifesto by activist and recent graduate Eli Campbell calls for radical unity among borrowers. "Young people live in constant fear that they'll never be able to pay off their debt. We're not buying houses or able to afford the hallmarks of the American dream," he explains. ..."
"... Do a little research on car selling and you will see the pressures on the dealer sales force to suck the vast majority of buyers into long term debt. Car loans are now five or six years, routinely. ..."
Yves
here. This article describes how the stigma of struggling to pay student debt is a burden in
and of itself. I wish this article had explained how little it take to trigger an escalation
into default interest rates and how punitive they are. The piece also stresses the value of
activism as a form of psychological relief, by connecting stressed student debt borrowers with
people similarly afflicted.
But the bigger issue is the way indebtedness is demonized in a society that makes it pretty
much impossible to avoid borrowing. One reader recounted how many (as in how few) weeks of
after tax wages it took to buy a car in the 1960s versus now. Dealers don't want to talk to
buyers who want to pay in full at the time of purchase. And if you don't have installment
credit or a mortgage, the consumer credit agencies ding you!
It goes without saying that the sense of shame is harder to endure due to how shallow most
people's social networks are, which is another product of neoliberalism.
In keeping, the New York Times today ran an op-ed by one of its editors on how student
debtors are also victims of the crisis, reprinted from a longer piece in The Baffler (hat tip Dan
K).
Key sections :
Because of the loans' disgracefully high interest rates, my family and I have paid
more or less the equivalent of my debt itself in the years since I graduated, making monthly
payments in good faith -- even in times of unemployment and extreme duress -- to lenders like
Citigroup, a bank that was among the largest recipients of federal bailout money in 2008 and
that eventually sold off my debt to other lenders. This ruinous struggle has been essentially
meaningless: I now owe more than what I started out owing, not unlike my parents with their
mortgage .
Many people have and will continue to condemn me personally for my tremendous but
unexceptional student debt, and the ways in which it has made the recession's effects linger
for my family. I've spent quite a lot of time in the past decade accepting this blame. The
recession may have compounded my family's economic insecurity, but I also made the conscious
decision to take out loans for a college I couldn't afford in order to become a journalist, a
profession with minimal financial returns. The amount of debt I owe in student loans -- about
$100,000 -- is more than I make in a given year. I am ashamed and embarrassed by this, but as
I grow older, I think it is time that those profiting from this country's broken economic
system share some of my guilt
[At my commencement in 2009] Mrs. Clinton then echoed a fantasy of boundless opportunity
that had helped guide the country into economic collapse, deceiving many of the parents in
attendance, including my own, into borrowing toward a future that they couldn't work hard
enough to afford. "There is no problem we face here in America or around the world that will
not yield to human effort," she said. "Our challenges are ones that summon the best of us,
and we will make the world better tomorrow than it is today." At the time, I wondered if this
was accurate. I now know how wrong she was.
By Daniela Senderowicz. Originally published in
Yes! Magazine
Activists are building meaningful connections among borrowers to counter the taboo of
admitting they can't pay their bills.
Gamblers and reality TV stars can claim bankruptcy protections when in financial
trouble, but 44 million student loan borrowers can't. Unemployed, underpaid, destitute, sick,
or struggling borrowers simply aren't able to start anew.
With a default rate approaching
40 percent , one would expect armies of distressed borrowers marching in the streets
demanding relief from a system that has singled out their financial anguish. Distressed student
debtors, however, seem to be terror-struck about coming forward to a society that, they say,
ostracizes them for their inability to keep up with their finances.
When we spoke to several student borrowers, almost none were willing to share their
names. "I can't tell anyone how much I'm struggling," says a 39-year-old Oregon physician who
went into student loan default after his wife's illness drained their finances. He is terrified
of losing his patients and reputation if he speaks out about his financial problems.
"If I shared this with anyone they will look down upon me as some kind of fool," explains a
North Carolina psychologist who is now beyond retirement age. He explains that his student debt
balance soared after losing a well-paying position during the financial crisis, and that he is
struggling to pay it back.
Financial shame alienates struggling borrowers. Debtors blame themselves and self-loathe
when they can't make their payments, explains Colette Simone, a Michigan psychologist. "There
is so much fear of sharing the reality of their financial situation and the devastation it is
causing in every facet of their lives," she says. "The consequences of coming forward can
result in social pushback and possible job -- related complications, which only deepen their
suffering."
Debtors are isolated, anxious, and in the worst cases have taken
their own lives . Simone confirms that she has "worked with debtors who were suicidal or
had psychological breakdowns requiring psychiatric hospitalization."
With an average debt of just over $37,000 per borrower for the
class of 2016 , and given that incomes have been flat since the 1970s , it's not
surprising that borrowers are struggling to pay. Student loans have a squeaky-clean reputation,
and society tends to view them as a noble symbol of the taxpayers' generosity to the working
poor. Fear of facing society's ostracism for failure to pay them back has left borrowers
alienated and trapped in a lending system that is engulfing them in debt bondage.
"Alienation impacts mental health issues," says New York mental health counselor Harriet
Fraad. "As long as they blame themselves within the system, they're lost."
Student debtors can counter despair by fighting back through activism and political
engagement, she says. "Connection is the antidote to alienation, and engaging in activism,
along with therapy, is a way to recovery."
Despite the fear of coming forward, some activists are building a social movement in which
meaningful connections among borrowers can counter the taboo of openly admitting financial
ruin.
Student Loan Justice, a national grassroots lobby group, is attempting to build this
movement by pushing for robust legislation to return
bankruptcy protections to borrowers. The group has active chapters in almost every state, with
members directly lobbying their local representatives to sign on as co-sponsors to HR 2366.
Activists are building a supportive community for struggling borrowers through political
agitation, local engagement, storytelling, and by spreading a courageous message of hope that
may embolden traumatized borrowers to come forward and unite.
Julie Margetaa Morgan
, a fellow at The Roosevelt Institute, recently noted that student debt servicers like Navient
have a powerful influence on lawmakers. "Student loan borrowers may not have millions to spend
on lobbying, but they have something equally, if not more, powerful: millions of voices," she
says.
A recent manifesto by activist
and recent graduate Eli Campbell calls for radical unity among borrowers. "Young people live in
constant fear that they'll never be able to pay off their debt. We're not buying houses or able
to afford the hallmarks of the American dream," he explains.
In his call for a unified national boycott of student loan payments, inevitably leading to a
mass default on this debt, Campbell hopes to expose this crisis and instigate radical change.
In a recent interview he
explained that the conditions for borrowers are so bad already that debtors may not join the
boycott willingly. Instead, participation may simply happen by default given the lack of proper
work opportunities that lead to borrowers' inability to pay.
While a large-scale default may not happen through willful and supportive collective action,
ending the secrecy of the crisis through massive national attention may destigmatize the shame
of financial defeat and finally bring debtors out of the isolation that causes them so much
despair.
Activists are calling for a significant conversation about the commodification of educating
our youth, shifting our focus toward investing into the promise of the young and able, rather
than the guarantee of their perpetual debt bondage. In calling for collective action they
soothe the hurt of so many alienated debtors, breaking the taboos that allow them to say, "Me,
too" and admit openly that in this financial climate we all need each other to move
forward.
How much are the interest rates on student loans there in the USA? Here in India its 11.5%
if you want to finance studies abroad. 8.5 for some select institutions.
I wonder if the media's obsession with "millenials" isn't primarily a way to try to divide
people with shared interests, above all around the topics of student debt and the job market
and to make the problems seem like they have shallower roots than they really do. The
individuals mentioned here are older than that 24-37 age cohort, one of them much older.
Dealers don't want to talk to buyers who want to pay in full at the time of
purchase.
Yes Yes. Car manufacturers are actually finance houses selling products manufactured by
subcontractors – such is the state of American industry – but their dream is to
move to a SaaS model where ownership, of anything, becomes a relic of the past (except for
the overlords and oligarchs).
This could not be possible without government corruption and revolving-door regulation.
Maybe these PAYG vehicles will contain built-in body scanners too; for our own security, of
course.
In his call for a unified national boycott of student loan payments, inevitably leading
to a mass default on this debt, Campbell hopes to expose this crisis and instigate radical
change.
Default, or radical change, would bring the economy to it's knees. But when there is
another economic downturn, this is going to happen anyway. Terrible situation; negative real
interest rates destroying the pensions of the elderly, student loan servitude destroying the
youth and the middle class being squeezed to oblivion. What can be done to fix it, I ask?
Yet they are doing God's work, are they? Well, this is not a God I choose to worship.
Well good for you. How many cars, of what age, have you bought, for your anecdote to rate
as anything vaguely resembling the wide reality, and how does your personal financial
situation let you just write checks for $30 or $70,000?
Do a little research on car selling and you will see the pressures on the dealer sales
force to suck the vast majority of buyers into long term debt. Car loans are now five or six
years, routinely.
And one wonders what the investment is in trying to impeach the points of this report, wth
such an unlikely and atypical claim.
Maybe a little traction, then, for the notion, and increasingly the inescapable reality, of
#juststoppaying on those "remember Joe Biden" virtually non-dischargeable, often fraudulently
induced, "student loan" debt shackles?
"Teaching to the test" is a perversion of education. Excessive quantification is bad. Both are primary features of neoliberal
education.
Notable quotes:
"... If we care about the prospects of democratic education, we must take neoliberalism's success seriously, for it is a philosophical framework in which freedom and democratic education are mutually exclusive. ..."
"... We must intentionally challenge the neoliberal notion of the value freedom and the usefulness of its associated philosophical assumptions. ..."
Goodlad, et al. (2002) rightly point out that a culture can either resist or support change.
Schein's (2010) model of culture indicates observable behaviors of a culture can be explained
by exposing underlying shared values and basic assumptions that give meaning to the
performance. Yet culture is many-faceted and complex. So Schein advised a clinical approach to
cultural analysis that calls for identifying a problem in order to focus the analysis on
relevant values and assumptions. This project starts with two assumptions:
The erosion of democratic education is a visible overt behavior of the current U.S.
macro-culture, and
This is a problem.
I intend to use this problem of the erosion of democratic education as a basis for a
cultural analysis. My essential question is: What are the deeper, collective, competing value
commitments and shared basic assumptions that hinder efforts for democratic education? The
purpose of this paper is to start a conversation about particular cultural limitations and
barriers we are working with as we move toward recapturing the civic mission of education.
... ... ...
Neoliberalism's success in infiltrating the national discourse shuts out alternative
discourses and appears to render them irrelevant in everyday American culture (R. Quantz,
personal communication, Summer 2006). If we care about the prospects of democratic education,
we must take neoliberalism's success seriously, for it is a philosophical framework in which
freedom and democratic education are mutually exclusive. Dewey (1993), in all his wisdom,
warned:
And let those who are struggling to replace the present economic system by a cooperative one
also remember that in struggling for a new system of social restraints and controls they are
also struggling for a more equal and equitable balance of powers that will enhance and
multiply the effective liberties of the mass of individuals. Let them not be jockeyed into
the position of supporting social control at the expense of liberty [emphasis added]. (p.
160)
Yet, that is exactly the situation in which we find ourselves today. Democratic education is
viewed as a social control policy, as an infringement on the supremacy of the [neoliberal] freedom. We
witness a lack of democratic citizenship, moral, and character education in our schools. We see
a lack of redistributing resources for equality of educational opportunity. We observe a lack
of talk about education's civic mission, roles, and goals. Democratic education is viewed as
tangential, secondary, and mutually exclusive from the prioritized value of "liberty." How can
we foster alternative notions of freedom, such as Lincoln's republican sense of liberty as
collectively inquiring and deciding how we rule ourselves?
We must intentionally challenge the
neoliberal notion of the value freedom and the usefulness of its associated philosophical
assumptions.
It seems fatuous to argue, especially in a healthy economy, that the upper middle class
faces overwhelming financial insecurities. After all, U.S. stocks have entered the longest bull
market ever recorded, the labor force has markedly improved, and small business optimism is at
a level unseen since the early 1980s. It appears that happy days are here again. But this
halcyon period -- marked by invigorating statistics -- still hasn't prevented even
upper-middle-class Americans from feeling discontent. For countless families, especially in
thriving metro regions, a six-figure salary fails to deliver economic security. Their sense of
vulnerability is real, not imagined.
What defines the upper middle class? According to the Pew Research Center, middle-class
households, as of 2010, had incomes ranging from $35,294 to $105,881. In 2016, U.S. Census
Bureau data showed that the median household income was $59,039. Based on Census findings from
that year, the highest earning households -- before the top 5 percent ($224,251 and upward) --
ranged from $74,878 to $121,018. Reviewing these findings, a household income ranging anywhere
from $75,000 to $200,000 could fall under the upper-middle class.
A six-figure income should bring long-term stability. But members of the upper-middle class
find themselves prisoners of voluntary yet inescapable costs. A multi-generational phenomenon
has unfolded, its roots traceable to the economic slowdown of the early 2000s and the
subsequent Great Recession. There is a feeling of anxiety among Baby Boomers who cannot retire,
Gen. Xers saddled with expensive mortgages and child care costs, and Millennials paralyzed by
insurmountable student debt. Data cannot measure emotion. The sense of unease is palpable
despite the economy's booming conditions.
A helpful cultural reference point is HBO's Divorce , which concluded its second
season earlier this year. The comedy-drama focuses on the angst and dysfunction of a
middle-aged divorced couple in Hastings-on-Hudson, an idyllic town in New York's prosperous
Westchester County. Frances DuFresne, played by Sarah Jessica Parker, quits her day job in the
city to open an art gallery. Her ex-husband, played by Thomas Hayden Church, is a former Wall
Street executive now struggling as a contractor. The estranged couple, raising two children,
are undeniably upper-middle class. Their professional background, cultural tastes, and suburban
lifestyle personify affluence. But their financial insecurity, mainly the result of career
choices, remains a theme throughout the series. The DuFresnes' social circles remind them that
their economic position, while favorable, is vulnerable compared to the higher earners
inhabiting their bucolic suburb.
The characters portrayed in Divorce exemplify a modern reality: many
upper-middle-class households are high earning but asset poor. In 2015, Quartz's Allison
Schrager illustrated how "America's upper middle class have almost no emergency cushion and are
woefully unprepared for retirement." Reviewing Federal Reserve data, Schrager showed the
precarious financial position of upper-middle-class individuals aged 40 to 55 with household
incomes ranging from $50,000 to $100,000. The data indicated that this income bracket had fewer
assets than ever (assets exclude a house, car, or business, but include retirement funds). As
Schrager noted, even a high earner who worked for many years typically had only $70,000 in
financial assets. Approximately 25 percent of upper-middle-class 40- to 55-year-olds,
meanwhile, had less than $17,500 in financial assets.
Such findings suggest that seemingly high earners are living paycheck-to-paycheck. While
Federal Reserve data has since found that median family income grew 10 percent between 2013 and
2016, a disproportionate number of upper-income Americans still cannot retire. In addition to
their own financial woes, they must support their elderly parents, which involves innumerable
costs. Overwhelming debt has become a vicious trap.
In one Brookings
Institution study , researchers reported that nearly one quarter of households earning
$100,000 to $150,000 a year claim to be unable to pull together $2,000 in a month to pay bills.
Sustained economic growth has not repaired this cycle of debt. According to Deutsche Bank
economist Torsten Slok, Americans have more debt than cash than at any time since 1962. The
2018 Northwestern Mutual Planning and Progress Study found that the average American's personal
debt (independent of home mortgages) now exceeds $38,000. Stock market growth and rising home
prices have not altered this trend.
In a Washington Post report last year, Todd C. Frankel demonstrated how modern life
adds up for an upper-middle class family. Frankel reported on a couple in suburban Atlanta with
a combined income of $180,000, an indisputably high earning level. But financial uncertainty
rises from a mortgage, three children, day care costs, and the prospect of college tuition. "I
don't feel wealthy," the wife, a tax manager, told Frankel. "I don't have a bunch of money
stashed away anywhere." While the 2017 tax reform bill brought relief for many Americans,
limits on state and local tax deductions have further engendered economic unease.
In her new book Squeezed , Alissa Quart captures how middle-class American families
are struggling to attain the standard of living once enjoyed by their parents. And in an
important chapter on the upper middle class, she profiles "life at the bottom of the top."
Quart argues that higher earners, like most Americans, contend with income disparity and the
extreme wealth enveloping metro regions. In the San Francisco Bay Area, for instance,
upper-middle-class families go broke hiring tutors and maintaining lifestyles that permit their
children to compete with their wealthiest peers. The parents, working professionals, are
emotionally ravaged by endless costs. They discover few perks in geographical serendipity,
graduate degrees, or traditionally high-earning professions like law.
Quart reveals how the legal profession has induced economic stress since the 2008 recession.
In the past decade, law firms and corporations have hired fewer lawyers. Yet for lawyers just
entering the profession, student debt is a crippling part of their lives. As Quart notes,
student debt at the average law school increased from $95,000 to about $112,000 in 2014. It is
difficult to fathom how simple steps in life -- getting married, buying a home, starting a
family -- are financially possible with such debt levels. But the struggle transcends age.
Quart profiles a 59-year-old Mississippi lawyer who, following health setbacks, was ultimately
"pushed out" by her employer. Life continued at its indifferent pace. The mother still had to
pay for her son's college tuition during her initial medical leave. "This is a vastly different
life from what I expected to be having at this age," she told Quart. "The six-figure salaries
and benefits are long gone."
The upper middle class's discontent also transcends political ideology. A seemingly
high-earning Republican household in suburban Cleveland confronts expenses similar to a
high-earning Democratic household in suburban Philadelphia. These are people who tune out the
minute-by-minute plot twists of the Trump presidency. If anything, they are streaming Netflix
or watching HGTV for a nurturing distraction. Their daily focus is on remaining financially
viable.
Aspirations prove costly regardless of geography. A four-year degree at a public college,
for example, costs nearly twice as much as it did in 1996. Exorbitant college debt now dictates
the financial future of Baby Boomers, Gen. Xers, and Millennials. Boomers, at the peak of their
earnings, postpone retirement and support children with student loans. Gen. Xers, nearing the
height of their careers, remain broke due to years of paying off higher education debt.
Millennials, still young in their professional lives, primarily work to pay off monthly federal
and private student loan bills. Credit cards are a necessary prescription for each generation's
economic survival. In 2017, the nation's total credit card debt was over $1 trillion.
Economic insecurity is not limited to higher education. The cost of health care has also
doubled since the 1990s. Obamacare only accelerated the costs incurred by households. The
Journal of the American Medical Association has reported studies suggesting that the
consolidation of medical practices actually "drives up costs." Obamacare hastened the
swallowing of regional hospitals by larger health care systems. This merger frenzy has
empowered hospital systems to negotiate with insurance companies. But the mergers have
increased costs, eliminated competition, and created barriers to care. The upper middle class,
like so many others, are absorbing the costs of this transformed landscape. Rising premiums
only add to their financial burden.
Of course, the upper middle class is in a better position than most Americans. In Dream
Hoarders , Richard V. Reeves correctly unveiled how they are collectively removed from the
socio-economics of the nation's majority. Their economic outcomes remain favorable compared to
the struggles of countless working-class Americans. But a sizable number of higher earning
households are not "opportunity hoarding." There is a cost to working parents ensuring their
children have better lives than their own. In the booming 2010s, this segment of the population
thought they would be in a better place than what they'd anticipated during the booming 1990s.
Yet their diplomas did not translate into liquid cash. Upper-middle-class families, while
affluent and well connected, have been met with empty pockets and unfulfilled dreams in this
brave new economy.
Charles F. McElwee III is a writer based in northeastern Pennsylvania. He's written
for The American Conservative , City Journal, The Atlantic , National Review
, and the Weekly Standard , among others.
At the end of the day, it's math. If you spend more than you take in, you'll be broke. I have
always thought of myself as "New England Frugal," and I wear it like a badge of honor. We
could've sent our kids to private school, but they went to public (as did my husband and I).
We could've driven Mercedes, but I like Toyota. We could've lived in a big fancy home, but
stayed in our more modest home.
The good news is that we were able to pay our kids' college bills (paying now for our
daughter's master's degree). We finally bought a couple of nicer cars. Still in our house
though.
We have never really cared what others have. We are both savers and that's what we did.
Recent promotions mean more money coming in and we can spend a little more, but if either one
of us gets laid off, the other can pay the bills. Math.
Law and orderly made the point that they should move out of overpriced cities. I think that
rings true. I just read an article – about the number of millionaires in each state
– that Manhattan in NYC has a cost-of-living that's 138% above the national average, or
238% of that average. That means that a household has to make $71,400 just to be the same as
$30,000 gets them in Everytown, USA. (I believe that the actual median in Manhattan is a bit
over $80,000, which puts them at about 34 grand.) That ironically makes this high-rolling
borough below average in effective income. I would highly advise many of them to get out, and
live with the Apple Knockers or the rest of us hicks.
The article itself seemed like on big whine. The comment section OTOH seem to have a lot of
common sense advice attached to it. I live a more modest lifestyle nowadays and to tell the
truth I seem to be happier and less stressed. To tell the truth it took a long time for me to
live within my means.
"... Interesting article on and comments by Thomas Frank, touching on the cognitive elite as a unified class and war on the middle class (my words not his) ..."
