Archive for the ‘Hunger’ Category
Children are our most important resource. Everyone says it, but we don’t really mean it. Exhibit one: the percentage of children under the age of 18 that live in poverty. In 2007, at the peak of our previous economic expansion, the child poverty rate was 18 percent. In 2009, it hit 20 percent. The figure below provides a look at child poverty rates in each state. New Hampshire has the lowest rate–11 percent. Mississippi has the highest rate–31 percent.
Children under the age of 18 are counted as poor if they live in families with income below U.S. poverty thresholds. There are a range of poverty thresholds which are based on family size and number of children. The thresholds are adjusted yearly using the change in the average annual Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). These poverty thresholds are far from generous. The 2009 poverty threshold for a family of two adults and two children was $21,756. Poverty thresholds for 2010 have not yet been published.
Sadly our poverty rates understate the seriousness of our poverty problem, for children and adults. The history of how we developed and calculate our official poverty thresholds provides perhaps the clearest proof of the inadequacy of current statistics. In broad brush, the Johnson administration, having announced a war on poverty in January 1964, needed a measure of poverty. In response, its newly created Office of Economic Opportunity [OEO] introduced the first poverty thresholds in 1965.
These thresholds were largely based on previous work of the Department of Agriculture [DOA]. The DOA had developed four low-cost weekly food plans, the least generous called the “economy plan.” That plan was designed for “temporary or emergency use when funds are low.” It had no allowance for eating outside the home. The Department had also determined, based on surveys, that families of three or more persons spent approximately one-third of their after-tax income on food. The OEO took the cost of the economy food plan for families of different sizes and multiplied the total by 52 to get a series of yearly food budgets. Then, it multiplied those food budgets by three to generate a series of poverty thresholds.
From 1966 to 1969, these poverty thresholds were adjusted annually by the yearly change in the cost of the food items contained in the economy food plan. After 1969 the poverty thresholds were simply adjusted by the rise in the consumer price index.
This methodology has produced a poverty standard that is deficient in several ways. First, it does not acknowledge that our knowledge of nutrition has significantly changed since 1965. Second, it does not acknowledge that most families now spend approximately one-fifth of their after-tax income on food, not one-third. That correction alone would mean that the food budget should be multiplied by 5 rather than 3, thereby producing higher thresholds and poverty rates. Third, it does not acknowledge that poverty is best thought of as a relative condition.
The National Academy of Sciences Panel on Poverty and Family Assistance has played a leading role in developing one of the most promising alternative poverty measures. A 2008 Bureau of Labor Statistics Working Paper refine and extend the Panel’s experimental methodology and use it to calculate poverty thresholds and estimates for the period 1996 to 2005.
The authors of the Working Paper start with a reference family, two adults and two children, the most common family unit in the United States. Then, using Consumer Expenditure Surveys, they calculate the dollar amount of spending on food, clothing, shelter, utilities and medical care by all reference families in a given year.
The poverty threshold for the reference family is set, following the work of the Panel, at the midpoint between the 30th and 35th percentile of the spending distribution for all families with two adults and two children. Small multipliers are then used to add spending estimates for other needs, such as transportation and personal care, slightly raising the poverty threshold. This threshold is adjusted to generate thresholds for families of other sizes and compositions.
Poverty rates are determined by comparing family resources with these poverty thresholds. In contrast to current poverty calculations which rely on pre-tax incomes (even though official thresholds are based on the share of after-tax income spent on food), the authors of the Working Paper define family resources as the sum of after-tax money income from all sources plus the value of near-money benefits (such as food stamps) that help the family meet its spending needs.
The chart below shows national poverty rates for the years 1996 to 2005. We see that the rates produced by this experimental methodology are significantly higher than the official rates. Strikingly, while the official 2005 poverty rate is lower than the 1996 official poverty rate, the 2005 experimental poverty rate is the highest in the period.
Returning to the issue of child poverty, the table below highlights the difference between the two measures for specific demographic groups over the same period. Notice that the child poverty rate calculated using the experimental measure is always higher than the official rate. As previously stated, the official 2009 child poverty rate is 20 percent. The experimental rate would no doubt be several percentage points higher, closing in on 25 percent.
What can one say about a situation where between one-fifth and one-fourth of all children in the United States live in poverty? And all signs point to a higher rate for 2010. Words like outrageous, unacceptable, an indicator of a flawed economic system all come to mind. What also comes to mind is the fact these poverty statistics rarely get the attention they deserve. So does the question of why that is so.
Congress has finally agreed on a deficit reduction plan that President Obama supports. As a result, the debt ceiling is being lifted, which means that the Treasury can once again borrow to meet its financial obligations.
