Coming February 6, 2024 . . .
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Pre-order at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
Coming February 6, 2024 . . . MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Pre-order at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Jeff Madrick, New York Review of Books blog, yesterday
..........
But the starkest evidence that something is seriously amiss in the American economy is the dramatic deterioration of the middle class. Median household income—the midpoint income of all American households—was reported by the Census Bureau (whose data is a year or so behind) to be down in 2011 compared to 2010, despite an economic recovery that began in mid-2009. More disturbing, that figure is now down to around $50,000, which is 7 percent or so below what it was in 2000 and its lowest level since 1996, adjusted for inflation. Incomes are falling still more sharply for black households.
The Census Bureau also reports on poverty levels, and these too are reason for serious concern. At 15.1 percent—some 46 million people—the proportion of Americans in poverty is now at its highest level since 1993. Moreover, according to a recent Rutgers University report, more than half of those who have received a college degree since 2006 cannot find full-time jobs.
The reason that the economic recovery is coinciding with middle class decline is increasingly clear. America is creating jobs, but they are bad jobs: retailing, food preparation, and table waiting, for example—in other words, jobs that don’t pay much. Economists like David Autor of MIT and Larry Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute have been talking for years about the hollowing out of middle-level jobs in offices and manufacturing.
Annette Bernhardt of the National Employment Law Project did the hard empirical work recently and found that most of the job losses from 2008 to early 2010 were in the middle-income category, jobs that pay from roughly $14 to $21 an hour. What is disturbing is that in the job turnaround since then, only one in five such jobs came back. Instead, very low-end jobs, paying $7.70 to $13.80 an hour, accounted for most new employment. This is a stark continuation of the hollowing out.
The mystery, then, is not what is going on in the economy but what to do about it. And neither candidate has a satisfactory plan. Romney is offering a repeat of the George W. Bush approach, which involves mostly large tax cuts for upper income “job creators.” Even before the devastation of 2008, job growth was slower under Bush than under any other postwar president.
In his recent stump speeches, Obama has begun to talk about “economic patriotism” and the need to create more opportunities for the middle class. But he has not sharpened his job proposals much since issuing his 2013 budget last winter, which called for some tax breaks for hiring and a reversal of the Bush tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000, as well as spending programs based on the American Jobs Act of 2011. One of his more recent actions has been to levy tariffs on Chinese solar panels and wind turbines, and he recently lodged a complaint about Chinese violations of trade rules for auto tires with the World Trade Organization. But this seems to be more a political response to Romney’s criticism of China’s currency manipulation than a plan to restore job growth in America.
Obama has every reason not to emphasize bad news about the economy now, in the final weeks of a reelection campaign, so in truth we do not fully know what is in store for us if he wins. With deficit monomania hanging over DC like the blackest of clouds, he realizes that strong public spending, even including on measures like transportation infrastructure, which would help create middle-income jobs, will be derided not merely by the right but by the center.
Despite deficit concerns, robust action in the jobs market will be urgently needed to counter the growing problem of bad jobs over the next presidential term. Only by encouraging much faster growth through new stimulus and public investment will the government have a strong prospect of reversing the middle-class income crisis. The next steps should also include more direct intervention, such as higher minimum wages; aggressive wage subsidies; outright job creation through public programs in fields like construction and teaching; constraints on financial incentives to suppress wages by CEOs and Wall Street privatizers; and a significantly lower dollar, by keeping interest rates low, to improve exports and limit imports.
We are unlikely to see any of this even mentioned with the election only weeks away, and it is unclear how much political clout the president will have after November if he is reelected. It will depend not only on whether he wins but whether more Democrats are elected to Congress with him. Nevertheless, it should at least be clear to voters that President Obama’s proposals as they now stand will still add far more jobs in 2013 and 2014 than would Mitt Romney’s. Moreover, while falling short of what is needed, Obama’s general approach could be enhanced if the political environment changes.
Comments
Nobody ever talks about quality jobs, or that the point of working is not to do that work until your last day on Earth. We need jobs that people enjoy, and that elevate them financially so that they can pursue other ambitions in their one go-around on the planet.
by Michael Maiello on Wed, 10/03/2012 - 5:26pm
How can everyone have quality jobs? Who will do those that are necessary but unpleasant? Would you be will to share those chores so no one gets stuck doing them all the time? Would you be willing to share your dream job so others who have the same dream can have a turn at it?
by EmmaZahn on Wed, 10/03/2012 - 5:51pm
This general theme came to mind reading comments over at Donal's blog on his organic produce thread, regarding getting bargains on organic produce at the Dollar store.
And I thought: does anyone know anyone who dreams of having a job at a Dollar store?
I've always loved bargain hunting, I've bought most of my clothing (not to mention clothign for family members) for decades at thrift shops, was addicted to early ebay, and I love Dollar stores. And I love getting the lowest possible price if I need something like a new air conditioner, microwave, TV, cell phone or laptop. I research purchases a lot in detail, the sales,whose got the lowest prices for what, sales tax versus shipping vs buying in person, coupon codes, waiting for the sale, etc.. Got nothing against it; love it
But I'm also not one to yell about getting good paying manufacturing jobs back and don't go around saying that "I buy American and am willing to pay higher prices for American made stuff." Somebody's got to do the low paying jobs so that the rest of us get bargains, there's no two ways about it. Even thrift shops, while recycling already manufactured goods, have low paying jobs (if they pay at all-sometimes run by volunteers!)
