Atomization of workforce and establishment of national security state after 9/11 so far prevented
large organized collective actions (recent riots were not organized, and with the current technical
capabilities of the three letter agencies any organization is difficult or impossible). I think that
conversion of the state into national security state was the key factor that saved a couple of the most
notorious neoliberals from being hanged on the electrical posts in 2008 although I remember slogan "Jump
suckers" on the corner of Wall Street.
But neoliberal attacks on labor and especially organized labor started much earlier with Ronald Reagan and then continued
under all subsequent presidents with Bill Clinton doing the bulk of this dirty job. Clinton's creation
of the "New labor" (read neoliberal stooges of Wall Street masked as Democratic Party) was
based on explicit betrayal or workers (" they have nowhere to go") . And for several election
cycles that was true.
But eventually
that changes. Vichy left, represented by "Clintonized" Democratic Party got a crushing defeat in 2016
Presidential elections. Does not mean that Trump is better or less neoliberal, but it does suggest that
working class does not trust Democratic Party any longer.
2008 was the time of the crisis of neoliberal ideology, much like Prague spring signified the crisis
of Communist ideology. While there was some level of harassment, individual beatings of banksters in
2008 were non-existent.
Neoliberalism is the key reason fro the drop in life expectancy
Notable quotes:
"... Declines or stagnation in longevity can signal catastrophic events or deep problems in a society, researchers say. ..."
"... More deaths from homicide, diabetes and chronic liver disease -- which is related to heavy alcohol use -- also contributed to last year's life expectancy drop, the CDC said ..."
"... The declines were largest for Hispanic and Black people, who as population groups were disproportionately affected by the pandemic . The largest drop for any cohort was 3.7 years, for Hispanic men, bringing their life expectancy to 75.3 years of age. ..."
Life expectancy in the U.S. fell by 1.5 years in 2020, the biggest decline since at least
World War II, as the Covid-19 pandemic killed hundreds of thousands and exacerbated crises in
drug overdoses , homicides and some chronic diseases.
... ... ...
The full toll of the pandemic has yet to be seen, doctors and public-health officials said.
Many people skipped or delayed treatment last year for conditions such as diabetes or high
blood pressure and endured isolation, stress and interruptions in normal diet and exercise
routines.
"That has led to intermediate and longer-term effects we will have to deal with for years to
come," said Donald Lloyd-Jones, chair of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern
University Feinberg School of Medicine and president of the American Heart Association.
Life expectancy is a measure of a nation's well-being and prosperity, based on mortality in
a given year. Declines or stagnation in longevity can signal catastrophic events or deep
problems in a society, researchers say. Life expectancy fell in the U.S. by 11.8 years in
1918, during a world-wide flu pandemic. Many victims were young.
... ... ...
More deaths from homicide, diabetes and chronic liver disease -- which is related to
heavy alcohol use -- also contributed to last year's life expectancy drop, the CDC said...
Life expectancy would have fallen even more, the CDC said, if not for decreases in mortality
due to cancer, chronic lower-respiratory diseases such as bronchitis, emphysema and asthma, and
other factors.
The declines were largest for Hispanic and Black people, who as population groups were
disproportionately affected by the pandemic . The largest drop for any cohort was 3.7
years, for Hispanic men, bringing their life expectancy to 75.3 years of age.
U.S. longevity had been largely stagnant since 2010, even declining in three of those years,
due in part to an increase in
deaths from drug overdoses , rising death rates
from heart disease for middle-aged Americans and other public health crises. "Getting back
to where we were before the pandemic is a very bad place," said Steven Woolf, director emeritus
of the Center on Society and Health at the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine
and author of a recent study comparing the effects of the pandemic on life expectancy in the
U.S. and other high-income countries. "We've got a larger problem here."
... ... ...
Drug-overdose deaths rose nearly 30% last year, driven by a proliferation of the deadly
synthetic opioid fentanyl as well as stress, isolation and reduced access to treatment during
the pandemic, public-health experts said. One study published this month found a 28.3%
decline in initiation of addiction treatment in California from March through October
2020..... ...
Life expectancy for white people dropped 1.2 years to 77.6 years in 2020, the lowest level
since 2002.
What is missing from this article is a comparison of the US with other advanced economies in
Europe and Asia. What is disturbing is how the US spends the most and achieves less than our
economic peers starting with expected average longevity. We had the lowest longevity averages
pre-pandemic and now we have dropped further. This is happening despite the fact that our
health care spending is twice the per capita of other advanced economies (Approx. $11K in the
US vs. $6K based on 2019 data). Contributing to our dismal longevity statistics, with respect
to other wealthy economies, are the highest rates of drug overdose deaths and suicides by
gun. This is just the tip of a long list of sad statistics where we are unfortunately number
1 or close to it. The usual (partisan) response is to claim its government's fault or the
fault of a greedy healthcare system or just say the data is wrong. So far, none of these
strategies is working very well.
Dave Berg SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
Life expectancy is the wrong phrase. It's current average life duration. COVID will have no
impact on the life expectancy of babies being born right now. I have two new grandchildren,
their life expectancy will be impacted by things we don't even know about yet.
The number of U.S. truck drivers sidelined due to substance abuse violations has surpassed
60,000 and continues to climb by roughly 2,000-3,000 per month, according to federal data. The
latest monthly
report by the Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse, administered by the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration since January 2020, revealed that 60,299 CDL holders have a drug or
alcohol violation recorded in the clearinghouse as of June 1, up from 57,510 as of May 1 and up
from 18,860 recorded in the clearinghouse as of May 1, 2020.
Drivers with at least one substance abuse violation are barred from operating a commercial
truck until they complete a return-to-duty process, which includes providing a negative
follow-up test result. The percentage of drivers who are completing the RTD process has
steadily increased over the past year, however, from 5.2% as of May 1, 2020, to 22.1% as of May
1, 2021.
Marijuana consistently tops the list of substances identified in positive drug tests, far
outpacing cocaine and methamphetamine, the second- and third-highest drug violations,
respectively, among CDL holders.
The number of violations now recorded in the clearinghouse stands out for another reason:
It's coincidentally just a few hundred shy of an estimated number of drivers needed to fill a
shortfall of commercial drivers to keep pace with freight demand.
"According to a recent estimate, the trucking industry needs an additional 60,800 truck
drivers immediately -- a deficit that is expected to grow to more than 160,000 by 2028,"
testified American Trucking Associations President and CEO Chris Spear at a Capitol Hill
hearing on freight mobility in May.
"In fact, when anticipated driver retirement numbers are combined with the expected growth
in capacity, the trucking industry will need to hire roughly 1.1 million new drivers over the
next decade, or an average of nearly 110,000 per year."
Scopelitis Consulting Co-Director Sean Garney pointed out that the growing number of
prohibited drivers is not a bad thing from a safety standpoint.
"The database is doing what it's supposed to do, which is identify those who should not be
driving," Garney told FreightWaves. "Losing drivers due to positive drug tests may not
necessarily be a good thing for truck capacity, but I think what many others in this industry
also care about is safety."
"... Indeed, economists and analysts have gotten used to presenting facts from the perspective of private employers and their lobbyists. The American public is expected to sympathize more with the plight of wealthy business owners who can't find workers to fill their low-paid positions, instead of with unemployed workers who might be struggling to make ends meet. ..."
"... West Virginia's Republican Governor Jim Justice justified ending federal jobless benefits early in his state by lecturing his residents on how, "America is all about work. That's what has made this great country." Interestingly, Justice owns a resort that couldn't find enough low-wage workers to fill jobs. Notwithstanding a clear conflict of interest in cutting jobless benefits, the Republican politician is now enjoying the fruits of his own political actions as his resort reports greater ease in filling positions with desperate workers whose lifeline he cut off. ..."
For the past few months, Republicans have been waging a ferocious political battle to end
federal unemployment benefits, based upon stated desires of saving the U.S. economy from a
serious labor shortage. The logic, in the words
of Republican politicians like Iowa Senator Joni Ernst, goes like this: "the government pays
folks more to stay home than to go to work," and therefore, "[p]aying people not to work is not
helpful." The conservative Wall Street Journal has been beating the drum for the same argument,
saying recently that it was a " terrible
blunder " to pay jobless benefits to unemployed workers.
If the hyperbolic claims are to be believed, one might imagine American workers are
luxuriating in the largesse of taxpayer-funded payments, thumbing their noses at the earnest
"job creators" who are taking far more seriously the importance of a post-pandemic economic
growth spurt.
It is true that there are currently millions of jobs going unfilled. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics just
released statistics showing that there were 9.3 million job openings in April and that the
percentage of layoffs decreased while resignations increased. Taking these statistics at face
value, one could conclude this means there is a labor shortage.
But, as economist Heidi Shierholz explained in a New York
Times op-ed , there is only a labor shortage if employers raise wages to match worker
demands and subsequently still face a shortage of workers. Shierholz wrote, "When those
measures [of raising wages] don't result in a substantial increase in workers, that's a labor
shortage. Absent that dynamic, you can rest easy."
Remember the subprime mortgage housing crisis of 2008 when
economists and pundits blamed low-income homeowners for wanting to purchase homes they
could not afford? Perhaps this is the labor market's way of saying, if you can't afford higher
salaries, you shouldn't expect to fill jobs.
Or, to use the logic of another accepted capitalist argument, employers could liken the job
market to the surge pricing practices of ride-share companies like Uber and Lyft. After
consumers complained about hiked-up prices for rides during rush hour,
Uber explained , "With surge pricing, Uber rates increase to get more cars on the road and
ensure reliability during the busiest times. When enough cars are on the road, prices go back
down to normal levels." Applying this logic to the labor market, workers might be saying to
employers: "When enough dollars are being offered in wages, the number of job openings will go
back down to normal levels." In other words, workers are surge-pricing the cost of their
labor.
But corporate elites are loudly complaining that the sky is falling -- not because of a real
labor shortage, but because workers are less likely now to accept low-wage jobs. The U.S.
Chamber of Commerce
insists that "[t]he worker shortage is real," and that it has risen to the level of a
"national economic emergency" that "poses an imminent threat to our fragile recovery and
America's great resurgence." In the Chamber's worldview, workers, not corporate employers who
refuse to pay better, are the main obstacle to the U.S.'s economic recovery.
Longtime labor organizer and senior scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies Bill Fletcher Jr. explained to me in an email
interview that claims of a labor shortage are an exaggeration and that, actually, "we suffered
a minor depression and not another great recession," as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.
In Fletcher's view, "The so-called labor shortage needs to be understood as the result of
tremendous employment reorganization, including the collapse of industries and companies."
Furthermore, according to Fletcher, the purveyors of the "labor shortage" myth are not
accounting for "the collapse of daycare and the impact on women and families, and a continued
fear associated with the pandemic."
He's right. As one analyst
put it, "The rotten seed of America's disinvestment in child care has finally sprouted." Such
factors have received little attention by the purveyors of the labor shortage myth -- perhaps
because acknowledging real obstacles like care work requires thinking of workers as real human
beings rather than cogs in a capitalist machine.
Indeed, economists and analysts have gotten used to presenting facts from the perspective of
private employers and their lobbyists. The American public is expected to sympathize more with
the plight of wealthy business owners who can't find workers to fill their low-paid positions,
instead of with unemployed workers who might be struggling to make ends meet.
Already, jobless benefits were slashed to appallingly low levels after Republicans reduced a
$600-a-week payment authorized by the CARES Act to a mere
$300 a week , which works out to $7.50 an hour for full-time work. If companies cannot
compete with this exceedingly paltry sum, their position is akin to a customer demanding to a
car salesperson that they have the right to buy a vehicle for a below-market-value sticker
price (again, capitalist logic is a worthwhile exercise to showcase the ludicrousness of how
lawmakers and their corporate beneficiaries are responding to the state of the labor
market).
Remarkably, although federal jobless benefits are funded through September 2021,
more than two dozen Republican-run states are choosing to end them earlier. Not only will
this impact the bottom line for
millions of people struggling to make ends meet, but it will also undermine the stimulus
impact that this federal aid has on the economies of states when jobless workers spend their
federal dollars on necessities. Conservatives are essentially engaged in an ideological battle
over government benefits, which, in their view, are always wrong unless they are going to the
already privileged (remember the GOP's 2017
tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy?).
The GOP has thumbed its nose at federal benefits for residents before. In order to
underscore their ideological opposition to the Affordable Care Act, recall how Republican
governors
eschewed billions of federal dollars to fund Medicaid expansion. These conservative
ideologues chose to let their own
voters suffer the consequences of turning down federal aid in service of their political
opposition to Obamacare. And they're doing the same thing now.
At the same time as headlines are screaming about a catastrophic worker shortage that could
undermine the economy, stories abound of how American billionaires paid
peanuts in income taxes according to newly released documents, even as their wealth
multiplied to extraordinary levels. The obscenely wealthy are spending their mountains of cash on luxury
goods and fulfilling
childish fantasies of space travel . The juxtaposition of such a phenomenon alongside the
conservative claim that jobless benefits are too generous is evidence that we are indeed in a
"national economic emergency" -- just not of the sort that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants
us to believe.
West
Virginia's Republican Governor Jim Justice justified ending federal jobless benefits early
in his state by lecturing his residents on how, "America is all about work. That's what has
made this great country." Interestingly, Justice owns a resort that couldn't find enough
low-wage workers to fill jobs. Notwithstanding a clear conflict of interest in cutting jobless
benefits, the Republican politician is now enjoying the fruits of his own political actions as
his resort reports greater ease in filling positions with desperate workers whose lifeline he
cut off.
When lawmakers earlier this year
debated the Raise the Wage Act , which would have increased the federal minimum wage,
Republicans wagged their fingers in warning, saying higher wages would put companies out of
business. Opponents of that failed bill claimed that if forced to pay $15 an hour, employers
would hire fewer people, close branches, or perhaps shut down altogether, which we were told
would ultimately hurt workers.
Now, we are being told another story: that companies actually do need workers and won't
simply reduce jobs, close branches, or shut down and that the government therefore needs to
stop competing with their ultra-low wages to save the economy. The claim that businesses would
no longer be profitable if they are forced to increase wages is undermined by one
multibillion-dollar fact: corporations are raking in record-high profits and doling them out to
shareholders and executives. They can indeed afford to offer greater pay, and when
they do, it turns out there is no labor shortage .
American workers are at a critically important juncture at this moment. Corporate employers
seem to be approaching a limit of how far they can push workers to accept poverty-level jobs.
According to Fletcher, "This moment provides opportunities to raise wage demands, but it must
be a moment where workers organize in order to sustain and pursue demands for improvements in
their living and working conditions."
Sonali Kolhatkar is the founder, host and executive producer of "Rising Up With Sonali,"
a television and radio show that airs on Free Speech TV and Pacifica stations. She is a writing
fellow for the Economy for All project at the Independent Media Institute. This article was
produced by Economy for All , a project of the
Independent Media Institute.
In IT corporate honchos shamelessly put more then a dozen of very specific skills into the
position rescription and want a cog that hit that exactly. they are not interested in IQ, ability
to learn and such things. that want already train person for the position to fill, so that have
zero need to train this persn and they expect that he will work productively from the day
one.
But corporate elites are loudly complaining that the sky is falling -- not because of a
real labor shortage, but because workers are less likely now to accept low-wage jobs.
Duh. This is so blindingly obvious, but NC is the only place that seems to mention this
fact.
Here in the UK, the outmigration of marginally paid workers from Eastern Europe and the
resultant "labour shortage" triggered by Brexit has made it abundantly clear that Blair's
change to open borders was not from any idealistic considerations but as a way of importing
easily exploited labor.
Business leaders quoted in the the tsunami of hand-wringing MSM articles about the current
catastrophe are offering such helpful solutions as allowing housekeepers to use pools and
gyms in off hours, free meals to waiters, etc. Anything but a living wage.
" I don't actually see any untruths to the GOP talking points. "
"" Workers are less likely to accept a job while receiving Gov't benefits" and "workers are
less likely to accept low wage crappy jobs ".
Well,if u can survive on a $300/week program that ends after several weeks pass,bless u.
No one else in America can. That's a $7.50 hr full time "summer job" with no pension or
medical benefits that teenagers with no dependents,few bills n maintenance issues might be
interested in; adults with adult responsibilities,no way. That so called RepubliCons, the
"economics experts", can make such a fraudulent claim n anyone out of elementary school
believes it has a quantum particle of reality or value is . well I'll just say a sad n
unbelievable situation.
They get 300 dollars plus regular UI. They can also get Medicaid and CHIP, or if they are
still making too much they are eligible for Obamacare exchange. Plus they're eligible for
SNAP and housing vouchers
There is one significant fallacy in this article: The author conflates Republican
opposition to enhanced benefits with opposition to unemployment benefits overall.
I very much stand with labour over business on most (probably all) points, but the
Republican argument is to end the enhanced benefits in most cases – Not to abolish
unemployment assistance. They believe the role of government is to step in to help pay basic
bills in the event of unemployment, but oppose the current higher level of benefit due to the
market distortions it causes (Hence the appearance of the term 'labour shortage'.)
I agree that it basically forces mcdonalds et al to up their wages if they want to do
business, which should be a positive for society, but I find it unlikely that the author
could have unintentionally mistunderstood the argument on such a fundamental level, and all
it does is try to drive a wedge further between each side of the argument.
Anyone that believes that workers supported their jobs being sent overseas is either
demented or delusional or suffers from a mental hernia. The same goes for the common working
stiffs supporting massive immigration to help drive down their ability to demand a livable
wage.
American labor has been sold down the river by the International Labor Leaders,
politicians and the oligarchy of US corporate CEO's.
======
Got a new hip recently. Do your P.T., take it easy, follow the warnings of what not to do
until you heal and you should discover that decades feel like they are lifted off your
shoulders.
Sierra,
You've made a very interesting point that actually never occurred to me and one in which I
never seen fully examined.
Exploiting labour and outsourcing it are two sides of the same coin with the same goal in
mind, diverting revenue streams into the C-suite and rentier class.
Obviously you cannot outsource most of the workers in the hospitality industry or the
non-virtual aspects of world's oldest profession, but a lot of the tech industry and the
virtual aspects of the latter are very amenable to being shipped overseas.
Immigrants are extremely visible and an easy target, while outsourcing is essentially an
impossible to contain concept that creates real world hardship.
Dear NC readers, do you know of any studies comparing and contrasting the economic impact of
immigration and/or limiting it and outsourcing?
Indeed, economists and analysts have gotten used to presenting facts from the
perspective of private employers and their lobbyists.
You are acting if economists and lobbyists are separate groups, as opposed to largely a
subset thereof. Funny how a field entirely based on the study of incentives claims incentives
don't distort their policy prescriptions, isn't it?
As for low-paid jobs, they are traditionally the last resort of immigrants and other
marginalized populations, but the anti-immigration push that began under Obama, and
enthusiastically continued by Trump and Biden, has perfectly predictable consequences.
One factor not mentioned is many free-riding businesses refuse to pay for training, then
wonder why there are no trained workers to hire.
Now, there are definitely fields where there is a genuine and deliberate labor shortage.
Usually white-collar credentialed professions like medical doctors and the AMA cartel.
Economics is not based on incentives. That's behavioral economics. I hate to quote Larry
Summers, but this is Summers on financial economics:
Ketchup economists reject out of hand much of this research on the ketchup market. They
believe that the data used is based on almost meaningless accounting information and are
quick to point out that concepts such as costs of production vary across firms and are not
accurately measurable in any event. they believe that ketchup transactions prices are the
only hard data worth studying. Nonetheless ketchup economists have an impressive research
program, focusing on the scope for excess opportunities in the ketchup market. They have
shown that two quart bottles of ketchup invariably sell for twice as much as one quart
bottles of ketchup except for deviations traceable to transaction costs, and that one
cannot get a bargain on ketchup by buying and combining ingredients once one takes account
of transaction costs. Nor are there gains to be had from storing ketchup, or mixing
together different quality ketchups and selling the resulting product. Indeed, most ketchup
economists regard the efficiency of the ketchup market as the best established fact in
empirical economics.
Happy to see you back at a keyboard, and hoping your recovery is progressing well. I had
the misfortune of spending two days in the hospitals while they got my blood chemistry
strightened out. Here's the kicker; the hospitalist, who I saw 3 times, submitted a bill for
a whopping $17,000. Just yesterday, the practice she works for submitted a bill that was
one-tenth her charges for the work she did, yet her bill is still sitting waiting to be
processed.
OMG, how horrible. HSS is a small hospital for a big city like NYC, only 205 beds and 25
operating rooms. No emergency room. They are not owned by PE and so I don't think play
outsourcing/markup games (they are very big on controlling quality, which you can't do if you
have to go through middlemen for staffing). Some of the MDs do that their own practices
within HSS but they are solo practitioners or small teams, which is not a model that you see
much of anywhere outside NYC
The last time I was hospitalized, all the hospitalists were in the employ of the hospital,
now they are in the employ of a nationwide hospitalist practice, which has all the smell of
private equity around it. I'm really beginning to think that a third party focusted on
healthcare might have a real shot at upsetting the political order – maybe it's time to
drag out your skunk party for 2024.
As for low-paid jobs, they are traditionally the last resort of immigrants and other
marginalized populations, but the anti-immigration push that began under Obama, and
enthusiastically continued by Trump and Biden, has perfectly predictable
consequences.
Well I'm sorry you can't find easily exploitable labor, except I'm not immigrants face the
same ridiculous costs, and weren't hispanic workers more heavily impacted by covid due
to those marginal jobs (I'll switch your dynamic to low wage workers , and
marginal jobs, thanks), so by your logic more should have been let in to die from
these marginal jobs? but yeah we need more PMC except we don't Now, there are definitely fields where there is a genuine and deliberate labor shortage.
Usually white-collar credentialed professions like medical doctors and the AMA
cartel."
Last I checked it was private equity, wall st and pharmaceutical companies and their
lobbyists that drive up costs so labor needs to charge more.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
How much of this is over specification on the part of employers in the ad for the job? We
want the perfect candidate who can do the job better than we can with no training .
OMG this is such a long-standing pet peeve! We've commented on this nonsense regularly.
Companies took the position that they don't have to train and now they are eating their
cooking.
The mismatch between job openings and job applicants is not just about wages.
In fact, if companies were willing to take a chance on people who didn't exactly match the
job requirements, the likely effect would be to raise the wages some of those that did not
qualify under the over exacting job requirements. [And likely paying these new employees less
than they had contemplated paying the perfect candidate.]
But that seems like someone making the hiring decision might, just possibly, be seen as
taking a risk.
At my empolyer we know we can't find any colleges that teach mainframe skills, so we bring
in graduates who are willing to learn those skills – we submit them to a 3-month
bootcamp and then there's a long period of mentorship under a senior person to their group
that has an opening. Since everybody and their dog are now moving headfirst into DevOps,
where all the tooling is in somewhat less ancient software, they get exposed using those
Eclipse/VScode-based tools and are able to come up to speed somewhat quicker. Still, no one
in corporate America dares to bite the bullet and re-platform their core systems with few
exceptions (SABRE) for fear of losing all the institutional knowledge that's in software,
rather than wetware (humans).
Just think what is happening right now with everyone holding an Indian outsourcing
contract. You don't have individual's cellphone numbers over in India, which would cost you
an arm and a leg to call, never mind what's going on in their facilities.
On the other hand, there's something to be said for employers not training their staffs.
In the SF Bay Area computer industry, employees and independent contractors alike continually
race to train themselves in the new technologies that seem to crop up like mushrooms after a
rain. Many companies train their customers–and charge them for it–before they'll
train their staffs. This is a principal reason there's a market for contractors. Training
oneself in new technologies lays a base for opportunities that don't appear if you spend a
decade in the same job (unless, like mainframe programming, your job is so old it's new). I
suppose this is a beneficial side of capitalism?
I get that you want experience for mid to senior level jobs but the experience
requirements for what are ostsensibly entry-level jobs have gotten absurd. The education
requirements have also gotten out of hand in some cases.
That being said, a lot of the shortages are in low-wage, part-time jobs so the issue isn't
necessarily ridiculous requirements, like you sometimes see for entry level white collar
jobs, but wages that are too low and awful working conditions.
How many people want to be treated like dirt–be it by customers, management, or
both–for not much more than minimum wage if they have other options?
A wage increase will help fill these jobs but there also needs to be a paradigm shift in
how employees are treated–the customer is not always right and allowing them to treat
employees in ways that would not be tolerated in other businesses, and certainly not in many
white-collar workplaces is a huge part of the problem and why these jobs have long had
high-turnover.
It never ends – when it was about immigrant labor under George B junior – I
think – the call was
-- - They do jobs that Americans won't -- or something to that effect.
It always bothered me that the sentence was never, in my mind, completed. It should have been
said
-- They do jobs that Americans won't do at that pay level. --
The tax system, economic system and higher education departments have been perverted by the
continuous bribery and endowments by the rentier class to our elected law makers and dept
heads for decades –
The creditor, debtor relationships distorted for eons.
The toll takers have never, in history, been in any higher level of mastery than they are
now.
It is not to throw out the constitution but, to throw out those who have perverted it.
The construction industry knows how to exploit immigrant labor, documented as well as
undocumented. I'm sure most peole born here refuse to work for the same wages.
The exploitation occurs on many levels. For small residential jobs, a lot of wage theft
occurs. For larger jobs, a lot of safety regs get ignored. When you have a population that
won't use the legal avenues available to other citizens to push back against abuse you can
get a lot done :/
When I go looking for a job if a degree isn't required I am very unlikely to pursue it
further. Same if the list of 'required' is overly detailed. I'm making assumptions in both of
these cases (that might not be correct) about pay, benefits, work environment, etc. and what
is actually going on with a job listing. Why? Chiefly my likelihood of actually getting a
reasonable offer. I expect either being seen as overqualified in the first case or the job
only being listed because of some requirement in the second.
I have to wonder if many places know how to hire. This is made much more difficult by
years of poorly written (maybe deceptive) job postings. You probably know many of the
phrases; flexible schedule, family ___, reliable transportation required, and so on. Its no
surprise if puffery doesn't bring back the drones.
If we're playing with statistics. How many of these posted job openings, how many
interviews did the companies offer v. how many offers were made until the position was
filled? If position remains open, has the company increased the base pay offer? guaranteed an
increased min. number of weekly hours? offered bonuses or increased benefits? How many times
has this same job opening using the original posting criteria been re-posted? Is this a real
single job opening that the company plans to fill in real time or just a posting that they
keep opening because they have high turnover? etc., etc., etc.
The real problem with this workers are lazy meme is that it is repeated and repeated all
year long on the local news from the viewpoint of business. It has filtered down to local
people. I hear them repeating what the local news said without giving it any critical
thought. Even those who say that we need unions and believe themselves to be on the side of
workers.
Ear wigs are good for businesses. Insidious for workers.
In the UK, in the days of Labor Strive, before Neo-liberalism , there was always newspaper
reports about "Labor Strife" and "bolshy workers." Never once did the press examine
Management had behaved and caused the workers to become "bolshy" – a direct reaction to
Management's attitudes and behavior, probably based on the worst attributes of the UK's class
system.
Definition: A bolshy person often argues and makes difficulties.
Management get the workers (Their Attitudes) it deserves.
I recommend reading "The Toyota Way" to explore a very successful management style.
This song is getting a probably getting more hits these days
Take this job and Shove It https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIjEauGiRLo
But I hear lots of businesses will close to to no labor, so when they close they can go work
for 7.25 an hour for one of their competitors who also needs laborors Solidarinosc!
If businesses are suffering, it's restaurants and small scale enterprise. The Covid
response was tailored to the needs of economy of scale mega biz. They likely knew multitides
of mom-n-pops would go away- and they have. But that's fine.
So if state governments can turn down federal unemployment supplements because they want
labor to go back to work for unlivable wages this means the federal government can do nothing
about it. When push comes to shove the question that must be settled is, Is it a human right
to receive employment assistance until a job is found that pays a livable wage? (Not even a
republican will actually say No). So then that puts all the stingy states on notice that
there is a human rights issue here. States will have the choice to either let businesses shut
down for lack of workers, or states can subsidize minimum wages and benefits. If states
choose, in desperation, to subsidize minimum wages, then the states can apply to the feds to
be compensated. The thing that is needed in the interim, between when the real standoff
starts and ends, is a safety net for workers who are being blocked by the state from
receiving unemployment benefits. I say call in the national guard. This is a human rights
issue.
The real exploitation happened when we allowed companies to delocalize, manufacture
product in China and sell it here with no strings attached.
James Goldsmith seems like a prophet now, he was so absolutely right.
Wow. The Clinton flack was insufferable. AND WRONG about pretty much everything. Goldsmith
was brilliant. I wasn't paying enough attention at he time, but how many high profile people
were making the arguments he was making?
I'm surprised that nobody has taken the opportunity to comment on how this discussion
shows how hypocritical Biden and the democrats were not to press for raising the minimum
wage.
The pretense (which they must have coached the "Senate scholar" on) was that raising the
minimum wage was not related to revenue (i.e., a revenue bill). But of course it is! Right
now, paying below-poverty wages enabled Walmart and other employers to make the government
pay part of their wage bill. Higher minimum wages would raise these government aid recipients
out of the poverty range, saving public revenue.
That is so obvious that the failure of the Democrats to make the point shows that they really
didn't want to raise wages after all.
I didn't expect much from Biden but he's even worse than I thought. Along with those
bought senators hiding behind Joe Manchin. Depressing to think how much worse everything will
become for working people here.
When I think about how they're complaining about Manchin now when there was a serious
primary challenge against him last year, and how the Democrat organization rallied around
Manchin and not his challenger, it is disgusting to see Slate/The Guardian/NYT/other "Blue no
matter who" mouth breathers write articles asking what can be done to salvage a progressive
agenda from the curse of bipartisanship.
I had given up on national politics long before the 2020 election circus but this latest
has confirmed my resolve. The destruction of the Democrat party can't come soon enough.
If I call them Hypocritics, when I never believed them in the first place, will they feel
any shame at all? Or must I be part of their class for them to feel even the tiniest of
niggles?
Perhaps they'll feel ashamed once they cut the check for the $600 they shorted us this
winter. Or maybe that they are reneging on the extended unemployment benefits early or
One side makes you sleep on a bed of nails and swear allegiance.The other side generously
offers to help you out, no strings attached, but you might bleed out from the thousands of
tiny means-testing cuts. Each side want the lower tiers to face the gauntlet and prove one's
worthiness, hoping to convince us that a black box algorithm is the same thing as a jury of
peers.
Exactly right! And keep in mind deluge of op-eds telling us that Biden is a
transformational president! The same authors presented a deluge of op-eds telling us how
Senator Sanders was to radical for the American people after he did well in early primaries.
That the reforms he supported like Medicare for all, raising the minimum wage, lowering drug
costs, help with daycare, doing something about climate change etc. were reforms that the
people would never accept because the people value their freedom and don't want to live in a
socialistic country.
It looks like none of the promises Biden made during the campaign will be implemented by
President Biden. That why he is in the White House.
Would a lot of these positions be filled if the US had single payer healthcare or similar?
Would workers accept low paying positions if they didn't have to lose so much of their pay to
crappy health insurance?
At our local Petsmart they cut staff during the pandemic. They laid off all full time
workers
And are only hiring back part time. I knew several of the laid off people and they are not
coming back. Two of the people that worked full time have found other jobs one with slightly
better pay the other with slightly better benefits. We are in California where rent is very
high so another person we know decided to use this as a chance to relocate to another state
where housing is less expensive. Our older neighbor retired, although vaccinated now, he
decided it just wasn't safe and after the CDC told everyone to take off their mask off. He is
glad he just decided to live on a little less money. I suspect there are a lot of reasons as
Yves stated above for a lack of workers, but this "they are lazy" trope is capitalistic
nonsense.
Some highlights:
>> everyone but an idiot knows that the lower classes must be kept poor, or they will
never be industrious.
-- Arthur Young; 1771
>>Even David Hume, that great humanist, hailed poverty and hunger as positive
experiences for the lower classes, and even blamed the "poverty" of France on its good
weather and fertile soil:
'Tis always observed, in years of scarcity, if it be not extreme, that the poor labour more,
and really live better.
>>Poverty is therefore a most necessary and indispensable ingredient in society It
is the source of wealth, since without poverty, there could be no labour; there could be no
riches, no refinement, no comfort, and no benefit to those who may be possessed of
wealth.
I'll just point out, per the Old Testament, that wage, debt and rent slavery were the
exception, not the norm (as they are in the US) for citizens (Hebrews) in ancient
Israel/Judah.
That's because the assets in ancient Israel/Judah were roughly equally owned by all
citizens with provisions in the OT Law (eg. Leviticus 25, eg. Deuteronomy 15, eg. Deuteronomy
23:19-20) to keep it that way in the long run (but less than 50 years).
Contrast that to US where we have privileges for a private credit cartel, aka "the banks",
and no limits to the concentration of land ownership and the roots of our problems are
evident.
So begging for better jobs for citizens is, in the Biblical context, pathetically weak tea
indeed.
On a personal note I had a great job interview Thursday at the local food co-op. This is
my first in person interview since I was terminated without cause by IBM (after almost 24
years there in a server development job) almost a year ago. Despite applying for over 100
positions. I'm over 60 and haven't worked in a year so I admit I'm grateful to even get the
chance.
I have another interview with them next week and hoping to start soon as a produce clerk
making $13.50 an hour. If I can get on full time they offer a decent insurance plan including
dental. The HR person acknowledged that I was "wildly overqualified" but encouraging. The
possibility of getting health care is key; my IBM Cobra benefits will start costing me almost
$1400/monthly for myself and my husband in September after the ARA subsidy expires.
I've adjusted my expectations to reinvent myself as a manual laborer after decades in
fairly cushy corporate life. I've managed to keep my health and physical capacity so somewhat
optimistic I can meet the job requirements that include lifting 50 lb boxes of produce. But
we'll see.
You mean you haven't had a job in a year since it's highly doubtful that you have not done
any work in a year; eg. cooking, cleaning, shopping, car maintenance, gardening,
chauffeuring, mowing the lawn, home maintenance and caring for others count as work.
We need to stop conflating work (good) with wage slavery as if the former necessarily
requires the latter.
Okay sure. I haven't earned in a year. But it's still a problem I'm trying to sort
out best as I can.
Since I still live in the US where earning is highly correlated with insurance
coverage, and I still have about 5 years until we're both qualified for Medicare this may
turn out to be a great thing that has happened.
And since I don't see a path out of wage slavery today I'll be happy to accept almost any
offer from the food co-op. It's a union job with decent pay and benefits and may offer other
opportunities in the future. They mostly buy and sell products that are locally made so that
makes it easier too. The money we are all enslaving each other over is staying around here as
much as possible. Okay.
Good luck! Fyi i strongly suggest u look into taking your IBM pension asap as 1. It will
minimally impact your taxes as u r now earning less n 2. How many more years do u think it
will be there? ( I usually recommend most people take their social security at 62 for similar
reasons but in your case I'd do your research b4 making any move like that. ) Take a blank
state n Fed tax form n pencil in the new income n see what the results are.
Btw truly wonderful people are involved in food co-ops,enjoy!
No one really questions the idea of maximising profit.
How do you maximise profit?
You minimise costs, including labour costs, i.e. wages.
Where did the idea of maximising profit comes from?
It certainly wasn't from Adam Smith.
"But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and
fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and
high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to
ruin." Adam Smith
Exactly the opposite of today's thinking, what does he mean?
When rates of profit are high, capitalism is cannibalising itself by:
1) Not engaging in long term investment for the future
2) Paying insufficient wages to maintain demand for its products and services
Today's problems with growth and demand.
Amazon didn't suck its profits out as dividends and look how big it's grown (not so good on
the wages).
The benefits of the system can be passed upwards in dividends or downwards in wages.
Both actually detract from the money available for re-investment as Jeff Bezos knows only too
well.
He didn't pay dividends, and paid really low wages, to maximise the amount that he could
re-invest in Amazon and look how big it's grown.
The shareholders gains are made through the value of the shares.
Jeff Bezos hopes other people are paying high enough wages to buy lots of stuff from Amazon;
his own workers don't have much purchasing power.
Where do the benefits of the system go?
Today, we pass as much as possible upwards in dividends.
In the Keynesian era they passed a lot more down in wages.
> Jeff Bezos hopes other people are paying high enough wages to buy lots of stuff from
Amazon; his own workers don't have much purchasing power.
You are missing the tree in the forest. Jeff hopes other people will pay a high enough
price for Amazon stawk. We already know Jeff doesn't give a shit about the stuff he sells, or
the inhumane working conditions that go along with the low pay and short "career". I mean,
not even the nastiest farmer would treat his mules like that, even if mules were easy and
cheap to come by.
We don't think people should get money when they are not working.
Are you sure?
What's the point in working?
Why bother?
It's just not worth all the effort when you can make money doing nothing.
In 1984, for the first time in American history, "unearned" income exceeded "earned"
income.
They love easy money.
With a BTL portfolio, I can get the capital gains on a number of properties and extract
the hard earned income of generation rent at the same time.
That sounds good.
What is there not to like?
We love easy money.
You've just got to sniff out the easy money.
All that hard work involved in setting up a company yourself, and building it up.
Why bother?
Asset strip firms other people have built up, that's easy money.
"West Virginia's Republican Governor Jim Justice justified ending federal jobless
benefits early in his state by lecturing his residents on how, "America is all about work.
That's what has made this great country."
Have you had a look around recently?
In 1984, for the first time in American history, "unearned" income exceeded "earned"
income.
America is not about work at all.
The US is largely about exploiting or being exploited with most of US doing both.
We should resent an economic system that requires we exploit others or be a pure victim
ourselves.
That said and to face some truths we'd rather not, the Bible offers some comfort, eg:
Ecclesiastes 7:16 Do not be excessively righteous, and do not be overly wise. Why should you ruin
yourself?
Ecclesiastes 5:8-9 If you see oppression of the poor and denial of justice and righteousness in the province,
do not be shocked at the sight; for one official watches over another official, and there are
higher officials over them. After all, a king who cultivates the field is beneficial to the
land.
Nonetheless, we should support economic justice and recognize that most of us are net
losers to an unjust economic system even though it offers some corrupt compensation* to
divide and confuse us.
*eg positive yields and interest on the inherently risk-free debt of a monetary
sovereign.
Jim Justice made his money the old fashioned way, he inherited it:
From Wiki: James Conley Justice II (born April 27, 1951) is an American businessman and
politician who has been serving as the 36th governor of West Virginia since 2017. With a net
worth of around $1.2 billion, he is the wealthiest person in West Virginia. He inherited a
coal mining business from his father and built a business empire with over 94 companies,
including the Greenbrier, a luxury resort.
I wonder how much of this is also related to a change in the churn we assume existed
pre-pandemic? For example, the most recent JOLTS survey results from April
2021 show the total number of separations hasn't really changed but the number of quits
has increased.
So, one possible interpretation of that would be employers are less likely to fire people
and those who think they have skills in demand are more interested in leaving for better
opportunities now. That makes intuitive sense given what we've been through. If you had a
good gig and it was stable through 2020 you had very little reason to leave it even if an
offer was better with another company. That goes double if you were a caregiver or had
children. Which of course is why many women who were affected by the challenges of balancing
daycare and a career gave up.
This is also my experience lately. While it's only anecdotal evidence, we're having a hard
time hiring mid career engineers. Doesn't seem like pay is the issue. We offer a ton of
vacation, a separate pool of sick time, decent benefits, and wages in the six figures with a
good bonus program. We're looking to hire 3 engineers. We can't even get people to apply. In
2019 we could be sure to see a steady supply of experienced candidates looking for new
opportunities. Now? If you have an engineering position and your company is letting you work
from home it seems you don't have a good reason to jump.
Look no further than Cedar Point Amusement Park in Sandusky, Ohio. They had only half the
staff they normally need at $10 an hour. So they double the wage to $20 an hour and filled
every job in less than a week. The Conservaturds will never admit they are lying.
As a small business owner providing professional services I am grateful for the comment
section here.
I have called professional peers to get a behind the corporate PR perspective of their
businesses. Although anecdotal, the overall trend in our industry is to accept the labor
shortage and downsize. Most firms have a reliable backlog of work and will benefit from an
infrastructure bill. Our firm has chosen to downsize and close vacant positions.
Remote work, although feasible, has employees thinking they are LeBron James, regardless
of their skill set. Desperate employers are feeding their belief. Two years from now it will
be interesting to see if these employees they fail forward. Company culture minimized
employee turnover pre-covid. This culture has little meaning to an employee working in his
daughter's playroom.
For context, in California, I believe the median income for licensees is approximately
$110,000 with lower level technicians easily at $75k in the urban areas.
Lastly, the "paltry" $300 per week is in additional to the state unemployment checks and
is not subject to taxes. As stated previously, $300 is equal to $7.50 per hour. Federal
minimum wage is $7.25 and is adopted by many states minimum, for what it's worth.
With respect, I do not see any there there in the comment. Adjusted for inflation the
minimum wage at its height in 1968 at 1.60, would be just under $13 per hour today. However,
even at $15 in California, it is inadequate.
Anyone making anything like the minimum wage would not be working from home, but would be
working in some kind of customer service job, and would find paying for adequate food,
clothing, and shelter very difficult. Not in getting any extras, but only in getting enough
to survive. People, and their families, do need to eat.
If the response of not paying enough, and therefore not getting new hires, is to downsize,
perhaps that is good. After all no business deserves to remain in business, especially if the
business model depends on its workers being unable to survive.
I am also fed up with the "lazy worker" meme. Or rather, propaganda. People are literally
exhausted working 2 or 3 lousy jobs and no real healthcare. Equally irritating to me is a
misguided notion that we have some magically accessible generous safety net in the US. As
though there aren't thousands and thousands on waiting lists for government subsidized
housing. Section 8 vouchers? Good luck.
We've ended "welfare as we [knew] it" (AFDC) thanks to Bill Clinton and then the screw was
turned tightly by Junior Bush (no child care, but go to work.) The upshot was bad news for
kids.
Seems to me one of the few things left is the food stamp program, and I can't imagine how
that's been reconfigured. Whomever gave that fantastic list of goodies people can get in the
US with a mere snap of the fingers isn't in the real world, imho.
Ok! Yves, lovely to see you again, my friend! (Cue the Moody Blues ) Get well!
Here is my story.
I am 56 years old, on dialysis and I was collecting SSI of 529 a month.
I was living with and taking care of my mother in her home because she had dementia.
She died in December and I had to start paying the bills. In March I inherited her IRA which
I reported to SS. I was able to roll it over into my own IRA because I am disabled, due to
the Trump tax law changes.
I reported the changes in a timely manner and because I couldn't afford to live here without
a job, I took a part time job for 9 an hour.
So now, because I inherited my mother's IRA and have too much resources I no longer qualify
for SSI and have been overpaid to the tune of almost 2 grand, which I am assuming I will have
to pay back. I have no idea how that works either. Do they just grab money out of your
account? Anyone who knows please tell me.
I would run, run, run to the nearest public assistance counselor or lawyer. In the San
Francisco Bay Area, it is should not be too hard to find one. They saved me. There are also
in California several state websites. There was a useful to me benefits planning site (It only covers nine states though).
The rules for SSI (Supplemental Security Income), SSDI (Social Security Disability
Insurance), Social Security, Medi-Cal or Medicaid, and Medicare are each different. Each
state has its own modifications as well, so that is fifty additional sets of modified rules
especially for the medical benefits. If they are determined to claw back the money, how it is
done might depend on the individual state. It is truly a maze of flycatchers and trapdoors
out for you and your money.
The overworked benefits clerks often do not have the knowledge to deal with anything even
slightly unusual and are not encourage or at least discouraged from finding out due to
the never shrinking pile, not from anyone's malice. This means you could lose benefits
because they did not know what they were doing or just by mistake. So, it is up to you to
find those nonprofit counselors or the for profit lawyer to help you through the laws, rules,
and whatever local regulations there are. Hopefully, you will not have to read through some
of the official printed regulations like I did. If wasn't an experience paper pusher.. The
average person would have been lost. Intelligence and competence has nothing to do with.
Hell, neither does logic, I think.
In my case, when I inherited a retirement account, SSDI was not affected, because of how
the original account was set up. However, SSDI is different from SSI although both have
interesting and Byzantine requirements. I guess to make sure we are all "deserving" of any
help.
So don't ask anonymous bozos like me on the internet and find those local counselors. If
it is nonprofit, they will probably do it completely free. If needed, many lawyers, including
tax lawyers, and CPAs will offer discounted help or will know where you can go.
What is the floor on wages?
Disposable income = wages – (taxes + the cost of living)
Set disposable income to zero.
Minimum wages = taxes + the cost of living
So, as we increase housing costs, we drive up wages.
The neoliberal solution.
Try and paper over the cracks with Payday loans.
This what we call a short term solution.
Someone has been tinkering with the economics and that's why we can't see the problem.
The early neoclassical economists hid the problems of rentier activity in the economy by
removing the difference between "earned" and "unearned" income and they conflated "land" with
"capital".
They took the focus off the cost of living that had been so important to the Classical
Economists as this is where rentier activity in the economy shows up.
It's so well hidden no one even knows it's there and everyone trips up over the cost of
living, even the Chinese.
Angus Deaton rediscovers the wheel that was lost by the early neoclassical economists. "Income inequality is not killing capitalism in the United States, but rent-seekers like
the banking and the health-care sectors just might" Angus Deaton, Nobel prize winner.
Employees get their money from wages and the employers pay the cost of living through wages,
reducing profit.
This raises the costs of doing anything in the US, and drives off-shoring.
The Chinese learn the hard way.
Davos 2019 – The Chinese have now realised high housing costs eat into consumer
spending and they wanted to increase internal consumption. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNBcIFu-_V0
They let real estate rip and have now realised why that wasn't a good idea.
The equation makes it so easy.
Disposable income = wages – (taxes + the cost of living)
The cost of living term goes up with increased housing costs.
The disposable income term goes down.
They didn't have the equation, they used neoclassical economics.
The Chinese had to learn the hard way and it took years, but they got there in the end.
They have let the cost of living rise and they want to increase internal consumption.
Disposable income = wages – (taxes + the cost of living)
It's a double whammy on wages.
China isn't as competitive as it used to be.
China has become more expensive and developed Eastern economies are off-shoring to places
like Vietnam, Bangladesh and the Philippines.
Just to stay at the oil field – Meth addiction and overtime work goes hand in
hand.
Meth and it's derivates was the drug of the 50s in Germany during rebuilding from the war
(Pervitin, Weckamin). They have been legal until the 70s.
It's the easy way first – just take it and you can work longer. Want to drive a truck
16 hours? Just throw a few Pervitins. Side effects and addiction come later. And the unclean
stuff from the black market kills people faster.
Regarding, "skills shortage," I don't expect t businesses that respect their employees well
will have trouble hiring and retaining staff. The ones in trouble are those who bought into
the "end of employees" propaganda and laid off the people they already had:
The End of Employees Updated
Feb. 2, 2017 12:41 p.m. ET
Never before have American companies tried so hard to employ so few people. The
outsourcing wave that moved apparel-making jobs to China and call-center operations to
India is now just as likely to happen inside companies across the U.S. and in almost every
industry. Hiring an employee is a last resort and "very few jobs make it through that
obstacle course."
Companies with that attitude shouldn't expect easy hiring now. They were bad
companies to work for then, and probably still are. Productive employees now have options on
where to work. Bad employers are at the bottom of the totem pole and will only get the least
desirable people who have nowhere else to go.
Executives at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP have voiced worries that workers who stay remote
could wind up as second-class corporate citizens, falling behind in
promotions and pay , so the company plans to track rates of advancement for office-based and
remote staff in an effort to make sure nobody lags behind.
Ford Motor Co. is
pushing ahead with digital efforts to help bring office workers back to its Dearborn, Mich.,
corporate headquarters, while eyeing a future where many of them continue to work from home,
company officials say.
For now, the auto maker is aiming for a gradual return of some employees to the sprawling
campus beginning in July, with "significantly reduced capacity" to retain social distancing, a
spokeswoman said.
Looks like this guys somewhat understands the problems with neoliberalism, but still is captured by neoliberal ideology.
Notable quotes:
"... That all seems awfully quaint today. Pensions disappeared for private-sector employees years ago. Most community banks were gobbled up by one of the mega-banks in the 1990s -- today five banks control 50 percent of the commercial banking industry, which itself mushroomed to the point where finance enjoys about 25 percent of all corporate profits. Union membership fell by 50 percent. ..."
"... Ninety-four percent of the jobs created between 2005 and 2015 were temp or contractor jobs without benefits; people working multiple gigs to make ends meet is increasingly the norm. Real wages have been flat or even declining. The chances that an American born in 1990 will earn more than their parents are down to 50 percent; for Americans born in 1940 the same figure was 92 percent. ..."
"... Thanks to Milton Friedman, Jack Welch, and other corporate titans, the goals of large companies began to change in the 1970s and early 1980s. The notion they espoused -- that a company exists only to maximize its share price -- became gospel in business schools and boardrooms around the country. Companies were pushed to adopt shareholder value as their sole measuring stick. ..."
"... Simultaneously, the major banks grew and evolved as Depression-era regulations separating consumer lending and investment banking were abolished. Financial deregulation started under Ronald Reagan in 1980 and culminated in the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 under Bill Clinton that really set the banks loose. The securities industry grew 500 percent as a share of GDP between 1980 and the 2000s while ordinary bank deposits shrank from 70 percent to 50 percent. Financial products multiplied as even Main Street companies were driven to pursue financial engineering to manage their affairs. GE, my dad's old company and once a beacon of manufacturing, became the fifth biggest financial institution in the country by 2007. ..."
The logic of the meritocracy is leading us to ruin, because we arc collectively primed to ignore the voices of the millions getting
pushed into economic distress by the grinding wheels of automation and innovation. We figure they're complaining or suffering because
they're losers.
We need to break free of this logic of the marketplace before it's too late.
[Neoliberalism] had decimated the economies and cultures of these regions and were set to do the same to many others.
In response, American lives and families are falling apart. Ram- pant financial stress is the new normal. We are in the third
or fourth inning of the greatest economic shift in the history of mankind, and no one seems to be talking about it or doing anything
in response.
The Great Displacement didn't arrive overnight. It has been building for decades as the economy and labor market changed in response
to improving technology, financialization, changing corporate norms, and globalization. In the 1970s, when my parents worked at GE
and Blue Cross Blue Shield in upstate New York, their companies provided generous pensions and expected them to stay for decades.
Community banks were boring businesses that lent money to local companies for a modest return. Over 20 percent of workers were unionized.
Some economic problems existed -- growth was uneven and infla- tion periodically high. But income inequality was low, jobs provided
benefits, and Main Street businesses were the drivers of the economy. There were only three television networks, and in my house
we watched them on a TV with an antenna that we fiddled with to make the picture clearer.
That all seems awfully quaint today. Pensions disappeared for private-sector employees years ago. Most community banks were
gobbled up by one of the mega-banks in the 1990s -- today five banks control 50 percent of the commercial banking industry, which
itself mushroomed to the point where finance enjoys about 25 percent of all corporate profits. Union membership fell by 50 percent.
Ninety-four percent of the jobs created between 2005 and 2015 were temp or contractor jobs without benefits; people working
multiple gigs to make ends meet is increasingly the norm. Real wages have been flat or even declining. The chances that an American
born in 1990 will earn more than their parents are down to 50 percent; for Americans born in 1940 the same figure was 92 percent.
Thanks to Milton Friedman, Jack Welch, and other corporate titans, the goals of large companies began to change in the 1970s
and early 1980s. The notion they espoused -- that a company exists only to maximize its share price -- became gospel in business
schools and boardrooms around the country. Companies were pushed to adopt shareholder value as their sole measuring stick.
Hostile takeovers, shareholder lawsuits, and later activist hedge funds served as prompts to ensure that managers were committed
to profitability at all costs. On the flip side, CF.Os were granted stock options for the first time that wedded their individual
gain to the company's share price. The ratio of CF.O to worker pay rose from 20 to 1 in 1965 to 271 to 1 in 2016. Benefits were streamlined
and reduced and the relationship between company and employee weakened to become more transactional.
