Explanations Why A Living Wage Remains Elusive For Roughly Half The Workforce….
A common theme running throughout these recent articles below is income inequality, stagnant wages & an inability to earn a living wage for many Americans. Much of that can be placed on government leadership (or lack thereof). The DC swamp are really the snakes & alligators who serve giant multinational corporations instead of the American people. Since those huge conglomerates no know borders, they’re in effect a threat to our sovereignty. As they have politicians at their beck & call, these companies locate production facilities anywhere in the world they want, while avoiding taxes through sweetheart deals, deductions, loopholes & offshore accounts. They’re also given the leverage & free rein to generally gouge their customers, take advantage of their employees, & trample over smaller suppliers & competitors. And they’re hoarding a disproportionate share of the power, leverage & wealth. Since DC politicos have become so dependent & beholden to their influence, curtailing the corruption & draining the swamp can only come about by cutting the cord on this crony capitalism arrangement.
The repercussions of that rigged system filters its way down to the American lifestyle. When small independent businesses can no longer compete, while so many workers no longer earn a living wage, it’s robbing us of an idyllic American way of life that once defined us. And the lack of good ideas coming from both sides in DC is stunning! The GOP’s reliance on unfettered free markets would only exasperate our negative trends, while progressive liberals wishing for trends more towards big-spending socialism would likely cause more troubles than they solve. So it’s long past time for our DC leadership to become much more proactive with different ideas by thinking outside the box! If we are ever to fix the long-term structural problems in our economy, the key is to get aggressive in devising a comprehensive plan for creating more meaningful, productive careers, along with leveling the playing field so small business/fledgling entrepreneurs have a fighting chance against the big guys. Here is the opening to bullshit-jobs-book-david-gr
Do you have a job that you secretly believe is pointless? If so, you have what anthropologist David Graeber calls a “bullshit job.” A professor at the London School of Economics and a leader of the early Occupy Wall Street movement, Graeber has written a new book called Bullshit Jobs: A Theory. He argues that there are millions of people across the world — clerical workers, administrators, consultants, telemarketers, corporate lawyers, service personnel, and many others — who are toiling away in meaningless, unnecessary jobs, and they know it. It didn’t have to be this way, Graeber says. Technology has advanced to the point where most of the difficult, labor-intensive jobs can be performed by machines. But instead of freeing ourselves from the suffocating 40-hour workweek, we’ve invented a whole universe of futile occupations that are professionally unsatisfying and spiritually empty. This, at least, is the story he tells in his book. Much of it is persuasive, some of it overly simplistic, but nearly all of it is interesting. I reached out to Graeber to talk about the book and the broader phenomenon of “bullshit jobs.” I wanted to know how we got to this place, if there are any real alternatives, and what, if anything, people can do about it.
But I thought the economy was said to be so strong? Not according to these excerpts from only-12-think-they-have-benefi
Only 12% of Americans feel they have benefitted a lot from the recent U.S. economic upturn, while a majority of families say they are still struggling, according to a new poll out today. The Monmouth University Polling Institute found that another 32% of Americans said they had received some benefit from the economy. But a majority said they either hadn’t benefitted very much (24%) or not at all (29%). Additionally, the survey found that more than half (57%) of people believe wealthiest families had benefitted a lot from Trump’s policies. Comparably, of those surveyed, only 12% said poor families had benefitted a lot, while 14% said middle class families have benefitted a lot. “We continually see national economic indicators hitting new marks, such as last week’s news of the lowest unemployment rate in 18 years,” Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute, said in a statement. “And yet very few Americans feel like they are reaping the benefits.” The results signal that most Americans do not believe that Trump has fulfilled his campaign promise to strengthen the middle class. “Trump campaigned on a platform that put the middle class first, but there doesn’t appear to be much difference in how this group has been faring under this president compared to his predecessor,” Murray said. “In fact, Trump seems to be doing more to help the wealthy than any other group, according to the American public.”