Avoiding a debt default is a good thing. However, the agreement is bad and even more importantly the debate itself has reinforced understandings of our economy that are destructive of majority interests.
The media presented the deficit reduction negotiations as a battle between two opposing sides. President Obama, who wanted to achieve deficit reduction through a combination of public spending cuts and tax increases, anchored one side. The House Republicans, who would only accept spending cuts, anchored the other. We were encouraged to cheer for the side that we thought best represented our interests.
Unfortunately, there was actually little difference between the two sides in terms of the way they engaged and debated the relevant issues. Both sides agreed that we face a major debt crisis. Both sides agreed that out-of-control social programs are the main driver of our deficit and debt problems. And both sides agreed that the less government involvement in the economy the better.
The unanimity is especially striking since all three positions are wrong. We do not face a major debt crisis, social spending is not driving our deficits and debt, and we need more active government intervention in the economy not less to solve our economic problems.
Before discussing these issues it is important to highlight the broad terms of the deficit reduction agreement. The first step is limited to spending cuts. More specifically, discretionary spending is to be reduced by $900 billion over the next ten years. Approximately 35% of the reduction will come from security related budgets (military and homeland security), with the rest coming from non-security discretionary budgets (infrastructure, clean energy, research, education, as well as programs that help low income people with child care, housing, community service etc.). In exchange for these budget cuts the Congress has agreed to raise the debt ceiling by $1 trillion.
The agreement also established a 12 person committee (with 6 Democrats and 6 Republicans) to recommend ways to reduce future deficits by another $1.2-1.5 trillion. Its recommendations must be made by November 23, 2011 and they can include cuts to every social program (including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid), as well as tax increases.
Congress has to vote on the committee’s package of recommendations by December 23, 2011, up or down. If Congress approves them they will be implemented. If Congress does not approve them, automatic cuts of $1.2 trillion will be made; 50% of the cuts must come from security budgets and the other 50% must come from non-security discretionary budgets and Medicare. Regardless of how Congress votes on the recommendations, it must also vote on whether to approve a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. Once this vote is taken, the debt ceiling will be raised again by an amount slightly smaller than the deficit reduction.
Check out the following flowchart from the New York Times if you want a more complete picture of the process. If you are content with the above summary skip to the text below the flowchart for some analysis.
Many commentators, trying to explain why President Obama embraced an agreement so heavily weighted towards spending cuts (potentially including cuts in Social Security benefits), claim that he was outmaneuvered by Republicans. In reality, President Obama has long supported deficit reduction along the lines of this agreement.
As early as March 2009, his staff told David Brooks, a columnist for the New York Times, that the President was “extremely committed to entitlement reform and is plotting politically feasible ways to reduce Social Security as well as health spending.” In fact, according to Brooks:
The White House has produced a chart showing nondefense discretionary spending as a share of GDP. That’s spending for education, welfare, and all the stuff that Democrats love. Since 1985, this spending as hovered around 3.7% of GDP. . . . The White House claims that it is going to reduce this spending to 3.1%, lower than at any time in any recent Republican administration. I was invited to hang this chart on my wall and judge them by how well they meet these targets.
The White House Fact Sheet issued to explain why the President supports the recently negotiated deficit reduction agreement reveals the consistency in Obama’s position. It notes favorably that this agreement “puts us on track to reduce non-defense discretionary spending to its lowest level since Dwight Eisenhower was President.”
Those who favor reducing spending on government programs generally argue that we have no choice because our public spending and national debt are out of control, threatening our economic future. But, the data says otherwise.
The chart below, from the economist Menzie Chinn at Econbrowser, shows the movement in the ratio of publically held debt to GDP over the period 1970 to 2011; the area in yellow marks the Obama administration. While this ratio has indeed grown rapidly, it remains well below the 100% level that most economists take to be the warning level. In fact, according to Congressional Budget Office predictions, we are unlikely to reach such a level for decades even if we maintain our current spending and revenue patterns.
The sharp growth in the ratio over the last few years strongly suggests that our current high deficits are largely due to recent developments, in particular the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Great Recession. Their contribution can be seen in the chart below from the New York Times.
The effects of the tax cuts and economic crisis on our deficits (and by extension debt) are especially visible in the following chart (again from Menzie Chinn), which plots yearly changes in federal spending and federal revenue as a percentage of GDP (the shaded areas mark periods of recession). As we can see, the recent deficit explosion was initially driven more by declining revenues than out of control spending. Attempts to close the budget gap solely or even primarily through spending cuts, especially of social programs, is bound to fail.