Simultaneously, the major banks grew and evolved as Depression-era regulations separating consumer lending and investment
banking were abolished. Financial deregulation started under Ronald Reagan in 1980 and culminated in the Financial Services Modernization
Act of 1999 under Bill Clinton that really set the banks loose. The securities industry grew 500 percent as a share of GDP between
1980 and the 2000s while ordinary bank deposits shrank from 70 percent to 50 percent. Financial products multiplied as even Main
Street companies were driven to pursue financial engineering to manage their affairs. GE, my dad's old company and once a beacon
of manufacturing, became the fifth biggest financial institution in the country by 2007.
It's hard to be in the year 2018 and not hear about the endless studies alarming the general public about coming labor automation.
But what Yang provides in this book is two key things: automation has already been ravaging the country which has led to the great
political polarization of today, and second, an actual vision into what happens when people lose jobs, and it definitely is a
lightning strike of "oh crap"
I found this book relatively impressive and frightening. Yang, a former lawyer, entrepreneur, and non-profit leader, writes
showing with inarguable data that when companies automate work and use new software, communities die, drug use increases, suicide
increases, and crime skyrockets. The new jobs created go to big cities, the surviving talent leaves, and the remaining people
lose hope and descend into madness. (as a student of psychology, this is not surprising)
He starts by painting the picture of the average American and how fragile they are economically. He deconstructs the labor
predictions and how technology is going to ravage it. He discusses the future of work. He explains what has happened in technology
and why it's suddenly a huge threat. He shows what this means: economic inequality rises, the people have less power, the voice
of democracy is diminished, no one owns stocks, people get poorer etc. He shows that talent is leaving small towns, money is concentrating
to big cities faster. He shows what happens when those other cities die (bad things), and then how the people react when they
have no income (really bad things). He shows how retraining doesn't work and college is failing us. We don't invest in vocational
skills, and our youth is underemployed pushed into freelance work making minimal pay. He shows how no one trusts the institutions
anymore.
Then he discusses solutions with a focus on Universal Basic Income. I was a skeptic of the idea until I read this book. You
literally walk away with this burning desire to prevent a Mad Max esque civil war, and its hard to argue with him. We don't have
much time and our bloated micromanaged welfare programs cannot sustain.
This is a very short book, almost an essay -- 136 pages. It was published in October 2004, four years before financial crisis of
2008, which put the first nail in the coffin of neoliberalism. It addresses the cultural politics of neo-liberalism ("the
Great Deception")
Notable quotes:
"... By now, we've all heard about the shocking redistribution of wealth that's occurred during the last thirty years, and particularly during the last decade. But economic changes like this don't occur in a vacuum; they're always linked to politics. ..."
"... Ultimately, The Twilight of Equality? not only reveals how the highly successful rhetorical maneuvers of neoliberalism have functioned ..."
"... The titles of her four chapters--Downsizing Democracy, The Incredible Shrinking Public, Equality, Inc., Love AND Money--summarize her argument. ..."
"... Her target is neoliberalism, which she sees as a broadly controlling corporate agenda which seeks world domination, privatization of governmental decision-making, and marginalization of unions, low-income people, racial and sexual minorities while presenting to the public a benign and inclusive facade. ..."
"... Neo-liberalism seeks to upwardly distribute money, power, and status, she writes, while progressive movements seek to downwardly distribute money, power, and status. The unity of the downwardly distribution advocates should match the unity of the upwardly distribution advocates in order to be effective, she writes. ..."
"... "There is nothing stable or inevitable in the alliances supporting neoliberal agendas in the U.S. and globally," she writes. "The alliances linking neoliberal global economics, and conservative and right-wing domestic politics, and the culture wars are provisional--and fading...." ..."
"... For example, she discusses neoliberal attempts to be "multicultural," but points out that economic resources are constantly redistributed upward. Neoliberal politics, she argues, has only reinforced and increased the divide between economic and social political issues. ..."
"... Because neoliberal politicians wish to save neoliberalism by reforming it, she argues that proposing alternate visions and ideas have been blocked. ..."
By now, we've all heard about the shocking redistribution of wealth that's occurred during the last thirty years, and
particularly during the last decade. But economic changes like this don't occur in a vacuum; they're always linked to politics.
The Twilight of Equality? searches out these links through an analysis of the politics of the 1990s, the decade when
neoliberalism-free market economics-became gospel.
After a brilliant historical examination of how racial and gender inequities were woven into the very theoretical underpinnings
of the neoliberal model of the state, Duggan shows how these inequities play out today. In a series of political case studies,
Duggan reveals how neoliberal goals have been pursued, demonstrating that progressive arguments that separate identity politics and
economic policy, cultural politics and affairs of state, can only fail.
Ultimately, The Twilight of Equality? not only reveals how the highly successful rhetorical maneuvers of neoliberalism have
functioned but, more importantly, it shows a way to revitalize and unify progressive politics in the U.S. today.
Mona Cohen 5.0 out of 5 stars A Critique of Neoliberalism and the Divided Resistance to It July 3, 2006
Lisa Duggan is intensely interested in American politics, and has found political life in the United States to have been "such
a wild ride, offering moments of of dizzying hope along with long stretches of political depression." She is grateful for "many
ideas about political depression, and how to survive it," and she has written a excellent short book that helps make sense of
many widely divergent political trends.
Her book is well-summarized by its concluding paragraph, which I am breaking up into additional paragraphs for greater
clarity:
"Now at this moment of danger and opportunity, the progressive left is mobilizing against neoliberalism and possible new or
continuing wars.
"These mobilizations might become sites for factional struggles over the disciplining of troops, in the name of unity at a
time of crisis and necessity. But such efforts will fail; the troops will not be disciplined, and the disciplinarians will be
left to their bitterness.
"Or, we might find ways of think, speaking, writing and acting that are engaged and curious about "other people's" struggles
for social justice, that are respectfully affiliative and dialogic rather than pedagogical, that that look for the hopeful spots
to expand upon, and that revel in the pleasure of political life.
"For it is pleasure AND collective caretaking, love AND the egalitarian circulation of money--allied to clear and hard-headed
political analysis offered generously--that will create the space for a progressive politics that might both imagine and
create...something worth living for."
The titles of her four chapters--Downsizing Democracy, The Incredible Shrinking Public, Equality, Inc., Love AND
Money--summarize her argument.
She expected upon her high school graduation in 1972, she writes, that "active and expanding social movements seemed capable
of ameliorating conditions of injustice and inequality, poverty, war and imperialism....I had no idea I was not perched at a
great beginning, but rather at a denouement, as the possibilities for progressive social change encountered daunting historical
setbacks beginning in 1972...."
Her target is neoliberalism, which she sees as a broadly controlling corporate agenda which seeks world domination,
privatization of governmental decision-making, and marginalization of unions, low-income people, racial and sexual minorities
while presenting to the public a benign and inclusive facade.
Neo-liberalism seeks to upwardly distribute money, power, and status, she writes, while progressive movements seek to
downwardly distribute money, power, and status. The unity of the downwardly distribution advocates should match the unity of the
upwardly distribution advocates in order to be effective, she writes.
Her belief is that all groups threatened by the neoliberal paradigm should unite against it, but such unity is threatened by
endless differences of perspectives. By minutely analyzing many of the differences, and expanding understanding of diverse
perspectives, she tries to remove them as obstacles towards people and organizations working together to achieve both unique and
common aims.
This is good book for those interested in the history and current significance of numerous progressive ideological arguments.
It is a good book for organizers of umbrella organizations and elected officials who work with diverse social movements. By
articulating points of difference, the author depersonalizes them and aids in overcoming them.
Those who are interested in electoral strategies, however, will be disappointed. The interrelationship between neoliberalism
as a governing ideology and neoliberalism as a political strategy is not discussed here. It is my view that greater and more
focused and inclusive political organizing has the potential to win over a good number of the those who see support of
neoliberalism's policy initiatives as a base-broadening tactic more than as a sacred cause.
"There is nothing stable or inevitable in the alliances supporting neoliberal agendas in the U.S. and globally," she
writes. "The alliances linking neoliberal global economics, and conservative and right-wing domestic politics, and the culture
wars are provisional--and fading...."
Reading this book adds to one's understanding of labels, and political and intellectual distinctions. It has too much jargon
for my taste, but not so much as to be impenetrable. It is an excellent summarization and synthesis of the goals, ideologies, and
histories of numerous social movements, both famous and obscure.
Duggan
articulately connects social and economic issues to each other, arguing that neoliberal
politics have divided the two when in actuality, they cannot be separated from one another.
In the introduction, Duggan argues that politics have become neoliberal - while politics
operate under the guise of promoting social change or social stability, in reality, she argues,
politicians have failed to make the connection between economic and social/cultural issues. She
uses historical background to prove the claim that economic and social issues can be separated
from each other is false.
For example, she discusses neoliberal attempts to be "multicultural," but points out that
economic resources are constantly redistributed upward. Neoliberal politics, she argues, has
only reinforced and increased the divide between economic and social political issues.
After the introduction, Duggan focuses on a specific topic in each chapter: downsizing
democracy, the incredible shrinking public, equality, and love and money. In the first chapter
(downsizing democracy), she argues that through violent imperial assertion in the Middle East,
budget cuts in social services, and disillusionments in political divides, "capitalists could
actually bring down capitalism" (p. 2).
Because neoliberal politicians wish to save neoliberalism by reforming it, she argues that
proposing alternate visions and ideas have been blocked. Duggan provides historical background
that help the reader connect early nineteenth century U.S. legislation (regarding voting rights
and slavery) to perpetuated institutional prejudices.
Lifetime real earnings of the median male worker declined by 10% from those who entered the
US labor market in 1967 to those in 1983, or roughly a loss of $136,000.
The study shows the United States shows a "wage stagnation of average earnings and a rise in
income inequality since the 1970s." The charts are based on US Social Security Administration
(SSA) records over 57 years.
The charts are more than a bit confusing unless one carefully dives into the details.
The lead chart is titled " Median Lifetime Earnings " but shows instead annualized real
(inflation adjusted) annual wages, not lifetime or real lifetime earnings.
Lifetime
Definition
Lifetime earnings means earnings between the age of 25 and 55 inclusive.
Annualized lifetime earnings as depicted in the chart is the sum of real annual labor
earnings from ages 25 to 55, divided by 31.
When nominal earnings are deflated by the personal consumption expenditure (PCE) deflator,
the annualized value of median lifetime wage/salary earnings for male workers declined by
$4,400 per year from the 1967 cohort to the 1983 cohort, or $136,400 over the 31-year working
period.
The lifetime earnings of the median male worker declined by 10 percent from the 1967 cohort
to the 1983 cohort. Further, more than three-quarters of the distribution of men experienced no
rise in their lifetime earnings across these cohorts.
Cohort Definition
As used in the article, cohort means all of those who turned 25, 35. 45, etc. in a
particular year.
Median initial earnings fell from $33,300 for the 1967 cohort to $29,000 for the 1983
cohort (PCE adjusted in 2013 dollars).
The analogous figures at age 55 were $55,900 for the former cohort and $54,100 for the
latter, a decline of $1,800, showing no sign of catch-up over the life cycle.
Median initial earnings for men was only $24,400 in 2011, virtually the same level as in
1957.
Cohorts of female workers have seen robust and steady gains, on the order of 22% to 33%
for the median female worker. However, because these gains started from a very low level of
median lifetime earnings for the 1957 cohort, they were not large enough at the aggregate
level to offset the losses by men.
Using the CPI rather than the PCE to convert nominal earnings to 2013 dollars lowers
lifetime earnings growth for both men and women.
Inflation Adjustments
The two most commonly used price indexes are the personal consumption expenditure (PCE)
deflator from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and the consumer price index (CPI) from
the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS). The (older) CPI and the (newer) PCE differ in several
ways that are by now well understood.
The PCE is generally accepted to be the superior index for measuring the overall price
level and its evolution over the business cycle. It is thus the standard choice in aggregate
(macro) economic analyses. However, for more micro work, such as the analyses in this paper,
the CPI has some advantages. In particular, the CPI aims to capture the price level faced by
the typical household for its out-of-pocket expenses and is thus based on a detailed survey
of U.S. household expenditures, whereas the PCE is based on business surveys and also
includes purchases made by others on behalf of households. Consequently, relative to the PCE,
the CPI places a lower weight on health care prices (since a large fraction of total
expenditures is paid by Medicare/Medicaid and insurance companies) and a much higher weight
on housing and transportation.
In our empirical analysis, we choose the PCE as our baseline measure for deflating nominal
earnings because it implies a lower cumulative inflation over this period than the CPI . We
report all values in 2013 dollars.
Lifetime Earnings for Men and Women
From the 1957 to the 1983 cohort, annualized mean lifetime earnings for men rose by
around $10,000, from $42,200 to $52,200. This rise corresponds to a cumulative increase of
23.7%, or an average increase of 0.82% between two consecutive cohorts.
However, the bulk of these gains -- 21.9% of the total 23.7% -- accrued to only the
first 10 or so cohorts. From the 1967 to the 1983 cohort, mean lifetime earnings increased
by only 1.5% cumulatively.
Median lifetime earnings for men has barely changed from the 1957 cohort to the 1983
cohort, increasing by only about $250 -- or less than 1%.
Across almost the entire distribution of males, there have been either trivial, or even
negative, gains in lifetime earnings.
Women, on the other hand, have seen increases in lifetime earnings throughout the entire
distribution. Median lifetime earnings increased nearly monotonically from $14,100 for the
1957 cohort to $22,300 for the 1983 cohort.
This steady increase in lifetime earnings for women has been broad-based, with all parts
of the distribution experiencing consistent lifetime earnings growth across cohorts.
Median lifetime earnings for women grew at an average rate of 1.8% per cohort for the 27
cohorts from 1957 to 1983, with almost the exact same annualized growth rates for the 10
cohorts from 1957 to 1967 and the 16 cohorts from 1967 to 1983.
Looking at the population as a whole, we find that the trends for men and women combine
in sometimes offsetting ways.
Closing the Gender Gap
The chart looks severely dated but cohort means the year in which someone turned 25.
Figure 3 plots the ratio of the mean lifetime earnings of females to that of males
In 1960, median inflation adjusted wages for women aged 25 were less than 40% of males. But
fewer women than men were working and fewer women than men were college educated.
After 1965, the gap started to close quickly (showing an almost linear trend), and by the
1983 cohort (working women who turned 25 in 1983), the lifetime earnings of women reached more
than 60% of their male counterparts.
To the extent real median wages have risen in aggregate, it is because of the headway made
by women relative to men.
Decline of Men vs Women
The mean lifetime income for men rose until 1972. The median topped out a bit earlier in
1967 albeit by an arguably meaningless 0.13 percentage points.
Those who turned 25 in 1983 were 55 in 2014. Thus the study misses the last 7
years.
Even Worse Than It Looks
The charts and findings are even worse than they look.
The PCE measure of inflation is understated relative to the CPI.
Both are severely understated since 1999 relative to housing. Housing-adjusted real wages
have been hammered in aggregate, and even more so for men.
The Fed with tremendous help from Congress seeks to destroy the dollar. They have succeeded.
Yet the Fed rails against income inequality.
The Fed, Congress, and Progressive need to look in the mirror to see who is to blame for
falling real wages.
" It costs only a few cents for the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to produce a $100
bill, but other countries had to pony up $100 of actual goods in order to obtain one ,"
accurately quipped American economist Barry Eichengreen .
In addition to trade distortions inaccurately blamed on NAFTA, real wages is another data
series that goes back to Nixon closing the gold window in 1971.
I remember when my mom used to bring me to the Walmart super center when I was a kid,
around 1990. They were exploding in popularity. The cheap goods were a blessing for our
growing family. But we all know how the goods got so cheap.
The 1990s for Walmart was the equivalent of the 2010’s for Amazon. The
low wage job model worked for them then and continues to work for them now.
And in the 1990s, Reich was running around being Labor Secretary, of all things.
There’s some simple solutions to this, like strengthening collective
bargaining, but that’s nowhere in sight.
Employers will pay the lowest possible wage until they absolutely need to.
He quit after the first term and wrote a book about how frustrated he was by
Clinton’s refusal to address widening income disparity and labor
issues.
Totally agree with your point about labor markets. But, Just because he
wasn’t successful doesn’t mean he
didn’t try. Correct me if I’m wrong (I often am) but I
don’t think he’s the villain. Seems to have been trying
to do good in whatever way he can and is also very open about the corruption and greed that
makes change so difficult.
"... By Guy Standing, Professorial Research Associate, SOAS University of London, Fellow of the UK Academy of Social Sciences, and co-founder and honorary co-president of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN). Subjects of recent books include basic income, rentier capitalism and the growing precariat. He is a council member of the Progressive Economy Forum. Originally published at Open Democracy . ..."
"... the precariat was evolving as a class-in-the-making. ..."
"... we should interpret what Karl Polanyi was to call the Great Transformation as beginning with a period of dis-embeddedness, when the old social formation with its specific systems of regulation, social protection and redistribution was being dismantled mainly by the interests of financial capital, guided by an ideology of laissez-faire liberalism ..."
"... "For the proletariat, the norm was and is to be in a stable job. There is nothing labourists love more than to have as many people as possible in jobs. They romanticise being in a job, promising Full Employment, and quietly resorting to workfare. They conveniently forget that being in a job is being in a position of subordination and fail to recall Marx's depiction of labour in jobs as 'active alienation'." ..."
"... Though for most of the 1848-1945 period, its not really true. The proletariat of Capital and Condition of the Working Class in England had an existence as precarious as today's precariat. Indeed, this was one of the things driving the growing militance. There was little in the way of a consumer goods industry selling to proletarians because until quite late in the 19th century the entire wages of all but the skilled and fortunate went for subsistence. ..."
"... A side note: my understanding is that classical Marxism's worry about the lumpenproletariat, aka a "reactionary mass," was based on the observation that their services could be bought to form King and Country mobs to attack working class organizations, along with serving as pogrom foot soldiers. Part of that function was superseded by the formation of regular armies of domestic occupation, aka the police. ..."
"... By complicating basic class analysis with an elaborate class structure, with the revolution to be led by a minority of young, educated 'progressive' precariats, he may be setting the stage for fragmentation of the Left, and further massive losses for workers. ..."
"... being drawn into platform capitalism, as 'concierge' or cloud taskers, controlled and manipulated by apps and other labour brokers. Above all, they are being gradually habituated to precariatisation, told to put up with a norm of unstable task-driven bits-and-pieces existence. ..."
"... That passage called to mind the increasing use by universities of adjunct faculty positions, which are the very definition of precarious. In recent days the was a report of the dismissal of tenured faculty by a college in New York State, whose name escapes me. ..."
"... I could see the 'Go Fund Me' phenomena for Medical (or just groceries, etc) costs in this thought:(my bold) ..."
"... Those characteristics are bad enough. But it is the distinctive relations to the state that most define the precariat. The precariat are denizens rather than citizens, meaning that they are losing or not gaining the rights and entitlements of citizens . Above all, they are reduced to being supplicants, dependent on the discretionary benevolence of landlords, employers, parents, charities and strangers, showing them pity. ..."
"... The writer of this article seems to be very optimistic, celebratory even when it comes to the insecurity of the precariat. It isn't difficult to romanticize the power and the potential of people suffering extreme insecurity when your employment and your social status are linked to the privileges of the (Left or Right) political elite ..."
"... Open Democracy is a Soros organ. Which immediately brings to mind the aspect of our precarious position that the author does not address or even allude to: the nexus of financial, media and paramilitary power that is the "Deep State" or the Spook Apparat if you will. ..."
"... Much of what Standing refers to as the Precariat is basically just the Proletariat yet again. ..."
"... Now that I know it's an Open Democracy piece, I suppose that it's meant to soften the blow of prolonged, steep unemployment and to desensitize people to the pain of "doing more with less" (as the tippytopp rakes it in) by calling it an Arts & Leisure Society. ..."
"... I must agree with DJG, Reality Czar's and others similar take. The writer of this article seems to be very optimistic, celebratory even when it comes to the insecurity of the precariat. It isn't difficult to romanticize the power and the potential of people suffering extreme insecurity when your employment and your social status are linked to the privileges of the (Left or Right) political elite, and when you are a (most likely well paid) participant in the current political system, by working closely with the leadership of one of the bigger old political parties while holding positions that come with stable income if not fungible prestige ["Professorial Research Associate, SOAS University of London, Fellow of the UK Academy of Social Sciences, and co-founder and honorary co-president of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN)]. ..."
"... "a giant suction pump had by 1929 to 1930 drawn into a few hands an increasing proportion of currently produced wealth. This served then as capital accumulations. But by taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers denied themselves the kind of effective demand for their products which would justify reinvestment of the capital accumulation in new plants. In consequence as in a poker game where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When the credit ran out, the game stopped" ..."
"... "The other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing." ..."
"... "When the credit ran out, the game stopped" ..."
"... Revolt of the Public ..."
"... Can't Get You Outta My Head ..."
"... Charter for the Precariat ..."
"... "The labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions from the industrious merchant and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money. But every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords, no usurers and no tax gatherers." ..."
"... "All for ourselves, and nothing for other people seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." ..."
"... "The interest of the landlords is always opposed to the interest of every other class in the community" ..."
"... The labourers had before 25 The landlords 25 And the capitalists 50 .. 100 ..."
"... Framing Corbyn's election defeat as a failure to understand the needs of the "Labour" electorate, and hence supporting Standing's premise, whilst totally ignoring the fact that Corbyn was hammered by the powers of the right, BBC, MSM, Israel etc etc is totally disingenuous and seems to me to be a case of very sour grapes. ..."
Lambert here: A dense treatment of a subject of burning concern.
By Guy Standing, Professorial Research Associate, SOAS University of London, Fellow of the UK Academy of Social Sciences,
and co-founder and honorary co-president of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN). Subjects of recent books include basic income,
rentier capitalism and the growing precariat. He is a council member of the Progressive Economy Forum.
Originally published at Open Democracy .
Transformations tend to go through several preliminary phases. In Britain, the 'dis-embedded' phase in the development of industrial
capitalism involved the Speenhamland system launched in 1795, the mass enclosures that created a proto-proletariat, and disruption
by a technological revolution. All this prompted a period of primitive rebels – those who know what they are against, but not agreed
on what they are for – in which protests were mainly against the breakdown of the previous social compact.
Those included the days-of-rage phase that culminated in the mass protest in Peterloo in 1819, brutally suppressed by the state,
and the Luddites, misrepresented ever since as being workers intent on smashing machines to halt 'progress', when in fact what they
were doing was protesting at the destruction of a way of living and working being done without a quid pro quo.
In my A Precariat Charter
written in 2014, sketching a precariat manifesto for today's Global Transformation, I concluded by citing the stanza from Shelley's
The Masque of Anarchy
, written in reaction to the Peterloo massacre. Jeremy Corbyn was later to cite it in his campaign speech of 2017, which James Schneider
recalls in his contribution
to this debate . Shelley expressed it in class, not populist terms, as I did, in my case signifying that the precariat was
evolving as a class-in-the-making. Corbyn seems to have expressed it in support of a left populism.
Until his drowning at an early age, Shelley along with Byron and other artists of that era, including Mozart, were railing against
the bourgeoisie, which is why Mozart and Byron were both drawn to the Don Juan/Don Giovanni theme. The Romantics failed to arrest
the march of industrial capitalism but their art put out a marker for the future counter movement.
The UK and 'Decent Labour'
The trouble was that at the time the emerging mass 'working class', the proletariat, had not yet taken shape as a class-for-itself,
and was not ready to do so until late in the century. Three other primitive rebel events should be read into the narrative – the
pink revolutions of 1848, often called the Springtime of the Peoples, wrongly seen by some at the time as presaging the proletarian
revolution, the brave prolonged activities of the Chartists in the 1830s and 1840s, which advanced the cause of political democracy
despite defeat, and the upheavals in the 1890s that the left have tended to underplay.
The latter marked an enormous historical error by 'the left'. It is why the term 'dangerous class' was in the sub-title of my
The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class
, published in early 2011. Although some Marxists have used it to describe the 'lumpen proletariat', the term 'dangerous class' was
used in the nineteenth century to describe those who were in neither the bourgeoisie nor the emerging proletariat. They were the
craftsmen, artisans, street traders and artists, from whose ranks came the leading figures articulating a version of socialism as
rejection of labourism – freedom from labour, freedom to work and to leisure (reviving ideas of ancient Greece, embracing schole
).
In the 1890s, against William Morris and colleagues, including some anarchists, who championed that emancipatory vision, were
the labourists, state socialists, Fabians and others who wanted to generalise decent labour. By the turn of the twentieth century,
the latter had triumphed and marched forward in labour unions, social democratic parties and Leninism, even though most of the first
batch of Labour MPs in 1906, when asked by an enterprising journalist what book had most influenced them, mentioned John Ruskin's
Unto This Last , not anything by Karl Marx.
So, we should interpret what Karl Polanyi was to call the Great Transformation as beginning with a period of dis-embeddedness,
when the old social formation with its specific systems of regulation, social protection and redistribution was being dismantled
mainly by the interests of financial capital, guided by an ideology of laissez-faire liberalism .
This produced growing structural insecurities, inequalities, stress, precarity, technological disruption, debt and ecological
destruction, culminating in an era of war, pandemics – most relevantly, the Spanish flu of 1918-1920, which may have killed 50 million
people – and the Great Depression.
... ... ...
...Donald Trump epitomised the rentiers; he used anti-establishment rhetoric but jealously preserved and advanced the interests
of the rent-seeking plutocracy. He never followed a neo-liberal economic agenda. He stood for mercantilism in foreign economic strategy
and for rentiers eager to plunder the commons domestically, while pursuing a pluto-populist fiscal policy. It is better to see his
era in Gramscian terms, a malignancy of a class-based system in deepening if not terminal crisis.
"For the proletariat, the norm was and is to be in a stable job. There is nothing labourists love more than to have as many
people as possible in jobs. They romanticise being in a job, promising Full Employment, and quietly resorting to workfare. They
conveniently forget that being in a job is being in a position of subordination and fail to recall Marx's depiction of labour
in jobs as 'active alienation'."
Yep, large scale wage-slavery is not something to be embraced but something to be abolished.
Indeed, per the Bible, wage-slavery was the EXCEPTION, not the rule, for Hebrews in ancient Israel with roughly equal ownership
of the means of production being the rule. Yet this was NOT communism since the means of production were individually owned, and
not by the State, which didn't even exist for 400 years or so.
So accepting wage-slavery as some kind of norm is to concede way too much, Biblically speaking.
An "eved" in the Hebrew bible is not really the same thing as a wage slave. The first time slavery is discussed in the Book
of the Covenant following the Ten Commandments in Exodus, the only limitation is 7 years. There was no requirement to pay the
slave anything. This is modified in the "Second Law" in Deuteronomy where the master is required to pay the slave some compensation
upon the end of the 7 years, but not before. And these "eveds" were only the Hebrew slaves. Foreigners (goys) were slaves for
life, but since neither Israel nor Judah won many wars, there were probably never that many foreign slaves anyway.
I'm using "wage-slavery" in the more general sense that if one does not own assets (impossible for a Hebrew in Israel/Judah
for more than 49 years (cf. Leviticus 25)) then one was de facto either a beggar or forced to live as a scavenger in the wilderness
OR forced to work for wages.
As for foreign "permanent slaves", this is in conflict with no Hebrew OR CONVERT(?) could be held for more than 6 years as
a well-treated indentured servant to be released, well provisioned, in the 7th year. So "permanent slavery" of foreigners was
plausibly, imo, a conversion strategy (see Deuteronomy 23:3-7).
Not that the Old Testament is authoritative for Christians since the New Testament but can't we do at least as well wrt economic
justice?
Though for most of the 1848-1945 period, its not really true. The proletariat of Capital and Condition of the Working Class
in England had an existence as precarious as today's precariat. Indeed, this was one of the things driving the growing militance.
There was little in the way of a consumer goods industry selling to proletarians because until quite late in the 19th century
the entire wages of all but the skilled and fortunate went for subsistence.
And until after the changes beginning with the New
Deal and consolidated in the war and postwar years, the end of a job meant the end of income, period.
One take would be that he underplays the interrelationship of class identity, class aspirations, and class struggle. This comes
out most clearly when he makes it seem as though mid-20th c social democracy lost a vision of the future through negligence, rather
than running up against resistance from capital that was gradually getting its ideological act together after the fascist period.
Strong class identity was contingent on a number of things, but one was maintaining labor militancy, MacAlevey's "strike muscle,"
and that became increasingly difficult, and not just because labor movement leadership went for business unionism.
The same applies to the present. The author seems hesitant to define what a Labor Vision should be now, and oscillates between
UBI and other ideas without directly discussing the intensity of resistance from capital that different programs would set off.
He might at least roll in Kalecki, as we so often do here, and with good reason. UBI will bring a very different response compared
to demands that threaten to supplant capital's control of investment decisions, the sphere of "management prerogative." And so
the author seems to be advocating fresh thinking without directly addressing what stands in its way, both the real threat of intensified
class conflict and how that has been "internalized" in various ways over the last 50 or so years.
A side note: my understanding is that classical Marxism's worry about the lumpenproletariat, aka a "reactionary mass," was
based on the observation that their services could be bought to form King and Country mobs to attack working class organizations,
along with serving as pogrom foot soldiers. Part of that function was superseded by the formation of regular armies of domestic
occupation, aka the police.
There is much substance here but it seems that Standing ignores the elephant in the room -- the role that the age of limits (resource,
environmental/climate change, economic/financial ) plays in the emergence of an era of rentier capitalism.
He says: "Reinventing the future, in class terms, has always been the primary task of 'the left'." But he is quick to condemn
"phoney dualism of crude populism of 'the people' versus 'the elite'".
By complicating basic class analysis with an elaborate
class structure, with the revolution to be led by a minority of young, educated 'progressive' precariats, he may be setting the
stage for fragmentation of the Left, and further massive losses for workers.
being drawn into platform capitalism, as 'concierge' or cloud taskers, controlled and manipulated by apps and other labour
brokers. Above all, they are being gradually habituated to precariatisation, told to put up with a norm of unstable task-driven
bits-and-pieces existence.
This is a great framing of the hoped for (by the technologists)labor contract
That passage called to mind the increasing use by universities of adjunct faculty positions, which are the very definition
of precarious. In recent days the was a report of the dismissal of tenured faculty by a college in New York State, whose name
escapes me.
Proposition 22(?) in California epitomizes precarity.
Quit a lot to think on here, and presented pretty clearly.
De-stranding is a part of understanding (and understanding being part of good progress)
I could see the 'Go Fund Me' phenomena for Medical (or just groceries, etc) costs in this thought:(my bold)
Those characteristics are bad enough. But it is the distinctive relations to the state that most define the precariat. The
precariat are denizens rather than citizens, meaning that they are losing or not gaining the rights and entitlements of citizens
. Above all, they are reduced to being supplicants, dependent on the discretionary benevolence of landlords, employers, parents,
charities and strangers, showing them pity.
Much of this essay seems like a good diagnosis, although, after a certain point, I began to mistrust the foundations of the
analysis. And there is this: "So when it came to framing a Precariat Charter, it seemed appropriate to take as a guiding principle
the adage of Aristotle that only the insecure man is free. That means we must not be stuck in the old sense of security, even
though it is a human need to enjoy basic security."
The author is fudging. Aristotle was writing about a stratified society in which there were many slaves (and, yes, Mediterranean
slavery was different from the Anglo-American version). The ideal was the life of leisure (scholē), which was a kind of contemplation
of how to act (but untroubled by having to work, which is a distraction). The "insecure" man was either Diogenes (who was unique)
or a prosperous citizen with property.
We simply don't live in that kind of society. Yet the author keeps making the mistake of describing "labourists" and their
supposedly antiquated ideas about unions and the organization of the workplace as all wet.
Current labor unrest in the U S of A indicates otherwise. Further, I happened to listened to some deeper analysis of the recent
events at Smith College, and the NYTimes writer, Powell, pointed out how much unions shape attitudes (including eliminating racism),
offer real protections, and teach the value of concerted action.
People like Standing, because of his position in society, can be blithe about being precarious. It is indeed a "philosophical"
issue for them. Yet the current Draghi government in Italy has several members who want to remove labor protections and make more
Italians precarious. Everyone will live the glory of being a U.S. style at-will employee. Hmmm. I wonder why this project still
goes on among the powerful.
The writer of this article seems to be very optimistic, celebratory even when it comes to the insecurity of the precariat.
It isn't difficult to romanticize the power and the potential of people suffering extreme insecurity when your employment and
your social status are linked to the privileges of the (Left or Right) political elite, and when you are a (most likely well paid)
participant in the current political system, by working closely with the leadership of one of the largest old political parties,
while holding positions that come with stable income if not fungible prestige ["Professorial Research Associate, SOAS University
of London, Fellow of the UK Academy of Social Sciences, and co-founder and honorary co-president of the Basic Income Earth Network
(BIEN)].
The author acknowledges that a simplistic, not multidimensional understanding of class is pseudo-Marxist; why not then
go back to the original texts and review the writings of Marx, Engels, Gramsci et al in order to update the concept of class,
perhaps broadening what being "working class" means today?
Why not trying to organize the workers, those who are precariat and
those who aren't, around the goal of "reinventing the future in class terms", as he puts it?
How will the precariat advance its
own sociopolitical goals now (as "a class-in-the-making") and later (as "a class-for-itself)"? Will it be capable of exerting
any pressure and of promote real transformations without unions and without political parties?
The default arrangement for human intercourse is some sort of feudalism. Regardless of best intended efforts to midwife a kinder
gentler world, some sort of feudal hierarchic death-wish inheres in all social efforts. It seems woven into our humanity.
Aboriginal hunter gatherers have managed to maintain a continuous non-feudal culture, even now, for approximately 50,000 years.
Perhaps the precariat are heading that way?
Agreeing with Heelbiter, feudal hierarchies only emerge when there's a surplus that can be stolen, which tempts people with
power (strongmen + sycophants) to keep it for themselves. Remove either the surplus or the agreement to steal, it's not at all
universal.
Surplus also creates lasting valuable institutions which create huge social good (like Universities, Court systems, School
systems, Regulatory oversight of the private sector, etc.).
Naked Capitalism commentators don't have a concept of hierarchical nature of talents which humans have. Meaning, there are
super producer humans in any field of human endeavor: sports, music, arts, mathematics, sciences, film stars, singers, painters,
etc.
Why would you not expect super producer humans in economic realm (business world)?
The talent spectrum is very wide and desire and ability to take risks for a possible "first mover advantage in business" that
some humans go after.
Even luck (right place at the right time) requires the ability, desire and eye to recognize talents in other humans to create
a high powered team which creates truly outsized results.
Talents of some humans is thousands of times the talents of more average humans.
Our job (democracy's job) is to get the most out of them. And I don't mean tax them a lot. I mean channel their energies in
such a way through appropriate rules (laws) so they contribute outsized social good.
And yet in actual, existing polities for as long as records have been kept, there's a tendency for those with "thousand times
the talents" to make off with all the surplus. Leading to, "The default arrangement for human intercourse is some sort of feudalism.
Regardless of best intended efforts to midwife a kinder gentler world, some sort of feudal hierarchic death-wish inheres in all
social efforts. It seems woven into our humanity."
It appears to be the structural force of "surplus" that engages our social heuristics into self defeating and brutal heirarchies.
I'm with HH & FS that the track record of egalitarianism is a great deal longer than that of material heirarchy and hasn't anywhere
threatened the ecosystems on which all life depends.
Not saying we can get out of our exploitative and self destructive rut, but that this condition is no more essential to our
nature than egalitarianism.
Your super producers "talent" is making money, not producing things or goods, and right behind all of your "there are super
producer humans in any field of human endeavor: sports, music, arts, mathematics, sciences, film stars, singers, painters, etc."
all are the face of a machine in the background with some unknowable tech tracking selling data collecting those are your actual
producers but that isn't good pr, we're great at tracking people, we produce surveillance and sell people things they don't need
and support disintegrating institutions in order to undermine your quote here
"Surplus also creates lasting valuable institutions which create huge social good (like Universities, Court systems, School systems,
Regulatory oversight of the private sector, etc.)."
All of these things are being disintegrated for the benefit of your "super producer" BS as we speak. Maybe it's not the NC
commentariat that has an understanding problem.
I think as far as the religious " concept of hierarchical nature of talents " I think the essential workers proved who they
are over the pandemic, they're the ones who had to face risk, grocery workers, garbage collectors etc I doubt these people are
very high up in your hierarchy.
"If human capital theory someday becomes the fly on the power-theory-of-income elephant, it would signal not only a scientific
revolution, but also a social one. I doubt I'll live to see it happen. And if I do, I have no idea what type of society would
emerge from the other side."
Open Democracy is a Soros organ. Which immediately brings to mind the aspect of our precarious position that the author
does not address or even allude to: the nexus of financial, media and paramilitary power that is the "Deep State" or the Spook
Apparat if you will.
Having a token whack at 'atavist' populism is just 'Basket of Deplorables' put another way. The author is deeply tied to the
technocratic set and the slant is clear enough. The constant manipulation through fear-based stochastic 'war' efforts: War on
Terror, War on COVID. Always some empty and obviously fake rallying point. UBI sounds like a sensible solution if we lived in
the Jetsons future the Great Reset promises. But Klaus Schwab is no Bucky Fuller. Gates, Soros and Schwab are just investors.
Investors with the power to manipulate the markets. Heads they win. Tails you lose.
To them, a guy like Trump is just the last echo of the Industrial age and the installation of a senile grifter the triumph
of the technocracy, shielded by the CIA and MI5/6. These spy organizations were always private companies.
CIA was built by Wall Street and British Intelligence is an arm of the British monarchy and has never been accountable to the
public. A realignment is definitely taking place. Behind the curtain. Challenging the old guard is the nexus of more openly private
intelligence organizations like that of Erik Prince and computer oligarchs like Thiel and Mercer. This is exactly who put Trump
over.
Good summary of the evolution and status quo of liberalism. Liberalism being capitalism. And capitalism being profit. So there's
a conundrum: The "strange death of populism" does not equate with some strange death of survival. Survival is always with us.
There were atavists seeking out remote caves even during the agricultural revolution. Maybe even George Soros' ancient ancestors;
the stone age bond vigilantes.
The underlying argument here by Standing seems to be for a Basic Income. Which is OK, but maybe ahead of its time. A jobs guarantee
is a better option because there is so much work to be done that can be done best by humans it's just that none of them are profit
making. That's the problem with all this political (aka economic) analysis. Because, for one thing, who is gonna clean the latrines?
Yes, of course robots are. So then who is gonna arbitrage the robots? Who is monitoring the protection of the environment for
fraud and graft? All of that will be necessary to ensure nobody is profiteering and polluting in a non-capitalist world. Labor
was actually the best defense against rampant profiteering, because it was labor that was always exploited, so what will replace
it? We should stick with a jobs guarantee for now. A better analysis at this point in time is not how do we live with the ruins
of neoliberalism, but how do we live, equitably, without profit? It will take a while to figure that out. Clearly we'll live by
fiat, but it will have to be controlled as well. I'd just say that if the Precariat is condescendingly guaranteed a "basic income"
so should the rest of society be. That controls everyone. And protects the environment, and stays focused on all the things that
are now imperative.
Good investment and growth are definable as whatever investment and growth would remain if all artificial stimulants by the
government and economists were removed. The ordinary liberal is usually several steps removed from real life. That is how he can
be so foolish.
He is almost always either wealthy, or academic, or artistic, or political, or in some other way has escaped from the need
to do productive work for a living.
It's just really weird seeing a 'left' site conflate 'populism' with 'rightism'. As in, "representing the economically hurting
bottom of 50-90% of voters is bad (because the poor, the struggling working class, and the precarious middle class peoples are
obviously morally suspect – or so saith the economic elites. / heh)." No. That's the elite's take on populism. It isn't the populists'
history and political stance. It's almost like reading the elite's dictating what the bottom 50% economic polity must agree to.
(As if the top 50% (or 1%) don't have an economic interest in guiding the bottom 50%'s away from their own economic interest.
/heh )
I didn't get that, maybe I'll re-read when I have a minute.
What I got was dissaggregating the struggling class into groups with common experience and history resulting in what the author
called "reactionary" and I think you are calling 'rightism'.
The basic message I got was the left can no more restore that past than can the right and when it tries it ends up bolstering
the right by accident.
Much of what Standing refers to as the Precariat is basically just the Proletariat yet again. But coming to the fore
in a period resembling the Victorian era in terms of security more than it resembles the short-lived triumphal period of postwar
welfare state, Keynesian, social democratic capitalism.
I think he wants to expand the definitions of work and "productivity," maybe challenging the labor theory of value, etc. This
piece reminded me of David Graeber in that respect.
Now that I know it's an Open Democracy piece, I suppose that it's meant to soften the blow of prolonged, steep unemployment
and to desensitize people to the pain of "doing more with less" (as the tippytopp rakes it in) by calling it an Arts & Leisure
Society. UBI is a lubricant for privatization, although I did notice and appreciate Standing's mention of the commons.
I must agree with DJG, Reality Czar's and others similar take. The writer of this article seems to be very optimistic,
celebratory even when it comes to the insecurity of the precariat. It isn't difficult to romanticize the power and the potential
of people suffering extreme insecurity when your employment and your social status are linked to the privileges of the (Left or
Right) political elite, and when you are a (most likely well paid) participant in the current political system, by working closely
with the leadership of one of the bigger old political parties while holding positions that come with stable income if not fungible
prestige ["Professorial Research Associate, SOAS University of London, Fellow of the UK Academy of Social Sciences, and co-founder
and honorary co-president of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN)].
The author acknowledges that a simplistic, not multidimensional understanding of class is pseudo-Marxist; why not then go back
to the original texts and review the writings of Marx, Engels, Gramsci et al in order to update the concept of class, perhaps
broadening what being "working class" means today? Why not trying to organize the workers, those who are precariat and those who
aren't, around the goal of "reinventing the future in class terms", as he puts it? Will the precariat succeed in advancing its
sociopolitical goals as a class ("a class-in-the-making" or "a class-for-itself") outside of organized structures like unions
and political parties (not necessarily the existing, often compromised ones)?
What has happened to inequality? Pretty much what you would expect really.
Mariner Eccles, FED chair 1934 – 48, observed what the capital accumulation of neoclassical economics did to the US economy
in the 1920s. "a giant suction pump had by 1929 to 1930 drawn into a few hands an increasing proportion of currently produced wealth. This
served then as capital accumulations. But by taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers denied themselves
the kind of effective demand for their products which would justify reinvestment of the capital accumulation in new plants. In
consequence as in a poker game where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the
game only by borrowing. When the credit ran out, the game stopped"
With the capital accumulation of neoclassical economics wealth concentrates at the top. A few people have all the money and
everyone else gets by on debt. Wealth concentrates until the system collapses.
What could they do? Keynes added some redistribution to stop all the wealth concentrating at the top, and developed nations
formed a strong healthy middle class.
The neoliberals removed the redistribution. With the capital accumulation of neoclassical economics wealth concentrates at
the top. A few people have all the money and everyone else gets by on debt. Wealth concentrates until the system collapses.
"The other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing." Mariner Eccles, FED chair 1934 – 48
Your wages aren't high enough, have a Payday loan.
You need a house, have a sub-prime mortgage.
You need a car, have a sub-prime auto loan.
You need a good education, have a student loan.
Still not getting by? Load up on credit cards. "When the credit ran out, the game stopped" Mariner Eccles, FED chair 1934 – 48
Oh yes, I remember now, it was Keynesian capitalism that won the battle against Russian communism. The Americans could clearly
demonstrate the average American was much better off than their Russian counterparts.
Today's opioid addicted specimens might have struggled.
The arc of progress isn't supposed to look like a U-turn. You are supposed to keep moving forwards. After the Keynesian era
we went back to what had preceded it.
After a few decades of Keynesian, demand side economics, the system became supply side constrained. Too much demand and not
enough supply causes inflation. Neoclassical, supply side economics should be just the ticket to get things moving again. It does,
but it's got the same problems it's always had.
I found this article massively interesting and relevant, especially at the same time that I'm trying to process Martin Gurri's
Revolt of the Public and Adam Curtis' new documentary Can't Get You Outta My Head . My take is that all of them
are professing a sort of political realism that is opposed to what they identify as magical thinking on the left, and that's how
I take Standing's critique of left populism.
But more importantly, I want to share a few other related resources that I found as I was digging into this more. First, Standing
has a few TED talks, and this one from 2016 helped me to understand
this article better.
Also, Standing's Charter for the Precariat (linked differently in the article) is currently available on Bloomsbury
open access, so you can actually
download chapter
pdfs of it for free with no login.
Mankind first started to produce a surplus with early agriculture. It wasn't long before the elites learnt how to read the
skies, the sun and the stars, to predict the coming seasons to the amazed masses and collect tribute.
They soon made the most of the opportunity and removed themselves from any hard work to concentrate on "spiritual matters",
i.e. any hocus-pocus they could come up with to elevate them from the masses, e.g. rituals, fertility rights, offering to the
gods . etc and to turn the initially small tributes, into extracting all the surplus created by the hard work of the rest.
The elites became the representatives of the gods and they were responsible for the bounty of the earth and the harvests. As
long as all the surplus was handed over, all would be well.
The class structure emerges.
Upper class – Do as little as they can get away with and get most of the rewards
Middle class – Administrative/managerial class who have enough to live a comfortable life
Working class – Do the work, and live a basic subsistence existence where they get enough to stay alive and breed
Their techniques have got more sophisticated over time, but this is the underlying idea. They have achieved an inversion, and
got most of the rewards going to those that don't really do anything.
Everything had worked well for 5,000 years as no one knew what was really going on. The last thing they needed was "The Enlightenment"
as people would work out what was really going on. They did work out what was going on and this had to be hidden again.
The Classical Economists had a quick look around and noticed the aristocracy were maintained in luxury and leisure by the hard
work of everyone else. They haven't done anything economically productive for centuries, they couldn't miss it. The Classical
economist, Adam Smith:
"The labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury.
The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions
from the industrious merchant and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money. But
every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords, no usurers and no tax gatherers."
There was no benefits system in those days, and if those at the bottom didn't work they died. They had to earn money to live.
The classical economists could never imagine those at the bottom rising out of a bare subsistence existence as that was the way
it had always been.
The classical economists identified the constructive "earned" income and the parasitic "unearned" income. Most of the people
at the top lived off the parasitic "unearned" income and they now had a big problem. (Upper class – Do as little as they can get
away with and get most of the rewards)
This problem was solved with neoclassical economics, which hides this distinction. It confuses making money and creating wealth
so all rich people look good. If you know what real wealth creation is, you will realise many at the top don't create any wealth.
Can you believe Adam Smith said this?
"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the
masters of mankind."
The classical economists, Adam Smith and Ricardo, are not what you might expect.
We got some stuff from Ricardo, like the law of comparative advantage. What's gone missing? Ricardo was part of the new
capitalist class, and the old landowning class were a huge problem with their rents that had to be paid both directly and through
wages.
"The interest of the landlords is always opposed to the interest of every other class in the community" Ricardo
1815 / Classical Economist
What does our man on free trade, Ricardo, mean?
Disposable income = wages – (taxes + the cost of living)
Employees get their money from wages and the employers pay the cost of living through wages, reducing profit.
Employees get less disposable income after the landlords rent has gone.
Employers have to cover the landlord's rents in wages reducing profit.
Ricardo is just talking about housing costs, employees all rented in those days.
Low housing costs work best for employers and employees.
In Ricardo's world there were three classes. He was in the capitalist class. The more he paid in labour costs (wages) the lower
his profits would be. He was paying the cost of living for his workers through wages, and the higher that was, the higher labour
costs would be. There was no benefits system in those days and those at the bottom needed to earn money to cover the cost of living
otherwise they would die. They had to earn their money through wages. The more he paid in rents to the old landowning class, the
less there would be for him to keep for himself.
From Ricardo: The labourers had before 25
The landlords 25
And the capitalists 50
.. 100
He looked at how the pie got divided between the three groups.
There were three groups in the capitalist system in Ricardo's world (and there still are).
Workers / Employees
Capitalists / Employers
Rentiers / Landowners / Landlords / other skimmers, who are just skimming out of the system, not contributing to its success
The unproductive group exists at the top of society, not the bottom. Later on we did bolt on a benefit system to help others
that were struggling lower down the scale. Classical economics, it's not what you think.
William White (BIS, OECD) talks about how economics really changed over one hundred years ago as classical economics was replaced
by neoclassical economics.
He thinks we have been on the wrong path for one hundred years. Small state, unregulated capitalism was where it all started
and it's rather different to today's expectations.
Framing Corbyn's election defeat as a failure to understand the needs of the "Labour" electorate, and hence supporting
Standing's premise, whilst totally ignoring the fact that Corbyn was hammered by the powers of the right, BBC, MSM, Israel etc
etc is totally disingenuous and seems to me to be a case of very sour grapes.
The fact that the basic income was not implemented doesn't mean much given that there are many on all sides of the debate who
do not agree with the idea. I think Standing is just pissed off because no one listened to him.
What the proponents of the neo-liberal dispensation have not advertised, if indeed they
even know, is what replaces the 'nation?'
What replaces a nation is often referred to as a "colony", where most of the inhabitants are
no longer "citizens" but "natives" who can be exploited at will.
American unions pathetic, absolutely pathetic! We have been hearing this very same winging
from them for 50 years. Then they, universally, go out and support the glad handing
politicians who do a few rounds of golf with the their bosses and a few more jobs are lost.
Mention to them that maybe they would have a bit more job security if owned their factories
and work places, and watch the smoke start to rise from their collective heads. A hundred
years ago you could have sat in a bar, discussed workers owning the means of production and
the beers would have kept magically appearing in front of you. We are a long, long way from
Flint.
The limited successes of the old trade unions in the US have been their undoing. If only
because they always had, and continue to have, limited vision. They all think that they have
scored major victories if they squeeze another dime out of the bosses. According to this
union VP "We're at the mercy of whoever is supplying us." The guy is an idiot. He and
his cohort are at the mercy of their bosses, and they will always be at the mercy of their
bosses until they become their own bosses. Pathetic!
I thought Mr. Conway's connection of domestic manufacturing with war and imperialism,
a.k.a. 'national security', was pretty obvious. 'War is the health of the state.' However, I
suppose one might say that the American state now includes Japan. God, yes, we need more and
more 'airplanes, munitions, satellites, civilian jetliners' and so on, and more reasons to
keep armies in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and also so on, till the end of the world.
Well yes, but the opposite also applies. If you have a self sufficient economy you don't
have to get involved in wars on the other side of the planet because that's where "your"
energy, raw materials, finance, food, key manufactured goods etc come from. The US did not
have to get involved in either WW1 or WW2 for economic reasons, it was nearly self sufficient
at that time. That is not the case today, hence the fore-ever wars in the middle east, and
military bases scattered as confetti around the globe. Did America have to globalise its
economy? No, but the wind fall profits (initially) that could be reaped from doing so could
not be resisted by America's elites. The problem now is that America's economy has now been
so gutted that it cannot function without globalisation, which will bankrupt it further.
However look on the bright side, America's elites have never been so despised and hate in
their history. And nobody expects them to change, because they have not changed for 50 years.
People are now figuring out that they have to change things themselves. Expect fireworks.
Michael Hudson (of course!) has the first and last word on this. The general principle at
work here is that U.S. industry and jobs must be off-shored so Wall Street and Washington
politicians can create more debt – IOW keep Super (monetary) Imperialism going.
The US is the world's leader in manufacturing DEBT not the wealth that really matters in
today's world.
Yes. Regrettably, the article above is whistling past the graveyard, and I too thought of
Hudson's analysis and shook my head as I read it.
If money is created as credit -- and it is -- and every notional dollar of credit has an
obverse side of debt -- and it does -- then for the U.S. to be the Richest Country In The
World™ and have an elite with so many multibillionaires, there must be debt on the the
other side of all those notional dollars the elite have created for themselves.
You might familiarize yourself with how the national government funds its spending. It
creates new dollars every time it pays a bill. No debt required. So why do we have all this
public debt if it was unnecessary to begin with? It lines the pockets of the One Percent who
buy the safest bonds in the world to insure their immense fortunes. It's a subsidy. The rich
have the best socialism in the world. Right here in the USA.