Something that has always bothered me about our country’s transition from a manufacturing base over to more of a service-oriented economy, is the way so much of the workforce is no longer engaged in actually making products. Not that these service jobs aren’t important, but wealth creation in a country is tied into making items of intrinsic value, products that survive long after the initial work is performed. Ramping up the energy sector has helped bring more wealth to Americans, but we should have never been so passive watching so many factory jobs slip away for decades. That value creation in manufacturing that goes on past its origin may be linked to why service-type jobs are generally lower paying. And besides wage stagnation that keeps falling short of making a living wage, we’re also seeing a lack of respect for many of these jobs which do require hard work, but unfortunately without the corresponding compensation. Something’s got to give! See these excerpts from american-working-class-what-it
But men like my dad no longer epitomize the working class today. Put simply, the working class shifted from ‘making stuff’ to ‘serving and caring for people’ As the manufacturing footprint in the working class has shrunk, so has the white male archetype that has historically defined the working class. Today’s working class is more female and racially perse – with whites comprising less than 60% of the working class, down from nearly 9 out of 10 in 1970. Similarly, two-thirds of working-class women are in the paid labor market, up from less than half in 1970. Put simply, the working class shifted from “making stuff” to “serving and caring for people” – a change that carried significant sociological baggage. Today, disrespect is baked into working-class jobs in a capitalistic worldview that considers workers as merely costs to be minimized. And that cost-minimization plays out in the form of low pay, miserly benefits, unstable schedules and an overall withholding of dignity by society for their hard and important work. The declining political clout of the working class and the concomitant degradation of working-class living standards impacts all of us, from pedigreed professional to warehouse worker. Why? Because the philosophy that allows employers to schedule their hourly workers week to week, with little advance notice, is the same philosophy that allows employers to expect their salaried workers to be “on” 24/7, responding to emails and taking conference calls that disrupt family and leisure time. The policies that stripped away our factories are the same policies that are now yanking professional jobs out of the country. The political hostility toward people who are down on their luck and need help buying food is delivered by the same politicians who drastically cut higher-education funding. The three biggest threats to the professional middle class are the same culprits behind the degradation of the working class: deregulation, “trickle-down” economics, and anti-government activism. These forces hit the working class first and hardest, but they inflict plenty of damage on the middle class too. The working class has had a boot on its neck for three decades. While it has borne the brunt of the assault on workers’ rights, all of America has suffered as a result. That’s why the concerns and aspirations of this new working class must be the starting point for rewriting our economic rules. That means putting the needs of America’s wage earners—black, brown, white, immigrant, male and female—at the center of our politics, not invisible in the margins.
If this article is correct, we’re still driving good jobs out of the country: trump-vowed-to-punish
Of the over 100 local labor markets with populations over 200,000 and above-average shares of manufacturing jobs, 22 managed to do well, adding private sector jobs and beating the national employment growth rate, 2007-15. It turns out that those areas applied some combination of three strategies. Call them the “three habits of highly successful manufacturing-intensive communities”:
*Customized services for small- and medium-sized manufacturers help them to overcome financing and information barriers, improve their technology and product design, and link them up to global supply chains;
*Infrastructure and land-use investment includes improving the transportation infrastructure and other services associated with a neighborhood’s land to make it more attractive for business development;
*Life-cycle skill development, including high-quality child care, high-quality preschool, K-12 education, college scholarships, and adult job training. Bartik finds that “better skills for local workers help attract and grow higher-wage jobs.”
Take note of what’s not on the list. To quote the author, “I find no evidence that job growth in these areas is significantly spurred by cutting business taxes or increasing business tax incentives.” It’s not that tax cuts or incentives are always a waste of money. But Bartik’s rigorous analysis finds a much smaller bang for tax cuts/incentives bucks than for these other interventions (incentives, for the record, are better than cuts because they can be more narrowly targeted). To study cost-effectiveness, Bartik first calculates the local benefits of a job created for one year. This turns out to be less than the job’s paycheck, because some of the new workers hail from outside the community, and they generate new costs. Net all that out, and the local benefits average around $12,000. Customized job training costs $3,000 per job-year, manufacturing extension $2,700, and neighborhood/land around $1,000. Business tax cuts and incentives, conversely, cost many multiples of the local benefits they generate. The bottom line is this: Before we accept the diagnosis that U.S. manufacturing is toast, there’s way more to do. To be clear, our point is not that American manufacturing can be massively revived. Advanced economies always lean toward services as they grow. But there are many other advanced economies out there with more robust factory sectors than ours, employing a much larger share of their workforce and spinning off much more productive R&D. What Bartik argues, and we’re sure he’s right, is let’s not give up without a fight, which in this context means the application of smart policy at every level of government.
We keep hearing the economy is great & the tax cuts are wonderful, so why do we still see the same old problem?: wages-arent-growing-at-all. Here’s an interesting article about how the elite have a war going on against normal people: america-belief-that-hard-work-
In Washington, the most common conversation topic should be a simple one: jobs. How do we create more of them? How do we prepare Americans for the jobs that are already available? How do we ensure those jobs provide a decent wage and good benefits? In Congress, these conversations often lead to discussions on the importance of expanding early childhood education, strengthening our public schools, and making college more affordable. And to be sure, those investments are critical. But let’s not forget about another straightforward, proven way to train Americans for well-paying jobs and lifelong careers: apprenticeships, sometimes called “the other four-year degree.” According to the National Skills Coalition, there are 5.9 million job openings in the United States, and 6.6 million unemployed Americans. The skills gap is a major reason why these jobs continue to go unfilled, especially for those jobs that don’t require a four-year college degree. But apprenticeships can help address this.
