Why a Working-Class Revolt Might Not Be Unthinkable

[Donnachaidh]

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/09/13/Why-a-Working-Class-Revolt-Might-Not-Be-Unthinkable.aspx#page1

It was encouraging to see President Obama pivot from deficit reduction to job creation in his widely anticipated speech last week. The president proposed a combination of spending and tax reduction policies, and he surprised many people with the boldness of his proposals and his passion and commitment to the issue. Unfortunately, Obama’s plan is unlikely to be much help to struggling labor markets. Fourteen million people are unemployed, long-term unemployment remains near record highs, the ratio of job seekers to job openings is 4.3 to 1, and the employment to population ratio has dropped precipitously. While concerns over the deficit are valid for the long run, they shouldn’t prevent us from doing more to help the jobless. (The debt dilemma is predominantly a health-care-cost issue, and whether or not we help the jobless doesn’t much change its magnitude.)

The real problem is the political atmosphere. Republicans may go along with doing just enough to look cooperative rather than obstructionist

:snip:

It’s time for this to change. The loss of 8.75 million payroll jobs since the recession began should be a national emergency. But it’s not, and the question is why. Why has deficit reduction taken precedence over job creation? Why is our political system broken to the extent that a whole segment of the population is not being adequately represented in Congress?

:snip:

Another option is that the working class will say enough is enough and demand change. There was a time when I would have scoffed at the idea of a mass revolt against entrenched political interests and the incivility that comes with it. We aren’t there yet – there’s still time for change – but the signs of unrest are growing, and if we continue along a two-tiered path that ignores the needs of such a large proportion of society, it can no longer be ruled out.

More at the link --

[dkf]

1. The problem with government creating jobs is that it is really expensive, $250,000 per job.

Moreover infrastructure jobs, which are the true value added projects, needs more than one time funding.

If his intention is to throw more money into the system I guess this bill would do it, but it doesn't seem very efficient.

[youforeal]

2. why not just give that money to the people who need it. it could go a lot further.

[former9thward]

3. Then who would work?

If you knew you could get 250k for not working, who would work?

[Fumesucker]

4. We already tried giving trillions to Wall St and the Banksters..

We know that doesn't work.

The only thing left to try really is putting money directly in the hands of average Americans.

[former9thward]

7. So we would have 100% unemployment.

Again, what person in their right mind would work if you knew you could get 250k for not working?

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. That would be "while" not working, not "for" not working.

A great many people would work for the love of what they do. Many more people would do what they love, instead of what they have to do to get a paycheck.

If I had the 250k seed money, I'd open up a Classic Films theater, showing only movies made before 1970. I would FAR rather do that than work as an office drone.

Wouldn't it be nice if everyone had the opportunity to do what fulfills them, rather then just punch a clock for a paycheck?

Most people don't become teachers, or doctors, or firefighters because of the pay. Most would continue to work in their vocations, if they ARE working in their vocations. Frankly, if my doctor is only in it for the money, I would RATHER he dropped out and let someone else do the job.

[former9thward]

14. Where is the 250k for about 200 million coming from?

Please don't say "tax the rich". Math would be your enemy that one.

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. First off, the 250k number is nonsense.

It has no validity. How can a job that pays 25k/yr cost 250k to create?

So, that would be 25k for your 200 million, or 500 billion total. A very doable number. Something more on the line of a guaranteed annual income.

The 200 million number is also a crock. Even supposing the 250k/worker number to be correct, that was for a CCC program that would employ at the most 2 million, not 200 million. So, you got two strawmen in a single question as the original supposition was instead of paying that amount for a jobs program that serves 2 million, simply divide that amount between the 2 million (which would be 50 billion, not 500 billion, or the 5 trillion of your mythical 250k x 200 million).

How many weeks of the Iraq war is 50 billion dollars? Where does THAT money come from?

[former9thward]

17. You are right. It wasn't 250k. It was 228k.

The Congressional Budget Office issued a report http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/2009-stimulus-bill-cost-228055-per-job-saved-or-created/.

I knew math would be your enemy. Using your figures (25k) it would be 5 trillion not your 500 billion. Where are you getting 2 million from? If people were given 250k NO ONE would be working. So the true figure would be 200 million. Math is your enemy.