This issue has very little if any relationship to "how the national government funds its
spending" or any of the other nominally 'conservative' debt bugbears. Those "safest bonds in
the world" would not insure squat if US debt wasn't backed by the US military and threats to
bomb any country that refuses to accept more of it back into the stone age. As Minsky wrote
"Any (economic) unit can create money. The problem is getting it accepted."
The world is being destroyed environmentally as well as militarily because the world's one
percent can think of no better alternative than allowing the US to continue creating debt,
destruction and death so they can – as Trump put it – "keep score" with each
other in the game to see who can accumulate the most unpayable debt.
To paraphrase Woody Allen (or somebody) the US is allowed to continue creating debt
because the world's One Percent needs the money to continue playing their game.
he Great American Middle Class has stood meekly by while the New Nobility stripmined $50
trillion from the middle and working classes. As this RAND report documents, $50 trillion has
been siphoned from labor and the lower 90% of the workforce to the New Nobility and their
technocrat lackeys who own the vast majority of the capital: Trends in Income From 1975 to 2018
.
Why has the Great American Middle Class meekly accepted their new role as debt-serfs and
powerless peasants in a Neofeudal Economy ruled by the New Nobility of Big Tech / monopolies /
cartels / financiers? The basic answer is the New Nobility's PR has been so persuasive and
ubiquitous: soaring inequality and Neofeudalism has nothing to do with us, it's just the
natural result of technology and globalization--forces nobody can resist. Sorry about your
debt-serfdom, but hey, your student loan payment is overdue, so it's the rack for you.
The recent Foreign Affairs article referenced here last week Monopoly
Versus Democracy (paywalled) describes the net result of the economic propaganda that the
stripmining of the working and middle classes was ordained and irresistible: Today, Americans
tend to see grotesque accumulations of wealth and power as normal. That's how far we've
fallen:
"As the journalist Barry Lynn points out in his book
Liberty from All Masters: The New American Autocracy vs. the Will of the People , the
robber barons shared with today's high-tech monopolists a strategy of encouraging people to
see immense inequality as a tragic but unavoidable consequence of capitalism and
technological change. But as Lynn shows, one of the main differences between then and now is
that, compared to today, fewer Americans accepted such rationalizations during the Gilded
Age. Today, Americans tend to see grotesque accumulations of wealth and power as normal. Back
then, a critical mass of Americans refused to do so, and they waged a decades-long fight for
a fair and democratic society." (emphasis added)
The bottom 90% of the U.S. economy has been decapitalized : debt has been substituted for
capital . Capital only flows into the increasingly centralized top tier, which owns and profits
from the rising tide of debt that's been keeping the bottom 90% afloat for the past 20
years.
As I've often observed here, globalization and financialization have richly rewarded the top
0.1% and the top 5% technocrat class that serves the New Nobility's interests. Everyone else
has been been reduced to debt-serfs and peasants who now rely on lotteries and luck to get
ahead: playing the stock market casino or hoping their mortgaged house in an urban sprawl on
the Left or Right coasts doubles in value, even as the entire value proposition for living in a
congested urban sprawl vanishes.
America has no plan to reverse this destructive tide of Neofeudal Pillage. Our leadership's
"plan" is benign neglect : just send a monthly stipend of bread and circuses (the technocrat
term is Universal Basic Income UBI) to all the disempowered, decapitalized households, urban
and rural, so they can stay out of trouble and not bother the New Nobility's pillaging of
America and the planet.
There's a lot of bright and shiny PR about rebuilding infrastructure and the Green New Deal,
but our first question must always be: cui bono , to whose benefit? How much of the spending
will actually be devoted to changing the rising imbalances between the haves and the have-nots,
the ever-richer who profit from rising debt and the ever more decapitalized debt-serfs who are
further impoverished by rising debt?
As I explain in my book
A Hacker's Teleology: Sharing the Wealth of Our Shrinking Planet , people don't want to
just get by on UBI , they want an opportunity to acquire capital in all its forms, an
opportunity to contribute to their communities, to make a difference, to earn respect and
pride.
That our "leadership" reckons bread and circuses is what the stripmined bottom 90% want is
beyond pathetic. The middle class has meekly accepted the self-serving claim of the New
Nobility that the $50 trillion transfer of wealth was inevitable and beyond human intervention.
But once the stock market and housing casinos collapse, the last bridge to getting
ahead--high-risk gambling-- will fall into the abyss, and the middle class will have to face
their servitude and powerlessness.
That's how Neofeudal systems collapse: the tax donkeys and debt-serfs finally revolt and
start demanding the $50 trillion river of capital take a new course.
In the last month or so, they have stopped even trying to hide that:
1) the internet is rigged (free speech only for those who say what is approved
narrative),
2) elections are rigged (they openly admit that "all elections have fraud," and the
defending point is that there isn't enough fraud to change the result, or so they say without
investigation);
3) the government is rigged (lots of debate about whether to send a few bucks to people
forced out of work by COVID restrictions, no debate needed on how much to give banks and
defense contractors); and now
4) the markets are rigged (if you figure out a way to beat Wall Street, we simply change
the rules).
Most Americans already knew these things, but felt vaguely conspiratorial in thinking so.
TPTB no longer care what we think or what we know. They are taking down the curtains. They
own this place and if we don't like it and even talk about doing something about it, then
they will label you a terrorist and it's off to Gitmo with you.
Dear Old Hedge 2 hours ago
"That's how Neofeudal systems collapse: the tax donkeys and debt-serfs finally rebel and
start demanding the $50 trillion river of capital take a new course."
Most of the middle class is now run by .Gov employees who are members of big unions. They
will never revolt - they got it to good. Most are Feminazi's who vote Demshevik. &
DFL.
The image above is really their cross and angry husbands who are now powerless.
LetThemEatRand 4 hours ago (Edited)
By design, and the classic model of feudalism. It's why places like present day China or
North Korea have such a huge military and government sector. It's why the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia gives just enough to its citizens that they are comfortable. It's why Rome held
together for as long as it did. Many other examples. Feudalism is the natural order of things
according to history. We have been living through an anomaly that TPTB intend to fix.
NoDebt 3 hours ago
globalization and financialization have richly rewarded the top 0.1% and the top 5%
technocrat class that serves the New Nobility's interests
Like I've said before, "Small number of rich, large number of poor and just enough middle
class to service the rich. As most societies have been throughout most of human history. The
20th century in the US was the anomaly, not the norm."
sgt_doom 1 hour ago remove link
ROFL --- pressure "elected officials" from rigged elections!
You funny . . . .
Whenwas the last time an electsd official responded to me?
Oh yeah, Sen. Canteell about 14 years ago say that she would continue to support the
offshoring of the American medica industry along with the Gates Foundation.
SDShack 13 minutes ago
I've been saying it for YEARS here. New Feudal World Order has been the design all along.
People are finally starting to understand. The solution was always Drone Davos.
chunga 4 hours ago
The battle between capital and labor has been a complete wipeout, made possible by
mountains of pure, solid fraud.
daveO 4 hours ago
It was benign neglect 30 years ago! It's been active destruction since China's admittance
into the WTO with the help of the Clintons.
Mamachief 3 hours ago
David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger.
When Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller met with Zhou Enlai in China in 1973 -- just
after President Richard Nixon had visited China establishing official relations -- an
understanding was reached whereby the U.S. would supply industrial capital and know-how to
China.
BEMUSED-CONFUSED 1 hour ago
And Nixon never realized that he sold out the US.
George Bayou 4 hours ago
Why has the Great American Middle Class meekly accepted their new role as debt-serfs and
powerless peasants in a Neofeudal Economy ruled by the New Nobility of Big Tech /
monopolies / cartels / financiers?
I'll tell you why, people don't realize what goes on behind the scenes because they are so
far removed from it and the big corps and politicians keep it that way.
If you don't know you're getting screwed, then you can't fight it.
austinmilbarge 4 hours ago
Most US citizens are debt slaves. Miss one paycheck and it's lights out. They don't have
time to keep up with how Wall Street cheats.
My Days Are Getting Fewer 2 hours ago
I used to subscribe to the author. No longer do so. Charles, stop writing and get a job or
invest in a business.
The headline is false. The Middle Class will not revolt. And, as a group, it no longer
exists.
I am baffled by the understanding that there are no super-rich people, who give a damn
about the destruction of their Country. My grandchildren and their kids will never enjoy the
fundamental freedoms that I knew growing up in high school in the 1950s and maturing in the
1960s through 2000.
In the last 20 years, everything, that was held sacred in this Country, has been uprooted.
Fraud rules, with decency be damned.
I got more than enough money and 30 more years at best.
Money is not a substitute for freedom.
Only hopeless persons will undertake corrective action.
Cloud9.5 3 hours ago
The middle class works for government. They are cops, teachers, code enforcement officers,
judges. The list goes on and on. The entrepreneur middle class has been put out of
business.
Wayne 2 hours ago
Dear Charles,
I am in the smallest room in the house. Your clickbait book promo is in front of me. Soon,
it shall be behind me.
A few words of advice, if I may (and even if I may not, I'm going to anyhow):
Do not use words you found in a thesaurus in book titles.
teleology
[ˌtelēˈäləjē,
ˌtēlēˈäləjē]
NOUN
philosophy
the explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than by postulated
causes.
theology
the doctrine of design and purpose in the material world.
Just makes you look like a pompous, officious, condescending ***.
Oh, that's right, you are.
Like Klaus Schwaub's little treatise, COVID-19 The Great Reset , your book is probably not
wroth reading and should not have been written. There is such a thing in this world as
masturbating, but you and Klaus should stroke your little peenees to **** instead of stroking
your egos with the English language.
Nobody actually needs to know what you think about anything. You could make the world a
better place by driving an Uber, growing guavas, or praying.
Thanks for playing, but the pleas for you to stop are growing louder.
"... By Casey Mulligan, Professor of Economics, University of Chicago and former Chief Economist of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. Originally published at VoxEU ..."
"... The spread of COVID-19 in the US has prompted extraordinary steps by individuals and institutions to limit infections. Some worry that 'the cure is worse than the disease' and these measures may lead to an increase in deaths of despair. Using data from the US, this column estimates how many non-COVID-19 excess deaths have occurred during the pandemic. Mortality in 2020 significantly exceeds the total of official COVID-19 deaths and a normal number of deaths from other causes. Certain characteristics suggest the excess are deaths of despair. Social isolation may be part of the mechanism that turns a pandemic into a wave of deaths of despair; further studies are needed to show if that is the case and how. ..."
Yves here. While this paper does a good job of compiling and analyzing data about Covid
deaths and excess mortality, and speculating about deaths of despair, I find one of its
assumptions to be odd. It sees Covid-related deaths of despair as mainly the result of
isolation. In the US, I would hazard that economic desperation is likely a significant factor.
Think of the people who had successful or at least viable service businesses: hair stylists,
personal trainers, caterers, conference organizers. One friend had a very successful business
training and rehabbing pro and Olympic athletes. They've gone from pretty to very well situated
to frantic about how they will get by.
While Mulligan does mention loss of income in passing in the end, it seems the more
devastating but harder to measure damage is loss of livelihood, thinking that your way of
earning a living might never come back to anything dimly approaching the old normal. Another
catastrophic loss would be the possibility of winding up homeless, particularly for those who'd
never faced that risk before.
By Casey Mulligan, Professor of Economics, University of Chicago and former Chief
Economist of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. Originally published at VoxEU
The spread of COVID-19 in the US has prompted extraordinary steps by individuals and
institutions to limit infections. Some worry that 'the cure is worse than the disease' and
these measures may lead to an increase in deaths of despair. Using data from the US, this
column estimates how many non-COVID-19 excess deaths have occurred during the pandemic.
Mortality in 2020 significantly exceeds the total of official COVID-19 deaths and a normal
number of deaths from other causes. Certain characteristics suggest the excess are deaths of
despair. Social isolation may be part of the mechanism that turns a pandemic into a wave of
deaths of despair; further studies are needed to show if that is the case and how.
The spread of COVID-19 in the US has prompted extraordinary, although often untested, steps
by individuals and institutions to limit infections. Some have worried that 'the cure is worse
than the disease'. Economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton mocked such worries as a "pet theory
about the fatal dangers of quarantine". They concluded in the summer of 2020 that "a wave of
deaths of despair is highly unlikely" because, they said, the duration of a pandemic is
measured in months whereas the underlying causes of drug abuse and suicide take many years to
accumulate (Case and Deaton 2020). With the extraordinary social distancing continuing and
mortality data accumulating, now is a good time to estimate the number of deaths of despair and
their incidence.
As a theoretical matter, I am not confident that demand and supply conditions were even
approximately constant as the country went into a pandemic recession. Take the demand and
supply for non-medical opioid use, which before 2020 accounted for the majority of deaths of
despair. 1 I acknowledge that the correlation between opioid fatalities and the
unemployment rate has been only weakly positive (Council of Economic Advisers February 2020,
Ruhm 2019). However, in previous recessions, the income of the unemployed and the nation
generally fell.
In this recession, personal income increased record amounts while the majority of the
unemployed received more income than they did when they were working (Congressional Budget
Office 2020). 2 Whereas alcohol and drug abuse can occur in isolation, many normal,
non-lethal consumption opportunities disappeared as the population socially distanced. Patients
suffering pain may have less access to physical therapy during a pandemic.
On the supply side, social distancing may affect the production of safety. 3 A
person who overdoses on opioids has a better chance of survival if the overdose event is
observed contemporaneously by a person nearby who can administer treatment or call paramedics.
4 Socially distanced physicians may be more willing to grant opioid prescriptions
over the phone rather than insist on an office visit. Although supply interruptions on the
southern border may raise the price of heroin and fentanyl, the market may respond by mixing
heroin with more fentanyl and other additives that make each consumption episode more dangerous
(Mulligan 2020a, Wan and Long 2020).
Mortality is part of the full price of opioid consumption and therefore a breakdown in
safety production may by itself reduce the quantity consumed but nonetheless increase mortality
per capita as long as the demand for opioids is price inelastic. I emphasise that these
theoretical hypotheses about opioid markets in 2020 are not yet tested empirically. My point is
that mortality measurement is needed because the potential for extraordinary changes is
real.
The Multiple Cause of Death Files (National Center for Health Statistics 1999–2018)
contain information from all death certificates in the US and would be especially valuable for
measuring causes of mortality in 2020. However, the public 2020 edition of those files is not
expected until early 2022. For the time being, my recent study (Mulligan 2020b) used the
2015–2018 files to project the normal number of 2020 deaths, absent a pandemic.
'Excess deaths' are defined to be actual deaths minus projected deaths. Included in the
projections, and therefore excluded from excess deaths, are some year-over-year increases in
drug overdoses because they had been trending up in recent years, especially among working-age
men, as illicit fentanyl diffused across the country.
I measure actual COVID-19 deaths and deaths from all causes from a Centres for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) file for 2020 that begins in week five (the week beginning 26
January 2020) and aggregates to week, sex, and eleven age groups. To minimise underreporting, I
only use the data in this file through week 40 (the week ending 3 October). In separate
analyses, I also use medical examiner data from Cook County, Illinois, and San Diego County,
California, which indicate deaths handled by those offices through September (Cook) or June
2020 (San Diego) and whether opioids were involved, and 12-month moving sums of drug overdoses
reported by CDC (2020) through May 2020.
Mortality in 2020 significantly exceeds what would have occurred if official COVID-19 deaths
were combined with a normal number of deaths from other causes. The demographic and time
patterns of the non-COVID-19 excess deaths (NCEDs) point to deaths of despair rather than an
undercount of COVID-19 deaths. The flow of NCEDs increased steadily from March to June and then
plateaued. They were disproportionately experienced by working-age men, including men as young
as 15 to 24. The chart below, reproduced from Mulligan (2020b), shows these results for men
aged 15–54. To compare the weekly timing of their excess deaths to a weekly measure of
economic conditions, Figure 1 also includes continued state unemployment claims scaled by a
factor of 25,000, shown together with deaths.
Figure 1 2020 weekly excess deaths by cause (men aged 15–54)
NCEDs are negative for elderly people before March 2020, as they were during the same time
of 2019, due to mild flu seasons. Offsetting these negative NCEDs are about 30,000 positive
NCEDs for the rest of the year, after accounting for an estimated 17,000 undercount of COVID-19
deaths in March and April.
If deaths of despair were the only causes of death with significant net contributions to
NCEDs after February, 30,000 NCEDs would represent at least a 45% increase in deaths of despair
from 2018, which itself was high by historical standards. At the same time, I cannot rule out
the possibility that other non-COVID-19 causes of death or even a bit of COVID-19 undercounting
(beyond my estimates) are contributing to the NCED totals.
One federal and various local measures of mortality from opioid overdose also point to
mortality rates during the pandemic that exceed those of late 2019 and early 2020, which
themselves exceed the rates for 2017 and 2018. These sources are not precise enough to indicate
whether rates of fatal opioid overdose during the pandemic were 10% above the rates from
before, 60% above, or somewhere in between.
Presumably, social isolation is part of the mechanism that turns a pandemic into a wave of
deaths of despair. However, the results so far do not say how many, if any, come from
government stay-at-home orders versus various actions individual households and private
businesses have taken to encourage social distancing. The data in this paper do not reveal how
many deaths of despair are due to changes in 'demand' – such as changes in a person's
income, outlook, or employment situation – versus changes in 'supply' – such as the
production of safety and a changing composition of dangerous recreational substances.
I agree with Yves's counter-argument though I must declare an interest, having done work
on quality of life for 20 years and hope I'm not breaking site rules (given recent reminders
about what is and isn't ok).
The excess deaths (particularly among men) certainly to me seems more consistent with a
collapse in one's ability to do the "valued things in life" and prioritise (to SOME extent)
economic outcomes over relationships. After all, the old trope that men cope less well than
women with retirement is found in happiness, quality of life and other such data.
Whether or not one agrees with me, surely a test as to whether the authors or Yves has the
better explanation for the excess deaths would involve looking at well-being and mortality of
men who retire earlier than they'd like vs that of those whose spouse died earlier than
expected (including the proper control groups).
It would be interesting to find out the following:
1. Did the states with the most generous unemployment benefits (like MA or NJ) have fewer
deaths of despair that the states with much stingier benefits?
2. Did the states which imposed various shutdowns (mainly blue states) have more deaths of
despair than the states which stayed open, like SD or Florida?
My guess is that deaths of despair are too idiosyncratic to blame on Covid lockdowns, but
I am not an expert at all about this.
They could also look for the link with 0% interest on people's saved money and seeing no
f..ing end in sight as the beatings continue. Going down to zero does not make the people
jolly.
It used to be only men who would upon meeting another man, where the first question is
likely 'What do you do for a living?', but with the advent of as many women working, probably
appropriate there too.
Nobody ever asks firstly what your hobby is or what sports team you follow, as the job
query tells you everything about the person in one fell swoop.
There's a lot of people whose jobs were kind of everything in their lives, who had never
gone without work ever, that are now chronically unemployed.
Anybody who has studied suicide readily appreciates that the act is impulsive. Case &
Deaton are probably correct in the limited sense of economic despair derived from
transitioning away from fossil fuels and industrial production to jobs requiring education
unreachable to middle-aged coal miners. However, those deaths were likely derived from easy
access to opioids. Most of those job losses led workers to make disability claims (achy
backs) to extend income. The treatment for achy back is pain killers – oxy-something or
other back then. Those same pills killed the pain of failure. Over time, addiction set in
and, according to Koob & LeMoal's 2008 addiction model, increased consumption becomes
necessary to stay pain-free. Physicians would surely not up dosages indefinitely and that put
addicts on the street literally. All that took time to evolve. But times have changed. Using
your family doc to get you high is no longer an option. So, Mulligan makes sense.
As an internist with boots on the ground – I cannot express enough gratitude that
these kinds of reports are getting out.
As busy as I have been this past year with COVID, the actual patients struggling with
anxiety and depression have just dwarved the actual COVID numbers.
I cannot even begin to tell you the heartbreak of being a provider and having 20-40 year
old young men in your office crying their eyes out. Lots of job loss, lots of income issues,
lots of not being able to pay for things for your kids. All the while being completely unable
to find other work or extra work. It is truly a nightmare for these people. And the attitude
by so many of the lockdown Karens who seem to have no conception of how this is all going
down for these young people has been deeply worrisome to me.
It is really not getting better – if anything slowly getting worse.
I would agree with the article above that loneliness is a problem – this is for the
minority – mainly older people and should not be dismissed.
Loneliness is not the big problem however, in my experience. The big problem is the
economic despair for our young people and the complete loss of socialization for our
teenagers and kids.
"... No examination of Neoliberalism's utter failure to deliver benefits to the masses while expropriating the wealth they produced for delivery to the class of Financial Parasites. At least the writers at Global Times get it right: ..."
Global
Times reports on an essay published by the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine
Zeitung (Check it out b or other German barflies) deeming " China's system, although
'authoritarian,' is 'very successful .'" [My Emphasis]
"It explained that as long as a society can reach the following goals - improving social
welfare, increasing consumption choices, safeguarding domestic security, promoting education,
and providing good healthcare - people will support and trust the system even if their
influence in the decision-making process is limited. Such can 'in part ensure the legitimacy'
of the social system....
"But the authors' introspection stopped from digging problems as they tried to shift blame
to the rise of populism in the US."
No examination of Neoliberalism's utter failure to deliver benefits to the masses
while expropriating the wealth they produced for delivery to the class of Financial
Parasites. At least the writers at Global Times get it right:
"Populism, which helped crown Donald Trump, is being blamed today. Yet it all started
from the widening gap between rich and poor. When German scholars use the US populist
government as a scapegoat, they overlooked the real question - without addressing the
growing inequality in a Western system, will there be a second Trump in the future?" [My
Emphasis]
The fatal thrust is delivered in the two closing paragraphs but still omit naming the
actual culprit, which is the ideology of Neoliberalism:
"The article raised the support and trust of people when it comes to judgment over the
legitimacy of a society. In this regard, data speak louder than words. According to a poll
conducted in 2020 by US-based global public relations and marketing consultancy firm Edelman,
95 percent of Chinese trust their government while the US government only saw an approval of
48 percent .
"What other excuses will the Western world have to question the legitimacy of the Chinese
system? If the West, especially the US, the beacon of democracy, actually senses the crisis
and does not wish to lose the competition, it should stop burying its head in the sand." [My
Emphasis]
The problem isn't heads being buried in sand; rather, it's the design of the ideology to
exploit and degrade a nation's masses so they're left with relatively nothing compared to the
nation's Financial Parasites, all so the latter will always have their Free Unearned
Lunch.
"... The last scene in the video shows that the violent protest and takeover was about more than just the election. After trashing media equipment, one man says, "We gotta change it. They fucking abuse us. They laugh at us. They steal our money." ..."
T he U.S. Justice Department has reversed an earlier assertion in court by prosecutors that
protestors who broke into the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 had plans to "capture and assassinate
elected officials."
Instead, the head of the DOJ investigation into the Capitol siege
admitted that federal prosecutors filed a misleading statement before a federal judge in
Arizona that was intended to prevent Jacob Chansley, aka Jake Angeli, from being released on
bail.
The DOJ said that though there were calls to kill officials during the two-hour takeover of
the Capitol, no evidence has been discovered yet to prove any serious effort to carry out such
a plan.
"There is no direct evidence at this point of kill-capture teams and assassination," Michael
Sherwin, the Washington DC federal district attorney running the investigation of the attack,
told reporters, Agence France-Presse reported. Sherwin said it may be "appropriate" to raise it
at trial, but at this point it could "mislead the court."
The original story of intentions to kill officials has entered the media discourse and is
likely to remain a Democratic talking point despite the DOJ reversal. The only major media
outlets that
reported the new story is NBC News and The
Washington Post . It has not appeared in The New York Times or on CNN's
website, for instance.
Having saturated the public with days of lurid tales of intentions to hang Vice President
Mike Pence and abduct House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, it will be hard to shake such beliefs without
reporting the DOJ's reversal with the same intensity.
The original statement filed in court said: "Strong evidence, including Chansley's own words
and actions at the Capitol, supports that the intent of the Capitol rioters was to capture and
assassinate elected officials of the United States government."
There has been no suggestion that the prosecutors in Arizona who made the false claim are
being investigated for misleading the court.
The 'Coup'
Riot police at Capitol, Jan. 21, 2017 for Trump's inauguration. (Lorie Shaull/Wikimedia
Commons)
The admission dramatically changes the story, repeated as Democratic Party talking points,
and undermines the unquestioned certainty that what took place was an attempted coup against
the United States government. The new DOJ stance might also weaken efforts to charge Capitol
rioters and intruders with "seditious conspiracy" charges for allegedly attempting to overthrow
the government.
Consortium News has been among the few media outlets to
question the coup narrative from the start.
Even if there were such murderous intentions it would not have amounted to a coup attempt
without the backing of the military or paramilitaries, and without taking over the airport and
radio and TV stations. These days it would probably mean taking over social media companies
too. The U.S. government and media structures are vaster and more powerful than just the
legislature.
Even if the protestors had intended and succeeded in hanging Vice President Mike Pence
(presuming the gallows erected outside the Capitol was sturdy enough), and even if they had
taken Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and others hostage would Donald Trump have
said, "Okay, they didn't certify Biden, I'm still president!"?
No branch of government would have supported Trump in that case and the surviving members of
Congress would have met elsewhere to certify Joe Biden as president.
New Video Inside Capitol
Chansley, the far-right, bare-chested activist with fur headdress and Viking horns, became
the symbol of the brief takeover of the Capitol by Trump supporters. He was arrested and faces
a six-count federal indictment,
charged with:
Civil disorder Obstruction of an official proceeding Entering and
remaining in a restricted building Disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building
Violent entry and disorderly conduct in a Capitol building Parading, demonstrating, or
picketing in a Capitol Building
He is not charged with insurrection or sedition to overthrow the government.
Jacob Chandsley/ Qananon Shaman. (TheUnseen011101/Wikimedia Commons)
In a new video released on Sunday by The New Yorker, Chansley is seen grunting
primordial chants while playing to a photographer a few feet in front of him in a Senate
balcony. Later he seats himself in Pence's Senate chair.
After a single Capitol police officer pleads with the intruders to leave, Chansley leads the
group in prayer and then files out with the others, but not before scrawling on a piece of
paper on Pence's desk: "It's only a matter of time, justice is coming."
Before Chansley sat in it, the video
shows one of the protest leaders, dressed in military gear, demanding that the others not
occupy the vice president's chair. He says: "It's not our chair. I love you brothers, but we
cannot be disrespectful. It's a PR war, okay? You have to understand it's an IO war. We can't
lose the IO war. We're better than that. It's an Information Operation."
The video shows a couple of dozen protestors rifling through senators' desks looking for, in
the words of one, "something we can fucking use against these scumbags" and taking photos of
documents. At one point they thought they found evidence in Senator Ted Cruz's desk that he was
going to betray them on certification, but read further and realized he would not.
The film is interspersed with very violent scenes of police in riot gear trying to prevent
protestors from entering the Capitol.
The last scene in the video shows that the violent protest and takeover was about more
than just the election. After trashing media equipment, one man says, "We gotta change it. They
fucking abuse us. They laugh at us. They steal our money."
As journalist Chris Hedges said last Thursday, one can decry their
politics, the racism among many, and their tactics, but their pain is real in a system that has
shrunk the middle class and debased workers.
What happened at the Capitol cannot be condoned. But unless Congress defies its oligarchic
backers and serves the interests of average Americans, who also fund them, a real insurrection
may be inevitable. Instead of the reforms to defuse that and bring more economic justice, we
are witnessing a crackdown that will only further inflame the country.
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief ofConsortium Newsand a former UN
correspondent forThe Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe,
and numerous other newspapers. He was an investigative reporter for theSunday
Timesof London and began his professional career as a stringer forThe
New York Times.He can be reached at [email protected] and followed on Twitter
@unjoe .
rosemerry , January 18, 2021 at 13:15
It is interesting that both sides of the House and Senate manage almost all the time to
arrange that other countries they have decided are enemies or rivals have real "coups" and
takeovers helped by the mighty US . Iraq, Syria,Libya,Venezuela are just a few of the recent
examples, but they are not "USA USA" so they do not count.
rosemerry , January 18, 2021 at 13:07
No surprise that the "paper of record" NYT did not bother to mention this legal angle. The
descriptions I have seen in European papers and in the Sycophant aka the Guardian hardly vary
at all and scream the alleged danger to the poor Congress members.
Anne , January 18, 2021 at 14:25
Nor NPR .Indeed they didn't bother to mention the 1954 shootings in the US Capitol (House)
until AFTER the BBC World Service had and then a week later
Tim S. , January 18, 2021 at 12:54
Anyone who has watched the video filmed by the arch-instigator's would-be-journalist
sidekick can see for themselves that these were not even serious rioters, much less coup
plotters, who were surprised as everybody else about being allowed into the Capitol
building.
And despite some toy guns and one man with the slogan on the back of his jacket "God, guns,
and Trump), it is obvious from their panicky reactions when a woman was killed that they felt
deep down that this was all fun and games. She was trying to break down an interior door,
starting with the window, but when an agent inside pointed a pistol at her, she ignored it.
When he finally shot her, they all start yelling "She's been shot!" and react rather like a
bunch of bystanders.
Does that sound like a gang planning to kill some Congressmen and taken others
hostage?
Jonny James , January 18, 2021 at 11:48
Yes, once again the mainstream narrative stinks, and the fresh air is here on CN. That's
why we don't breathe the miasma of the corporate media.
The Divide and Rule strategies of the ruling classes are working nicely. We can't have the
"99%" get together to work against "the interests of Goldman Sachs" (Hedges). That is not
allowed. The rub is that both the so-called right and so-called left work for the interests
of Goldman Sachs.
I remember very clearly how brutally the peaceful Occupy protests were smashed. The
violent cops used armored vehicles and other military equipment, massive amounts of tear gas,
flash-bang grenades, drones, surveillance etc. etc. , Scott Horton was nearly killed by a
tear-gas canister fired directly at his head. You are not allowed to work against the
interests of the real owners of this country. As George Carlin once said, "they own the f-in
place".
Anne , January 18, 2021 at 14:35
I have yet to hear NPR mention anything about the woman who was shot dead (no weapon on
her) let alone who shot and killed her that she was ex-mil (thus trained to invade, destroy,
devastate, slaughter peoples, cultures, societies far, far, from these shores what you train
for and then deploy will eventually come back home and bite
John Drake , January 18, 2021 at 13:37
Agreed, I find the minimizing of this event truly putrid. What is it about an enraged
crowd, chanting "stop the steal" breaking into a building full of legislators , assaulting,
injuring police and scaring the ..t out of said elected legislators that is not an attempt to
overthrow, interfere, interrupt, prevent a key governmental process? This a governmental
process whose outcome they wanted to alter keeping the Orange Menace in power. A flight of
ridiculous fancy, no doubt, but still attitude, behavior and intent count.
Just because it doesn't rise to the level of well known coups orchestrated by
professionals (CIA): Honduras, Guatemala, Chile, Iran and hundreds more; doesn't mean it
doesn't belong in the same family of nasty socio/political events. Can we compromise and call
it a mini attempted coup or maybe mini coup-lite? Anyway the perpetrators and their enablers
need to major consequences; especially those officials that violated their oath of
office.
By 2016 the concept of "liberal democracy," once bright with promise, had dulled into a
neoliberal politics that was neither liberal nor democratic. The Democratic Party's turn toward
market-driven policies, the bipartisan dismantling of the public sphere, the inflight marriage
of Wall Street and Silicon Valley in the cockpit of globalization -- these interventions
constituted the long con of neoliberal governance, which enriched a small minority of Americans
while ravaging most of the rest.
Jackson Lears is Board of Governors Distinguished Professor of History at Rutgers,
Editor in Chief of Raritan, and the author of Rebirth of a Nation: The Making of Modern
America, 1877–1920, among other books. (January 2021)
Democracy is in trouble, and everyone is casting about for someone to blame. Donald Trump's
grotesque incapacity to govern has made him an easy target, but the difficulties with democracy
are subtler, wider, and deeper. One clue to their complexity is a blog post that appeared on
the liberal website Daily Kos a month after Trump's election in 2016. "Be Happy for Coal
Miners Losing Their Health Insurance," the headline blared. "They're Getting Exactly What They
Voted For."
The dismissal is curt and callous: clearly, Trump's victory provoked some of his opponents
to double down on their hostility toward his supporters. But the blog post also shows -- more
broadly -- that being a liberal Democrat no longer means what it once meant. Sympathy for the
working class has, for many, curdled into contempt. By 2016 the concept of "liberal democracy,"
once bright with promise, had dulled into a neoliberal politics that was neither liberal nor
democratic. The Democratic Party's turn toward market-driven policies, the bipartisan
dismantling of the public sphere, the inflight marriage of Wall Street and Silicon Valley in
the cockpit of globalization -- these interventions constituted the long con of neoliberal
governance, which enriched a small minority of Americans while ravaging most of the rest.
In 2020 the Democrats made little attempt to distance themselves from that calamitous
inheritance. As early as 2019, Joe Biden himself made clear to the donor class that "nothing
would fundamentally change" if he were elected and reassured the medical-industrial complex by
dismissing any discussion of single-payer health care. But he has made no substantial attempt
to reassure the millions of Americans who have lost jobs or homes or health care in recent
months. One might never have known, by following his campaign, that the US was facing the most
serious and protracted economic depression since the 1930s. So it should come as no surprise
that Trump maintained his support among rural and less educated voters and even improved it
among African-Americans and Latinos. Despite Trump's bungling, many ordinary Americans may have
sensed indifference if not outright hostility emanating toward them from his Democratic
opponents. And they would not have been mistaken. The Democratic Party leadership has become
estranged from its historic base.
The spectacle of liberals jeering at coal miners reveals seismic changes in our larger
public discourse. The miners were "getting exactly what they voted for" -- exactly what they
deserved, in other words. The belief that people get what they deserve is rooted in the secular
individualist outlook that has legitimated inequality in the United States for centuries, ever
since the Protestant ethic began turning into the spirit of capitalism. Yet visions of a nation
of autonomous strivers always coexisted with older ideals of community and solidarity -- and
those ideals resurfaced in the Great Depression to become the basis, however limited and
imperfect, of midcentury social democracy. During the last four decades, the autonomous
striving self has returned to the center of the success ethic, but featured in a new narrative
that has focused less on plodding diligence and more on talent, brains, and credentialed
expertise.
Biden, Ds, reneging on $2K stimulus promise . Contortionist language is already being
employed by Biden even before he becomes POTUS, which should surprise nobody, and provides
plenty of I told ya so for Red America.
As I previously calculated, much more than $2K is needed to stave off very dire economic
hardship and further deepening of Great Depression 2.0. But for any stimulus to be effective
for small and medium businesses, operating restrictions related to the pandemic need to be
greatly eased; and even then, it's projected that 1/3 of businesses already closed will
remain closed regardless. That reality constitutes a huge blow for small businesses were seen
by many as a way out of the never ending downsizing and offshoring of decent paying jobs.
The current term "globalization" was originated by Ted Levitt in an article in the Harvard
Business Review in the 80s and taken up by the Reaganites to push for offshoring of factories
to countries with fewer workers rights and environmental concerns. He edited the magazine and
was a professor at Harvard Business School. Those "weirdos" who championed the term were the
corporate and financial behemoths that preferred it as a euphemism for "economic
imperialism"
Posted by: NemesisCalling | Jan 4 2021 1:07 utc | 56
Our nation, right now, is on the cusp of a great earthquake which will change its
arrangement so that the interior will not be beholden to the coastal elites much longer,
who have themselves thrown off the mantle of nationhood in favor of the globalist paradigm
which values nihilistic individualism over all.
So, in short, you're describing capitalism. A capitalist economy favors individualism,
profits over morality, and is mostly centered around the idea of private property as
described by John Locke. This worked wonders in the vast uncharted territories of America in
the 18th and 19th century, when the population of the United States was below 20 million and
they needed to compete, FAST, against agressive european civilizations who looked at them
with envy.
Now that they are 332 millions and counting, that their natural resources are slowly
depleting and that other civilizations have adapted to the previously unknown phenomenon of
the American empire, USans are faced with a crisis in all sectors, including faith. How come
a system that worked so well for you these past 300 years suddenly fails? well, not suddenly,
but realizing that took a while.
Oh, I know!! It must be because of all those treacherous businessmen who traded their
souls and their country for a quick buck! but we need to condemn them without condemning the
whole system, and saying "capitalism sucks" makes us sound like Ivan the Red Commie. What a
pickle. Let's call them "globalists"! so we can rally the nationalists as a bonus and say
it's all because of evil foreigners.
On certain sites, it goes as far as calling "globalists" ... communists. Or Chinese. Or
Russian. Sure, why not, everyone needs their Emmanuel Goldstein.
"Globalism" is a funny name some weirdos invented since the first Wall Street crashes
happened to justify the worst excesses of the current capitalist economic system without
pointing the finger at the real culprits. I say it's funny because it looks like nationalist
clickbait for the 2 minutes of hate everyone in the West is prescribed each day in this
hyper-social Internet.
Sad fact is, "globalists" are run-of-the-mill bosses who decided it was better for their
end-of-year bonuses if they outsourced some or all of their production to cheap chinese
companies, and not have to pay US salaries anymore. That's not globalist, that's called
looking to make a profit in the short term.
Tell me a better term than "globalist" for nationals who are titans of industry who
betray their fellow nationals in the labor force by looking outside their own nation?
A term of rather recent vintage is Labour arbitrage that is substituting less
costly labour for higher costing labour. The driving motive for all offshoring or
externalising labour resources from the home marketplace. Walmart made billions doing this as
does Amazon.
I agree with Lemming's position on this. And I think Nemesis Calling is wrong about what
the term "Globalist" implies. If a "nationalist" is someone who's loyal to a nation, then
isn't a "globalist" someone who is loyal to the whole globe? Humanity today has many massive
problems that are extremely difficult and perhaps impossible to deal with on a purely
national basis. Nuclear weapons, global climate change, pandemic diseases, the potential
threats and benefits of real artificial intelligence, the extinction of so many species,
controlling multinational corporations, the threat of mass starvation, global inequality...
these are all problems which seem to many people to need the whole human species, or the
whole globe, working together to address them.
I think the major reason why many capitalists started calling themselves "globalists" back
in the 1980's was because they saw this was an idea which was becoming increasingly popular,
and they wanted to try and coopt it for their own benefit.
The trouble was that the CEO's who decided it would be personally profitable for them to
ship their companies jobs to low wage countries were not "real" globalists. If they had
really understood what the decisions they were making would do to their countries, or even to
the corporations they were responsible to their shareholders for managing, they might be
accused of being frauds or even traitors. But they probably didn't understand, so it's
probably more accurate to just call them parts of a greedy and shortsighted elite, which was
far too arrogant to realize how countries like China would be able to exploit their
shortsighted folly. They thought they were being so clever about their plans to exploit the
Chinese. But the irony is that a major reason why they underestimated the Chinese is that
they didn't understand that the fact that the Chinese were Marxists meant that the Chinese
had a different and in some ways better understanding of how Capitalism worked than they did.
They never dreamed that the Chinese would be able to make Lenin's prediction that capitalists
would sell them the rope they needed to hang capitalism come true.
..The only upshot of the Larry Summers interview is likely to be that maybe a few people
will think that Joe Biden has bad people advising him, and the vast majority will either
dislike Joe because he sucks or because they're Trumpies in their little faux rebellion or they
will believe everything MSNBC et al. tell them about Joe Biden (and thus by extension they'll
believe every word of Summers).
Here's the important lesson, the one that SHOULD be learned: Summers is a NEOLIBERAL. By
this is meant that he is one of that group that believes that the proper role of government is
to create and enforce markets and that ideally all functions of everyone's lives would be
market functions.
The ultimate principle of neoliberalism, as pointed out in Chapter 2 of Kees van der Pijl's
A Survey of
Global Political Economy, is investor "freedom." This principle comes up on page 46 in the
author's discussion of "microeconomics and rational choice theory." After having gone over the
history of mainstream ("marginalist") economics as an "axiomatic" (which really means
faith-based -- if you agree with its principles you might find it interesting) discipline, van
der Pijl gets to neoliberalism. Here's what he says:
Importantly, the neoliberals no longer confine their prescriptions to the economy. They
want economic rationality to be applied to all aspects of society; no organ of the social
body may be allowed to function according to other principles than that of free choice by
rational, self-interested individuals.
Ultimately, as van der Pijl notes in his discussion of Friedrich von Hayek (1899-1992), the
standard-bearer of neoliberalism, neoliberalism is committed to investor freedom in all spheres
of life. This is on page 48:
The core concept of neoliberalism is the notion of 'competitively determined freedom'.
This concept of freedom is defined from the principle of privately disposable property of the
means of production, secured by political institutions ensuring 'law and order'. Hayek later
specified law and order as the foundations of private property as such, as freedom of
contract and the coercive upholding of contracts (quoted in Walpen, 2004: 114-5).
Thus, if Larry Summers believes in this insane pile of twaddle, why would he want the
government to send out $2000 checks? That wouldn't promote investor freedom.
(The further catch, of course, is that EVERYONE in DC, in Wall Street, and throughout the
ruling elites of the world, believes in this insane pile of twaddle, and they've believed it
for forty years now. So, in the same way in which Donald Trump was not an exceptional case
responsible for the general insanity of last year's politics, Larry Summers is also not an
exceptional case responsible for why you aren't getting $2,000 checks.)
The day after Christmas, the New York Times online ran a piece on the effects of climate
change(
"The Darkest Timeline," by Jonah Engel Bromwich ). It was basically about another paper,
called "Deep Adaptation," which supposedly changed the course of a lot of people's lives.
Bromwich says about the paper that:
The paper's central thought is that we must accept that nothing can reverse humanity's
fate and we must adapt accordingly. And the paper's bleak, vivid details -- emphasizing that
the end is truly nigh, and that it will be gruesome -- clearly resonated.
"When I say starvation, destruction, migration, disease and war, I mean in your own life,"
wrote the author, Jem Bendell. "With the power down, soon you wouldn't have water coming out
of your tap. You will depend on your neighbors for food and some warmth. You will become
malnourished. You won't know whether to stay or go. You will fear being violently killed
before starving to death."
But you don't really adapt to climate change doom. You commit suicide in advance of the
event. And it's hard to tell why a scientific paper, and not, say, the
story of Paradise, California , would motivate people to say, geez, there isn't much point
in living in a doomed society, so let's plan in advance. Or here's an alternative path: when
confronted with the doom of the human race and of you, personally, you choose to believe in a
pile of insane twaddle, and you say:
billions for the rich , $600 for a few of the rest. Isn't that what Congress is doing now?
To be sure, this is a sort of side-adventure, meant to contextualize neoliberals as the sort of
people who say "oh boy! Profit!" when confronted with disastrous reality.
At any rate, neoliberalism. There are a bunch of books about neoliberalism. Probably the
best place to start is with Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine , published in 2007.
Klein makes clear what the enormous human costs are of neoliberal policy. The neoliberal
method, Klein describes, is simple:
That is how the shock doctrine works: the original disaster – the coup, the
terrorist attack, the market meltdown, the war, the tsunami, the hurricane – puts the
entire population into a state of collective shock. The falling bombs, the bursts of terror,
the pounding winds serve to soften up whole societies much as the blaring music and blows in
the torture cells soften up prisoners. Like the terrorized prisoner who gives up the names of
comrades and renounces his faith, shocked societies often give up things they would otherwise
fiercely protect. (17)
It's your basic imperialism. David Harvey calls it "accumulation by dispossession"; his
book, A
Brief History of Neoliberalism , offers a good summary. I love the understatement at the
beginning of the Google Books synopsis (linked):
Neoliberalism - the doctrine that market exchange is an ethic in itself, capable of acting
as a guide for all human action - has become dominant in both thought and practice throughout
much of the world since 1970 or so. Its spread has depended upon a reconstitution of state
powers such that privatization, finance, and market processes are emphasized. State
interventions in the economy are minimized, while the obligations of the state to provide for
the welfare of its citizens are diminished.
"... has become dominant in both thought and practice throughout much of the world..." Yeah.
That's like saying that European countries conquered much of Africa between 1870 and
1914. Uh-huh. It's good to appear innocuous when writing for publication!
Also meaningful are the writings of the French team of Gerard Dumenil and Dominique Levy.
They've written a lot on the topic; the place to start would be Capital Resurgent . I haven't
read this book in awhile. If I recall correctly, Dumenil and Levy argue that neoliberalism was
a conscious choice of the elites, and that they could have chosen otherwise. But they didn't,
and so here we are.
Those with an appetite for biting prose might enjoy Philip Mirowski's
Never Let a Serious Crisis Go To Waste . Mirowski wants to chastise everyone -- the
neoliberals for their "logic" (beautifully dissected), everyone else for misrecognizing the
neoliberals and for pronouncing neoliberalism to be "dead" when in fact it's more dominant than
ever.
There's an interesting foreign-policy take on neoliberalism in Kees van der Pijl's
Global Rivalries
from the Cold War to Iraq . Ostensibly a history of foreign relations, van der Pijl found
himself obliged to discuss the history of neoliberalism because the history of foreign
relations in the period after 1980 IS the history of neoliberalism.
Richard Cockett's
Thinking the Unthinkable is a good early history of neoliberalism, from before the first
meeting of the Mont Pelerin Society
to its global triumph with Reagan and Thatcher.
All that having been said, it's amazing to find so many people online who think that
"neoliberalism" is some esoteric phenomenon, or neoliberals who don't think they're
neoliberals, or people who think there's no such thing as neoliberalism. You bring up
neoliberalism and they say things like "I don't like labels." If you were to call a tree
"green," would the tree respond by saying "I don't like labels"? We choose names for things
because otherwise we wouldn't be able to talk about them in any serious sense.
Let's be clear. Today, "liberalism" might be this warm, fuzzy belief that government ought
to give ordinary people a thing or two in addition to its usual duties of "national defense"
(under the neoliberal regime this means wars for corporate profit) and "economic policy"
(another giveaway to the rich). That's what the term "liberalism" came to mean in the US in the
period after World War II. There's a longer and deeper meaning for the term "liberalism," and
in that meaning it means what Adam Smith advocated, laissez-faire capitalism. The "neo" in
"neoliberalism," to complete the definition, defines a form of liberalism in which it is
viewed, by the neoliberals, as the duty of government to simulate laissez-faire capitalism by
setting up markets and requiring people to participate in them. That's what neoliberalism is;
that explains its NAME.
The classic neoliberal policy was the original "marketplace" function of the Affordable Care
Act. The ACA was created to keep the insurance companies from pricing their product out of the
market; the ACA obliged people to purchase health insurance (which, significantly, they still
wouldn't be able to use in many ways) by setting up a "mandate penalty" in which non-purchasers
would have to pay more in income taxes.
War for profit is a neoliberal initiative. Since the average consumer cannot purchase a war,
the neoliberal government will step in to insure that there remains a market for war. Typically
the wars serve to create enemies, which then sustain the war. Ultimately, what you see with
neoliberal war is phenomena such as what was reported in Syria in 2016, in which militias
funded by the CIA fought those funded by the Pentagon. It's fine as long as it moves
product.
There shouldn't be any confusion, then, about neoliberalism as a ruling-class ideology. It
has a well-defined meaning and plenty of examples to back up the notion that neoliberalism is a
specific notion with specific beliefs, specific believers, specific policies, and a specific
history.
See if you can acquire some Victor Jara -- good listening. And keep up the struggle!
How is Keith McHenry doing these days? (at least we know he's not a neoliberal.) Have you
visited the encampment in San Lorenzo Park of recent?
Edit to add. Great article on Victor Jara. And song!
No human cost was too high to pay to usher in neoliberalism, to eviscerate the gains
that labor had made under Allende's Popular Unity Coalition, and to maintain a steady
flow of cheap copper, fruit and fish to the U.S. under the auspices of "trade
liberalization." The new constitution passed under Pinochet's dictatorship rolled back
the reforms instituted under Allende. It expanded the power of the presidency and
enshrined private property and corporate profits over social needs; Pinochet rolled
back taxes on corporations and the wealthy, and eliminated a host of government
services. State-owned companies, public housing, education, health care, and pensions
were all privatized, turned into profit centers for corporations and the wealthy. The
constitution written under Pinochet limited reforms, and the gap today between rich and
poor in Chile is one of the highest in Latin America.
Jara's version of the song "Venceremos" or "We Will Overcome," became the anthem of
Allende's Popular Unity Coalition, and also figured centrally in eyewitness accounts of
Jara's death.
Puts a lot into perspective.
One could note that "Trickle Down Theory" got neoliberalism's foot in the door. And now
it is fully inside emptying the fridge.
How you can overheat economy that is in permanent stagnation mode (secular stagnation)? This
is nonsense. What Larry is actually afraid of but can't say is the staut of the dollar the world
reserve currency.
You can almost physically sense the level of hate toward "neoliberal scum" in comments
below
Lawrence Summers, the former Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton, director of the National
Economic Council under Barack Obama, president of Harvard, and Chief Economist at the World
Bank, wrote a post-Christmas editorial for Bloomberg entitled, "
Trump's $2000 Stimulus Checks are a Big Mistake ." It's a classic:
Some argue that while $2,000 checks may not be optimal support for the post-Covid economy,
taking stimulus from $600 to $2,000 is better than nothing. They need to ask themselves
whether they would favor $5,000, or $10,000 -- or more. There must be a limiting
principle.
The genesis of this Summers article is a perfect tale in microcosm about how America's
intellectual elite manages to lose elections to people like Donald Trump. It's a two-step
error. First, they put people like Summers in charge of economic policies. Then, they let them
talk in public.
Summers the day before Christmas
appeared on Bloomberg to offer his initial thoughts on why $2000 checks must be bad: he
looked at which politicians were supporting the plan, and worked backward. "When I see a
coalition of Josh Hawley, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump getting behind an idea, I think
that's time to run for cover," he said, adding: "When you see the two extremes agreeing, you
can almost be certain that something crazy is in the air."
Seeing that his comments "lit up the Twittersphere," Summers then sat down to compose an
article doubling down on his reasoning. Essentially, he argued that from an econometric point
of view, we're already overdoing it on the help front. If you were under the impression that
huge numbers of people are living off meals from food banks and/or are at risk in an
eviction
crisis , you were wrong.
Noting that "total employee compensation" is "only running about $30 billion per month
behind the Covid baseline," he insisted that $200 billion more in tax rebates per month over
the next quarter would "equal an additional seven times the loss of household wage and salary
income over the next quarter."
He then showed a graph explaining that "because of the legislation passed in 2020, total
household income has exceeded normal levels relative to the economy's potential more or less
since the pandemic began." The good news, as a result, is that "the existing stimulus bill is
sufficient to elevate household income relative to the economy's potential to abnormally high
levels -- unheard of during an economic downturn."
The whole piece reads like an extended New Yorker cartoon, in which an evictee with empty
pockets is about to dive after a rotten apple core in a dumpster, only to be blocked by a
cauldron-bellied Harvard economist in a $3000 Zegna suit. Caption: " Actually, total household
income relative to the economy's potential sits at abnormally high levels ."
There are of course different positions one could take on the question of stimulus checks,
but the issue with people like Summers is the utter predictability of their stances. Summers
belongs to a club of neoliberal thinkers who've dominated American policy for decades. From Bob
Rubin to Tim Geithner to Jason Furman to Michael Froman and beyond, the people one friend
jokingly refers to as the "Rubino Crime Family" are all basically the same person, affectless
technocrats who play up reputations as giant-brained intellectuals -- I always imagine them
with bulbous Alien Nation heads -- while reveling in cold, hard truths about the limits of
government assistance.
And this by an inbred group of gluttons who couldn't survive without the life they drain
from others...
yerfej 3 hours ago remove link
That is the key "the life they drain from others". I have no issue with those who work
their aysses off keeping their just rewards, but this kind of insider filth needs a
lamppost.
two hoots 1 hour ago
Summers and those of his Jabba class know that uncontrolled Congressional giving could
cause collateral damage to their lifestyles. So does every comfortable class below them. It
all depends where you are positioned. Here on ZH i find people playing all sides of the class
game to whatever suits their current mood of us/them others. The more an event can affect us
directly determines where we direct our dislikes...up or down...inconsistently.
Doom Porn Star 1 hour ago
ALL politicians and 'public servants' who advocateor demand lockdowns and restrictions
should cede ALL pay, benefits and accrual of all retirement or other benefits for the
duration of ANY lockdown or restriction of ANY kind.