As a U.S. senator from Delaware who spent ten years in county government, and as the expert craftsmen and women of This Old House, we’ve seen firsthand that apprenticeships can help address these issues. Apprenticeships are one of our oldest forms of education—and still one of the smartest investments we can make. An apprenticeship is basically a degree that nearly guarantees you a well-paying job and a clear career path after graduation. It’s a program that gives you experience that employers demand and teaches you skills that last a lifetime. It’s a program that provides a paycheck while you’re still in training and doesn’t rack up debt while you’re at it. Too often in the Senate we define “education” too narrowly. We talk about education as a ticket to the middle class—but we don’t include apprenticeship programs. That has to change. We need to find ways to dramatically increase the number of apprenticeships in the United States. That’s why I’m proud to announce my new initiative to grow and expand highly successful Apprenticeship Hubs across America, which work to create new registered apprenticeship programs in high growth industry sectors. These hubs will help to address local economic needs and fill local skill gaps—issues that every member of the Senate should advocate for. Apprenticeships have a huge return on investment, with some analyses indicating returns of $23 for every dollar spent by the government. Budgets are tight, and all of us in the federal government are looking for smart, cost-effective investments that create jobs and help revitalize the American economy. That’s why apprenticeship programs deserve our continued support.
There are plenty of signs the Trump swamp is structured to benefit his wealthy friends: the-financial-hardships-of-tru
For its critics, the recently released World Inequality Report validated the bleaker version of the globalization narrative. According to this narrative, inequality is an inevitable outcome of globalization. And since 1980, the report confirms, inequality between the world’s citizens has grown. But while many will leverage the report to flatly reject what is an irreversible global phenomenon, the data doesn’t easily permit such unproductive resignation. As a recent piece in the Harvard Business Review points out, the report also helps to dispel a pervasive misperception about globalization, and in doing so invites the sort of productive dialogue that today is so desperately needed. Contrary to what’s commonly believed, the report’s numbers indicate that inequality is not the inevitable companion of increased trade and technology, but rather the result of policy. For instance, when comparing changes in equality in the U.S. and Europe since 1980, the United States’ comparatively much larger increase in inequality can be traced to America’s decisions in key policy areas concerning inequality – the undermining of the income tax, the cost of higher education, a grievously outdated minimum wage and the denial of universal health care.
It is long past time to move beyond rehashing the pros and cons and commit ourselves to solution-driven discussions aimed at a more egalitarian globalization. International trade, digitalization, capital flows and mass communication have generated big winners and losers: unprecedented progress and prosperity, as well as frustration and fear. We are not, however, helpless to make globalization work for the masses, nor must our politics be steered by fear or complacency. And among the many steps to be taken, a few stand out as critical. For starters, fundamental to aspiring towards a more morally decent form of globalization is a commitment to farsighted governance. To the detriment of long-term outcomes, our leaders frequently opt for the immediately popular and most painless plan over big-picture-oriented policy; they postpone the “hard calls” up until the point at which those options are no longer available. And as Jonathan Boston has argued, in the hyper-connected digital age this tendency is exacerbated by media pressures and public expectations of an immediate response to events.
To a great extent, this short-termism can be attributed to the imperatives of short electoral cycles – especially in the West, policy-makers don’t serve long enough terms to tackle complex social and economic issues. They are instead often concerned with pleasing the populace in the time they have, for the sake of leaving their mark or for re-election. A first step towards embedding farsighted governance would be lengthening electoral terms. Here we might look to the more virtuous aspects of Eastern political systems like those of Singapore and China. Though the West may frown upon some aspects of the Chinese political system, at the highest meritocratic levels of Chinese government leaders serve 10-year terms and decisions are made with future generations in mind. While China is investing billions in a forward-thinking “new Silk Road,” U.S. underinvestment in infrastructure is costing the American family $3,400 a year.