"... "Today we live in a world of predatory bankers, predatory educators, even predatory health care providers, all of them out for themselves . Liberalism itself has changed to accommodate its new constituents' technocratic views. Today, liberalism is the philosophy not of the sons of toil but of the 'knowledge economy' and, specifically, of the knowledge economy's winners: the Silicon Valley chieftains, the big university systems, and the Wall Street titans who gave so much to Barack Obama's 2008 campaign . They are a 'learning class' that truly gets the power of education......." ..."
".....the ongoing dissolving and crumblingand sinking -- all his metaphors -- of our
society. And with such metaphors Frank describes the "one essential story" he is telling in
Rendezvous with Oblivion: "This is what a society looks like when the glue that holds it
together starts to dissolve. This is the way ordinary citizens react when they learn that the
structure beneath them is crumbling. And this is the thrill that pulses through the veins of
the well-to-do when they discover that there is no longer any limit on their power to
accumulate" "
And this
"Today we live in a world of predatory bankers, predatory educators, even predatory
health care providers, all of them out for themselves . Liberalism itself has changed to
accommodate its new constituents' technocratic views. Today, liberalism is the philosophy not
of the sons of toil but of the 'knowledge economy' and, specifically, of the knowledge
economy's winners: the Silicon Valley chieftains, the big university systems, and the Wall
Street titans who gave so much to Barack Obama's 2008 campaign . They are a 'learning class'
that truly gets the power of education......."
recently ruled
that under some circumstances employers can link their 401(k) matching contributions to the amount of an employee's student loan
repayments -- making it easier for recent graduates to take advantage of this employer benefit. But that's one spot of good news
in a sea of bad, according to one anonymous Slashdot reader: Two new articles
criticize America's
student loan policies (under both the Obama and Trump administrations). CNBC cites reports that within six years,
more than 15% of student borrowers had officially defaulted , while 10% more had stopped making payments and another 4.8% were
at least 90 days late. And for-profit colleges fared even worse, where nearly 25% of graduates defaulted, and a total of 44% faced
"some form of loan distress."
These trends were masked by Department of Education reports which stopped tracking repayment rates after just three years (reporting
defaults rates of just 10%), according to Ben Miller, senior director for post-secondary education at the left-leaning Center for
American Progress. "Official statistics present a relatively rosy picture of student debt. But looking at outcomes over more time
and in greater detail shows that hundreds of thousands more borrowers from each cohort face troubles repaying."
"... The shale oil "miracle" was a stunt enabled by supernaturally low interest rates, i.e. Federal Reserve policy. Even The New York Times said so yesterday ( The Next Financial Crisis Lurks Underground ). ..."
"... As with shale oil, they depend largely on dishonest financial legerdemain. They are also threatened by the crack-up of globalism, and its 12,000-mile supply lines, now well underway. Get ready for business at a much smaller scale. ..."
"... Hard as this sounds, it presents great opportunities for making Americans useful again, that is, giving them something to do, a meaningful place in society, and livelihoods. ..."
"... Pervasive racketeering rules because we allow it to, especially in education and medicine. Both are self-destructing under the weight of their own money-grubbing schemes. ..."
"... A lot of colleges will go out of business. Most college loans will never be paid back (and the derivatives based on them will blow up) ..."
"... The leviathan state is too large, too reckless, and too corrupt. Insolvency will eventually reduce its scope and scale. Most immediately, the giant matrix of domestic spying agencies has turned on American citizens. ..."
"... It will resist at all costs being dismantled or even reined in. One task at hand is to prosecute the people in the Department of Justice and the FBI who ran illegal political operations in and around the 2016 election. These are agencies which use their considerable power to destroy the lives of individual citizens. Their officers must answer to grand juries. ..."
"... As with everything else on the table for debate, the reach and scope of US imperial arrangements has to be reduced. ..."
And so the sun seems to stand still this last day before the resumption of
business-as-usual, and whatever remains of labor in this sclerotic republic takes its ease in
the ominous late summer heat, and the people across this land marinate in anxious
uncertainty.
What can be done?
Some kind of epic national restructuring is in the works. It will either happen consciously
and deliberately or it will be forced on us by circumstance. One side wants to magically
reenact the 1950s; the other wants a Gnostic transhuman utopia. Neither of these is a plausible
outcome.
Most of the arguments ranging around them are what Jordan Peterson calls "pseudo issues."
Let's try to take stock of what the real issues might be.
Energy
The shale oil "miracle" was a stunt enabled by supernaturally low interest rates, i.e.
Federal Reserve policy. Even The New York Times said so yesterday ( The
Next Financial Crisis Lurks Underground ).
For all that, the shale oil producers still
couldn't make money at it. If interest rates go up, the industry will choke on the debt it has
already accumulated and lose access to new loans. If the Fed reverses its current course - say,
to rescue the stock and bond markets - then the shale oil industry has perhaps three more years
before it collapses on a geological basis, maybe less. After that, we're out of tricks. It will
affect everything.
The perceived solution is to run all our stuff on electricity, with the electricity produced
by other means than fossil fuels , so-called alt energy. This will only happen on the most
limited basis and perhaps not at all. (And it is apart from the question of the decrepit
electric grid itself.) What's required is a political conversation about how we inhabit the
landscape, how we do business, and what kind of business we do. The prospect of dismantling
suburbia -- or at least moving out of it -- is evidently unthinkable. But it's going to happen
whether we make plans and policies, or we're dragged kicking and screaming away from
it.
Corporate tyranny
The nation is groaning under despotic corporate rule. The fragility of these operations is
moving toward criticality. As with shale oil, they depend largely on dishonest financial
legerdemain. They are also threatened by the crack-up of globalism, and its 12,000-mile supply
lines, now well underway. Get ready for business at a much smaller scale.
Hard as this sounds, it presents great opportunities for making Americans useful again, that
is, giving them something to do, a meaningful place in society, and livelihoods.
The implosion
of national chain retail is already underway. Amazon is not the answer, because each Amazon
sales item requires a separate truck trip to its destination, and that just doesn't square with
our energy predicament. We've got to rebuild main street economies and the layers of local and
regional distribution that support them. That's where many jobs and careers are.
Climate change is most immediately affecting farming. 2018 will be a year of bad harvests in
many parts of the world. Agri-biz style farming, based on oil-and-gas plus bank loans is a
ruinous practice, and will not continue in any case. Can we make choices and policies to
promote a return to smaller scale farming with intelligent methods rather than just brute
industrial force plus debt? If we don't, a lot of people will starve to death. By the way, here
is the useful work for a large number of citizens currently regarded as unemployable for one
reason or another.
Pervasive racketeering rules because we allow it to, especially in education and medicine.
Both are self-destructing under the weight of their own money-grubbing schemes. Both are
destined to be severely downscaled.
A lot of colleges will go out of business. Most college
loans will never be paid back (and the derivatives based on them will blow up).
We need
millions of small farmers more than we need millions of communications majors with a public
relations minor. It may be too late for a single-payer medical system. A collapsing oil-based
industrial economy means a lack of capital, and fiscal hocus-pocus is just another form of
racketeering. Medicine will have to get smaller and less complex and that means local
clinic-based health care. Lots of careers there, and that is where things are going, so get
ready.
Government over-reach
The leviathan state is too large, too reckless, and too corrupt. Insolvency will eventually
reduce its scope and scale. Most immediately, the giant matrix of domestic spying agencies has
turned on American citizens.
It will resist at all costs being dismantled or even reined in.
One task at hand is to prosecute the people in the Department of Justice and the FBI who ran
illegal political operations in and around the 2016 election. These are agencies which use
their considerable power to destroy the lives of individual citizens. Their officers must
answer to grand juries.
As with everything else on the table for debate, the reach and scope of US imperial
arrangements has to be reduced. It's happening already, whether we like it or not, as
geopolitical relations shift drastically and the other nations on the planet scramble for
survival in a post-industrial world that will be a good deal harsher than the robotic paradise
of digitally "creative" economies that the credulous expect.
This country has enough to do
within its own boundaries to prepare for survival without making extra trouble for itself and
other people around the world. As a practical matter, this means close as many overseas bases
as possible, as soon as possible.
As we get back to business tomorrow, ask yourself where you stand in the blather-storm of
false issues and foolish ideas, in contrast to the things that actually matter.
Jesus would not stay very long on Twitter. People would take his tweets all too literally and
he would get tired of having to explain for the umpteenth time that he didn't believe that a
camel really could walk through the eye of a needle.
This fall, more than 20 million college students will begin a new academic year. To help
cover rising tuition rates that continue to
outpace inflation , they'll rely on one or more of the federal government's six
low-interest loan programs, adding to the $1.5 trillion of student debt already owed in the
United States. Despite nine repayment plans, eight forgiveness programs, and almost three dozen
deferment options offered by the government, most won't be debt-free until they're in their
40s.
"... "The USHA was empowered to advance loans amounting to 90% of project costs, at low-interest and on 60-year terms. By the end of 1940, over 500 USHA projects were in progress or had been completed, with loan contracts of $691 million. The goal was to make the program self-sustainable through the collection of rents: one-half of rent from the tenants themselves, one-third paid by contributions from the Federal government; and one-sixth paid by annual contributions made by the localities themselves." ..."
The first thing that popped into my head for whatever reason was a little bit in Roald
Dahl's Dickensian little childhood autobiography, Boy .
"At Prep School in those days, a parcel of tuck was sent once a week by anxious mothers
to their ravenous little sons, and an average tuck-box would probably contain, at almost
any time, half a home-made currant cake, a packet of squashed-fly biscuits, a couple of
oranges, an apple, a banana, a pot of strawberry jam or Marmite, a bar of chocolate, a bag
of Liquorice Allsorts, and a tin of Bassett's lemonade powder. An English school in those
days was purely a money-making business owned and operated by the Headmaster. It suited
him, therefore, to give the boys as little food as possible himself and to encourage the
parents in various cunning ways to feed their offspring by parcel post from home.
'By all means, my dear Mrs Dahl, do send your boy some little treats now and
again,' he would say. 'Perhaps a few oranges and apples once a week' – fruit was very
expensive – 'and a nice currant cake, a large currant cake perhaps because
small boys have large appetites, do they not, ha-ha-ha Yes, yes, as often as you
like. More than once a week if you wish Of course he'll be getting plenty
of good food here, the best there is, but it never tastes quite the same as home
cooking, does it? I'm sure you wouldn't want him to be the only one who doesn't get a
lovely parcel from home every week."
It won't fix homelessness. 1 in 5 Los Angeles community college students is homeless and 1
in 10 Cal State students are homeless.
The thing is though not necessarily free community college is cheap anyway about $200 a
class, and Cal State about 7k a year. One might be able to afford housing if they didn't have
this expense? ONLY if they could pay for housing with student loans. In other words Houston
we might have much bigger problems.
Here's my question: When?
When will the overworked, distracted, and misinformed denizens of this great nation declare
they have had enough?
That the richest society on Earth adds to the coffers of its billionaires, let's its
corporations run offshore and tax-free, supplies unlimited munificence on its military death
machine while its students starve, its populace moves further and further to financial
precarity, its water and highway systems grind to a halt, its health care system generates
infant mortality worse than Bulgaria.
What exactly is the tipping point?
Say hello to my little friend, "United States Housing Authority" ??? ;-)
All I'm saying is that we have the power to fix everything , and we can look back
to many things that were part of FDR's New Deal as guide posts to bigger and better solutions
that are desperately needed today.
"The USHA was empowered to advance loans amounting to 90% of project costs, at
low-interest and on 60-year terms. By the end of 1940, over 500 USHA projects were in
progress or had been completed, with loan contracts of $691 million. The goal was to make the
program self-sustainable through the collection of rents: one-half of rent from the tenants
themselves, one-third paid by contributions from the Federal government; and one-sixth paid
by annual contributions made by the localities themselves."
This where I believe Basic Income in tandem with a JG could provide a symbiotic
relationship. You can give students a BI to (help) cover expenses beyond free tuition so they
(and/or their families) could get affordable housing or subsidized university housing.
I'd call this person* a "raging regressive leftist" instead of a centrist: the latter
tends to do excessive navel-gazing while the former blames those racist white people for
anything and everything.
Then again, I was born in Europe, live in Europe, engage in live "politicking" in Europe, so
my experiences with American politics come mostly from the internet.
On topic: getting your first degree in my country is mostly free in state-funded colleges
and universities. Mostly, because 1: the applicant needs to meet a minimum point** threshold,
2: the applicant needs to meet the institutions's own threshold*** for that given department,
3: the applicant needs to rank high enough compared to the rest, because admissions are
limited by nature, 4: the applicant needs to maintain a high enough GPA to stay in a state
funded slot for their given department, and lastly, 5: there are some departments that
receive no funding at all, and choosing one of those means paying by default.
During my university years, I've never met anyone who had to starve, not even the poorest
students. There were, and are, several different scholarship programs aside from the usual
"get a real high GPA and you'll receive a free price if you're lucky" ones. Students can
usually get a student job in our larger cities, and depending on the department, there are
some other ways to earn some money: engineering and IT students often get picked by larger
firms in their sophomore or senior year, and even if they don't, there's always someone in
need of some help with those killer assignments.
The problem here is housing. Dorm spaces are limited, and renting a room is relatively
expensive costing somewhere around $500 USD per month in a country with a $22000 USD yearly
median income (estimate by OECD). Getting a degree was widely regarded as a means of upward
mobility by my father's generation, but the years after the destruction of the Iron Curtain
proved them wrong. And of course, they knew nothing about the Free Western States.
*While I see a woman, these are the people who'd bite my face off for misgendering them.
No such thing in continental Europe, for now.
**There's a minimum threshold of 260 points. Base points are calculated from high school
grades, third and fourth year, and the high school diploma's grades. Bonus points are awarded
for state accredited language certificates, high placements on certain students'
competitions, and other degrees.
***Institutions apply their own thresholds based on the quantity and quality of their
applicants.
When I was a graduate student at UCLA the food on campus was pretty cheap and the salads
were sold by the size of the bowl, not by weight. We all became expert at piling those bowls
high.
When I taught at CU Boulder, the food on campus was expensive and the salads were weighed.
A healthy salad could easily cost you eleven bucks, so I stopped eating campus food and took
sandwiches to work instead.
The increase in food prices seems to have parallelled the increase in fees over those
forty years.
However, I would make another observation: many young people, in my experience, when they
are stressed or working hard, tend to forget to eat – irrespective of how well-off they
are. And many of the students I taught had been addicted at high school to "attention
deficit" drugs like Ritalin and Adderol, which, being forms of speed, are
appetite-suppressants.
Two of my daughters graduated from a university in a university town in Nova Scotia in the
late1990s. That university set up its own food bank many years ago, to supplement the food
banks set up by two churches and the town and county. Housing was still available (small
town, student, faculty and school money spent locally), from shared apartments to rooming
houses. In any sizable city in Canada or the US, those options for students may not now be
available at all, because of greedy landlords, gentrification, and Air B'nb.
On the other hand, during the 1930s, my father-in-law was living in Vancouver, a teenager.
He frequently told us stories of the many poor students who lived on or just off the beaches
in the western part of the city, in shanties of driftwood and scraps while attending
university. Try that now, in any city.
So, you see, today's undergraduates are in many ways even worse off than "great
depression" students. Their possible makeshift accommodations have been legislated away.
Robbing the future of our nation to pay the fatcats. What a wonderful way to run a
country! If We the People- loosely defined as the other 90%- don't step up and take our
country back, we won't have one to speak of in another decade.
All of us obtain our knowledge of the world by two different channels. Some things we
discover from our own personal experiences and the direct evidence of our senses, but most
information comes to us via external sources such as books and the media, and a crisis may
develop when we discover that these two pathways are in sharp conflict. The official media of
the old USSR used to endlessly trumpet the tremendous achievements of its collectivized
agricultural system, but when citizens noticed that there was never any meat in their shops,
"Pravda" became a watchword for "Lies" rather than "Truth."
Now consider the notion of "anti-Semitism." Google searches for that word and its close
variants reveal over 24 million hits, and over the years I'm sure I've seen that term tens of
thousands of times in my books and newspapers, and heard it endlessly reported in my electronic
media and entertainment. But thinking it over, I'm not sure that I can ever recall a single
real-life instance I've personally encountered, nor have I heard of almost any such cases from
my friends or acquaintances. Indeed, the only persons I've ever come across making such claims
were individuals who bore unmistakable signs of serious psychological imbalance.
When the daily newspapers are brimming with lurid tales of hideous demons walking among us
and attacking people on every street corner, but you yourself have never actually seen one, you
may gradually grow suspicious.
Indeed, over the years some of my own research has uncovered a sharp contrast between image
and reality. As recently as the late 1990s, leading mainstream media outlets such as The
New York Times were still denouncing a top Ivy League
school such as Princeton for the supposed anti-Semitism of its college admissions policy,
but a few years ago when I carefully investigated that issue in quantitative terms for my
lengthy Meritocracy
analysis I was very surprised to reach a polar-opposite conclusion. According to the best
available evidence, white Gentiles were over 90% less likely to be enrolled at Harvard and the
other Ivies than were Jews of similar academic performance, a truly remarkable finding. If the
situation had been reversed and Jews were 90% less likely to be found at Harvard than seemed
warranted by their test scores, surely that fact would be endlessly cited as the absolute
smoking-gun proof of horrendous anti-Semitism in present-day America.
We are in the point when capitalist system (which presented itself as asocial system that created a large middle class)
converted into it opposite: it is social system that could not deliver that it promised and now want to distract people from this
sad fact.
The Trump adopted tax code is a huge excess: we have 40 year when corporation paid less taxes. This is last moment when they
need another gift. To give them tax is crazy excess that reminding
Louis XV of France. Those gains are going in buying of socks. And real growth is happening elsewhere in the world.
After WW2 there were a couple of decades of "golden age" of US capitalism when in the USA middle class increased considerably.
That was result of pressure of working class devastated by Great Depression. Roosevelt decided that risk is too great and he
introduced social security net. But capitalist class was so enraged that they started fighting it almost immediately after the
New Deal was introduced. Business class was enrages with the level of taxes and counterattacked. Tarp act and McCarthyism were
two successful counterattacks. McCarthyism converting communists and socialists into agents of foreign power.
The quality of jobs are going down. That's why Trump was elected... Which is sad. Giving your finger to the
neoliberal elite does not solve their problem
Notable quotes:
"... Finally, if everybody tries to save themselves (protection), we have a historical example: after the Great Depression that happened in Europe. And most people believe that it was a large part of what led to WWII after WWI, rather than a much saner collective effort. But capitalism doesn't go for collective efforts, it tends to destroy itself by its own mechanisms. There has to be a movement from below. Otherwise, there is no counter force that can take us in another direction. ..."
"... When Trump announced his big tariffs on China, we saw the stock market dropped 700 points in a day. That's a sign of the anxiety, the danger, even in the minds of capitalists, about where this is going. ..."
"... Everything is done to avoid asking the question to what degree the system we have in place - capitalism is its name - is the problem. It's the Russians, it's the immigrants, it's the tariffs, it's anything else, even the pornstar, to distract us from the debate we need to have had that we haven't had for a half a century, which puts us in a very bad place. We've given a free pass to a capitalist system because we've been afraid to debate it. And when you give a free pass to any institution you create the conditions for it to rot, right behind the facade. ..."
"... The Trump presidency is the last gasp, it's letting it all hang out. A [neoliberal] system that's gonna do whatever it can, take advantage of this moment, grab it all before it disappears. ..."
In another interesting interview with Chris Hedges, Richard Wolff explains why the Trump presidency is the last resort of a system
that is about to collapse:
Finally, if everybody tries to save themselves (protection), we have a historical example: after the Great Depression that happened
in Europe. And most people believe that it was a large part of what led to WWII after WWI, rather than a much saner collective effort.
But capitalism doesn't go for collective efforts, it tends to destroy itself by its own mechanisms. There has to be a movement from
below. Otherwise, there is no counter force that can take us in another direction.
So, absent that counter force we are going to see this system spinning out of control and destroying itself in the very way its
critics have for so long foreseen it well might.
When Trump announced his big tariffs on China, we saw the stock market dropped 700 points in a day. That's a sign of the anxiety,
the danger, even in the minds of capitalists, about where this is going. If we hadn't been a country with two or three decades of
a middle class - working class paid really well - maybe we could have gotten away with this. But in a society that has celebrated
its capacity to do what it now fails to do, you have an explosive situation.
Everything is done to avoid asking the question to what degree the system we have in place - capitalism is its name - is the problem.
It's the Russians, it's the immigrants, it's the tariffs, it's anything else, even the pornstar, to distract us from the debate we
need to have had that we haven't had for a half a century, which puts us in a very bad place. We've given a free pass to a capitalist
system because we've been afraid to debate it. And when you give a free pass to any institution you create the conditions for it
to rot, right behind the facade.
The Trump presidency is the last gasp, it's letting it all hang out. A [neoliberal] system that's gonna do whatever it can, take advantage
of this moment, grab it all before it disappears.
In France, it was said
'Après moi, le déluge' (after me the
catastrophe). The storm will break.
What about part-times who are are exploited to the mex and paied very little... This is
sophistry to assume that everybody has full time job in compemporary America.
...A single person taking a minimum wage job would earn an annual income of $15,080. A
married couple would earn $30,160. By the way, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
less than 4 percent of hourly workers in 2016 were paid the minimum wage. That means that over
96 percent of workers earned more than the minimum wage. Not surprising is the fact that among
both black and white married couples, the poverty rate is in the single digits. Most poverty is
in female-headed households.