Those who advocate or demand sacrificed should make first, fullest largest sacrifices.
The whole lot of fascist 'some animals are better than others' lot should be thrown in
gitmo or equivalent.
The_Dude 3 hours ago (Edited)
Study what Summer's and his (((ilk))) did to pillage post - Soviet Russia and you will
understand who is untouchable in this society... And why in more sophisticated societies,
they were always kept at the periphery where they couldn't harm others.
Larry 'Dinner with Epstein' Summers has put more than his foot in his mouth.
BlueLightning 3 hours ago
O boy he's scared now
sgt_doom 2 hours ago (Edited)
Isn't Larry Summers the chief poster boy of the Global Banking Cartel ever since he
inserted the credit derivatives clause in the WTO's Financial Services Agreement*** making it
acceptable legal tender?
Believe that was during the Clinton Administration.
Is Larry still a lobbyist for the cental bankers? Oh yes, his photo is still there:
***[Credit to Greg Palast for uncovering this item.]
Arising 2.0 2 hours ago (Edited)
Larry is a cabal member who has always been out of touch with the 'silly goy'.
iambrambles 3 hours ago
The real question is why trillions to foreign govs and corporations.
$2000/American is chump change and isnt what anyone should be focusing on.
America never had the right fiscal priorities, people tend to forget the brilliance of the
US was with the constitution that enabled more freedoms than before.
But fiscally, America was always doomed after the absolution of the gold standard and the
creation of the federal reserve which allowed for endless government largesse.
ElTerco 2 hours ago (Edited) remove link
"negative consequences of aid to the less fortunate..."
Yet, no mention from Larry of negative consequences of aid to the more fortunate, which,
so far this year, has been around 40x as much money.
ElTerco 2 hours ago (Edited)
The $10+ trillion that has been pumped into the US economy so far has been a firehose to
top earners, while people who lost their jobs got a trickle of runoff as it worked its way
down the street through a very long, crap filled gutter.
Funny how Summers never mentioned *that*.
Max21c 2 hours ago (Edited) remove link
"When I see a coalition of Josh Hawley, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump getting behind
an idea, I think that's time to run for cover," he said, adding: "When you see the two
extremes agreeing, you can almost be certain that something crazy is in the air."
Thus is just more elitist nonsense from the silly conventional wisdom of Washingtonians,
elites, and the Democratic Party establishment. Bernie Sanders was a solid and strong and
energetic candidate and he could have had a chance of beating Trump in a free & fair
election had the Party nomination not been fixed and stolen from him by elites and their
puppet press smear campaigns.
Democrats made a mistake in attacking and undermining Bernie Sanders. Since much of what
has transpired this past year has been massive increases in domestic spending and some social
spending. Bernie Sanders could have beat Trump--fair and square--whereas the Crats had to
cheat with Biden and steal the election. Had the Democratic Party not stolen the election
from Sanders it likely Sanders would have had a significant opportunity to beat Trump. Since
Sanders was positioned right/correctly to be competitive in contrast and have some edge with
a significant part of the public on peace, foreign policy, domestic policy, and social
spending agendas. Would have been a tight race with Sanders versus Trump instead of the fraud
and fraudulent election of 2020. Definitely would have been a tossup on balance. Would have
been even harder if Sanders had teamed with Tulsi Gabbard as they would have had a serious
edge in foreign policy. But both Sanders and Gabbard are official pariahs and lepers in the
Democratic Party and its establishment as well as in the Washington establishment. Sanders
had the issues and would have had the momentum to give Trump a serious run for the money had
he not be forced aside in favor of the establishment candidate in a series of rigged
primaries and media smear campaigns and other subterfuge & Machavellian intrigues.
Max21c 1 hour ago (Edited)
I don't have issue with the size of company but do not like state sponsored industry
whereby the state security apparatus heavily favors state industries and state sponsored
industries--and--the secret police community and intelligence community and political class
ensure that the statals/SEO and state backed companies are protected by the state security
apparatus... The government doesn't have any business being used by Washingtonians, JudeoWASP
elites, Ivy Leaguers and their secret police to using military warmaking powers in the secret
police and intelligence community to rob one and redistribute back to state industries and
state sponsored industries and favor elites and their firms using secret police powers...
That's what both the Bolsheviks and Nazis did... It's the banana republoc and police state
and tyranny...
The socialism Bernie was talking about seemed more his advocating for increases in social
spending. The socialism Washington currently practices both openly and secretively &
covertly and illegally through abuses of secret police powers and state secrecy is much more
dangerous than what Bernie was advocating. The current socialist system as practiced by
Washingtonians and their secret police does much more damage to the country. The police state
socialism is much worse than the social spending games.
Bay Area Guy 2 hours ago remove link
LOL. How do you overheat a dead economy? No real growth (inflation adjusted) in at least
20 years; real unemployment at least 12.5% and probably north of 20%; this DESPITE interest
rates at all time lows and likely to go negative. And this fool is talking about overheating
the economy.
Max21c 2 hours ago remove link
If they can handout hundreds of billions to businesses under a questionable government to
business subsidy program that has been previously fraught with fraud, inefficiencies in
timeliness & appropriateness and geographical distribution. Also, such government to biz
programs which shall likely fail to serve both business and the economy effectively both by
practice and natural elements: such as some businesses being located in areas with a more
sophisticated biz culture; and set of skills; as well as access to better educated &
possibly more skillful entrepreneurs and cultures thereof; as well as some firms being simply
better positioned; as well as some firms being more program wise or welfare wise; and still
other firms being better tuned in or connected to the political system and or its
bureaucracy. Given the afore situation the money is better spent on a basis of widely
scattered and unpredictable et uncontrollable and thus not as apt to manipulation as well as
a direct to households holding the advantage of timeliness.
About 4k is about right for the floor/minimum on the basis of 2k in the form of a stimulus
and another matching 2k+ coming from forwarded tax rebates for future years which can be paid
back through payroll deductions or which can be paid back similar to installment loans
monthly or quarterly.
2k shall suffice in the near term as to stimulating consumer spending, consumer
confidence, business confidence, sales & revenues & profits or the improvement in the
outlook of a future return to profitability and the confidence & risks taking that comes
with firms seeking current and future profits and potentially making investments and pursuing
loans and the potential for an earlier uptick in the credit cycle as banks may change their
outlook on lending sooner than they might otherwise.
"... Lockdowns as being inherently against the working class is a capitalist (liberal)
falsification: if you pay them while they're kept safe in their homes, you'll have the best
of the two worlds for the working class (being paid without working). This option is only
an anathema for the middle class and the capitalist class - who can't imagine a world
without the proletarians serving them ..."
We all live in an interconnected world and middle class, capitalist class (whatever that's
supposed to mean) and proletarians alike supply goods and services to one another. Money is
the medium that facilitates such exchanges. It follows then that proletarians also serve one
another and ditto for the other classes.
If working classes are paid to stay in their homes, who then supplies their needs? In
spite of Jeff Bozo's efforts and those of Elon Musk, not all transport is self-automating and
robots in Amazon warehouses still need some human inputs to operate quickly and without
hitches.
One could also argue that working fulfils other, non-monetary needs. Karl Marx actually
foresaw this when he wrote about anomie in capitalist systems of production, in which workers
are denied control over their lives and the work they do by being denied any say in what they
produce, how they produce it, the resources and environment needed to produce outputs, and
maybe even whether they can be allowed to work at all.
Lockdowns can be viewed as another method in which to deny people control over their work
and work environments. People socialise at work and lockdowns may be a way to deny workers a
place or a means to connect with others (and maybe to form unions). Is it any wonder then,
that during lockdowns people's mental health has become an issue and public health experts
became concerned at the possibility that such phenomena as suicide and domestic violence
could increase?
You can understand this from this quotation. It is the internal contradictions of the wesern
capitalist system that is driving the changes we observe, not "pressure applied by China",
which I would say is a myth.
"The fundamental cause of the development of a thing is not external but internal: it lies
in the contradictionariness within the thing. This internal contradiction exists in every
single thing, hence its motion and development. Contradictionariness within a thing is the
fundamental cause of its development, while its interrelations and interactions with other
things are secondary causes."
"It (Materialist dialectics) holds that external causes are the conditions of change and
internal causes are the basis of change, and that external causes become operative through
internal causes. In a suitable temperature an egg changes into a chicken, but no temperature
can change a stone into a chicken, because each has a different basis."
Mao Zedong. "On Contradiction" August 1937. Selected Works, Vol.1, p.315.
Lockdowns are a medical protection to eradicate a contagious virus.
The lock downs we have had are fake and we're designed to fail. For political reasons.
The very people who complained 10 months ago, were responsible for them not working,
10 months later those people are still complaining. They are the ones who have prolonged the
contagion.
They are to blame. That includes the polatians and duped public.
It's deliberate !
For those of you that worked hard and played by the rules your whole life to try to save
enough money to have a decent retirement you were robbed and played like a bunch of suckers
by Wall Street. The Fed is helping them steal any wealth the middle class has left. I'm not
sure why these people are still breathing. They should be swinging by their neck from a
rope.
Lost in translation 12 hours ago
"The status quo has been increasingly rigged to benefit insiders and elites as the powers
of central banks and governments have picked the winners (cronies, insiders, cartels and
monopolies) and shifted the losses and risks onto the losers (the rest of us)."
Charles displays a remarkable grasp of the obvious. I sometimes wonder if his target
audience isn't 11-year olds.
Sound of the Suburbs 7 hours ago
How can things possibly get any worse for young people?
Sky high housing costs
Student loans
Low wages and precarious part time jobs
A minimum wage specified at an hourly rate that won't pay a living wage in a part time
job
Most young people don't start off with any capital, and with student loans they will
actually start off with loads of debt.
It's all about investors, so people with money can make more money, and they haven't got
any.
Those young people are trying to earn their money and this just isn't the way we do things
anymore.
J J Pettigrew 6 hours ago
how about HB1 visas and the overstaying? Floods the labor market with outsiders.
Fundamentally transforming the nation.
Sound of the Suburbs 5 hours ago
Young people can't afford to start a family anymore.
You've got to sort out the demographic problem with immigration.
yerfej 5 hours ago
The tax system mimics society, both are run by elites and have so much complexity that
ONLY elites have the ability to circumvent them. Lawyers own society and it is of course to
their benefit to make it full of layer after layer of complex rules and regulations, which as
sold as "protecting the commoner", but in reality it protects the elites by stifling
competition. Start by cleaning up the tax code, have ONE flat rate for ANY AND ALL income
above the poverty allowance and be done with it. THEN the elites can't game the system with
layers and tax accountants to avoid paying. If the common people realized how screwed they're
getting by complexity they would force the change to one rate for all.
Bay Area Guy 3 hours ago
The problem in America today was caused by the Clinton/Bush/Obama administrations, along
with a complicit Congress, encouraging the off-shoring of US jobs, along with vastly
increasing the number of jobs given to people holding H1b's visas who, in turn, off shore a
large percentage of their salaries to their home countries, effectively off-shoring even more
money. The result can be seen in US GDP. Real GDP (after including the effects of inflation),
has consistently contracted since 2000 (see Shadowstats). Add in the fact that illegal
immigration (and, to a smaller extent, legal immigration) has increased the population, and
the result is you have a greater number of people trying to get their share of an economic
pie that's shrinking. When the economy was expanding, people generally felt good about their
situation. So if some sector got a bit of an increase that was more than their increase, it
wasn't as big a thing. But now, with a shrinking economy, when the homeless or illegals or
any other group gets more money, people are increasingly seeing that it's taken out of their
share and they see themselves falling further and further behind. So, they react and object
to that.
So, until or unless a way is found to expand the pie (the economy), you're going to see
greater and greater levels of frustration as anytime Group A gets more funding, every other
group is going to scream bloody murder.
Sound of the Suburbs 7 hours ago (Edited)
What is real wealth creation?
The last thing hedge funds, private equity firms and bankers need is anyone finding
out.
I thought those neoliberals were educated.
Well they like to think they are, but they have no idea about the most basic things like
wealth creation and the monetary system.
They have confused making money with creating wealth.
Sound of the Suburbs 7 hours ago
The US is going downhill fast.
What can we do?
Let them know what real wealth creation is, then they should be away.
Where does real wealth creation take place in the economy?
Economists do identify where real wealth creation in the economy occurs, but this is a
most inconvenient truth as it reveals many at the top don't actually create any wealth.
This is the problem.
Much of their money comes from wealth extraction rather than wealth creation, and they
need to get everyone thoroughly confused so we don't realise what they are really up to.
The Classical Economists had a quick look around and noticed the aristocracy were
maintained in luxury and leisure by the hard work of everyone else.
They haven't done anything economically productive for centuries, they couldn't miss
it.
The Classical economist, Adam Smith:
"The labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the maintaining
of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury by the
labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions from the industrious
merchant and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his
money."
There was no benefits system in those days, and if those at the bottom didn't work they
died.
They had to earn money to live.
Ricardo was an expert on the small state, unregulated capitalism he observed in the world
around him.
He was part of the new capitalist class, and the old landowning class were a huge problem
with their rents that had to be paid both directly and through wages.
"The interest of the landlords is always opposed to the interest of every other class in
the community" Ricardo 1815 / Classical Economist.
They soon identified the constructive "earned" income and the parasitic "unearned"
income.
This disappeared in neoclassical economics.
GDP was invented after they used neoclassical economics last time.
In the 1920s, the economy roared, the stock market soared and nearly everyone had been
making lots of money.
In the 1930s, they were wondering what the hell had just happened as everything had
appeared to be going so well in the 1920s and then it all just fell apart.
They needed a better measure to see what was really going on in the economy and came up
with GDP.
In the 1930s, they pondered over where all that wealth had gone to in 1929 and realised
inflating asset prices doesn't create real wealth, they came up with the GDP measure to track
real wealth creation in the economy.
The transfer of existing assets, like stocks and real estate, doesn't create real wealth
and therefore does not add to GDP. The real wealth creation in the economy is measured by
GDP.
Real wealth creation involves real work producing new goods and services in the
economy.
So all that transferring existing financial assets around doesn't create wealth?
No it doesn't, and now you are ready to start thinking about what is really going on
there.
Don't get confused between making money and creating wealth.
When you equate making money with creating wealth, people try and make money in the
easiest way possible, which doesn't actually create any wealth.
In 1984, for the first time in American history, "unearned" income exceeded "earned"
income.
The American have lost sight of what real wealth creation is, and are just focussed on
making money.
You might as well do that in the easiest way possible.
It looks like a parasitic rentier capitalism because that is what it is.
Bankers make the most money when they are driving your economy into a financial
crisis.
They will load your economy up with their debt products until you get a financial
crisis.
On a BBC documentary, comparing 1929 to 2008, it said the last time US bankers made as
much money as they did before 2008 was in the 1920s.
The financial crisis appears to come out of a clear blue sky when you use an economics
that doesn't consider debt, like neoclassical economics.
Banks – What is the idea?
The idea is that banks lend into business and industry to increase the productive capacity
of the economy.
Business and industry don't have to wait until they have the money to expand. They can
borrow the money and use it to expand today, and then pay that money back in the future.
The economy can then grow more rapidly than it would without banks.
Debt grows with GDP and there are no problems.
The banks create money and use it to create real wealth.
Winter Is Coming for the American working-class.
Even if you don't care about the working poor, their suffering is going to affect you. In some
ways it already has. Despite the CDC eviction moratorium,
evictions have continued during the pandemic. This is led to hundreds of thousands of
people being
infected with Covid .
Expiring state eviction bans have led to hundreds of thousands of additional coronavirus
cases, new research finds, raising alarm about what will happen when the national eviction
moratorium lapses next month.
...
The researchers, from the University of California, Los Angeles, University of California,
San Francisco, Johns Hopkins University, Boston University and Wake Forest University School
of Law, found that lifting state moratoriums and allowing eviction proceedings to continue
caused as many as 433,700 excess cases of Covid-19 and 10,700 additional deaths in the U.S.
between March and September.
If the CDC's eviction ban isn't extended until 2021, experts say, many new cases are
likely to emerge from people being forced out of their houses and apartments.
"This is a time where it's not an overstatement to say that for many people, eviction can
lead to death ," said Helen Matthews, communications manager at City Life Vita Urbana, a
nonprofit in Boston.
It should come as no surprise to anyone that making people homeless during the pandemic is a
public health nightmare. Yet the eviction moratorium did not mean free rent. All that unpaid
rent is build up to $36 billion.
So how many people are about to be evicted? How many people will be homeless on our streets in
the coming months?
It depends on who you ask, but it will be in the tens of millions. Let that sink in for a
moment. Tens of millions of Americans are about to lose their place of residence. The
government has no plans to do anything about it.
One study says 19
million Americans will be evicted in the next two months. That's the conservative
estimate.
Another study says
40 million Americans will lose their homes this winter. These are numbers that will
destabilize American society and the American political system.
The end of the moratorium comes at the same time as the
end of stimulus money .
UI, stimulus, and welfare combined, after spiking to an annual rate of $3.88 trillion in
April, fell to $1.04 trillion in October
39 million Americans
don't have enough to eat right now, and people are waiting in line for hours at food banks
all over the nation just for some Thanksgiving handouts.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately 12 percent of all Americans did not have
enough food to eat between October 28th and November 9th.
Let's like clear about something. Politicians, the media, and of course the wealthy couldn't
care less about the suffering of the working class.
However, they do care about getting sick and dying. So what's going to happen is that working
class are going to be crushed, and only then, when the Covid cases spiked to unimaginable
levels, will the ruling elites have an epiphany. That epiphany is you really are your brother's
keeper.
Winter Is Coming for the American working-class.
Even if you don't care about the working poor, their suffering is going to affect you. In some
ways it already has. Despite the CDC eviction moratorium,
evictions have continued during the pandemic. This is led to hundreds of thousands of people
being
infected with Covid .
Expiring state eviction bans have led to hundreds of thousands of additional coronavirus cases,
new research finds, raising alarm about what will happen when the national eviction moratorium
lapses next month.
...
The researchers, from the University of California, Los Angeles, University of California, San
Francisco, Johns Hopkins University, Boston University and Wake Forest University School of
Law, found that lifting state moratoriums and allowing eviction proceedings to continue caused
as many as 433,700 excess cases of Covid-19 and 10,700 additional deaths in the U.S. between
March and September.
If the CDC's eviction ban isn't extended until 2021, experts say, many new cases are likely
to emerge from people being forced out of their houses and apartments.
"This is a time where it's not an overstatement to say that for many people, eviction can
lead to death ," said Helen Matthews, communications manager at City Life Vita Urbana, a
nonprofit in Boston.
It should come as no surprise to anyone that making people homeless during the pandemic is a
public health nightmare. Yet the eviction moratorium did not mean free rent. All that unpaid rent
is build up to $36 billion.
So how many people are about to be evicted? How many people will be homeless on our streets in
the coming months?
It depends on who you ask, but it will be in the tens of millions. Let that sink in for a moment.
Tens of millions of Americans are about to lose their place of residence. The government
has no plans to do anything about it.
One study says 19
million Americans will be evicted in the next two months. That's the conservative
estimate.
Another study says
40 million Americans will lose their homes this winter. These are numbers that will
destabilize American society and the American political system.
The end of the moratorium comes at the same time as the
end of stimulus money .
UI, stimulus, and welfare combined, after spiking to an annual rate of $3.88 trillion in April,
fell to $1.04 trillion in October
39 million Americans
don't have enough to eat right now, and people are waiting in line for hours at food banks
all over the nation just for some Thanksgiving handouts.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately 12 percent of all Americans did not have
enough food to eat between October 28th and November 9th.
Let's like clear about something. Politicians, the media, and of course the wealthy couldn't
care less about the suffering of the working class.
However, they do care about getting sick and dying. So what's going to happen is that working
class are going to be crushed, and only then, when the Covid cases spiked to unimaginable levels,
will the ruling elites have an epiphany. That epiphany is you really are your brother's
keeper.
Plenty of money to wage war and create suffering abroad, but not enough to take care of the
peasants at home. I keep hearing the US is a neofeudalist country...in classic feudal times
they took care of the serfs...perhaps that the neo part.
Sure is a sad state you present gjohnsit. Thanks for informing us.
A research team I'm part of just published data looking at the 'diseases of despair' crisis
over the last decade (full article is free and available online).
A brief summary of our findings below, and some thoughts....
Trends in the diagnosis of diseases of despair in the United States...
Background and objective Increasing mortality and decreasing life expectancy in the USA are
largely attributable to accidental...
AUDIO:
FOR THE FIRST TIME IN NEARLY 100 YEARS, LIFE
EXPECTANCY IS DECREASING IN THE UNITED STATES. IN THIS EPISODE, DR. LARRY SINOWAY DISCUSSES THE DECLINE AND HOW IT RELATES
TO...
view
more
CREDIT: PENN STATE CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE INSTITUTE
Medical diagnoses
involving alcohol-related disorders, substance-related disorders and suicidal thoughts and behaviors -- commonly referred to
as diseases of despair -- increased in Pennsylvania health insurance claims between the years 2007 and 2018, according to
researchers from Penn State Clinical and Translational Science Institute and Highmark Health Enterprise Analytics.
Princeton
economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton proposed the concept of deaths of despair in 2015. Case and Deaton's research observed a
decline in life expectancy of middle-aged white men and women between 1999 and 2015 -- the first such decline since the flu
pandemic of 1918. They theorized that this decline is associated with the social and economic downturn in rural communities
and small towns. These changes include loss of industry, falling wages, lower marriage rates, increasing barriers to higher
education, an increase in one-parent homes and a loss of social infrastructure.
"It is theorized
that these changes have fostered growing feelings of despair including disillusionment, precariousness and resignation in many
peoples' lives," Daniel George, associate professor of humanities and public health sciences, Penn State College of Medicine,
said. "Despair can trigger emotional, cognitive, behavioral and even biological changes, increasing the likelihood of diseases
that can progress and ultimately culminate in deaths of despair."
With the
commonwealth's considerable rural and small-town population, particularly around Penn State campuses, Penn State Clinical and
Translational Science Institute led a research study to understand the rate of diseases of despair in Pennsylvania. Institute
researchers collaborated with Highmark Health, one of the state's largest health insurance providers. Highmark provides
employer-sponsored, individual, Affordable Care Act and Medicare plans.
Highmark Health's
Enterprise Analytics team analyzed the claims of more than 12 million people on their plans from 2007 to 2018. Penn State did
not have access to Highmark member data or individual private health information. Although the insurance claims included
members from neighboring states, including West Virginia, Delaware, and Ohio, the majority of the claims were from
Pennsylvania residents. Researchers reported their results in
BMJ Open
.
The researchers
defined diseases of despair as diagnoses related to alcohol use, substance use and suicidal thoughts or behaviors. They
searched the claims data for the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes related to these diagnoses. ICD codes
form a standardized system maintained by the World Health Organization and are used in health records and for billing.
The researchers
found that the rate of diagnoses related to diseases of despair increased significantly in the Highmark claims in the past
decade. Nearly one in 20 people in the study sample was diagnosed with a disease of despair. Between 2009 and 2018, the rates
of alcohol-, substance-, and suicide-related diagnoses increased by 37%, 94% and 170%. Following Case and Deaton's findings,
the researchers saw the most substantial percentage increase in disease of despair diagnoses among men ages 35 to 74, followed
by women ages 55 to 74 and 18 to 34.
The rate of
alcohol-related diagnoses significantly increased among men and women ages 18 and over. The most dramatic increases were among
men and women ages 55 to 74. Rates increased for men in this age group by 50% and 80% for women.
The rate of
substance-related diagnoses roughly doubled for men and women ages 35 to 54 and increased by 170% in ages 55 to 74. In 2018,
the most recent year of claims included in the study, rates of substance-use diagnoses were highest in 18-to-34-year-olds.
The rate of
diagnoses related to suicidal thoughts and behaviors increased for all age groups. Among 18-to-34-year-olds, rates increased
by at least 200%. The rate for all other age groups increased by at least 60%.
The type of
insurance patients had also mattered. People with Medicare insurance had 1.5 times higher odds of having a disease of despair
diagnosis and those with Affordable Care Act insurance had 1.3 times higher odds.
One increase
stood out to researchers: among infants, substance-related diagnoses doubled.
"This increase
was entirely attributable to neonatal abstinence syndrome and corresponded closely with increases in substance-related
disorders among women of childbearing age," Emily Brignone, senior research scientist, Highmark Health Enterprise Analytics,
said.
Neonatal
abstinence syndrome occurs when a baby withdraws from substances, especially opioids, exposed to in the womb.
Future research
can concentrate on identifying "hot spots" of diseases of despair diagnoses in the commonwealth to then study the social and
economic conditions in these areas. With this data, researchers can potentially create predictive models to identify
communities at risk and develop interventions.
"We found a broad
view of who is impacted by increases in diseases of despair, which cross racial, ethnic and geographic groups," Jennifer
Kraschnewski, professor of medicine, public health sciences and pediatrics, said. "Although originally thought to mostly
affect rural communities, these increases in all middle-aged adults across the rural-urban continuum likely foreshadows future
premature deaths."
###
National Center
for Advancing Translational Science of the National Institutes of Health through Penn State Clinical and Translational Science
Institute funded this research.
A podcast about
this topic is available here.
Other researchers
on this project were Lawrence Sinoway, director, Penn State Clinical and Translational Science Institute; Curren Katz and
Robert Gladden, Highmark Health Enterprise Analytics; Charity Sauder, administrative director, Penn State Clinical and
Translational Science Institute; and Andrea Murray, project manager, Penn State College of Medicine.
Disclaimer:
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the
accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the
EurekAlert system.
Back in 2013 a group of Apple employees decided
to sue the global behemoth. Every day, after they were clocking out, they were required to
go through a corporate screening where their personal belongings were examined. It was a
process required and administered by Apple. But Apple did not want to pay its employees for the
time it had required them to spend. It could be anywhere from 40 to 80 hours a year that an
employee spent going through that process. What made Apple so confident in brazenly
nickel-and-diming its geniuses?
Jeff Rubin, author of The
Expendables: How the Middle Class got Screwed by Globalization , has an answer to the
above question that is easily deduced from the subtitle of his book. The socio-economic
arrangements produced by globalization have made labor the most flexible and plentiful resource
in the economic process. The pressure on the middle class, and all that falls below it, has
been so persistent and powerful, that now " only 37
percent of Americans believe their children will be better off financially than they
themselves are. Only 24 percent in Canada or Australia feel the same. And in France, that
figure dips to only 9 percent." And "[i]n the mid-1980s it would have taken a typical
middle-income family with two children less than seven years of income to save up to buy a
home; it now takes more than ten years. At the same time, housing expenditures that accounted
for a quarter of most middle-class household incomes in the 1990s now account
for a third ."
The story of globalization is engraved in the " shuttered
factories across North America, the boarded-up main streets, the empty union halls." Rubin
does admit that there are benefits accrued from globalization, billions have been lifted up out
of poverty in what was previously known as the third world, wealth has been created, certain
efficiencies have been achieved. The question for someone in the western world is how much more
of a price he's willing to pay to keep the whole thing going on, especially as we have entered
a phase of diminishing returns for almost all involved.
As Joel Kotkin has written, "[e]ven in Asia, there are signs of social collapse. According
to a recent survey by the
Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs, half of all Korean households have experienced
some form of family crisis, many involving debt, job loss, or issues relating to child or elder
care." And "[i]n "classless" China, a massive class of migrant workers -- over 280 million --
inhabit a netherworld of substandard housing, unsteady work, and miserable environmental
conditions, all after leaving their offspring behind in villages. These new serfs vastly
outnumber the Westernized, highly educated Chinese whom most
Westerners encounter. " "Rather than replicating the middle-class growth of
post–World War II America and Europe, notes researcher Nan Chen, 'China appears to have
skipped that stage altogether and headed straight for a model of extraordinary productivity but
disproportionately
distributed wealth like the contemporary United States.'"
Although Rubin concedes to the globalist side higher GDP growth, even that does not seem to
be so true for the western world in the last couple decades. Per Nicholas Eberstadt, in "Our
Miserable 21st Century," "[b]etween late 2000 and late 2007, per capita GDP growth averaged
less
than 1.5 percent per annum." "With postwar, pre-21st-century rates for the years
2000–2016, per capita GDP in America would be more than 20
percent higher than it is today."
Stagnation seems to be a more apt characterization of the situation we are in. Fredrik
Erixon in his superb The Innovation
Illusion , argues that "[p]roductivity growth is going south, and has been doing so
for several decades." "Between 1995 and 2009, Europe's labor productivity grew by just 1
percent annually." Noting that "[t]he four factors that have made Western capitalism dull and
hidebound are gray capital, corporate managerialism, globalization, and complex
regulation."
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.426.0_en.html#goog_1789765618 Ad ends in
15s
Contrary to popular belief, globalization has functioned as a substitute for innovation and
growth. With globalization on the march, the western ruling class could continue to indulge in
its most preferred activities, regulation and taxation, in an environment where both of these
political addictions appeared sustainable. Non-western elites could perpetuate their
authoritarian regimes, garnering growth and legitimacy, from the access to the western markets.
Their copy-and-paste method of "innovation" from western firms would fit well with an
indigenous business class composed of mostly insiders and ex-regime apparatchiks.
There are plenty of criticisms that can be laid at the feet of globalization. The issue with
Rubin's book is that is does not advance very much beyond some timeworn condemnations of it.
One gets the sense that the value of this book is merely in its audacity to question the
conventional wisdom on the issue at hand. Rubin, who is somewhat sympathetic to Donald Trump,
seems to be much closer to someone like Bernie Sanders, especially an earlier version of
Sanders that dared to talk about the debilitating effects of immigration on the working
class.
Like Sanders, Rubin starts to get blurry as he goes from the condemnation phase to the
programmatic offers available. What exactly would be his tariffs policy, how far he would go?
What would be the tradeoffs of this policy? Where we could demarcate a reasonable fair
environment for the worker and industry and where we would start to create another type of a
stagnation trap for the whole economy? All these would be important questions for Rubin to
grapple with and would give to his criticisms more gravitas.
It would have also been of value if he had dealt more deeply with the policies of the Trump
administration. On the one hand, the Trump administration cracked down on illegal and legal
immigration. It also started to use tariffs and other trade measures as a way to boost industry
and employment. On the other hand, it reduced personal and corporate taxes and it deregulated
to the utmost degree possible. It was a kind of 'walled' laisser-faire that seemed to work
until Covid-19 hit. Real household income in the U.S.
increased $4,379 in 2019 over 2018. It was "more income growth in one year than in the 8
years of Obama-Biden." And during Trump's time, the lowest paid workers started not to just be
making gains, but making gains faster than the wealthy. "Low-wage workers are getting bigger
raises than bosses" ran a CBS News
headline .
Rubin seems to view tax cuts and deregulation as another giveaway to large corporations. But
these large corporations are just fine with high taxation, since they have a choice as to when
and where they get taxed. Regulation is also more of a tool than a burden for them. It's a very
expedient means for eliminating competitors and competition, a useful barrier to entry for any
upstart innovator that would upend the industry they are in. Besides, if high taxation and
regulation were a kind of antidote to globalization, then France would be in a much better
shape than it appears to be. But France seems to be doing worse than anybody else. In the
aforementioned poll about if their "children will be better off financially than they
themselves are" France was at the bottom in the group of countries that Rubin cited. The recent
events with the yellow-vests movement indicate a very deep dissatisfaction and pessimism of its
middle and working class.
Moreover, there does not seem to be much hostility or even much contention between
government bureaucracies and the upper echelons of the corporate world. Something that Rubin's
politics and economics would necessitate. And cultural and political like-mindedness between
government bureaucracies and the managerial class of large corporations is not just limited to
the mutual embrace of woke politics. It seems that there is a cross pollination of a much
broader set of ideas and habits between bureaucrats and the managerial class. For instance,
Erixon notes that "[c]orporate
managers shy away from uncertainty but turn companies into bureaucratic entities free from
entrepreneurial habits. They strive to make capitalism predictable." Striving for
predictability is a very bureaucratic state of mind.
In Rubin's book, missed trends like that make his perspective to feel a bit dated. There is
still valuable information in The Expendables . Rubin does know a lot about
international trade deals. For instance, a point that is often ignored in the press about
international trade agreements is that "[i]f you're designated a "developing" country, you get
to protect your own industries with tariffs that are a multiple of those that developed
economies are allowed to use to protect their workers." A rule that China exploits to the
utmost.
Meanwhile, Apple, after its apparent lawsuit loss on the case with its employees in
California, now seems committed to another fight with the expendables of another locale. The
Washington Post reported that "Apple
lobbyists are trying to weaken a bill aimed at preventing forced labor in China, according to
two congressional staffers familiar with the matter, highlighting the clash between its
business imperatives and its official stance on human rights." "The bill aims to end the use of
forced Uighur labor in the Xinjiang region of China ." The war against the expendables never
ends.
Napoleon Linarthatos is a writer based in New York.
Damn, Krystal dropping one of her classic heaters today: "Affirmative action is the type of program that poses little
threat and only benefits to affluent white liberals. It's the college admissions version of identity politics: more
about getting brown faces in high places to make WHITE people feel good than it is about actually addressing the very
real problems it seeks to ameliorate." - Krystal Ball
As a black person I hate to admit that I've bought into the BS all of this time but she is absolutely right. All of her
data is correct. AA is just a tool for bourgeoisie blacks to get into better schools. Period. Nothing else. Stop trying
to sell it as some saving grace that it is not. The point about student loans is exactly right. If you want to help a
ton of black people with college then do something about this BS student loan situation.
"White Saviors" is a way to say what we've been saying all along. Affirmative Action IS racist. You are saying that
someone needs help because of their skin color, as if that makes them inferior. Racist.
When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America, by Ira
Katznelson (W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 2005), preface, appendix, index, 238 pp.
By Jon Queally, staff writer, Common Dreams. Originally published at
Common Dreams
Pinpointing a reality denounced as "
morally obscene " by Sen. Bernie Sanders, a new government study shows how some of the
nation's largest and most profitable corporations -- including Walmart, McDonald's, Dollar
General, and Amazon -- feast upon taxpayer money by paying their employees such low wages that
huge numbers of those workers throughout the year are forced to rely on public assistance
programs such as Medicaid and food assistance just to keep themselves and their families
afloat.
According to a statement from Sanders' office, the study he commissioned the Government
Accountability Office to carry out -- titled " Millions of Full-time Workers Rely on Federal Health
Care and Food Assistance Programs " -- found that an estimated 5.7 million Medicaid
enrollees and 4.7 million SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) recipients who
worked full-time for 50 or more weeks in 2018 earned wages so low that they qualified for these
federal benefits. In addition, an estimated 12 million wage-earning adults enrolled in Medicaid
and 9 million wage-earning adults living in households receiving SNAP benefits worked at some
point in 2018.
Upon the study's release Wednesday, Warren Gunnels, staff director and policy adviser for
Sen. Sanders, tweeted: "The real looting in America is the Walton family becoming $63 billion
richer during a pandemic, while paying wages so low that 14,541 of their workers in 9 states
need food stamps -- all subsidized by U.S. taxpayers. Yes. The Walton family is the real
welfare queen in America."
According to the Washington Post :, based on the GAO report:
Walmart was one of the top four employers of SNAP and Medicaid beneficiaries in every
state. McDonald's was in the top five of employers with employees receiving federal benefits
in at least nine states.
In the nine states that responded about SNAP benefits -- Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana,
Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, North Carolina, Tennessee and Washington -- Walmart was found
to have employed about 14,500 workers receiving the benefit, followed by McDonald's with
8,780, according to Sanders's team. In six states that reported Medicaid enrollees, Walmart
again topped the list, with 10,350 employees, followed by McDonald's with 4,600.
In Georgia, for example, Walmart employed an estimated 3,959 workers on Medicaid -- an
estimated 2.1 percent of the total of non-elderly, non-disabled people in the state receiving
the benefit. McDonald's was next on the list, employing 1,480 who received Medicaid, or 0.8
percent of the total of non-elderly, non-disabled people on the program. "
"At a time when huge corporations like Walmart and McDonald's are making billions in profits
and giving their CEOs tens of millions of dollars a year, they're relying on corporate welfare
from the federal government by paying their workers starvation wages," said Sanders in a
statement. "That is morally obscene."
With the individual wealth of
high-ranking executives and members of billionaire families like the Walton's, who own
Walmart, soaring even as front-line, minimum wage employees and their families struggling to
stay afloat amid the devastating Covid-19 pandemic, Sanders argues that the stark contrast
should be a wakeup call for those who have refused to see how unjust and economically backward
it is for the federal government, meaning taxpayers, to subsidize the cruel wages that massive
profitable companies force their workers to accept.
"U.S. taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize some of the largest and most profitable
corporations in America," said Sanders. "It is time for the owners of Walmart, McDonald's and
other large corporations to get off of welfare and pay their workers a living wage."
No one in this country should live in poverty," Sanders added. "No one should go hungry. No
one should be unable to get the medical care they need. It is long past time to increase the
federal minimum wage from a starvation wage of $7.25 an hour to $15, and guarantee health care
to all Americans as a human right."
These looters at the top don't just rely on welfare for their workers: they also rely on
government assistance in other ways, such as favorable tax treatment and other goodies to
bring their boondoggles to town, and of course trillions in infusions/ giveaways like we saw
this year. Not to mention golden parachutes in corporate bankruptcies, facilitated by the
"way things are done."
""There is no document of civilization which is not at the same time a document of
barbarism," wrote Walter Benjamin. In precisely this vein, Walton's new Crystal Bridges
museum offers American-made art to strategically cover up the ugly reality Walmart has
created. Spanning the colonial era to the present, the exhibition space's fulsome celebration
of the American spirit eulogizes the nation of shared confidence and abundance, sustainable
mortgages, and worker dignity that Walmart has brutally demolished. The notion that Walton's
supremely self-satisfied kunsthalle might serve as a balm, let alone a monument, to the
market-battered American spirit is analogous to, say, Genghis Khan inviting survivors of his
Mongol hordes to admire an installation of his plunder "
As Amazon uses a network of subcontractors and contractors for everything for logistics to
making toilet paper, all those employees will never show up on "official" stats re.
Amazon.
I called it a straw man because " but let us sweep Whole Foods and Amazon Prime under the
rug" suggested that the piece had done that, when they weren't mentioned.
An equally accurate storyline could be–"Workers in at least 9 states would be forced
to live off even more government handouts without Walmart's employment".
Its tough to give companies grief here simply for paying what the market dictates. I'm all
for going after the route of the problem–monopsony power–but noting the symptoms
without actually raising awareness of the underlying problem is a distraction that keeps the
plebs anger directed where it can't have much effect on the bigger picture. Being mad at
Walmart instead of the government policy that has destroyed unions and made it easier/cheaper
to move jobs overseas isn't serving middle America. Ironically, this distraction serves
Walmart quite well. They actually champion hire minimum wages as it stifles competition
Its an interesting thought experiment to imagine absolutely no minimum wages but a UBI and
universal healthcare so that no one needed a job just to survive. Then Walmart could pay its
employees any low amount and no one would bat an eye (although I suspect wages actually
wouldnt fall because walmart would lose its monopsony power)
Government policy doesn't write itself: lobbyists guide the pen, and donors/ owners like
Walmart pull the guides' puppet strings. "Personal responsibility" goes both ways.
To use yesterday's metaphor, I'd say that the PMC is like the human being co-driver in a
"self"-driving car programmed by capital.
Though if we can get people to admit they feel the symptoms by describing the symptoms,
some of those people might then be ready and willing to hear about the disease which is
giving them the symptoms.
Tempting as it might be to shape the narrative so that the Walmarts of the World appear
more like hapless innovators, shrewdly capitalizing on a crooked playing field, it only works
if you blinker yourself to the fact that the WotW have at least 8 of the ten fingers on the
hands architecting those same playing fields.
Don't get me wrong–I'm not trying to say Walmart is hapless. Maybe I'm too cynical,
but I actually think they're so shrewd they want you to focus on these press releases about
how they pay so little. If the only thing that stems from that is increasing the minimum
wage, they come out big time winners
Here's what the market dictates. " I can get 10 interns who will pay ME to LET them do
your job. Now shut up and get back to work." The way to stop the Market Dictatorship of what
wages will be is to impose a Legal Dictatorship on the market of what wages will be.
That's what the Wages and Hours Act was about to begin with. Make it a long-sentence
hard-time felony to pay less or to take less. Abolish Free Trade in goods , services or
people. That means Sealing the Borders to create zero immigration for as long as necessary to
use the labor shortage to torture the employER class into raising wages and conditions
upward. And to weld shut the "illegal immigration escape hatch" by which employERS (
including limousine liberals) pay less than the legally imposed minimum wage.
Ya, I agree. Providing health care and making sure kids have food and education are
subsidies that help businesses in a healthy way. And a UBI is a great idea as well! Toss in a
Carbon tax, and you have my ideal policy.
We've had this debate here for years so the above article is a bit of a recycled chestnut
rather than an original thought.
And perhaps the answer for the "outrage" of those Walmart heirs is to reestablishment a
meaningful inheritance tax since receiving billions through death is indeed an entitlement
and not just for the Walmart heirs but also for plenty of mansion owners dotting the
Northeast.
As for the company itself, yes it's a crappy and low paid place to work but they are
hardly unique in that and one reason they top those mentioned lists, along with McDonalds, is
that they are the number one and number two employers by number of employees in the country.
And the reason they are so large is that they give their custormers what they want and can
afford which cannot be said of so many competing looters that the author ignores.
There are lots of worse companies than Walmart but in the battle of the coastals versus
the deplorables they have always made a fat juicy target for those who probably pay their
hired help less than Walmart does its "associates."
Right!?
I keep thinking about how at 15/hour people will lose what small piece of our social safety
net that keeps them "making it". No family is purchasing health insurance on that increase.
And really the few dollars per hour might not even make up the food benefits for a medium
sized family. It's scary to get a raise where you end up worse off then before.
I mean I guess that's just the messed up reality when a whole bunch of household costs have
been introduced or increased since policies using means testing (income and asset thresholds)
to determine access. Actually I am sure ok not sure but it would make sense that these
companies know exactly how much pay will kick these employees off benefits. So the employee
community is less likely to make a fuss for small increases in pay which is the norm we have
come to accept as workers. I'm all for real talk minimum/ living wages for the communities
people actually live in.
"Corporate welfare queens" As others have noted, it isn't just Walmart and the Waltons.
Trying to think of an appropriate term to describe the outcome of the decision by a majority
of the US Supreme Court justices in the Citizens United case that not only enabled but
tacitly encouraged One Percent, corporate, Wall Street, executive branch, legislators' and
central bank behavior that, although still a cycle, has led to the opposite of a "virtuous
cycle". "Morally obscene", corrupt and corruptible, and dishonorable are some descriptions of
resultant behavior that come to mind. Too bad "The Swamp" wasn't drained, but has been
further expanded and left both legacy political parties tarnished. It is said that a fish
rots from the head down. That may be so, but that doesn't mean the rot cannot be allowed to
set in. Follow the Money.
It turns out that when the TrumpAdmin used the phrase " the Swamp", what they strictly
specifically and only meant were the impartial scientists at the various departments ,
bureaus and agencies. And they have done all they could to drain out the impartial scientists
and stop the science. Which is all they ever meant by "drain the Swamp".
Citizens United decision was a display of right wing insanity in all it's glory: I
suppose insanity was either baked into the Constitution – or in 1780 – was not
yet insanity?
Still can't get over that decision – ever since, my thought: term limits for friggen
federal judges – and certainly the SCOTUS crew and throw in Congress and the Senate as
well.
We have term limits for state officeholders in Michigan. All that mostly gets us is
cynical amateurs who view their limited term as a chance to make contacts and audition for
lobbying/law/etc. jobs after leaving office.
And the non-cynical amateurs who want to make things better are term-limited out of office
just when they are finally learning where all the hidden levers, ropes, pulleys, secret trap
doors are. Meanwhile, the lobbyists are not term limited.
Term limits for national office would make some things worse while making nothing
better.
Ah, those immortal lobbyists! Term limits for politicians – combined with limits on
lobbyists. One can dream. No? I'd like to try it. How can we actually drain the Swamp/
Oh. Crap. We have a Supreme Court. Freedom to Lobby infinitely. Freedom of bribery – I
mean freedom of speech.
OK, So nothing can be done. Perhaps state office holders are a different thing then National
politicians? (Yeah, maybe not) But Do you want to remove the term limits on our President
then? No? I'd keep that limit.
Should we just resign ourselves to be stuck with this stuff till the Sun expands and swallows
the USA? The future colony on Mars will have a better way? Not likely.
We have term limits. They're called elections. If/when there's something wrong with
Democracy, fix Democracy. If/when there's something wrong with the Constitution, fix the
Constitution
In most cases, artificial term limits don't do either. I would say there are two
exceptions: limiting the presidency to two terms, and limiting the tenure of federal judges.
In the latter case, 18-year term limits have been suggested, and that could be the right
number, I'm not sure.
Now, with respect to fixing Democracy and the Constitution, for a First Step, please see
HJR-48: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing that the
rights extended by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only -- oh, by the way,
stating that money does not equal speech.
Every looting is real looting. Little looters in the streets are real looters. Big looters
in the suites are real looters.
Since the big looting is currently legal in many cases, laws would have to be changed to
stop the big looters looting. Its worth trying to do. It won't happen with Joemala and
McConnell conspiring together to stop it from happening.
We need to elect a Red Gingrich minority of officeholders into the House and into the
Senate. The "squad" could be the nucleus of that if they decide to center economic justice
instead of critical race wokeness.
Congrease had/has the legal power to enact legislation with which to reign in what has
become the early 21st century gilded age .. but they refuse to .. Nearly ALL of them have
their dirty proboscii harpooning the lowly constituents who elected them ..too busy sucking
any and all of plebian bodilyeconomic liquidity whilst paying deference to the know-it-all,
BigTime-parasitic Oligarchic Brainbugs!
If Biden does that, then Trump himself could very well win again if he runs in 2024. If
that scenario plays out that way, I hope Trump picks Ivanka to be his VP running mate. That
way, Ivanka would be on track to be America's first woman president. I just hope Hillary
would live long enough to see that happen.
I used to dread the Friday news drops. The unemployment numbers, employed people in
minimum wage jobs, workers at home working away, and major inflation in the grocery stores
are hitting people extremely hard coming up to Holiday season. I really can't wait to see the
Friday news drops now. Not just the Trump temper tantrum stuff, but the economic quips they
make. Then what is totally mind blowing are the comments on social media. Some people that
are not hurting much, or at all seem to think that all things are fine as wine in the rest of
the country. I know this reply does not specifically comment on your article, but it is a
wide view of the current situation.
With the computers and big data, the simplest solution is to claw back the benefits paid
to the employees from the corporations, call it humanitarian tax.
But, it would be hard to find a lobbyist to write it, even harder to find a sponsor in the
congress.
That would destroy the ability of these people to get jobs and to receive benefits.
I think you might have the cause and effect mixed up. In my state, anyone who gets SNAP
benefits has to work at least 20 hours a week. These "bad" employers are the ones with
flexible schedules and because the jobs are so crappy, they are readily available. Maybe it's
not that WalMartb workers need benefits, it's that the benefits recipient needs WalMart and
McDonalds.
Every state is different. I just have to show proof of income (which I have, though I
don't have a job). But the amount of SNAP you get varies widely. I am 150% of poverty level
and the state of Pennsylvania just raised my monthly benefit to $16.50.
Another way to put it: Walmart, McDonald's, Dollar General, and Amazon are really
government stores with outsourced management and labor.
Socialism American-style.
Whenever I am in Walmart or any supermarket with automatic check out, I avoid automatic
check out completely and only go to regular check out, no matter how long the line is.
Automatic check out is a precursor to eventually firing all human cashiers. In my "larger"
town, where I often end up in Walmart for the cheaper pet food, an Aldi's was built precisely
opposite it, across the road. I heard an Aldi's employee saying they get paid better than
Walmart. And lots of their prices are the same or better. So I will be spending a lot more
time there.
'There's a war on organizing, collective bargaining, unions and workers': Biden wants to
undo Trump executive orders on federal workers Andrew Keshner 6 hrs ago
President Donald Trump used executive orders to put up roadblocks for unions representing
federal employees, and now President-elect Joe Biden seems poised to reverse those moves.
In May 2018, President Donald Trump signed executive orders mandating stricter deadlines and
procedures when federal workers collectively negotiated new contracts, curbing on-the-clock
time for union duties as well as giving some under-performing workers tight time frames to
boost their performance.
In January 2021, newly-inaugurated President Joe Biden is likely to pull back those same
orders, according to union members, who say the orders have weakened their ability to ensure
rank and file staffers are treated fairly.
The Biden transition team didn't respond to a request for comment, but Biden's campaign
website has signaled that the president-elect will address these issues: "There's a war on
organizing, collective bargaining, unions, and workers. It's been raging for decades, and it's
getting worse with Donald Trump in the White House."
The President-Elect, among other things, supports laws that would penalize companies trying
to interfere with worker organizing efforts, according to his website.
"This is not just about employees," said Tony Reardon, national president of the National
Treasury Employees Union. "Ultimately, this is good for American taxpayers to have federal
employees and agency leaders communicating and taking action together to solve problems before
there's a grievance and a lawsuit."
Reardon, who heads a union with 150,000 members, said he and his staff had heard from Biden
and his campaign in the months leading up to the Nov. 3 election. "The President-Elect, he was
clear with me that he is extremely supportive of labor unions and of workers' rights," Reardon
said.
There's a different point of view from management. "In some ways, you look at [the executive
orders] and go 'Why weren't these there before?'" said Scott Witlin, who represents
private-sector employers as a partner at Barnes & Thornburg.
There's nothing that's unreasonable on its face in the Trump administration orders, he said,
such as a
six-month limit on negotiations. "Six months would be an exceedingly long private-sector
negotiation," he said.
Video: City leaders warn of possible new restrictions as COVID spikes statewide (WWL-TV New
Orleans)
Play Video City leaders warn of possible new restrictions as COVID spikes statewide
Click to expand
In certain ways, the potential executive orders on federal workers are a narrow matter.
The federal government employed almost 3.8 million people in 2019, according to the
Bureau of Labor
Statistics . Of that sum, 1.15 million were represented by unions, the agency said, noting
that the category groups together union members and workers without union affiliation who have
jobs covered by union or employee association contracts.
But it's also a peek at the president-elect's larger views on organized labor.
Declining
union membership
Last year, there were 14.6 million salary and wage workers who were members of a union,
according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That's just over 10% of the workforce, and a
10-percentage-point drop from 1983, the first year comparable statistics became available, the
agency said.
There's a range of reasons why union ranks keep thinning,
observers say . That ranges from the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act allowing "union shops" only when
a majority of workers voted for the idea, to globalization -- which sent off factory jobs -- to
state-level "right to work" laws that bar unions from collecting dues from non-union workers
covered in their contracts.
Though right-to-work opponents say those kinds of laws eat into a union's to support itself,
proponents say it's not fair to force workers
into unions that they don't feel are acting in their best interest.
Celine McNicholas, director of government affairs at the left-leaning think tank the
Economic Policy Institute, said Trump's orders focused on federal workers not because he had it
out for them especially, but because "he could accomplish those attacks through the stroke of a
pen."
The Trump administration orders "were designed in order to make it impossible for unions to
fulfill their representation obligations under the law," said Jacqueline Simon, public policy
director at the American Federation of Government Employees, a union comprised of 700,000
federal and District of Columbia government workers.
Reardon said the orders weren't necessary. "There is absolutely nothing about labor and
management sitting down together and collaborating in work that suggests they can't create
efficiencies." And there were already procedures to remove under-performing employees, he
added.
Various unions, including the AFGE and NTEU, sued over the orders. Ultimately,
the D.C Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the unions' challenges last year.
Reardon said he's seen the consequences of the new orders, which result in "sham"
bargaining. Some NTEU members work at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, he
noted. In the aftermath of the orders, Reardon said agency negotiators cut the talks short
because they were bound by the orders' rules on what could and couldn't be the focus of
talks.
The sides still haven't come to an agreement, said Reardon.