Tragically, the debate over how best to reduce the deficit has encouraged people to blame social spending for our large deficits and those large deficits for our current economic problems. As a result, demands for real structural change in the way our economy operates are largely dismissed as irrelevant.
Recent economic data should be focusing our attention on the dangers of a new recession. According to the Commerce Department our economy grew at an annual rate of just 1.3% in second quarter of this year, following a first quarter in which the economy grew by only 0.3%. These are incredibly slow rates of growth for an economy recovering from a major recession. To put these numbers in perspective, Dean Baker notes that we need growth of over 2.5% to keep our already high unemployment rate from growing.
Cutting spending during a period of economic stagnation, especially on infrastructure, research, and social programs, is a recipe for greater hardship. In fact, such a policy will likely further weaken our economy, leading to greater deficits. This is what happened in the UK, Ireland, and Greece—countries with weak economies that tried to solve their deficit problems by slashing public spending.
We need more active government intervention, which means more spending to redirect and restructure the economy; a new, more progressive tax structure; and a major change in our foreign policy, if we are going to solve our economic problems. Unfortunately for now we don’t have a movement powerful enough to ensure our side has a player in the struggles that set our political agenda.
On May 6, 2011, I spoke at the First Unitarian Church in Portland along with Chuck Collins (from the Institute for Policy Studies) as part of a program sponsored by the church’s Real Wealth of Portland group. We both addressed the following theme: “Economic Insecurity Continues…and Communities Respond.”
Chuck talked about a very important initiative: Common Security Clubs. The First Unitarian Church has sponsored similar clubs for approximately one year.
What follows is the talk I gave:
The Challenges Ahead
I want to begin by summarizing my three main points—
First, our economic problems are serious and structural, and a long time in the making. They did not start with the 2007 collapse of the housing bubble, which means that we should not assume that so called “normal market forces” will eventually return us to an acceptable economic state. In other words, without major structural changes in the way our economy works we face a future of stagnation with ever worsening conditions for growing numbers of people.
Second, business and political leaders are not committed to making any serious changes in our economic structure. That is not because they are stupid. Rather it reflects a real class interest in maintaining the status quo. It is not that they are unaware of or unconcerned with our current social problems but rather that they view the cost of making necessary changes to our economy as too high.
Third, meaningful solutions will require building a movement that challenges our current reliance on profit driven market outcomes. This movement has to be built by organizing strong social and community institutions, ones that give people the chance to develop in common a correct understanding of the causes of our problems and the organizational weight and confidence to promote the needed transformation of our economy.
The National Bureau of Economic Research, the official designator of recessions and expansions, declared that our economy went into recession in December 2007 and that this recession ended and an expansion began in June 2009. In other words we have been in an expansion for almost two years. Normally, the deeper the recession, the stronger the recovery. However, as I am sure you are aware, the recession was very deep and to this point the recovery has been extremely weak.
The federal government has poured trillions of dollars into the economy to end the recession and boost the recovery. The government’s great accomplishment has been a strong recovery of profits. In fact, total domestic corporate profits are now about as high as they were in 2006 before the start of the crisis, and financial profits as a share of total profits are pushing 35%, which is close to the pre-crisis high of 40%.
But beyond this restoration of corporate profitability, and the recovery of finance as our leading economic sector, little has happened to generate sustained and beneficial growth for the great majority of us. For example, total bank excess reserves averaged around $10 billion a year in the decades prior to the crisis. Now they are pushing $1.4 trillion. The banks are just holding this money. One reason is that since October 2008 the Federal Reserve Board is paying them interest on those reserves. Similarly non-financial corporations now have the highest ratio of cash to assets in post-war history; they are not using that money to invest in new plant and equipment.
What this means is that our leading financial and non-financial corporations have plenty of money, but see no privately profitable productive investment opportunities. At the same time, they are in no hurry to pursue policy changes because despite the slow recovery they are doing quite well. Thus, as things stand, there is little reason to believe that this government supported expansion will be long lasting or beneficial for working people.
I cannot emphasize enough the fact that we are in an expansion; these are the good times—the period of recovery, when our income is supposed to go up, when unemployment is supposed to significantly decline, when we have money to rebuild our infrastructure, fund our health care and other social programs, and build a solid collective nest egg to cover the hard times which will of course come. The fact that this is not happening—that we continue to struggle during this period of economic expansion—is indicative of the fact that our economic system as presently structured is not one we can count on; in other words it is a flawed system.
With this perspective, you can see why the small increases in employment and production that are cheered by policy makers mean little—of course we are going to see some increases. But for how long and with what effect? Given the lack of corporate interest in investment or lending I think that there is little reason to be optimistic. And now, there is even an increasingly strong movement to slash government spending. Those who support that policy claim that we just have to put the collapse of the bubble economy behind us, tighten our fiscal belts, and let market forces return our economy to normal—but what is normal?