The fact that Mark Zuckerberg is so rich is annoying, and his separateness from Main Street may not be a great thing socially,
but in an economic sense, his fortune did not "come from" the paychecks of ordinary workers...
It damn sure did. It came straight out of their pension funds. Thousands of pension funds across the world bought faang stocks
and those workers will be getting fucked in the end while while zuck heads back to hawaii with their money. look at elon, his
company hasn't made dime one in profit but he is a billionaire. amzn, with a p/e of 228. they didn't get that p/e without millions
of ordinary folk buying their overpriced stock. it is pure ponzi-nomics with fascist overtones and the maggots are cashing out
big time.
The greatest fortunes in history have been built in the last 10 years with 0% interest rates. You were spot on about pensions,
they were the casualties, almost every private pension in the country bankrupted by 0% rates so that these fucks could amass unimaginable
wealth.
Now the filthy commoner scum have the audacity to suggest that they should pay taxes on it. Where will the madness end?
All my friends Jews knew this was going to happen. They were buying stocks like crazy when I was telling them to buy gold and
get ready for a big reset that never happened. Ten years later they are all multimillionaires and I lost half of my money buying
gold...
institutions bought their shares with real earned money. bezos did not. as far as i'm concerned being a ceo is a license to
steal. bezos damn sure didn't earn that money because he is smarter or works harder than anyone else. look at how he treats his
workers. what an asshole.
It's even worse than that. So much worse. Facebook was stolen by the Satanic Judaic Zionist crowd. Research it. Another gentleman
invented it. The Jews stole it, like they've stolen pretty much everything else. No wonder Napoleon said that "The Jews are the
master robbers of the modern age". And beyond the criminal vile theft, you have what they are using it for. And that is?
Using it for the 911'd cows in America. And that is you. The Satanic Jews are murdering you and robbing you blind. They 911'd
you physically with the Twin Towers. Now they're doing it mentally and financially with Facebook, a control system grid -- a gate
to herd cattle which they view you as. They are herding you. You'll be 911'd again in larger and larger numbers until the Satanic
Judaic is removed from the World Stage.
Zuckerberg is a planted punk Zionist spook. You're going to have to clear the world of all of these Satanic Judaic ladies and
gentlemen. First the idea needs to come in to show how and why. This is underway.
Ever since the housing crisis I been waiting for the world to become a better place. I see now that I been fooling myself into
believing that we live in a civilized and honest world. Nobody gives a shit about anyone nor anything, people only care about
themselves...
"... Well, it comes down to the myths we've been sold. Myths that are ingrained in our social programming from birth, deeply entrenched, like an impacted wisdom tooth. These myths are accepted and basically never questioned. ..."
"... Our media outlets are funded by weapons contractors, big pharma, big banks, big oil and big, fat hard-on pills. (Sorry to go hard on hard-on pills, but we can't get anything resembling hard news because it's funded by dicks.) The corporate media's jobs are to rally for war, cheer for Wall Street and froth at the mouth for consumerism. It's their mission to actually fortify belief in the myths I'm telling you about right now. Anybody who steps outside that paradigm is treated like they're standing on a playground wearing nothing but a trench coat. ..."
"... The criminal justice system has become a weapon wielded by the corporate state. This is how bankers can foreclose on millions of homes illegally and see no jail time, but activists often serve jail time for nonviolent civil disobedience. Chris Hedges recently noted , "The most basic constitutional rights have been erased for many. Our judicial system, as Ralph Nader has pointed out, has legalized secret law, secret courts, secret evidence, secret budgets and secret prisons in the name of national security." ..."
"... This myth (Buying will make you happy) is put forward mainly by the floods of advertising we take in but also by our social engineering. Most of us feel a tenacious emptiness, an alienation deep down behind our surface emotions (for a while I thought it was gas). That uneasiness is because most of us are flushing away our lives at jobs we hate before going home to seclusion boxes called houses or apartments. We then flip on the TV to watch reality shows about people who have it worse than we do (which we all find hilarious). ..."
"... According to Deloitte's Shift Index survey : "80% of people are dissatisfied with their jobs" and "[t]he average person spends 90,000 hours at work over their lifetime." That's about one-seventh of your life -- and most of it is during your most productive years. ..."
"... Try maintaining your privacy for a week without a single email, web search or location data set collected by the NSA and the telecoms. ..."
Our society should've collapsed by now. You know that, right?
No society should function with this level of inequality (with the possible exception of one of those prison planets in a "Star
Wars" movie). Sixty-three percent of Americans
can't afford a $500 emergency
. Yet Amazon head Jeff Bezos is now
worth a record $141 billion . He could literally end world hunger for multiple years and still have more money left over than
he could ever spend on himself.
Worldwide,
one in
10 people only make $2 a day. Do you know how long it would take one of those people to make the same amount as Jeff Bezos has?
193 million years . (If they only buy single-ply toilet paper.) Put simply, you cannot comprehend the level of inequality in our
current world or even just our nation.
So shouldn't there be riots in the streets every day? Shouldn't it all be collapsing? Look outside. The streets aren't on fire.
No one is running naked and screaming (usually). Does it look like everyone's going to work at gunpoint? No. We're all choosing to
continue on like this.
Why?
Well, it comes down to the myths we've been sold. Myths that are ingrained in our social programming from birth, deeply entrenched,
like an impacted wisdom tooth. These myths are accepted and basically never questioned.
I'm going to cover eight of them. There are more than eight. There are probably hundreds. But I'm going to cover eight because
(A) no one reads a column titled "Hundreds of Myths of American Society," (B) these are the most important ones and (C) we all have
other shit to do.
Myth No. 8 -- We have a democracy.
If you think we still have a democracy or a democratic republic, ask yourself this: When was the last time Congress did something
that the people of America supported that did not align with corporate interests? You probably can't do it. It's like trying to think
of something that rhymes with "orange." You feel like an answer exists but then slowly realize it doesn't. Even the Carter Center
and former President Jimmy Carter believe that America has been
transformed into
an oligarchy : A small, corrupt elite control the country with almost no input from the people. The rulers need the myth that
we're a democracy to give us the illusion of control.
Myth No. 7 -- We have an accountable and legitimate voting system.
Gerrymandering, voter purging, data mining, broken exit polling, push polling, superdelegates, electoral votes, black-box machines,
voter ID suppression, provisional ballots, super PACs, dark money, third parties banished from the debates and two corporate parties
that stand for the same goddamn pile of fetid crap!
What part of this sounds like a legitimate election system?
No, we have what a large Harvard study called the
worst election system in the Western world . Have you ever seen where a parent has a toddler in a car seat, and the toddler has
a tiny, brightly colored toy steering wheel so he can feel like he's driving the car? That's what our election system is -- a toy
steering wheel. Not connected to anything. We all sit here like infants, excitedly shouting, "I'm steeeeering !"
And I know it's counterintuitive, but that's why you have to vote. We have to vote in such numbers that we beat out what's stolen
through our ridiculous rigged system.
Myth No. 6 -- We have an independent media that keeps the rulers accountable.
Our media outlets are funded by weapons contractors, big pharma, big banks, big oil and big, fat hard-on pills. (Sorry to go hard
on hard-on pills, but we can't get anything resembling hard news because it's funded by dicks.) The corporate media's jobs are to
rally for war, cheer for Wall Street and froth at the mouth for consumerism. It's their mission to actually fortify belief in the
myths I'm telling you about right now. Anybody who steps outside that paradigm is treated like they're standing on a playground wearing
nothing but a trench coat.
Myth No. 5 -- We have an independent judiciary.
The criminal justice system has become a weapon wielded by the corporate state. This is how bankers can foreclose on millions
of homes illegally and see no jail time, but activists often serve jail time for nonviolent civil disobedience. Chris Hedges
recently noted , "The most basic constitutional
rights have been erased for many. Our judicial system, as Ralph Nader has pointed out, has legalized secret law, secret courts, secret
evidence, secret budgets and secret prisons in the name of national security."
If you're not part of the monied class, you're pressured into releasing what few rights you have left. According to
The New
York Times , "97 percent of federal cases and 94 percent of state cases end in plea bargains, with defendants pleading guilty
in exchange for a lesser sentence."
That's the name of the game. Pressure people of color and poor people to just take the plea deal because they don't have a million
dollars to spend on a lawyer. (At least not one who doesn't advertise on beer coasters.)
Myth No. 4 -- The police are here to protect you. They're your friends .
That's funny. I don't recall my friend pressuring me into sex to get out of a speeding ticket. (Which is essentially still
legal in 32
states .)
The police in our country are primarily designed to do two things: protect the property of the rich and perpetrate the completely
immoral war on drugs -- which by definition is a war on our own people .
We lock up more people than
any other country on earth
. Meaning the land of the free is the largest prison state in the world. So all these droopy-faced politicians and rabid-talking
heads telling you how awful China is on human rights or Iran or North Korea -- none of them match the numbers of people locked up
right here under Lady Liberty's skirt.
Myth No. 3 -- Buying will make you happy.
This myth (Buying will make you happy) is put forward mainly by the floods of advertising we take in but also by our social engineering. Most of us feel a
tenacious emptiness, an alienation deep down behind our surface emotions (for a while I thought it was gas). That uneasiness is because
most of us are flushing away our lives at jobs we hate before going home to seclusion boxes called houses or apartments. We then
flip on the TV to watch reality shows about people who have it worse than we do (which we all find hilarious).
If we're lucky, we'll make enough money during the week to afford enough beer on the weekend to help it all make sense. (I find
it takes at least four beers for everything to add up.) But that doesn't truly bring us fulfillment. So what now? Well, the ads say
buying will do it. Try to smother the depression and desperation under a blanket of flat-screen TVs, purses and Jet Skis. Now does
your life have meaning? No? Well, maybe you have to drive that Jet Ski a little faster! Crank it up until your bathing suit flies
off and you'll feel alive !
The dark truth is that we have to believe the myth that consuming is the answer or else we won't keep running around the wheel.
And if we aren't running around the wheel, then we start thinking, start asking questions. Those questions are not good for the ruling
elite, who enjoy a society based on the daily exploitation of 99 percent of us.
Myth No. 2 -- If you work hard, things will get better.
According to Deloitte's Shift
Index survey : "80% of people are dissatisfied with their jobs" and "[t]he average person spends 90,000 hours at work over their
lifetime." That's about one-seventh of your life -- and most of it is during your most productive years.
Ask yourself what we're working for. To make money? For what? Almost none of us are doing jobs for survival anymore. Once upon
a time, jobs boiled down to:
I plant the food -- >I eat the food -- >If I don't plant food = I die.
But nowadays, if you work at a café -- will someone die if they don't get their super-caf-mocha-frap-almond-piss-latte? I kinda
doubt they'll keel over from a blueberry scone deficiency.
If you work at Macy's, will customers perish if they don't get those boxer briefs with the sweat-absorbent-ass fabric? I doubt
it. And if they do die from that, then their problems were far greater than you could've known. So that means we're all working to
make other people rich because we have a society in which we have to work. Technological advancements can do most everything that
truly must get done.
So if we wanted to, we could get rid of most work and have tens of thousands of more hours to enjoy our lives. But we're not doing
that at all. And no one's allowed to ask these questions -- not on your mainstream airwaves at least. Even a half-step like universal
basic income is barely discussed because it doesn't compute with our cultural programming.
Scientists say it's quite possible artificial intelligence will take away
all human jobs in 120 years . I think they know that will
happen because bots will take the jobs and then realize that 80 percent of them don't need to be done! The bots will take over and
then say, "Stop it. Stop spending a seventh of your life folding shirts at Banana Republic."
One day, we will build monuments to the bot that told us to enjoy our lives and leave the shirts wrinkly.
And this leads me to the largest myth of our American society.
Myth No. 1 -- You are free.
... ... ...
Try sleeping in your car for more than a few hours without being harassed by police.
Try maintaining your privacy for a week without a single email, web search or location data set collected by the NSA and the telecoms.
Try signing up for the military because you need college money and then one day just walking off the base, going, "Yeah, I was
bored. Thought I would just not do this anymore."
Try explaining to Kentucky Fried Chicken that while you don't have the green pieces of paper they want in exchange for the mashed
potatoes, you do have some pictures you've drawn on a napkin to give them instead.
Try using the restroom at Starbucks without buying something while black.
We are less free than a dog on a leash. We live in one of the hardest-working, most unequal societies on the planet with more
billionaires than ever .
Meanwhile,
Americans
supply 94 percent of the paid blood used worldwide. And it's almost exclusively coming from very poor people. This abusive vampire
system is literally sucking the blood from the poor. Does that sound like a free decision they made? Or does that sound like something
people do after immense economic force crushes down around them? (One could argue that sperm donation takes a little less convincing.)
Point is, in order to enforce this illogical, immoral system, the corrupt rulers -- most of the time -- don't need guns and tear
gas to keep the exploitation mechanisms humming along. All they need are some good, solid bullshit myths for us all to buy into,
hook, line and sinker. Some fairy tales for adults.
815M people chronically malnourished according to the UN. Bezos is worth $141B.
$141B / 815M people = $173 per person. That would definitely not feed them for "multiple years". And that's only if Bezos could
fully liquidate the stock without it dropping a penny.
" Point is, in order to enforce this illogical, immoral system, the corrupt rulers -- most of the time -- don't
need guns and tear gas to keep the exploitation mechanisms humming along. All they need are some good, solid bullshit myths for
us all to buy into, hook, line and sinker. Some fairy tales for adults. "
Seems like there's tear gas in the air and guns are going to be used soon. The myths are dying on the tongues of the liars.
Molon Labe!....and I'm usually a pacifist.
"American Society Would Collapse If It Weren't For Invasions Of Foreign Countries, Murdering Their People, Stealing Their Oil
Then Blaming Them For Making The US Do It."
Well, in a world driven by oil, it is entirely bogus to suggest that citizens have to work their asses off. That was the whole
point of the bill of goods that was sold to us in the late 70's and early 80'. More leisure time, more time for your family and
personal interests.
Except! It never happened. All they fucking did was reduce real wages and force everyone from the upper middle class down,
into a shit hole.
But, they will pay for their folly. Guaran-fucking-teed.
As one who has hoed many rows of cotton in 115F temperatures as well as picking cotton during my childhood and early adolescence
during weekends and school holidays, I concur. It was a very powerful inducement to get a good education back when schools actually
taught things and did not tolerate backtalk or guff from students instead of babysitting them. It worked, and I ended up writing
computer software for spacecraft, which was much fun than working in the fields.
"... Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that "the market" delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning. ..."
"... We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance and class – that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances. ..."
Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It
redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and
selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that "the market"
delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.
Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should
be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective
bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a
natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility
and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more
equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that
everyone gets what they deserve.
We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired
their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance and
class – that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their
failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances.
Never mind structural unemployment: if you don't have a job it's because you are
unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out,
you're feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer have a school playing
field: if they get fat, it's your fault. In a world governed by competition, those who fall
behind become defined and self-defined as losers.
Among the results, as Paul Verhaeghe documents in his book What About Me? are epidemics of
self-harm, eating disorders, depression, loneliness, performance anxiety and social phobia.
Perhaps it's unsurprising that Britain, in which neoliberal ideology has been most rigorously
applied, is the loneliness capital of Europe. We are all neoliberals now.
"... By Enrico Verga, a writer, consultant, and entrepreneur based in Milan. As a consultant, he concentrates on firms interested in opportunities in international and digital markets. His articles have appeared in Il Sole 24 Ore, Capo Horn, Longitude, Il Fatto Quotidiano, and many other publications. You can follow him on Twitter @enricoverga . ..."
"... Continuing flows of low-cost labor can be useful for cutting costs. West Germany successfully absorbed East Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall, but the dirty secret of this achievement is the exploitation of workers from the former East, as Reuters reports . ..."
"... The expansion of the EU to Poland (and the failed attempt to incorporate the Ukraine) has allowed many European businesses to shift local production to nations where the average cost of a blue or white collar worker is much lower ( by 60-70% on average ) than in Western European countries. ..."
"... The middle class is a silent mass that for many years has painfully digested globalization, while believing in the promises of globalist politicians," explains Luciano Ghelfi, a journalist of international affairs who has followed Lega from its beginnings. Ghelfi continues: ..."
"... I think unrestrained globalization has taken a hit. In Italy as well, as we have seen recently, businesses are relocating abroad. And the impoverished middle class finds itself forced to compete for state resources (subsidies) and jobs which can be threatened by an influx of economic migrants towards which enormous resources have been dedicated – just think of the 4.3 billion Euros that the last government allocated toward economic migrants. ..."
"... In all of this, migrants are more victims than willing actors, and they become an object on which the fatigue, fear, and in the most extreme cases, hatred of the middle class can easily focus. ..."
"... If for the last twenty years, with only occasional oscillation, the pro-globalization side has been dominant in the West, elections are starting to swing the balance in a new direction. ..."
"... "Klein analyzes a future (already here to some degree) in which multinational corporations freely fish from one market or another in an effort to find the most suitable (i.e. cheapest) labor force." ..."
"... never export their way out of poverty and misery ..."
By Enrico Verga,
a writer, consultant, and entrepreneur based in Milan. As a consultant, he
concentrates on firms interested in opportunities in international and digital markets. His
articles have appeared in Il Sole 24 Ore, Capo Horn, Longitude, Il Fatto Quotidiano, and many
other publications. You can follow him on Twitter @enricoverga .
International commerce, jobs, and economic migrants are propelled by a common force:
profit.
In recent times, the Western middle class (by which I mean in particular industrial workers
and office employees) has lost a large number of jobs and has seen its buying power fall. It
isn't true that migrants are the source of all evil in the world. However, under current
conditions, they become a locus for the exasperation of the population at twenty years of
pro-globalization politics. They are tragically placed in the role of the straw that breaks the
camel's back.
Western businesses have slipped jobs overseas to countries with low labor costs, while the
middle class has been pushed into debt in order to try to keep up. The Glass-Steagall law and
other brakes on American banks were abolished by a cheerleader for globalization, Bill Clinton,
and these banks subsequently lost all restraints in their enthusiasm to lend. The cherry on top
of the sundae was the real estate bubble and ensuing crash of 2008.
A damning picture of the results of 20 years of globalization is provided by
Forbes , capitalism's magazine par excellence. Already in 2016, the surprise victory of
Trump led to questions about whether the blond candidate's win was due in part to the straits
of the American middle class, impoverished as a result of the pro-globalization politics of
figures like Clinton and Obama.
Further support for this thesis is furnished by the
New York Times , describing the collapse of the stars-and-stripes middle class. Its
analysis is buttressed by lengthy research from the very mainstream
Pew Center , which agrees that the American middle class is vanishing.
And Europe? Although the European middle class has been squeezed less than its American
counterpart, for us as well the picture doesn't look good. See for example the
analysis of the Brookings Institute , which discusses not only the flagging economic
fortunes of the European middle class, but also the fear of prosperity collapsing that
currently grips Europe.
Migrants and the Shock Doctrine
What do economic migrants have to do with any of this?
Far be it from me to criticize large corporations, but clearly they – and their
managers and stockholders – benefit from higher margins. Profits (revenue minus costs and
expenses) can be maximized by reducing expenses. To this end, the costs of acquiring goods
(metals, agricultural products, energy, etc.) and services (labor) need to fall steadily.
In the quest to lower the cost of labor, the most desirable scenario is a sort of blank
slate: to erase ongoing arrangements with workers and start over from zero, building a new
"happy and productive" economy. This operation can be understood as a sort of "shock
doctrine."
The term "economic shock therapy" is based on an analogy with electroshock therapy for
mental patients. One important analysis of it comes from Naomi Klein , who became
famous explaining in 2000 the system of fashion production through subsidiaries that don't
adhere to the safety rules taken so seriously in Western countries (some of you may recall the
scandal of
Benetton and Rana Plaza , where more than a thousand workers at a Bangladesh factory
producing Benetton (and other) clothes were crushed under a collapsing building).
Klein analyzes a future (already here to some degree) in which multinational corporations
freely fish from one market or another in an effort to find the most suitable (i.e. cheapest)
labor force. Sometimes relocating from one nation to another is not possible, but if you can
bring the job market of other countries here in the form of a low-cost mass of people competing
for employment, then why bother?
The Doctrine in Practice
Continuing flows of low-cost labor can be useful for cutting costs. West Germany
successfully absorbed East Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall, but the dirty secret of
this achievement is the exploitation of workers
from the former East, as Reuters reports .
The expansion of the EU to Poland (and the failed attempt to incorporate the Ukraine) has
allowed many European businesses to
shift local production to nations where the average cost of a blue or white collar worker
is much lower (
by 60-70% on average ) than in Western European countries.
The migrant phenomenon is a perfect counterpoint to a threadbare middle class, given its
role as a success story within the narrative of globalization.
Economic migrants are eager to obtain wealth on the level of the Western middle class
– and this is of course a legitimate desire. However, to climb the social ladder, they
are willing to do anything: from accepting low albeit legal salaries to picking tomatoes
illegally (
as Alessandro Gassman, son of the famous actor, reminded us ).
