General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat presidential candidates need to understand about income inequality
5/21/2015
Before I sat down with President Obama to talk about trade a few weeks ago, I called a few economists with different perspectives. One of them was Robert Shapiro, a longtime Democratic advisor, who urged me to look at a paper he had recently written about income growth over the last several presidencies. I did.
...The story were always told about incomes in America is one of stagnation. On both ends of the political spectrum, theres an accepted wisdom that income growth for most Americans began to slow in the 1970s and has essentially flattened out. The American Dream is imperiled, our candidates are always telling us, because its getting harder and harder for new generations of middle-class Americans to do better financially than their parents did.
Shapiros exhaustive analysis tells a much more complicated and ultimately more disheartening story.
... It turns out, first of all, that most American families were actually doing a lot better in the 1980s and 1990s than we thought they were. The aggregate median household income that is, the number were used to citing, which lumps everyone together was about $46,000 in 1982 and had risen to almost $55,000 20 years later. Thats just a little less than 20 percent higher, or an average of less than 1 percent growth per year.
...But mostly what were seeing, Shapiro says, is the inevitable result of a global marketplace that forces industry to keep its prices low and its dividends high in order to compete for customers and capital, even as fixed costs continue to rise.
... After 2002, however, household incomes did more than flatten; they essentially cratered for middle-aged and older Americans. That same group whose income had risen by something like 70 percent under Reagan and Clinton experienced a drop of about 19 percent over the next decade. If you were in your early 50s at the start of the Bush years, generally speaking, your income fell by an average of about 30 percent.
Only the youngest Americans were lucky enough to see their incomes stagnate under George W. Bush and Barack Obama. And while college graduates did better than less educated Americans, their gains were marginal. Most American households tumbled backward.
But Shapiro shows that if you were the head of a household and were between the ages of 25 and 29 in 1982, your income grew over the next two decades, on average, by more than 70 percent, from $45,440 to $77,543.
...To put this in its plainest terms, the American Dream thats at the center of our national identity is not, in fact, in danger of slipping away. For most Americans, its already long gone, like Oldsmobiles and New Coke.
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/what-presidential-candidates-need-to-understand-119490857141.html
You really have to read the entire article to get the complexities. And then Shapiro's paper as well. Globalization has stolen the American Dream.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Just prior to President Obama's 2014 State of the Union Address, media[3] reported that the top wealthiest 1% possess 40% of the nations wealth; the bottom 80% own 7%; similarly, but later, the media reported, the "richest 1 percent in the United States now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent".[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States
I believe that is what the 1% originally referred to during Occupy Wall Street, but some canny people switched the subject to income inequality.
Imagine. Taking in $25 million in one year. For speeches.
That's quite some inequality, right there.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)seeing now their new world order, they own more wealth than the bottom 90%. Its only going to get worse too. Unless we somehow manage to elect people who aren't purchased by them. Which means we need publicly funded elections.
Get $$$ out of politics isn't sexy or headline grabbing, but its the only thing that will turn this around.
We all know the TPP is going to be signed though....and fast track will allow even more deals over the next 6 years. And these trade deals can't be altereded unless all countries agree to the changes.
I wonder if its not too late? Even if we were to get public-funded elections and end the plutocracy in , say 10 years...is it too late?
merrily
(45,251 posts)I mean, how do you and I control what GE and Yahoo pay their top executives? I cannot afford to buy up voting control of GE, can you? And without that, I cannot put directors on the board who are going to control executive compensation.
But, if the subject is wealth inequality and you start asking how that happens, sooner or later, you might focus on elected officials and lobbyists.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)...As a result, the new limit didn't prevent executives from receiving ever fatter paychecks -- but they got the money in stock and options, rather than in cash. Clinton and Congress had failed to solve the problem.
"My cynical opinion is that they were trying to look like they were doing something," said Steven Balsam, a professor at Temple University.
Some, like Warren, say the provision was worse than useless. In a speech last week, she called on her colleagues in Congress to change the rules, although without discussing how they'd come about.
"This tax incentive has encouraged financial firms to compensate executives with massive bonuses bonuses that too often reward short-term risk-taking instead of sustained, long-term growth," she said. "We can close that loophole and stop pushing companies to reward short-term thinking."