Let us consider the previous economic expansion. That expansion lasted from 2001 to 2007. If we compare it to the nine other post-war expansions, it ranks dead last in terms of the growth in GDP, investment, employment, wage and salary income, and compensation. It ranks highly in only one category—and that was the growth in profits. In fact, median household income actually fell over this period of economic expansion. And it is important to recall that this expansion was long lasting only because it was supported by a debt-driven housing bubble. We no longer have that bubble to support growth. Therefore, the new normal appears to be ever weaker growth and deteriorating living and working conditions for the great majority of us. I don’t find that to be acceptable.
Significantly, more and more people are arguing that our current problems are caused by government deficits that are too big, taxes that are too high, and unions that are too strong,. They are therefore pushing for a major reduction and privatization of government social programs, tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, and a weakening of unions, especially those in the public sector.
This would be a recipe for disaster. Where these policies have been implemented, in places like Ireland, Greece, and the UK, the result has been only more problems: lower growth, greater deficits, and of course worsening social conditions. That is not a surprising outcome. If you have an economy where there is weak domestic demand because banks will not lend and corporations will not invest, workers are deep in debt, unemployment is high, and exports are limited, and then you cut government spending—it should not surprise anyone that things go from bad to worse.
And, it is not like we haven’t tried similar policies here in the United States. We have been cutting taxes, government programs, and union strength for more than two decades, and we can see the effects—ever weaker growth, greater inequality, and worsening living and working conditions for the great majority.
The fact is that government spending is one of the main reasons that we still have an economic expansion. Debt fears are being hyped to scare us.
So, why are there powerful social forces arguing for these policies? I think there are two main reasons. The first is to ensure that our anger is not directed at the corporate sector. When this crisis broke in 2008 people were angry, and they were angry at our corporations. There were demands for nationalization of the banks and auto industry and calls for greater government intervention in the economy to save homes, employ people, in short, chart a new economic course for the country.
What happened was quite different. The president immediately made clear that he was not going to interfere with market processes—in finance, in auto production, in the housing market, in health care, or in job creation. Rather he did all he could to bail out those corporations that were in trouble because of their own reckless pursuit of profit. And his efforts succeeded. Profits are back up and finance continues to dominate. Unfortunately for us, those efforts did little to address our needs.
I think that the corporate sector is getting nervous. They are fearful that their large profits in the face of our deteriorating social conditions might lead to a renewal of demands for social change. And lets be clear—any significant social change is going to require a significant change in government policy. For example, strengthening our economy will require an end to free trade agreements; rebuilding our infrastructure; a new green industrial policy directed at retrofitting our buildings, developing solar and wind power and mass transit; and a shrinking and redirection of finance. Rebuilding our communities will require new labor laws to support unionization and higher minimum wages; support for education, health care, and transportation rather than military activity; and an increase in taxes on corporations and the wealthy to help pay for many of the needed initiatives.
This is not what the corporate sector wants. Therefore, they are trying to steer us in a different direction—to encourage us to believe that the reason our economy is not doing better is that our government deficits are too great and workers have too much power. It is ironic. We have government deficits not because of runaway social programs but because the government had to bail out the private sector. It was this spending that kept us out of depression and enriched our corporations. And now the leading lights of the private sector are trying to convince us that the main cause of our slow growth is this very same deficit spending. So, the first reason for this anti-government offensive is to keep us from focusing on corporate behavior and the contradictions of market processes by encouraging us to blame the government and unions for our problems.
The second reason is that the push for marginalizing government programs will likely open up new private profit making opportunities for our large corporations. For example, the privatization of our military, our education system, our health care system, our retirement and social insurance systems all mean public dollars flowing into private coffers. And as a bonus corporations would likely get new tax breaks.
To state the obvious: corporations are defending policies that help them make profits at majority expense. I think the best way to grasp this reality is to focus on General Electric. GE is not only one of our nation’s largest corporation, its head, Jeffrey Immelt, was picked by President Obama to head his President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. President Obama said he picked him because “He understands what it takes for America to compete in the global economy.”
That may be true, but what is GE’s competitiveness strategy?
First, it is to avoid taxes. GE reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion in 2010, including $5.1 billion from its operations in the United States. Yet, it paid no US taxes; in fact it claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.
It accomplished this through a very aggressive working of our tax policy. Here is what the New York Times said:
G.E.’s giant tax department, led by a bow-tied former Treasury official named John Samuels, is often referred to as the world’s best tax law firm. Indeed, the company’s slogan “Imagination at Work” fits this department well. The team includes former officials not just from the Treasury, but also from the I.R.S. and virtually all the tax-writing committees in Congress.