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. I knew you were using mythical numbers. Those are the numbers for the

so-called stimulus, not the numbers for jobs created. You will recall, 60% of the stimulus was tax cuts, which did NOTHING to create jobs.

The stimulus was NOT about job creation - it was about getting the economy moving. Comparing a tax-cut heavy stimulus with the creating of a CCC government jobs programs is, shall we say, disingenuous.

Either you have problems with reading comprehension, or you are deliberately distorting the facts.

I know which of those I believe.

[former9thward]

25. Didn't admit your colossal math error did you?

And you didn't even look at the report. But you didn't need to because I'm sure they just made up their numbers. We need the experts on this thread doing the scoring.

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. If I didn't look at the report, how would I know that you were talking about

the entirety of the stimulus, not the job creation?

Again, the stimulus was not about job creation. That was the big problem with the stimulus - it was WEAK on job creation, and BIG on wealth retention for the rich. It was a POS. If the entire 800b had been focused on job creation, and not 60% of it on tax cuts, there would have been 10 million jobs created, not 1.5 million.

And, ooh, yes, I misplaced a decimal in YOUR MYTHICAL NUMBERS. NOBODY said ANYTHING about giving 200 million people 250K each. That was a strawman from the beginning.

[former9thward]

27. Since you reject the CBO numbers why don't you link to someone

who can tell us what it would cost to create a "25k job"? The 200 million is not a strawman. If someone gave out 250k directly -- which was the premise of the poster I replied to -- then no one would work. That would be about 200 million people.

[RaleighNCDUer]

30. Strawman and strawman again.

The CBO numbers are NOT about what you claim they are. They are correct, but they don't reflect the actual cost of creating 1.3 - 3.5 million jobs - because the job creation was NOT the intent of the stimulus. STRAWMAN

Also, if someone gave YOU 250 thousand dollars, good for you. Why would I quit my job if you got 250k? How would YOU getting 250k affect ME in any way?

The original contention - the premise of the poster you replied to - was, the cost of the stimulus, averaged out to 250k for the 1.3 million jobs created, would have been better spent if just given to those 1.3 million people. That leaves 198.7million who do NOT get the 250k. That poster never said anything about giving 250k to every worker in America. STRAWMAN

An actual CCC style job creation program with an average paycheck of 25k/yr for 2 million people would be 50 billion for manpower costs. Add to that the costs of the projects themselves, and you might come up with a 100 billion total, for rebuilding bridges, maintaining national parks, etc.

An actual CCC style job creation would not include the tax cuts and other side issues that jacked up the cost of the stimulus.

Stop throwing out strawman arguments, and THINK about what you are talking about.

[former9thward]

31. You don't understand logical reasoning and I don't expect this post to change that.

It frustrates you so you shout "STRAWMAN". Yes, the original poster was talking about 1.3 million people. But only a fool would think that if people were getting 250k because they were out of work that nearly everyone else would just continue to work. Everyone would quit their jobs and demand their 250k too. If you don't see the logic in that, sorry, but 99% of the American people would.

I am glad you came up with job creation numbers but you have no link. Forgive me for not trusting numbers thrown out by an anonymous poster but I would rather look at what the experts say.

[Fumesucker]

15. I guess we should just give all that money to the Banksters and Wall Street ..

Clearly putting any money in the hands of the average person will just make them lazy and good for nothing.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[youforeal]

5. not sure, just seems that 250k would do a lot more for a family or individual

than a temp job.

[former9thward]

6. I am sure it would so no one in their right mind would work.

We would have 100% unemployment and no one would pay any taxes. Since their would be nobody working their would be no services, production of anything or food. But I guess you could eat the paper money.

[RandomKoolzip]

12. I would. I love what I do. I'm glad I get paid for it, but I love it even without the pay.

[former9thward]

20. Welcome to the 1% who would work even though 250k is there for not working.

I wonder who would work in the factories, clean rooms, service the food industry, work in stores and millions of other jobs there are not 'fun'.

[Broderick]

36. Absolutely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

if this trickle down stimulus passes and you add up the previous one with it. 12000 dollars could have been sent to EVERY HOUSEHOLD IN AMERICA.

