Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883

    LOSING OUR COUNTRY

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/10/opini ... an.html?hp

    By PAUL KRUGMAN
    Published: June 10, 2005

    Baby boomers like me grew up in a relatively equal society. In the 1960's America was a place in which very few people were extremely wealthy, many blue-collar workers earned wages that placed them comfortably in the middle class, and working families could expect steadily rising living standards and a reasonable degree of economic security.

    But as The Times's series on class in America reminds us, that was another country. The middle-class society I grew up in no longer exists.

    Working families have seen little if any progress over the past 30 years. Adjusted for inflation, the income of the median family doubled between 1947 and 1973. But it rose only 22 percent from 1973 to 2003, and much of that gain was the result of wives' entering the paid labor force or working longer hours, not rising wages.

    Meanwhile, economic security is a thing of the past: year-to-year fluctuations in the incomes of working families are far larger than they were a generation ago. All it takes is a bit of bad luck in employment or health to plunge a family that seems solidly middle-class into poverty.

    But the wealthy have done very well indeed. Since 1973 the average income of the top 1 percent of Americans has doubled, and the income of the top 0.1 percent has tripled.

    Why is this happening? I'll have more to say on that another day, but for now let me just point out that middle-class America didn't emerge by accident. It was created by what has been called the Great Compression of incomes that took place during World War II, and sustained for a generation by social norms that favored equality, strong labor unions and progressive taxation. Since the 1970's, all of those sustaining forces have lost their power.

    Since 1980 in particular, U.S. government policies have consistently favored the wealthy at the expense of working families - and under the current administration, that favoritism has become extreme and relentless. From tax cuts that favor the rich to bankruptcy "reform" that punishes the unlucky, almost every domestic policy seems intended to accelerate our march back to the robber baron era.

    It's not a pretty picture - which is why right-wing partisans try so hard to discredit anyone who tries to explain to the public what's going on.

    These partisans rely in part on obfuscation: shaping, slicing and selectively presenting data in an attempt to mislead. For example, it's a plain fact that the Bush tax cuts heavily favor the rich, especially those who derive most of their income from inherited wealth. Yet this year's Economic Report of the President, in a bravura demonstration of how to lie with statistics, claimed that the cuts "increased the overall progressivity of the federal tax system."

    The partisans also rely in part on scare tactics, insisting that any attempt to limit inequality would undermine economic incentives and reduce all of us to shared misery. That claim ignores the fact of U.S. economic success after World War II. It also ignores the lesson we should have learned from recent corporate scandals: sometimes the prospect of great wealth for those who succeed provides an incentive not for high performance, but for fraud.

    Above all, the partisans engage in name-calling. To suggest that sustaining programs like Social Security, which protects working Americans from economic risk, should have priority over tax cuts for the rich is to practice "class warfare." To show concern over the growing inequality is to engage in the "politics of envy."

    But the real reasons to worry about the explosion of inequality since the 1970's have nothing to do with envy. The fact is that working families aren't sharing in the economy's growth, and face growing economic insecurity. And there's good reason to believe that a society in which most people can reasonably be considered middle class is a better society - and more likely to be a functioning democracy - than one in which there are great extremes of wealth and poverty.

    Reversing the rise in inequality and economic insecurity won't be easy: the middle-class society we have lost emerged only after the country was shaken by depression and war. But we can make a start by calling attention to the politicians who systematically make things worse in catering to their contributors. Never mind that straw man, the politics of envy. Let's try to do something about the politics of greed.

    E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com

    ___________

    GUYS, this is pretty remarkable, because this is the New York Times!!

    While he doesn't go the distance to name HOW they are exercising their greed...illegal immigration and the flood of labor that weakens normal labor wage and salary negotiations including fair and equal oportunity for access to jobs, he's calling for a political revolution against the robber barons. RISE UP!!

    E-mail Mr. Krugman and thank him for his article. Also explain to him what we have learned and ask him to print it. I'm going to send him FOR REPORTERS: THE TRUTH ABOUT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. Everyone do the same so he's sure not to miss it!
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #2
    Senior Member Darlene's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,200
    Good article Judy

    Have been gone for a few days and am trying to catch up. It keeps getting harder as the site grows.

  3. #3
    Senior Member LegalUSCitizen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    10,934
    Good article, Judy. New York Times, no less!
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  4. #4
    JackSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    458

    No Krugman!

    Paul Krugman will probably not help you in the war against illegal immigrants. He is a very far way left writer. He does have some good comments about this wealth divide however.

    George Bush did more for my family than Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton did! The Bush tax cut immediately put $1,000 in our families pockets. Not a lot BUT as a lower middle class head of family what did or do the DEMOCRATS have to offer a WHITE male? NOTHING! More taxes if nothing else. Tax money that will do nothing for us! Bush's tax plan went into efect just before 9-11 remember?