Second, it is to shift operations from production to finance. According to the New York Times:
General Electric has been a household name for generations, with light bulbs, electric fans, refrigerators and other appliances in millions of American homes. But today the consumer appliance division accounts for less than 6 percent of revenue, while lending accounts for more than 30 percent. . . . Because its lending division, GE Capital, has provided more than half of the company’s profit in some recent years, many Wall Street analysts view G.E. not as a manufacturer but as an unregulated lender that also makes dishwashers and M.R.I. machines.
Third, it is to move its operations and profits outside the US. Since 2002, the company has eliminated a fifth of its work force in the United States while increasing overseas employment. Over that same period G.E.’s accumulated offshore profits have risen from $15 billion to $92 billion.
GE is far from unique in employing this strategy. For example, the Wall Street Journal reports that U.S. MNCs cut their work forces in the United States by 2.9 million during the 2000s while increasing employment overseas by 2.4 million.
So, we are in a battle over the nature and direction of our economy. Successive governments, in response to corporate demands, have worked to promote more mobility for corporations, lower taxes for corporations, and the growing power of finance—all at our expense. And despite our current economic problems, our government continues to push for more of the same. In sum, while we might be experiencing a crisis caused by capitalism it is not a crisis for capitalism.
So, what shall we do? In fact, we are not short of ideas. We have all sorts of progressive policy suggestions. The problem is that those with power are not interested in our suggestions. This means that we need to organize if we are to succeed in making a real change. Here are a few of my suggestions about next steps.
First, we need to make sure that people understand the structural nature of the problems we face. We have to make sure that unions, neighborhood associations, and places of worship become venues where people can talk, learn, develop their understandings and most importantly connections.
Second, we need to build alliances around critical demands—changes in government priorities, for example, such as cutting military spending in favor of social programs, raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations, and defending Medicare and Social Security. These alliances shouldn’t be hard to build.
Third, we need to be creative in who and how we organize. We need organizations where people can produce themselves more fully as actors. In the 1930s, for example, we had councils of the unemployed. They fought for greater government spending, unemployment insurance, and in support of unionization for workers with jobs. Now, we have large numbers of homeless and hungry. We need to do more that take food to food banks—we need to help the hungry and homeless organize themselves into powerful social movements.
We also need to help students, for example, see that their likely future of job insecurity, low wages, and lack of health care can be changed if they join with others, including unions, and health care advocates, and perhaps their parents, to demand a change in the direction of the economy. And we need our unions to recognize that many of our young workers will be moving from job to job, and company to company, in temporary positions, which means that unions will have to develop new forms of organization.
Fourth, we need to focus our attention on the public sector. I think that one of our key challenges is to develop new coalitions between public sector unions and those who use public services. While I believe that we need to fight against spending cuts for important programs I also know that our existing programs are far from perfect. Moreover, just maintaining the same level of spending is not the same as transforming our economy. We need more accountable and responsive public programs and I think the key to that, to the democratizing of the state, is a community-public sector worker alliance.
For example, imagine if those that cared about the environment; worker rights; an end to militarization; and gay, lesbian, transgender rights could engage public school teachers who were responsive to these views and collectively develop curriculum that advanced those views, thereby producing young people able and eager to contribute to making a better society. And also imagine that in return, those in the community committed to working to ensure good funding for schools and political protection and decent salaries for our teachers. We would not only help to improve the school system but also develop a new and positive understanding of the benefits of public services. The same process can be encouraged around transportation by finding ways to bring bus riders and bus drivers together. The same for social workers and their clients. You get the idea. Public sector workers could become our defenders—blowing the whistle if our money is not being property spent and helping us find ways to play a meaningful role in determining the actual nature and delivery of the services we want and pay for.
We really have little choice but to help build resistance to current political tendencies and shape more positive visions. There are very few of us that can avoid the consequences of failure.
Understandably, jobs, or the lack of them, is a big topic of conversation. But, times are hard even for those with jobs. Simply put, more and more working people are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.
Thanks to a study commissioned by the non-profit group Wider Opportunities for Women, we now have a new set of income standards that are far more useful than the poverty line or minimum wage for gauging how well working people are faring. The authors of the study created “thresholds for economic stability.” In other words they actually estimated how much different households needed to secure a minimum but meaningful standard of living, one that included some savings for retirement and emergencies. A summary of their work is highlighted in the table below.
As the New York Times explains:
According to the report, a single worker needs an income of $30,012 a year — or just above $14 an hour — to cover basic expenses and save for retirement and emergencies. That is close to three times the 2010 national poverty level of $10,830 for a single person, and nearly twice the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.
