Follow by Email

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

THE U.S. ECONOMY


The Truth about the US Economy

The U.S. economy continues to stagnate. It’s growing at the rate of 1.8 percent, which is barely growing at all. Consumer spending is down. Home prices are down. Jobs and wages are going nowhere.
It’s vital that we understand the truth about the American economy.
How did we go from the Great Depression to 30 years of Great Prosperity? And from there, to 30 years of stagnant incomes and widening inequality, culminating in the Great Recession? And from the Great Recession into such an anemic recovery?
The Great Prosperity
During three decades from 1947 to 1977, the nation implemented what might be called a basic bargain with American workers. Employers paid them enough to buy what they produced. Mass production and mass consumption proved perfect complements. Almost everyone who wanted a job could find one with good wages, or at least wages that were trending upward.

During these three decades everyone’s wages grew — not just those at or near the top.

Government enforced the basic bargain in several ways. It used Keynesian policy to achieve nearly full employment. It gave ordinary workers more bargaining power. It provided social insurance. And it expanded public investment. Consequently, the portion of total income that went to the middle class grew while the portion going to the top declined. But this was no zero-sum game. As the economy grew almost everyone came out ahead, including those at the top.
The pay of workers in the bottom fifth grew 116 percent over these years — faster than the pay of those in the top fifth (which rose 99 percent), and in the top 5 percent (86 percent).

Productivity also grew quickly. Labor productivity — average output per hour worked — doubled. So did median incomes. Expressed in 2007 dollars, the typical family’s income rose from about $25,000 to $55,000. The basic bargain was cinched.

The middle class had the means to buy, and their buying created new jobs. As the economy grew, the national debt shrank as a percentage of it.
The Great Prosperity also marked the culmination of a reorganization of work that had begun during the Depression. Employers were required by law to provide extra pay — time-and-a-half — for work stretching beyond 40 hours a week. This created an incentive for employers to hire additional workers when demand picked up. Employers also were required to pay a minimum wage, which improved the pay of workers near the bottom as demand picked up.

When workers were laid off, usually during an economic downturn, government provided them with unemployment benefits, usually lasting until the economy recovered and they were rehired. Not only did this tide families over but it kept them buying goods and services — an “automatic stabilizer” for the economy in downturns.
Perhaps most significantly, government increased the bargaining leverage of ordinary workers. They were guaranteed the right to join labor unions, with which employers had to bargain in good faith. By the mid-1950s more than a third of all America workers in the private sector were unionized. And the unions demanded and received a fair slice of the American pie. Non-unionized companies, fearing their workers would otherwise want a union, offered similar deals.
Americans also enjoyed economic security against the risks of economic life — not only unemployment benefits but also, through Social Security, insurance against disability, loss of a major breadwinner, workplace injury and inability to save enough for retirement. In 1965 came health insurance for the elderly and the poor (Medicare and Medicaid). Economic security proved the handmaiden of prosperity. In requiring Americans to share the costs of adversity it enabled them to share the benefits of peace of mind. And by offering peace of mind, it freed them to consume the fruits of their labors.
The government sponsored the dreams of American families to own their own home by providing low-cost mortgages and interest deductions on mortgage payments. In many sections of the country, government subsidized electricity and water to make such homes habitable. And it built the roads and freeways that connected the homes with major commercial centers.

Government also widened access to higher education. The GI Bill paid college costs for those who returned from war. The expansion of public universities made higher education affordable to the American middle class.
Government paid for all of this with tax revenues from an expanding middle class with rising incomes. Revenues were also boosted by those at the top of the income ladder whose marginal taxes were far higher. The top marginal income tax rate during World War II was over 68 percent. In the 1950s, under Dwight Eisenhower, whom few would call a radical, it rose to 91 percent. In the 1960s and 1970s the highest marginal rate was around 70 percent. Even after exploiting all possible deductions and credits, the typical high-income taxpayer paid a marginal federal tax of over 50 percent. But contrary to what conservative commentators had predicted, the high tax rates did not reduce economic growth. To the contrary, they enabled the nation to expand middle-class prosperity and fuel growth.
The Middle-Class Squeeze, 1977-2007
During the Great Prosperity of 1947-1977, the basic bargain had ensured that the pay of American workers coincided with their output. In effect, the vast middle class received an increasing share of the benefits of economic growth. But after that point, the two lines began to diverge: Output per hour — a measure of productivity — continued to rise. But real hourly compensation was left in the dust.