The middle class is a silent mass that for many years has painfully digested globalization,
while believing in the promises of globalist politicians," explains Luciano Ghelfi, a
journalist of international affairs who has followed Lega from its beginnings. Ghelfi
continues:
This mirage has fallen under the blows it has received from the most serious economic
crisis since the Second World War. Foreign trade, easy credit (with the American real estate
bubble of 2008 as a direct consequence), peace missions in Libya (carried out by
pro-globalization French and English actors, with one motive being in my opinion the
diversion of energy resources away from [the Italian] ENI) were supposed to have created a
miracle; they have in reality created a climate of global instability.
Italy is of course not untouched by this phenomenon. It's easy enough to give an
explanation for the Five Stars getting votes from part of the southern electorate that is
financially in trouble and might hope for some sort of subsidy, but the North? The choice of
voting center right (with a majority leaning toward Lega) can be explained in only one way
– the herd (the middle class) has tried to rise up.
I asked him, "So in your opinion, is globalization in stasis? Or is it radically
changing?" He replied:
I think unrestrained globalization has taken a hit. In Italy as well, as we have seen
recently, businesses are relocating abroad. And the impoverished middle class finds itself
forced to compete for state resources (subsidies) and jobs which can be threatened by an
influx of economic migrants towards which enormous resources have been dedicated – just
think of the 4.3 billion Euros that the last government allocated toward economic
migrants.
This is an important element in the success of Lega: it is a force that has managed to
understand clearly the exhaustion of the impoverished middle class, and that has proposed a
way out, or has at least elaborated a vision opposing the rose-colored glasses of
globalization.
In all of this, migrants are more victims than willing actors, and they become an object on
which the fatigue, fear, and in the most extreme cases, hatred of the middle class can easily
focus.
What Conflicts Are Most Relevant Today?
At the same time, if we observe, for example in Italy, the positions taken by the
(pro-globalization?) Left, it becomes easier to understand why the middle class and also many
blue collar workers are abandoning it. Examples range from the unfortunate declarations of
deputy Lia Quartapelle on
the need to support the Muslim Brotherhood to the explanations of the former president of
the Chamber of Deputies, Laura Boldrini, on how the status of economic migrant should be seen as a model for the
lifestyle of all Italians . These remarks were perhaps uttered lightly (Quartapelle
subsequently took her post down and explained that she had made a mistake), but they are
symptomatic of a certain sort of pro-globalization cultural "Left" that finds talking to
potential voters less interesting than other matters.
From Italy to America (where
Hillary Clinton was rejected after promoting major international trade arrangements that
she claimed would benefit middle-class American workers) to the UK (where Brexit has been taken as a sort of
exhaust valve), the middle class no longer seems to be snoring.
We are currently seeing a political conflict between globalist and nationalist forces.
Globalists want more open borders and freer international trade. Nationalists want protection
for work and workers, a clamping down on economic migrants, and rules with teeth aimed at
controlling international trade.
If for the last twenty years, with only occasional oscillation, the pro-globalization side
has been dominant in the West, elections are starting to swing the balance in a new
direction.
Meanwhile, many who self-identify as on the Left seem utterly uninterested in the concerns
of ordinary people, at least in cases where these would conflict with the commitment to
globalization.
If the distinction between globalism and nationalism is in practice trumping other
differences, then we should not let ourselves be distracted by bright and shiny objects, and
keep our focus on what really matters.
From the Forbes link:
"The first downside of international trade that even proponents of freer trade must
acknowledge is that while the country as a whole gains some people do lose."
More accurate to say a tiny, tiny, TINY percentage gain.
Nice how they use the euphemism "country as a whole" for GDP. Yes, GDP goes up – but
that word that can never be uttered by American corporate media – DISTRIBUTION –
that essentially ALL gains in GDP have gone to the very top. AND THAT THIS IS A POLITICAL
DECISION, not like the waves of the ocean or natural selection. There is plenty that could be
done about it – BUT it STARTS with WANTING to do something effective about it .
Nice how they use the euphemism "country as a whole" for GDP.
Fresno Dan,
You have identified one of my pet peeves about economists and their fellow traveler
politicians. They hide behind platitudes, and the former are more obnoxious about that.
Economists will tell people that they just don't understand all that complexity, and that in
the name of efficiency, etc, free trade and the long slide toward neo-liberal hell must
continue.
I think the assertion that all economic gains have gone to the very top is not accurate.
According to 'Unintended Consequences' by Ed Conard, the 'composition of the work force has
shifted to demographics with lower incomes' between 1980 and 2005. If you held the workforce
of 1980 steady through 2005, wages would be up 30% in real terms, not including benefits.
I think the author has highlighted some home truths in the article. I once remember
several years ago just trying to raise the issue of immigration* and its impact on workers on
an Irish so-called socialist forum. Either I met silence or received a reply along the lines:
'that when socialists rule the EU we'll establish continental wide standards that will ensure
fairness for everyone'. Fairy dust stuff. I'm not anti immigrant in any degree but it seems
unwise not to understand and mitigate the negative aspects of policies on all workers. Those
chickens are coming home to roost by creating the type of political parties (new or
established) that now control the EU and many world economies.
During the same period many younger middle and upper middle class Irish extolled the
virtues, quite openly, of immigration as way of lowering the power and wages of existing
Irish workers so that the costs of building homes, labour intensive services and the like
would be concretely reduced; and that was supposed to be a good thing for the material well
being of these middle and upper middle classes. Sod manual labour.
One part of the working class was quite happy to thrown another part of the working class
under the bus and the Left**, such as it was and is, was content to let it happen. Then
established Leftist parties often facilitated the rightward economic process via a host of
policies, often against their own stated policies in election manifestos. The Left appeared
deceitful. The Irish Labour party is barely alive and subsisting on die-hard traditionalists
for their support by those who can somehow ignore the deceit of their party. Surreaslist
stuff from so-called working class parties,
And now the middle-middle classes are ailing and we're supposed to take notice. Hmmm. Yet,
as a Leftist, myself, it is incumbent upon us to address the situation and assist all
workers, whatever their own perceived status.
*I'm an immigrant in the UK currently, though that is about to change next year.
** Whether the "Left", such as the Irish Labour Party, was just confused or bamboozled
matters not a jot. After the financial crises that became an economic crisis, they zealously
implemented austerity policies that predominantly cleared the way for a right wing political
landscape to dominate throughout Europe. One could be forgiven for thinking that those who
called themselves Leftists secretly believed that only right wing, neo-liberal economic
policies were correct. And I suppose, being a bit cynical, that a few politicos were paid
handsomely for their services.
I think its easy to see why the more middle class elements of the left wing parties never
saw immigration as a problem – but harder to see why the Trade Unions also bought into
this. Partly I think it was a laudable and genuine attempt to ensure they didn't buy into
racism – when you look at much trade union history, its not always pleasant reading
when you see how nakedly racist some early trade union activists were, especially in the US.
But I think there was also a process whereby Unions increasingly represented relatively
protected trades and professions, while they lost ground in more vulnerable sectors, such as
in construction.
I think there was also an underestimation of the 'balancing' effect within Europe. I think
a lot of activists understimated the poverty in parts of Europe, and so didn't see the
expansion of the EU into eastern Europe as resulting in the same sort of labour arbitrage
thats occurred between the west and Asia. I remember the discussions over the enlargement of
the EU to cover eastern Europe and I recall that there seemed to be an inbuilt assumption
(certainly in the left), that rising general prosperity would ensure there would be no real
migration impact on local jobs. This proved to be entirely untrue.
Incidentally, in my constituency (Dublin Central) in past elections the local Labour party
was as guilty as any of pandering to the frequent racism encountered on the doorsteps in
working class areas. But it didn't do them much good. Interestingly, SF was the only party
who would consistently refuse to pander (At least in Dublin), making the distinction between
nationalist and internationalist minded left wingers even more confusing.
Yes, one has to praise the fact that the Unions didn't pander to racism – but that's
about all the (insert expletive of choice) did correctly.
Your other points, as ever, are relevant and valid but (and I must but) I tend to think
that parties like Labour were too far "breezy" about the repercussions about labour
arbitrage. But that's water under the bridge now.
Speaking about SF and the North West in general, they have aggressively canvassed recent
immigrants and have not tolerated racism among their ranks. Their simple reasoning was that
is unthinkable that SF could tolerate such behaviour amongst themselves when they has waged a
campaign against such attitudes and practices in the six counties. (SF are no saints, often
fumble the ball badly, and are certainly not the end-all-be-all, but this is something they
get right).
It has to be understood that much of immigration is occurring because of war, famine,
collapsing societies (mostly due to massive wealth inequality and corrupt governments).
Immigration is not the cause of the economic issues in the EU, it's a symptom (or a feature
if you're on top). If you don't correct the causes – neo-liberalism, kleptocracy,
rigged game – what ever you want to call it, then you too will become an immigrant in
your own country (and it will be a third world country by the time the crooks on top are
done).
Don't get caught up in the blame the other poor people game. It's a means to get the
powerless to fight among themselves. They are not in charge, they are victims just like
you.
Having spent a lot of time in the Indian subcontinent and Afghanistan and Iraq I have to
say that rampant overpopulation plays a big part. Anyone who can get out is getting out. It
makes sense. And with modern communications they all know how life is in Europe or the US in
contrast to the grinding horror that surrounds them.
But Conan tells me that Haiti is a tropical paradise! (my brother too spent a lot of time
in Afghanistan and Iraq working with the locals during his deployments)
"Twitter liberalism" is doing itself by not recognizing that much of the developing world
IS a corrupt cesspool.
Instead of railing against Trump, the Twitter-sphere needs to rail against the bipartisan
policies that drive corruption, and economic dislocations and political dislocations. and
rail against religious fundamentalism that hinders family planning.
But if you actually do that, rail against bipartisan neoliberal policies on social media
and IRL, the conservatives are far less hostile than the die-hard Dems. This is especially
true now, with all the frothing at the mouth and bloodlust about Russia. Its raised their
"it's ALL *YOUR* FAULT"-ism by at least an order of magnitude.
Actually, that's been true since the 18th C., at least for the US. TV may make it more
vivid, and Europe has changed places, but most Americans have immigrant ancestors, most often
from Europe.
However, it does seem that the policy of the EU, especially under the influence of Mutti
Merkel, signalled a free-for-all immigration stance over the last several years, completely
ignoring the plight of existing workers (many of whom would be recent immigrants themselves
and the children of immigrants). That the so-called Left either sat idly by or jumped on
Mutti's band wagon didn't do them any favours with working people. Every country or customs
union has and needs to regulate its borders. It also makes some sense to monitor labour
markets when unfavourable conditions appear.
It appears that only the wealthy are largely reaping the rewards of the globalist
direction trade has taken. These issues need to be addressed by the emerging Left political
parties in the West. Failure to address these issues must, I would contend, play into the
hands of the more right wing parties whose job is to often enrich the local rich.
But, bottom line, your are correct workers do not come out well when blaming other workers
for economies that have been intentionally created to produce favourable conditions for the
few over the many.
It's a blade with two sides.
There are push factors like the wars and poor countries. However neither of these causes can
be fixed. Not possible. Europe can gnash their teeth all they want, not even when they did
the unthinkable and put the US under sanctions for their warcrimes would the US ever stop.
First there would be color revolutions in western europe.
As important as the push factors are the pull ones. 90% or so of all refugees 2015 went to
Germany. Some were sent to other countries by the EU, these too immediately moved to Germany
and didn't stay where they were assigned. So the EU has to clean up their act and would need
to put the last 10 or so US presidents and administrations before a judge in Den Haag for
continued war crimes and crimes against humanity (please let me my dreams). The EU would also
need to clean up their one sided trade treaties with Africa and generally reign in their own
corporations. All that is however not enough by far and at most only half the battle. Even
when the EU itself all did these things, the poverty would remain and therefore the biggest
push factor. Humans always migrate to the place where the economy is better.
The pull factors is however at least as big. The first thing to do is for Germany to fix
their laws to be in sync with the other EU countries. At this point, Germany is utterly
alone, at most some countries simply don't speak out against german policy since they want
concessions in other areas. Main one here is France with their proposed EU and Euro reforms
but not alone by far.
Nationalists want protection for work and workers, a clamping down on economic
migrants, and rules with teeth aimed at controlling international trade.
Socialism in one country is a Stalinist theory, and falling back upon it in fear of
international capital is not only regressive but (assuming we aren't intentionally ignoring
history) relective of a defensive mentality.
In other words, this kind of thinking is the thinking of the whipped dog cringing before
the next blow.
Or perhaps they want to regulate and control the power of capital in their country. Which
is an entirely impossible proposition considering that capital can flee any jurisdiction and
cross any border. After all, transnational capital flows which were leveraged to the hilt in
speculative assets played an oversized role in generating the financial crisis and subsequent
crash.
It wouldn't be the first time I've been called a Stalinist though.
And why would we care whether it's a "Stalinist" theory? For that matter, although worker
ownership would solve some of these problems, we needn't be talking about socialism, but
rather about more functional capitalism.
Quite a leap in that last sentence; you haven't actually established anything of the
sort.
Personally, I believe capitalism needs to go away, but for it, or any other economic
system, to work, we would need a fair, equal, just, enforced rule of law that
everyone would be under, wouldn't we?
Right now the blessed of our various nations do not want this, so they make so that one
set is unfair, unequal, unjust, harshly enforced on most of their country's population while
they get the gentle rules.
For a society to function long term, it needs to have a fair and just set of rules that
everyone understands and follow, although the rules don't have to equal; people will tolerate
different levels of punishments and strictness of the rules. The less that is the case the
more dysfunctional, and usually the more repressive it is. See the Western Roman Empire, the
fall of just about every Chinese dynasty, the Russian Empire, heck even the American War of
Independence, and the American Civil War. In example, people either actively worked to
destroy the system or did not care to support it.
Thank you for the article, a pretty lucid analysis of the recent electoral results in
Italy and trends elsewhere. Although I would have liked to read something about people voting
the way they do because they are xenophobe fascist baby-eating pedophile racist Putin
friends. Just for fun.
Funny how the author's company promotes "Daily international job vacancies in UNDP, FAO,
UN, UNCTAD, UNIDO and the other Governative Organization, Non Governative Organization,
Multinationals Corporations. Public Relations, Marketing, Business Development."
Precisely the sort of jobs that infuriates the impoverishing middle classes.
As recently as 2015, Bernie Sanders defended not only border security, but also national
sovereignty. Asked about expanded immigration, Sanders flipped the question into a critique
of open-borders libertarianism: "That's a Koch brothers proposal which says essentially there
is no United States."
Unfortunately the ethnic division of the campaign and Hillary's attack seems to have led him
to change his mind.
That's probably due to the fact that just about everybody can't seem to differentiate
between immigration and mass migration. The latter issue is a matter of distributing the pain
of a collapsing order. state failure, and climate change while the former is simply engaging
in the comfortable rhetoric of politics dominated by the American middle class.
1 people vote they like. im not updated if the voters eat babies but i'll check and let u
know.
2 My company is not dream job. It is a for free ( and not making a penny) daily bulleting
that using a fre soft (paper.li) collect international qualified job offers for whoever is
willing to work in these sector.
i'm not pro or contro migrants. i actually only reported simple fact collating differents
point :)
Economic migrants seek prosperity and are justified in doing so, yet they can also be
seen as pawns in an international strategy that destroys the negotiating leverage of
workers. The resulting contradictions potentially render conventional political
classifications obsolete.
This appears on the homepage, but not here.
In any case, the 10% also seek prosperity. They are said to be the enablers of the 1%.
Until the left alters its thinking to reflect the crucial information presented in this
video, information more clearly and comprehensively spelled out in "Reclaiming the State" by
Mitchell and Fazi, resurgent rightwing nationalism will be the only outlet for those who
reject global neoliberalism's race to the bottom. It's that simple and sad.
To paint this as two pro-globalisation (within which you place the left) and
pro-nationalism is simplistic and repositions the false dichotomy of left vs right with
something just as useless. We should instead seek to speak to the complexities of the modern
political spectrum. This is an example of poor journalism and analysis and shouldn't have
been posted here, sorry Yves.
Thanks for your opinion. Check the format of this place: articles selected for information
or provoking thoughts, in support of a general position of driving toward betterment of the
general welfare, writ large.
The political economy is at least as complex as the Krebs or citric acid cycle that
biology students and scientists try to master. There are so many moving parts and
intersecting and competing interests that in the few words that the format can accommodate,
regarding each link, it's a little unkind to expect some master work of explication and
rhetorical closure every time.
The Krebs cycle is basically driven by the homeostatic thrust, bred of billions of years
of refinement, to maintain the healthy functioning and prolong life of the organism. There's
a perceivable axis to all the many parts of respiration, digestion, energy flows and such,
all inter-related with a clear organizing principle at the level of the organism. On the
record, it's hardly clear that at the level of the political economy, and all the many parts
that make it up, there is sufficient cohesion around a set of organizing principles that
parallel the drive, at the society and species level, to regulate and promote the energy
flows and interactions that would keep things healthy and prolong the life of the larger
entity. Or that their is not maybe a death wish built into the "cultural DNA" of most of the
human population.
Looks a lot to me that we actually have been invested (in both the financial and military
senses of the word) by a bunch of different cancer processes, wild and unregulated
proliferation of ecnomic and political tumor tissues that have invaded and undermined the
healthy organs of the body politic. Not so clear what the treatments might be, or the
prognosis. It is a little hopeful, continuing the biological analogy, that the equivalents of
inflammation and immune system processes appear to be overcoming the sneaky tricks that
cancer genes and cells employ to evade being identified and rendered innocuous.
Yes, "invested in a bunch of cancer processes" is a good description of allowing excessive
levels of predatory wealth. Thus you end up with a bunch of Jay Gould hyper capitalists whose
guiding principle is: I can always pay one half of the working class to kill the other half.
Divide and conquer rules.
It's mostly simply wrong. This doesn't describe the political views of almost anyone near
power anywhere as far as I can tell:
"Globalists want more open borders and freer international trade. Nationalists want
protection for work and workers, "
Most of the nationalist forces are on the right and give @#$# all for workers rights.
Really they may be anti-immigrant but they are absolutely anti-worker.
The middle class does not really exist, it was a concept invented by capitalists to
distract the workers from their essential unity as fellow wage slaves. Some make more wages,
some make less wages but they all have their surplus value, the money left over after they
have enough to take care of themselves, taken by the capitalist and used for his ends even
though he may not have worked in the value creation process at all.
Economic migrants are members of the working class who have been driven from their home
country to somewhere else by the capitalist system. While the article does mention capitalist
shock doctrine methods for establishing imperialism and correctly notes that economic
migrants are victims, it then goes on to try to lay a weak and insidious argument against
them. The author goes on citing multiple different cases of worker wages being driven lower
or stagnating, many of these cases have differing and sometimes complex reasons for why this
happened. But migrants and globalization are to blame he says and that our struggle is
nationalism vs globalism. He refuses to see what is staring him in the face, workers produce
surplus value for society, more workers produce more surplus value. If society finds itself
wealthier with more workers then why do workers wage fall or stagnate? He does note correctly
that this is due to the workers now having a weaker bargaining position with the capitalist,
but he seems to conclude from this without stating outrightly that we should then reject the
economic migrants because of this.
However, we could instead conclude that if more workers produce more surplus value but yet
their wages fall because the capitalist takes a larger share of the overall pot, that the
problem is not more workers but instead the capitalist system itself which was rigged to
exploit workers everywhere. Plus the workers bargaining position only weakens with a greater
number of them if they are all just bargaining for themselves, but if they were to bargain
togather collectively then there bargaining position has actually only grown even
stronger.
Also he falsly equates democratic party policies with leftists, instead of correctly
noting that the democratic party represents capitalist interests from a centrist position and
not the left. The strength of global capitalism can only be fought by a global coalition of
the working class. The struggle of Mexican and American workers are interrelated to each
other and the same goes for that of European and Middle Eastern workers. The time has come
for the left to raise the rallying cry of its great and glorious past.
You claim, as if it were obvious, that "economic migrants are members of the working class
who have been driven from their home country to somewhere else by the capitalist system."
Are all economic migrants therefore bereft of agency?
If the borders of the US were abruptly left completely open, a huge number of people would
enter the country tomorrow, for economic reasons. Would they all have been "driven" here, or
would they have some choice in the matter?
When you say, "he refuses to say what is staring him in the face, that [ ] more workers
produce more surplus value," you are not only taking a gratuitously pedantic tone, you are
actually not making a coherent critique. If economic migrants move from one country to
another, the total pool of workers in the world has not increased; while according to your
logic, if all the workers in the world were to move to Rhode Island, Rhode Island would
suddenly be swimming in the richness of surplus value.
When you say, "we could instead conclude that [..] the problem is not more workers but
instead the capitalist system itself which was rigged to exploit workers everywhere," you are
straw-manning the author but also making a purely rhetorical argument. If you think the
capitalist system can be replaced with a better one within the near future, then you can work
toward that; but in the meanwhile, nations, assuming that they will continue to exist, will
either have open borders or something short of that, and these decisions do affect
the lives of workers.
When you say he "falsly equates democratic party policies with leftists," the false
equivalence is coming from you. The article barely touches on the Democratic Party, and
instead draws most of its examples from Europe, especially Italy. In Italy, the public
figures he mentions call themselves part of the sinistra and are generally referred
to that way. You might perhaps feel that they are not entitled to that name (and in fact, the
article sometimes places "left" in quotation marks), but you should at least read the article
and look them up before discussing the matter.