    A DEMOCRAT promises you the world and then stabs you in the back when you turn away. A REPUBLICAN just walks right up to you and sticks it to you. I will generally go with the REPUBLICAN because at least I know what I am getting. What is the diffeence between a D and a R? The D has not been mugged yet!

    BTW there is a very good article written in today's Denver Post written by a Harvard professor. Maybe someone can post it? He equally balames Democrats and Republicans for this immigration mess and I agree!

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    202
    Paul Krugman was on the Chris Mathew's show where the discussion turned to illegal immigration. (Feb 7, 2005)
    http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/MSNBCH ... 20705.html
    MATTHEWS: And neither side wants to be known as a tough enforcer of the border.

    KRUGMAN: And it`s -- look, this is an issue that just cuts right at right angles to the usual political divide. Both the left and the right are divided on this. And I`m kind of enjoying the spectacle, to be honest, because here you have got the two wings of the Republican Party, the cultural nativist America, America side and the cheap labor plutocrats, basically.

    MATTHEWS: Right.

    KRUGMAN: Who are in conflict with each other. And I think Bush is trying to find a way to basically serve the plutocrat constituency, while not making too much offense with the people who won him the election. So this is -- I`m kind of taking some popcorn and watching this one.

    MATTHEWS: But isn`t it interesting -- let me go to Dana Milbank -- that you see a lot of anger about immigration, illegal immigration in California? You don`t see so much in Texas. Is that what we`re looking at here? Simply all politics is local and the president doesn`t have an experience of angry Anglos at too many illegals coming in around them?

    MILBANK: Well, if he doesn`t, he`s about to get some. I was watching the State of the Union, the response on the Republican side. Even Social Security didn`t split them like this. Half of them are sitting on their hands and half of them are cheering wildly. So, as Paul was saying, it really a splitting away the business crowd from the other conservatives. And, indeed, this is an issue -- and let`s give him credit for it -- where Bush does feel personally strongly about it. It may also coincide with the Chamber of Commerce. But this is something that has been at his heart for a long time. And he`s going to do it even though it may have a real political cost to him.
    So, Krugman used the phrase "cheap labor plutocrats" to describe those in favor of illegal immigration... But then, he also classified influential Republicans as being "nativists", if they oppose illegal immigration.

    I've read his columns and I haven't read many concerns aboug Globalism... He mostly talks about social security, tax policy, bankruptcy laws, etc... He rarely talks about Cheap Labor Globalism.

    Yet, the phrase "cheap labor plutocrats" indicates that he thinks a case could be made for reduced immigration without being a "nativist.".. Still, he seems disinterested in making that case.

    Also, the above quote indicates he's aware that there's a divide within the Left on this issue too :
    And it`s -- look, this is an issue that just cuts right at right angles to the usual political divide. Both the left and the right are divided on this.
    But the scoop I've read is the Krugman is totally in favor of the Globalism, because he thinks it's the only way to lead the 3rd world out of poverty... I'm sure that he would talk strongly about the need for better environmental and labor regulations... He would say we need to support unions in the 3rd world...

    But I don't understand why so many influential liberals support Globalism BEFORE these regulations are in place... Shouldn't we have these regulations before we pass "free trade agreements"???

    Furthermore, it seems very naive... I mean one of the main reasons that jobs leave the country or we bring in illegal immigrants is to break unions... The whole purpose is to avoid regulations that may be beneficial to citizen interests, but not to business interests.

    As I've repeated before, nowadays, labor unions bargain for LOWER wages as futile, last efforts to keep jobs from leaving the country... And then, I learned from these ALIPAC forums that the meatpacking industry bussed in illegals in order to break their unions.

    Furthermore, unions are not workable in in the face of unlimited cheap labor... The following article states that China needs labor unions... Even assuming that happened tomorrow, it would probably take decades for wages to rise to 1st world levels :
    http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P116246.asp
    It's tough enough to get your wages up if there are 80 million unemployed and 100 million underemployed workers in the national labor pool. It's even harder if you aren't allowed to organize in order to demand higher wages and higher benefits.
    And even if they had unions, I imagine it would be tough to effectively bargain when there are 100 million poor people eager to take the place of a striker in order to earn 38 cents an hour.

    Also, in the same article,
    And they do need help. The official Chinese rate of unemployment is about 4.5%. Outside estimates put it closer to 10%. And that's after years of better-than-9% economic growth. One problem is that even with China's drastic but successful population-control measures, the Chinese population added 149 million people, 10% more people, from 2003-2004. At 9% growth, the Chinese are basically adding enough jobs to stay even with population growth.
    They added 149 million more people in 2003-2004... The whole U.S. workforce is only about 150 million... And even with 9% growth for about 2 decades, they still have high unemployment as high as 10% which works out to be about 130 million people... Not only that, China is busy dismantling it's state-run enterprises, which creates more unemployment.