It’s easy to blame “globalization” for the stagnation of middle incomes, but technological advances have played as much if not a greater role. Factories remaining in the United States have shed workers as they automated. So has the service sector.
But contrary to popular mythology, trade and technology have not reduced the overall number of American jobs. Their more profound effect has been on pay. Rather than be out of work, most Americans have quietly settled for lower real wages, or wages that have risen more slowly than the overall growth of the economy per person. Although unemployment following the Great Recession remains high, jobs are slowly returning. But in order to get them, many workers have to accept lower pay than before.
Starting more than three decades ago, trade and technology began driving a wedge between the earnings of people at the top and everyone else. The pay of well-connected graduates of prestigious colleges and MBA programs has soared. But the pay and benefits of most other workers has either flattened or dropped. And the ensuing division has also made most middle-class American families less economically secure.

Government could have enforced the basic bargain. But it did the opposite. It slashed public goods and investments — whacking school budgets, increasing the cost of public higher education, reducing job training, cutting public transportation and allowing bridges, ports and highways to corrode.
It shredded safety nets — reducing aid to jobless families with children, tightening eligibility for food stamps, and cutting unemployment insurance so much that by 2007 only 40 percent of the unemployed were covered. It halved the top income tax rate from the range of 70 to 90 percent that prevailed during the Great Prosperity to 28 to 35 percent; allowed many of the nation’s rich to treat their income as capital gains subject to no more than 15 percent tax; and shrunk inheritance taxes that affected only the top-most 1.5 percent of earners. Yet at the same time, America boosted sales and payroll taxes, both of which took a bigger chunk out of the pay the middle class and the poor than of the well off.
How America Kept Buying: Three Coping Mechanisms
Coping mechanism No. 1: Women move into paid work. Starting in the late 1970s, and escalating in the 1980s and 1990s, women went into paid work in greater and greater numbers. For the relatively small sliver of women with four-year college degrees, this was the natural consequence of wider educational opportunities and new laws against gender discrimination that opened professions to well-educated women. But the vast majority of women who migrated into paid work did so in order to prop up family incomes as households were hit by the stagnant or declining wages of male workers.
This transition of women into paid work has been one of the most important social and economic changes to occur over the last four decades. In 1966, 20 percent of mothers with young children worked outside the home. By the late 1990s, the proportion had risen to 60 percent. For married women with children under the age of 6, the transformation has been even more dramatic — from 12 percent in the 1960s to 55 percent by the late 1990s.

Coping mechanism No. 2: Everyone works longer hours. By the mid 2000s it was not uncommon for men to work more than 60 hours a week and women to work more than 50. A growing number of people took on two or three jobs. All told, by the 2000s, the typical American worker worked more than 2,200 hours a year — 350 hours more than the average European worked, more hours even than the typically industrious Japanese put in. It was many more hours than the typical American middle-class family had worked in 1979 — 500 hours longer, a full 12 weeks more.
Coping mechanism No. 3: Draw down savings and borrow to the hilt. After exhausting the first two coping mechanisms, the only way Americans could keep consuming as before was to save less and go deeper into debt. During the Great Prosperity the American middle class saved about 9 percent of their after-tax incomes each year. By the late 1980s and early 1990s, that portion had been whittled down to about 7 percent. The savings rate then dropped to 6 percent in 1994, and on down to 3 percent in 1999. By 2008, Americans saved nothing. Meanwhile, household debt exploded. By 2007, the typical American owed 138 percent of their after-tax income.
The Challenge for the Future
All three coping mechanisms have been exhausted. The fundamental economic challenge ahead is to restore the vast American middle class.
That requires resurrecting the basic bargain linking wages to overall gains, and providing the middle class a share of economic gains sufficient to allow them to purchase more of what the economy can produce. As we should have learned from the Great Prosperity — the 30 years after World War II when America grew because most Americans shared in the nation’s prosperity — we cannot have a growing and vibrant economy without a growing and vibrant middle class.
(This is excerpted from my testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, on May 12. It is also drawn from my recent book, Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future.)