Back to groceries. The highest prices are at grocery stores that hire union labor. I don't have access to a Walmart nearby, but when I have visited them elsewhere I have found myself in awe of how low a lot of their grocery prices are.
by artappraiser on Wed, 10/03/2012 - 6:30pm
I am the opposite. I hate shopping for clothes. Wish now I had learned to sew better. My mother was an excellent seamstress, not professionally but as good as. She outfitted me with tailored clothing that would have cost more than I could afford anywhere else. Spoiled me, I guess. Even if I had tried harder to learn, I doubt I would ever have developed her skill.
I do like exploring stores and catalogs. I have spent many happy hours in hardware stores just marveling at the variety of things. One of my pet theories is it was the Sears Roebuck big catalog that sparked the tremendous economic growth of the 20th century. It introduced new things that people then improved, modified or otherwise adapted to their own uses.
As you know, I do support a return of domestic manufacturing but not for the jobs it would provide. I think those are going, going or already gone to robotics. For me, it is rather a question of how much we should be dependent on another state's economy for our most basic needs.
by EmmaZahn on Wed, 10/03/2012 - 7:32pm
Sear, Roebuck even sold DIY houses!
http://www.searsarchives.com/homes/
by EmmaZahn on Wed, 10/03/2012 - 7:35pm
deleted duplicate
by artappraiser on Wed, 10/03/2012 - 8:52pm
Despite the hyperbole, change in the late 1800's was much more radical than in the internet age. The telegraph in the absence of any other communication aside from "travel there/travel back" was a miracle despite low bitrate. In 10 words, each way you could direct armies or boardrooms around the world, instantaneously.
Sears' catalog was an amazing new factor in rural America, where most Americans lived at the time - much more profound than Amazon, since Amazon's more about speed and price, not "lack of goods vs. goods", and also functioned as a kind of entertainment, low-grade TV in a low-tech age. I.e. Amazon's just a Sears catalog on steroids, not a new model.
Of course all the complaints about effect on labor apply here as well - how it destroyed local stores & importers, etc.*
Similarly it's worth remembering the effect of Gustavus Franklin Swift with his invention of the refrigerator car using ice. Changed Chicago. Though the railroads refused to carry refrigerated meat - competed against livestock carriage - so he had to go through Canada at first.
Martin Wolfe's "Why Globalization Works" is full of similar reminders of the late 1800's.
*To continue labor idea: we all want cheap stuff. From "The Tragedy of the Commons" we understand the abuse of shared resources, and our own labor is one of them. That's why labor conditions and health care have to be structural guarantees, and not negotiable in economic barter - as we'll bargain them into the gutter for others, and others will do the same to us - cutthroat competition that leaves all sides poorer.
I continue to think that health care should have been pitched to business first to get buy-in - worrying about employees' health benefits is a major distraction to businesses, and it interferes with rapid hiring & firing for reasons unrelated to job function. This affects employees who would prefer to quit and shift as well. And of course a company can bargain down the health benefits for employees while execs can afford Cadillac plans.
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 10/03/2012 - 9:12pm
Sears Roebuck's catalogue is a major influential part of late 19th and early 20th-century American history, in many ways. Henry Ford is over credited, Sear's catalogue under-credited. For one thing, it was "globalization" in a way, if you define"globe" as the continental United States. It gave people many more options on what labor they wanted to do for themselves and what they wanted to pay for to be done by others. If they didn't like making dresses, they could buy one, and use that saved time to do something they liked, perhaps tending more carefully to the chickens to get more eggs, to trade with neighbors.
by artappraiser on Wed, 10/03/2012 - 8:40pm
Oh my, your mom and her ilk were responsible for "killing" some "good" children's clothing manufacturing jobs, working for "free." The old ILGWU commercial had a group singing look for the union label, as I recall, not look for the label saying made by Mom with love.
Your Mom (who could actually be labeled a skilled craftsperson) and your robotics meme reminds me, of how I've come across the argument on blogs sometimes that "but Germany has good manufacturing jobs, why can't we do what they're doing?" And that Jack Ewing at New York Times Business has been doing some interesting articles on the reality of what they, Germany, have actually been doing:
The Trade-Off That Created Germany’s Job Miracle, September 24, 2012
German Small Businesses Reflect Country's Strength, August 13, 2012
The majority of those "good" manufacturing jobs over there are skilled labor and even craftsmanship in small agile businesses, not big unskilled-labor assembly-line plants. Furthermore, many of those small businesses that are most successful are benefittng from globalization, they sell all over the world using the new global ways, offering specialized products and specialized skills, something that in the "good old days" only big corporations could do. Furthermore, as I think many already know, "over there," they still put high school students who aren't judged to be college material into track that emphasizes skilled labor training, and they also learn jobs by apprenticing at lower pay Even furthermore, Germany has maintained good employment numbers after years of high unemployment by cutting lots of worker protections (around 2005 ) that made conservative small businesses reluctant to grow their number of employees. Now they can hire more and grow without fear that they will be stuck with huge expenses and headaches if they have to let an employee go should things turn bad.