    Even with the best policies, it would take decades for wages to rise to Western levels... By the time that happens, all tradable goods/services will be done by 3rd world countries... Or perhaps, the whole world will be one, big 3rd world country where labor flexibility will be such that if there's an eager worker who will work for 1 penny cheaper, then the job will be immediately whisked to where that worker is... Either that, or the worker will be imported.

    But Krugman is an economist and we all know what that means... Ideology trumps reality for economists in their love of "free trade" regardless of the fact that it's actually corporately-regulated trade.

    Krugman is probably a supporter of Trade Adjustment Assistance, which is a federal program to compensate and retrain Americans displaced by cheap labor... He probably supports expanding the program from manufacturing to service industries... But this is "bread and circuses", because retraining often leads to lesser jobs with lower pay / benefits...

    There are 2 kinds of Globalists... One which just wants to drop people... The other that wants to help ease people into a lower standard of living, so that they won't complain much... Krugman falls into the latter category.

    Maybe Krugman's intentions are good, but I really dislike the view that we must sacrifice jobs / industry in order to lift up the 3rd world... People who advocate this are rarely those at risk of losing their livelihoods to cheap labor... Also, the "losers" of free trade seemed to be hurt as much as the 3rd world is helped... But the wealthiest citizens in all countries benefit.

    It's a strange kind of Robin Hood, where money is stolen from the poor & middle class in Western countries to be split between the poorest 3rd worlders and the wealthiest people in the world... As an example, the meatpackers used to be unionized citizens at $20 hours per hour... Now, they're 70% illegal immigrants at $8 an hour... The meatpacking executives took half the income in savings... The illegal immigrants took the other half.

    But is this transfer of real wealth (jobs, industry) the only way to help the 3rd world?.. Jeffrey Sachs published a book called "The End of Poverty", where he said that if the wealthy countries donated 0.7% of GDP per year for a decade, this would lift a billion people out of poverty.
    http://www.alternet.org/story/22032/
    The bottom line, according to Sachs, is that the West can permanently lift the extremely poor out of hopelessness by committing to long-term investment in the essential components of economic growth: safe drinking water, irrigation, affordable health care, roads, power and telecommunications, among others. Beyond being a matter of global security, it's an obvious moral imperative, now more urgent than ever.
    While there are plenty of legitimate criticisms of this aid, I would rather assist in these ways than by giving away our whole economy of tradable goods / services... Furthermore, giving away jobs is a regressive tax that devastates some households if they happen to be one of the "losers of free trade.".. It seems that the richest people should bear the biggest burden for helping 3rd worlders, but far from taking on their share of the burder, they're profitting from this transfer of wealth.

    Once we give away our whole economy, we'll be a 3rd world country in need of aid... At least, with some kind of aid program, we can stop the aid at any time and the burden can be fairly shared... Once we give away industry, it may not be so easy to get that back...

    By the way, the "compassionate" Globalists view immigration as another kind of trade which will help to lift the 3rd world out of poverty... My guess is that Krugman is in this camp.

    Still, I like Krugman... I think he's one of the better ones... I think he has a lot of good things to say... I'm curious what he will say in future columns explaining why "...working families aren't sharing in the economy's growth, and face growing economic insecurity" since the 1970s.
    Why is this happening? I'll have more to say on that another day, but for now let me just point out that middle-class America didn't emerge by accident. It was created by what has been called the Great Compression of incomes that took place during World War II, and sustained for a generation by social norms that favored equality, strong labor unions and progressive taxation. Since the 1970's, all of those sustaining forces have lost their power.
    I'm sure he'll make some interesting and arguably worthy calls for changes to unions, taxes, health care, bankruptcy laws, pensions, social security, etc... Maybe he'll call for improving Trade Adjustment Assistance... I'm sure he'll make the case for improved educational opportunities, because the Globalists love that explanation... (As some critics of Globalism say, the only skill Americans need to be trained on is how to live on $5 per day... In other words, education in tradable goods/services is becoming worthless... And with H-1B, H-2B, L-1, and other work visas, even non-tradable industries are hurt by cheap labor.) In summary, I think he tries to balance concerns about the 3rd world with America... I prefer Lou Dobbs, whose point of view is to put American citizens first.
    "We have it in our power to begin the world over again." (Thomas Paine 1776 "Common Sense") "The cause of America is in great measure the cause of all mankind." ("Common Sense")

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •