No, Really - The Sky is Falling!

Even as the American economy shows tentative signs of a rebound, the human toll of the recession continues to mount, with millions of Americans remaining out of work, out of savings and nearing the end of their unemployment benefits. Economists fear that the nascent recovery will leave more people behind than in past recessions, failing to create jobs in sufficient numbers to absorb the record-setting ranks of the long-term unemployed.
Call them the new poor: people long accustomed to the comforts of middle-class life who are now relying on public assistance for the first time in their lives — potentially for years to come.

 Peter S. Goodman, NYT 2/21/10

 _______________________________________

The lost decade for the economy

The U.S. economy has expanded at a healthy clip for most of the last 70 years, but by a wide range of measures, it stagnated in the first decade of the new millennium. Job growth was essentially zero, as modest job creation from 2003 to 2007 wasn't enough to make up for two recessions in the decade. Rises in the nation's economic output, as measured by gross domestic product, was weak. And household net worth, when adjusted for inflation, fell as stock prices stagnated, home prices declined in the second half of the decade and consumer debt skyrocketed.

Washington Post - 2 26-10

____________________________________________________

Henny Penny is exhausted.  She's been running around like a chicken with her head cut off, trying to make the Big Guys see what's coming.  The sky is not only falling,  great chunks of it are already on the ground.  The Big Guys in charge have no use for small pullets bringing bad news.  From where they sit, everything looks fine.  Life is good.  Nothing a well-positioned tax break couldn't fix.  And besides, the depression never happened, and the recession is over, so stuff a sock in it.  (But all you little people still collecting paychecks?  Don't forget to pay your taxes by April 15.)

I'm remembering a time not so long ago when we built things and made things and anyone who wanted a job could find one, but for years now we've been hemorrhaging jobs like Niagara flows water.  The unemployment numbers are drooping, not because so many people are back to work now, but because so few people are still collecting unemployment benefits.  Many millions of people without jobs aren't being counted anymore.  For millions of people who used to be employed, job seeking is a fruitless game, and they've quit playing. That's not to say they're not still out there--by the millions. 

This from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for January, 2010:

In January, the number of persons unemployed due to job loss decreased by
378,000 to 9.3 million. Nearly all of this decline occurred among permanent job losers.

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over)
continued to trend up in January, reaching 6.3 million. Since the start of
the recession in December 2007, the number of long-term unemployed has risen
by 5.0 million.

In January, the civilian labor force participation rate was little changed at
64.7 percent. The employment-population ratio rose from 58.2 to 58.4 percent.

The number of persons who worked part time for economic reasons (sometimes
referred to as involuntary part-time workers) fell from 9.2 to 8.3 million
in January. These individuals were working part time because their hours had
been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.

About 2.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force in
January, an increase of 409,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not
seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted
and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior
12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched
for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.

Among the marginally attached, there were 1.1 million discouraged workers in
January, up from 734,000 a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.)

Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they
believe no jobs are available for them.

So let's multiply one person without a job by 9.3 million.  (Because we surely wouldn't want to waste our time thinking about just one miserable person.)  Okay, now we have 9.3 million people collecting unemployment checks.  But let's say six million of them have a partner and a couple of kids.  Now we're talking about 24 million people trying to survive on that one check. (Unless both partners are, you know, unemployed.)  Then add all those other people noted above in the BLS report and multiply them by the numbers in their families, and. . .
We're talking real numbers.


So my first solution (because I don't have a real job and I've had time to think about this) was to encourage the unemployed and underemployed to take on two part-time jobs.  The unemployment numbers would plummet, our work force would be productive,  and we wouldn't look like such ninnies to the rest of the world.

My plan would have everybody working for less, but working, which is the main thing--and all of those jobs just waiting to be filled would be filled.  (Because everybody knows if you really want a job in this country you can find one.)   Health care bennies would have to go, but let's face it--they were on their way out, anyway.

So that was my original plan.  That was yesterday.  Today I had the brainstorm of all brainstorms, and I am hyped!   Get this:  We export our unemployed to the countries that provide us with our goods!  China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Bangladesh, Viet Nam, Hong Kong, Swaziland (Swaziland??). . . They have factories over in those places.  Our workers need jobs.  Voila!

My God, it's brilliant.  No more fuss about unions or OSHA or health insurance.  No more worrying about where or how all those people are going to live.  Send the workers AND the jobs overseas.  No more jobs anywhere in America!  (except--see below*.)

What a relief.  You don't know how I've been worrying about this.  Something just hasn't been right for a long time now.  It's true I have a few details to work out, but then I'll be sending it on to congress ASAP.  Remember, you read it here first.  And--it would help me a lot if you stood by me when the Republicans try to take credit for it.