Some might recognize it as the prescription that many Dem politicians have argued for years and for which some liberal bloggers bash them: the good working class jobs of the future are skilled labor in small business, and people need training now to get those good jobs. And that the government has to be careful not to drown small business with excessive regulation. What they don't say: yes, the unskilled jobs are going to go to robots or to those who can manage on very low pay. They do in Germany, they too have lots of those junky Macjobs (and they buy their plastic wastebaskets and computer chips from Asia, they don't make them.) You don't want to learn, don't want to apprentice for a skill, you get a junky, low paying job. That's they way it's going to be. And the income gap between the skillled and unskilled is growing there in Germany as well.
Edit to add: the second link might be of special interest to you in particular because it talks a bit on the conservative approach to capitalization by small business there, along the lines of it being partly cultural..
by artappraiser on Wed, 10/03/2012 - 8:20pm
The flip side of that is that they kept employment up and distribution channels open for clothing and notions manufacturers. Instead of five I now have to drive 15 miles to the nearest fabric store for a much more limited selection.
For the record, being for domestic manufacturing does not mean being against global trade. Neither does welcoming the advent robotic manufacturing lessen the appreciation of fine individual or group craftsmanship. These all have a place in a vibrant economy.
by EmmaZahn on Wed, 10/03/2012 - 9:32pm
I've represented one major union in the supermarket industry and I question whether food is necessarily more expensive in unionized workplaces. Walmart doesn't offer cheap prices only because it pays its part-time workers less; Walmart sells everything, has unlimited leverage with its suppliers and is therefore able to deal with the fact that the profit margin in the supermarket industry is one penny on the dollar. Walmart makes it up with a higher margin on other stuff.
I am just not convinced that paying workers a decent wage and benefits is necessarily correlated to what one sees at the grocery check-out line. And, at least in a city like New York, it's often the poor folks with limited access to supermarkets, who end up paying more in smaller Green Grocers, where the Fair Labor Standards Act, etc. are ignored, and there ain't no unions.
When I lived on Long Island back in the day I became friendly with a guy who owned two chain supermarkets and whose workers were unionized wall-to-wall. He was permitted to and took advantage of his right under the contract to pay workers over and above contract scale. He did this because he couldn't, for example, get anyone who knew how to slice a piece of smoked salmon (thin, please, thinner!) and would do so for scale.
by Bruce Levine on Thu, 10/04/2012 - 10:12am
Amazing the kind of things we call "unskilled labor." As if I could properly slice delicate meats and fishes.
by Michael Maiello on Thu, 10/04/2012 - 11:00am
Try doing corned beef!
by Bruce Levine on Thu, 10/04/2012 - 12:17pm
I question that as well. In Fl where I lived two years ago and in Az where I live now I don't find Walmart's food prices cheaper. I shopped at Food Lion in Gainesville. Much cheaper than Walmarts. And in AZ I shop at Safeway. While the prices are more expensive at Safeway they have a discount card. By shopping the discounts its much cheaper and I can easily get the things I want with little change. For example it matters little to me if I eat pork instead of beef this week and chicken or beef next week because that's the way the discount card gives me the best savings. The only food I buy at Walmarts is no brand whole wheat pasta. Walmarts is a bit cheaper on durable goods but since there is a K-mart right across the street from the Walmarts in Nogales I check them both and sometimes buy at K-mart.
I don't know if any of the non Walmart store are unionized, just that Walmart food prices have never seemed low to me.
Anyway the situation is much more complex then simply looking at the price of a product. There can be hidden costs. If a low paid worker gets food stamps, earned income tax credits, or other subsidies those costs to tax payers aren't factored into the cost of the product. If workers can't afford health insurance and get medicaid or free care at emergency rooms those costs aren't factored into the price of the produce. Many who save money at Walmarts are paying those hidden costs.
Sure we can lower prices. Maybe union shops get paid more than minimum wage and those products likely cost more than shops that pay only minimum wage. We could lower prices even more by lowering or eliminating the minimum wage law. In many countries the goods we buy are made by children. We could get much lower prices if we eliminated our child labor laws. Safety regulations in factories and workers comp for accidents surely push up prices. We could eliminate those too and prices would go down. One can find dozens of stories about the environment disasters, damage, and degradation in China due to lax or non-existant environmental regulation. We could get much lower prices if we eliminated all our laws protecting the environment too.
Of course legislators need to consider the costs of regulations but a focus on the price of goods isn't what I see as the main priority.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 10/04/2012 - 3:01pm
We can't have only fun jobs. But we can have a society in which all people have jobs of some kind, and in which people are paid much more for doing the stinky jobs than they are now. This will require paying other people much less.
by Dan Kervick on Thu, 10/04/2012 - 1:10pm