Monday, May 30, 2011

MEMORIAL DAY


Memorial Day Tribute: Keep the Troops at Home

Posted: 05/28/11 10:20 AM ET

Another Memorial Day, another holiday filled with rhapsodies by politicians and citizens alike about the sacrifices of American military personnel. But if these summer patriots really cared about their neighbors in uniform, they would stop putting servicemen and women at risk for frivolous reasons.
America was born in war. The existence of evil means that war may always be an ugly necessity. But these days most of Washington's conflicts are wars of choice, military interventions for almost any reason other than protecting vital American interests. Indeed, wars initiated by the U.S. are more likely to threaten than protect U.S. liberty and security.
This weekend individuals and families will hoist flags, watch parades, whisper prayers, and visit cemeteries across the nation. People will forward emails celebrating the bravery of those who have fought and died. Politicians will host ceremonies and issue platitudes. The uniform mantra will be that Americans owe their liberties to those who have served and often died.
Actually, dying for freedom is more the exception than the rule. In most cases, those dying are dying for Washington, not America. They certainly are not dying for liberty.
The fault obviously is not of those in uniform. Rather, the blame falls on politicians who believe that American military personnel are little more than gambit pawns in a permanent global chess game. Also responsible are the American people, who elect and reelect politicians who believe that war is just another program, kind of like a violent foreign earmark.
The buck truly stops in every home across America.
Consider Washington's most recent battles. It is hard to keep a straight face while arguing analleged national interest involving Libya. Why intervene in this one of many civil wars?
Contra claims at the time, there was no evidence of likely massacres in Benghazi or elsewhere. The Western powers still don't really know who runs the opposition and, more important, who likely would rule if it triumphed. If anyone should take responsibility for conflict in North Africa, it is Europe. If any American is unfortunate enough to die in this war, it will not be for Americans' liberty, security, or any other benefit of note. Libya is a dumb war which also happens to be an illegal war, since the Obama administration failed to get congressional assent.
In Afghanistan Americans are dying for no good reason. The U.S. has been at war for a decade, long after achieving its initial aims of disrupting al Qaeda, which managed the September 11 terrorist attacks, and ousting the Taliban government, which hosted al Qaeda.
Alas, sticking around to create a Western-style liberal democratic state in Afghanistan has proved to be a fool's errand. Only the Afghans can determine their future. Moreover, the war may be the greatest force destabilizing next door Pakistan, in which al Qaeda settled. Pakistan also possesses nuclear weapons, making it far more dangerous than Iran, upon which most people focus.
Iraq was deadlier and less justified than Afghanistan. Every major Bush administration claim about Iraq proved to be false. In blowing up this artificial nation Washington triggered a brutal internal conflict which consumed 200,000 or more Iraqi lives while dramatically increasing Iran's influence in the region. The war will end up costing $2 or $3 trillion as well as 4,500 American lives. The conflict yet again simultaneously exhibited the bravery of U.S. personnel and the foolishness of U.S. policymakers.
The war against Serbia over Kosovo was even more frivolous, akin to that in Libya. Kosovo was wracked by a common-variety guerrilla conflict with brutality on both sides. An American diplomat even called the insurgents "terrorists." But the Clinton administration was determined to try a little foreign social engineering by launching a war in which America had no discernible interests. The U.S. even solicited the military assistance of Turkey, a NATO ally which had behaved far more brutally in suppressing a similar rebellion by Kurds, killing tens of thousands with American-supplied weapons.
After the conflict ended Washington's new friends kicked out a quarter million Serbs and other ethnic and religious minorities while allied soldiers stood by. The U.S. dismissed the security concerns of the Serbs who remained while supporting a declaration of independence for the territory -- governed by gangster elites recently accused of having engaged in organ-trafficking of Serb prisoners. The new "nation" remains unacknowledged by a majority of the world's states and the United Nations, thereby continuing to destabilize the Balkans. Why did Washington go to war?
Many of America's big wars, in which casualties hit the tens or hundreds of thousands, were no more justifiable. Looking back a half century it is hard to understand what the Vietnam War was about. France had turned Indochina into a colony. For some people, colonialism retains an aura of gentility, even nobility. But in practice it meant foreigners showing up with guns demanding obedience -- essentially national slavery.
World War II loosened France's hold over its colonies, and Paris lacked both the means and will to reestablish control. Unfortunately, the U.S. stepped into France's shoes, attempting to protect the decrepit and corrupt South Vietnamese dictatorship from the far more disciplined, competent, and ruthless nationalistic Communists in the north.