From the article: "Meanwhile, many who self-identify as on the Left seem utterly
uninterested in the concerns of ordinary people, at least in cases where these would conflict
with the commitment to globalization."
To Be Fair, Verga clearly is skeptical about those claims to be "on the Left," as he
should be. Nonetheless, his initial mention of Democratic exemplars of globalization triggers
American reflexes.
Something before this failed to post; was rejected as a double post.
In brief: corporate globalization is a conservative, Republican policy that Bill Clinton
imposed on the Dems, where it has since become doctrine, since it pays. It's ultimately the
reason I'm a Green, not a Democrat, and in a sense the reason there IS a Green Party in the
US.
The author points to stagnant middle class income in USA and Western Europe but fail to
look the big picture. Middle class income has increased sharply in the past decades in Asia
and Eastern Europe. Overall the gain huge, even though life is tougher in richer
countries.
Overall the gain huge, even thought life is tougher in richer countries.
Please accept my apologies for saying this. I don't mean to offend. I just have to point
out something.
Many in the Democratic Party, as well as the left, are pointing to other countries and
peoples as well as the American 9.9% and saying things are great, why are you complaining?
With the not so hidden implications, sometimes openly stated that those who do are losers and
deplorables.
Saying that middle class incomes are merely stagnant is a sick, sick joke as well as an
untruth. As an American, I do not really care about the middle classes in Asia and Eastern
Europe. Bleep the big picture. The huge gains comes with a commensurate increase in homeless
in the United States, and a falling standard of living for most the of the population,
especially in the "wealthy" states, like my state of California. Most of us are using
fingernails to stay alive and homed. If those gains had not been caused by the losses, I
would be very please to see them. As it is, I have to live under President Trump and worry
about surviving. Heck, worry about the rest of my family doing so.
"Saying that middle class incomes are merely stagnant is a sick, sick joke as well as an
untruth."
+10,000
I mean I actually do care somewhat about the people of the world, but we here in "rich
countries" are being driven to homelessness at this point and told the goddamn lie that we
live in a rich country, rather than the truth that we live in a plutocracy with levels of
inequality approaching truly 3rd world. We are literally killing ourselves because we have to
live in this plutocracy and our one existence itself is not even worth it anymore in this
economic system (and we are lacking even a few of the positives of many other 3rd world
countries). And those that aren't killing ourselves still can't find work, and even if we do,
it doesn't pay enough to meet the most basic necessities.
1. It is unfortunate that Verga raises the rising cost of material inputs but fails to
meaningfully address the issue. One of the drivers of migration, as mentioned in Comments
above, is the population volcano currently erupting. Labor is cheap and globalization
possible in large part because the world population has grown from 2 Billion to over 7
Billion in the past 60-odd years. This slow-growing mountain of human beings has created
stresses on material inputs which are having a negative impact on the benefits derived from
declining labor costs. This becomes a death-spiral as capital seeks to balance the rising
cost of raw materials and agricultural products by driving down the cost of labor ever
further.
2. Verga touches on the interplay of Nationalism and Racism in the responses of political
parties and institutions in Italy and elsewhere. Voters appear to be abandoning Left and
left-ish parties because the Left have been unable to come up with a definintion of national
sovereignty that protects worker rights largely due to the importance of anti-racism in
current Left-wing thought. Working people were briefly bought-off with cheap consumer goods
and easy credit, but they now realize that low-wage migrant and off-shore workers mean that
even these goodies are now out of reach. The only political alternative currently on offer is
a brand of Nationalism defined by Racism -- which becomes acceptable to voters when the
alternative is Third-World levels of poverty for those outside the 1% and their 9%
enablers.
I don't see any simple solutions. Things may get very ugly.
I certainly see that policies tampering down free trade, both of capital and labor, can
benefit workers within a particular country. However, especially in the context of said
policies in "Western" countries, this can tend towards a, protect the working class within
the borders, leave those outside of it in impoverished squalor. Which doesn't mesh well with
the leftist goal of global class consciousness. Much like the racially segregated labor
policies of yesteryear, it's playing a zero-sum game with the working class while the
ownership class gets the "rising tide lifts all boats" treatment.
So how do we protect workers within the sovereign, while not doing so at the cost of the
workers outside of it? Schwieckart has an interesting idea, that tariffs on imports are used
to fund non-profits/higher education/cooperatives in the country of export. However, I think
we'd need something a bit more fine-tuned than that.
It has always baffled me that governments enable this global musical chairs game with the
labor market. Nearly all Western governments allow tax dodging by those who benefit the most
from their Navies, Armies, Patents, and Customs enforcement systems. However, it is the
working class that carries the brunt of that cost while corporations off-shore their
profits.
A simple-minded fix might be to start taxing foreign profits commensurate with the cost of
enabling those overseas profits.
Interesting that a corporation is a person just like us mortals when it is to their
advantage, but unlike us humans, they can legally escape taxation on much of their income
whereas a human being who is a US citizen cannot. A human citizen is generally taxed by the
US on all income regardless of its source. OTOH, corporations (among other means) routinely
transfer intellectual property to a non tax jurisdiction and then pay artificial payments to
that entity for the rights to use such property. It is a scam akin to a human creating a tax
deduction by transferring money from one pocket to another. Yes, proper taxation of
corporations is a simple-minded fix which is absolutely not simple to legislate. Nice try
though. Something else to ponder: Taxation without representation was said to be a major
factor in our war of independence from Britain. Today no one seems to be concerned that we
have evolved into representation without taxation. Doesn't see right to me.
"Klein analyzes a future (already here to some degree) in which multinational
corporations freely fish from one market or another in an effort to find the most suitable
(i.e. cheapest) labor force."
FWIW I don't think it's productive to talk about things like immigration in (or to) the US
in terms of just the here – as in what should/could we be doing here
to fix the problem. It's just as much if not more about the there . If we
view the global economic order as an enriched center feeding off a developing periphery, then
fixing the periphery should be first aim. #Wall or #NoBorders are largely incendiary
extremes. Ending Original Sin and creating some
sort of supranational
IOU/credit system (not controlled by World Bank or IMF!) will end the economic imbalance
and allow countries who will never export their way out of poverty and misery a way
to become equal first world nation states. With this equality, there will be less economic
migration, less peripheral poverty and potentially less political unrest. It's a gargantuan
task to be sure, but with rising Socialist sentiment here and abroad, I'd like to think we
are at least moving in the right direction.
If the rich were properly taxed then social tensions would be greatly reduced and if the
revenue raised were used to help the poorest in society much distress could be
alleviated.
I worry that debate on migration/globalisation is being encouraged to distract attention
from this issue.
I may indeed have taken a gratuitously pedantic tone and could have chosen a better one,
for that i apologise. I do however believe that much of my critique still stands, I will try
to go through your points one by one.
"Are all economic migrants therefore bereft of agency?"
Not all but many are, especially the ones that most people are complaining about. Many of
them are being driven from their home countries not simply for a better life but so they can
have something approaching a life at all. While to fully prove this point would require an
analysis of all the different migrants and their home country conditions, I do feel that if
we are talking about Syrian refugees, migrants from Africa risking their lives crossing the
Mediteranian sea, or CentralAmerican refugees than yes i do think these people to an extent
have had their agency taken from them by global events. For Syrians, by being caught in an
imperialist power struggle which while the civil war may not have been caused by it, it
certainly has been prolonged because of it. Not too mention America played a very significant
role in creating the conditions for ISIS, and western European powers don't have completely
clean hands either due to their long history of brutal imperialism in the mideast. Africa of
course also has an extensive past of colonization and suffers from a present of colonization
and exploitation as well. For Central Americans there is of course the voracious american
drug market as well as our politicians consistent appetite for its criminalisation to blame.
There is also of course global climate change. Many of these contributing conditions are not
being dealt with and so i believe that the migrations we have witnessed these last few years
are only the first ining of perhaps even greater migrations to come. How we deal with it now,
could determine whether our era is defined by mass deaths or something better. So to the
extent that i believe many of these migrants have agency is similiar to how a person climbing
onto the roof of there house to escape a flood does.
If the borders of the US were left completely open then, yes, there would most likely be a
rush of people at first but over time they would migrate back and forth according to their
needs, through the opening of the border they would gain agency. People often think that a
country not permitting its citizens to leave is wrong and immoral, but if most countries
close their borders to the people of a country going through great suffering, then it seems
to me that is essentially the same even if the rhetoric may be different. The likeliness of
this is high if the rich countries close there borders, since if the rich countries like the
US and Italy feel they can not take them in, then its doubtful countries on the way that are
much poorer will be able to either.
At the begining of your article you stated that "International commerce, jobs, and
economic migrants are propelled by a common force: profit." This is the capitalist system,
which is a system built upon the accumulation of capital, which are profits invested in
instruments of labor, aka machines and various labor enhancements. Now Rhode island is quite
small so there are geographical limitations of course, but if that was not an issue then yes.
Wage workers in the capitalist system produce more value than they consume, if this was not
the case they would not be hired or be hired for long. So if Rhode Island did not have the
geographical limitations that it does, then with more workers the overall pot of valuable
products and services would increase per capita in relation to the population. If the workers
are divided and not unified into cohesive and responsive institutions to fight for there
right share of the overall pie, which I believe should be all of it, then most of the gain to
society will go to the capitalist as increased profits. So it is not the migrant workers who
take from the native but instead actually the capitalist who exploits and trys to magnify
there difference. So if the capitalist system through imperialism helped to contribute to the
underlying conditions driving mass migration, and then it exploits there gratitude and
willingness to work for less than native workers, than I believe it follows that they will
wish to drive native anger towards the migrants with the ultimate goal of allowing them to
exploit the migrant workers at an even more severe level. This could be true within the
country, such as the US right now where the overarching result of anti-immigrant policies has
been to not get rid of them but to drive there exploitation more into the shadows, or through
mass deportations back to their home country followed by investments to exploit their
desperation at super low wages that will then compete with the rich country workers, it is
also possible they will all just die and everyone will look away. Either way the result will
still be lower wages for rich country workers, it seems to me the only way out of the impass
is for the native workers to realize their unity with migrant workers as exploited workers
and instead of directing that energy of hostility at each other instead focus it upon the
real root which is the capitalists themselves. Without the capitalists, more workers, held
withing certain geographic limitations of course, would in fact only enrich each other.
So while nations may indeed continue to exist for awhile, the long term benefit of native
workers is better served by making common cause with migrants against their mutual oppressors
then allowing themselves to be stirred up against them. Making this argument to workers is
much harder, but its the most beneficial if it can be made successfully.
This last point i do agree i may have been unfair to you, historically I believe the left
generally referred to anarchists, socialists and communists. So I often dislike the way
modern commentators use the left to refer to anything from a center right democrat like
Hillary Clinton all the way to the most hard core communist, it can make understanding
political subtleties difficult since anarchists, socialists and communists have radically
different politics than liberals, much more so than can be expressed along a linear line. But
as you point out you used quotes which i admit i did not notice, and of course one must
generally use the jargon of the times in order to be understood.
Overall i think my main critique was that it seemed that throughout your article you were
referencing different negative symptoms of capitalism but was instead taking that evidence
for the negatives of globalism. I may come from a more radical tradition than you may be used
to, but i would consider globalism to be an inherent aspect of capitalism. Capitalism in its
algorithmic quest for ever increasing profits generally will not allow its self to be bound
for long by people, nations, or even the physical and environmental limitations of the earth.
While one country may be able to restrict it for a time unless it is overcome completely it
will eventually reach out globally again. The only way to stop it is a prolonged struggle of
the international working class cooperating with each other against capitalism in all its
exploitive forms. I would also say that what we are seeing is not so much globalism vs
nationalism but instead a rearrangement of the competing imperial powers, Russia, China, US,
Germany and perhaps the evolution of multiple competing imperialisms similiar in nature to
pre- world war times but that may have to wait for later.
A great deal of your article did indeed deal with Italy which I did not address but I felt
that your arguments surrounding migrants was essentially of a subtle right wing nature and it
needed to be balanced by a socialist counter narrative. I am very glad that you took the time
to respond to my critique I know that putting analysis out there can be very difficult and i
am thankful for your response which has allowed me to better express and understand my
viewpoint. Once again I apoligise if I used some overly aggressive language and i hope your
able to get something out of my response as well.
I appreciate the more reflective tone of this reply. I believe there are still some
misreadings of the article, which I will try to clarify.
For one thing, I am not the author of the article! Enrico Verga is the author. I merely
translated the article. Enrico is Italian, however, and so for time zone reasons will be
unable to respond to your comments for a while. I am happy to write a bit on this in the
meantime.
You make two arguments.
The first is that many or most migrants are fleeing desperate circumstances. The article
speaks however consistently of "economic migrants" – there are some overlapping issues
with refugees, but also significant differences. Clearly there are many people who are
economically comfortable in their home countries and who would still jump at a chance to get
US citizenship if they could (look up EB-5 fraud for one example). Saying this does not imply
some sort of subtle critique of such people, but they are not a myth.
I actually found your second argument more thought-provoking. As I understand you, you are
suggesting something like the following. You support completely open borders. You acknowledge
that this would lead at first to massive shifts in population, but in the long run you say
things would stabilize. You acknowledge that this will lead to "lower wages for rich country
workers," but say that we should focus on the fact that it is only within the capitalist
system that this causality holds. You also suggest that it would probably lead, under current
conditions, to workers having their anger misdirected at migrants and therefore supporting
more reactionary policies.
Given that the shift to immediate open borders would, by this analysis, be highly
detrimental to causes you support, why do you favor it? Your reasons appear to be (1) it's
the right thing to do and we should just do it, (2) yes, workers might react in the way
described, but they should not feel that way, and maybe we can convince them not to feel that
way, (3) things will work themselves out in the long run.
I am a bit surprised at the straightforwardly idealistic tone of (1) and (2). As for (3),
as Keynes said, in the long run we are all dead. He meant by this that phenomena that might
in theory equilibrate over a very long time can lead to significant chaos in the short run;
this chaos can meanwhile disrupt calculations about the "long term" and spawn other
significant negative consequences.
Anyone who is open to the idea of radically new economic arrangements faces the question
of how best to get there. You are perhaps suggesting that letting global capital
reign supreme, unhindered by the rules and restrictions of nation-states, will in the long
run allow workers to understand their oppression more clearly and so increase their openness
to uniting against it. If so, I am skeptical.
I will finally point out that a part of the tone of your response seems directed at the
impression that Enrico dislikes migrants, or wants other people to resent them. I see nothing
in the article that would suggest this, and there are on the other hand several passages in
which Enrico encourages the reader to empathize with migrants. When you suggest that his
arguments are "essentially of a subtle right wing nature," you are maybe reacting to this
misreading; in any case, I'm not really sure what you are getting at, since this phrase is so
analytically imprecise that it could mean all sorts of things. Please try to engage with the
article with arguments, not with vague epithets.
There is a bit of a dissonance here. Human rights has been persistently used by
neoliberals to destabilize other regions for their own ends for decades now with little
protest. And when the standard playbook of coups and stirring up trouble does not work its
war and total destruction as we have seen recently in Iraq, Libya and Syria for completely
fabricated reasons.
Since increased migration is the obvious first consequence when entire countries are
decimated and in disarray one would expect the countries doing the destruction to accept the
consequences of their actions but instead we have the same political forces who advocate
intervention on 'human rights grounds' now demonizing migrants and advocating openly racist
policies.
One can understand one mistake but 3 mistakes in a row! And apparently we are not capable
of learning. The bloodlust continues unabated for Iran. This will destabilize an already
destabilized region and cause even more migration to Europe. There seems to be a fundamental
contradiction here, that the citizens of countries that execute these actions and who who
protest about migrants must confront.
Maybe they should pay trillions of dollars of reparations for these intervention so these
countries can be rebuilt and made secure again so migrants can return to their homes. Maybe
the UN can introduce a new fund with any country considering destabilizing another country,
for instance Iran, to first deposit a trillion dollars upfront to deal with the human
fallout. Or maybe casually destabilizing and devastating entire countries, killing millions
of people and putting millions more in disarray should be considered crimes against humanity
and prosecuted so they are not repeated.
"... $2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America ..."
"... Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America ..."
"... , is the Anne and Bernard Spitzer Professor of International Relations at the Powell School, City College of New York, and Senior Research Fellow at Columbia University's Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies. He is the author, most recently, of ..."
So effectively has the Beltway establishment captured the concept of national security that,
for most of us, it automatically conjures up images of terrorist groups, cyber warriors, or
"rogue states." To ward off such foes, the United States maintains a historically unprecedented
constellation
of military bases abroad and, since 9/11, has waged wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya,
and elsewhere that have gobbled up nearly
$4.8 trillion . The 2018 Pentagon budget already totals $647 billion -- four times what China, second
in global military spending, shells out and more than the next 12 countries combined,
seven of them American allies. For good measure, Donald Trump has added an additional
$200 billion to projected defense expenditures through 2019.
Yet to hear the hawks tell it, the United States has never been less secure. So much for
bang for the buck.
For millions of Americans, however, the greatest threat to their day-to-day security isn't
terrorism or North Korea, Iran, Russia, or China. It's internal -- and economic. That's
particularly true for the 12.7% of Americans
(43.1 million of them) classified as poor by the government's criteria : an income below $12,140
for a one-person household, $16,460 for a family of two, and so on until you get to the
princely sum of $42,380 for a family of eight.
Savings aren't much help either: a third of Americans have no
savings at all and another third have less than $1,000 in the bank. Little wonder that
families struggling to cover the cost of food alone increased from 11% (36
million) in 2007 to 14% (48 million) in 2014.
The Working Poor
Unemployment can certainly contribute to being poor, but millions of Americans endure
poverty when they have full-time jobs or even hold down more than one job. The latest figures
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that there are 8.6 million "working poor,"
defined by the government as people who live below the poverty line despite being employed at
least 27 weeks a year. Their economic insecurity doesn't register in our society, partly
because working and being poor don't seem to go together in the minds of many Americans -- and
unemployment has fallen reasonably steadily. After approaching 10% in 2009, it's now at only
4% .
Help from the government? Bill Clinton's 1996 welfare " reform "
program , concocted in partnership with congressional Republicans, imposed time limits on
government assistance, while tightening eligibility criteria for it. So, as Kathryn Edin and
Luke Shaefer show in their disturbing book, $2.00 a Day: Living on
Almost Nothing in America , many who desperately need help don't even bother to apply.
And things will only get worse in the age of Trump. His 2019 budget includes deep cuts in
a raft of anti-poverty programs.
Anyone seeking a visceral sense of the hardships such Americans endure should read Barbara
Ehrenreich's 2001 book Nickel and Dimed: On
(Not) Getting By in America . It's a gripping account of what she learned when, posing
as a "homemaker" with no special skills, she worked for two years in various low-wage jobs,
relying solely on her earnings to support herself. The book brims with stories about people who
had jobs but, out of necessity, slept in rent-by-the-week fleabag motels, flophouses, or even
in their cars, subsisting on vending machine snacks for lunch, hot dogs and instant noodles for
dinner , and forgoing basic dental care or health checkups. Those who managed to get permanent
housing would choose poor, low-rent neighborhoods close to work because they often couldn't
afford a car. To maintain even such a barebones lifestyle, many worked more than one job.
Though politicians prattle on about how times have changed for the better, Ehrenreich's book
still provides a remarkably accurate picture of America's working poor. Over the past decade
the proportion of people who exhausted their monthly paychecks just to pay for life's
essentials actually increased from 31% to 38%. In
2013, 71%
of the families that had children and used food pantries run by Feeding America, the largest
private organization helping the hungry, included at least one person who had worked during the
previous year. And in America's
big cities , chiefly because of a widening gap between rent and wages, thousands of working
poor remain
homeless , sleeping in shelters, on the streets, or in their vehicles, sometimes along with
their families. In New York City, no outlier when it comes to homelessness among the working
poor, in
a third of the families with children that use homeless shelters at least one adult held a
job.
The Wages of Poverty
The working poor cluster in certain occupations. They are salespeople in retail stores,
servers or preparers of fast food, custodial staff, hotel workers, and caregivers for children
or the elderly. Many make less than $10 an hour and lack
any leverage, union or otherwise, to press for raises. In fact, the percentage of unionized workers in such
jobs remains in the single digits -- and in retail and food preparation, it's under 4.5%.
That's hardly surprising, given that private sector union membership has
fallen by 50% since 1983 to only 6.7% of the workforce.
Low-wage employers like it that way and -- Walmart being the
poster child for this -- work diligently to make it ever harder for employees to join unions.
As a result, they rarely find themselves under any real pressure to increase wages, which,
adjusted for inflation, have stood still or even decreased since
the late 1970s. When employment is " at-will
," workers may be fired or the terms of their work amended on the whim of a company and without
the slightest explanation. Walmart announced this year that it would hike its hourly wage to
$11 and that's welcome news. But this had nothing to do with collective bargaining; it was a
response to the drop in the unemployment rate, cash flows from the Trump tax cut for
corporations (which saved Walmart as much as $2
billion ), an increase in minimum wages in a number of states, and pay increases by an arch
competitor, Target. It was also accompanied by the
shutdown of 63 of Walmart's Sam's Club stores, which meant layoffs for 10,000 workers. In
short, the balance of power almost always favors the employer, seldom the employee.