So here it is:

Since only the wealthiest one percent of the population would still be living in America,  they could do away with the Constitution and, in fact,  the entire government, and run everything from their gated communities, with CEOs and Boards of Directors and, if need be, hefty under-the-table bribes.  They would need  massive assistance from *hired help, of course, but that could be worked out, too.  The help would live outside the gates in company housing, arriving in buses at their scheduled time to mow the sweeping lawns and polish the frosted titanium faucets and pick the nits out of the privileged heads of the gated children. (Their own children would be laboring overseas, too, so no need for baby-sitters.  Or, come to think of it, public schools!  Man, this is getting better all the time.)

The help would receive paltry but steady paychecks which would go toward their rent, and they would, of course, owe their souls to the company store.  There would be company doctors and company hospitals, paid for by deducting health expenses from their pay, but services would be basic so if they became really sick, they would die.

But here's the good thing:  There would be no slums, no welfare, no food banks, no jails, no prisons.  The poor (which by this time is nearly everybody) would be working in the factories overseas and the common criminal element* would be shipped off to Effincommies Archipelago, a previously uncharted chain of desert islands surrounded by sharks and patrolled by pirates, where they would finally be productive,  turning out Marni shearling vests and Brioni leather bomber jackets and over-the-knee Christian Louboutin boots,  working v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y in order to keep that shortage thing going so the prices would stay at dazzle level.   (The *rich criminal element, if you were wondering, would be forgiven by an Almighty God of their choosing.)


I'm already seeing a few problems with my plan, but once the rich get wind of it all the kinks will be worked out to their advantage.  I'm thinking--who's going to be here to buy the cheap stuff?  The stuff our former American workers are over there making?  Never mind how K-Mart and WalMart and Target and Macys and Nordstroms and Saks are going to feel about it.  How is China going to feel about it? 

And who decides on the lucky few who would be left to help the helpless rich?  Who wouldn't want a job like that?  So I thought about a TV show, an "American Idle", where three or four judges would call in likely candidates, insult them in brutally clever ways,  and take so long pretending they weren't going to hire them, the lucky few would promise to work for even less.

If that didn't work, it could be done by holding a lottery, I suppose.  It is, after all, the American way.  We have a penchant for deciding everything by whim or by chance.

So what do you think?  But before you answer, remember that the best government is no government, and my plan, so far, is the only one that effectively addresses that.  And don't worry about me (and I won't worry about you).  I have relatives in Canada and if I can get there before the other DPs I'll have a place to stay.

Ramona

Take Me to Our Leader

The reasons for the stillbirth of the new progressive era are many and much discussed. There's the death of liberal and moderate Republicanism, the reluctance of some administration officials and congressional Democrats to challenge the banks, the ever-larger role of money in politics (see reluctance to challenge banks, above), the weakness of labor, the dysfunctionality of the Senate -- the list is long and familiar. But if there's a common feature to the political landscapes in which Carter, Clinton and now Obama were compelled to work, it's the absence of a vibrant left movement. 

Harold Meyerson, Washington Post, 1/6/10

__________________________________________

 Alas, it's true.  The "left movement"--the true left movement, not the middle-of-the-road "Progressives" nor the loony "Lefties"--is no longer vibrant.  We lost our glow long ago, when we decided the worst thing we could ever do to ourselves was to get in the position of being considered Socialists.  We even dropped "social programs" from our lexicon lest someone should suspect us of Commie leanings.  Then we dropped social programs altogether, just in case.

We either forgot or ignored the real contributions unions had brought us since before our grandparents were young, and turned on them just when we needed them the most.  We let the actor Ronald Reagan make the first incision and then stood back, wringing our hands, while the strength of our labor movement slowly seeped away.

Our voices were no more than mere whispers when American jobs by the millions moved to foreign countries.  No representative howls from these quarters when American manufacturing and American wages moved toward the downslide while corporate America's profits went soaring through the stratosphere.

We never completely bought the notion that all was right with the world, that our path to prosperity was named "deregulation", that the people in power had even a nibble of a clue, but every time we turned around someone wicked or more cunning was stealing our soapbox.  So we shut up.  Or so it seemed, for all the good our grousing and complaining did.


For eight long Bushwhacked years, we moaned and groaned and predicted the predictable outcomes.  And when they came, we got nothing for our troubles except to be able to utter a wholly unsatisfying "We told you so".  Because for eight long Bushwhacked years we, the Liberals afraid to speak our own name, had no real leaders.

Nobody stood out as the one willing and courageous and strong enough to take on corrupt big government and big business (even more dazzlingly corrupt).  We've had many voices--many fine voices--like Eleanor Roosevelt, FDR, JFK, MLK, Walter Reuther, Cesar Chavez, Barbara Jordan, Mario Cuomo, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich,  Anthony Weiner, Sheldon Whitehouse, Byron Dorgan (Yes, I've heard--but he still has a voice), Elizabeth Warren, Bill Moyers, Rachel Maddow.  We've had Molly Ivins, Michael Moore, Jim Hightower, and now Al Franken, who's laughing all the way to the Hill.