America had nothing directly at stake warranting intervention. And the celebrated "domino" theory -- that one communist victory would turn the entire region into a communist preserve -- proved to be a bust. Fifteen years after South Vietnam was overwhelmed the Berlin Wall had fallen, the Soviet Union was coming apart, and China had embraced the market. Today Vietnam looks to the U.S. to balance against Beijing. So precisely what did 58,000 Americans die for? The precious lives of U.S. military personnel were needlessly squandered by foolish presidents, generals, and legislators.
At least the Korean War occurred in the midst of worsening Cold War competition with the Soviet Union. However, it was one cause of the worsening competition.
The Korean peninsula was of no particular strategic importance to America -- the U.S. never had a lodgment on the Asian mainland. Washington only haphazardly ended up occupying the southern half of the peninsula after the defeat of Japan, which had turned Korea into a colony. Then the U.S. helped set the stage for war by embracing an irascible, brutal, and aggressive dictator in the south who favored launching a war against the Communist north. Because of his threats, Washington refused to provide heavy weapons to its client state, leaving it vulnerable to attack.
The war may have preserved freedom in the South -- kind of, anyway, since that nation languished under civilian and military dictatorships for nearly four decades -- but the conflict reinforced America's national security state, reducing liberty at home. And the U.S. ended up much less secure. The war triggered a massive militarization of the Cold War, making the draft permanent and sending military outlays skyward. The conflict diverted resources from Europe and turned the People's Republic of China into a bitter military enemy. Last but not least, nearly 54,000 Americans died.
World War II remains the "good war" insofar as the conflict was initiated by others and America was fighting great evil. But this conflict, history's worst, did not begin in isolation. Rather, it was the logical, perhaps even inevitable, outgrowth of World War I. And the latter may be the dumbest which the U.S. ever fought.
The conflict involved two contending imperial blocs. The "bad guys" included Wilhelmine Germany, which had a constitution, elected Reichstag, and broader franchise than Great Britain. Austro-Hungary was a somewhat ramshackle and messy liberal autocracy with elected legislative bodies. Not democrats by today's standards, but not totalitarians either.
The "good guys" included Imperial Russia, the anti-Semitic despotism of the Tsar. Little Belgium committed big atrocities in the Belgian Congo, a heritage which continues to afflict the same tormented African territory. Italy came into the war to claim promised territorial booty -- that is, the opportunity to force its rule on unwilling Austrians. France was intent on exacting revenge for its territorial losses in the Franco-Prussian War -- after spending several hundred years ravaging all of its neighbors, including the German states. And Great Britain was a democracy which used brute force to rule over hundreds of millions of subject peoples around the globe.
An ocean away, the U.S. had no reason to get involved in this foolish war. Woodrow Wilson cited navigation rights. In practice, that meant Americans booking passage on British passenger liners, which acted as reserve cruisers and carried munitions through a war zone. Only in President Wilson's fevered imagination -- he also wanted to make it illegal to criticize the president -- could mixing cargoes of babies and bullets be considered a basic right to be protected by American force of arms. In fact, President Wilson took the U.S. into war because he was a megalomaniac who wanted to remake the globe. For his ambitious fantasies hundreds of thousands of Americans were killed or wounded.
The 19th century was little better. Protecting Americans' liberty was rarely the objective or consequence of America's wars. Such conflicts rarely advanced Americans' security. Then as now, war was mostly a tool of U.S. policymakers for who cared little for the human losses inflicted, even as they extolled the sacrifice of the troops.
We should use Memorial Day to honor those who have served and especially those who have died. But the knowledge that so many of them have died unnecessarily, even in vain, should anger free people in a republic -- and redouble their determination to hold public officials accountable.
Instead of piously circulating patriotic emails to their friends, people should act. They should insist that presidents stop initiating foolish , unnecessary conflicts and that Congresses stop allowing presidents to unilaterally conduct foolish, unnecessary wars. People should protest against dumb conflicts and vote against politicians willing to risk American lives for frivolous purposes.
America's military cemeteries are filled because of the decisions of political leaders elected by citizens across the nation. The best way to honor the fallen is to say "never again." Never again will American lives be wasted in ambitious foreign crusades which leave America less free and secure.
IMPERIAL WARS
Enough already with these wars for the Empire. The Empire is supposedly broke, or is it?  Unable or unwilling to take care of business at home the US it seems is still intent though on minding everyone else's business.