A single worker with two young children needs an annual income of $57,756, or just over $27 an hour, to attain economic stability, and a family with two working parents and two young children needs to earn $67,920 a year, or about $16 an hour per worker.
That compares with the national poverty level of $22,050 for a family of four. The most recent data from the Census Bureau found that 14.3 percent of Americans were living below the poverty line in 2009.
To develop its thresholds, the authors of the study used a variety of public data. For example:
For housing, which along with utilities is usually a family’s largest expense, the authors came up with “a decent standard of shelter which is accessible to those with limited income” by averaging data from the Department of Housing and Urban Developmentthat identified a monthly cost equivalent for rent at the fortieth percentile among all rents paid in each metropolitan area across the country.
They chose a “low cost” food plan from the nutritional guidelines of the Department of Agriculture, and calculated commuting costs “assuming the ownership of a small sedan.” For health care, they calculated expenses for workers both with and without employer-based benefits.
Given that the poverty lines fall far short of the thresholds established by the report, and these thresholds are themselves bare-bones, there can be little doubt that the actual U.S. poverty rate far exceeds the official estimate of 14.3 percent.
Faced with this reality, the current moves to cut social programs and break unions seems down right criminal.
Perhaps like me, you are watching the events in Egypt wondering if the popular forces in the streets and squares can develop the organizational force and political clarity needed to push out the existing regime and remake Egyptian society. Initially, it seemed that their number and determination would be enough. Now, it is less certain.
The elites within Egypt are showing great staying power and appear to have secured the support of elites in the U.S. and Europe. Increasingly, it appears that they are willing to sacrifice some of their own, in a civilized manner of course, and implement some reforms, to ensure the survival of the regime. Will that be enough to demobilize the people? How should the movement for change respond?
We in the United States faced our own moment of possibilities, although it passed so quickly and so quietly few remember. We had a huge economic crisis, a crisis brought on by an economic system that generated ever growing profits at ever greater social cost. People came out into the streets demanding change. There were calls for restructuring the financial system, the tax system, labor markets, trade policies, government spending priorities, foreign policy, . . . the list goes on.
But U.S. elites held strong and we never managed to develop the force and clarity necessary to move events in a progressive direction. The government quickly came to the rescue of the banks and other corporations, bailing them out at a cost of trillions of dollars of public money. As a consequence, the economy has stabilized (at least for the present), a few reforms have been made, and . . . well, the same economic structure remains in place.
The government tells us that thanks to its intervention things will soon return to “normal.” In short, there is no need for major change. Such a message conveniently overlooks the fact that this normal, marked by the period 2001-2007, was not very good for the great majority of people. Real income declined, economic insecurity grew, poverty increased, investment stagnated, debt exploded—the only positive was the rapid increase in profits captured by the top 1-5 percent. Should this really be our standard?
Given how little change has taken place, it should not surprise us that the economy is performing pretty much as it did before the crisis. The following three charts come from the Michael Roberts Blog. As the first chart shows, profits have recovered quite nicely since the crisis. Although the ratio of profits to GDP has not quite reached its pre-crisis peak, it is definitely on the way.
Unfortunately, much as in the pre-crisis period, this profit recovery has done little to support healthy economic growth. One indictator: The chart below shows that non-residential private investment remains at relatively depressed levels.
Another indicator: The chart below shows that labor conditions also remain depressed. The pink line shows the employment to population ratio. In many ways it is a better indicator of the employment creation potential of the economy than the unemployment rate. Despite the so-called economic recovery, this ratio has yet to show any meaningful improvement. The male participation rate, illustrated by the green line, continues to hit record lows.
The recent crisis was trigger by the collapse of the debt driven housing bubble. It was overcome largely because of massive government spending. Elites are now pressing for cutbacks in this spending. If they succeed, we will likely face a new downturn–and a new moment of possibilities.
While contemplating the options facing the Egyptian people, we would do well to begin thinking about how best to prepare ourselves for what lies ahead in this country.
The Economic Policy Institute has, for many years, published a very useful annual volume detailing “The State of Working America.”
This year, it has created a State of Working America web page to make it easier for people to access its many (more than 200) charts on various economic and social trends, including income, jobs, poverty, productivity, unionization, access to health care, economic mobility, wealth, and more. It is well worth checking out.
There is also an interactive chart, When Income Grows, Who Gains, that “tracks income trends from 1917 through 2008 and lets users compare patterns of income distribution for any period within that 91-year time frame. Between 1986 and 2000, for example, the richest 10% of Americans saw 77% of the country’s average income growth, but in recent years they have captured much more. Between 2000 and 2007, all of the country’s income growth went to the top 10%, while average incomes for the lower 90% actually declined.”