TWELVE THOUSAND DOLLARS


Nope, we run it through the bilk and siphon apparatus that takes 90 percent, and the 1 percent loves the trick.


Just sayin.


Pass it now. HAHA.

[DrunkenBoat]

11. I doubt it. I think that's just a bullshit propaganda number.

[former9thward]

18. Yeah I guess the Congressional Budget Office is just there for propaganda.

The numbers come from them. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/2009-stimulus-bill-cost-228055-per-job-saved-or-created/

[leftstreet]

19. How did their scoring on Single Payer go?

[former9thward]

21. I don't know and I'm not sure what that has to do with the OP.

[leftstreet]

23. Me either

[Cerridwen]

28. The *numbers* come from the CBO; what was done to them came from a r/w

website via a nominally libertarian website.

The numbers are shit in this form.

The overall stimulus amount was taken and divided by number of jobs. At no point were goods purchased, payments to seniors, student financial aid, and many other stimulus components factored in. Not once.

The link for the .pdf of the CBO report is right here.

[former9thward]

32. Since you reject the numbers then what is the true number?

[Cerridwen]

50. There isn't one; as yet, if ever.

If you knew anything about setting up employee positions; you'd know that the numbers vary based on myriad factors.

I know the number being catapulted is inaccurate because their methodology for arriving at it ignores all those factors and doesn't even begin with a valid number.

I also know that -the number- will change over time depending, again, on factors not listed.

[Cerridwen]

29. On what do you based that 250K number? Is that per year, per day, per month,

per decade?

Is that salary alone? Include benefits? Office? The entire building?

On what is that number based, please.

[former9thward]

33. You have already rejected the CBO report.

But you provide no opposing information.

[Cerridwen]

51. Hardly. I've said the CBO report; which has been updated, btw,

is being misused.

Now; since you're convinced this number is correct; as my old math teacher used to say; "show your work."

[Broderick]

35. That is because it is run through

the bilking machine first. Pure and simple. They run the money through layers of donors and cronies, and when it filters down to the working people it is a mere pittance.

You are damn straight. 250 -300 per job created in the last stimulus and they aren't even hiding the fact that this one will be the same.


Fucking nonsense.


Direct jobs. Direct employment.

Quit paying off the donors who siphon off 90 percent.

[Creideiki]

40. Only when the financial entropy of the profit motive is included.

[mistertrickster]

46. You're saying that a WPA style program would cost a quarter million per job?

I find that hard to believe.

What's your source for the 250,000 dollars?

[defendandprotect]

8. Americans have to understand "we are all labor" -- not just unions -- !!!

[Broderick]

37. Unionize every worker

[defendandprotect]

41. Exactly ... but we can begin with that recognition -- "We are all labor" ... and unite in

our thinking first --

People coming together to form a UNION -- "We are all labor" --

which would decide on wages, standards, working conditions, pensions, benefits ---

and corporations would come to us for employees.


But, we would all have to understand the power in that idea --

and stick together --

[sad sally]

10. If you have access to Link TV, there's a special worth watching

called "Capitalism Hits the Fan" by University of Massachusetts Economics Professor Richard Wolff.

It's revealing to see how American workers productivity increases with no matching wage increases have created the enormous profits of US companies and what they've done with all that money. We know it hasn't been reinvested in more jobs for the workers here.

http://www.linktv.org/programs/capitalism-hits-the-fan?du

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

34. I've watched it several times - it's great!

One thing I don't quite get from Mr. Wolff, however, involves his conclusion. He said that regulation of business might have worked in the past, since the Roosevelt era, but it won't work today because corporate America is dead set against it and will spend any amount of money necessary to defeat proposals to regulate corporations. He suggests that a form of communism such as that which is going on in Silicon Valley where entrepreneurs who create the software are founding their own companies is what we need (the ones producing the work also own the company). But wouldn't that itself require regulation? I believe some European countries like Germany mandate that unions participate on the Boards of Directors of corporations. Unless Wolff thinks that what's necessary is a sudden and spontaneous revelation shared by all Americans that workers must control their own companies, something our media would never foster or allow to come about.