In the face of growing isolationism, the world’s leaders must recommit to multilateral governance ensuring fair trade, safeguarding human rights and promoting just social policies. And through active participation, we should hold these bodies to higher standards. As we work towards a fair globalization, we must also correct for its unjust ramifications, returning confidence to those who feel forgotten and powerless in its wake. To do so, we must introduce progressive social welfare policies, in particular, universal health care and legislation raising the minimum wage to reflect costs of living. According to the World Health Organization, paying out of pocket for health services pushes 100 million people below the poverty line, while increased health care coverage improves health indicators, contributes to economic growth and reduces poverty. The overall economic effect of raising the minimum wage, meanwhile, is endlessly disputed – but there is a consensus that it lowers the number of people living in poverty. As a society, we have the moral obligation to protect those who do not have the resources to protect themselves. And to that moral justification we can add a pragmatic rationale: Economic stability for the masses fosters political stability, and undermines fear-based politics. Over three and a half decades, globalization has rapidly transformed industries and economies worldwide. It has brought jobs to developing nations, facilitated cross-cultural exchanges and the transfer of technical know-how and in some ways created conditions ripe for democracy. But policy has not kept pace, and today a great portion of the world perceives themselves to be globalization’s losers. We now require a new modus operandi that restores people’s faith in the idea of an egalitarian globalization, and one that makes good on those promises. Going forward, complacency will be no more sustainable than emotion-based politics.
I’m a big believer in personal responsibility. But that must extend both ways, employee and employer. Before we start yanking away the safety nets, our first responsibility is to put various initiatives in place that can create a lot better, more productive jobs paying a living wage. These excerpts come from personal-responsibility-should-apply-to-inpiduals-and-industry-alike:
As the Trump administration works to move our system of government entitlements and welfare closer to one where recipients must get a job in order to qualify, it becomes increasingly clear that ‘personal responsibility’ is very much at the top of the president’s agenda and the collective minds of Republican legislatures throughout the country. And why not? Incentivizing people who are capable of work to do so improves lives while reducing the public’s obligation to provide basic, safety-net support. As people learn to fend for themselves, they discover the joys of contributing to both their family and the society as a whole. And while we are quick to point the finger at those who fail to take personal responsibility for their lives, leaving hard working Americans to pay for many of their most basic needs, we somehow manage to dismiss, forget or give a pass to employers are doing precisely the same thing-avoiding their own personal and corporate responsibilities.
The Trump administration, with a helping hand from many a GOP controlled state legislature, is going about the job of incentivizing people who are unemployed to get to work. The plan is to allow and encourage the states to add a work requirement for anyone who wishes to qualify for Medicaid, get a subsidy from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to pay the rent or qualify for food stamps. Yet, there is something oddly bizarre about this new welfare and entitlements scheme. While the inpidual is required to provide their services to an employer to satisfy a precondition for gaining access to government subsidies, the employer gets the benefit the worker’s services. Meanwhile, you and I, as a result of the worker providing those services, are left to subsidize the employer by picking up at least a part of the tab for the employee’s most basic needs in life. While the idea may be to incentivize the inpidual to go to work, what we are actually doing is incentivizing the employer to hold back on paying anything resembling a livable wage because the taxpayer is going to do the job for them.
It is true that there are small business employers who only manage to eke out a modest living each year after paying their employees. For those employers, a little government assistance might be in order. But if a business is earning substantial profits, paying pidends to its shareholders and allowing management to earn salaries that exceeds the average employee salary by absurd ratios, can anyone explain why the taxpayer should be helping their employees to pay for food, rent and healthcare rather than the business assuming the personal responsibility to do so itself? Despite what we have come to believe, capitalism was never about maximizing profits by paying employees so little that we require the government to make up the difference so employees can afford the very basics of life. Personal responsibility, and its relationship to government cheese, does not just apply to prospective employees. It must also apply to those who get the benefit of the employee’s work.
And in this era of high tech, let’s find a way for everyone to participate, adding more meaning & sense of accomplishment to their lives: people-with-intellectual-and-d
This dark money issue remains insidious, enabling our crony capitalist system, where the power players in business & government are in cahoots together & the rest of us pay the price: shining-a-light-on-corp
Because Of You, I Am Afraid….
We have our leader just pulling out of the Iran deal, which may precipitate war in the Middle East. He’s also raised expectations way beyond reason in the coming North Korean talks, as Jong Un’s dishonest ancestors in the past have cheated & stabbed us in the back. And on the domestic front, roughly half of America struggles to make ends meet as they’re stuck in low-paying, dead-end careers, so our leader gives us tax cuts to help the rich. We also see random mass shootings, along with mental illness, on the rise in our unrestrained gun culture. If that weren’t enough, our massive federal debt has us on the road to bankruptcy. Then we have a major scandal, where our president may have illegally colluded with a foreign adversary to undermine our electoral process & constitutional democracy, followed by obstructing the investigations through intimidation, smearing or firing various figures in the DOJ, FBI, special counsel, media & political opposition. America is now in a dangerous place, headed by a dishonest demagogue & all those enablers in his echo & his base. We have every reason to be afraid, because of you, our current leader, threatening to run our great nation into the ground, as expressed in this song:
Recent Comments