If current policies remain in place one can only imagine a continuation, if not sharpening, of these income trends. And given that President Obama has appointed William Daley, a former banker for JP Morgan Chase, as his chief of staff, and Jeffery Immelt, CEO of General Electric, as head of his outside panel of economic advisers, there is little reason to expect anything else.
President Obama has agreed to a tax deal that pushes us further down the road to social disaster.
In exchange for keeping the Bush tax cuts for 98 percent of the population for two additional years, President Obama has agreed to maintain lower tax rates for the top 2 percent as well. In two years, when it is election time and the economy remains stagnate, the pressure to make those tax cuts permanent will be immense. It is hard to imagine President Obama successfully resisting that pressure. Once those tax cuts become permanent, the demands to cut social spending in order to reduce the growth in the federal deficit (made worse by the tax cuts) will intensify.
The tax deal also includes a one year extension of extended unemployment benefits. Unfortunately, unemployment is predicted to remain high for at least two more years. The odds are great that these extended benefits will not be renewed and millions of people will join the millions already living in poverty.
The tax deal also includes a two year, two percentage-point reduction in the Social Security payroll tax. The Treasury will borrow the billions needed to compensate the Social Security system for the lack of revenue. However, when the two years are up, and it is election time, the pressure will be great to make those tax cuts permanent, although without further Treasury compensation. Not long after that happens, it is easy to imagine a steady drum beat of new claims of Social Security insolvency, adding strength to existing calls for cuts in Social Security benefits and the eventual privatization of the system. [Correction 12/13/10: the payroll tax reduction is for one year, not two as stated above.]
The tax deal also reduces the inheritance tax on big estates while raising the value at which the tax would take effect. The result will be a major loss of tax revenue, adding to pressures for cuts in social programs to reign in the federal deficit.
President Obama argues that all these measures will put money into people’s hands, promoting spending—a second stimulus in other words.
But the tax cut deals will only maintain what we already have—that is no stimulus. The other parts of the deal will certainly help to keep spending from sinking further, but they do nothing to promote a revitalization and restructuring of our economy. As a consequence, in two years we will face problems similar to those we face now, but with an even more distorted tax code and hightened threats to our Social Security system.
So, who thinks that this is a good idea? Well the White House has set up a web page to show off the support the President has received from economists. There are five names on it. As the economist Bill Black explains:
The web page cites the support of five economists. Peter Cardillo, the Bank of America, Greg Mankiw, and Wells Fargo (are the second through fifth economists on Obama’s list). . . .
Cardillo is an economist for an investment firm, Avalon Partners. Avalon’s web site states that it specializes in “wealth management” for “affluent investors…to meet the unique needs of high net worth individuals….” Yes, the wealthiest one-hundredth of one percent of Americans — the truly, uniquely needy.
The Bank of America (BoA) is next on the administration’s list of supporters. BoA’s senior leadership will personally save millions of dollars in taxes and its wealthy clients will save billions of dollars in taxes because of Obama’s decision to support the continuation of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. . . .
Professor Mankiw, Chairman of George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors, is the next supporter that the Obama administration highlights. Mankiw was a leading apologist for the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
Wells Fargo is next on Obama’s roll of honor. Wells Fargo’s senior leaders, like BoA and Avalon Partners’ senior leaders, have personal and professional interests in supporting tax cuts for the wealthy. Wells Fargo is overjoyed by Obama’s agreement to extend tax cuts for the wealthy. All of these endorsements simply emphasize the extent to which Obama was taken to the cleaners. It’s bad to be bullied, but it’s pathetic to cite the testimonials of those that got even wealthier through the bullies’ triumph as evidence of your success.
It is hard to know what to say. However, I think there is more going on here than a simple matter of bullying.
There is increasing talk among politicians about the desirability of raising the social security retirement age.
The “normal retirement age,” which is the age when you can collect full retirement benefits, was set at 65 in 1940. It remained that way until 1983, when Congress decided to raise it in two month increments beginning with people born in 1938. People born after 1959 now have a normal retirement age of 67.
With false claims of social security insolvency being thrown around, pressure is building to raise the age again, perhaps to 70 years.
What would that mean for working people?
Hye Jin Rho of the Center for Economic and Policy Research has done an interesting study looking into the employment situation of older workers. He combined data on worker occupations/demographics from the 2009 Current Population Survey with 2010 data from the Occupational Information Network (OIN) database which classifies jobs according to their occupational requirements.