As a result, though the United States has a per-capita income of $59,500
and is among the wealthiest countries in the world, 12.7% of
Americans (that's 43.1 million people), officially are impoverished. And that's generally
considered a significant undercount. The Census Bureau establishes the poverty rate by figuring
out an annual no-frills family food budget, multiplying it by three, adjusting it for household
size, and pegging it to the Consumer Price Index. That, many economists believe, is a woefully
inadequate way of estimating poverty. Food prices haven't risen dramatically over the past 20
years, but the cost of other necessities like medical care (especially if you lack insurance)
and housing have: 10.5% and 11.8% respectively between
2013 and 2017 compared to an only 5.5% increase for food.
Include housing and medical expenses in the equation and you get the Supplementary
Poverty Measure (SPM), published by the Census Bureau since 2011. It reveals that a larger
number of Americans are poor: 14%
or 45 million in 2016.
Dismal Data
For a fuller picture of American (in)security, however, it's necessary to delve deeper into
the relevant data, starting with hourly wages, which are the way more than 58% of adult workers are
paid. The good news: only 1.8 million , or 2.3% of
them, subsist at or below minimum wage. The not-so-good news: one-third of all workers earn
less than $12 an hour and
42% earn less than $15. That's $24,960 and $31,200 a year. Imagine raising a family on such
incomes, figuring in the cost of food, rent, childcare, car payments (since a car is often a
necessity simply to get to a job in a country with inadequate public transportation), and
medical costs.
The problem facing the working poor isn't just low wages, but the widening gap between wages
and rising prices. The government has increased the hourly federal minimum wage more than 20
times since it was set at 25 cents under the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act. Between 2007 and
2009 it rose to $7.25, but over the past decade that sum lost nearly 10% of
its purchasing power to inflation, which means that, in 2018, someone would have to work
41 additional days to make the equivalent of the 2009 minimum wage.
Workers in the lowest 20% have lost the most ground, their inflation-adjusted
wages falling by nearly 1% between 1979 and 2016, compared to a 24.7% increase for the top
20%. This can't be explained by lackluster productivity since, between 1985 and 2015, it
outstripped pay raises, often substantially, in every economic sector except mining.
Yes, states can mandate higher minimum wages and 29 have,
but 21 have not, leaving many low-wage workers struggling to cover the costs of two essentials
in particular: health care and housing.
Even when it comes to jobs that offer health insurance, employers have been shifting ever
more of its cost onto their workers through higher deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses, as
well as by requiring them to cover more of the premiums. The percentage of workers who paid at
least 10% of their earnings to cover such costs -- not counting premiums -- doubled
between 2003 and 2014.
This helps explain why, according to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics , only 11% of workers in the bottom 10% of wage earners even
enrolled in workplace healthcare plans in 2016 (compared to 72% in the top 10%). As a
restaurant server who makes $2.13 an hour before tips -- and whose husband earns $9 an hour at
Walmart --
put it , after paying the rent, "it's either put food in the house or buy insurance."
The Affordable Care Act, or ACA (aka Obamacare), provided subsidies to help people with low
incomes cover the cost of insurance premiums, but workers with employer-supplied healthcare, no
matter how low their wages,
weren't covered by it. Now, of course,
President Trump , congressional
Republicans , and a Supreme Court in which right-wing justices are going to be even
more influential will be intent on poleaxing the ACA.
It's housing, though, that takes the biggest bite out of the paychecks of low-wage workers.
The majority of them are renters. Ownership remains for many a pipe dream. According to a
Harvard study , between 2001 and 2016, renters who made $30,000-$50,000 a year and paid
more than a third of their earnings to landlords (the threshold for qualifying as "rent
burdened") increased from 37% to 50%. For those making only $15,000, that figure rose to
83%.
In other words, in an ever more unequal America, the number of low-income workers struggling
to pay their rent has surged. As the Harvard analysis shows, this is, in part, because the
number of affluent renters (with incomes of $100,000 or more) has leapt and, in city after
city, they're driving the demand for, and building of, new rental units. As a result, the
high-end share of new rental construction soared from a third to nearly two-thirds of all units
between 2001 and 2016. Not surprisingly, new low-income rental units dropped from two-fifths to
one-fifth of the total and, as the pressure on renters rose, so did rents for even those modest
dwellings. On top of that, in places
like New York City , where demand from the wealthy shapes the housing market, landlords
have found ways -- some within the law, others not -- to get rid of low-income tenants.
Public housing and housing
vouchers are supposed to make housing affordable to low-income households, but the
supply of public housing hasn't remotely matched demand. Consequently, waiting lists are
long and people in need languish for years before getting a shot -- if they ever do. Only a
quarter of those who qualify for such assistance receive it. As for those vouchers, getting
them is hard to begin with because of the
massive mismatch between available funding for the program and the demand for the help it
provides. And then come the other
challenges : finding landlords willing to accept vouchers or rentals that are reasonably
close to work and not in neighborhoods euphemistically labelled " distressed ."
The bottom line: more than 75% of "at-risk"
renters (those for whom the cost of rent exceeds 30% or more of their earnings) do not receive
assistance from the government. The real "risk" for them is becoming homeless, which means
relying on shelters or family and friends willing to take them in.
President Trump's proposed budget cuts will make life even harder for low-income workers
seeking affordable housing. His 2019 budget proposal slashes
$6.8 billion (14.2%) from the resources of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development's (HUD) by, among other things, scrapping housing vouchers and assistance to
low-income families struggling to pay heating bills. The president also seeks to slash funds
for the upkeep of public housing by nearly 50%. In addition, the
deficits that his rich-come-first
tax "reform" bill is virtually guaranteed to produce will undoubtedly set the stage for yet
more cuts in the future. In other words, in what's becoming the United States of Inequality,
the very phrases "low-income workers" and "affordable housing" have ceased to go together.
None of this seems to have troubled HUD Secretary Ben Carson who happily ordered a
$31,000 dining room set for his office suite at the taxpayers' expense, even as he
visited
new public housing units to make sure that they weren't too comfortable (lest the poor settle
in for long stays). Carson has
declared that it's time to stop believing the problems of this society can be fixed merely
by having the government throw extra money at them -- unless, apparently, the dining room
accoutrements of superbureaucrats aren't up to snuff.
Money Talks
The levels of poverty and economic inequality that prevail in America are not intrinsic to
either capitalism or globalization. Most other wealthy market economies in the 36-nation
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have done far better than the
United States in reducing them without sacrificing innovation or creating government-run
economies.
Take the poverty gap, which the OECD defines as the difference between a country's official
poverty line and the average income of those who fall below it. The United States has the
second largest
poverty gap among wealthy countries; only Italy does worse.
Child poverty ? In the World Economic Forum's
ranking of 41 countries -- from best to worst -- the U.S. placed 35th. Child poverty has
declined in the United States since 2010, but a Columbia University report estimates that
19% of American kids (13.7 million) nevertheless lived in families with incomes below the
official poverty line in 2016. If you add in the number of kids in low-income households, that
number increases to 41%.
As for infant mortality , according to
the government's own Centers for Disease Control, the U.S., with 6.1 deaths per 1,000 live
births, has the absolute worst record among wealthy countries. (Finland and Japan do best with
2.3.)
And when it comes to the distribution of wealth, among the OECD countries only Turkey,
Chile, and Mexico do worse than the U.S.
It's time to rethink the American national security state with its annual
trillion-dollar budget. For tens of millions of Americans, the source of deep workaday
insecurity isn't the standard roster of foreign enemies, but an ever-more entrenched system of
inequality, still
growing , that
stacks the political deck against the least well-off Americans. They lack the bucks to hire
big-time lobbyists. They can't write lavish checks to candidates running for public office or
fund PACs. They have no way of manipulating the myriad influence-generating networks that the elite uses to shape
taxation and spending policies. They are up against a system in which money truly does talk --
and that's the voice they don't have. Welcome to the United States of Inequality.
Rajan Menon, a
TomDispatch regular, is the Anne and Bernard Spitzer Professor of
International Relations at the Powell School, City College of New York, and Senior Research
Fellow at Columbia University's Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies. He is the author,
most recently, of The Conceit of Humanitarian Intervention .
But Rajan ,the American can always " honor the military " at the fast food drive through,
even send a few pennies for the Wounded Warrior Project ,in addition to buying lotteries, and
writing the tithe to the Mega Churches seeking blessing for the military men and women in
uniform . They can sing with Trump"Make America Great Again " . They can come out of the
woodshed to support wars , say things against Mexican, listen to FOX,and gather around
Prospect park to celebrate birthdays , hop into a bus and continue texting to update the
status on social media . They can nod with MSNBC that they have the best freedom that any
corner of the world can afford . They if white can claim being discriminated by Asian
Americans,if black by Mexicans,if Latinos by whites .
Now it seems they could feel proud of the ability to guide China UK and Brazil/Argentina do
the right things .
Why do these experts fail to understand that our national security budget is twice that of
the Department of Defense? It is no secret, POGO runs a tally showing it's twice as much:
In past blog posts, I explained how illegal immigration is a form of slave labor. It seems
powerful people explained this to former President George W. Bush, but didn't tell him not to
repeat it in public and that Americans no longer pick cotton by hand. As a result, Bush said
this during a speech earlier this year:
"There are people willing to do jobs that Americans won't do. Americans don't want to pick
cotton at 105 degrees, but there are people who want put food on their family's tables and
are willing to do that. We ought to say thank you and welcome them."
Bush failed to note that millionaires pay only $10 an hour with no benefits for these
tough jobs, yet most field workers are US citizens or green card holders. Illegals are hired
to hold down wages and deter unions and strikes. If they would pay $20 an hour, plenty of
Americans would show up to work. Most Americans don't know that millions of white Americans
once picked cotton by hand, and picked more than Blacks or Mexicans.
Articles like this pop up here every now and then.
Something doesn't compute.
If the situation is as grim as the article says, why so many people do their best to
immigrate into USA?
Why more, just Westerners, try to immigrate into USA then Americans into those, just
Western, countries?
I've known some Americans around here where I live.
I've known many more locals who've gone to live in USA, let alone tried to get to live in
USA.
Something simply does not compute.
A simple question for an American:
If a person is prudent and sensible, is it really that hard to get by, unemployed, there?
Now, in similar topic an American did explain, some time ago, that there are so many ways
to help those unemployed/underpaid. That the social security net isn't worse, but actually
overall better, then in other Western countries.
Plus, of course, opportunities.
Again, all that data from the article I can't challenge. What doesn't make sense is net
migration, just within Western sphere.
I do know some people, several dozen I guess, who live in USA. They have been doing quite
well. From a bus driver to a top medical professional.
For a fuller picture of American (in)security, however, it's necessary to delve deeper
into the relevant data, starting with hourly wages, which are the way more than 58% of
adult workers are paid. The good news: only 1.8 million, or 2.3% of them, subsist at or
below minimum wage. The not-so-good news: one-third of all workers earn less than $12 an
hour and 42% earn less than $15. That's $24,960 and $31,200 a year. Imagine raising a
family on such incomes, figuring in the cost of food, rent, childcare, car payments (since
a car is often a necessity simply to get to a job in a country with inadequate public
transportation), and medical costs.
You forgot another expense poor communities have – governmental extraction forces
GEF. Local law enforcement target the poor with the many petty offenses(they've purposely
invented) to extract money for expanding and maintaining of their extortion racket. This no
secret or conspiracy theory, for they readily admit to it. They target the poor because they
understand that the poor do not have resources(lawyers, guns, and money) to fight back. They
target the poor because they're poor, and the poor understand this as just another bill to
pay – another added expense of living in their community.
Another indirect expense that makes all Americans a lot less rich – insurance.
Everything that moves and everything that doesn't is at least singular insured or often
double or tripled insured. Property is a good example of how one entity can be insured three
times over by the owner, renter, contractor, sub-contractor. Your body is another example of
how things "must be insured" ; no surprise when Obama care came along to do just that.
Trump makes clear statements, I too like them.
For me the USA is a third world country, the exceptions are oversized cars and gated
communities.
On one of my visits to the USA I was asked if a child could be medically treated in the
Netherlands, the choice for the parents was letting the child die, or sell their house.
In the Netherlands we have treatments that cost several hundred thousands of euro's per year,
paid for by our medical care system.
Per person we pay about € 100 per month.
Pensions, the same.
Though the EU is busy destroying the best pension systems in the world, those of the
Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries, this has not yet succeeded.
A disaster as the ENRON pension fund cannot happen here.
The USA is a great country to live in if you're rich.
And, of course, if you're willing to have the illusion that the poor have only themselves to
blame for being poor.
USA society, terrible, in my opinion, 19th century, a moneycracy.
Eisenhower in his farewell speech warned for the military industrial complex, do not have the
impression that anything changed since then.
3 weeks after the US-NATO FAILED coup attempt in Georgia (more than 2000 died), the
petrodollar [i.e., the banks) "crashed" (and Bush gave more than additional weapons [for more
than $1 Billion) to Sakashviili] .
Moreover, as Mr Kucinich explain, massive transfers occurred between certain banks
:
The USA is a great country to live in if you're rich."
And if you hold large number of slaves known as immigrants from Central and S America
Immigrants serve same purpose the slaves did . It balances the poor middle class white's rage
that can tilt the anger and hatred against the rich ( mostly white ).
This situation goes right into the creation of US It missed the social and political and
religious changes of 18 th and 19 the centuries which gave birth to pre 2000 political system
and social systems of EU .
Implosion of Soviet lent more credence to the economic-political system of USA because the
blind and the deaf evaluated it for teh blind and the deaf who missed the success of the
system on the back of African Latin American and Asian poor newly independent ) confused )
countries. Those countries provided the ingredients- moral ,economic,emotional , – to
the working white class . It b;bolstered their hatred dismissive attitude to the foreigners
and cemented their love for a hateful system that hurt actually the interest of the middle
class and poor whites but gave them a sense of connection ,belonging,and partnerships through
color language and religion- all are false .
This is the same mindset that glues the the untouchables and the poor Hindus to the RSS- BJP
– Brahmanical system of oppression
On the matter of immigration, even many commentators who support ease of migration also
oppose the extension of government benefits to immigrants.
The idea, of course, is that free movement of labor is fine, but taxpayers shouldn't have to
subsidize it. As a matter of policy, many also find it prudent that immigrants ought to be
economically self sufficient before being offered citizenship. Switzerland, for instance,
makes
it harder to pursue citizenship while receiving social benefits.
This discussion often centers around officially recognized "welfare" and social-benefits
programs such as TANF and Medicaid. But it is also recognized that taxpayer-funded benefits
exist in the form of public schooling, free clinics, and other in-kind benefits.
But there is another taxpayer-supporter program that subsidizes immigration as well: the US
military.
Translation: the US government has begun laying off immigrants from taxpayer-funded
government jobs.
It's unclear how many of these jobs have been employed, but according to the Department of
Homeland security, "[s]ince Oct. 1, 2002, USCIS has naturalized 102,266
members of the military ."
The Military as a Jobs Program
Immigrants, of course, aren't the only people who benefit from government jobs funded
through military programs.
The military has long served as a jobs programs helpful in mopping up excess labor and
padding employment numbers. As Robert Reich noted in
2011 , as the US was still coming out of the 2009 recession:
And without our military jobs program personal incomes would be dropping faster. The
Commerce Department reported Monday the only major metro areas where both net earnings and
personal incomes rose last year were San Antonio, Texas, Virginia Beach, Virginia, and
Washington, D.C. -- because all three have high concentrations of military and federal
jobs.
He's right. While the private sector must cut back and re-arrange labor and capital to deal
with the new economic realities post-recession, government jobs rarely go away.
Because of this, Reich concludes "America's biggest -- and only major -- jobs program is the
U.S. military."
Reich doesn't think this is a bad thing. He only highlights the military's role as a de
facto jobs program in order to call for more de jure jobs programs supported by federal
funding.
Given the political popularity of the military, however, it's always easy to protect funding
for the military jobs programs than for any other potential jobs programs. All the Pentagon has
to do is assure Congress that every single military job is absolutely essential, and Congress
will force taxpayers to cough up the funding.
Back during the debate over sequestration, for example, the Pentagon routinely warned
Congress that any cutbacks in military funding would lead to major jobs losses, bringing
devastation to the economy.
In other words, even the Pentagon treats the military like a jobs program when it's
politically useful.
Benefits for enlisted people go well beyond what can be seen in the raw numbers of total
employed. As Kelley Vlahos
points out at The American Conservative , military personnel receive extra hazard pay "even
though they are far from any fighting or real danger." And then there is the "Combat Zone Tax
Exclusion (CZTE) program which exempts enlisted and officers from paying federal taxes in these
45 designated countries. Again, they get the tax break -- which accounted for about $3.6
billion in tax savings for personnel in 2009 (the combat pay cost taxpayers $790 million in
2009)– whether they are really in danger or not."
Nor do the benefits of military spending go only to enlisted people. The Pentagon has long
pointed to its spending on civilian jobs in many communities, including manufacturing jobs and
white-collar technical jobs.
This, of course, has long been politically useful for the Pentagon as well, since as
political scientist Rebecca Thorpe has shown in her book
The American Warfare State , communities that rely heavily on Pentagon-funded employment
are sure to send Congressmen to Washington who will make sure the taxpayer dollars keep flowing
to Pentagon programs.
Whether you're talking to Robert Reich or some Pentagon lobbyist on Capitol Hill, the
conclusion is clear: the military is both a jobs program and a stimulus program. Cut military
spending at your peril!
Military Spending Destroys Private Sector Jobs
The rub, however, is that military spending doesn't actually improve the economy. And much
the money spent on military employment would be best spent on the private, voluntary
economy.
This has long been recognized by political scientist Seymour Melman who has discussed the
need for "economic conversion," or converting military spending into other forms of spending.
Melman
observes :
Since we know that matter and energy located in Place A cannot be simultaneously located
in Place B, we must understand that the resources used up on military account thereby
represent a preemption of resources from civilian needs of every conceivable kind.
Here, Melman is simply describing in his own way what Murray Rothbard explained in
Man, Economy, and State . Namely, government spending distorts the economy as badly as taxation
-- driving up prices for the private sector, and withdrawing resources from private sector
use.
The military actually destroys jobs in the civilian economy. The higher profits from
cost-plus military manufacturing cause manufacturers to abandon more competitive civilian
endeavors; and the permanent war economy takes engineers, capital and resources away from
civilian production.
But, as a classic case of "the seen" vs. "the unseen," it's easy to point to jobs created by
military spending. How many jobs were lost as a result of that same spending? That remains
unseen, and thus politically irrelevant.
Military fan boys will of course assure us that every single military job and every single
dollar spent on the military is absolutely essential. It's all the service of "fighting for
freedom." For instance, Mitchell Blatt writes , in the
context of immigrant recruits, "I'm not worried about the country or origin of those who are
fighting to defend us. What matters is that our military is as strong as it can be." The idea
at work here is that the US military is a lean machine, doing only what is necessary to get the
job done, and as cost effectively as possible. Thus, hiring the "best" labor, from whatever
source is absolutely essential.
This, however, rather strains the bounds of credibility. The US military is more
expensive than the next eight largest militaries combined . The US's navy is ten times
larger than the next largest navy. The US's air force is the largest in the world, and the
second largest air force belongs, not to a foreign country, but to the US Navy.
Yet, we're supposed to believe that any cuts will imperil the "readiness" of the US
military.
Cut Spending for Citizens and Non-Citizens Alike
My intent here is not to pick on immigrants specifically. The case of military layoffs for
immigrants simply helps to illustrate a couple of important points: government jobs with the
military constitute of form of taxpayer-funded subsidy for immigrants. And secondly, the US
military acts as a job program, not just for immigrants but for many native-born Americans.
In truth, layoffs in the military sector ought to be far more widespread, and hardly limited
to immigrants. The Trump Administration is wrong when it suggests that the positions now held
by immigrant recruits ought to be filled by American-born recruits. Those positions should be
left unfilled. Permanently.
No you retarded fuck, the military is a taxpayer-funed merc army supporting the overseas
hegemonic goals of American-style Corporatism . That the military is full of the sons and
daughters of poor people is only because rich whites won't send their trustfund babies to
kill brown people for oil.
No, asshole. It's about money. About cash and gold. Profit. Markets. Growth. About cheap
or free resources. Access to labor. New customers.
War makes companies rich, it might be the ONLY way they can get rich. War is waged when GM
wants to sell trucks to the Pentagon. When Boeing wants to sell jets. When MIT wants money
for arms research. When NATO wants a reason to exist. The dogs of war are loosed when oil
gets tight. When countries won't "accept our cultural freedoms". When trade agreements aren't
enough to open up new markets.
Isreal has fleeting nothing to do with it, except maybe when war aligns with their
perceived need for hegemony in their own sphere. But by loading all this on Isreal you
encourage others to miss the real fox in the henhouse. You could wipe Isreal off the Earth
tomorrow and still have wars for profit for a thousand years to come.
This nation was born in war. It has practiced war since that day and will be at war with
the rest of the world until humans are killed to the last and the last ounce of profit from
war is had.
or from systematic corruption of all US Institutions and the politicization of all US
Institutions... you need a job, you want to work here, you say this, and you do this, ... tow
the line, no politics, no whistleblowing,... and we won't blackball your ass from the
industry... got it... u got debts, keep ur nose clean!
Yes the pay sucks but you get more done before 8am than most people do in a week. But
seriously its a pretty good gig in the long run. Medical care a decent retirement system,
travel a chance to meet and integrate with different cultures and kill them...its pretty
cool.