But where is the one strong leader leading the charge to help put our country back together again?  To take on the jammers and scammers in high places?  To demolish the Fat Cats' havens?  To get people back to work?  To keep families healthy and safe, without poverty looming?   For awhile there, we thought it was going to be Barack Obama.  For a while, I think even Barack Obama thought it was going to be him.   But it isn't.  It's clear he's not the one.


No leader.  Oh, well. . .so be it.

What??

Wait, that was last year.  This year--2010--we're going to have to do it ourselves.  We who see ourselves as the perennial, ineffectual caretakers are going to have to make our presence known.  Don't answer to "Liberal", I don't care.  Call yourselves "Progressives", I don't care.  Just do what liberals have always done.  Help the poor, feed the hungry, nurture the children, restore human dignity, and advocate, always, for equity and honesty.

This year is the year of the PEOPLE.  We are the people.  Only we can make it happen.  We can't do it alone.  We can't even do it with rooms full of like-minded people.  In order to be heard, we have to do it by the millions.  There are millions of us out of work with nothing but time on our hands.  There are millions of us who are retired, with no real schedule, who remember what it was like when the middle class was on top and want that back again.  There are millions of us with brain power and skills working at no-hope jobs through no fault of our own.  And there are millions of us who are union members who need a refresher course in labor struggles and organized ass-kicking.

2010.  The Year of the People.   Last I looked, that's us.

Ramona

(Cross-posted at Talking Points Memo here.)

LiBeRaL: Not a Four-Letter Word

I've always been proud to be a Liberal. I've never gone the "Progressive" route, and I probably never will. I see the word "Progressive" not as the definition of an enlightened liberal, but as a way to be liberal without having to admit to it.

The Right Wing never gives up on trying to convince everyone that Liberals hate America. Their mantra: The Liberals are all that stand in the way of true economic success . The Liberals want to hug terrorists, and hug trees, and hug Welfare moms driving Cadillacs. The Liberals want Big Government, a Nanny State, and the abolishment of all signs of Christianity, including slogans on tee shirts saying things like, "Jesus Loves Me, How About You?" (No, I don't love you and I think you look silly, but I'm a Liberal.  So, whatever. . .)

We Liberals got wimpy for an unconscionable number of years--I admit it--but now we need to work hard to make up for it. I'm not good at numbers, but I know enough to be terrified when I read that over 600,000 people lost their jobs in one month, or that more than 80 million people have health insurance that ranges from inadequate to none, or that home foreclosures doubled last year from those in 2007: From 404,000 in 2007 to 861,000 in 2008.

Those are big, big numbers, signifying abject misery for every single American affected by them. If you've got any Liberal leanings at all, start thinking of those big numbers in terms of real people. Get on the damned bandwagon and do something, for God's sake! Nobody else is going to do it.

I get it that after all that Right Wing blabbering and battering, you need a little pep talk first. Start here. This is "Seven Habits of Truly Liberal People", K. Anthony Appiah's review of Alan Wolfe's "The Future of Liberalism".

In the review, Appiah says:

"Temperament, substance, procedure can all be liberal, and understanding liberalism requires a grasp of all three and of the connections among them.
Wolfe's distinctive claim, however, is that the key to liberalism is a set of dispositions, or habits of mind—seven of them, in fact, each of which gets its own chapter.

Four of these dispositions will be familiar: 'a sympathy for equality,' 'an inclination to deliberate,' 'a commitment to tolerance,' and 'an appreciation of openness.' We're used to the portrayal: liberals as talky, tolerant, open-minded, egalitarians. It's not surprising, then, that these types are at home in the garrulous world of the academy—or that bossy preachers, convinced they have the one true story, do not care for them much. But Wolfe's sketch of the liberal adds three unfamiliar elements to the picture: 'a disposition to grow,' 'a preference for realism,' and 'a taste for governance.'"

We Liberals know down deep who we are, but it's that "taste for governance" that hasn't been talked about much. We've let ourselves be convinced that Big Government is death to civilization as we know it. What ninnies we've been! Have you seen what a non-governing Government (deregulation, look-the-other-way, favor our buddies and nobody else) has done to us?

Appiah paraphrasing Wolfe again (Maybe he should write a book.) :

 "Anti-liberals think that we should have as little government as we can get away with because the real achievements of humanity come from the self-organized activity of the economy and of private life. This conviction is to be found both to liberalism's left—Marx, after all, hoped the state would wither away—and to its right, among those modern conservatives who believe, as Ronald Reagan put it, that government is the problem. For liberals, the problem is bad government, and there is a vast range of government that, when done well, is as creative and important as anything human beings do."

Okay. That's us in a nutshell. So go ahead and read the book when you have time, but right now we have bigger fish to fry. Millions of people are hurting in our country. They're not all Liberals, but with our Big Hearts and Open Minds (see above) we can do this. Yes, we can. (Or so it says on some of the better tee shirts I've seen.)