Rho, following other researchers, uses the OIN to highlight jobs that can be considered to be “physically demanding” or have “difficult working conditions.” Physically demanding jobs include those that require “dynamic strength, explosive strength, static strength, trunk strength, bending or twisting, kneeling or crouching, quick reaction time, or gross body equilibrium” or more general sustained physical activity such as “handling and moving objects, or demand workers to spend significant time standing, walking and running, or making repetitive motions.”
Difficult working conditions are those that involve “cramped workspace, labor outdoors (exposed to the weather or covered) or indoors in not environment-controlled conditions, or exposure to abnormal temperatures, contaminants, hazardous conditions, hazardous equipment, or distracting or uncomfortable noise.”
Rho found that of the 18.8 million workers who are 58 or older (in 2009), over 45.3 percent have physically demanding jobs and/or difficult working conditions. The older the worker cohort, the higher the percentage. For example, for those 58-61 years of age the percentage is 44.5. For those 66-69 years of age the percentage is 45.8.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the lower the income level, the higher the percentage of older workers with physically demanding jobs and/or difficult working conditions. Almost 65 percent of workers 58 or older in the bottom income quintile have physically demanding jobs and/or difficult working conditions.
Social security is not in crisis—yet, we have political and business leaders advocating an extension of the normal retirement age that can only be described as punitive. Many workers will be unable to work long enough, given the nature of their jobs, to actually draw their full retirement benefits—but I guess that is the point for those out to destroy social security.
What an indictment of our system–we produce incredible wealth and yet those with power are unwilling to allow workers a well-earned retirement.
Recently released census data offers a disturbing picture of current economic and social conditions. For example, the inflation-adjusted income of the median household declined 4.8 percent between 2000 and 2009.
Most of that decline took place between 2007-2009, when median household income fell 4.2 percent. Household income normally takes a big hit during recessions. But, as the Wall Street Journal explains,
there is a difference this time: In the prior three recessions, incomes fell after years of upswing, then resumed growing once the downturn ended. The decline this time comes on top of a long period in which incomes stagnated even through the recovery of 2003 to 2007.
It is worth restating this point—inflation adjusted median household income was falling even when the economy was growing.
What we are facing is a lost decade. How have people been coping? The recession has been particularly hard on younger workers and many have been forced to move in with their parents. Again, according to the Wall Street Journal,
The number of 25-to-34-year-olds living with their parents rose 8.4% to 5.5 million in 2010 from 2008. Within that age group, 42.8% fell below the poverty threshold.
In fact, people of all ages are merging households: The number of multifamily households rose 11.6 percent from 2008 to 2010, while the total number of households rose only 0.6 percent.
Perhaps one of the more dramatic statistics to emerge from census data is the extent of child poverty. The percentage of children under six living in poverty rose from 21.3 percent in 2008 to 23.8 percent in 2009. In other words, approximately one out of every four children under the age of six in this country is living in poverty—and that is according to a definition of poverty that is far from adequate.
The overall percentage of Americans living in poverty rose from 13.2 percent in 2008 to 14.3 percent in 2009—that is the highest rate since 1994. We are talking about 44 million people or one in seven. Highlighting the continuing importance of racial and ethnic differences, while the poverty rate for non-Hispanic whites was 9.4 percent, it was 25.8 percent for blacks and 25.3 percent for Hispanics. The rate for Asians remained at 12.5 percent.
In case you were wondering, the 2009 poverty line for a single adult was $10,830 in pretax cash income; for a family of four it was $22,050.
Sadly, but not surprisingly, as the New York Times reports:
There are strong signs that the high poverty numbers have continued into 2010 and are probably still rising, some experts said, as the recovery sputters and unemployment remains near 10 percent. . . . One indirect sign of continuing hardship is the rise in food stamp recipients, who now include nearly one in seven adults and an even greater share of the nation’s children. While other factors as well as declining incomes have driven the rise, by mid-2010 the number of recipients had reached 41.3 million, compared with 39 million at the beginning of the year. Food banks, too, report swelling demand.
Quite a mess.
The editors of Fortune magazine had hired the cartoonist Chris Ware to design the cover of the magazine’s May 2010 issue, which includes its annual listing of the country’s top 500 corporations as ranked by revenue.
They were no doubt hoping to get a cover that resonated with some of the magazine’s past cover glamor–You can see examples of past Fortune magazine covers here.
Well, Ware produced a stunner, but his inclusion of exploited Mexican factory workers, Guantanamo Bay prisoners, and a number of funny hits on corporate greed and federal bailouts was clearly not what the editors had hoped for. So, they rejected it.
But you can still see it. You will need to expand its size (by clicking on it to get a larger view and then clicking once again to get an even larger view) by going here.