Excluding a small percentage, the military is much like the DMV. We have a cartoon vision
of all enlisted being GI Joe, ready to grab a gun and fight evil. This in not the case at
all. Most positions are very simple, repetitive bureaucratic positions. Really is a giant
Jobs program to keep people busy.
"The idea at work here is that the US military is a lean machine, doing only what is
necessary to get the job done, and as cost effectively as possible."
Later "eqality of means" was replaced by "equality of opportunity". Still huge discrepancy in
wealth typical for neoliberalism is socially destructive. And election of Trump was partially a
reaction on neoliberalism dominance for the last 40 ears.
"... The Founders rejected egalitarianism. They understood that no one is, literally,
"created equal" to anyone else. Certainly, each and every person is created with no less or no
more dignity, measured by his or her own unique potential before God. But this is not what most
contemporary writers mean today when they talk of "equality." ..."
"... by our own maximum possibilities and potential ..."
Notable quotes:
"... The Founders rejected egalitarianism. They understood that no one is, literally, "created equal" to anyone else. Certainly, each and every person is created with no less or no more dignity, measured by his or her own unique potential before God. But this is not what most contemporary writers mean today when they talk of "equality." ..."
"... by our own maximum possibilities and potential ..."
For many Americans the Declaration of Independence is a fundamental text that tells the
world who we are as a people. It is a distillation of American belief and purpose. Pundits and
commentators, left and right, never cease reminding us that America is a new nation, "conceived
in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
Almost as important as a symbol of American belief is Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.
It is not incorrect to see a link between these two documents, as Lincoln intentionally placed
his short peroration in the context of a particular reading of the Declaration.
Lincoln bases his concept of the creation of the American nation in philosophical
principles he sees enunciated in 1776, and in particular on an emphasis on the idea of
"equality." The problem is that this interpretation, which forms the philosophical base of both
the dominant "movement conservatism" today -- neoconservatism -- and the neo-Marxist
multicultural Left, is basically false.
... ... ...
Although those authors employed the phrase "all men are created equal," and certainly that
is why Lincoln made direct reference to it, a careful analysis of the Declaration does not
confirm the sense that Lincoln invests in those few words. Contextually, the authors at
Philadelphia were asserting their historic -- and equal -- rights as Englishmen before the
Crown, which had, they believed, been violated and usurped by the British government, and it
was to parliament that the Declaration was primarily directed.
The Founders rejected egalitarianism. They understood that no one is, literally,
"created equal" to anyone else. Certainly, each and every person is created with no less or no
more dignity, measured by his or her own unique potential before God. But this is not what most
contemporary writers mean today when they talk of "equality."
Rather, from a traditionally-Christian viewpoint, each of us is born into this world with
different levels of intelligence, in different areas of expertise; physically, some are
stronger or heavier, others are slight and smaller; some learn foreign languages and write
beautiful prose; others become fantastic athletes or scientists. Social customs and traditions,
property holding, and individual initiative -- each of these factors further discriminate as we
continue in life.
None of this means that we are any less or more valued in the judgment of God, Who judges us
based on our own, very unique capabilities. God measures us by ourselves, by our own
maximum possibilities and potential , not by those of anyone else -- that is, whether we
use our own, individual talents to the very fullest (recall the Parable of the Talents in the
Gospel of St. Matthew).
"All men are created equal" is a simply a rhetorical argument against the "divine right of
kings" used to revive an ancient, fascist, Roman-style Republic style government,
where men of equal political stature are bound together as a band of brothers into a "fasces"
to form a militia, necessary to a free state like Rome once had in its beginning. No king, no
standing army.
Which is why there are fascist symbols throughout the US government, including in the US
Senate. Watch CSPAN if you don't believe me. See those fasces?
And do study what the Founders said more. Like the author of the term "all men are created
equal." He wrote in the same document:
" the merciless Indian Savages " -- Declaration of Independence
Does that sound like he thought whites and Indians were equal? Nope.
He also wrote:
"Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same
government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between
them." (Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography)
Does that sound like he thought blacks and whites were equal? Nope.
So stop spouting false Leftist propaganda about what the term "all men are created equal"
means. All it does is make you sound extremely uninformed.
Yes, there is still an America, living and breathing, somewhat piled-on by Fake
Americans at the moment. Don't give up on the Comeback Kid . You do not want to be as
bitter and wrong as the defeatist Never Trumper" Cuckservatives. The Fake Americans will
have to go back. Just like the Fake Europeans are already going back. Viktor Orban
called Italy's decision to turn away rescue ship a "great moment." And the pendulum is just
beginning to swing. The trend is your friend. Why don't you jump on the team and come on in
for the big win?
Thank you for mentioning Jaffa. I had to look him up. Only Wikipedia so far but I found
something of interest that you might like to comment on. Mention is made of Lincoln rejecting
the Douglas arguments for states's rights on the ground that (majoritarian) democracy should
not be allowed to enslave anyone. Is it possible to say that America's original sin of
slavery ensured that there was an insoluble problem left behind by the original constitution
makers plus the extension of the franchise to all adult white males?
"..a careful analysis of the Declaration does not confirm the sense that Lincoln invests in
those few words. Contextually, the authors at Philadelphia were asserting their historic --
and equal -- rights as Englishmen before the Crown, which had, they believed, been violated
and usurped by the British government,.."
Thank you Mr Cathey. As a non American, I was always puzzled by the obvious falsehood of
the statement "all men created equal" -- particularly in a nation that still legalized
slavery -- and how it could still be repeated ad nauseaum. Interesting, how one victorious
man and one victorious teaching can have such profound consequences for the way people live
and think generations later.
'All men are created equal' is almost the opposite of that other common mistake, 'no pity
for the weak'. Yet both lead to oppressive regimes. A true anthropology will lead to
different healthy political systems. A twisted one, always to repressive institutions.
"All men are created equal" is a simply a rhetorical argument against the "divine right
of kings" used to revive an ancient, fascist, Roman-style Republic style government, where
men of equal political stature are bound together as a band of brothers into a "fasces" to
form a militia, necessary to a free state like Rome once had in its beginning. No king, no
standing army.
My take is a little different, but not incompatible with yours.
The Declaration's assertion is "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights "
So, to begin with, this is not a claim that all men are created equal in ability or
character. The Founders recognized that they were not, and that ordinary social and economic
inequalities, due to innate differences in ability or character, were natural, normal, and
inevitable. The Declaration is first and foremost a legal document. It claims equality of
rights – a legal claim, not a sociological, anthropological, or
psychological one. Moreover, the rights are unalienable – that is, they cannot
be alienated – sold, bartered, or given away – because someone entitled to them
shall have moved from old England to the New World.
The grievance of the colonists was that taxes – the stamp tax, the tea tax, etc.
– had been imposed upon them by the parliament at Westminster, an assembly in which
they were not represented. Hence the slogan, "no taxation without representation." It was a
principle based in the main non-religious issue of the English civil war (1642-1649). Charles
I had attempted to levy "ship money" by royal prerogative, without the consent of Parliament.
Unlike previous levies, which had been confined to coastal towns and were raised only in time
of war, he did so in peacetime and extended the tax to inland areas. This provoked strong
resistance; some local officials refused assistance to collection of the tax. The Petition of
Right, written by Sir Edward Coke, complained:
Your subjects have inherited this freedom, that they should not be compelled to
contribute to any tax, tallage, aid, or other like charge not set by common consent, in
parliament.
Extra-parliamentary taxation was effectively ended by the Long Parliament of 1640. After
the "Glorious Revolution" of 1689, it was formally prohibited by the English Bill of
Rights.
All of this history was much more familiar to the Founders in 1776 than it is to Americans
today. The point of the claim that "all men are created equal" was simply to argue that
Englishmen, under English law, were equally entitled to representation in any assembly that
levied taxes on them, whether they were resident in England or in its colonies.
The argument for levying taxes on the colonies was that they were needed to pay for the
defense of the colonies during what we call the French and Indian War, which was in fact just
the North American theatre of what in Europe is known as the Seven Years' War. That they may
have been needed for this purpose was not in dispute. Englishmen in England were taxed to pay
for the Seven Years' War, but they were represented in the Parliament that levied the tax.
Americans were not. From their point of view the taxes levied on them were as objectionable
as ship money had been to the people of England in the time of Charles I.
The Declaration is therefore a sort of American version of the Petition of Right.
Jefferson was an admirer of Coke and undoubtedly saw the parallel. His high-flown language
about equality was meant to make the case against George III on behalf of English subjects in
North America in the same way that Coke's Petition of Right made the case against Charles I
on behalf of English subjects in England. The colonists' objection was that English subjects,
wheresoever domiciled within English jurisdiction, should have equal rights under English
law.
Jefferson never intended to proclaim the equality of negro slaves or "Indian savages" with
free whites. Jefferson's observations in his Notes on the State of Virginia make quite
clear that he did not believe them to be equals with whites in ability or character. The
Indians he regards as primitives, having some admirable and some frightful qualities, but
above all, as formidable enemies. He despairs of the intelligence of blacks; he faults black
slavery because it brings out lamentable tendencies of laziness and petty tyranny among
whites. These remarks are striking for their candor and have the ring of truth even
today.
I appreciate Mr. Cathey's work here. On Tuesday the 3rd, one of the many overemployed
sycophants in the executive ranks of the corporation which employs me deemed it necessary to
bulk-email all of us peons with the message of how vital diversity and inclusion are
to proper celebration of the 4th. Right -- because reserving mid-January through February for
the blacks, March for women or Hispanics (I forget which), and June for the tutti-fruttis
isn't nearly enough
The Opportunity Dodge, The American Prospect: We think of America
as the land of opportunity, but the United States actually has low rates of upward mobility relative to other advanced nations...
Creating more opportunity is therefore a worthy goal. However, when the goal of more opportunity is offered instead of addressing
income inequality, it's a dodge and an empty promise-because opportunity does not thrive amid great inequalities. ...
The opportunity dodgers .... ignore that income inequality and intergenerational mobility are closely linked..., one
of the most robust and long-standing social science research findings is that ... the circumstances in which children grow up
... greatly shapes educational advancement. So, promoting education solutions to mobility without addressing income inequality
is ultimately playing pretend. We can't substantially change opportunity without changing the actual lived circumstances of
disadvantaged and working-class youth. ...
Acknowledging that income inequality and poverty greatly affect schooling success means we need to improve the circumstances
of poor children's lives by providing stable, adequate housing and healthy, safe environments. Decent income for their parents
is essential. ...
Last, it is important to recognize that some people are always going to end up on the bottom and middle rungs since ... somebody
has to be below average. Economic policy must also be concerned that low- and moderate-income families have decent incomes,
health care, and retirement. The opportunity dodgers are really saying they do not care how low- and middle-income families
actually live.
djb
this is especially true when you see what a farce it is that ivy leagues and other top rated colleges are always trying to
find "worthy" poor kids to come to their school
and how little that actually happens
the little that it does is good
but it is mostly not really happening
because to get the qualifications you really need to go to a rich school with all sorts of supports and training on standardized
tests etc
DrDick
Indeed equal opportunity cannot exist in the presence of high inequality. It is a lie designed to divert the blame from the
rapacious rich to the supposed (and largely nonexistent) faults of the poor.
"... The implications for today are almost painfully straightforward: the current combination of deficit spending and tax cuts spells disaster for any hopes of shrinking America's striking inequality gap . Instead, credit-card war spending is already fueling the dramatic levels of wealth inequality that have led some observers to suggest that we are living in a new Gilded Age , reminiscent of the enormous divide between the opulent lifestyles of the elite and the grinding poverty of the majority of Americans in the late nineteenth century. ..."
"... Today's wars are paid for almost entirely through loans -- 60% from wealthy individuals and governmental agencies like the Federal Reserve, 40% from foreign lenders. Meanwhile, in October 2001, when Washington launched the war on terror, the government also initiated a set of tax cuts, a trend that has only continued. The war-financing strategies that President George W. Bush began have flowed on without significant alteration under Presidents Obama and Trump. (Obama did raise a few taxes, but didn't fundamentally alter the swing towards tax cuts.) President Trump's extreme tax "reform" package, which passed Congress in December 2017 -- a gift-wrapped dream for the 1% -- only enlarged those cuts. ..."
"... However little the public may realize it, Americans are already feeling the costs of their post-9/11 wars. Those have, after all, massively increased the Pentagon's base budget and the moneys that go into the expanding national security budget , while reducing the amount of money left over for so much else from infrastructure investment to science. In the decade following September 11, 2001, military spending increased by 50% , while spending on every other government program increased only 13.5%. ..."
Credit-Card Wars
Today's War-Financing Strategies Will Only Increase Inequality
By Stephanie
Savell
In the name of the fight against terrorism, the United States is currently waging "
credit-card wars " in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere. Never before has this
country relied so heavily on deficit spending to pay for its conflicts. The consequences are
expected to be ruinous for the long-term fiscal health of the U.S., but they go far beyond the
economic. Massive levels of war-related debt will have lasting repercussions of all sorts. One
potentially devastating effect, a
new study finds, will be more societal inequality.
In other words, the staggering costs of the longest war in American history -- almost 17
years running, since the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 -- are being deferred to the
future. In the process, the government is contributing to this country's skyrocketing income
inequality.
Since 9/11, the U.S. has spent
$5.6 trillion on its war on terror, according to the Costs of War Project, which I co-direct, at Brown
University's Watson Institute for
International and Public Affairs . This is a far higher number than the Pentagon's
$1.5 trillion estimate,
which only counts expenses for what are known as "overseas contingency operations," or OCO --
that is, a pot of supplemental money, outside the regular annual budget, dedicated to funding
wartime operations. The $5.6 trillion figure, on the other hand, includes not just what the
U.S. has spent on overseas military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Syria, but
also portions of Homeland Security spending related to counterterrorism on American soil, and
future obligations to care for wounded or traumatized post-9/11 military veterans. The
financial burden of the post-9/11 wars across the Greater Middle East -- and still
spreading , through Africa and other regions -- is far larger than most Americans
recognize.
During prior wars, the U.S. adjusted its budget accordingly by, among other options, raising
taxes to pay for its conflicts. Not so since 2001, when President George W. Bush launched the
"Global War on Terror." Instead, the country has accumulated a staggering amount of debt. Even
if Washington stopped spending on its wars tomorrow, it will still, thanks to those conflicts,
owe more than
$8 trillion in interest alone by the 2050s.
Putting the Gilded Age to Shame
It's hard to fathom what that enormous level of debt will do to our economy and society. A
new Costs of War study by political scientist and historian Rosella Capella Zielinski
offers initial clues about its impact here. She takes a look at how the U.S. has paid for its
conflicts from the War of 1812 through the two World Wars and Vietnam to the present war on
terror. While a range of taxes, bond sales, and other mechanisms were used to raise funds to
fight such conflicts, no financial strategy has relied so exclusively on borrowing -- until
this century. Her study also explores how each type of war financing has affected inequality
levels in this country in the aftermath of those conflicts.
The implications for today are almost painfully straightforward: the current combination
of deficit spending and tax cuts spells disaster for any hopes of shrinking America's striking
inequality gap . Instead, credit-card war spending is already fueling the dramatic levels
of wealth inequality that have led some observers to suggest that we are living in a new
Gilded Age , reminiscent
of the enormous divide between the opulent lifestyles of the elite and the grinding poverty of
the majority of Americans in the late nineteenth century.
Capella Zielinski carefully breaks down what effects the methods used to pay for various
wars have had on subsequent levels of social inequality. During the Civil War, for example, the
government relied primarily on loans from private donors. After that war was over, the American
people had to pay those loans back with interest, which proved a bonanza for financial elites,
primarily in the North. Those wealthy lenders became wealthier still and everyone else, whose
taxes reimbursed them, poorer.
In contrast, during World War I, the government launched a war-bond campaign that targeted
low-income people. War savings stamps were offered for as little as 25 cents and war savings
certificates in denominations starting at $25. Anyone who could make a small down payment could
buy a war bond for $50 and cover the rest of what was owed in installments. In this way, the
war effort promoted savings and, in its wake, a striking number of low-income Americans were
repaid with interest, decreasing the inequality levels of that era.
Taxation strategies have varied quite significantly in various war periods as well. During
World War II, for instance, the government raised tax rates five times between 1940 and 1944,
levying progressively steeper ones on higher income brackets (up to 65% on incomes over $1
million). As a result, though government debt was substantial in the aftermath of a global
struggle fought on many fronts, the impact on low-income Americans could have been far worse.
In contrast, the Vietnam War era began with a tax cut and, in the aftermath of that disastrous
conflict, the U.S. had to deal with unprecedented levels of inflation. Low-income households
bore the brunt of those higher costs, leading to greater inequality.
Today's wars are paid for almost entirely through loans -- 60% from wealthy individuals
and governmental agencies like the Federal Reserve, 40% from foreign lenders. Meanwhile, in
October 2001, when Washington launched the war on terror, the government also initiated a set
of tax cuts, a trend that has only continued. The war-financing strategies that President
George W. Bush began have flowed on without significant alteration under Presidents Obama and
Trump. (Obama did raise a few taxes, but didn't fundamentally
alter the swing towards tax cuts.) President Trump's extreme tax "reform" package, which
passed Congress in December 2017 -- a gift-wrapped dream
for the 1% -- only enlarged those cuts.
In other words, in this century, Washington has combined the domestic borrowing patterns of
the Civil War with the tax cuts of the Vietnam era. That means one predictable thing: a rise in
inequality in a country in which the income inequality gap is already heading
for record territory.
Just to add to the future burden of it all, this is the first time government wartime
borrowing has relied so heavily on foreign debt. Though there is no way of knowing how this
will affect inequality here in the long run, one thing is already obvious: it will transfer
wealth outside the country.
Economist
Linda Bilmes has
argued that there's another new factor involved in Washington's budgeting of today's wars.
In every other major American conflict, after an initial period, war expenditures were
incorporated into the regular defense budget. Since 2001, however, the war on terror has been
funded mainly by supplemental appropriations (those Overseas
Contingency Operations funds), subject to very little oversight. Think of the OCO as a
slush fund
that insures one thing: the true impact of this era's war funding won't hit until far later
since such appropriations are exempt from spending caps and don't have to be
offset elsewhere in the budget.
According to Bilmes, "This process is less transparent, less accountable, and has rendered
the cost of the wars far less visible." As a measure of the invisible impact of war funding in
Washington and elsewhere, she
calculates that, while the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense discussed war
financing in 79% of its hearings during the Vietnam era, since 9/11, there have been similar
mentions at only 17% of such hearings. For its part, the Senate Finance Committee has discussed
war-funding strategy in a thoroughgoing way only once in almost 17 years.
Hidden Tradeoffs and Deferred Costs
The effect of this century's unprecedented budgetary measures is that, for the most part,
the American people don't feel the financial weight of the wars their government is waging --
or rather, they feel it, but don't recognize it for what it is. This corresponds remarkably
well with the wars themselves, fought by a non-draft
military in distant lands and largely
ignored in this country (at least since the vast public demonstrations against the coming
invasion of Iraq ended in the spring of 2003). The
blowback from those wars, the way they are coming home, has also been ignored, financially
and otherwise.
However little the public may realize it, Americans are already feeling the costs of
their post-9/11 wars. Those have, after all, massively increased the Pentagon's base budget and
the moneys that go into the expanding
national security budget , while reducing the amount of money left over for so much else
from infrastructure
investment to science. In the decade following September 11, 2001, military spending
increased by
50% , while spending on every other government program increased only 13.5%.
How exactly does this trade-off work? The National
Priorities Project explains it well. Every year the federal government negotiates levels of
discretionary spending (as distinct from mandatory spending, which largely consists of Social
Security and Medicare). In 2001, there were fewer
discretionary funds allocated to defense than to non-defense programs, but the ensuing war on
terror dramatically inflated military spending relative to other parts of the budget. In 2017,
military and national security spending accounted for 53% of discretionary spending. The 2018
congressionally approved omnibus spending package allocates $700 billion for the military and
$591 billion for non-military purposes, leaving that proportion about the same. (Keep in mind,
that those totals don't even include all the money flowing into that Overseas Contingency
Operations fund). President Trump's proposals for future spending, if accepted by Congress,
would ensure that, by 2023, the proportion of military spending would soar to
65% .
In other words, the rise in war-related military expenditures entails losses for other areas
of federal funding. Pick your issue: crumbling bridges, racial justice, housing, healthcare,
education, climate change -- and it's all being affected by how much this country spends on
war.
Nonetheless, thanks to its credit-card version of war financing, the government has
effectively deferred most of the financial costs of its unending conflicts to the future. This,
in turn, contributes to how
detached most Americans tend to feel from the very fact that their country is now eternally
at war. Political scientist and policy analyst Sarah Kreps argues that Americans become
invested in how a war is being conducted only when they're asked to pay for it. In her
examination of the history of the financing of American wars, she
writes , "The visibility and intrusiveness of taxes are exactly what make individuals
scrutinize the service for which the resources are being used." If there were war taxes today,
their unpopularity would undoubtedly lead Americans to question the costs and consequences of
their country's wars in ways now missing from today's public conversation.