Lynn Stout, a law professor at Cornell University and an outspoken skeptic of today's corporate governance, says the Clinton-era shift led executives to try to boost stock prices in the near term by laying off employees and spending less on research and development. These measures, according to this line of thinking, made firms more profitable in the short term because their costs were lower, which resulted in high stock prices, but less able to generate value in the long term for investors and the economy....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/04/27/bill-clinton-tried-to-limit-ceo-pay-but-elizabeth-warren-thinks-he-made-it-worse/
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)It's the old 'whatever is good for GM is good for America' notion - that 'sustained, long-term growth' for the company will equate to good things happening for America without actually legislating that it does, but simply trusting in the goodwill of the company. Our rules should be focused on guaranteeing the fair treatment of labour. We saw Congress set the limits on medical insurance - they have to provide 85% of what they take in back out for care. So obviously Congress CAN make those sorts of laws. So how about some laws that guarantee that some large percentage of profits have to be shared out equally to all employees of a company? That it can't simply all be drained off for capital shareholders, that increased productivity means increased worker compensation.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)The government enables corporations to screw us over, collectively anyways. But we're so programmed to acquiesce & accept its "just the way it is", that we can't see it. The Right is wrong when they talk about "big govt". We haven't had a big govt protecting the average worker is a VERY long time. They are arguing against something that doesn't exist, but that is the narrative & the false reality they've created to keep things in line. A good example is them calling Obama a "socialist" when he cut the food stamp program by Billion$ and is the president who we can thank for enabling fracking to proliferate throughout the country & offshore, with the help of course of Cheney's law allowing Big Oil to circumvent the clean water act.... There's also the recent NYT OpEd saying Dems have gone...wait for it...too far left. The PTB are creating a reality that doesn't exist.
merrily
(45,251 posts)government's attempt to make private companies deal with societal ills. I know this not going to be a popular concept. But, if it's a societal ill, I think government has to deal with it.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)It is insane to allow bribery of our public officials! We judge the races on which candidates take in the most bribes! This election we need to show up with signs outside events showing that candidates current total money with the question, "What do you have to do for that money?" SC Justice Roberts can suck my balls for saying there is no Quid Pro Quo, there most certainly is!
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)I think he may be tied with Fox "News" and the Bush Family for being the worst thing to ever happen to our country.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)That's the reality I've been seeing, not the happy shiny 'globalization is great!' the TPP pushers keep trying to sell us.
A lot of us peaked in the past, and are slowly gliding downward as our world decays around us.
merrily
(45,251 posts)We had government and economists tell us one story, while our gut was telling us something entirely different. Yet, at least a large portion of us listened to them becaue (a) there were so many of them who had megaphones; and (b) they allegedly knew better than we did.
But, every time you read or heard some rosy story, didn't something inside say
KansDem
(28,498 posts)Your comment made me think of the final lines from Wallace Stevens' poem "Sunday Morning."
And, in the isolation of the sky,
At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
Downward to darkness, on extended wings.
delrem
(9,688 posts)It is.
There has to be a common mean.
What I read about the TPP is that no thought or effort is put into protecting the working citizen. It seems to be entirely focussed on ensuring the ascension of investment capital, granting investment capital essential rights.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Its The Guilded Age on steroids.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)happen first before giving more of the wealth to the rich. And by that I mean let us see the foreign wages come up to equal our wages - then maybe we would be more interested.
merrily
(45,251 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)The American dream was that, if you worked your buns off in some factory or farm, you could send your kids to college so that, one day, they would not have to kill themselves to make a paycheck. It was not that I'd be a billionaire or have two cars in the garage or even own my own home. It would be that I would not have to be ashamed of my lack of education or work myself physically to death to buy food. That was my parent's dream and they achieved it and much more. Respect.
SummerSnow
(12,608 posts)mountain grammy
(26,620 posts)Isn't that nice.....
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)In a perfect world it would be seen as treason.
And here some of us are, trying to give them even more power.
It's sickening.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Its a slap in the face to our party & more importantly, our country.
If people only had their eyes open, we wouldn't be here. It would help if the media would do its effing job instead of feeding into the lies and false narrative.
Joe Chi Minh
(15,229 posts)well. Globalization has stolen the American Dream.'
Sure, but the fact remains that the logic of it, is simplicity, itself, in any case.