"HHS is working with employees and their union representation to improve the operations of
the department with the aim of making the federal government a better place to work and better
able to deliver the services to the American people," an HHS spokeswoman said in a
statement.
I am seeing quite a few references to a $15/hr minimum wage as a target for a "living
wage". I feel this is merely misdirection from the real problems with our money system.
First, let me say that I fully support the idea of a "living wage". After all, I grew up
in the 50's, when a single wage earner was able to buy a modest house, own a car, and provide
for the average family, including medical costs, college plans, etc. Those days have long
gone due to the ongoing debasement of the currency. Thus, it doesn't matter what you
establish as the minimum wage this year, by next year it will have to be raised again (and
again, and again, . . . ). So, why pick a $15 number when $20, $25, etc. are in the future of
an inflating currency.
To suggest a way to break this cycle, please abide with me as I relate a personal
anecdote.
In the late 60's I was negotiating a job with a particularly cantankerous cheapskate. I
told him that I would work for him for $1/ hour. He got really elated and was ready to
formalize the position when I continued ". . . but that dollar has to be a silver dollar." He
broke off negotiations immediately. I didn't care. I really didn't want to work for him.
Silver was still cheap in those days.
Anyway, look at the price of a silver dollar now, and ask yourself if that would be a
"living wage" today. (The melt value of a silver dollar (about .77 oz) is around $20
excluding any premiums or numismatic value.)
I contend that debasement of the currency (the US dollar) by removing all silver (and
copper) from coins and gold backing from the paper dollar has caused more of the economic
problems (IMHO) of the average person we see today.
Britain is riddled by a class system. This is largely down to the exaggeration of those who
self-identify as "working class".
A snapshot is the cliché thrown around that to be Prime Minister, you have to attend
either Oxford or Cambridge. For those outside of the UK, the insinuation is that you come from
an affluent background, can afford private education which enabled you to enter one of the two
famous universities. Boris Johnson is the poster child for this privileged group of blue
bloods.
But James Callaghan was Prime Minster before Margaret Thatcher took over in 1979, and
couldn't afford to go to university so never went. Neither did her successor, John Major.
Gordon Brown who followed Tony Blair, attended the University of Edinburgh and is well-regarded
as the most intellectual of recent PMs.
There's no denying the political system has a bias towards Oxbridge alumni, but people have
smashed the glass ceiling and, in fact, even of the PMs who did attend Oxford or Cambridge
between 1964 and 1997, Wilson, Heath and Thatcher, none were privately educated.
Why this is pertinent now, is because of the hysteria sweeping Britain's North complaining
of playing with a loaded deck. The gripe is that London and the wealthier pockets of society
are being allowed more attention and flexibility during Covid.
The South of England is the spiritual home of The Conservatives, the land of the millionaire
stockbroker and art history scholar. The North, Wales and Scotland have traditionally been
enemy territory, due to their cities being built on manufacturing, coal mining and industry. In
our current scenario, this Northern population are being driven by a chip on their
shoulders.
London dominates commerce and business, it's a global financial centre. Even so, some of the
capital city's inhabitants are under the misapprehension that Northerners dream of a "London
life". They don't.
The two pillars of British culture; football and music are defined far more successfully
outside of London, than they ever have been inside.
The same discombobulation happens in the other direction and because the Northern towns are
more parochial, they impact on a bigger scale.
Over the last few days, the British government has tightened restrictions particularly in
the North, across the three tiers - they are the only region in the most severe tranche. But
chancellor Rishi Sunak has announced a new scheme to pay two-thirds of any employees' wages, if
their place of work is forced to shut.
Large firms who close can claim
grants up to £3,000 per month and smaller businesses are entitled to £1,300.
That's on top of the Job Support Scheme, which kicks-in for anyone working at least a third of
their normal hours. The government will subsidise the remaining two-thirds (up to
£2,100).
This follows furlough, which has been paying 80 percent of salaries (up to £2,500 per
month) of 12 percent of Britain's workforce. Sunak said : "The primary goal of our
economic policy remains unchanged - to support people's jobs...I cannot save every business, I
cannot save every job."
Northern politicians have been quick to dog whistle.
Mayor of Greater
Manchester , Andy Burnham complained: "They're trying to pressurise people into tier three,
even though it will do certain harm to those economies, often quite fragile economies in the
north."
Liverpool's mayor
Steve Rotheram felt he wasn't consulted enough and said: "it was made clear to us that
government would be doing this regardless of if we engaged with them or not."
Whipping up a frenzy ahead of the new rules, Frank McKenna, chief executive of lobby group
Downtown in Business , ranted: "I cannot overstate the devastation that this will cause to
Liverpool and other parts on northern England if these plans are adopted."
Covid is slitting the wrists of our economy. Unemployment has risen to 4.5 percent .
But the pain is everywhere.
National debt stands at £2 trillion and will remain at over 100 percent of GDP, until
2025 at least. New research shows Aberdeen
has the highest remaining income (£1,487.82), after monthly costs are deducted from
average salaries.
Liverpool, Sheffield, Hull, Leeds, Glasgow, Manchester and Newcastle all rate above London
on the same scale. The residents of the capital are left with £260.97.
London has a glut of millionaires and average figures are distorting. But that's the crux -
statistics and points of view can be massaged.
This antipathy from the North is driven by rose-tinted spectacles. Those in the world of
financial services earn more than their blue-collar counterparts.
That's because fewer people are capable of these jobs and they generate significantly more
wealth than a manual or semi-skilled worker. This is not a criticism of manual workers, just a
fact of life. Parity would be neither fair nor achievable. Living standards are determined by
income, those working in commerce are also able to continue unabated, due to technology and
video conferencing.
The arrival of Covid wasn't Britain's doing and Boris Johnson has handled it appallingly,
for everyone. But even so there has been a herculean level of financial assistance, with The
Treasury opening the cheque book like never before. Along with the other schemes, they've just
handed £257 million to arts organisations across England.
Some elements of the Westminster machine are working for us all, the complaining masses in
the North need to respect that. Moaning about being left dangling by the upper classes is just
jealously at not having what others do.
Life isn't fair but the government's Covid assistance has been, so stop the self-pity.
Like this story? Share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Two-thirds of the newly laid-off workers are part-time employees: they will be happy to know
that Disney loaded up on massive debt so it could fund stock buybacks.
"... "Another chasm opened between middle-class Westerners and their wealthy compatriots. Here, too, the middle class lost ground. It seemed that the wealthiest people in rich countries and almost everybody in Asia benefited from globalization, while only the middle class of the rich world lost out in relative terms. These facts supported the notion that the rise of "populist" political parties and leaders in the West stemmed from middle-class disenchantment. ..."
The world is becoming more equal but largely at the expense of middle-class Westerners,
according to a recent paper by Branko Milanovic , a Stone Center Senior Scholar
and a Centennial Professor at the London School of Economics. Milanovic's paper was published
in Foreign Affairs, the publication of the think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR),
and was titled: The World
Is Becoming More Equal, Even as Globalization Hurts Middle-Class Westerners . Broadly
speaking, globalization is the process of increased " worldwide
integration of the economic, cultural, political, religious, and social systems" of the
globe,
producing an increased flow of goods, capital, labour, and information, across national
borders. It was a process that gained steam particularly in the mid-1980s, with globalization
having the greatest transformative impact on life
since the Industrial Revolution .
Milanovic's paper starts by arguing that the world became more
equal between the end of the Cold War and 2007/08 financial crisis, a period of high
globalization. During this period however, globalization weakened the middle class in the West.
As Milanovic writes
:
"The results highlighted two important cleavages [or divisions]: one between middle-class
Asians and middle-class Westerners and one between middle-class Westerners and their richer
compatriots. In both comparisons, the Western middle class was on the losing end. Middle-class
Westerners saw less income growth than (comparatively poorer) Asians, providing further
evidence of one of the defining dynamics of globalization: in the last 40 years, many jobs in
Europe and North America were either outsourced to Asia or eliminated as a result of
competition with Chinese industries. This was the first tension of globalization: Asian growth
seems to take place on the backs of the Western middle class."
"Another chasm opened between middle-class Westerners and their wealthy compatriots.
Here, too, the middle class lost ground. It seemed that the wealthiest people in rich countries
and almost everybody in Asia benefited from globalization, while only the middle class of the
rich world lost out in relative terms. These facts supported the notion that the rise of
"populist" political parties and leaders in the West stemmed from middle-class
disenchantment. "
Milanovic goes on to note
that in an updated paper that looks at incomes in 130 countries from 2008 to 2013-14, the first
tension of globalization holds true: in that, the incomes of the non-Western middle class grew
more than the incomes of the middle class in the West. The impact of globalization on the
Western middle class is imperative to understand. Globalization is a process that has produced
winners and losers , and
the Western middle class has been the greatest loser.
In my opinion, any system that weakens the middle class in any country should be seen as
counterproductive. Having a strong middle class is one of the most important tenets in building
a strong, prosperous, and stable society. The middle class serves as the bedrock of any
country: those who comprise the middle-class work hard, pay taxes, and buy goods. A true
solution to poverty in underdeveloped countries would create more prosperity for everyone, not
take prosperity from one region and redirect it into another. This so-called solution creates
at least as many problems as it supposedly solves.
Globalization has produced, and will seemingly continue to produce, a global standardization
of wealth in many ways. For those special interests who are in the process of creating a global
system, an economic uniformity across the globe is advantageous for the creation of this
one-world system.
Just how far has the working class been left behind by the winner-take-all economy? A new analysis by the RAND
Corporation examines what rising inequality has cost Americans in lost income -- and the results are stunning.
A full-time worker whose taxable income is at the median -- with half the population making more and half making
less -- now pulls in about $50,000 a year. Yet had the fruits of the nation's economic output been shared over the
past 45 years as broadly as they were from the end of World War II until the early 1970s, that worker would
instead be making $92,000 to $102,000. (The exact figures vary slightly depending on how inflation is calculated.)
The findings, which land amid a global pandemic, help to illuminate the paradoxes of an economy in which so-called
essential workers
are
struggling
to make ends meet while the rich
keep
getting richer
.
"We were shocked by the numbers," says
Nick
Hanauer
, a venture capitalist who came up with the idea for the research along with David Rolf, founder
of Local 775 of the Service Employees International Union and president of the
Fair
Work Center
in Seattle. "It explains almost everything. It explains why people are so pissed off. It explains
why they are so economically precarious."
Trends
in Income From 1975 to 2018 [Chart: Carter C. Price and Kathryn Edwards, RAND Corporation]
"THE $2.5 TRILLION THEFT"
Notably, it isn't just those in the middle who've been hit. RAND found that full-time, prime-age workers in the
25th percentile of the U.S. income distribution would be making $61,000 instead of $33,000 had everyone's earnings
from 1975 to 2018 expanded roughly in line with gross domestic product, as they did during the 1950s and '60s.
Workers in the 75th percentile would be at $126,000 instead of $81,000. Remarkably, even those in the 90th
percentile would be better off than they are now if economic growth had been shared as it was in the post-war era.
They'd be making $168,000 rather than $133,000.
Tally it all up, according to RAND, and the bottom 90% of American workers would be bringing home an additional
$2.5 trillion in total annual income if economic gains were as equitably divided as they'd been in the
past -- leading Rolf to dub the phenomenon "the $2.5 trillion theft."
"From the standpoint of people who have worked hard and played by the rules and yet are participating far less in
economic growth than Americans did a generation ago," he says, "whether you call it 'reverse distribution' or
'theft,' it demands to be called something."
The RAND data also makes clear who the winners from inequality are: those in the top 1%.
Of course, they'd be in a less advantageous position if the economic pie had been divvied up since the mid-1970s
like it was previously. If that were the case, RAND says, yearly income for the average one-percenter would fall
from about $1.2 million to $549,000.
Think you can take a sneaky break or have a lie-in because you're 'working' remotely? Forget
it. Employers are increasingly deploying surveillance software to check how productive staff
are at home.
Lockdown and its aftermath has led more and more employees to work from home. Many big firms
have already said they won't even attempt to get back staff back to the office until next year,
at the earliest, amid discussions about how working from home could become the new normal for
at least part of the week.
Working from home has a lot of advantages for many people. It can make childcare easier, for
example. Employees can avoid having to deal with annoying colleagues, or coughing up for long,
expensive and often uncomfortable commutes.
They can also avoid having their bosses constantly looking over their shoulder – or
can they?
Employers are using ever more sophisticated measures to keep tabs on their home-working
staff, anxious that they might be shirking, and introducing new rules governing how their
workers appear and act.
One large London employer, Hammersmith & Fulham Council, has even gone as far as banning
its employees from smoking at their desks at home, demanding
that " any part of a private dwelling used solely for work purposes will be required to be
smoke-free " and that " family members should not be allowed to smoke in the home
worker's office ". The council claims the policy has since been dropped, presumably because
it is unenforceable. (Though, with webcams now ubiquitous, maybe not.) It's also irrational,
since smoking at home can hardly affect your colleagues or the public image of your
employer.
Smokers have long been in the vanguard of interference in our private lives. But having
precedent for interference in our private lives having been established, the rules applied to
smokers have inspired other kinds of meddling.
Most obvious in the current situation is the use of technological measures to monitor staff.
Such surveillance is not new, but it's taken on a new importance and is much more widespread in
the Covid era. A recent feature in
Wired notes the rise of this surveillance culture. As author Alex Christian notes:
" As coronavirus lays waste to workplaces around the world, surveillance software has
flourished: programs such as ActivTrak, Time Doctor, Teramind and Hubstaff have all reported a
post-lockdown sales surge. Once installed, they offer an array of covert monitoring tools, with
managers able to view screenshots, login times and keystrokes at will to ensure employees
remain on track working remotely. Although marketed as productivity software, the technology
– dubbed as 'bossware' for its secrecy and invasiveness – has led to many workers
finding creative ways of evading its omniscient gaze ."
Employees working within these strictures face a reprimand or even the sack for low
productivity or taking too long on their break. One app, Sneek, covertly takes photos of
employees to see if they are at their desks. Project management programs such as Jira and
Basecamp, meanwhile, can allow bosses to spot when workers are not maintaining a high level of
output. Frequent online team meetings on Zoom or Microsoft Teams can ensure staff are at least
thinking about work – and woe betide anyone who's still in their pyjamas or doesn't show
up at all.
Of course, there are workarounds if you're smart enough. One way is to move your mouse
regularly – or to instal software to give the illusion it's being moved. But the whole
thing has the potential to create a sense that Big Brother Bossman is watching you
constantly.
It's bad enough that working from home leads many people into the trap of blurring work and
home life. That time on the commute, when you might at least be reading or listening to music
or a podcast, becomes work time. It's easy to see how all of this leads to the intensification
of work.
Moreover, working from home deprives us of the solidarity and consolation of colleagues.
It's harder to band together to push back against the imposition of new rules and regulations
if you don't see your peers face to face. Many jobs are intense and stressful, but working in
an office allows staff to sound off to each other informally in the pub on a Friday night
– or maybe hear about better opportunities elsewhere.
Working from home can also be a disaster for younger employees, who need to learn the ropes
from their experienced colleagues. It's harder to learn, and to make a good impression with
those that count, over video calls.
While a middle-class employee with a comfortable and spacious home may wax lyrical about the
benefits of working from home, for many people, it's becoming an ever more intensive and
stressful experience. Knowing that your boss could be spying on you just adds paranoia and fear
to the mix.
We may well be heading backwards in the world of work. In pre-industrial times and beyond,
garment-makers would work themselves to death during long hours to service the demands of
buyers, paid as they were by the piece and not by the hour, and isolated in their home from
other such workers. We need to be very careful that the modern, connected, domesticated
workplace doesn't take us down the same route.
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
In short black people are used as pawns in the political struggle between two neoliberal
clans fighting for power, using students without perspectives of gaining meaningful employment as
a ram. We saw this picture before in a different country. And riots do reverse gains achieved in
civil right struggle since 1960th, so they are also net losers. Racial tensions in the USA
definitely increased dramatically.
Notable quotes:
"... Bottom line: "Critical Race Theory", "The 1619 Project", and Homeland Security's "White Supremacist" warning represent the ideological foundation upon which the war on America is based. The "anti-white" dogma is the counterpart to the massive riots that have rocked the country. These phenomena are two spokes on the same wheel. They are designed to work together to achieve the same purpose. The goal is create a "racial" smokescreen that conceals the vast and willful destruction of the US economy, the $5 trillion dollar wealth-transfer that was provided to Wall Street, and the ferocious attack on the emerging, mainly-white working class "populist" movement that elected Trump and which rejects the globalist plan to transform the world into a borderless free trade zone ruled by cutthroat monopolists and their NWO allies. ..."
"... This is a class war dolled-up to look like a race war. Americans will have to look beyond the smoke and mirrors to spot the elites lurking in the shadows. There lies the cancer that must be eradicated. ..."
"... The current situation cannot exist without the complicity of the secret services and the police. The heads of the secret services are either part of the cabal or close their eyes in fear ..."
"... There can be no single oligarch. It must be a larger group but very united by fear and a common goal. This can only be achieved if they are all Jews or Masons. Or both under a larger umbrella like some kind of pedo-ritual killing-satan worshiper. Soros can't do it alone. ..."
"... Of course politicians are corrupt and complicit but usually they are not the leaders ..."
Here's your BLM Pop Quiz for the day: What do "Critical Race Theory", "The 1619 Project",
and Homeland Security's "White Supremacist" warning tell us about what's going on in America
today?
They point to deeply-embedded racism that shapes the behavior of white people They
suggest that systemic racism cannot be overcome by merely changing attitudes and laws They
alert us to the fact that unresolved issues are pushing the country towards a destructive race
war They indicate that powerful agents -- operating from within the state– are inciting
racial violence to crush the emerging "populist" majority that elected Trump to office in 2016
and which now represents an existential threat to the globalist plan to transform America into
a tyrannical third-world "shithole".
Which of these four statements best explains what's going on in America today?
If you chose Number 4, you are right. We are not experiencing a sudden and explosive
outbreak of racial violence and mayhem. We are experiencing a thoroughly-planned,
insurgency-type operation that involves myriad logistical components including vast, nationwide
riots, looting and arson, as well as an extremely impressive ideological campaign. "Critical
Race Theory", "The 1619 Project", and Homeland Security's "White Supremacist" warning are as
much a part of the Oligarchic war on America as are the burning of our cities and the toppling
of our statues. All three, fall under the heading of "ideology", and all three are being used
to shape public attitudes on matters related to our collective identity as "Americans".
The plan is to overwhelm the population with a deluge of disinformation about their history,
their founders, and the threats they face, so they will submissively accept a New Order imposed
by technocrats and their political lackeys. This psychological war is perhaps more important
than Operation BLM which merely provides the muscle for implementing the transformative "Reset"
that elites want to impose on the country. The real challenge is to change the hearts and minds
of a population that is unwaveringly patriotic and violently resistant to any subversive
element that threatens to do harm to their country. So, while we can expect this propaganda
saturation campaign to continue for the foreseeable future, we don't expect the strategy will
ultimately succeed. At the end of the day, America will still be America, unbroken, unflagging
and unapologetic.
Let's look more carefully at what is going on.
On September 4, the Department of Homeland Security issued a draft report stating that
"White supremacists present the gravest terror threat to the United States". According to an
article in Politico:
" all three draft (versions of the document) describe the threat from white
supremacists as the deadliest domestic terror threat facing the U.S. , listed above the
immediate danger from foreign terrorist groups . John Cohen, who oversaw DHS's
counterterrorism portfolio from 2011 to 2014, said the drafts' conclusion isn't
surprising.
"This draft document seems to be consistent with earlier intelligence reports from DHS,
the FBI, and other law enforcement sources: that the most significant terror-related
threat facing the US today comes from violent extremists who are motivated by white
supremac y and other far-right ideological causes," he said .
"Lone offenders and small cells of individuals motivated by a diverse array of social,
ideological, and personal factors will pose the primary terrorist threat to the United
States," the draft reads. "Among these groups, we assess that white supremacist extremists
will pose the most persistent and lethal threat."..(" DHS
draft document: White supremacists are greatest terror threat " Politico)
This is nonsense. White supremacists do not pose the greatest danger to the country, that
designation goes to the left-wing groups that have rampaged through more than 2,000 US cities
for the last 100 days. Black Lives Matter and Antifa-generated riots have decimated hundreds of
small businesses, destroyed the lives and livelihoods of thousands of merchants and their
employees, and left entire cities in a shambles. The destruction in Kenosha alone far exceeds
the damage attributable to the activities of all the white supremacist groups combined.
So why has Homeland Security made this ridiculous and unsupportable claim? Why have they
chosen to prioritize white supremacists as "the most persistent and lethal threat" when it is
clearly not true?
There's only one answer: Politics.
The officials who concocted this scam are advancing the agenda of their real bosses, the
oligarch puppet-masters who have their tentacles extended throughout the deep-state and use
them to coerce their lackey bureaucrats to do their bidding. In this case, the honchos are
invoking the race card ("white supremacists") to divert attention from their sinister
destabilization program, their looting of the US Treasury (for their crooked Wall Street
friends), their demonizing of the mostly-white working class "America First" nationalists who
handed Trump the 2016 election, and their scurrilous scheme to establish one-party rule by
installing their addlepated meat-puppet candidate (Biden) as president so he can carry out
their directives from the comfort of the Oval Office. That's what's really going on.
DHS's announcement makes it possible for state agents to target legally-armed Americans who
gather with other gun owners in groups that are protected under the second amendment. Now the
white supremacist label will be applied more haphazardly to these same conservatives who pose
no danger to public safety. The draft document should be seen as a warning to anyone whose
beliefs do not jibe with the New Liberal Orthodoxy that white people are inherently racists who
must ask forgiveness for a system they had no hand in creating (slavery) and which was
abolished more than 150 years ago.
The 1619 Project" is another part of the ideological war that is being waged against the
American people. The objective of the "Project" is to convince readers that America was founded
by heinous white men who subjugated blacks to increase their wealth and power. According to the
World Socialist Web Site:
"The essays featured in the magazine are organized around the central premise that all of
American history is rooted in race hatred -- specifically, the uncontrollable hatred of
"black people" by "white people." Hannah-Jones writes in the series' introduction:
"Anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country. "
This is a false and dangerous conception. DNA is a chemical molecule that contains the
genetic code of living organisms and determines their physical characteristics and
development . Hannah-Jones's reference to DNA is part of a growing tendency to derive
racial antagonisms from innate biological processes .where does this racism come from? It
is embedded, claims Hannah-Jones, in the historical DNA of American "white people." Thus, it
must persist independently of any change in political or economic conditions .
. No doubt, the authors of The Project 1619 essays would deny that they are predicting
race war, let alone justifying fascism. But ideas have a logic; and authors bear
responsibility for the political conclusions and consequences of their false and misguided
arguments." ("The New York Times's 1619
Project: A racialist falsification of American and world history", World Socialist Web
Site)
Clearly, Hannah-Jones was enlisted by big money patrons who needed an ideological foundation
to justify the massive BLM riots they had already planned as part of their US color revolution.
The author –perhaps unwittingly– provided the required text for vindicating
widespread destruction and chaos carried out in the name of "social justice."
As Hannah-Jones says, "Anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country", which is to
say that it cannot be mitigated or reformed, only eradicated by destroying the symbols of white
patriarchy (Our icons, our customs, our traditions and our history.), toppling the existing
government, and imposing a new system that better reflects the values of the burgeoning
non-Caucasian majority. Simply put, The Project 1619 creates the rationale for sustained civil
unrest, deepening political polarization and violent revolution.
All of these goals conveniently coincide with the aims of the NWO Oligarchs who seek to
replace America's Constitutional government with a corporate Superstate ruled by voracious
Monopolists and their globalist allies. So, while Hannah-Jones treatise does nothing to improve
conditions for black people in America, it does move the country closer to the dystopian dream
of the parasite class; Corporate Valhalla.
Then there is "Critical Race Theory" which provides the ideological icing on the cake. The
theory is part of the broader canon of anti-white dogma which is being used to indoctrinate
workers. White employees are being subjected to "reeducation" programs that require their
participation as a precondition for further employment . The first rebellion against critical
race theory, took place at Sandia Labs which is a federally-funded research agency that designs
America's nuclear weapons. According to journalist Christopher F. Rufo:
"Senator @HawleyMO and
@SecBrouillette have
launched an inspector general investigation, but Sandia executives have only accelerated
their purge against conservatives."
Sandia executives have made it clear: they want to force critical race theory,
race-segregated trainings, and white male reeducation camps on their employees -- and all
dissent will be severely punished. Progressive employees will be rewarded; conservative
employees will be purged." (" There is a civil war erupting
at @SandiaLabs ." Christopher F Rufo)
It all sounds so Bolshevik. Here's more info on how this toxic indoctrination program
works:
"Treasury Department
The Treasury Department held a training session telling employees that "virtually all
White people contribute to racism" and demanding that white staff members "struggle to own
their racism" and accept their "unconscious bias, White privilege, and White
fragility."
The National Credit Union Administration
The NCUA held a session for 8,900 employees arguing that America was "founded on
racism" and "built on the blacks of people who were enslaved. " Twitter thread here and
original source documents
here .
Sandia National Laboratories
Last year, Sandia National Labs -- which produces our nuclear arsenal -- held a
three-day reeducation camp for white males, teaching them how to deconstruct their
"white male culture" and forcing them to write letters of apology to women and people of
color . Whistleblowers from inside the labs tell me that critical race theory is now
endangering our national security. Twitter thread here and original source
documents
here .
Argonne National Laboratories
Argonne National Labs hosts trainings calling on white lab employees to admit that they
"benefit from racism" and atone for the "pain and anguish inflicted upon Black people. "
Twitter thread here .
Department of Homeland Security
The Department of Homeland Security hosted a Training on "microaggressions,
microinequities, and microassaults" where white employees were told that they had been
"socialized into oppressor roles. " Twitter thread here and original source
documents here
." (" Summary of
Critical Race Theory Investigations" , Christopher F Rufo)
On September 4, Donald Trump announced his administration "would prohibit federal
agencies from subjecting government employees to "critical race theory" or "white privilege"
seminar. ..
"It has come to the President's attention that Executive Branch agencies have spent
millions of taxpayer dollars to date 'training' government workers to believe divisive,
anti-American propaganda ," read a Friday memo
from the Office of Budget and Management Director Russ Vought. "These types of 'trainings'
not only run counter to the fundamental beliefs for which our Nation has stood since its
inception, but they also engender division and resentment within the Federal workforce The
President has directed me to ensure that Federal agencies cease and desist from using
taxpayer dollars to fund these divisive, un-American propaganda training sessions."
The next day, September 5, Trump announced that the Department of Education was going to see
whether the New York Times Magazine's 1619 Project was being used in school curricula
and– if it was– then those schools would be ineligible for federal funding.
Conservative pundits applauded Trump's action as a step forward in the "culture wars", but it's
really much more than that. Trump is actually foiling an effort by the domestic saboteurs who
continue look for ways to undermine democracy, reduce the masses of working-class people to
grinding poverty and hopelessness, and turn the country into a despotic military outpost ruled
by bloodsucking tycoons, mercenary autocrats and duplicitous elites. Alot of thought and effort
went into this malign ideological project. Trump derailed it with a wave of the hand. That's no
small achievement.
Bottom line: "Critical Race Theory", "The 1619 Project", and Homeland Security's "White
Supremacist" warning represent the ideological foundation upon which the war on America is
based. The "anti-white" dogma is the counterpart to the massive riots that have rocked the
country. These phenomena are two spokes on the same wheel. They are designed to work
together to achieve the same purpose. The goal is create a "racial" smokescreen that conceals
the vast and willful destruction of the US economy, the $5 trillion dollar wealth-transfer that
was provided to Wall Street, and the ferocious attack on the emerging, mainly-white working
class "populist" movement that elected Trump and which rejects the globalist plan to transform
the world into a borderless free trade zone ruled by cutthroat monopolists and their NWO
allies.
This is a class war dolled-up to look like a race war. Americans will have to look
beyond the smoke and mirrors to spot the elites lurking in the shadows. There lies the cancer
that must be eradicated.
A good article, but no mention of who exactly these oligarchs are. Or why so many of them
are Jewish.
Or why so many Zionist organisations support BLM and other such groups.
Mike, not mentioning these things will not save you. You will still be cancelled by
Progressive Inc.
This seems like a good explanation of what is happening. I wonder whether too many people
will fall for the propaganda, though. It is the classic effort to get the turkeys to support
thanksgiving.
The deserved progress and concessions achieved by the civil rights struggles for the Black
community is in danger of deteriorating because Black leadership will not stand up and
vehemently condemn the rioting and destruction and killing, and declare that the BLM movement
does not represent the majority of the Black American culture and that the overexaggerated
accusations of "racism" do not necessitate the eradication and revision of history, nor does
it require European Americans to feel guilt or shame. There is no need for a cultural
revolution. The ideology and actions of BLM are offensive and inconsistent with American
values, and Black leaders should be saying this every day, and should be admonishing about
the consequences. They should also use foresight to see how this is going to end, because the
BLM and their supporters are being used to fight a war that they can never win. And when it's
over, what perception will the rest of America have of Black people?
@sonofman g to TPTB. Better to have an amorphous slogan to donate money to than an actual
organization with humans, goals and ideas which can be held up to the light and critically
examined.
The whole sudden race thing is a fraud to eliminate the electoral support Trump had
amassed among blacks before Corona and Fentanyl Floyd. In line with what Whitney says, the
globalists need to take down Trump. And the race card has always been the first tool in the
DNC's toolkit. When all else fails, go nuclear with undefined claims of racism.
Almost every big magazine has a black person on the cover this month. Probably will in
October too. Coincidence? Sure it is.
They indicate that powerful agents -- operating from within the state– are
inciting racial violence to crush the emerging "populist" majority that elected Trump to
office in 2016 and which now represents an existential threat to the globalist plan to
transform America into a tyrannical third-world "shithole".
I'm shocked that they're trying to sell this Q-tier bullshit about Trump fighting the deep
state.
The reality about Trump is that he is the release valve, the red herring designed to keep
whitey pacified while massive repossessions and foreclosures take place, permanently
impoverishing a large part of the white population, and shutting down the Talmudic
service-based economy, which is all that is really left. It is Trump's DHS that declared a
large part of his white trashionalist base to be terrorists.
The populist majority never had anyone to vote for. This system will never give them one.
They aren't bright enough to make it happen.
Agree. Barack Obama in particular will go down in history a real disgrace to the legacy of
the US presidency. He is violating the sacred trust that the people of the United States
invested in him. What a fraud!
Good post Mr. Whitney especially about "white supremacy" garbage .which has only been
going on since the 90s! You know, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Elohim City and Okie City, militias,
"patriot groups," etc. This really is nothing new. And, since so many remember the "white
supremacy" crapola was crapola back in the 90s, I'd say everyone pretty much regardless of
race over the age of 40 knows there is, as it says in Ecclesiastes in the Bible, "there is
nothing new under the sun." And, if you home schooled your kids back then, then you kids know
it as well. Fact is this: the DHS as with every other govt. agency is forced to blame "white
supremacy" for every problem in this country because who the heck else can they blame? Jews?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahh when pigs fly After all, Noahide just might be around the
corner ..
Sheriffs have a lot of legal power. Ultimately, the battle is privatized money power
vs Joe Citizen/Sheriffs.
This sheriff is working a Constitutional angle that says: Local Posse (meaning you.. Joe
citizen) working with the Sheriff department to protect your local community. Richard Mack is
teaching other Sheriffs and (some Police) what their Constitutional power is, and that power
doesn't include doing bidding of Oligarchs.
Sheriffs are elected, and their revenue stream is outside of Oligarchy:
So Donald Trump suddenly discovers that racial Bolshevism is the official policy of
his own executive branch – a mere 3 years and 8 months after assuming the
position
... Looks like the same old flim-flam they pull every four years. No matter who wins, the
Davos folks continue to run the circus and fleece the suckers dry.
Because it is. Substitute "the ethnic Russian middle class are class enemies" for
"Anglo-American are all racists" and there you have it. Permission for a small organized
minority to eliminate a whole class on ideological grounds...
I live in a former communist country in Eastern Europe with corrupt politicians, oligarchs
and organized crime.
America was a country with a minor corruption and in which the oligarchs, although
influential, were not united in a small group with decisive force. Now America is slowly
slipping into the situation of a second-hand shit-hole country.
Is that I can see the situation more clearly than an American citizen who still has the
American perception of his contry the way it was 30 years ago.
Essential thing:
1) The current situation cannot exist without the complicity of the secret services and
the police. The heads of the secret services are either part of the cabal or close their eyes
in fear .
2) There can be no single oligarch. It must be a larger group but very united by fear and
a common goal. This can only be achieved if they are all Jews or Masons. Or both under a
larger umbrella like some kind of pedo-ritual killing-satan worshiper. Soros can't do it
alone.
3) Of course politicians are corrupt and complicit but usually they are not the
leaders
4) BLM are exactly the brown shirts of the new Hitler.
Soon we will se the new Hitler/Stalin/ in plain light.
Thirty black children murdered recently; zero by police / BLM & 'the media' say
nothing: https://www.outkick.com/blm-101-volume-7-the-lives-of-innocent-black-kids-do-not-matter/
BTW:
– Last year, the nationwide total for all US police forces was 47 killings of unarmed
criminals by police during arrest procedures.
– 8 were black, 19 were white.
Though blacks, relative to their numbers, committed a vastly higher number of crimes, hence
their immensely greater arrest rate.
@Justvisiting urally, it is nonsense -- nasty, power-hungry, censorious nonsense.
It is the opposite of scientific or empirical thought -- science can not accept theories
which are not capable of falsification. (Take astrology -- actually, don't ! -- what ever
conclusion it comes to can never be wrong : Dick or Jane didn't find love ? Well, one
of Saturn's moons was retrograde & Mercury declensed Venus (I don't know what it means
either) . or Dick went on a bender & Jane had a whole bad hair week.
Frankly, to play these pre-modern tricks on us is just grotesquely insulting. That some are
falling for it is grotesquely depressing.
Another ringer from Mike Whitney! Keep 'em comin', brother.
We are not experiencing a sudden and explosive outbreak of racial violence and mayhem.
We are experiencing a thoroughly-planned, insurgency-type operation that involves myriad
logistical components including vast, nationwide riots, looting and arson, as well as an
extremely impressive ideological campaign.
Yup. TPTB have been grooming BLM/Antifa for this moment for at least 3-4 years now, if not
longer. Here's a former BLMer who quit speaking out three years ago about the organization's
role in the present 'race war':
It is very clever politics and (war) propaganda. You break down and demoralise your
enemies at the same time as assuring your own side of it's own righteous use of violence.
This is a class war dolled-up to look like a race war. Americans will have to look
beyond the smoke and mirrors to spot the elites lurking in the shadows.
Nailing it.
4. They indicate that powerful agents -- operating from within the state– are
inciting racial violence to crush the emerging "populist" majority that elected Trump to
office in 2016 and which now represents an existential threat to the globalist plan to
transform America into a tyrannical third-world "shithole".
Which of these four statements best explains what's going on in America today?
If you chose Number 4, you are right.
If we believe this – we need to act like it. These are "enemies, foreign and
domestic ". This isn't ordinary politics, it arguably transcends politics.
What hope is there without organization?
And whatever is done – don't give them ammunition. The resistance must not be an
ethno-resistance.
But he is either naive or a bad manager, as his hires are deadly to his aims. And the
management criticism is big, because as a leader that is mostly what he does.
That he gets information to affect US policy for good, from outside of his circle of
trusted personnel, is a sad state of affairs.
@Robert Dolan ds that it would have ended on day one were it not officially sanctioned
and the rioters protected from prosecution. Why hasn't the Janet Rosenberg/Thousand
Currents/Tides Foundation connection with the BLM/DNC/MSM cabal, as well as with Antifa and
social media, been the major investigation on Fox News? Why haven't Zuckerberg, Zucker, et al
been arrested for incitement to commit federal crimes, including capital treason to overthrow
the duly elected president? (Just a few rhetorical questions for the hell of it.) What's so
galling is that the cops and federal agents are being used as just so many patsies who are
deployed, not to protect, but deployed to look like fools and be held up for mockery as
pathetic exemplars of white disempowerment.
The officials who concocted this scam are advancing the agenda of their real bosses, the
oligarch puppet-masters who have their tentacles extended throughout the deep-state and use
them to coerce their lackey bureaucrats to do their bidding.
Agree, but where is President Trump? He was supposed to appoint undersecretaries and
assistant secretaries and deputy undersecretaries and Schedule C whippersnappers on whose
desks such outrages are supposed to die.
I've thought from the beginning that this lack of attention to "personnel as policy" --
with Trump overestimating the ability of the ostensible CEO to overcome such intransigence --
was one of his major failures. I am sympathetic, as there are not many people he could trust
to be loyal to his agenda, much less to him, but this is a disaster in every agency
Few years ago I watch a clip secretly recorded in Ukrainian synagogue where Rabi said
"first we have to fight Catholics and with Muslims it will be an easy job" ...
Thanks to Mr Whitney for being able to cut through the fog and see what's going on behind
it. The term "white supremacist" wasn't much in public use at all until the day Trump was
elected then suddenly it was all over the place. It's like one of those massive ad campaigns
whose jingle is everywhere as if some group decided on it as a theme to be pushed. They're
really afraid that the white working class population will wake up and see how the country is
being sold out from underneath their feet hence the need to keep it divided and intimidated.
Like all the other color revolutions everywhere else they strike at the weak links within the
country to create conflict, in the US case it's so-called diversity. There's billions
available to be spent in this project so plenty of traitors can be found, unwitting or
otherwise, to carry out their assignments. The billionaire class own most of the media and
much else and see the US as their farm. They have no loyalty whatsoever and outsource
everything to China or anywhere else they can squeeze everything out of the workers. They
want a global dictatorship and admire the Chinese government for the way it can order its
citizens around.
You are exactly right. Trump is doing his part (knowingly or unknowingly, but probably
knowingly) to accomplish the NWO objectives. He was not elected in 2016 in spite of NWO
desires, as most Trump supporters think, but rather precisely BECAUSE of NWO desires.
The NWO probably also wants him to win again this year, and if so then he will win. The
reason the NWO wanted him in 2016 (and probably wants him to win again) was primarily to
neutralize the (armed) Right in this country so they wouldn't effectively resist the COVID-19
scamdemic lockdown tyranny and BLM/Antifa riots.
@Trinity While I tend to agree with you that it looks like a race war, the question is
why is it happening now? If it were just a race war promoted by radicals in BLM and Antifa,
it does not explain the nationwide coordination (let's face it the faces of BLM and Antifa
are not that smart or connected), the support and censorship of the violence by the MSM and
the support of Marxist BLM by corporations to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
This is a color revolution in the making and may come to a peak after Nov. 3rd. Whitney is on
to something, there is much more going on behind the "smoke and mirrors" and AG Barr (if he's
not part of it) should be investigating it.
They indicate that powerful agents -- operating from within the state– are
inciting racial violence to crush the emerging "populist" majority that elected Trump to
office in 2016 and which now represents an existential threat to the globalist plan to
transform America into a tyrannical third-world "shithole".
I keep reading such nonsense in the comments above. the so-called populist majority does
not get it, Trump is not placed here to stop the Globalist agenda, that is an electioneering
stunt. Look at what he has actually and really done.
How has he stopped the Globalist move forward?? By the Covid plandemic being
allowed to circle the globe and shut down the US economy and social norm? By moving our high
tech companies to Israel? Giving Israel and their Wall Street allies what is left of US
credit wealth? Draining the swamp with even more Zio-Neocon Swamp creatures in the govt than
ever? Moving the embassy to Jerusalem and all requests per Netanyahu's wish list? A real
anti-Globalist stand? Looting the Federal Reserve for the Wall Street high fliers, who
garnered more wealth during the crash test run of March-April and are sure to make out with
even more for the coming big crash?
Phoney stunts of stopping immigration or bashing China. Really? China is still rising
propelled by Wall Street and Banker funds. I have not seen any jobs coming home, lost more
than ever in US history this year. Only lost homes for the working and middle classes.
How is Populist America standing up for their constitutional rights which is being
shredded a little more each day? Standing up for their Real Interests, which are eroded and
stolen on an almost daily basis by Trump's NY Mafia and Wall Street Oligarchs. Jobs gone for
good and government assistance to the needy disappearing, as that is against the phoney
Republic individualism, that you must make it on your own. Right just like the big goverment
assistance always going to the big money players and banks, remember as they are too big
to let fail!
Dreaming that Trump is going to save White America from the Gobalists is just
bull corn . From whom BLM? Proven street theatre that will disappear on command. I
actually have come to learn that some Black leaders are speaking out intelligently for street
calm and distancing themselves from BLM.
Problem with the USA is the general population is so very dumbed down by 60 years of MSM
– TV s and Hollywood mind control programming that the public prefers professional
actors like Reagan and Trump over real politicians, and surely never chose a Statesman or
real Patriotic leader. the public political narrative is still set by Fox , CNN and
MSNBC .
The deep state is so infiltrated and overwhelmed with Zio and Globalist agents, that it is
now almost hopeless to fix. Sorry to point out but Trump is best described as the Dummy
sitting on his Ventriloquist's lap (Jared Kushner).
Situation is near hopeless as even here on Ron Unz Review the comments are so
disappointing, almost 80% are focused on the Race as the prime issue and supportive of Trump
fakery (not that I support Biden and Zio slut Kamil Harris either).
In sum, beyond putting their MAGA hats on, White America is more focused more on
playing Cowboy with their toy guns, AR's and all than really getting involved politically to
sort things out to get American onto a better track. Of course, this is not taken seriously
as it might call for reaching out to other American communities that are even more
disenfranchised: African- Americans and Latinos.
@David Erickson nted him in 2016 (and probably wants him to win again) was primarily to
neutralize the (armed) Right in this country so they wouldn't effectively resist the COVID-19
scamdemic lockdown tyranny and BLM/Antifa riots.
Covid and BLM/ANTIFA are just window dressing for the financial turmoil. "Look over here
whitey, there's a pandemic" and "look over here whitey, there's a riot" is much preferred to
whitey shooting the sheriff who comes to take his stuff.
Wave the flag and bible while spreading love for the cops, and the repossessions and
evictions should go off without a hitch. Yes, Trump is a knowing participant.
"My impression is that BLM, Antifa and other protestors are well aware of this"
Like all good Maoists the cult white kids of antifa rigidly adhere to the mission statement
and stick the inconvenient truth in the back of their mushy minds. BLM ... is a mercenary.
Can you imagine any other groups rioting and destroying American cities for over 3 months?
Imagine if the Hells Angels or some other White biker gang was doing what Antifa and BLM are
doing? Hell, imagine if it were a bunch of Hare Krishnas pulling this shit off? Hell, I think
the local mayors, police, and other law enforcement employees wouldn't even take this much shit
even if the rioters were Girl Scouts. We are talking 3-4 months of lawlessness, assaults,
rapes, murders ( cold blooded premeditated murders at that) and still the people in charge let
this shit go on night and day. IF the POTUS doesn't have the authority or the power to stop
shit like this from going on then what the hell do we even vote for anyhow? Granted, I see the
reason for not being ruled by a dictatorship, but who in the hell can justify letting these
riots go on? One can only assume that both the republicants and the demsheviks are fine with
these riots because no one seems in a hurry to shut them down or arrest the hombres funding
these riots. Who is housing and feeding the rioters? Who is paying their travel expenses? I'm
sure most everyone in Washington knows who the people are behind these riots but don't expect
any action anytime soon.
This is a class war dolled-up to look like a race war. Americans will have to look beyond
the smoke and mirrors to spot the elites lurking in the shadows. There lies the cancer that
must be eradicated.
That's true to a large degree, but
It is indeed an attempt to liquidate the working and lower middle class. Most of the
American working and lower middle class, obviously not all, is White. So predictably we have
these calls for White Genocide. Agreed and good to see the tie-in with the Coronavirus Hoax
lock downs, too, which also spread the devastation into minority communities under the guise of
public safety.
The one question that remains unanswered is why the major cities were targeted for
destruction. Obviously these are the playgrounds of the oligarchs and have been decimated. We
will learn soon enough.
The Reverend William Barber is the only genuine black leader I am aware of.
And he makes a pointn of not speaking only for blacks, but for all disadvantaged communities,
including poor whites. IMO he is the real deal, and I very much hope he takes the lead in
articulating genuine community values of respect and equality for all, including basics such as
decent health care and food access.
The pressure exerted on someone like Barber by the BLM forces in the media and other
institutions is enormous.
I wish Ron Unz would invite him to write something for the UR.
"... workers are dehumanizingly treated by Amazon as if they are robots – persistently asked to accomplish task after task at an unforgiving rate." ..."
Amazon is famous for its extreme efficiency yet behind the curtain is a crippling culture of
surveillance and stress, according to a study by the Open Markets Institute.
The think tank and advocacy group that repeatedly takes companies like Google and Facebook
to task warned in the
report [PDF] that Amazon's retail side has gone far beyond promoting efficient working and
has adopted an almost dystopian level of control over its warehouse workers,
firing them if they fail to meet targets that are often kept a secret.
Among the practices it highlighted, the report said that workers are told to hit a target
rate of packages to process per hour, though they are not told what exactly that target is. "We
don't know what the rate is," one pseudonymous worker told the authors. "They change it behind
the scenes. You'll know when you get a warning. They don't tell you what rate you have to hit
at the beginning."
If they grow close to not meeting a target rate, or miss it, the worker receives an
automated message warning them, the report said. Workers who fail to meet hidden targets can
also receive a different type of electronic message; one that fires them.
"Amazon's electronic system analyzes an employee's electronic record and, after falling
below productivity measures, 'automatically generates any warnings or terminations regarding
quality or productivity without input from supervisors'," it stated. The data is also generated
automatically: for example, those picking and packing are required to use a scanner that
records every detail, including the time between scans, and feed it into a system that pushes
out automated warnings.
Always watching
As with other companies, Amazon installs surveillance cameras in its workspaces to reduce
theft. But the report claims Amazon has taken that approach to new lengths "with an extensive
network of security cameras that tracks and monitors a worker's every move".
Bezos' bunch combines that level of surveillance with strict limits on behavior. "Upon
entering the warehouse, Amazon requires workers to dispose of all of their personal belongings
except a water bottle and a clear plastic bag of cash," the report noted.
For Amazon drivers, their location is constantly recorded and monitored and they are
required to follow the exact route Amazon has mapped. They are required to deliver 999 out of
every 1,000 packages on time or face the sack; something that the report argues has led to
widespread speeding and a related increase in crashes.
The same tracking software ensures that workers only take 30 minutes for lunch and two
separate 15-minute breaks during the day. The report also noted that the web goliath has
patented a wristband that "can precisely track where warehouse employees are placing their
hands and use vibrations to nudge them in a different direction".
Amazon also attempts to prevent efforts to unionize by actively tracking workers and
breaking up any meetings of too many people, including identifying possible union organizers
and moving them around the workplace to prevent them talking to the same group for too long,
the report claimed.
It quoted a source named Mohamed as saying: "They spread the workers out you cannot talk to
your colleagues The managers come to you and say they'll send you to a different station."
The combined effort of constant surveillance with the risk of being fired at any point has
created, according to workers, a " Lord Of The Flies -esque environment where the
perceived weakest links are culled every year".
Stress and quotas
The report said Amazon's workers "are under constant stress to make their quotas for
collecting and organizing hundreds of packages per hour" resulting in "constant 'low-grade
panic' to work. In this sense, workers are dehumanizingly treated by Amazon as if they are
robots – persistently asked to accomplish task after task at an unforgiving
rate."
At the end of the day, warehouse employees are required to go through mandatory screening to
check they haven't stolen anything, which "requires waiting times that can range from 25
minutes to an hour" and is not compensated, the report said.
Amazon also allegedly fails to account for any injuries, the report said, to the extent that
"Amazon employees feel forced to work through the pain and injuries they incur on the job, as
Amazon routinely fires employees who fall behind their quotas, without taking such injuries
into account."
It quoted another piece of reporting that found Amazon's rate of severe injuries in its
warehouses is, in some cases, more than five times the industry average. It also noted that the
National Council for Occupational Safety and Health listed Amazon as one of the "dirty dozen"
on its list of the most dangerous places to work in the United States in 2018.
The report concluded that "Amazon's practices exacerbate the inequality between employees
and management by keeping employees in a constant state of precariousness, with the threat of
being fired for even the slightest deviation, which ensures full compliance with
employer-demanded standards and limits worker freedom."
Being a think tank, the Open Markets Institute listed a series of policy and legal changes
that would help alleviate the work issues. It proposed a complete ban on "invasive forms of
worker surveillance" and a rule against any forms of surveillance that "preemptively interfere
with unionization efforts".
It also wants a law that allows independent contractors to unionize and the legalization of
secondary boycotts, as well as better enforcement of the rules against companies by government
departments including America's trade watchdog the FTC and Department of Justice, as well as a
ban on non-compete agreements and class action waivers.
In response to the allegations in the report, a spokesperson for Amazon told us: "Like most
companies, we have performance expectations for every Amazonian – be it corporate
employee or fulfillment center associate and we measure actual performance against those
expectations.
"Associate performance is measured and evaluated over a long period of time as we know that
a variety of things could impact the ability to meet expectations in any given day or hour. We
support people who are not performing to the levels expected with dedicated coaching to help
them improve." ®
But really, it's all about the cheap labor. And not just Europe.
The Ivory Coast used to be pretty prosperous. That meant that workers had high wages,
because that's what prosperity is, but that limited the profits of the rich, and we can't
have that. So the black elite imported massive numbers of muslim refugees as a source of
cheap labor, and by the time they had doubled the population the poverty resulting from this
tore the country apart in a bloody civil war. But that's OK, the right people made a lot of
money.
Brazil had slavery for much longer than the United States, and unlike the United States,
Brazil only got rid of slavery after massive immigration had boosted the population so much
that 'free' labor was cheaper than slave labor. Crushed to the limits, Brazil was stuck in a
capital-starved condition that it never pulled out of.
It's an old story. Look through history, whenever you hear about some place that imported
workers to do whatever, no that's not what happened, they imported workers to cut labor costs
– and the results for the average person have always been a reduction in living
standards and social disruption.
When southern American plantation owners imported back African slaves, it wasn't because
they thought the country needed more black people – they wanted cheap labor. And
centuries later, the damage that that policy has done to American society continues. And it
wasn't necessary – the free white north, without slaves and before mass immigration,
was the place that produced the greatest technological and industrial power the world had
ever seen – but there just wasn't enough cheap labor for a plantation owner to live the
life they wanted, so sad.
So what's happening in Europe is perhaps a bit extreme, but it's an old story. It's not
really about diversity or anti-white or any of that, that's just window dressing and
rationalization. It's about jamming in more and more people so wages will go down and rents
and profits will go up.
Here are a few takeaways from the Democratic Convention:
The Democrats are running on the
same platform they ran on in 2016. The Democrats put style above substance, flashy optics above
ideas or issues. The Democrats think that hollow tributes to "diversity" and "inclusion" will
win the election. The Democrats have abandoned white, working class voters opting instead for
people of color. The Democrats have learned nothing from Hillary Clinton's defeat in 2016.
In 2016, Democrat front-runner, Hillary Clinton lost the election because she failed to see
her support was eroding in the key Rust Belt states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
Trump won all three states with a measly 77, 651 votes total. All three states were expected to
go Democrat but flipped to the GOP due to Clinton's support for free trade and immigration
policies that cost jobs and imposed unwelcome demographic changes on the working people of
those states. The Democrats and Hillary have never accepted the factual version of how the
election was lost. Instead, they fabricated a conspiracy theory about Trump colluding with
Russia. Although the Mueller Report proved that the claims of meddling were baseless, Clinton
and the Dems continue to trot them out at every opportunity. On Tuesday at the convention,
Hillary again reiterated the lie that Trump stole the election. She said:
"Vote like our lives and livelihoods are on the line, because they are. Remember: Joe and
Kamala can win 3 million more votes and still lose. Take it from me. We need numbers so
overwhelming Trump can't sneak or steal his way to victory."
The determination on the part of the Democrats to mischaracterize what actually happened in
the election is not a trivial matter. It suggests that deception is central to their governing
style. Party leaders do not think their supporters are entitled to know the truth but rather
believe that events must be shaped in a way that best serves their overall political interests.