Pressing for a real war budget, though, is not only a mechanism to alert Americans to the
effects (on them) of the wars their government is fighting. It is also a potential lever
through which citizens could affect the country's foreign policy and pressure elected
officials to bring those wars to an end. Some civic groups and activists from across the
political spectrum have indeed been pushing to reduce the Pentagon budget, bloated by war,
corruption , and
fear-mongering . They are, however, up against both the power of an ascendant
military-industrial complex and wars that have been organized, in their funding and in so many
other ways, not to be noticed.
Those who care about this country's economic future would be remiss not to include today's
war financing strategy among the country's most urgent fiscal challenges. Anyone interested in
improving American democracy and the well-being of its people should begin by connecting the
budgetary dots. The more money this country spends on military activities, the more public
coffers will be depleted by war-related interest payments and the less public funding there
will be for anything else. In short, it's time for Americans worried about living in a country
whose inequality gap could soon surpass that of the Gilded Age to begin paying real attention
to our " credit-card
wars ."
"... In 2015, suicides accounted for over 60 percent of gun deaths in the U.S., while homicides made up around 36 percent of that year's total. Guns are consistently the most common method by which people take their own lives. ..."
"... When veterans return home from chaotic war zones, resuming normal civilian life can present major difficulties. The stresses of wartime create a long-term, sustained "fight-or-flight" response, not only producing physical symptoms such as sweating, shaking or a racing heart rate, but inflicting a mental and moral toll as well. ..."
"... "Over the course of the year I was there, the units I was embedded with lost three men, and all of them were lost to suicide, not to enemy action," Van Buren said. "This left an extraordinary impression on me, and triggered in me some of the things that I write about." ..."
"... If you enjoyed this original article please consider making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one. ..."
At War With Ourselves: The Domestic Consequences of Foreign Policies June 25, 2018 •
72 Comments
There is a direct connection between gun violence and suicide rates in the United States and America's aggressive foreign policy,
argues Will Porter.
How America's Gun Violence Epidemic May Have Roots in Overseas War Zones
By Will Porter Special to Consortium News
In recent months a string of school shootings in the United States has rekindled the debate
over gun violence, its causes and what can be done to stop it. But amid endless talk of school shootings and AR-15s, a large piece
of the puzzle has been left conspicuously absent from the debate.
Contrary to the notion that mass murderers are at the heart of America's gun violence problem, data from recent years reveals
that the majority of gun deaths are self-inflicted.
In 2015, suicides accounted for
over 60 percent of gun deaths
in the U.S., while homicides made up around 36 percent of that year's total. Guns are consistently the
most common method by which people take their own
lives.
While the causes of America's suicide-driven gun epidemic are complex and myriad, it's clear that one group contributes to the
statistics above all others: military veterans.
Beyond the Physical
According to a
2016 study conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs, on average some 20 veterans commit suicide every single day, making
them among the most prone to take their own lives compared to people working in other professions. Though they comprise under 9 percent
of the American population, veterans
accounted for 18 percent of suicides in the U.S. in 2014.
When veterans return home from chaotic war zones, resuming normal civilian life can present major difficulties. The stresses of
wartime create a long-term, sustained "fight-or-flight" response, not only producing physical symptoms such as sweating, shaking
or a racing heart rate, but inflicting a mental and moral toll as well.
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) accounts for some of the physiological effects of trauma, the "fight-or-flight" response,
but the distinct mental, moral and spiritual anguish experienced by many veterans and other victims of trauma has been termed "
moral injury ."
A better understanding of that concept and the self-harm it motivates could go a long way toward explaining, and ultimately solving,
America's suicide epidemic.
"Moral injury looks beyond the physical and asks who we are as people," Peter Van Buren, a former State Department Foreign Service
officer, said in an interview. "It says that we know right from wrong, and that when we violate right and wrong, we injure ourselves.
We leave a scar on ourselves, the same as if we poked ourselves with a knife."
While not a veteran himself, during his tenure with the Foreign Service Van Buren served for one year alongside American soldiers
at a forward operating base in Iraq. His experiences there would stick with him for life.
"Over the course of the year I was there, the units I was embedded with lost three men, and all of them were lost to suicide,
not to enemy action," Van Buren said. "This left an extraordinary impression on me, and triggered in me some of the things that I
write about."
Van Buren: A profound sense of guilt.
After retiring from the Foreign Service, Van Buren began research for his novel "
Hooper's War ," a fictional account set in WWII Japan. The book centers on American
veteran, Nate Hooper, and explores the psychological costs paid by those who survive a war. Van Buren said if he set the book in
the past, he thought he could better explore the subject matter without the baggage of current-day politics.
In his research, Van Buren interviewed Japanese civilians who were children at the time of the conflict and found surprising parallels
with the soldiers he served with in Iraq. Post-war guilt, he found, does not only afflict the combatants who fight and carry out
grisly acts of violence, but civilians caught in the crossfire as well.
For many, merely living through a conflict when others did not is cause for significant distress, a condition known as "survivor's
guilt."
"In talking with them I heard so many echoes of what I'd heard from the soldiers in Iraq, and so many echoes of what I felt myself,
this profound sense of guilt," Van Buren said.
'We Killed Them'
Whether it was something a soldier did, saw or failed to prevent, feelings of guilt can leave a permanent mark on veterans after
they come home.
Brian Ellison, a combat veteran who served under the National Guard in Iraq in 2004, said he's still troubled by his wartime experiences.
Stationed at a small, under protected maintenance garage in the town of ad-Diwaniyah in a southeastern province of Iraq, Ellison
said his unit was attacked on a daily basis.
"From the day we got there, we would get attacked every night like clockwork -- mortars, RPGs," Ellison said. "We had no protection;
we had no weapons systems on the base."
On one night in April of 2004, after a successful mission to obtain ammunition for the base's few heavy weapons, Ellison's unit
was ready to hit back.
"So we got some rounds for the Mark 19 [a belt-fed automatic grenade launcher] and we basically used it as field artillery, shot
it up in the air and lobbed it in," Ellison said. "Finally on the last night we were able to get them to stop shooting, but that
was because we killed 5 of them. At the time this was something I was proud of. We were like 'We got them, we got our revenge.'"
U.S. military poster. (Health.mil)
"In retrospect, it's like here's this foreign army, and we're in their neighborhood," Ellison said. "They're defending their neighborhood,
but they're the bad guys and we're the good guys, and we killed them. I think about stuff like that a lot."
Despite his guilt, Ellison said he was able to sort through the negative feelings by speaking openly and honestly about his experiences
and actions. Some veterans have a harder time, however, including one of Ellison's closest friends.
"He ended up going overseas like five times," Ellison said. "Now he's retired and he can't even deal with people. He can't
deal with people, it's sad. He was this funny guy, everybody's friend, easy to get along with, now he's a recluse. It's really weird
to see somebody like that. He had three young kids and a happy personality, now he's broken."
In addition to the problems created in their personal relationships, the morally injured also often turn to self-destructive habits
to cope with their despair.
"In the process of trying to shut this sound off in your head -- this voice of conscience -- many people turn to drugs and alcohol
as a way of shutting that voice up, at least temporarily," Van Buren said. "You hope at some point it shuts up permanently . . .
Unfortunately, I think that many people do look for the permanent silence of suicide as a way of escaping these feelings."
A Hero's Welcome?
By now most are familiar with the practice of celebrating veterans as heroes upon their return from war, but few realize what
psychological consequences such apparently benevolent gestures can have.
"I think the healthiest thing a vet can do is to come to terms with reality," Ellison said. "It's so easy to get swept up -- when
we came home off the plane, there was a crowd of people cheering for us. I just remember feeling dirty. I felt like 'I don't want
you to cheer for us,' but at the same time it's comforting. It's a weird dynamic. Like, I could just put this horror out of my mind
and pretend we were heroes."
"But the terrible part is that, behind that there's reality," Ellison said. "Behind that, we know what we were doing; we know
that we weren't fighting for freedom. So when somebody clings onto this 'we were heroes' thing, I think that's bad for them. They
have to be struggling with it internally. I really believe that's one of the biggest things that contributes to people committing
suicide. They're not able to talk about it, not able to bring it to the forefront and come to terms with it."
Unclear Solution
According to the 2016 VA study, 70 percent of veterans who commit suicide are not regular users of VA services.
The Department of Veteran Affairs was set up in 1930 to handle medical care, benefits and burials for veterans, but some 87 years
later, the department is plagued by scandal and mismanagement. Long wait times,
common to
many government-managed
healthcare systems, discourage veterans from seeking the department's assistance, especially those with urgent psychiatric needs.
An independent review was carried out in 2014 by the VA's Inspector General, Richard Griffin, which
found that at one Arizona VA facility, 1,700 veterans were on wait lists, waiting an average of 115 days before getting an initial
appointment.
"People don't generally seek medical help because the [VA] system is so inefficient and ineffective; everyone feels like it's
a waste of time," said a retired senior non-commissioned officer in the Special Operations Forces (SOF) who wished to remain anonymous.
"The system is so bad, even within the SOF world where I work, that I avoid going at all costs," the retired officer said. "I
try to get my guys to civilian hospitals so that they can get quality healthcare instead of military healthcare."
Beyond institutions, however, both Ellison and Van Buren agreed that speaking openly about their experiences has been a major
step on their road back to normalcy. Open dialogue, then, is not only one way for veterans and other victims of trauma to heal, it
may ultimately be the key to solving America's epidemic of gun violence.
The factors contributing to mass murders, school shootings and private crime are, no doubt, important to study, but so long as
suicide is left out of the public discourse on guns, genuine solutions may always be just out of reach.
Will Porter is a journalist who specializes in U.S. foreign policy and Middle East affairs. He writes for the Libertarian
Institute and tweets at @WKPancap.
If you enjoyed this original article please consider
making
a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one.
"... 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.
"... You arrive at the Supercuts fresh from your stroll, but the nice lady who cuts your hair is looking stressed. You'll discover that she commutes an hour through jammed highways to work. The gas guy does, too, and the tile guy comes in from another state. None of them can afford to live around here. The rent is too damn high. ..."
From my Brookline home, it's a pleasant, 10-minute walk to get a haircut. Along the way, you
pass immense elm trees and brochure-ready homes beaming in their reclaimed Victorian glory.
Apart from a landscaper or two, you are unlikely to spot a human being in this wilderness of
oversize closets, wood-paneled living rooms, and Sub-Zero refrigerators.
If you do run into a
neighbor, you might have a conversation like this: "Our kitchen remodel went way over budget.
We had to fight just to get the tile guy to show up!" "I know! We ate Thai takeout for a month
because the gas guy's car kept breaking down!"
You arrive at the Supercuts fresh from your
stroll, but the nice lady who cuts your hair is looking stressed. You'll discover that she
commutes an hour through jammed highways to work. The gas guy does, too, and the tile guy comes
in from another state. None of them can afford to live around here. The rent is too damn
high.
From 1980 to 2016, home values in
Boston multiplied 7.6 times. When you take account of inflation, they generated a return of 157
percent to their owners. San Francisco returned 162 percent in real terms over the same period;
New York, 115 percent; and Los Angeles, 114 percent. If you happen to live in a neighborhood
like mine, you are surrounded by people who consider themselves to be real-estate geniuses.
(That's one reason we can afford to make so many mistakes in the home-renovation department.)
If you live in St. Louis (3 percent) or Detroit (minus 16 percent), on the other hand, you
weren't so smart. In 1980, a house in St. Louis would trade for a decent studio apartment in
Manhattan.
Today that house will buy an 80-square-foot bathroom in the Big Apple.
The returns on (the right kind of) real estate have been so extraordinary that, according to
some economists, real estate alone may account for essentially all of the increase in wealth
concentration over the past half century. It's not surprising that the values are up in the
major cities: These are the gold mines of our new economy. Yet there is a paradox. The rent is
so high that people -- notably people in the middle class -- are leaving town rather than
working the mines. From 2000 to 2009, the San Francisco Bay Area had some of the highest
salaries in the nation, and yet it lost 350,000 residents to lower-paying regions.
Across the
United States, the journalist and economist Ryan Avent writes in
The Gated City , "the best opportunities are found in one place, and for some reason
most Americans are opting to live in another."
It is well known by now that the immediate cause of the insanity is the unimaginable
pettiness of backyard politics. Local zoning regulation imposes excessive restrictions on
housing development and drives up prices. What is less well understood is how central the
process of depopulating the economic core of the nation is to the intertwined stories of rising
inequality and falling social mobility.
Real-estate inflation has brought with it a commensurate increase in economic segregation.
Every hill and dale in the land now has an imaginary gate, and it tells you up front exactly
how much money you need to stay there overnight. Educational segregation has accelerated even
more. In my suburb of Boston, 53 percent of adults have a graduate degree. In the suburb just
south, that figure is 9 percent.
This economic and educational sorting of neighborhoods is often represented as a matter of
personal preference, as in red people like to hang with red, and blue with blue. In reality,
it's about the consolidation of wealth in all its forms, starting, of course, with money.
Gilded zip codes are located next to giant cash machines: a too-big-to-fail bank, a friendly
tech monopoly, and so on. Local governments, which collected a record $523 billion in property
taxes in 2016, make sure that much of the money stays close to home.
But proximity to economic power isn't just a means of hoarding the pennies; it's a force of
natural selection. Gilded zip codes deliver higher life expectancy, more-useful social
networks, and lower crime rates. Lengthy commutes, by contrast, cause obesity, neck pain,
stress, insomnia, loneliness, and divorce, as Annie Lowrey reported in Slate . One study
found that a commute of 45 minutes or longer by one spouse
increased the chance of divorce by 40 percent .
Nowhere are the mechanics of the growing geographic divide more evident than in the system
of primary and secondary education. Public schools were born amid hopes of opportunity for all;
the best of them have now been effectively reprivatized to better serve the upper classes.
According to a widely used school-ranking service, out of more than 5,000 public elementary
schools in California, the top 11 are located in Palo Alto. They're free and open to the
public. All you have to do is move into a town where the median home value is $3,211,100.
Scarsdale, New York, looks like a steal in comparison: The public high schools in that area
funnel dozens of graduates to Ivy League colleges every year, and yet the median home value is
a mere $1,403,600.
Racial segregation has declined with the rise of economic segregation. We in the 9.9 percent
are proud of that. What better proof that we care only about merit? But we don't really want
too much proof. Beyond a certain threshold -- 5 percent minority or 20 percent, it varies
according to the mood of the region -- neighborhoods suddenly go completely black or brown. It
is disturbing, but perhaps not surprising, to find that social mobility is lower in regions
with high levels of racial segregation. The fascinating revelation in the data, however, is
that the damage isn't limited to the obvious victims. According to Raj Chetty's research
team , "There is evidence that higher racial segregation is associated with lower social
mobility for white people." The relationship doesn't hold in every zone of the country, to be
sure, and is undoubtedly the statistical reflection of a more complex set of social mechanisms.
But it points to a truth that America's 19th-century slaveholders understood very well:
Dividing by color remains an effective way to keep all colors of the 90 percent in their
place.
With localized wealth comes localized political power, and not just of the kind that shows
up in voting booths. Which brings us back to the depopulation paradox. Given the social and
cultural capital that flows through wealthy neighborhoods, is it any wonder that we can defend
our turf in the zoning wars? We have lots of ways to make that sound public-spirited. It's all
about saving the local environment, preserving the historic character of the neighborhood, and
avoiding overcrowding. In reality, it's about hoarding power and opportunity inside the walls
of our own castles. This is what aristocracies do.
Zip code is who we are. It defines our style, announces our values, establishes our status,
preserves our wealth, and allows us to pass it along to our children. It's also slowly
strangling our economy and killing our democracy. It is the brick-and-mortar version of the
Gatsby Curve. The traditional story of economic growth in America has been one of arriving,
building, inviting friends, and building some more. The story we're writing looks more like one
of slamming doors shut behind us and slowly suffocating under a mass of commercial-grade
kitchen appliances.
7. Our Blind Spot
In my family, Aunt Sarah was the true believer. According to her version of reality, the
family name was handed down straight from the ancient kings of Scotland.
Great-great-something-grandfather William Stewart, a soldier in the Continental Army, was
seated at the right hand of George Washington. And Sarah herself was somehow descended from
"Pocahontas's sister." The stories never made much sense. But that didn't stop Sarah from
believing in them. My family had to be special for a reason.
The 9.9 percent are different. We don't delude ourselves about the ancient sources of our
privilege. That's because, unlike Aunt Sarah and her imaginary princesses, we've convinced
ourselves that we don't have any privilege at all.
Consider the reception that at least some members of our tribe have offered to those who
have foolishly dared to draw attention to our advantages. Last year, when the Brookings
Institution researcher Richard V. Reeves, following up on his book Dream Hoarders ,
told
the readers of The New York Times to "Stop Pretending You're Not Rich," many of
those readers accused him of engaging in "class warfare," of writing "a meaningless article,"
and of being "rife with guilt."
In her incisive portrait of my people, Uneasy Street , the sociologist Rachel Sherman
documents the syndrome. A number among us, when reminded of our privilege, respond with a
counternarrative that generally goes like this: I was born in the street. I earned
everything all by myself. I barely get by on my $250,000 salary. You should see the other
parents at our kids' private school.
In part what we have here is a listening problem. Americans have trouble telling the
difference between a social critique and a personal insult. Thus, a writer points to a broad
social problem with complex origins, and the reader responds with, "What, you want to punish me
for my success?"
In part, too, we're seeing some garden-variety self-centeredness, enabled by the usual
cognitive lapses. Human beings are very good at keeping track of their own struggles; they are
less likely to know that individuals on the other side of town are working two minimum-wage
jobs to stay afloat, not watching Simpsons reruns all day. Human beings have a simple
explanation for their victories: I did it . They easily forget the people who handed
them the crayon and set them up for success. Human beings of the 9.9 percent variety also
routinely conflate the stress of status competition with the stress of survival. No, failing to
get your kid into Stanford is not a life-altering calamity.
The recency of it all may likewise play a role in our failure to recognize our growing
privileges. It has taken less than one lifetime for the (never fully formed) meritocracy to
evolve into a (fledgling) aristocracy. Class accretes faster than we think. It's our awareness
that lags, trapping us within the assumptions into which we were born.
And yet, even allowing for these all-too-human failures of cognition, the cries of anguish
that echo across the soccer fields at the mere suggestion of unearned privilege are too
persistent to ignore. Fact-challenged though they may be, they speak to a certain, deeper truth
about life in the 9.9 percent. What they are really telling us is that being an aristocrat is
not quite what it is cracked up to be.
A strange truth about the Gatsby Curve is that even as it locks in our privileges, it
doesn't seem to make things all that much easier. I know it wasn't all that easy growing up in
the Colonel's household, for example. The story that Grandfather repeated more than any other
was the one where, following some teenage misdemeanor of his, his father, the 250-pound,
6-foot-something onetime Rough Rider, smacked him so hard that he sailed clear across the room
and landed flat on the floor. Everything -- anything -- seemed to make the Colonel angry.
Jay Gatsby might have understood. Life in West Egg is never as serene as it seems. The
Princeton man -- that idle prince of leisure who coasts from prep school to a life of ease --
is an invention of our lowborn ancestors. It's what they thought they saw when they were
looking up. West Eggers understand very well that a bad move or an unlucky break (or three or
four) can lead to a steep descent. We know just how expensive it is to live there, yet living
off the island is unthinkable. We have intuited one of the fundamental paradoxes of life on the
Gatsby Curve: The greater the inequality, the less your money buys.
We feel in our bones that class works only for itself; that every individual is dispensable;
that some of us will be discarded and replaced with fresh blood. This insecurity of privilege
only grows as the chasm beneath the privileged class expands. It is the restless engine that
drives us to invest still more time and energy in the walls that will keep us safe by keeping
others out.
Perhaps the best evidence for the power of an aristocracy is the degree of
resentment it provokes. By that measure, the 9.9 percent are doing pretty well indeed.
Here's another fact of life in West Egg: Someone is always above you. In Gatsby's case, it
was the old-money people of East Egg. In the Colonel's case, it was John D. Rockefeller Jr.
You're always trying to please them, and they're always ready to pull the plug.
The source of the trouble, considered more deeply, is that we have traded rights for
privileges. We're willing to strip everyone, including ourselves, of the universal right to a
good education, adequate health care, adequate representation in the workplace, genuinely equal
opportunities, because we think we can win the game. But who, really, in the end, is going to
win this slippery game of escalating privileges?
Under the circumstances, delusions are understandable. But that doesn't make them salutary,
as Aunt Sarah discovered too late. Even as the last few pennies of the Colonel's buck trickled
down to my father's generation, she still had the big visions that corresponded to her version
of the family mythology. Convinced that she had inherited a head for business, she bet her
penny on the dot-com bubble. In her final working years, she donned a red-and-black uniform and
served burgers at a Wendy's in the vicinity of Jacksonville, Florida.
"... 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.
"... 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.
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.
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.
"... 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.
(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.
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".
"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.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
Economist Linda Bilmes has argued that there's another new factor involved in Washington's budgeting of today's wars. In every other major American conflict, after an initial period, war expenditures were incorporated into the regular defense budget. Since 2001, however, the war on terror has been funded mainly by supplemental appropriations (those Overseas Contingency Operations funds), subject to very little oversight. Think of the OCO as a slush fund that insures one thing: the true impact of this era's war funding won't hit until far later since such appropriations are exempt from spending caps and don't have to be offset elsewhere in the budget.
JamesT said in reply to Terry... Terry