[Starry Messenger]

38. You are correct, that would require regulation as well.

I enjoyed that video too, but his solutions were a little shaky. Perhaps he feels that breaking up existing monopolies might give more breathing space to workers and wrest some political control back to workers before the tendency to monopoly starts again and defies regulation. I've read some others who subscribe to that philosophy.

Greater worker organization is a firmer route to resisting the depredations of capitalism, imo. It won't be a "spontaneous revelation" by any means, but greater numbers would give greater power. It would also be useful for there to be organization of the unemployed to demand economic reforms. That would add to the numbers needed. There are precedents in US history.

[defendandprotect]

42. 35% increase in production over last decades -- no reward for the worker -- !!

In fact, their wages have been stagnant -- and they've been losing benefits!

[Brigid]

13. It seems to me . . .

that the worker revolt has already begun, starting in WI last February.

[Creideiki]

39. -8.75 million jobs + 1.8 million jobs = -6.95 million jobs =

Obama victory! I saw a picture here claiming that we win because Obama restored 1.8 million jobs! He's such a benevolent Gifted Leader.

Of course, that doesn't include the additional jobs needed to keep up with population growth.

Which leaves us firmly ensconced in a depression that will need to wait until 2016 when we can elect a Democrat to the White House with enough in Congress to back him or her up.

[coalition_unwilling]

43. You diminish your credibiltiy when you use a term like 'depression' when

by almost every standard and metric, the U.S. economy has not even been in a recession since June of 2009. Furthermore, while there are hints that we may be heading towards a double-dip recession, there is absolutely no evidence that conditions are severe enough to warrant the use of the term 'depression.'

In short, the economy and GDP continues to grow, albeit anemically. What has happened is that the social safety net has grievously frayed and risks being torn asunder under a President Romney or Perry. At that point, we may well be looking at a 'depression' (defined as GDP shrinking by 10%).

This in no way constitutes an endorsement of Obama or his presidency. By almost any standard, it has been a dismal failure and he does not deserve a second term. But the working class does not deserve a Repuke depression either.

[Creideiki]

44. 20% unemployed. closer to 35% including the underemployed and

employed full time, but at a substantial loss of income.

By the "metrics", it might not be a depression, but it sure as hell feels like one.

Oh, and this really is a Repuke Depression. One of the big failings of the Administration is that in the bleating about "bipartisanship", the President doesn't want to blame the problem on the people who caused it.

[coalition_unwilling]

45. It's not a depression but it will become one if Repukes gain control of

Executive and Legislative branches in 2012.

After I posted earlier and before I read your response, I read an op-ed piece by Nouriel Roubini where he says that we are risk for a global depression! But Roubini implies that we aren't there yet.

Having lived through the Reagan Recession of 1981-83, this one feels about the same. And that is ugly for sure. FWIW, in 1982 U2 unemployment peaked at about 12%. I got my B.A. in 1983 and the only organization hiring English and History majors was the friggin' CIA! So it was on to grad school for me :)

[Creideiki]

47. I was still in high school for the First Reagan Recession

This doesn't feel like that to me. There were still decent paying jobs for educated people. Now there's nothing for engineers and scientists. So I'm putting my computer engineering degree to use looking at medical claims for the government.

My Grandmother, who lived through the Depression maintains that this feels like that. The big difference is that with a robust food stamp program, we don't have soup kitchens--her words not mine.

[Selatius]

48. Yeah, back in 1980 there were still a fair number of factory jobs available, many of them union jobs

Most of those factories no longer exist today. The manufacturing is largely done in China. The US doesn't even have the capability to produce consumer-grade electronics anymore without relying on China or some other third world dictatorship.

[coalition_unwilling]

49. There's a robust food stamp program (currently serving some

50 million American victims of capitalism), somewhat less robust unemployment compensation program (currently serving 10 million American victims of capitalism), and assorted other demand maintenance programs (like Social Security) that were not around during the Great Depression. One could argue that it is these very programs that has prevented the U.S. economy from entering a depression.

Don't get me wrong. I think the current economic climate is dreadful and much worse than official statistics. I just happen to think that it has not yet met the technical criteria for "depression," as economists define the term.

However, I willingly defer to your grandmother's perspective :)