For Democrats, lying is not a personal failing, but an opportunity for enhancing their grip on
power. This is from an article in The Guardian:
"Donald Trump's electoral college victory rests on the shoulders of more than 200
so-called "pivot counties" across the US. That is, counties that voted for Barack Obama only
four years earlier. The most decisive of these swings occurred in Pennsylvania's Luzerne
county, nestled in the north-east part of the state There, voters gave Trump a nearly
20-point victory after going for Obama by almost 5% in 2012. But Trump's win in Luzerne
was also noteworthy for its magnitude. His 26,000 vote plurality in Luzerne comprised almost
three-fifths of his plurality in the state as a whole, and with it Pennsylvania's 20 coveted
electoral votes ." ("
The Forgotten review: Ben Bradlee Jr delivers 2020 lessons for Democrats" , The
Guardian )
Critical battleground states tilted in Trump's favor because Democratic policies had
decimated their communities and eviscerated their standard of living. Author Ben Bradlee Jr.
explains this phenom in his book "The Forgotten" which should be required reading at the DNC.
Here's a clip from the review at the Guardian:
"The Forgotten documents the ravages of deindustrialization, lost jobs, crime and drugs.
It captures the sense of displacement tied to a changing and less monochromatic America.
Once upon a time, Luzerne was home to coal and textiles, dominated by Protestants from
Wales and Catholics from Ireland and continental Europe. Not any more. Luzerne is poorer and
smaller, for many a less recognizable place. Not surprisingly, immigration and Nafta come in
for constant criticism. " (The Guardian)
This is the real reason Hillary was defeated. Russia had nothing to do with it. The Dems
abandoned the white working-class people who had always voted for them and began to cobble
together their Rainbow coalition. When Hillary denounced these people as "Deplorables", it
forced more of them to join Trump team. The rest is history. Here's more from the same
article:
"In the absence of a recession, however, the party stands to face the same electoral
map it did in 2016. In fact, Ohio now looks an even tougher nut to crack. Much as the
Democratic base loathes the president, reality cannot be wished away. Luzerne would be a
good place for the party to start addressing this reality. " ( The Guardian
)
The point we're trying to make is that the effectiveness of the Democrat Convention can only
be measured in terms of its impact on potential voters. So, why have the Dems shrugged off any
effort to reach out to the people who could help them win?
It's not that complicated. The Dems are merely abandoning the people who, they believe, will
leave anyway as their globalist economic agenda becomes more apparent putting more downward
pressure on overall living standards. It's worth noting, that when Obama left office in 2016,
this process was already well-underway. According to a Gallup poll, 71 percent of the people
said they were dissatisfied with the way things were going. (in Obama's last year.) Only 27
percent said they're satisfied. So, even though Obama's personal approval ratings remained
high, his handling of the economy was extremely unpopular. (except on Wall Street, of
course.)
During this same period, the PEW Research Center conducted a survey titled: "Campaign
Exposes Fissures Over Issues, Values and How Life Has Changed in the U.S" which showed why
Trump was steadily gaining on Hillary. Here are a few excerpts from the report:
"Among GOP voters, fully 75% of those who support Donald Trump for the Republican
presidential nomination say life for people like them has gotten worse "
"GOP voters who support Trump also stand out for their pessimism about the nation's
economy and their own financial situations: 48% rate current economic conditions in the U.S.
as "poor.
"Within the GOP, anger at government is heavily concentrated among Trump supporters
– 50% say they are angry at government "
"Among Republicans, a majority of those who back Trump (61%) view the system as unfair
among Trump supporters, 67% say trade agreements are bad thing "
"Half of Trump supporters (50%) say they are angry at the federal government . Anger at
government – and politics – is much more pronounced among Trump backers than
among supporters of any other presidential candidate, Republican or Democrat " ("
Campaign Exposes Fissures Over Issues, Values and How Life Has Changed in the U.S ", PEW
Research Center)
So, a higher percentage of Trump supporters think they are getting screwed-over by an unfair
system. They think "free trade" only benefits the rich, they think the government is
unresponsive to their needs, they think the system is rigged, and they're really, really
mad.
So, which speaker at the Democrat Convention addressed the concerns or complaints of white
working-class people who now almost-universally harbor these same feelings??
No one, because no one in the Democrat party plans to do anything about these issues, in
fact, just the opposite. Now that the Dems have been subsumed by Wall Street and their big
globalist donors, things are going to get dramatically worse for working people who will see a
vicious attack on essential social services and programs as soon as the election is over. The
massive build-up of debt– by mainly Democrat Governors who deliberately drove their
states into bankruptcy at the behest of Fauci's Vaccine Gestapo– will now be met by a
growing demand for austerity on a scale unlike anything we've experienced in the last century.
The country is being prepared for an excruciating restructuring that will create a permanent
underclass that will provide an endless source of sweatshop labor for the multinational
carpetbaggers. Those jobs will likely go to members of the Dems rainbow coalition while white,
working class people in America's heartland –with their strong sense of patriotism–
will be seen as a potential threat to the emerging new order.
It's clear that the Dems anticipate resistance to their plan by the contemptible way they
have branded struggling workers as "white nationalists" and "racists". But is it true or are
the Democrats and their deep-pocket allies preemptively denigrating these people and supporting
BLM rioters to head-off growing resistance to their strategy of total control through
widespread mayhem, decimation of the economy and extermination of the American middle class?
Author CJ Hopkins summed it up like this in a recent article at The Unz Review:
"What we are experiencing is not the "return of fascism." It is the global capitalist
empire restoring order, putting down the populist insurgency that took them by surprise in
2016.
The White Black Nationalist Color Revolution, the fake apocalyptic plague, all the
insanity of 2020 it has been in the pipeline all along. It has been since the moment Trump
won the election. No, it is not about Trump, the man. It has never been about Trump, the
man
GloboCap needs to crush Donald Trump not because he is a threat to the empire , but
because he became a symbol of populist resistance to global capitalism and its increasingly
aggressive "woke" ideology . It is this populist resistance to its ideology that GloboCap
is determined to crush, no matter how much social chaos and destruction it unleashes in the
process.. ." (" The White Black
Nationalist Color Revolution" , CJ Hopkins, The Unz Review )
Bingo. It is the "populist resistance to global capitalism" that is the defacto enemy of the
Party elite, the same elites who conspired with senior-level members of the Intelligence
Community, the FBI, the DOJ and the Obama White House to spy on the Trump Campaign, infiltrate
the presidential transition, and to try to topple the elected government. And while the coup
plotters have still not been brought to justice, they are now within spitting distance of their
ultimate objective, which is seizing executive power and using it to crush the fledgling
opposition, impose a one-party system of government, and transform America into a corporate
superstate ruled by Global Capital. Here's a clip from an article by Gary D. Barnett at Lew
Rockwell:
"By the end of this next planned phase of the 'virus' scare, a global reset of the world
economy will be ready to launch. This reset will be mammoth in scope, as everything we have
known will be restructured. Those out of work in the final stage will most likely stay out of
work, pushing the dependency state to new levels sought by the ruling class. Controlling
the population will be a key component of the plan, including population size, birth rates,
movement, and personal contact among individuals. The elimination of normal human interaction
is sought, and this is only the beginning . The ultimate goal is total control, and every
tool in the box of the tyrants will be used to gain that control. Restraint by the ruling
class will be non-existent, as this staged reset is now going forward at a very accelerated
pace." (
"The Economic Insanity of This Coronavirus Pandemic Plot and the Coming Global Reset ",
Lew Rockwell )
The coup plotters have chosen the candidates they want to carry out the next phase of their
operation. All they need now is to win the election.
The stock market is back to all time highs, but for ordinary Americans the standard of
living has not been worse in decades, if ever.
As Bank of America points out, while the recent covid shutdowns has thrown the economy into
disarray with millions laid off and living on government stimulus checks, life for the vast
majority of workers - i.e., those who comprise the country's middle class - was already
precarious before the pandemic, and nowhere is this more evident than in the Cost of Thriving
Index.
Consider that in 1985 it took 30 weeks at the median wage to pay for big fixed costs like
housing, health care, a car, and education; fast forward to today when it takes a
mathematically impossible 53 weeks of a 52-week year to buy those things.
In other words, as BofA puts it, "'thriving' has become impossible for the average worker"
and adds that " it's no wonder that the uncertainty of forecasts for future growth remains near
record highs."
Of course, it's also why millions of Americans are desperately looking forward to another
stimulus round, and then another, and another after that, for the simple reason that it was the
government's "pandemic relief" that boosted compensation to artificial, if "one-time" record
highs.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The question is whether this "one-time" stimulus which many equate with Universal Basic
Income, has become a permanent fixture of American life.
The USA and GB actually implement caste system. That's what job quota means.
Notable quotes:
"... It might seem divisive to compare different groups, but attainment in education and in life is relative and if we're to help the worst off, we have to know who they are. We should help everyone who needs it -- but it is vital to be able to compare groups to know who's falling behind, relative to their peers. In the UK, Bangladeshi-Brits earn 20 percent less than whites on average, for instance, but those with Indian heritage are likely to earn 12 percent more. Black Britons on average earn 9 percent less, but Chinese earn 30 percent more. What these differences tell us is that employers aren't systematically discriminating between people on the basis of their skin color, and that we have to look elsewhere to see the roots of inequality. ..."
"... Poor Chinese girls (that is to say, those who qualify for free school meals) do better than rich white children. ..."
"... But, interestingly, the ethnic group least likely to get into university are whites. With the sole exception of Gypsy/Roma, every ethnic group attends university at a higher rate than the white British and, of the white British who do attend, most are middle class and 57 percent are female. The least likely group to go on to higher education are poor white boys. Just 13 percent of them go on to higher education, less than any black or Asian group. ..."
"... Angus Deaton, a Nobel Laureate based at Princeton University, came up with the phrase 'deaths of despair' when he looked at the demographics of those suffering from alcoholism, depression and drug abuse. Suicides among whites, he found, was soaring and those who took their own lives tended to be poor and low-educated. His recently-published book on the subject ( Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism , co-written with Anne Case) tells the devastating story of what he calls 'the decline of white working-class lives over the last half-century'. ..."
You can argue about the merits of pulling down statues, but it's hard to make the case that mass protests serve no useful purpose.
At the very least, they provoke debate and draw attention to uncomfortable topics that it might otherwise be easier to ignore. The
recent protests have forced everyone to have difficult discussions about race, class, poverty and attainment. Any serious examination
of the statistics shows that we're pretty far from equal, but what the figures also show is that it's wrong-headed and damaging to
lump very different groups together.
In these discussions politicians often lazily assume that all BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) people are the same, and
that all white groups are equally privileged. But a proper look at the data shows not just that there are striking difference within
BAME groups, but that the very worst-performing group of all are white working-class boys -- the forgotten demographic .
It might seem divisive to compare different groups, but attainment in education and in life is relative and if we're to help
the worst off, we have to know who they are. We should help everyone who needs it -- but it is vital to be able to compare groups
to know who's falling behind, relative to their peers. In the UK, Bangladeshi-Brits earn 20 percent less than whites on average,
for instance, but those with Indian heritage are likely to earn 12 percent more. Black Britons on average earn 9 percent less, but
Chinese earn 30 percent more. What these differences tell us is that employers aren't systematically discriminating between people
on the basis of their skin color, and that we have to look elsewhere to see the roots of inequality.
Ucas, the British university admissions service, can provide unique insight into these issues: it is the only outfit in the
world to gather detailed information on all university applicants, including their age, gender, neighborhood and school type. This
is collected along with data on who applied for which courses and who was accepted, and it is renewed in huge detail every year.
Much of the data shows predictable results: there is a gap between rich and poor, as you might expect in a UK state system where
the best schools tend to be located in the most expensive areas. But there are surprising discoveries too: nearly half the children
eligible for free school meals in inner London go on to higher education, but in the country outside London as a whole it is just
26 percent.
Black African British children outperform white children, whereas black Caribbean children tend to do worse. Poor Chinese
girls (that is to say, those who qualify for free school meals) do better than rich white children.
But, interestingly, the ethnic group least likely to get into university are whites. With the sole exception of Gypsy/Roma,
every ethnic group attends university at a higher rate than the white British and, of the white British who do attend, most are middle
class and 57 percent are female. The least likely group to go on to higher education are poor white boys. Just 13 percent of them
go on to higher education, less than any black or Asian group.
This is a trend that can also be seen in the GCSE data; only 17 percent of white British pupils eligible for free school meals
achieve a strong pass in English and maths. Students categorized as Bangladeshi, Black African and Indian are more than twice as
likely to do so. In 2007, the state sector saw 23 percent of black students go on to higher education; this was true for 22 percent
of whites. So about the same. But at the last count, in 2018, the gap had widened to 11 points (41 percent for black students, 30
percent for whites). The children of the white working class are falling away from their peers, in danger of becoming lost.
Going to university is not the golden ticket it once was, but it requires stupefying naivety to believe that seven out of eight
poor white boys take a sober look at the economics of higher education and choose to set up their own businesses instead. The trail
of hard evidence runs cold once they leave school, but the prospects for those who can barely read and write are dreadful and we
can get some idea of the consequences by looking at the 'left behind' areas where unemployment, crime and 'deaths of despair' are
significantly higher than the national average.
Angus Deaton, a Nobel Laureate based at Princeton University, came up with the phrase 'deaths of despair' when he looked at
the demographics of those suffering from alcoholism, depression and drug abuse. Suicides among whites, he found, was soaring and
those who took their own lives tended to be poor and low-educated. His recently-published book on the subject (
Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism , co-written
with Anne Case) tells the devastating story of what he calls 'the decline of white working-class lives over the last half-century'.
Yet while white working-class males are the largest disadvantaged minority, their cause is the least fashionable. In the intersectional
pyramid of victimhood, white males are at the bottom, tarnished by ideas of 'toxic masculinity' and 'white privilege' despite the
fact that in Britain class has always been the most significant indicator of true privilege. It's worrying, then, that any who attempt
'positive action' on behalf of poor white boys face a hostile reaction. Last year, Dulwich and Winchester colleges turned down a
bequest of more than Ł1 million ($1.25 million) because the donor, Sir Bryan Thwaites, wanted the money ring-fenced for scholarships
for white working-class boys. Peter Lampl, founder of the Sutton Trust, a charity whose stated mission is to improve social mobility,
described Thwaites's offer as 'obnoxious'.
When Ben Bradley, the Conservative MP for Mansfield, tried to ask an 'Equalities' question about working-class white boys in parliament
earlier this year, he was turned down by the Table Office because they do not have any 'protected characteristics'. The concept of
'protected characteristics' was wheeled into UK law by Harriet Harman's Equality Act, 10 years ago, and the Tories, then in opposition,
took the rare step of voting for it. The nine protected characteristics include 'race', 'sex' and 'sexual orientation', but the Table
Office is not alone in interpreting these as 'non-white', 'female' and 'gay'.
Under the Equality Act, 'positive discrimination' remains technically unlawful, but the barely indistinguishable concept of 'positive
action' is explicitly legal. Firms cannot have quotas, but they can set targets. Employers cannot refuse to look at job applications
from people who lack protected characteristics, but by stating that 'applications are particularly welcome' from BAME, female or
LBGTQ+ candidates they send a message that some need not apply.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
In 2016 the BBC pledged that half its workforce and leadership would be female by 2020 despite less than 40 percent of Britain's
full-time workers being women. It also set an 8 percent target for LGBT employees, although only around 2 percent of the population
identify as LGBT. This target has been comfortably exceeded, as has been the target of having 15 percent of employees from a BAME
background. In the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests last month, the corporation raised this target to 20 per cent.
The BBC admits that people from 'low and intermediate income households' are hugely underrepresented in its workforce. But what
does it do about it? Earlier this month Oxford University proudly reported that it was making 'steady progress' in its efforts to
make its campuses 'representative of wider society'. Of its most recent intake of British students, only 14 percent came from the
poorest 40 percent of households.
This fits a pattern: at a push, we can hear acknowledgement of the 'poor white male' problem. But that's as far as it ever goes.
The underperformance of white boys and men is not considered to be a problem worth solving. When figures come out showing the stunning
attainment gaps between boys and girls, the interest lasts for about a day. 'It always got a few headlines,' says Mary Curnock Cook,
the former head of Ucas. 'Where it never got any traction at all was in policy-making in government. I began to think that the subject
of white boys is just too difficult for them, given the politicization of feminism and women's equality.'
When I asked a teacher why white working-class boys have fallen so far behind, he gave me a short answer: girls are better behaved
and immigrant parents are stricter. This is a generalization but nonetheless interesting: if it is the case that parenting is the
problem, then it's not clear how much the UK government can do. Perhaps the reluctance to discuss the subject stems from fear that
such a discussion would lead to difficult territory about family structure, quality of parenting and -- in short -- culture. Perhaps
politicians think it better to let the problem fester, and the children suffer, than to risk discussing it.
Last month, the British government announced that its commission on racial inequality would include an examination into the underperformance
of working-class white boys at schools. Will it look deep into the causes? It might look at recent studies that suggest poor reading
levels in schools is a huge part of the problem. And it might ask whether 'positive action' in the name of diversity has left white
working-class boys behind.
"... That is the reality of 'normal', where everything has been devalued to its lowest denominator – its cold, hard, economic value of cash. Yes, devalued – because our society demands that everything has only a cash figure. ..."
"... For the working class, these narratives of 'the middle', of being mediocre, do not work for us, because we start from a position of disadvantage and our narrative around success starts with change. Because who we are is never good enough – we are instead told and taught to 'aspire' to join the ranks of the middle class and achieve the things its members take as theirs. Property. Profits. Expensive wine. Insider knowledge of which brand of jam makes them a better person. ..."
That is the reality of
'normal', where everything has been devalued to its lowest denominator – its cold, hard, economic value of cash. Yes, devalued
– because our society demands that everything has only a cash figure. Therefore 'normal' is always framed by the middle
classes, because they have power, and language, and education – and yes, money – which allows what appears normal to them to
be considered normal for everyone. If you are working class, you don't get to frame your interpretation of normal; normal sits
in the middle and becomes mediocre, never radical or challenging.
That 'normal' works for the middle classes because it's
theirs – most of them are living their lives today the same ways they were eight weeks ago, before Covid struck. Many are
existing in even more comfortable contentedness than usual.
I hate this mediocre
position. It speaks to me of having no aspirations to challenge, to think differently, to shake things up. It is the thought
process, and actions, of the middle class – who see no benefit in change because they are doing okay.
For the working class,
these narratives of 'the middle', of being mediocre, do not work for us, because we start from a position of disadvantage and
our narrative around success starts with change. Because who we are is never good enough – we are instead told and taught to
'aspire' to join the ranks of the middle class and achieve the things its members take as theirs. Property. Profits. Expensive
wine. Insider knowledge of which brand of jam makes them a better person.
Covid-19 has shown us VERY
CLEARLY that it is the working class whose lives are in such precarity and who are always first in line to be killed or thrown
onto the dole queues. It is the working class who suffer most from anything that is negative – whether it's man-made, like a
rotten economic system, or a health pandemic – and benefit least from anything positive.
As governments and bosses all over the world try to tempt us back into the
"old normal"
and
whisper snake-oil encouragements such a
s "Don't worry, it won't all be the same things
will improve,"
let us grab that message with both hands, our feet and our heads. Let's appropriate it and tell them
clearly: no, it bloody well won't be the same. We don't want that 'normal'. As it was never normal for us – it was a living
nightmare.
Dr Lisa McKenzie is
a working-class academic. She grew up in a coal-mining town in Nottinghamshire and became politicized through the 1984
miners' strike with her family. At 31, she went to the University of Nottingham and did an undergraduate degree in
sociology. Dr McKenzie lectures in sociology at the University of Durham and is the author of 'Getting By: Estates,
Class and Culture in Austerity Britain.' She's a political activist, writer and thinker. Follow her on Twitter
@redrumlisa
.
"... The consequences of the short-sighted politics and policies of the Thatcher era have been profound in those communities that suffered, and have shaped the narrative of the working class over the past 40 years, as people who are slow to change and are left behind. ..."
"... The consequence of this has been that the social, political and cultural influence of the working class has also diminished. Working-class people are now barely represented outside of low-paid, low-skilled work centered in the limited space of the service sector, healthcare, retail and distribution centers. ..."
"... Even the government's own appointed Social Mobility Commission acknowledges that class inequality and class prejudice is entrenched in our society. But it has no real solutions, and simply trots out the usual unimaginative tropes of raising aspiration for young working-class people. ..."
"... Working-class people need their own 'New Deal', which not only recognises the even greater inequalities caused by Covid-19 and the economic disaster that is on its way, but acknowledges the economic, social, political and cultural attack they have sustained for over 40 years. ..."
The consequences of the short-sighted politics and policies of the Thatcher era have been
profound in those communities that suffered, and have shaped the narrative of the working class
over the past 40 years, as people who are slow to change and are left behind.
Even former chancellors
are warning of a return to a 1980s level of unemployment and recession – although
none of them accepts responsibility for the structures they defended that caused that
unemployment. Nor do they take responsibility for their inability to think honestly or even
creatively about the failure of capitalism.
... ... ...
The consequence of this has been that the social, political and cultural influence of the working
class has also diminished. Working-class people are now barely represented outside of low-paid,
low-skilled work centered in the limited space of the service sector, healthcare, retail and
distribution centers.
Even the government's own appointed Social Mobility Commission acknowledges that class
inequality and class prejudice is entrenched in our society. But it has no real solutions, and
simply trots out the usual unimaginative tropes of raising aspiration for young working-class
people.
So I'll help it out. Working-class people need their own 'New Deal', which not only recognises the even greater inequalities caused by Covid-19 and the economic disaster that is
on its way, but acknowledges the economic, social, political and cultural attack they have
sustained for over 40 years.
The New Deal for working-class people would recognise that access to good, safe and
affordable housing is needed immediately.
It would recognise that the welfare-benefits system that's supposed to catch those who need
support is cruel, humiliating and keeps people in poverty, rather than lifting them out.
Dr Lisa McKenzie is a working-class academic. She grew up in a coal-mining town in
Nottinghamshire and became politicized through the 1984 miners' strike with her family. At 31,
she went to the University of Nottingham and did an undergraduate degree in sociology. Dr
McKenzie lectures in sociology at the University of Durham and is the author of 'Getting By:
Estates, Class and Culture in Austerity Britain.' She's a political activist, writer and
thinker. Follow her on Twitter @redrumlisa .
"... From wiping out the ability of regular folks to declare bankruptcy (something supported by our founding fathers who were NOT socialists), to shipping our industrial base to communist China (which in less enlightened days would have been termed treason), to spending tens of trillions of dollars bailing out and subsiding the big banks (that's not a misprint), to supporting "surprise medical billing," to opening the borders to massive third-world immigration so that wages can be driven down and reset and profits up (As 2015 Bernie Sanders pointed out), Backstabbing Joe Biden is neoliberal scum pure and simple. ..."
"... It's astonishing that so many people will just blindly accept what they are told, that Biden is. "moderate." Biden is so far to the right, he makes Nixon look like Trotsky. ..."
"... Joe Biden is a crook and a con man. He has been lying his whole life. Claimed in his 1988 Campaign to have got 3 degrees at college and finished in top half of his class. Actually only got 1 degree & finished 76th out of 85 in his class. ..."
Yet another circus. The proles get to scream and holler, and when all is done, the oligarchy gets the policies it wants, the public
be damned. Our sham 'democracy' is a con to privatize power and socialize responsibility.
Although it is shocking to see such a disgusting piece of human garbage like Joe Biden get substantial numbers of people to
vote for him. Biden has never missed a chance to stab the working class in the back in service to his wealthy patrons.
The issue is not (for me) his creepiness (I wouldn't much mind if he was on my side), nor even his Alzheimer's, but his established
track record of betrayal and corruption.
From wiping out the ability of regular folks to declare bankruptcy (something supported by our founding fathers who were NOT
socialists), to shipping our industrial base to communist China (which in less enlightened days would have been termed treason),
to spending tens of trillions of dollars bailing out and subsiding the big banks (that's not a misprint), to supporting "surprise
medical billing," to opening the borders to massive third-world immigration so that wages can be driven down and reset and profits
up (As 2015 Bernie Sanders pointed out), Backstabbing Joe Biden is neoliberal scum pure and simple.
It's astonishing that so many people will just blindly accept what they are told, that Biden is. "moderate." Biden is so
far to the right, he makes Nixon look like Trotsky. Heck, he makes Calvin Coolidge look like Trotsky.
Joe Biden is a crook and a con man. He has been lying his whole life. Claimed in his 1988 Campaign to have got 3 degrees at college and finished in top half of his class. Actually only got 1 degree & finished 76th out of 85 in his class.
"... Mass unemployment will bring the United States closer to less-developed economies. Very large regions of the poor will surround small enclaves of the rich. Narrow bands of "middle-income professionals," etc., will separate rich from poor. Ever-more rigid social divisions enforced by strong police and military apparatuses are becoming the norm. Their outlines are already visible across the United States. ..."
"... In this context, U.S. capitalism strode confidently toward the 21st century. The Soviet threat had imploded. A divided Europe threatened no U.S. interests. Its individual nations competed for U.S. favor (especially the UK). China's poverty blocked its becoming an economic competitor. U.S. military and technological supremacy seemed insurmountable. ..."
"... Amid success, internal contradictions surfaced. U.S. capitalism crashed three times. The first happened early in 2000 (triggered by dot-com share-price inflation); next came the big crash of 2008 (triggered by defaulting subprime mortgages); and the hugest crash hit in 2020 (triggered by COVID-19). ..."
"... Second, we must face a major obstacle. Since 1945, capitalists and their supporters developed arguments and institutions to undo the New Deal and its leftist legacies. They silenced, deflected, co-opted, and/or demonized criticisms of capitalism. ..."
"... Third, to newly organized versions of a New Deal coalition or of social democracy, we must add a new element. We cannot again leave capitalists in the exclusive positions to receive enterprise profits and make major enterprise decisions. ..."
Organized labor led no mass opposition to Trump's presidency or the December 2017 tax cut or
the failed U.S. preparation for and management of COVID-19. Nor do we yet see a labor-led
national protest against the worst mass firing since the 1930s Great Depression. All of these
events, but especially the unemployment, mark an employers' class war against employees. The
U.S. government directs it, but the employers as a class inspire and benefit the most from
it.
Before the 2020 crash, class war had been redistributing wealth for decades from
middle-income people and the poor to the top 1 percent. That upward redistribution was U.S.
employers' response to the legacy of the New Deal. During the Great Depression and afterward,
wealth had been redistributed downward. By the 1970s, that was reversed. The 2020 crash will
accelerate upward wealth redistribution sharply.
With tens of millions now a "reserve army" of the unemployed, nearly every U.S. employer can
cut wages, benefits, etc. Employees dissatisfied with these cuts are easily replaced. Vast
numbers of unemployed, stressed by uncertain job prospects and unemployment benefits,
disappearing savings, and rising household tensions, will take jobs despite reduced wages,
benefits, and working conditions. As the unemployed return to work, most employees' standards
of consumption and living will drop.
Germany, France, and other European nations could not fire workers as the United States did.
Strong labor movements and socialist parties with deep social influences preclude governments
risking comparable mass unemployment; it would risk deposing them from office. Thus their
antiviral lockdowns keep most at work with governments paying 70 percent or more of pre-virus
wages and salaries.
Mass unemployment will bring the United States closer to less-developed economies. Very
large regions of the poor will surround small enclaves of the rich. Narrow bands of
"middle-income professionals," etc., will separate rich from poor. Ever-more rigid social
divisions enforced by strong police and military apparatuses are becoming the norm. Their
outlines are already visible across the United States.
Only if workers understand and mobilize to fight this class war can the trends sketched
above be stopped or reversed. U.S. workers did exactly that in the 1930s. They fought -- in
highly organized ways -- the class war waged against them then. Millions joined labor unions,
and many tens of thousands joined two socialist parties and one communist party. All four
organizations worked together, in coalition, to mobilize and activate the U.S. working
class.
Weekly, and sometimes daily, workers marched across the United States. They criticized
President Franklin D. Roosevelt's policies and capitalism itself by intermingling reformist and
revolutionary demands. The coalition's size and political reach forced politicians, including
FDR, to listen and respond, often positively. An initially "centrist" FDR adapted to become a
champion of Social Security, unemployment insurance, a minimum wage, and a huge federal jobs
program. The coalition achieved those moderate socialist reforms -- the New Deal -- and paid
for them by setting aside revolutionary change.
It proved to be a good deal, but only in the short run. Its benefits to workers included a
downward redistribution of income and wealth (especially via homeownership), and thereby the
emergence of a new "middle class." Relatively well-paid employees were sufficient in number to
sustain widespread notions of American exceptionalism, beliefs in ever-rising standards of
working-class living across generations, and celebrations of capitalism as guaranteeing these
social benefits. The reality was quite different. Not capitalists but rather their critics and
victims had forced the New Deal against capitalists' resistance. And those middle-class
benefits bypassed most African Americans.
The good deal did not last because U.S. capitalists largely resented the New Deal and sought
to undo it. With World War II's end and FDR's death in 1945, the undoing accelerated. An
anti-Soviet Cold War plus anti-communist/socialist crusades at home gave patriotic cover for
destroying the New Deal coalition. The 1947 Taft-Hartley Act targeted organized labor. Senate
and House committees spearheaded a unified effort (government, mass media, and academia) to
demonize, silence, and socially exclude communists, socialists, leftists, etc. For decades
after 1945 -- and still now in parts of the United States -- a sustained hysteria defined all
left-wing thought, policy, or movement as always and necessarily the worst imaginable social
evil.
Over time, the New Deal coalition was destroyed and left-wing thinking was labeled
"disloyal." Even barely left-of-center labor and political organizations repeatedly denounced
and distanced themselves from any sort of anti-capitalist impulse, any connection to socialism.
Many New Deal reforms were evaded, amended, or repealed. Some simply vanished from politicians'
knowledge and vocabulary and then journalists' too. Having witnessed the purges of leftist
colleagues from 1945 through the 1950s, a largely docile academic community celebrated
capitalism in general and U.S. capitalism in particular. The good in U.S. society was
capitalism's gift. The rest resulted from government or foreign or ideological interferences in
capitalism's wonderful invisible hand. Any person or group excluded from this American Dream
had only themselves to blame for inadequate ability, insufficient effort, or ideological
deviancy.
In this context, U.S. capitalism strode confidently toward the 21st century. The Soviet
threat had imploded. A divided Europe threatened no U.S. interests. Its individual nations
competed for U.S. favor (especially the UK). China's poverty blocked its becoming an economic
competitor. U.S. military and technological supremacy seemed insurmountable.
Amid success, internal contradictions surfaced. U.S. capitalism crashed three times. The
first happened early in 2000 (triggered by dot-com share-price inflation); next came the big
crash of 2008 (triggered by defaulting subprime mortgages); and the hugest crash hit in 2020
(triggered by COVID-19). Unprepared economically, politically, and ideologically for any of
them, the Federal Reserve responded by creating vast sums of new money that it threw at/lent to
(at historically low interest rates) banks, large corporations, etc. Three successive exercises
in trickle-down economic policy saw little trickle down. No underlying economic problems
(inequality, excess systemic debts, cyclical instability, etc.) have been solved. On the
contrary, all worsened. In other words, class war has been intensified.
What then is to be done? First, we need to recognize the class war that is underway and
commit to fighting it. On that basis, we must organize a mass base to put real political force
behind social democratic policies, parties, and politicians. We need something like the New
Deal coalition. The pandemic, economic crash, and gross official policy failures (including
violent official scapegoating) draw many toward classical social democracy. The successes of
the Democratic Socialists of America show this.
Second, we must face a major obstacle. Since 1945, capitalists and their supporters
developed arguments and institutions to undo the New Deal and its leftist legacies. They
silenced, deflected, co-opted, and/or demonized criticisms of capitalism. Strategic decisions
made by both the U.S. New Deal and European social democracy contributed to their defeats. Both
always left and still leave employers exclusively in positions to (1) receive and dispense
their enterprises' profits and (2) decide and direct what, how, and where their enterprises
produce. Those positions gave capitalists the financial resources and power -- politically,
economically, and culturally -- repeatedly to outmaneuver and repress labor and the left.
Third, to newly organized versions of a New Deal coalition or of social democracy, we must add a new element. We cannot
again leave capitalists in the exclusive positions to receive enterprise profits and make major enterprise decisions. The
new element is thus the demand to change enterprises producing goods and services. From hierarchical, capitalist organizations
(where owners, boards of directors, etc., occupy the employer position) we need to transition to the altogether different
democratic, worker co-op organizations. In the latter, no employer/employee split occurs. All workers have equal voice in
deciding what gets produced, how, and where and how any profits get used. The collective of all employees is their own employer.
As such an employer, the employees will finally protect and thus secure the reforms associated with the New Deal and social
democracy.
We could describe the transition from capitalist to worker co-op enterprise organizations as
a revolution. That would resolve the old debate of reform versus revolution. Revolution becomes
the only way finally to secure progressive reforms. Capitalism's reforms were generated by the
system's impacts on people and their resulting demands for change. Capitalism's resistances to
those reforms -- and undoing them after they happened -- spawned the revolution needed to
secure them. In that revolution, society moves beyond capitalism itself. So it was in the
French Revolution: demands for reform within feudal society could only finally be realized by a
social transition from feudalism to capitalism.
"... It's a commonplace to say the primary job of police is to "protect and serve," but that's not their goal in the way it's commonly understood -- not in the deed, the practice of what they daily do, and not true in the original intention, in why police departments were created in the first place. "Protect and serve" as we understand it is just the cover story. ..."
"... Urban police forces in America were created for one purpose -- to "maintain order" after a waves of immigrants swept into northern U.S. cities, both from abroad and later from the South, immigrants who threatened to disturb that "order." The threat wasn't primarily from crime as we understand it, from violence inflicted by the working poor on the poor or middle class. The threat came from unions, from strikes, and from the suffering, the misery and the anger caused by the rise of rapacious capitalism. ..."
"... What's being protected? The social order that feeds the wealthy at the expense of the working poor. Who's being served? Owners, their property, and the sources of their wealth, the orderly and uninterrupted running of their factories. The goal of police departments, as originally constituted, was to keep the workers in line, in their jobs, and off the streets. ..."
"... In most countries, the police are there solely to protect the Haves from the Have-Nots. In fact, when the average frustrated citizen has trouble, the last people he would consider turning to are the police. ..."
"... Jay Gould, a U.S. robber baron, is supposed to have claimed that he could hire one half of the working class to kill the other half. ..."
"... I spent some time in the Silver Valley of northern Idaho. This area was the hot bed of labor unrest during the 1890's. Federal troops controlled the area 3 separate times,1892, 1894 and 1899. Twice miners hijacked trains loaded them with dynamite and drove them to mining company stamping mills that they then blew up. Dozens of deaths in shoot outs. The entire male population was herded up and placed in concentration camps for weeks. The end result was the assassination of the Governor in 1905. ..."
"... Interestingly this history has been completely expunged. There is a mining museum in the town which doesn't mention a word on these events. Even nationwide there seems to be a complete erasure of what real labor unrest can look like.. ..."
"... Straight-up fact: The police weren't created to preserve and protect. They were created to maintain order, [enforced] over certain subjected classes and races of people, including–for many white people, too–many of our ancestors, too.* ..."
Yves here. Tom mentions in passing the role
of Pinkertons as goons for hire to crush early labor activists. Some employers like Ford went as far as forming private armies for
that purpose. Establishing police forces were a way to socialize this cost.
[In the 1800s] the police increasingly presented themselves as a thin blue line protecting civilization, by which they meant
bourgeois civilization, from the disorder of the working class.
-- Sam Mitrani
here
It's a commonplace to say the primary job of police is to "protect and serve," but that's not their goal in the way it's commonly
understood -- not in the deed, the practice of what they daily do, and not true in the original intention, in why police departments
were created in the first place. "Protect and serve" as we understand it is just the cover story.
To understand the true purpose of police, we have to ask, "What's being protected?" and "Who's being served?"
Urban police forces in America were created for one purpose -- to "maintain order" after a waves of immigrants swept into northern
U.S. cities, both from abroad and later from the South, immigrants who threatened to disturb that "order." The threat wasn't primarily
from crime as we understand it, from violence inflicted by the working poor on the poor or middle class. The threat came from unions,
from strikes, and from the suffering, the misery and the anger caused by the rise of rapacious capitalism.
What's being protected? The social order that feeds the wealthy at the expense of the working poor. Who's being served? Owners,
their property, and the sources of their wealth, the orderly and uninterrupted running of their factories. The goal of police departments,
as originally constituted, was to keep the workers in line, in their jobs, and off the streets.
Looking Behind Us
The following comes from an
essay
published at the blog of the Labor and Working-Class History Association, an academic group for teachers of labor studies, by
Sam Mitrani, Associate Professor of History at the College of DuPage and author of The Rise of the Chicago Police
Department: Class and Conflict, 1850-1894 .
According to Mitrani, "The police were not created to protect and serve the population. They were not created to stop crime, at
least not as most people understand it. And they were certainly not created to promote justice. They were created to protect the
new form of wage-labor capitalism that emerged in the mid to late nineteenth century from the threat posed by that system's offspring,
the working class."
Keep in mind that there were no police departments anywhere in Europe or the U.S. prior to the 19th century -- in fact, "anywhere
in the world" according to Mitrani. In the U.S., the North had constables, many part-time, and elected sheriffs, while the South
had slave patrols. But nascent capitalism soon created a large working class, and a mass of European immigrants, "yearning to be
free," ended up working in capitalism's northern factories and living in its cities.
"[A]s Northern cities grew and filled with mostly immigrant wage workers who were physically and socially separated from the
ruling class, the wealthy elite who ran the various municipal governments hired hundreds and then thousands of armed men to impose
order on the new working class neighborhoods ." [emphasis added]
America of the early and mid 1800s was still a world without organized police departments. What the
Pinkertons were to strikes , these
"thousands of armed men" were to the unruly working poor in those cities.
Imagine this situation from two angles. First, from the standpoint of the workers, picture the oppression these armed men must
have represented, lawless themselves yet tasked with imposing "order" and violence on the poor and miserable, who were frequently
and understandably both angry and drunk. (Pre-Depression drunkenness, under this interpretation, is not just a social phenomenon,
but a political one as well.)
Second, consider this situation from the standpoint of the wealthy who hired these men. Given the rapid growth of capitalism during
this period, "maintaining order" was a costly undertaking, and likely to become costlier. Pinkertons, for example, were hired at
private expense, as were the "thousands of armed men" Mitrani mentions above.
The solution was to offload this burden onto municipal budgets. Thus, between 1840 and 1880, every major northern city
in America had created a substantial police force, tasked with a single job, the one originally performed by the armed men paid by
the business elites -- to keep the workers in line, to "maintain order" as factory owners and the moneyed class understood it.
"Class conflict roiled late nineteenth century American cities like Chicago, which experienced major strikes and riots in 1867,
1877, 1886, and 1894. In each of these upheavals, the police attacked strikers with extreme violence, even if in 1877 and 1894 the
U.S. Army played a bigger role in ultimately repressing the working class. In the aftermath of these movements, the police increasingly
presented themselves as a thin blue line protecting civilization , by which they meant bourgeois civilization, from the disorder
of the working class. This ideology of order that developed in the late nineteenth century echoes down to today – except that today,
poor black and Latino people are the main threat, rather than immigrant workers."
That "thin blue line protecting civilization" is the same blue line we're witnessing today. Yes, big-city police are culturally
racist as a group; but they're not just racist. They dislike all the "unwashed." A
recent study that reviewed "all the data
available on police shootings for the year 2017, and analyze[d] it based on geography, income, and poverty levels, as well as race"
revealed the following remarkable pattern:
" Police violence is focused overwhelmingly on men lowest on the socio-economic ladder : in rural areas outside the
South, predominately white men; in the Southwest, disproportionately Hispanic men; in mid-size and major cities, disproportionately
black men. Significantly, in the rural South, where the population is racially mixed, white men and black men are killed by police
at nearly identical rates."
As they have always been, the police departments in the U.S. are a violent force for maintaining an order that separates and protects
society's predator class from its victims -- a racist order to be sure, but a class-based order as well.
Looking Ahead
We've seen the violence of the police as visited on society's urban poor (and anyone else, poor or not, who happens to be the
same race and color as the poor too often are), and we've witnessed the violent reactions of police to mass protests challenging
the racism of that violence.
But we've also seen the violence of police during the mainly white-led Occupy movement (one instance
here ; note that while the officer involved
was fired, he was also compensated $38,000 for "suffering he experienced after the incident").
So what could we expect from police if there were, say, a national, angry, multiracial rent strike with demonstrations? Or a student
debt s trike? None of these possibilities are off the table, given the
economic damage -- most of it still unrealized -- caused by the current Covid crisis.
Will police "protect and serve" the protesters, victims of the latest massive
transfer of wealth
to the already massively wealthy? Or will they, with violence, "maintain order" by maintaining elite control of the current predatory
system?
If Mitrani is right, the latter is almost certain.
Possible solutions? One, universal public works system for everyone 18-20. [Avoiding armed service because that will never
happen, nor peace corp.] Not allow the rich to buy then or their children an out. Let the billionaires children work along side
those who never had a single family house or car growing up.
Two, eliminate suburban school districts and simply have one per state, broken down into regional areas. No rich [or white]
flight to avoid poor systems. Children of differing means growing up side by side. Of course the upper class would simply send
their children to private schools, much as the elite do now anyway.
Class and privilege is the real underlying issue and has been since capital began to be concentrated and hoarded as the article
points out. It has to begin with the children if the future is to really change in a meaningful way.
I would add items targeted as what is causing inequality. Some of these might be:
1). Abolish the Federal Reserve. It's current action since 2008 are a huge transfer of wealth from us to the wealthy. No more
Quantitative Easing, no Fed buying of stocks or bonds.
2). Make the only retirement and medical program allowed Congress and the President, Social Security and Medicare. That will
cause it to be improved for all of us.
3). No stock ownership allowed for Congress folk while serving terms. Also, rules against joining those leaving Congress acting
as lobbyists.
4). Something that makes it an iron rule that any law passed by Congress and the President, must equally apply to Congress
and the President. For example, no separate retirement or healthcare access, but have this more broadly applied to all aspects
of legislation and all aspects of life.
I think you'd also have to legalize drugs and any other thing that leads creation of "organized ciminal groups." Take away
the sources that lead to the creation of the well-armed gangs that control illegal activities.
Unfortunately, legalising drugs in itself, whatever the abstract merits, wouldn't solve the problem. Organised crime would
still have a major market selling cut-price, tax-free or imitation drugs, as well, of course, as controlled drugs which are not
allowed to be sold to just anybody now. Organised crime doesn't arise as a result of prohibitions, it expands into new areas thanks
to them, and often these areas involve smuggling and evading customs duties. Tobacco products are legal virtually everywhere,
but there's a massive criminal trade in smuggling them from the Balkans into Italy, where taxes are much higher. Any time you
create a border, in effect, you create crime: there is even alcohol smuggling between Sweden and Norway. Even when activities
are completely legal (such as prostitution in many European countries) organised crime is still largely in control through protection
rackets and the provision of "security."
In effect, you'd need to abolish all borders, all import and customs duties and all health and safety and other controls which
create price differentials between states. And OC is not fussy, it moves from one racket to another, as the Mafia did in the 1930s
with the end of prohibition. To really tackle OC you'd need to legalise, oh, child pornography, human trafficking, sex slavery,
the trade in rare wild animals, the trade in stolen gems and conflict diamonds, internet fraud and cyberattacks, and the illicit
trade in rare metals, to name, as they say, but a few. As Monty Python well observed, the only way to reduce the crime rate (and
hence the need for the police) is to reduce the number of criminal offences. Mind you, if you defund the police you effectively
legalise all these things anyway.
I dunno, ending Prohibition sure cut down on the market for bootleg liquor. It's still out there, but the market is nothing
like what it once was.
Most people, even hardcore alcoholics, aren't going to go through the hassle of buying rotgut of dubious origin just to save
a few dimes, when you can go to the corner liquor store and get a known product, no issues with supply 'cause your dealer's supplier
just got arrested.
For that matter, OC is still definitely out there, but it isn't the force that it was during Prohibition, or when gambling
was illegal.
As an aside, years ago, I knew a guy whose father had worked for Meyer Lansky's outfit, until Prohibition put him and others
out of a job. As a token of his loyal service, the outfit gave him a (legal) liquor store to own and run.
Yes, but in Norway, for example, you'd pay perhaps $30 for a six-pack of beer in a supermarket, whereas you'd pay half that
to somebody selling beers out of the back of a car. In general people make too much of the Prohibition case, which was geographically
and politically very special, and a a stage in history when OC was much less sophisticated. The Mob diversified into gambling
and similar industries (higher profits, fewer risks). These days OC as a whole is much more powerful and dangerous, as well as
sophisticated, than it was then, helped by globalisation and the Internet.
I think ending prohibitions on substances, would take quite a bite out of OC's pocketbook. and having someone move trailers
of ciggarettes of bottles of beer big deal. That isn't really paying for the lifestyle.and it doesn't buy political protection.
An old number I saw @ 2000 . the UN figured(guess) that illegal drugs were @ 600 billion dollars/year industry and most of that
was being laundered though banks. Which to the banking industry is 600 billion in cash going into it's house of mirrors. Taking
something like that out of the equation EVERY YEAR is no small thing. And the lobby from the OC who wants drugs kept illegal,
coupled with the bankers who want the cash inputs equals a community of interest against legalization
and if the local police forces and the interstate/internationals were actually looking to use their smaller budgets and non-bill
of rights infringing tactics, on helping the victim side of crimes then they could have a real mission/ Instead of just abusing
otherwise innocent people who victimize no one.
so if we are looking for "low hanging fruit" . ending the war on drugs is a no brainer.
"What's being protected? The social order that feeds the wealthy at the expense of the working poor. " – Neuberger
In the aftermath of these movements, the police increasingly presented themselves as a thin blue line protecting civilization,
by which they meant bourgeois civilization, from the disorder of the working class. – Mitrani
I think this ties in, if only indirectly, with the way so many peaceful recent protests seemed to turn violent after the police
showed up. It's possible I suppose the police want to create disorder to frighten not only the protestors with immediate harm
but also frighten the bourgeois about the threate of a "dangerous mob". Historically violent protests created a political backlash
that usually benefited political conservatives and the wealthy owners. (The current protests may be different in this regard.
The violence seems to have created a political backlash against conservatives and overzealous police departments' violence. )
My 2 cents.
Sorry, but the title sent my mind back to the days of old -- of old Daley, that is, and his immortal quote from 1968: "Gentlemen,
let's get the thing straight, once and for all. The policeman isn't there to create disorder; the policeman is there to preserve
disorder."
LOL!!! great quote. Talk about saying it the way it is.
It kind of goes along with, "Police violence is focused overwhelmingly on men lowest on the socio-economic ladder: in rural
areas outside the South, predominately white men; in the Southwest, disproportionately Hispanic men; in mid-size and major cities,
disproportionately black men. Significantly, in the rural South, where the population is racially mixed, white men and black men
are killed by police at nearly identical rates."
I bang my head on the table sometimes because poor white men and poor men of color are so often placed at odds when they increasingly
face (mostly) the same problems. God forbid someone tried to unite them, there might really be some pearl clutching then.
yeah, like Martin Luther King's "poor people's campaign". the thought of including the poor ,of all colors .. just too much
for the status quo to stomach.
The "mechanism" that keeps masses in line . is one of those "invisible hands" too.
Great response! I am sure you have more to add to this. A while back, I was researching the issues you state in your last paragraph.
Was about ten pages into it and had to stop as I was drawn out of state and country. From my research.
While not as overt in the 20th century, the distinction of black slave versus poor white man has kept the class system alive
and well in the US in the development of a discriminatory informal caste system. This distraction of a class level lower than
the poorest of the white has kept them from concentrating on the disproportionate, and growing, distribution of wealth and income
in the US. For the lower class, an allowed luxury, a place in the hierarchy and a sure form of self esteem insurance.
Sennett and Cobb (1972) observed that class distinction sets up a contest between upper and lower class with the lower social
class always losing and promulgating a perception amongst themselves the educated and upper classes are in a position to judge
and draw a conclusion of them being less than equal. The hidden injury is in the regard to the person perceiving himself as a
piece of the woodwork or seen as a function such as "George the Porter." It was not the status or material wealth causing the
harsh feelings; but, the feeling of being treated less than equal, having little status, and the resulting shame. The answer for
many was violence.
James Gilligan wrote "Violence; Reflections on A National Epidemic." He worked as a prison psychiatrist and talked with many
of the inmates of the issues of inequality and feeling less than those around them. His finding are in his book which is not a
long read and adds to the discussion.
A little John Adams for you.
" The poor man's conscience is clear . . . he does not feel guilty and has no reason to . . . yet, he is ashamed. Mankind
takes no notice of him. He rambles unheeded.
In the midst of a crowd; at a church; in the market . . . he is in as much obscurity as he would be in a garret or a cellar.
He is not disapproved, censured, or reproached; he is not seen . . . To be wholly overlooked, and to know it, are intolerable
."
likbez, June 19, 2020 at 3:18 pm
That's a very important observation.
Racism, especially directed toward blacks, along with "identity wedge," is a perfect tool for disarming poor white, and suppressing
their struggle for a better standard of living, which considerably dropped under neoliberalism.
In other words, by providing poor whites with a stratum of the population that has even lower social status, neoliberals manage
to co-opt them to support the policies which economically ate detrimental to their standard of living as well as to suppress the
protest against the redistribution of wealth up and dismantling of the New Deal capitalist social protection network.
This is a pretty sophisticated, pretty evil scheme if you ask me. In a way, "Floydgate" can be viewed as a variation on the same
theme. A very dirty game indeed, when the issue of provision of meaningful jobs for working poor, social equality, and social
protection for low-income workers of any color is replaced with a real but of secondary importance issue of police violence against
blacks.
This is another way to explain "What's the matter with Kansas" effect.
John Anthony La Pietra, June 19, 2020 at 6:20 pm
I like that one! - and I have to admit it's not familiar to me, though I've been a fan since before I got to play him in a
neighboring community theater. Now I'm having some difficulty finding it. Where is it from, may I ask?
run75441, June 20, 2020 at 7:56 am
JAL:
Page 239, "The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States."
Read the book "Violence: Reflections of A National Epidemic" . Not a long read and well documented.
MLK Jr. tried, and look what happened to him once he really got some traction. If the Rev. William Barber's Poor People's Campaign
picks up steam, I'm afraid the same thing will happen to him.
I wish it were only pearl-clutching that the money power would resort to, but that's not the way it works.
Yeah – that quote struck me too, never seen it before. At times when they feel so liberated to 'say the quiet part out loud',
then as now, you know the glove is coming off and the vicious mailed fist is free to roam for victims.
Those times are where you know you need to resist or .well, die in many cases.
That's something that really gets me in public response to many of these things. The normal instinct of the populace to wake
from their somnambulant slumber just long enough to ascribe to buffoonery and idiocy ala Keystone Cops the things so much better
understood as fully consciously and purposefully repressive, reactionary, and indicating a desire to take that next step to crush
fully. To obliterate.
Many responses to this – https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1273809160128389120
– are like, 'the police are dumb', 'out of touch', 'a lot of dumb gomer pyles in that room, yuk yuk yuk'. Or, 'cops/FBI are
so dumb to pursue this antifa thing, its just a boogieman' thinking that somehow once the authorities realize 'antifa' is a boogieman,
their attitudes towards other protesters will somehow be different 'now that they realize the silliness of the claims'.
No, not remotely the case – to a terrifyingly large percentage of those in command, and in rank & file they know exactly where
it came from, exactly how the tactics work, and have every intention of classifying all protesters (peaceful or not) into that
worldview. The peaceful protesters *are* antifa in their eyes, to be dealt with in the fully approved manner of violence and repression.
In most countries, the police are there solely to protect the Haves from the Have-Nots. In fact, when the average frustrated
citizen has trouble, the last people he would consider turning to are the police.
This is why in the Third World, the only job of lower social standing than "policeman" is "police informer".
The anti-rascist identity of the recent protests rests on a much larger base of class warfare waged over the past 40 years
against the entire population led by a determined oligarchy and enforced by their political, media and militarized police retainers.
This same oligarchy, with a despicable zeal and revolting media-orchestrated campaign–co-branding the movement with it's usual
corporate perpetrators– distorts escalating carceral and economic violence solely through a lens of racial conflict and their
time-tested toothless reforms. A few unlucky "peace officers" may have to TOFTT until the furor recedes, can't be helped.
Crowding out debt relief, single payer health, living wages, affordable housing and actual justice reform from the debate that
would benefit African Americans more than any other demographic is the goal.
The handful of Emperors far prefer kabuki theater and random ritual Seppuku than facing the rage of millions of staring down
the barrel of zero income, debt, bankruptcy, evictions and dispossession. The Praetorians will follow the money as always.
I suppose we'll get some boulevards re-named and a paid Juneteenth holiday to compensate for the destruction 100+ years of
labor rights struggle, so there's that..
Homestead, Ludlow, Haymarket, Matewan -- the list is long
Working men and women asking for justice gunned down by the cops. There will always be men ready to murder on command as long
as the orders come from the rich and powerful. We are at a moment in history folks were some of us, today mostly people of color,
are willing to put their lives on the line. It's an ongoing struggle.
So how can a tier of society(the police) . be what a society needs ? When as this story and many others show how and why the
police were formed. To break heads. When they have been "the tool" of the elite forever. When so many of them are such dishonest,
immoral, wanna be fascists. And the main direction of the US is towards a police state and fascists running the show . both
republican and democrat. With technology being the boot on the neck of the people and the police are there to take it to the streets.
Can those elusive "good apples" turn the whole rotten barrel into sweet smelling apple pie? That is a big ask.
Or should the structure be liquidated, sell their army toys. fill the ranks with people who are not pathological liars and
abusers and /or racists; of one sort or another. Get rid of the mentality of overcompensation by uber machismo. and make them
watch the andy griffith show. They ought to learn that they can be respected if they are good people, and that they are not respected
because they seek respect through fear and intimidation.
Is that idiot cry of theirs, .. the whole yelling at you; demanding absolute obedience to arbitrary ,assinine orders, really
working to get them respect or is it just something they get off on?
When the police are shown to be bad, they strike by work slowdown, or letting a little chaos loose themselves. So the people
know they need them So any reform of the police will go through the police not doing their jobs . but then something like better
communities may result. less people being busted and harassed , or pulled over for the sake of a quota . may just show we don't
need so much policing anyway. And then if the new social workers brigade starts intervening in peoples with issues when they are
young and in school maybe fewer will be in the system. Couple that with the police not throwing their family in jail for nothing,
and forcing them to pay fines for breaking stupid laws. The system will have less of a load, and the new , better cops without
attitudes will be able to handle their communities in a way that works for everyone. Making them a net positive, as opposed to
now where they are a net negative.
Also,
The drug war is over. The cops have only done the bidding of the organized criminal elements who make their bread and butter
because of prohibition.
Our representatives can legally smoke pot , and grow it in their windowboxes in the capital dc., but people in many places
are still living in fear of police using possession of some substance,as a pretext to take all their stuff,throw them in jail.
But besides the cops, there are the prosecutors . they earn their salaries by stealing it from poor people through fines for things
that ought to be legal. This is one way to drain money from poor communities, causing people to go steal from others in society
to pay their court costs.
And who is gonna come and bust down your door when you can't pay a fine and choose to pay rent and buy your kids food instead
. the cops. just doing their jobs. Evil is the banality of business as usual
The late Kevin R C O'Brien noted that in every case where the Police had been ordered to "Round up the usual suspects" they
have done so, and delivered them where ordered. It did not matter who the "Usual suspects" were, or to what fate they were
to be delivered. They are the King's men and they do the King's bidding.
To have a reasonable discussion, I think that it should be recognized that modern police are but one leg of a triad. The first
of course is the police who appear to seem themselves as not part of a community but as enforcers in that community. To swipe
an idea from Mao, the police should move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea. Not be a patrolling shark that attacks
who they want at will knowing that there will be no repercussions against them. When you get to the point that you have police
arresting children in school for infractions of school discipline – giving them a police record – you know that things have gotten
out of hand.
The next leg is the courts which of course includes prosecutors. It is my understanding that prosecutors are elected to office
in the US and so have incentives to appear to be tough on crime"" . They seem to operate more like 'Let's Make a Deal' from what
I have read. When they tell some kid that he has a choice of 1,000 years in prison on trumped up charges or pleads guilty to a
smaller offence, you know that that is not justice at work. Judges too operate in their own world and will always take the word
of a policeman as a witness.
And the third leg is the prisons which operate as sweatshops for corporate America. It is in the interest of the police and
the courts to fill up the prisons to overflowing. Anybody remember the Pennsylvania "kids for cash" scandal where kids lives were
being ruined with criminal records that were bogus so that some people could make a profit? And what sort of prison system is
it where a private contractor can build a prison without a contract at all , knowing that the government (California in
this case) will nonetheless fill it up for a good profit.
In short, in sorting out police doctrine and methods like is happening now, it should be recognized that they are actually
only the face of a set of problems.
How did ancient states police? Perhaps Wiki is a starting point of this journey. Per Its entry, Police, in ancient Greece,
policing was done by public owned slaves. In Rome, the army, initially. In China, prefects leading to a level of government
called prefectures .
I spent some time in the Silver Valley of northern Idaho. This area was the
hot bed of labor unrest during
the 1890's. Federal troops controlled the area 3 separate times,1892, 1894 and 1899. Twice miners hijacked trains loaded them
with dynamite and drove them to mining company stamping mills that they then blew up. Dozens of deaths in shoot outs. The entire
male population was herded up and placed in concentration camps for weeks. The end result was the assassination of the Governor
in 1905.
Interestingly this history has been completely expunged. There is a mining museum in the town which doesn't mention a word
on these events. Even nationwide there seems to be a complete erasure of what real labor unrest can look like..
Yeah, labor unrest does get swept under the rug. Howard zinn had examples in his works "the peoples history of the United States"
The pictched battles in upstate new york with the Van Rennselear's in the 1840's breaking up rennselearwyk . the million acre
estate of theirs . it was a rent strike.
People remembering , we have been here before doesn't help the case of the establishment so they try to not let it happen.
We get experts telling us . well, this is all new we need experts to tell you what to think. It is like watching the
footage from the past 100 years on film of blacks marching for their rights and being told.. reform is coming.. the more things
change, the more things stay the same. Decade after decade. Century after century. Time to start figuring this out people. So,
the enemy is us. Now what?
Doubtless the facts presented above are correct, but shouldn't one point out that the 21st century is quite different from
the 19th and therefore analogizing the current situation to what went on before is quite facile? For example it's no longer necessary
for the police to put down strikes because strike actions barely still exist. In our current US the working class has diminished
greatly while the middle class has expanded. We are a much richer country overall with a lot more people–not just those one percenters–concerned
about crime. Whatever one thinks of the police, politically an attempt to go back to the 18th century isn't going to fly.
" the 21st century is quite different from the 19th "
From the Guardian: "How Starbucks, Target, Google and Microsoft quietly fund police through private donations"
More than 25 large corporations in the past three years have contributed funding to private police foundations, new report
says.
These foundations receive millions of dollars a year from private and corporate donors, according to the report, and are
able to use the funds to purchase equipment and weapons with little public input. The analysis notes, for example, how the
Los Angeles police department in 2007 used foundation funding to purchase surveillance software from controversial technology
firm Palantir. Buying the technology with private foundation funding rather than its public budget allowed the department to
bypass requirements to hold public meetings and gain approval from the city council.
The Houston police foundation has purchased for the local police department a variety of equipment, including Swat equipment,
sound equipment and dogs for the K-9 unit, according to the report. The Philadelphia police foundation purchased for its police
force long guns, drones and ballistic helmets, and the Atlanta police foundation helped fund a major surveillance network of
over 12,000 cameras.
In addition to weaponry, foundation funding can also go toward specialized training and support programs that complement
the department's policing strategies, according to one police foundation.
"Not a lot of people are aware of this public-private partnership where corporations and wealthy donors are able to siphon
money into police forces with little to no oversight," said Gin Armstrong, a senior research analyst at LittleSis.
Maybe it is just me, but things don't seem to be all that different.
While it is true, this is a new century. Knowing how the present came to be, is entirely necessary to be able to attempt any
move forward.
The likelihood of making the same old mistakes is almost certain, if one doesn't try to use the past as a reference.
And considering the effect of propaganda and revisionism in the formation of peoples opinions, we do need " learning against learning"
to borrow a Jesuit strategy against the reformation, but this time it should embrace reality, rather than sow falsehoods.
But I do agree,
We have never been here before, and now is a great time to reset everything. With all due respect to "getting it right" or at
least "better".
and knowing the false fables of righteousness, is what people need to know, before they go about "burning down the house".
You know it's not as though white people aren't also afraid of the police. Alfred Hitchcock said he was deathly afraid of police
and that paranoia informed many of his movies. Woody Allen has a funny scene in Annie Hall where he is pulled over by a cop and
is comically flustered. White people also get shot and killed by the police as the rightwingers are constantly pointing out.
And thousands of people in the streets tell us that police reform is necessary. But the country is not going to get rid of
them and replace police with social workers so why even talk about it? I'd say the above is interesting .not terribly relevant.
Straight-up fact: The police weren't created to preserve and protect. They were created to maintain order, [enforced] over
certain subjected classes and races of people, including–for many white people, too–many of our ancestors, too.*
And the question that arises from this: Are we willing to the subjects in a police state? Are we willing to continue to let
our Black and brown brothers and sisters be subjected BY such a police state, and to half-wittingly be party TO it?
Or do we want to exercise AGENCY over "our" government(s), and decide–anew–how we go out our vast, vast array of social ills.
Obviously, armed police officers with an average of six months training–almost all from the white underclass–are a pretty f*cking
blunt instrument to bring to bear.
On our own heads. On those who we and history have consigned to second-class citizenship.
Warning: this is a revolutionary situation. We should embrace it.
*Acceding to white supremacy, becoming "white" and often joining that police order, if you were poor, was the road out of such
subjectivity. My grandfather's father, for example, was said to have fled a failed revolution in Bohemia to come here. Look back
through history, you will find plenty of reason to feel solidarity, too. Race alone cannot divide us if we are intent on the lessons
of that history.
"... Anti-racism as an ideology serves a perfect function for corporations that ultimately take workers for granted. ..."
"... Today, we find Lincoln statues desecrated . Neither has the memorial to the 54th Massachusetts Infantry , one of the first all-black units in the Civil War, survived the recent protests unscathed. To many on the left, history seems like the succession of one cruelty by the next. And so, justice may only be served if we scrap the past and start from a blank slate. As a result, Lincoln's appeal that we stand upright and enjoy our liberty gets lost to time. ..."
"... Ironically, this will only help the cause of Robert E. Lee -- and the modern corporations who rely on cheap, inhumane labor to keep themselves going. ..."
"... Before black slaves did this work, white indentured servants had. (An indentured servant is bound for a number of years to his master, i.e. he can't pack up and leave to find a new opportunity elsewhere.) ..."
"... But in the eyes of the Southern slavocracy, the white laboring poor of the North also weren't truly human. Such unholy antebellum figures as the social theorist George Fitzhugh or South Carolina Senator James Henry Hammond urged that the condition of slavery be expanded to include poor whites, too. Their hunger for a cheap, subservient labor source did not stop at black people, after all. ..."
"... Always remember Barbara Fields's formula: The need for cheap labor comes first; ideologies like white supremacy only give this bleak reality a spiritual gloss. ..."
"... Michael Lind argues in his new book The New Class War that many powerful businesses in America today continue to rely on the work of quasi indentured servants. Hungry for unfree, cheap workers, corporations in Silicon Valley and beyond employ tens of thousands of foreign workers through the H-2B visa program. These workers are bound to the company that provided them with the visa. If they find conditions at their jobs unbearable, they can't switch employers -- they would get deported first. In turn, this source of cheap labor effectively underbids American workers who could do the same job, except that they would ask for higher pay. ..."
"... We're getting turned into rats. Naturally, this is no fertile soil for solidarity. And with so many jobs precarious and subcontracted out on a temporary basis, there is preciously little that most workers can do to fight back this insidious managerial control. Free labor looks different. ..."
"... It's hard to come out of the 2020 primaries without realizing that the corporations that run our mainstream media will do anything to protect their right to abuse cheap labor. ..."
"... At this point in history, to the extent that black people suffer any meaningful oppression at all, its down to disproportionate poverty rates, not their racial background. ..."
"... I agree one hundred percent with your take on Biden. Let me add something else: he is a war hawk who not only voted for the Iraq war but used his position as the chairman of an important committee to promote it. ..."
"... Because of slavery alot of bad political policy was incorporated in the founding documents. If a police officer is about to wrongly arrest you because you are black , you do not care if his hatred stems from 400 years of discrimination against blacks. Rather you care that he won't kill you in this encounter because of his racism. ..."
"... Baszak believes racism has no life of its own, it exists only as a tool of the bosses. This is vulgar Marxism. At least since the decades after Bacon's Rebellion ended in 1677, poor whites have invested in white supremacy as a way of boosting their social status. Most Southern families owned no slaves, yet most joined the Civil War cause. ..."
"... They made a movie that beautifully touches this in the 1970s with Harvey Keitel and Richard Pryor called " Blue Collar ." ..."
"... "That's exactly what the company wants: to keep you on their line," says Smokey, the coolest and most strategically minded of the crew. "They'll do anything to keep you on their line. They pit the lifers against the new boys, the old against the young, the black against the white -- everybody -- to keep us in our place." ..."
"... The core thesis in this piece is the animating foundation of The Hill's political talk show "Rising." Composed of a populist Bernie supporter (Krystal Ball) and populist conservative (Saagar Enjeti) as hosts, they frequently highlight the purpose of woke cultural battles is to distract everyone for their neoliberal economic models ..."
Anti-racism as an ideology serves a perfect function for corporations that ultimately take workers for granted.
Former injured Amazon employees join labor organizers and community activists to demonstrate and hold a press conference
outside of an Amazon Go store to express concerns about what they claim is the company's "alarming injury rate" among warehouse
workers on December 10, 2019 in Chicago, Illinois. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
On April 2, 1865, in the dying days of the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln wandered the streets of burnt out Richmond,
the former Confederate capital. All of a sudden, Lincoln found himself surrounded by scores of emancipated men and women. Here's
how the historian James McPherson describes the moving episode in his magisterial book
Battle Cry of Freedom :
Several freed slaves touched Lincoln to make sure he was real. "I know I am free," shouted an old woman, "for I have seen Father
Abraham and felt him." Overwhelmed by rare emotions, Lincoln said to one black man who fell on his knees in front of him: "Don't
kneel to me. That is not right. You must kneel to God only, and thank Him for the liberty you will enjoy hereafter."
Lincoln's legacy as the Great Emancipator has survived the century and a half since then largely intact. But there have been cracks
in this image, mostly caused by questioning academics who decried him as an overt white supremacist. This view eventually entered
the mainstream when Nikole Hannah-Jones wrote misleadingly in her
lead essay
to the "1619 Project" that Lincoln "opposed black equality."
Today, we find Lincoln statues
desecrated . Neither has the memorial
to the 54th Massachusetts Infantry , one of the first all-black units in the Civil War, survived the recent protests unscathed.
To many on the left, history seems like the succession of one cruelty by the next. And so, justice may only be served if we scrap
the past and start from a blank slate. As a result, Lincoln's appeal that we stand upright and enjoy our liberty gets lost to time.
Ironically, this will only help the cause of Robert E. Lee -- and the modern corporations who rely on cheap, inhumane labor
to keep themselves going.
***
The main idea driving the "1619 Project" and so much of recent scholarship is that the United States of America originated in
slavery and white supremacy. These were its true founding ideals. Racism, Hannah-Jones writes, is in our DNA.
Such arguments don't make any sense, as the historian Barbara Fields clairvoyantly argued in a
groundbreaking essay from 1990. Why would Virginia planters in the 17th century import black people purely out of hate? No, Fields
countered, the planters were driven by a real need for dependable workers who would toil on their cotton, rice, and tobacco fields
for little to no pay. Before black slaves did this work, white indentured servants had. (An indentured servant is bound for a number
of years to his master, i.e. he can't pack up and leave to find a new opportunity elsewhere.)
After 1776 everything changed. Suddenly the new republic claimed that "all men are created equal" -- and yet there were millions
of slaves who still couldn't enjoy this equality. Racism helped to square our founding ideals with the brute reality of continued
chattel slavery: Black people simply weren't men.
But in the eyes of the Southern slavocracy, the white laboring poor of the North also weren't truly human. Such unholy antebellum
figures as the social theorist George Fitzhugh or South Carolina Senator James Henry Hammond
urged that the condition of slavery be expanded to include poor whites, too. Their hunger for a cheap, subservient labor source
did not stop at black people, after all.
Always remember Barbara Fields's formula: The need for cheap labor comes first; ideologies like white supremacy only give
this bleak reality a spiritual gloss.
The true cause of the Civil War -- and it bears constant
repeating for all the doubters -- was whether slavery would expand its reach or whether
"free labor" would reign supreme. The latter was the dominant
ideology of the North: Free laborers are independent, self-reliant, and eventually achieve economic security and independence by
the sweat of their brow. It's the American Dream. But if that is so, then the Civil War ended in a tie -- and its underlying conflict was never really settled.
***
Michael Lind argues in his new book The New Class War
that many powerful businesses in America today continue to rely on the work of quasi indentured servants. Hungry for unfree, cheap
workers, corporations in Silicon Valley and beyond employ tens of thousands of foreign workers through the H-2B visa program. These
workers are bound to the company that provided them with the visa. If they find conditions at their jobs unbearable, they can't switch
employers -- they would get deported first. In turn, this source of cheap labor effectively underbids American workers who could
do the same job, except that they would ask for higher pay.
America's wealth rests on this mutual competition between workers -- some nominally "free," others basically indentured -- whether
it be through unjust visa schemes or other unfair managerial practices.
Remember that the next time you read a public announcement by the Amazons of this world that they remain committed to "black lives
matter" and similar identitarian causes.
Fortunately, very few Americans hold the same racial resentments in their hearts as their ancestors did even just half a century
ago. Rarely did we agree as much than when the nation near unanimously condemned the death of George Floyd at the hands of a few
Minneapolis police officers. This is in keeping with another fortunate trend: Over the last 40 years, the rate of police killings
of young black men declined by 79% percent .
But anti-racism as an ideology serves a perfect function for our corporations, even despite the evidence that people in this country
have grown much less bigotted than they once were: As a management tool, anti-racism sows constant suspicion among workers who are
encouraged to detect white supremacist sentiments in everything that their fellow workers say or do.
We're getting turned into rats. Naturally, this is no fertile soil for solidarity. And with so many jobs precarious and subcontracted
out on a temporary basis, there is preciously little that most workers can do to fight back this insidious managerial control. Free
labor looks different.
And so, through a surprising back door, the true cause for which Robert E. Lee chose to betray his country might still be coming
out on top, whether we remove his statues or not -- namely, the steady supply to our ruling corporations of unfree workers willing
to hustle for scraps.
It's time to follow Abraham Lincoln's urging and get off our knees again. We should assert our rights as American citizens to
live free from economic insecurity and mutual resentment. The vast majority of us harbor no white supremacist views, period. Instead,
we have so many more things in common, and we know it.
Another anecdote from the last days of the Civil War, also taken from Battle Cry of Freedom, might prove instructive here: The
surrender of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865 essentially ended the
Civil War. The ceremony was held with solemn respect for Lee, though one of Grant's adjutants couldn't help himself but have a subtle
dig at Lee's expense:
After signing the papers, Grant introduced Lee to his staff. As he shook hands with Grant's military secretary Ely Parker,
a Seneca Indian, Lee stared a moment at Parker's dark features and said, "I am glad to see one real American here." Parker responded,
"We are all Americans."
Gregor Baszak is a PhD Candidate in English at the University of Illinois at Chicago and a writer. His articles have appeared
in Los Angeles Review of Books, Public Books, Spectator USA, Spiked, and elsewhere. Follow Gregor on Twitter at @gregorbas1.
It's a bit off-topic but this is a big reason I supported Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Primary this year, he was the only
candidate talking about how businesses demand that cheap labor, illegal labor, replace American labor. For this, the corporate
media called him a racist, an anti-semite, a dangerous radical. None of his opponents aside from Elizabeth Warren had anything
to run on aside from pseudo-woke touchy-feely bs. And somehow, with the media insisting that Joe Biden was the only one who could
beat Trump, we ended up with the one candidate who was neither good on economics, good for American workers, or offering platitudes
about wokeness.
It's hard to come out of the 2020 primaries without realizing that the corporations that run our mainstream media will do anything
to protect their right to abuse cheap labor.
Racism is very real. If it weren't it couldn't be used to "divide and conquer" the working calss. we can walk and chew gum
and the same time: oppose racism, and also oppose exploitive labor practices.
What kind of polemic, unsupported statement is "black fast food workers are the ones who gave us the fight for $15"? How about
it was a broad coalition of progressives (of all colors)? Moreover, $15 minimum wage is a poor, one-size-fits-all band-aid that
I doubt even fits ONE scenario. Tackling the broader shareholder capitalism model of labor arbitrage (free trade/mass immigration),
deunionization, and monopolistic hurdles drafted by corporations is where it actually matters. And on that, we are seeing the
inklings of a populist left-right coalition -- if corporate-funded race hustlers could only get out of the way.
That's the problem. We CAN'T chew gum and walk at the same time. Every minute focusing on racial friction is a minute NOT talking
about neoliberal economics. What's the ratio of air time, social media discussion, or newspaper inches are devoted to race vis-a-vis
the economic system that has starved the working class -- which is disproportionately black and brown? 10 to 1? 100 to 1? 1000
to 1? If there are no decent working class jobs for young black and brown men, then it makes it nearly impossible to raise families.
Let's be clear: Systemic racism is real, but it is far less impactful than economic injustices and family dissolution.
Class really isn't the primary issue for black people.
That's a frankly ridiculous statement. At this point in history, to the extent that black people suffer any meaningful oppression
at all, its down to disproportionate poverty rates, not their racial background. No one--except a few neurotic, high-strung corporate
HR PMC types--cares about "microaggressions". Even unjust police shootings of blacks are likely down to class and not race--despite
the politically correct narrative saying otherwise.
Putting racial identity politics as an equal (or even greater) priority than class-based solidarity creates an absurd system
where an upper-middle class black woman attending Yale can act as if a working class white man is oppressing her by not acknowledging
his "white privilege", and not bowing to her every demand. It's utterly delusional to think that sort of culture is going to create
a more just or equal world.
Biden is a Rorschach test, people see whatever they want in a party apparatchik. Trump has been Shiva, the destroyer of the
traditional Republican party. How else do you explain the support among Multi-Billionaires for the Democratic party. Truly ironic.
I agree one hundred percent with your take on Biden. Let me add something else: he is a war hawk who not only voted for the
Iraq war but used his position as the chairman of an important committee to promote it. I understand that he still wants to divide
Iraq into three separate countries--a decision for Iraqis to make and not us. If we try to implement that policy, it would doubtless
lead to more American deaths--to say nothing of Iraqi deaths.
So not only is he not good for American workers, he is not good for the American soldier who is disproportionately likely not
to be from the elite classes but rather from the working and lower-middle class.
The only other Democratic candidate who opposed war-mongering besides Sanders was Tulsi Gabbard. I watched CNN commentary after
a debate in which she participated. While the other participants received lots of commentary from CNN talking heads. she got almost
nothing. She was featured in a video montage of candidates saying "Trump"; other than that, she was invisible in the post-debate
analysis.
I don't know how far it travelled outside of Democratic primary voters, but I recall Biden's campaign saying that they were
planning to be sort of a placeholder that would pass the torch to the next generation. He's insinuated that he only wants to serve
one term and saw jumping into the race as the only way to beat Trump. Not the most exciting platform for the Democrats to run
on.
As depressing as this primary was, it's good to see that the rising generation of Democrats was resistant to platitudes and demanded
actual policy proposals.
Shame the party elders fell for the same old tricks yet again. I just hope that once there are more of
us, we can have a serious policy debate in both major parties about free trade, immigration, inequality. The parties' voters aren't
all that far apart on economics, yet neither of us is being given what we want. Whichever party sincerely takes a stand for the
American working class stands to dominate American politics for a generation.
The problem with Biden's "placeholder" comments is that he specifically mentioned it for Pete Buttigeig, the McKinsey-trained
career opportunist who believes in his bones the same neoliberal economics and interventionist foreign policies as the last generation.
Same bad ideas, new woke packaging.
Kamala Harris and Susan Rice, both tops on the VP list, will do just fine in place of Buttigieg - he's slated to revive TPP
as the new USTR cabinet lead.
Because of slavery alot of bad political policy was incorporated in the founding documents. If a police officer is about to
wrongly arrest you because you are black , you do not care if his hatred stems from 400 years of discrimination against blacks.
Rather you care that he won't kill you in this encounter because of his racism.
To me, I have always thought that America's original sin was slavery. Its stain can not be completely wiped out.
And I further believe that if Native Americans would have enslaved the newly arrived Europeans, and remained the ruling majority,
white people would be discriminated against today.
So the problem is not that white people are inherently evil, or other races are inherently good. It is that because of slavery
black people are bad, white people are good.
As a nation we have never been able to wash out the stain completely. Never will. Getting closer to the promised land is the
best we are going to do. Probably take another 400 years.
In everyday encounters no one cares how discrimination began, just treat me like you want to be treated. Pretty simple.
"As a management tool, anti-racism sows constant suspicion among workers who are encouraged to detect white supremacist sentiments
in everything that their fellow workers say or do."
The author does not offer one smidgen of proof that any company uses antiracism to divide workers. It might be plausible that
it's happened, but Baszak has no data at all.
Over the last 40 years, the rate of police killings of young black men declined by 79% percent.
You think this is an accident? It came about through intense pressure on the police to stop killing Black people -- exactly
the sort of racial emphasis the author seems to be decrying. Important to note that the non-fatal mistreatment has remained high.
The need for cheap labor comes first; ideologies like white supremacy only give this bleak reality a spiritual gloss
Baszak believes racism has no life of its own, it exists only as a tool of the bosses. This is vulgar Marxism. At least since
the decades after Bacon's Rebellion ended in 1677, poor whites have invested in white supremacy as a way of boosting their social
status. Most Southern families owned no slaves, yet most joined the Civil War cause. The psychological draw of racism, its cultural
strength, are obviated by Barszak. And I bet Barbara Fields does not consider racism an epiphenomenon of economics.
They made a movie that beautifully touches this in the 1970s with Harvey Keitel and Richard Pryor called "Blue
Collar."
"That's exactly what the company wants: to keep you on their line," says Smokey, the coolest and most strategically minded
of the crew. "They'll do anything to keep you on their line. They pit the lifers against the new boys, the old against the young,
the black against the white -- everybody -- to keep us in our place."
The core thesis in this piece is the animating foundation of The Hill's political talk show "Rising." Composed of a populist
Bernie supporter (Krystal Ball) and populist conservative (Saagar Enjeti) as hosts, they frequently highlight the purpose of woke
cultural battles is to distract everyone for their neoliberal economic models -- a system that actually has greater deleterious
impact on black communities.
This video is one recent example of what you'll rarely see in mainstream media:
"... Old saying: A Recession is when your neighbor loses their Job. A Depression is when you lose your Job. ..."
"... A lot of mega wealthy people are cheats. They get insider info, they don't pay people and do all they can to provide the least amount of value possible while tricking suckers into buying their crap. Don't even get me started on trust fund brats who come out of the womb thinking they are Warren buffet level genius in business. ..."
"... There's a documentary about Wal-Mart that has the best title ever: The High Cost of Low Cost ..."
"... Globalism killed the American dream. We can buy cheap goods made somewhere else if we have a job here that pays us enough money. ..."
You can't just move to American cities to pursue opportunity; even the high wages paid in
New York are rendered unhelpful because the cost of housing is so high.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was vilified and ultimately murdered when he was helping organize
a Poor People's Campaign. Racial justice means economic justice.
A lot of mega wealthy people are cheats. They get insider info, they don't pay people and
do all they can to provide the least amount of value possible while tricking suckers into
buying their crap. Don't even get me started on trust fund brats who come out of the womb
thinking they are Warren buffet level genius in business.
Nailed it. As a millennial, I'm sick of being told to just "deal with it" when the cards
have always been stacked against me. Am I surviving? Yes. Am I thriving? No.
When the reserve status of the American dollar goes away, then it will become apparent how
poor the US really is. You cannot maintain a country without retention of the ability to
manufacture the articles you use on a daily basis. The military budget and all the jobs it
brings will have to shrink catastrophically.
...and sometimes you CAN'T afford to move. You can't find a decent job. You certainly
can't build a meaningful savings. You can't find an apartment. And if you have kids? That
makes it even harder. I've been trying to move for years, but the conditions have to be
perfect to do it responsibly. The American Dream died for me once I realized that no matter
the choices I made, my four years of college, my years of saving and working hard....I do NOT
have upward mobility. For me, the American Dream is dead. I've been finding a new dream. The
human dream.
This is a very truncated view. You need to expand your thinking. WHY has the system been
so overtly corrupted? It's globalism that has pushed all this economic pressure on the
millennials and the middle class. It was the elites, working with corrupt politicians, that
rigged the game so the law benefited them.
This is all reversible. History shows that capitalism can be properly regulated in a way
that benefits all. The answer to the problem is to bring back those rules, not implement
socialism.
Trump has:
- Ended the free trade deals
- Imposed Protective tarriffs to defend American jobs and workers
- Lowered corporate taxes to incentivize business to locate within us borders.
- Limited immigration to reduce the supply of low skilled labor within US borders.
The result? before COVID hit the average American worker saw the first inflation adjusted
wage increase in over 30 years!
This is why the fake news and hollywood continue to propagandize the masses into hating
Trump.
Trump is implementing economic policies good for the people and bad for the elites
Krystal Ball exposes the delusion of the American dream.
About Rising: Rising is a weekday morning show with bipartisan hosts that breaks the mold of
morning TV by taking viewers inside the halls of Washington power like never before. The show
leans into the day's political cycle with cutting edge analysis from DC insiders who can
predict what is going to happen.
It also sets the day's political agenda by breaking exclusive
news with a team of scoop-driven reporters and demanding answers during interviews with the
country's most important political newsmakers.
Got my degree just as the great recession hit. Couldn't find real work for 3 years, not
using my degree... But it was work. now after 8 years, im laid off. I did everything "right".
do good in school, go to college, get a job...
I've never been fired in my life. its always,
"Your contract is up" "Sorry we cant afford to keep you", "You can make more money collecting!
but we'll give a recommendation if you find anything."
Now I'm back where i started... only
now I have new house and a family to support... no pressure.
Don't understand the protests? What you're seeing is people pushed to the edge
By KAREEM ABDUL-JABBAR – Los Angeles Times
What was your first reaction when you saw the video of the white cop kneeling on
George Floyd's neck while Floyd croaked, "I can't breathe"?
If you're white, you probably muttered a horrified, "Oh, my God" while shaking your
head at the cruel injustice. If you're black, you probably leapt to your feet, cursed,
maybe threw something (certainly wanted to throw something), while shouting, "Not @#$%!
again!" Then you remember the two white vigilantes accused of murdering Ahmaud Arbery as
he jogged through their neighborhood in February, and how if it wasn't for that video
emerging a few weeks ago, they would have gotten away with it. And how those Minneapolis
cops claimed Floyd was resisting arrest but a store's video showed he wasn't. And how the
cop on Floyd's neck wasn't an enraged redneck stereotype, but a sworn officer who looked
calm and entitled and devoid of pity: the banality of evil incarnate.
Maybe you also are thinking about the Karen in Central Park who called 911 claiming
the black man who asked her to put a leash on her dog was threatening her. Or the black
Yale University grad student napping in the common room of her dorm who was reported by a
white student. Because you realize it's not just a supposed "black criminal" who is
targeted, it's the whole spectrum of black faces from Yonkers to Yale.
You start to wonder if it should be all black people who wear body cams, not the
cops.
What do you see when you see angry black protesters amassing outside police stations
with raised fists? If you're white, you may be thinking, "They certainly aren't social
distancing." Then you notice the black faces looting Target and you think, "Well, that
just hurts their cause." Then you see the police station on fire and you wag a finger
saying, "That's putting the cause backward."
You're not wrong -- but you're not right, either. The black community is used to the
institutional racism inherent in education, the justice system and jobs. And even though
we do all the conventional things to raise public and political awareness -- write
articulate and insightful pieces in the Atlantic, explain the continued devastation on
CNN, support candidates who promise change -- the needle hardly budges.
But COVID-19 has been slamming the consequences of all that home as we die at a
significantly higher rate than whites, are the first to lose our jobs, and watch
helplessly as Republicans try to keep us from voting .
Bert Schlitz , May 31, 2020 7:14 pm
The protests are self centered crap blacks do year after year. Considering 370 whites over
100 Latinos were killed by cops, many as bad as that guy in minnie. Blacks have a Trumptard
mentality. We have a ecological disaster, a economic disaster and pandemic(when th they are
spreading). Yet let's whine about one bad cop related homicide.
This may begin the breakup of the Democratic party and the blacks. The differences are just
to large.
Kaleberg , May 31, 2020 9:40 pm
It's rather sad that it takes a massive civil disturbance to get the authorities to arrest a
man videotaped killing another. You'd think that would just happen as a matter of course, but
that's how it works in this country.
THE WAY BACK -- THE ONLY WAY BACK -- BOTH ECONOMICALLY AND POLITICALLY (pardon me if I take
up a lot of space -- almost everyone else has said most of what they want to say)
The minimum wage itself should only mark the highest wage that we presume firms with highest
labor costs can pay* -- like fast food with 25% labor costs. Lower labor cost businesses --
e.g., retail like Walgreens and Target with 10-15% labor costs can potentially pay north of
$20/hr; Walmart with 7% labor costs, $25/hr!
That kind of income can only be squeezed out of the consumer market (meaning out of the
consumer) by labor union bargaining.
Raise fast food wages from $10/hr to $15/hr and prices go up only a doable 12.5%. Raise
Walgreens, Target from $10/hr to $20/hr and prices there only go up a piddling 6.25%. Keeping
the math easy here -- I know that Walgreens and Target pay more to start but that only
reinforces my argument about how much labor income is being left on the (missing) bargaining
table.
Hook up Walmart with 7% labor costs with the Teamsters Union and the wage and benefit sky
might be the limit! Don't forget (everybody seems to) that as more income shifts to lower wage
workers, more demand starts to come from lower wage workers -- reinforcing their job security
as they spend more proportionately at lower wage firms (does not work for low wage employees of
high end restaurants -- the exception that actually proves the rule).
Add in sector wide labor agreements and watch Germany appear on this side of the Atlantic
overnight.
* * * * * *
If Republicans held the House in the last (115th) Congress they would have passed
HR2723-Employee Rights Act -- mandating new union recertification/decertification paper ballots
in any bargaining unit that has had experienced "turnover, expansion, or alteration by merger
of unit represented employees exceeding 50 percent of the bargaining unit" by the date of the
enactment -- and for all time from thereafter. Trump would have signed it and virtually every
union in the country would have experienced mandated recert/decert votes in every bargaining
unit. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2723/text
Democrats can make the most obvious point about what was lacking in the Republican bill by
pretending to be for a cert/recert bill that mandates union ballots only at places where there
is no union now. Republicans jumping up and down can scream the point for us that there is no
reason to have ballots in non union places and not in unionized workplaces -- and vice
versa.
* * * * * *
Biggest problem advocating the vastly attractive and all healing proposal of federally
mandated cert/recert/decert elections seems to be that nobody will discuss it as long as nobody
else discusses it -- some kind of innate social behavior I think, from deep in our (pea sized)
midbrains. How else can you explain the perfect pitch's neglect. I suspect that if I waved a
$100 bill in front of a bunch of progressives and offered it to the first one would say the
words out loud: "Regularly scheduled union elections are the only way to restore shared
prosperity and political fairness to America", that I might not get one taker. FWIW.
Another big problem when I try to talk to workers about this on the street -- just to get a
reaction -- is that more than half have no idea in the world what unions are all about. Those
who do understand, think the idea so sensible they often think action must be pending.
econ101 should tell you that the eitc is a subsidy to the corporations that hire droves of
low-paid workers, with meagre spillover to the workers themselves. More effective and
persistent improvements to social justice would come from significant increases to the minimum
wage, societal support to unionization, and other efforts to increase the threshold of what is
considered by society to be the bare minimum of compensation for work.
The concomitant decline in the value of the dollar and the terms of trade would be small
compared to the reduction in inequality.
Bernard , June 1, 2020 5:21 pm
such a third world country as America , riots are the only way to get heard for some. the
Elite have been looting us blind for decades, the Covid bail outs to Corporations by the Elites
in DC as the latest installment of Capitalist theft know as Business as Usual.
it's all about the money.
sick,sick country praising capitalism over everything else.
the comfortable white people are afraid of losing what they have. Divide and Conquer is the
Republican and now Democratic way they run America.
to the rich go the spoils. the rest, well. screw them .
the Lee Atwater idea to use coded language when St. Reagan implemented the destruction of
America society, coincided with St. Thatcher's destruction of England.
the White elites post Civil War in the South knew how to divide the poor whites and the poor
blacks.
that is how we got to where we are now.
Did you see any of the bankers go to jail for the 2008 ripoff?
not one and they got bonuses for their "deeds."
America, such a nation of Grifters, Thieves and Scam artist. like Pelosi , McConnel and all
the people in DC and the Business men who sold out our country and the American people for
"small change".
God forbid Corporations should ever have to pay for the damage they have done to America and
its" people. My RIGHT to Greed trumps your right to clean air, water, safe neighborhoods, says
Capitalism!
the Rich get richer and the poor get poorer, Everybody Knows!!!
But let's not focus on things lest some uncomfortable truths.
Sound too familiar? Sometime in the late 80s (??) Americans began to see day labors line up at Home Depot and Lowe's lots in numbers
not seen since The Great Depression. Manufacturing Corporations began subbing out their work to sub-contractors, otherwise known
as employees without benefits; Construction Contractors subbed out construction work to these employees without benefits; Engineering
Firms subbed out engineering to these employees without benefits; Landscapers' workers were now sub-contractors/independent contractors;
Here, in the SF Bay Area, time and again, we saw vans loads of undocumented Hispanics under a 'Labor Contractor' come in from the
Central Valley to build condos; the white Contractor for the project didn't have a single employee; none of the workers got a W-2.
Recall watching, sometime in the 90s (??), a familiar, well dressed, rotund guest from Wall Street, on the PBS News Hour, forcefully
proclaiming to the TV audience:
American workers are going to have to learn to compete with the Chinese; Civil Service employees, factory employees, are all
going to have to work for less
All this subcontracting, independent contractors, was a scam, a scam meant to circumvent paying going wages and benefits, to enhance
profit margins; a scam that transferred more wealth to the top. Meanwhile back at The Ranch, after the H1B Immigration Act of 1990,
Microsoft could hire programmers from India for one-half the cost of a citizen programmer. Half of Bill Gates' fortune was resultant
these labor savings; the other half was made off those not US Citizens. Taking a cue, Banks, Bio-Techs, some City and State Governments
began subcontracting out their programming to H1Bs. Often, the subcontractors/labor contractors (often themselves immigrants) providing
the programmers, held the programmers' passports/visas for security.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, friends of Bush/Cheney made fortunes on clean up contracts they subbed out for next to
nothing; the independent/subcontractor scam was now officially governmentally sanctioned.
By about 2000 we began to hear the term gig-workers applied to these employees without benefits. Uber appeared in 2007 to be followed
by Lift. Both are scams based on paying less than prevailing wages, on not providing worker benefits,
These days, the nightly news, when talking about the effect of the pandemic on the populace in America, shows footage of Food
Banks in California with lines 2! miles long. Many of those waiting in these lines didn't have a real job before; they were gig-workers;
they can't apply for Unemployment Benefits. It is estimated that 1.6 million American workers (1% of the workforce) are gig-workers;
they don't have a real job. That 1% is in addition to the 16 million American workers (10% of the workforce) that are independent
contractors. Of the more than 40 million currently unemployed Americans, some 17 million are either gig-workers or subcontractors/independent
contractors. All of these are scams meant to transfer more wealth to the top. All of these are scams with American Workers the victims;
scams, in a race to the bottom.
Democrats in the so called battle ground states would clean up at the polls with this. Why do you think those states strayed?
It was because Obama and Hillary had no idea what they really needed. Voters had no idea what they SPECIFICALLY needed either
-- UNIONS! They had been deunionized so thoroughly for so long that they THEMSELVES no long knew what they were missing (frogs
in the slowly boiling pot).
In 1988 Jesse Jackson took the Democratic primary in Michigan with 54% against Dukakis and Gephardt. Obama beat Wall Street
Romney and red-white-and-blue McCain in Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan. But nobody told these voters -- because nobody seems to
remember -- what they really needed. These voter just knew by 2016 that Democrats had not what they needed and looked elsewhere
-- anywhere else!
Strom presents an easy as can be, on-step-back treatment that should go down oh, so smoothly and sweetly. What do you think?
ken melvin , May 31, 2020 1:04 pm
Denis
Thanks for your comment and the link. Wow! Where to start, huh?
SEIU was a player from the get go, but I don't want to go there just now.
Before Reagan, there was the first rust belt move to the non-union south. Why was the south so anti-union? I think this stuff
is engendered from infancy and most of us are incapable of thinking anew when it comes to stuff our parents 'taught' us. MLK was
the best thing that ever happened to the dirt-road poor south, yet they hated him and they hated the very unions that might have
lifted them up. They did seem to take pleasure in the yanks' loss of jobs.
I think the Reagan era was prelude to what is going on now, i.e., going backward while yelling whee look at me go. No doubt,
Reagan turned union members against their own unions. But, the genesis of demise probably lay with automation and the early offshoring
to Mexico. By Reagan, the car plants were losing jobs to Toyota and Honda and automation. By 1990, car plants that had previously
employed 5,000, now automated, produced more cars employing only 1200. At the time, much of the nation's wealth was still derived
from car production.
Skipping forward a bit, the democrats blew it for years with all their talk about the 'middle-class' without realizing it was
the 'disappearing middle-class'. They ignored the poor working-class vote and lost election after election.
I've come to not like the term labor, think it affords capital an undeserved status, though much diminished, I think thought
all workers would be better off in a union. Otherwise, as we are witnessing, there is no parity between workers and wealth; we
are in a race to the bottom with the wealth increasingly go to the top.
ken melvin , May 31, 2020 1:15 pm
Matthew – thanks for your comment
I think that we are into a transition (about 45 yrs into) as great as the industrial revolution. We, as probably those poor
souls of the 18th and 19th centuries did, are floundering, unable to come to terms with what is going on.
I also think that those such as the Kochs have a good grasp of what is going on and are moving to protect themselves and their
class.
ken melvin , May 31, 2020 1:21 pm
EMichael, thanks for the comment
Are you implying that the politicians are way behind the curve? If so, I think that you are right.
Let me share what I was thinking last night about thinking:
Descartes' problem was that he desperately wanted to make philosophy work within the framework of his religion, Catholicism.
Paul Krugman desperately wants to make economics all work within the Holy Duality of Capitalism and Free Markets. Even Joe Stiglitz
can't step out of this text. All things being possible, it is possible that either could come up with a solution to today's economic
problems that would fit within the Two; but the odds are not good. Better to think anew.
We see politicians try and try to find solutions for today's problems from within their own dogmas/ideologies. Even if they
can't, they persist, they still try to impose these dogmas/ideologies in the desperate hope they might work if only applied to
a greater degree. How else explain any belief that markets could anticipate and respond to pandemics? That markets could best
respond to housing demand?
Racism Is the Biggest Reason the U.S. Safety Net Is So Weak
Harvard economist Alberto Alesina, who died last week, found that ethnic divisions made the country less effective at providing
public goods.
7:50 AM · May 31, 2020
The Alesina/Glaeser/Sacerdote paper on why America doesn't have a European-style welfare state -- racism -- had a big impact
on my own thinking 2/
For a long time anyone who pointed out that the modern GOP is basically a party that serves plutocratic ends by weaponizing
white racism was treated as "shrill" and partisan. Can we now admit the obvious? 3/
Why Doesn't the United States Have a European-Style Welfare State?
By Alberto Alesina, Edward Glaeser and Bruce Sacerdote
Abstract
European countries are much more generous to the poor relative to the US level of generosity. Economic models suggest that
redistribution is a function of the variance and skewness of the pre-tax income distribution, the volatility of income (perhaps
because of trade shocks), the social costs of taxation and the expected income mobility of the median voter. None of these factors
appear to explain the differences between the US and Europe. Instead, the differences appear to be the result of racial heterogeneity
in the US and American political institutions. Racial animosity in the US makes redistribution to the poor, who are disproportionately
black, unappealing to many voters. American political institutions limited the growth of a socialist party, and more generally
limited the political power of the poor.
rick shapiro , May 31, 2020 2:07 pm
This dynamic is not limited to low-skill jobs. I have seen it at work in electronics engineering. When I was a sprat, job shoppers
got an hourly wage nearly twice that of their company peers, because they had no benefits or long-term employment. Today, job
shoppers are actually paid less than company engineers; and the companies are outsourcing ever more of their staffing to the brokers.
Without labor market frictions, the iron law of wages drives wages to starvation levels. As sophisticated uberization software
eliminates the frictions that have protected middle class wages in the recent past, we will all need to enlist unionization and
government wage standards to protect us.
ken melvin , May 31, 2020 2:29 pm
Rick
The big engineering offices of the 70s were decimated and worse by the mid-90s; mostly by the advent of computers w/ software.
One engineer could now do the work of 10 and didn't need any draftsman.
rick shapiro , May 31, 2020 2:40 pm
I was speaking of engineers with equal skill in the same office. Many at GE Avionics were laid off, and came back as lower
paid contract employees.
I think this relevant to how fractured the discourse is. it's a repost from my litter
watering hole.
I know it's going to be difficult to accept what I'm about to say because people get very
invested in their chosen narratives, but it's important that you at least be exposed to the
notion that it's all true.
It's true that people engaged in peaceful protests.
It's true that people engaged in lawless looting.
It's true that provocateurs have committed acts of vandalism and sometimes carry
umbrellas.
It's true that Antifa exists and that they don't advocate gently placing flowers in the
gaping hole of a long gun.
It's true that some very messed up militia minded people call themselves Boogaloo Bois, wear
Hawaiian shirts, and are showing up to add their brand of crazy to the mix.
It's true looters come in all shades and sizes.
It's true some desperate people are taking things they need.
It's true some opportunistic people are taking things they want.
It's true opportunistic government thugs suddenly shifted the Covid-19 rationale for using
contract tracing to a catch-them-rioters rationale for using contract tracing.
It's true the policy infrastructure for enacting martial law has been a long-term,
bi-partisan project.
It's true that now is the time to realize what's at stake, but instead of acting
collectively for our mutual benefit, the cognitive challenge of accepting that all these things
can be true at the same time will keep us tied to one of these things to the exclusion of all
the others.
It's hard work, I know. But I have faith in you.
Posted by b on June 1, 2020 at 16:08 UTC | Permalink
"... As we detailed last night, what's happening to America right now : rioting, looting, pillaging, Americans fighting other Americans and while the media is spinning self-serving narratives that frame the bad guy as Trump, or China, or Russia, or this political party, or that, or some social movement , hides the truth that the culprit behind the upcoming collapse of the US is just one thing, the same one that Thomas Jefferson warned the brand new nation about more than two centuries ago : ..."
"... "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. The issuing power of currency shall be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. ..."
"... While we focus on events that fill our media streams, it is worth remembering Oscar Grant, Trayvon Martin, Manuel Diez, Kimini Gray, and Michael Brown. These events, and many others throughout history, show civil unrest has deeper roots. Pew Research made a note of this in 2017: ..."
"... "The U.S. economy is in much better shape now than it was in the aftermath of the Great Recession. It cost millions of Americans, their homes, and jobs. It led him to push through a roughly $800 billion stimulus package as one of his first business orders. Since then, unemployment has plummeted from 10% in late 2009 to below 5% today, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average has more than doubled. ..."
"... "The one lesson that we have clearly learned since the 2008 "Great Financial Crisis," is that monetary and fiscal policy interventions do not lead to increased levels of economic wealth or prosperity. What these programs have done, is act as a wealth transfer system from the bottom 90% to the top 10%. ..."
"... "The rise in debt, which in the last decade was used primarily to fill the gap between incomes and the cost of living, has contributed to the retardation of economic growth." ..."
"... 50% of American workers did not have the ability to tap additional "savings" to offset financial hardships during the pandemic. ..."
"... It's no wonder they are in the streets rioting. ..."
"... The lack of economic improvement is clearly evident across all demographic classes. However, it has been the very policies of the Federal Reserve which created a wealth transfer mechanism from the poor to the rich. The ongoing interventions by the Federal Reserve propelled asset prices higher, but left the majority of American families behind. ..."
As we detailed last night, what's happening to America right now : rioting, looting,
pillaging, Americans fighting other Americans and while the media is spinning self-serving
narratives that frame the bad guy as Trump, or China, or Russia, or this political party, or
that, or some social movement , hides the truth that the culprit behind the upcoming collapse
of the US is just one thing, the same one that Thomas Jefferson warned the brand new nation
about more than two centuries ago :
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing
armies. The issuing power of currency shall be taken from the banks and restored to the
people, to whom it properly belongs.
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency,
first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around
them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the
continent their Fathers conquered."
And as RealInvestmentAdvice.com's
Lance Roberts notes, while the murder of George Floyd was both unjust and tragic, his death
was the catalyst that lit a powder keg of dissension, which has simmered beneath the headlines
for over a decade.
While we focus on events that fill our media streams, it is worth remembering Oscar Grant,
Trayvon Martin, Manuel Diez, Kimini Gray, and Michael Brown. These events, and many others
throughout history, show civil unrest has deeper roots. Pew
Research made a note of this in 2017:
"The U.S. economy is in much better shape now than it was in the aftermath of the Great
Recession. It cost millions of Americans, their homes, and jobs. It led him to push through a
roughly $800 billion stimulus package as one of his first business orders. Since then,
unemployment has plummeted from 10% in late 2009 to below 5% today, and the Dow Jones
Industrial Average has more than doubled.
But by some measures, the country faces serious economic challenges: A steady hollowing of
the middle class and income inequality reached its highest point since 1928."
Look at the faces of those rioting. They are of every race, religion, and creed. What they
all have in common is they are of the demographic most impacted by the current economic
recession. Job losses, income destruction, financial pressures, and debt create tension in the
system until it explodes.
It has been the same in every economy throughout history. While the rich eat cake, the rest
beg on street corners for scraps. Eventually, those most disenfranchised and oppressed storm
the castle walls with "pitchforks and torches."
"As the coronavirus pandemic continues to pummel the economy, many Americans are
decreasing their retirement contributions, but some are raiding their retirement accounts to
pay for essentials. A new survey found 3-in-10 Americans dipped into the funds meant for
their golden years -- and the majority of those who have done so spent their nest egg on
groceries."
America was not prepared financially for the downturn caused by the pandemic. They are
angry, financially stressed, and the visible face of their ire has become Wall Street and the
Fed.
Since the "Financial Crisis," the role of the Federal Reserve shifted from its dual mandate
of "full employment" and "price stability" to a seeming inclusion of a "third mandate"
supporting consumer confidence via the inflation of asset prices. As Ben Bernanke stated in
2010:
"This approach eased financial conditions in the past and, so far, looks to be effective
again. Stock prices rose, and long-term interest rates fell when investors began to
anticipate the most recent action.
Easier financial conditions will promote economic growth. For example, lower mortgage
rates will make housing more affordable and allow more homeowners to refinance. Lower
corporate bond rates will encourage investment. And higher stock prices will boost consumer
wealth and help increase confidence, which can also spur spending."
Unfortunately, it didn't work out that way.
Unintended Consequences
As with all things, there are always the unintended consequences which follow. For the vast
majority of Americans:
Housing did not become more affordable.
Wall Street bought massive numbers of homes at distressed prices and went into the
landlord business, which led to a rise in home prices.
Many Americans, still recovering from the "Financial Crisis" were unable to obtain
financing.
For many others, affordability due to suppressed wage growth was the issue.
Lower corporate bond rates didn't lead to more investment, but rather increased share
repurchases which benefited "C-Suite" executives at the expense of the working class.
Instead, as discussed previously, the Fed's policies led to a growing divergence between the
stock market and the economy.
To wit:
"The one lesson that we have clearly learned since the 2008 "Great Financial Crisis," is
that monetary and fiscal policy interventions do not lead to increased levels of economic
wealth or prosperity. What these programs have done, is act as a wealth transfer system from
the bottom 90% to the top 10%.
Since 2008 there have been rising calls for socialistic policies such as universal basic
incomes, increased social welfare, and even a two-time candidate for President who was a
self-admitted socialist.
Such things would not occur if "prosperity" was flourishing within the economy. "
This is simply because the stock market is not the economy.
Stocks Are Not The
Economy
The Fed's interventions and suppressed interest rates have continued to have the opposite
effect of which was intended. I have shown the following chart below
previously to illustrate this point.
From Jan 1st, 2009 through the end of March, the stock market rose by an astounding 159%, or
roughly 14% annualized. With such a large gain in the financial markets, one would expect a
commensurate growth rate in the economy.
After 3-massive Federal Reserve driven "Quantitative Easing" programs, a maturity extension
program, bailouts of TARP, TGLP, TGLF, etc., HAMP, HARP, direct bailouts of Bear Stearns, AIG,
GM, bank supports, etc., all of which totaled more than $33 Trillion, cumulative real economic
growth was just 5.48%.
While monetary interventions are supposed to be supporting economic growth through increases
in consumer confidence, the outcome has been quite different.
Low, to zero, interest rates have incentivized non-productive debt, and exacerbated the
wealth gap. The massive increases in debt has actually harmed growth by diverting consumptive
spending to debt service.
"The rise in debt, which in the last decade was used primarily to fill the gap between
incomes and the cost of living, has contributed to the retardation of economic growth."
Financial Shortcomings
The recent economic downtown caused by the pandemic has once again exposed the financial
weakness that plagues the broader economy. The report by MagnifyMoney shows nearly 50% of
Americans made changes to their plans within the first month of the pandemic for basic
necessities.
What this tells you is that individuals could not survive more than ONE MONTH before tapping
retirement savings. But what about the 50-60% of individuals that didn't have a plan to start
with?
"A 2018 report from the non-profit National Institute
on Retirement Security which found that nearly 60% of all working-age Americans do not
own assets in a retirement account."
Here are some findings from that report:
Account ownership rates are closely correlated with income and wealth. More than 100
million working-age individuals (57 percent) do not own any retirement account assets,
whether in an employer-sponsored 401(k)-type plan or an IRA nor are they covered by defined
benefit ( DB )
pensions.
The typical working-age American has no retirement savings. When all working individuals
are included -- not just individuals with retirement accounts -- the median retirement
account balance is $0 among all working individuals. Even among workers who have accumulated
savings in retirement accounts, the typical worker had a modest account balance of
$40,000.
Three-fourths (77 percent) of Americans fall short of conservative retirement savings
targets for their age and income based on working until age 67 even after counting an
individual's entire net worth -- a generous measure of retirement savings.
Read those finding again.
If we use a more optimistic number of 50%, then 50% of American workers did not have the
ability to tap additional "savings" to offset financial hardships during the pandemic.
It's no wonder they are in the streets rioting.
Only The Few
While the "savings rate" suggests that individuals are "hoarding money" due to the downturn,
the reality is quite different. If American's had savings they would not be tapping into 401k
plans and begging for checks. However, Deutsche Bank recently showed the savings rate for 90%
of Americans is negative.
This is far different than the Governmental statistics suggesting the average American is
saving 33% of their income.
In actuality, if you aren't in the "Top 20%" of income earners, you probably aren't saving
much, if any, money.
The problem for the Fed is their own policies are what created the "wealth gap" to begin
with. As noted by the WSJ.
"As of December 2019 -- before
the shutdowns -- households in the bottom 20% of incomes had seen their financial assets,
such as money in the bank, stock and bond investments or retirement funds, fall by 34% since
the end of the 2007-09 recession , according to Fed data adjusted for inflation. Those in the
middle of the income distribution have seen just 4% growth." – WSJ
This isn't surprising. A recent research report by BCA confirms one of the causes of the
rising wealth gap in the U.S. The top-10% of income earners owns 88% of the stock market, while
the bottom-90% owns just 12%.
The Fed Did It
The lack of economic improvement is clearly evident across all demographic classes. However,
it has been the very policies of the Federal Reserve which created a wealth transfer mechanism
from the poor to the rich. The ongoing interventions by the Federal Reserve propelled asset
prices higher, but left the majority of American families behind.
The problem is the Fed has become trapped by its policies, and consequently, started taking
direction from Wall Street. Such has led the Federal Reserve to become a "hostage" of its own
making.
If the Fed removes any monetary accommodation, the market declines. The Fed is forced to
subsequently increase support for the financial markets, which exacerbates the wealth gap.
It's a virtual spiral from which the Fed can not extricate itself. It's a great system if
you are rich and have money invested. Not so much if you are any one else.
As we are witnessing, the United States is not immune to social disruptions. The source of
these problems is compounding due to the public's failure to appreciate "why" it is
happening. Eventually, as has repeatedly occurred throughout history, the riots will turn their focus
toward those in power.
"... It's also true that the oligarchy will continue to preserve the system it's created in the U.S. through all available means, using its militarized police forces as its loyal street level enforcers. Change would happen very quickly if enough police turned and join with the "mobs". ..."
I think this relevant to how fractured the discourse is. it's a repost from my litter
watering hole.
I know it's going to be difficult to accept what I'm about to say because people get very
invested in their chosen narratives, but it's important that you at least be exposed to the
notion that it's all true.
It's true that people engaged in peaceful protests.
It's true that people engaged in lawless looting.
It's true that provocateurs have committed acts of vandalism and sometimes carry
umbrellas.
It's true that Antifa exists and that they don't advocate gently placing flowers in the
gaping hole of a long gun.
It's true that some very messed up militia minded people call themselves Boogaloo Bois, wear
Hawaiian shirts, and are showing up to add their brand of crazy to the mix.
It's true looters come in all shades and sizes.
It's true some desperate people are taking things they need.
It's true some opportunistic people are taking things they want.
It's true opportunistic government thugs suddenly shifted the Covid-19 rationale for using
contract tracing to a catch-them-rioters rationale for using contract tracing.
It's true the policy infrastructure for enacting martial law has been a long-term,
bi-partisan project.
It's true that now is the time to realize what's at stake, but instead of acting
collectively for our mutual benefit, the cognitive challenge of accepting that all these things
can be true at the same time will keep us tied to one of these things to the exclusion of all
the others.
It's hard work, I know. But I have faith in you.
Posted by b on June 1, 2020 at 16:08 UTC | Permalink
this analysis sees and
describes what's occurring within the Outlaw US Empire, more than validating Cornel West's assessment, except it misses
the major component--Class--while seeing lizard's list:
"As the world watches the US being confronted with massive
riots, looting, chaos and heightened violence, US officials, instead of reflecting on the systematic problems in their
society that led to such a crisis, have returned to their old 'blame game' against left-wingers, 'fake news' media and
'external forces....'
"[O]bservers see a weak, irresponsible and incompetent leadership navigating the country into a completely opposite
direction, with all-out efforts to deflect public attention from its own failure.
"Mass protests erupted in a growing numbers of cities in the US over the weekend, and at least 40 cities have imposed
curfews, while the National Guard has been activated in 14 states and Washington DC, according to US media reports ... [P]rotests
across the country continued into a sixth straight night.
"More Americans have slammed the US president for inciting hatred and racism, and US officials, who turn a blind eye
to the deep-seated issues in American society, including racial injustice, economic woes and the coronavirus pandemic,
began shifting the blame to the former US president, extremists, and China for inflaming the social unrests."
Blaming Chinese, Russians and/or Martians isn't going to help Trump. Without doing a thing, Biden has risen to a lead
of 8-10% in the most recent polling. Trumps many mistakes have dug him a hole that now seems to be collapsing in upon
him. He's cursed worse than Midas as everything he attempts turns out a big negative and only worsens the situation.
It's also true that the oligarchy will continue to preserve the system it's created in the U.S. through all
available means, using its militarized police forces as its loyal street level enforcers. Change would happen very
quickly if enough police turned and join with the "mobs". Otherwise any positive change in the prevailing structure
will be extremely incremental if at all, and will be resisted at every level until it collapses because there is nothing
left worth to exploit.
Imho the present protests, social 'unrest,' in the USA will just die out as usual, nothing will be accomplished -
what are the politcal demands? zero.. - on to the next chapter of misery and oppression.
Posted by: Noirette | Jun 1 2020 17:26 utc | 19
Indeed, and there was no other goal by stirring up these protest to the public murder of Floyd in plain daylight,
after decades of deideologization of the US masses by brainwashing through US education system, TV, Hollywood, and so
on.
Provocate the poor masses to find no way than to emotionally revolt through a brute action broadcasted to the four
corners of the US through the media, to then show the rightful protesters as disorganized anarchist riotters without any
vison or idea ( with unestimable help by white supremacists and cops infiltrated, and even by rich blonde boys stealing
surf boards as if there was no tomorrow...)so as to show the middle and upper classes that this will be the aspect of
the country in case socialist policies would be put in practice. This is to appeal once again, and possibly the last
one, to the greedy individualist allegevd "winner" to once more vote against its own interest, as after the elections
all what would not be looted by the poor would be looted by the state. Then it will come the gnashing of teeth and
regrets on not having suppoorted those poor people when they were being murdered in the streets.
But, may be, some would even be grateful of being quirurgically robed by the state ( thorugh their bank accounts and
propieties value going down the hole...) instead of by these obviously majority of needed people....needed at least of
respect....
"Antifa" only shows up and exists when it is needed, then magically disappears; same as Ali Queada and ISIS ...
This!
<> <> <> <> <>
Reposting my earlier comment on the Open Thread:
ZH reports that 6 people have died in the protests. Dozens of protesters and police have been injured. Tens of
millions of dollars in property damage, police overtime, and cost of the likely spread of coronavirus ('second wave' now
being blamed on the protesters).
All because the authorities will not appropriately charge the killers of George Floyd.
Instead, Trump and MSM turn the focus to "antifa". How convenient. MSM says nothing of the killing of 26-year old
Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia weeks before and the attempted cover-up of his killing.
How many more have to die before the authorities act appropriately? How much more destruction and silent spread of
coronavirus?
<> <> <> <> <>
The protesters say that a manslaughter charge against Chauvin is an injustice. Chauvin was a veteran officer who KNEW
WHAT HE WAS DOING when he remained on Floyd for more than 3 minutes after he had become non-responsive.
The protesters say that the other officers are accessories to murder because they did nothing to stop it.
Every reasonable person understands that the protesters have valid points. I would say that there's a consensus
that Chauvin should be charged with Second-degree murder and the other officers charged as accessories. But the
authorities drag their feet - while America burns.
a)refrain from looting and that specifically the the small properties is a stupidity that will backfire
quickly!
b) the demonstrations leaders must organize their own security
squads to prevent provocateurs from outside.
Fm these tasks the 1st one is rather difficult to reach, yes.The second one is much easier.
It's not a civil war until the *other* civilians start shooting at the rioters. At this point, it's just the usual police repression.
Now given that thousands of people who previously never owned a firearm have now acquired them - although it is unclear how
many of them will be concealed carriers, given the variance in state laws - it's only a matter of time before some people start
shooting. Like the Korean shop owners in LA notably did during the Rodney King riots IIRC.
But it won't be a civil war until a significant number of people on both sides are actually shooting.
There's a guy named Selco Begovic who survived the civil war in Bosnia. He writes articles for prepper Web sites and he has
book out. He has vividly
described conditions of life in a civil war. Most people in the US are not going to handle that sort of thing well. Try this one
as it pertains to b's post.
The true enemies of humanity are corporations, so the violence is not a "civil war", but revolt. Along those lines, it's not "looting"
but sabotage. And the "police" are not peace-keepers but militarized enforcers.
It's a complete waste of time engaging in electoral "politics." Politicians are corporate whores doing their master's bidding,
as are the "police."
Just finished listening to the latest interview
given by Michael Hudson , "Defining a Tyrant," whose focus is on the necessity of applying debt forgiveness to those residing
within the Outlaw US Empire as the economic affects of COVID-19 will be much worse than we've already seen. Those who want to
get to the current moment can begin listening at the 40 minute mark (yes, it's just audio). You'll need to note that the unemployment
numbers as I've been writing for awhile now are greatly understated, although the host Gary Null does allude to that reality as
NYC itself is emptying out--imagine Wall Street sitting in the middle of a ghost metropolis. As you'll learn, Trump's MAGA Mantra
is 100% hollow without enacting a wide ranging debt write-off--even if factories could be put back into business, the Outlaw US
Empire's economy would still remain very uncompetitive because of the issue of debt service and privatized health care--issues
I've written about before.
And so the main topic: Civil War. Or, is it? Reality demands it be named Class War, for that's what it is in reality. Hudson
maps out how its done and by whom while naming the abettors. The Popular Forces number 280 million, not including those too young/old/infirm
to bear arms. The Forces of Reaction minus the paid forces of coercion number well under 100,000. Even adding in police and military,
it's still 280 million to perhaps 10 million. And even if only half of the 280 million stand up, that's 140 million. The rallying
cry ought to be It's better to die standing up for your rights versus groveling on your knees. Too bad all of the above's too
large for one Tweet.
The way they provoked the violence on smashing shop windows with forehammer is exactly what was witnessed inParis when apparent
"black block" types did the same and then got back in their policevan.
I note that in France Riot police is clad in robocop armour and that this armour is a weapon in itself,it deshumanizes the man
inside to himself,and to others.A strike of his arm is much more powerful than if he were dressed as your american cop on patrol,probably
they give them steroid or something to be able to move rapidly with all the weight.They must feel like the Hulk!
Now it would be a sign of peaceful government if just any political party would make a ban on those outfits.
So the medical examiner concluded that there was no evidence of choking or suffocation, and instead was the result of his "restraint"
exacerbating underlying conditions, and suggesting there was the possibility of intoxication or drugs, which is the basis for
the pre-determination that Chauvin will only be charged with 3rd degree murder, which of course they'll try to whittle down to
manslaughter (the coincidental charge.)
Let me see if I've got this straight: a man that is being restrained by the neck, who eventually dies from no other action,
who repeatedly pleads that "I can't breath," who onlookers see and record that the man can not in fact breath, and the medical
examiner finds no evidence of choking or strangulation.
Further, Officer Chauvin, in close physical contact with the eventual corpse of his victim, must surely have felt the life
ebbing from George Floyd. No way no how this mother fucker gets charged with anything other than 1st degree murder. His accomplices
get charged with accessory to 1st degree murder.
"War is a Racket" -Smedley Butler 1933
"Beyond Vietnam - Time to Break the Silence" -MLK 1967
"Art Truth and Politics" -Harold Pinter 2005
What has changed in 100 yrs of uSSa Empire? Foreign policy? Domestic policy?
Economic policy? All have become worse.
The u$$a Regime lies, cheats, steals, rapes, murders, tortures, overthrows, bombs,
invades, destroys, and loots with impunity Global wide.
How a citizen of this Rogue nation can feel good about that is beyond hypocrisy.
This Regime and the humans behind this sickening system must be replaced.
The Military Surveilance Police state must end. The Humans behind this system must be replaced
by any means necessary. Both the safety of the world and domestically rely on their removal.
When finished "Entertaining Ourselves to Death" and coming to terms with the truly Evil nature of the human beings operating
and supporting this system- perhaps you will becomea full human being. Get Up Stand Up.
The difference between ignorance and delusions are substantial.
Ignorance being the lack of knowledge. Delusion being the presence of false
knowledge. Where do you stand?
I don't need protection from the police.
But We ALL need protection FROM the police state.
Will you fight to defend yourself, your family, your neighbor or fellow human being
against a cruel vile corrupt system? Selfishness and greed are no excuse for complacency.
What is worth defending- your property or your virtues?
I have long been disgusted by the u$$a regimes domestic and foreign policies. Which means I have long been disgusted by my
fellow citizens (human beings) which support and operate this vile system.
Revolution-
Complacency and passive complicit citizens Or values, humaneness and justice?
Where do you stand? When do you stand for a meaningful life of society?
The white working and lower middle classes will not support violent rioting by blacks over a black issue. This is not a way to
start a revolution.
What's more, the latest reporting I read in the Washington Post is that Floyd initially resisted arrest. The early reporting
that he did not resist arrest was apparently incorrect.
Moreover, the medical evidence suggests that he died not from asphyxiation or a broken neck, but because of comorbidities.
Floyd had a lengthy criminal record.
If you want a revolution in the U.S., wait a month or two until there are mass evictions.
This is a warning to anybody who would dare to revolt against the coming misery conditions of life while the oligarchs continue
enriching themselves and looting every penny available.
This is a secondary gain from the pandemic, as we were accustomed to multiple declared state of alarm throughout the world,
they thinks that going a step further would not cause any shock....
There have been equally violent revolts in France and Chile continuously during the past year, and in France again in the banlieus,
and then curfew was not declared...
This is the land of the free....There you have your fascist state turning on yourselves...
When they came for the Venezuelans, seized their assets and embassies, I did nothing; when they came for the Iranians and murdered
Soleimani, I said nothing; when they came for the communists in the Odessa House of Unions, I did not move a finger; when they
slaughtered people at the four cardinal points of the world, I did continue living my "American Dream" as if the thing would not
go with me...until I did awaken to find myself in the same nightmare....
I've suggested in the past that civil war was unlikely in the US because that would requires a significant percentage of the electorate
to actually take sides and shoot someone - and most of the population is so anti-gun these days that such a scenario was unlikely,
especially over political issues that aren't usually considered as *directly* adversely affecting most of the population, at least
in their minds. It would also require some direct organization on both sides and I don't see anyone capable of that on the national
scene.
What I can easily see happening, however, is the sort of multi-city, large-scale rioting that occurred in the Sixties and in
other parts of the world, leading to a declaration of martial law in at least some, possibly many, larger cities, if not nation-wide
(a lot of rural areas would likely not be affected.) Economic issues and issues of social repression are usually the causes of
large-scale violence historically in most countries. Most "political" issues usually boil down to either ethnic or economic or
repression issues.
The US doesn't have really that much ethnic issues, except in the Southwest over Latino immigration. The US has racial, economic
and repression issues, however. Most of the time they just simmer, with local limited outbreaks of violence. But in cases of blatant
repression, or under severe economic pressure, they can explode into wider-scale violence.
And we've got both on the horizon. The impact of the pandemic (and the government's clueless response, thanks to Trump and
previous Presidents) on the economy is likely to produce extreme economic pressure, especially on the middle class and the poor.
Adding the extreme militarization of the US police over the last several decades, and this is a recipe for large-scale violence
that continues for more than a few days or a week. Once police over-reaction and the appearance of the National Guard to control
rioting results in the sort of deaths like in the well-known Kent State incident, then like in Ukraine we could start to see cops
and National Guard fatalities from snipers. Next we could see things like the 1985 Philadelphia police bombing of the MOVE headquarters
and the use of armed drones (Connecticut has a law banning armed drones - but not for police.) The next step beyond that is curfew,
and the next step beyond that is martial law.
The next step beyond that is not civil war - it's explicit fascism. And that ends in revolution - which then usually recycles
into either more fascism or "modified: fascism (see France in the 1800's.)
Bottom line: It's not going to get better. One of the many things preppers have been warning against is national repression.
They warned against natural disasters like hurricanes and no one listened until Katrina. They warned against pandemics and no
one listened - until today. They've been warning against national repression - like the Selco article I linked to. Better listen
this time.
Money quote: ""Public-service workers are now subjected to a panoptical regime of monitoring
and assessment, using the benchmarks von Mises rightly warned were inapplicable and absurd." --
that's definition of a serf -- a neoliberal serf
I feel a lot of people just use the term neoliberalism as a term of a specific abuse of
labor via debt slavery. .
1. Hayek's book 'The Road to Serfdom' uses an erroneous metaphor. He argues that if we
allow gov regulation, services and spending to continue then we will end up serfs. However,
serfs are basically the indentured or slave labourers of private citizens and landowners not
of the state. Only in a system of private capital can there be serfs. Neo liberalism creates
serfs not a public system.
2. According to Hayek all regulation on business should be eliminated and only labour
should be regulated to make it cheap and contain it so that private investors can have their
returns guaranteed. Hence the purpose of the state is to pass laws to suppress workers.
These two things illustrate neo-liberalism. Deception and repression of labour.
As a matter of semantics, neo-liberalism delivered on the promise of freedom...for
capitalists to be free of ethical accountability, social responsibility, and government
regulation and taxes. And people can't understand why i'm a socialist.
"... Polls of life satisfaction taken since the outbreak began have reflected a rapid erosion as 33 million Americans have joined the unemployment rolls over the last months. NY Gov Andrew Cuomo said during a recent daily briefing that NY is seeing a spike in drug and alcohol abuse as people sit around all day with nothing to do and nowhere to go. ..."
"... But of course the tremendous levels of financial uncertainty coupled with the unique characteristics of this crisis make it pretty much impossible to model - any research is really an educated guess, at best. ..."
"... "Unemployment is going to have a very important impact on deaths of despair." ..."
"... His proposed strategies including investing more resources in helping unemployed people find meaningful work, and/or training the armies of contact tracers that de Blasio has now promised to hire to spot people at risk of self-harm. ..."
Doctors ,
scientists policymakers and even 'non-experts' posting on social media have argued that
shuttering the health-care system to all non-emergency care risks sparking other public health
crises from a spike in heart attacks and advanced cancer diagnoses, to so-called "deaths of
despair."
In some
areas, a spike in suicides has already been recorded since the start of the outbreak. And
now, a newly published paper released Friday has attempted to quantify deaths that might occur
because of the mental-health ramifications of widespread economic chaos caused by the crisis.
The research - which hasn't yet been peer-reviewed - found the isolation, grief and economic
hardship related to COVID-19 are conspiring to supercharge America's already-burgeoning
mental-health crisis, likely setting the stage for tens of thousands of suicides down the
line.
Specifically, the researchers tabulated that as many as 75k additional "deaths of despair"
could be caused by the outbreak and the economy-crushing measures implemented to stop the
spreads. "Deaths of despair" typically refer to suicides and substance-abuse-related deaths,
according to
Bloomberg .
The research was carried out by the Well Being Trust and researchers affiliated with the
American Academy of Family Physicians. One of the report's authors said he hopes the research
is eventually proven to be incorrect.
"I hope in 10 years people look back and say, 'Wow, they way overestimated it,'" said John
Westfall, director of the Robert Graham Center for Policy Studies in Family Medicine and
Primary Care, who co-wrote the report.
But the sizable spike in suicides, overdoses etc since the last major crisis (the financial
crisis) is reason to be concerned.
Even as the American economy rebounded after the last recession, suicides and overdoses cut
into Americans' life expectancy. Mental health experts worry that the economic uncertainty and
social isolation of the pandemic will make things worse at a time when the health care system
is already overwhelmed. The suicide rate in the US has already been rising for two decades, and
in 2018 hit its highest level since 1941, Bloomberg reported, citing a piece published by JAMA
Psychiatry (a prestigious medical journal) back in April.
"There's a paradox," said Jeffrey Reynolds, president of a Long Island-based nonprofit
social services agency, the Family and Children's Association. " Social isolation protects us
from a contagious, life-threatening virus, but at the same time it puts people at risk for
things that are the biggest killers in the United States: suicide, overdose and diseases
related to alcohol abuse."
Polls of life satisfaction taken since the outbreak began have reflected a rapid erosion as
33 million Americans have joined the unemployment rolls over the last months. NY Gov Andrew
Cuomo said during a recent daily briefing that NY is seeing a spike in drug and alcohol abuse
as people sit around all day with nothing to do and nowhere to go.
"One of the main things people should take away from this paper is that employment
matters," said Benjamin Miller, chief strategy officer at the Well Being Trust and a clinical
psychologist who worked on the paper. "It matters for our economic livelihood, and for our
mental and emotional health."
But of course the tremendous levels of financial uncertainty coupled with the unique
characteristics of this crisis make it pretty much impossible to model - any research is really
an educated guess, at best.
Still, the researchers believe it's a useful warning, and something important for policy
makers to keep in mind.
"It's useful to have a wake-up call," said Ken Duckworth, chief medical officer at the
National Alliance on Mental Illness. "Unemployment is going to have a very important impact
on deaths of despair."
Benjamin Miller, chief strategy officer at the Well Being Trust and a clinical psychologist
who worked on the paper, proposed several solutions that could be enacted to, uh, depress the
number of suicides.
His proposed strategies including investing more resources in helping unemployed people find
meaningful work, and/or training the armies of contact tracers that de Blasio has now promised
to hire to spot people at risk of self-harm.
I'm sure this has been mentioned, but Angus Deaton talking about his "Deaths of Despair" work
Boston
review article
JC: In the book you focus on these deaths of despair: 158,000 in 2018, about 100,000 of
which are above and beyond what we would normally expect, an excess that is almost entirely
among white non-Hispanic men and women without a college degree. The category covers three
different causes of death: alcohol, opioids, and suicide. Could you talk about why you
group them together?
AD: Initially, "deaths of despair" was a label of convenience. It helped express the
sense that these deaths were sort of caused by your own hand -- unlike COVID-19, say.
...
these previous drug epidemics -- in the United States after the Civil War, or in China
when the empire was disintegrating -- tended to arise during periods of social
disintegration. The simplified story is that some bad Big Pharma manufacturers started
pushing opioids on all of us. But in reality, Purdue Pharmaceuticals and other companies
went to places where there was already lots of despair. They were looking for despair. They
were looking for regions where you could harass doctors into prescribing these drugs.
Our claim in the book is that without this underlying despair -- pain, morbidity, people
not going to church, people's lives coming apart -- there wouldn't have been this open
field for opioids. On the other hand, if the FDA had not been so much in the hands of the
industry, and if we were not operating a rent-seeking, capitalistic health care system,
then we wouldn't have got those efforts to capitalize on the despair. Other countries
didn't get them to anything like the same extent.
...
JC: One of the issues that you emphasize in the book is the generational aspect of
deaths of despair: how it keeps getting worse for younger generations. The idea that this
is a process that is worsening over time resonates strongly with Raj Chetty's account of
the fading American dream. I am thinking of the study by Chetty and colleagues about
absolute mobility, guided by the question: Are you going to do better than your parents?
When I was born in 1951, there was a 90 percent chance of doing better than your parents.
If you were born in 1980, chances had fallen to 50 percent.
...
The Democrats largely decided to abandon the working class and build a coalition of
educated elites and minorities (including working-class minorities), and the Republicans
basically followed business and religious organizations.
And the health care crises make things worse. Health care costs were 5 percent of GDP
back in 1970, and now they're 18 percent of GDP. Everything is heaping up on these
people.
...
The pillars that structured working-class life seem to have gone, or at least been
eroded. And we see the fundamental force of that in the labor market. Decent wages and jobs
help to bring respectability and meaning into life. We're not against some of the
explanations that focus more on social norms. I think the birth control pill was very
important, changing the norms about when and whether you could have children, whether you'd
live together without being married. We write about how the pill was very socially
divisive. For women who could get educated, it enormously enhanced opportunities to have
relationship fulfilment and children as well as really good jobs. But for many
working-class women for whom college was not an option, it did the opposite.
But declining wages were an incredibly important part of the loss.
...
But there's a much more negative scenario, too, which economic historian Robert Allen
writes about. In the early nineteenth century in Britain, real wages stagnated for fifty
years. Handloom weavers were being replaced by machines in factories in the Industrial
Revolution, and wages could only rise when they were all gone, and the way of life and
around handloom weaving had been destroyed.
[c1ue note: the putting out system was a major cause of the above]
...
A lot of evidence suggests that in recessions, mortality rates typically go down. The
Great Depression was a very good time for life expectancy. But suicides do go up. It's not
a simple story. They say in New York that what would normally be filling hospital beds
would normally be filling with traffic and construction accidents, and there aren't
any.
"... New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has launched a fund to support sick healthcare workers and their families, but some blame him for the dire working conditions facing the state's caregivers after nine years of hospital budget cuts. Cuomo announced the state is working on a "Covid-19 Heroes Compensation Fund" to support healthcare workers and their families who have been diagnosed with the coronavirus during his daily briefing on Friday. It was heralded by his growing Democratic fan club as a generous, thoughtful move from a politician who cares about the "frontline workers." ..."
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has launched a fund to support sick healthcare workers
and their families, but some blame him for the dire working conditions facing the state's
caregivers after nine years of hospital budget cuts. Cuomo announced the state is working on a
"Covid-19 Heroes Compensation Fund" to support healthcare workers and their families who
have been diagnosed with the coronavirus during his daily briefing on Friday. It was heralded
by his growing Democratic fan club as a generous, thoughtful move from a politician who cares
about the "frontline workers."
Absent from the lovefest was any mention of how the governor had - just the previous day -
deferred 2 percent pay raises to some 80,000 state workers for 90 days, and potentially for
longer. Many of those affected are healthcare workers in the state's prisons and mental health
facilities.
Union leaders were outraged. "It's inexcusable to require our workers to literally face
death to ensure the state keeps running and then turn around and deny those very workers their
much-deserved raise in this time of crisis, " Civil Service Employees Association president
Mary Sullivan told the Times Union, while NY Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent
Association chief Michael Powers called the postponement a "slap in the face" to workers
facing "some of the most dangerous conditions in the state."
While Cuomo is being praised for his leadership amid the coronavirus outbreak, the problems
he is scrambling to solve are largely of his own making. Although aware of a 2015 report
highlighting the desperately-depleted state stockpile of ventilators, he didn't take any
actions on it, and has spent his tenure shuttering and downsizing hospitals across the state,
mostly those serving low-income clients. The state has eliminated 20,000 hospital beds in the
last two decades, at least half under his leadership.
The New York state budget passed at the beginning of the month included deep cuts to
Medicaid and may have rendered the state ineligible for $6 billion in federal aid, infuriating
liberal lawmakers who were less enchanted with the new #Resistance hero. State Senator Gustavo
Rivera (D-Bronx) told the New York Daily News that Cuomo's latest budget "only offered harsh
austerity for the poorest and most vulnerable" New Yorkers.
The state's Democrat-controlled senate called on Cuomo to tax the wealthy - New York has the
highest economic inequality in the country, and a tax on the richest .01 percent has upwards of
90 percent approval among voters - only to be turned down by the politician who has earned the
nickname "Governor One Percent."
The latest cost-cutting moves resulted in New York City deprived on $200 million in sales
tax revenue when the big apple is at the epicenter of the US coronavirus outbreak.
The pandemic has hospitals so understaffed that NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation has
apparently been reduced to contracting dodgy medical-temp agencies - one, Kansas-based
disaster-staffing group Krucial Staffing, was sued earlier this week for luring out-of-state
medical professionals to work in city hospitals under false pretenses, promising them cushy
posts with ample protective equipment and no Covid-19 exposure - to fill vacancies. The suit
alleges Krucial's misrepresentation of working conditions placed healthcare workers' medical
licenses and lives in danger.
It's unclear how many medical workers have contracted and died of the disease in the state,
as New York, along with several other states, does not tract infections among medical staff.
According to a BuzzFeed News review of the reports by 12 states, which made their data public,
at least 5,400 nurses and doctors tested positive nationwide, while dozens have succumbed to
the lethal illness. Among them, Kious Kelly, an assistant nurse manager at Mount Sinai West,
whose death from the coronavirus on March 24 sparked protests among the personnel and led to
the hospital eventually allowing workers to receive tests – but only those already
showing symptoms.
Some 7,887 New Yorkers have died with coronavirus since the beginning of the outbreak, the
majority of them - 5,820 - in New York City.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American
Mainstream Media
User Settings:
Version?
Social Media?
Read Aloud w/
Show Word Counts
No Video Autoplay
No Infinite Scrolling
Save
Cancel
Email This Page to Someone
Remember My
Information
=>
List of Bookmarks
◄
►
◄
►
▲
▼
Remove from Library
B
Show
Comment
Next New Comment
Next
New Reply
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More...
This Commenter
This Thread
Hide Thread
Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected
comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the
'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Email Comment
Ignore
Commenter
Follow Commenter
Add to
Library
Toggle All
Bookmark
ToC
▲
▼
Search Text
Case
Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
Search
Clear
Cancel
Imagine if the congress approved a measure to form a public-private
partnership between the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve. Can you imagine that?
Now imagine if a panicky and ill-informed
Congress gave the Fed a blank check to bail out all of its crooked crony corporate and Wall Street friends,
allowing the Fed to provide more than $4.5 trillion to underwater corporations that ripped off Mom and Pop
investors by selling them bonds that were used to goose their stock prices so fatcat CEOs could make off
like bandits. Imagine if all that red ink from private actors was piled onto the national debt pushing
long-term interest rates into the stratosphere while crushing small businesses, households and ordinary
working people.
Now try to imagine the impact this would
have on the nation's future. Imagine if the Central Bank was given the green-light to devour the Treasury,
control the country's "purse strings", and use nation's taxing authority to shore up its trillions in
ultra-risky leveraged bets, its opaque financially-engineered ponzi-instruments, and its massive speculative
debts that have gone pear-shaped leaving a gaping black hole on its balance sheet?
Well, you won't have to imagine this
scenario for much longer, because the reality is nearly at hand. You see, the traitorous, dumbshit
nincompoops in Congress are just a hairs-breadth away from abdicating congress's crucial power of the purse,
which is not only their greatest strength, but also allows the congress to reign in abuses of executive
power by controlling the flow of funding. The power of the purse is the supreme power of government which is
why the founders entrusted it to the people's elected representatives in congress. Now these imbeciles are
deciding whether to hand over that authority to a privately-owned banking cartel that has greatly expanded
the chasm between rich and poor, incentivized destructive speculation on an industrial scale, and repeatedly
inflated behemoth asset-price bubbles that have inevitably blown up sending stocks and the real economy into
freefall. The idea of merging the Fed and the Treasury first appeared in its raw form in an article by
former Fed chairman Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen in the Financial Times. Here's a short excerpt from the
piece:
"The Fed could ask Congress for the
authority to buy limited amounts of investment-grade corporate debt The Fed's intervention could help
restart that part of the corporate debt market, which is under significant stress.
Such a programme
would have to be carefully calibrated to minimize the credit risk taken by the Fed
while still
providing needed liquidity to an essential market." (
Financial
Times
)
The Fed is not allowed to buy corporate
debt, because it is not within its mandate of "price stability and full employment". It's also not allowed
to arbitrarily intervene in the markets to pick winners and losers, nor is it allowed to bailout
poorly-managed crybaby corporations who were gaming the system to their own advantage when the whole deal
blew up in their faces. That's their problem, not the Fed's and not the American taxpayer's.
But notice how Bernanke emphasizes how
"Such a programme would have to be carefully calibrated to minimize the credit risk taken by the Fed". Why
do you think he said that?
He said it because he anticipates an
arrangement where the new Treasury-Fed combo could buy up to "$4.5 trillion of corporate debt" (according to
Marketwatch and BofA). And the way this will work, is the Fed will select the bonds that will be purchased
and the credit risk will be heaped onto the US Treasury. Apparently Bernanke and Yellen think this is a
"fair" arrangement, but others might differ on that point.
Keep in mind, that in the last week
alone, investors pulled a record $107 billion out of corporate bonds which is a market which has been in a
deep-freeze for nearly a month. The only activity is the steady surge of redemptions by frantic investors
who want to get their money back before the listing ship heads for Davey Jones locker. This is the market
that Bernanke wants the American people to bail out mainly because he doesn't want to submerge the Fed's
balance sheet in red ink. He wants to find a sucker who will take the loss instead. That's where Uncle Sam
comes in, he's the target of this subterfuge. This same theme pops up in a piece in the Wall Street Journal.
Check it out:
"At least Treasury has come around
to realizing it needs a facility to provide liquidity for companies. But as we write this, Mr. Mnuchin
was still insisting that Treasury have control of most of the money to be able to ladle out directly to
companies it wants to help. This is a recipe for picking winners and losers, and thus for bitter
political fights and months of ugly headlines charging favoritism. The far better answer is for Treasury
to use money from Congress to replenish the Exchange Stabilization Fund to back the Fed in creating a
facility or special-purpose vehicles under Section 13(3) to lend the money to all comers. "(
"Leaderless
on the Econom"
, Wall Street Journal)
I can hardly believe the author is bold
enough to say this right to our faces. Read it carefully: They are saying "We want your money, but not your
advice. The Fed will choose who gets the cash and who doesn't. Just put your trillions on the counter and
get the hell out."
Isn't that what they're saying? Of
course it is. And the rest of the article is even more arrogant:
"The Fed can charge a
non-concessionary rate, but the vehicles should be open to those who think they need the money, not
merely to those Treasury decides are worthy." (Huh? So the Treasury should have no say so in who gets
taxpayer money??) The looming liquidity crisis is simply too great for that kind of bureaucratic,
politicized decision-making. (Wall Street Journal)
Get it? In other words, the folks at
Treasury are just too stupid or too prejudiced to understand the subtleties of a bigass bailout like this.
Is that arrogance or what?
This is the contempt these people have
for you and me and everyone else who isn't a part of their elitist gaggle of reprobates. Here's a clip from
another article at the WSJ that helps to show how the financial media is pushing this gigantic handout to
corporate America:.
"The Federal Reserve, Treasury
Department and banking regulators deserve congratulations for their bold, necessary actions to provide
liquidity to the U.S. financial system amid the coronavirus crisis. But more remains to be done. We thus
recommend: (1) immediate congressional action . to authorize the Treasury to use the Exchange
Stabilization Fund to guarantee prime money-market funds, (2) regulatory action to effect temporary
reductions in bank capital and liquidity requirements (NOTE–So now the banks don't need to hold capital
against their loans?) .. additional Fed lending to banks and nonbanks .(Note -by "nonbanks", does the
author mean underwater hedge funds?)
We recommend that the Fed take
further actions as lender of last resort. First, it should re-establish the Term Auction Facility, used
in the 2008 crisis, allowing depository institutions to borrow against a broad range of collateral at an
auction price (Note–They want to drop the requirement for good Triple A collateral.) Second, it should
consider further exercising its Section 13(3) authority to provide additional liquidity to nonbanks,
potentially including purchases of corporate debt through a special-purpose vehicle" (
"Do
More to Avert a Liquidity Crisis"
, Wall Street Journal
)
This isn't a bailout, it's a joke, and
there's no way Congress should approve these measures, particularly the merging of the US Treasury with the
cutthroat Fed. That's a prescription for disaster! The Fed needs to be abolished not embraced as a state
institution. It's madness!
And look how the author wants to set up
an special-purpose vehicle (SPV) so the accounting chicanery can be kept off the books which means the
public won't know how much money is being flushed down the toilet trying to resuscitate these insolvent
corporations whose executives are still living high on the hog on the money they stole from credulous
investors. This whole scam stinks to high heaven!
Meanwhile America's working people will
get a whopping $1,000 bucks to tide them over until the debts pile up to the rafters and they're forced to
rob the neighborhood 7-11 to feed the kids. How fair is that?
And don't kid yourself: This isn't a
bailout, it's the elitist's political agenda aimed at creating a permanent underclass who'll work for
peanuts just to eek out a living.
In 2008-2009, the Federal Reserve bailed out the global banking system to the tune of $16 Trillion. But
American citizens were left to pay usurious rates of interest on $1 Trillion of credit card debt. And
American students had lost years of economic opportunity but their $1 Trillion dollars of debt could not be
discharged through bankruptcy.
This time the banks should stand behind the debtors at the government
troth.
It's hard to understand how holiday cruise shipping can be regarded as an essential business.
It is almost as hard to understand why a "Globalist Enterprise" should be spared its fate through the
generosity of of one country. Even harder to understand, why would that one country should bail out a
business, which had employed both tax-avoidance schemes as well as strategy import substitution and foreign
investment to improve its profits at the expense of that country.
Nationalism is better that globalism. The current crisis was not caused by globalism; but globalism has
drained from our country the means to respond to the crisis with the medicines and equipment that would
reduce its severity.
Not a single cent of government aid should go toward a person or an entity outside the United States and
it territories. Conditions should be placed upon such aid, so that the companies receiving it, must
domesticate their supply chains, and must produce and develop their products within the United States.
@anachronism
Make the universities discharge the student debt. It was their scam all along. They can begin by retrenching
their schools of the humanities and at least halving their administrative staff. And end building and sports
programs. The fat hangs heavy on that particular pig.
The student and the university should share responsibility equally. In
the future, the institution should be made a co-signor on any student loan; and the obligation to repay
the loan should be joint and several for both the institution and the student.
Bankruptcy provides the ex-student with the chance to start over and to escape the burden; but not
without consequences. This will discourage the ex-student, who is doing well financially and has the
means to service the debt, from just walking away.
The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by
expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding
values
. It is separate from the newsroom.
Most American restaurants do not offer paid sick leave. Workers who fall sick face a simple
choice: Work and get paid or stay home and get stiffed. Not surprisingly, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
reported in 2014 that fully 20 percent of food service workers had come to work at least once in the previous year "
while
sick with vomiting or diarrhea
."
As the new coronavirus spreads across the United States, the time has come for restaurants,
retailers and other industries that rely on low-wage labor to abandon their parsimonious resistance to paid sick leave.
Companies that do not pay sick workers to stay home are endangering their workers, their customers and the health of the
broader public.
Studies show
that paying for sick employees to stay home significantly reduces the spread of the seasonal flu. There's
every reason to think it would help to check the new coronavirus, too.
"... To writer Michael Lind, Trump's victory, along with Brexit and other populist stirrings in Europe, was an outright declaration of "class war" by alienated working-class voters against what he calls a "university-credentialed overclass" of managerial elites. ..."
"... Lind cautions against a turn to populism, which he believes to be too personality-centered and intellectually incoherent -- not to mention, too demagogic -- to help solve the terminal crisis of "technocratic neoliberalism" with its rule by self-righteous and democratically unaccountable "experts" with hyperactive Twitter handles. Only a return to what Lind calls "democratic pluralism" will help stem the tide of the populist revolt. ..."
"... Many on the left have been incapable of coming to terms with Hillary Clinton's defeat. The result has been the stifling climate of a neo-McCarthyism, in which the only explanation for Trump's success was an unholy alliance of "Putin stooges" and unrepentant "white supremacists." ..."
"... To Lind, the case is much more straightforward: while the vast majority of Americans supports Social Security spending and containing unskilled immigration, the elites of the bipartisan swamp favor libertarian free trade policies combined with the steady influx of unskilled migrants to help suppress wage levels in the United States. Trump had outflanked his opponents in the Republican primaries and Clinton in the general election by tacking left on the economy (he refused to lay hands on Social Security) and right on immigration. ..."
"... Then, in the 1930s, while the world was writhing from the consequences of the Great Depression, a series of fascist parties took the reigns in countries from Germany to Spain. To spare the United States a similar descent into barbarism, President Franklin D. Roosevelt implemented the New Deal, in which the working class would find a seat at the bargaining table under a government-supervised tripartite system where business and organized labor met seemingly as equals and in which collective bargaining would help the working class set sector-wide wages. ..."
"... This class compromise ruled unquestioned for the first decades of the postwar era. It was made possible thanks to the system of democratic pluralism, which allowed working-class and rural constituencies to actively partake in mass-membership organizations like unions as well as civic and religious institutions that would empower these communities to shape society from the ground up. ..."
"... But then, amid the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, a "neoliberal revolution from above" set in that sought to reverse the class compromise. The most powerful weapon in the arsenal of the newly emboldened managerial class was "global labor arbitrage" in which production is outsourced to countries with lower wage levels and laxer regulations; alternatively, profits can be maximized by putting downward pressure on domestic wages through the introduction of an unskilled, non-unionized immigrant workforce that competes for jobs with its unionized domestic counterparts. By one-sidedly canceling the class compromise that governed the capitalist societies after World War II, Lind concludes, the managerial elite had brought the recent populist backlash on itself. ..."
"... American parties are not organized parties built around active members and policy platforms; they are shifting coalitions of entrepreneurial candidate campaign organizations. Hence, the Democratic and Republican Parties are not only capitalist ideologically; they are capitalistically run enterprises. ..."
"... In the epigraph to the book, Lind cites approvingly the 1949 treatise The Vital Center by historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. who wrote that "class conflict, pursued to excess, may well destroy the underlying fabric of common principle which sustains free society." Schlesinger was just one among many voices who believed that Western societies after World War II were experiencing the "end of ideology." From now on, the reasoning went, the ideological battles of yesteryear were settled in favor of a more disinterested capitalist (albeit New Deal–inflected) governance. This, in turn, gave rise to the managerial forces in government, the military, and business whose unchecked hold on power Lind laments. The midcentury social-democratic thinker Michael Harrington had it right when he wrote that "[t]he end of ideology is a shorthand way of saying the end of socialism." ..."
"... A cursory glance at the recent impeachment hearings bears witness to this, as career bureaucrats complained that President Trump unjustifiably sought to change the course of an American foreign policy that had been nobly steered by them since the onset of the Cold War. In their eyes, Trump, like the Brexiteers or the French yellow vest protesters, are vulgar usurpers who threaten the stability of the vital center from polar extremes. ..."
A FEW DAYS AFTER Donald Trump's electoral upset in 2016, Club for Growth co-founder Stephen
Moore told an
audience of Republican House members that the GOP was "now officially a Trump working class
party." No longer the party of traditional Reaganite conservatism, the GOP had been converted
instead "into a populist America First party." As he uttered these words, Moore says, "the
shock was palpable" in the room.
The Club for Growth had long dominated Republican orthodoxy by promoting low tax rates and
limited government. Any conservative candidate for political office wanting to reap the
benefits of the Club's massive fundraising arm had to pay homage to this doctrine. For one of
its formerly leading voices to pronounce the transformation of this orthodoxy toward a more
populist nationalism showed just how much the ground had shifted on election night.
To writer Michael Lind, Trump's victory, along with Brexit and other populist stirrings
in Europe, was an outright declaration of "class war" by alienated working-class voters against
what he calls a "university-credentialed overclass" of managerial elites. The title of
Lind's new book, The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite ,
leaves no doubt as to where his sympathies lie, though he's adamant that he's not some sort of
guru for a " smarter
Trumpism ," as some have labeled him.
Lind cautions against a turn to populism, which he believes to be too
personality-centered and intellectually incoherent -- not to mention, too demagogic -- to help
solve the terminal crisis of "technocratic neoliberalism" with its rule by self-righteous and
democratically unaccountable "experts" with hyperactive Twitter handles. Only a return to what
Lind calls "democratic pluralism" will help stem the tide of the populist revolt.
The New Class War is a breath of fresh air. Many on the left have been incapable of
coming to terms with Hillary Clinton's defeat. The result has been the stifling climate of a
neo-McCarthyism, in which the only explanation for Trump's success was an unholy alliance of
"Putin stooges" and unrepentant "white supremacists."
To Lind, the case is much more
straightforward: while the vast majority of Americans supports Social Security spending and
containing unskilled immigration, the elites of the bipartisan swamp favor libertarian free
trade policies combined with the steady influx of unskilled migrants to help suppress wage
levels in the United States. Trump had outflanked his opponents in the Republican primaries and
Clinton in the general election by tacking left on the economy (he refused to lay hands on
Social Security) and right on immigration.
The strategy has since been successfully repeated in the United Kingdom by Boris Johnson,
and it looks, for now, like a foolproof way for conservative parties in the West to capture or
defend their majorities against center-left parties that are too beholden to wealthy,
metropolitan interests to seriously attract working-class support. Berating the latter as
irredeemably racist certainly doesn't help either.
What happened in the preceding decades to produce this divide in Western democracies? Lind's
narrative begins with the New Deal, which had brought to an end what he calls "the first class
war" in favor of a class compromise between management and labor. This first class war is the
one we are the most familiar with: originating in the Industrial Revolution, which had produced
the wretchedly poor proletariat, it soon led to the rise of competing parties of organized
workers on the one hand and the liberal bourgeoisie on the other, a clash that came to a head
in the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Then, in the 1930s, while the world was writhing from the
consequences of the Great Depression, a series of fascist parties took the reigns in countries
from Germany to Spain. To spare the United States a similar descent into barbarism, President
Franklin D. Roosevelt implemented the New Deal, in which the working class would find a seat at
the bargaining table under a government-supervised tripartite system where business and
organized labor met seemingly as equals and in which collective bargaining would help the
working class set sector-wide wages.
This class compromise ruled unquestioned for the first decades of the postwar era. It was
made possible thanks to the system of democratic pluralism, which allowed working-class and
rural constituencies to actively partake in mass-membership organizations like unions as well
as civic and religious institutions that would empower these communities to shape society from
the ground up.
But then, amid the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, a "neoliberal revolution from above" set
in that sought to reverse the class compromise. The most powerful weapon in the arsenal of the
newly emboldened managerial class was "global labor arbitrage" in which production is
outsourced to countries with lower wage levels and laxer regulations; alternatively, profits
can be maximized by putting downward pressure on domestic wages through the introduction of an
unskilled, non-unionized immigrant workforce that competes for jobs with its unionized domestic
counterparts. By one-sidedly canceling the class compromise that governed the capitalist
societies after World War II, Lind concludes, the managerial elite had brought the recent
populist backlash on itself.
Likewise, only it can contain this backlash by returning to the bargaining table and
reestablishing the tripartite system it h
Grandfather sentenced to more than 500 years in jail ordered to be released
Supporters of President Donald Trump rally in Washington DC to protest
'There's a war on organizing, collective bargaining, unions and workers': Biden wants to undo Trump executive orders on federal workers
© Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images Are executive orders on labor rules in store for government workers in a Biden administration?
Chris Sweeney
© Getty Images/Peter Byrne/PA Images 26 Follow RT on
The traditional blue collar areas of the UK are complaining of being treated with less respect and urgency by Boris Johnson, than the more affluent parts of the country - but their argument doesn't stack up.
Britain has always been unfair, unequal and divided – Covid-19 has only served to show this in even more stark relief
GOT TIPS? Kieren McCarthy in San Francisco BIO EMAIL TWITTER
SHARE
'I don't recognise Amazon as a bullying workplace' says Bezos READ MORE
![]({"default":{"load":"defer","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB1b0thJ.img?h=100&w=100&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=t&l=f&x=199&y=69"}})
Grandfather sentenced to more than 500 years in jail ordered to be released
![]({"default":{"load":"defer","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB1b1021.img?h=100&w=100&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=t&l=f&x=1962&y=958"}})
Supporters of President Donald Trump rally in Washington DC to protest ![a man standing in front of a brick building: Are executive orders on labor rules in store for government workers in a Biden administration?]({"default":{"load":"default","w":"27","h":"19","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB1aZBsb.img?h=189&w=270&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f"}})
© Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images Are executive orders on labor rules in store for
government workers in a Biden administration?
![Joe Biden wearing a suit and tie smiling at the camera]({"default":{"load":"defer","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB1b0TZl.img?h=70&w=94&m=6&q=60&o=t&l=f&x=550&y=321"}} "Calls growing for Joe Biden to get intelligence briefings - Provided by FOX News")
![FOX News Logo]({"default":{"load":"defer","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAywOab.img?h=16&w=16&m=6&q=60&o=t&l=f"}})
![a group of people holding a sign: Supporters of Donald Trump walk through BLM Plaza, where opponents of the president are gathered, on their way to Freedom Plaza to participate in the "Million MAGA March." IMAGES]({"default":{"load":"defer","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB1b0XJd.img?h=70&w=94&m=6&q=60&o=t&l=f&x=1454&y=948"}} "Supporters and opponents of President Trump gather ahead of rally - BASTIEN INZAURRALDE")
![AFP Logo]({"default":{"load":"defer","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB18qTPD.img?h=16&w=16&m=6&q=60&o=t&l=f"}})
![a group of people standing in a room]({"default":{"load":"defer","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB1b10gW.img?h=70&w=94&m=6&q=60&o=t&l=f"}} "Courts reject Trump campaign lawsuits to block Pennsylvania mail-in ballots - Provided by FOX News")