Showing posts with label labor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label labor. Show all posts

Saturday, December 6, 2014

Why poor people stay poor: A firsthand account

[HT: GP].  My Tea Partying friends need to read this firsthand account of real life in America and try for one millisecond to get out of their own self-righteous skin and imagine the lives of America's working poor, who walk the knife edge of bankruptcy, joblessness and homelessness.

Related but unrelated... Sometimes I listen in the car to the show "Simply Money" on conservative talk radio, the running theme of which is useful and "true," as far as it goes: to have a household budget and stick to it. 

Often the hosts chastise their listeners for not setting aside an "emergency fund" of at least $20,000. And again, that's true as far as it goes, an emergency fund is definitely a good thing to have... assuming you could possibly manage, by Hurculean efforts and monastic self-denial, to earn and set aside such an amount if you're working two part-time jobs in America. Yet the real truth is that rainy day funds and savings accounts are a fantasy for most working Americans. We're all living hand to mouth.

Until conservatives and the GOP acknowledge real life in America, they will never be trusted by the majority. They may win midterm elections with low turnout in gerrymandered districts, but they won't be trusted, they won't win support except from the already comfortably converted.


By Linda Tirado
December 5, 2014 | Slate

Saturday, October 25, 2014

More college grads won't fix income inequality


And anyway, we shouldn't have so many kids thinking their best bet is an expensive college degree, and with it onerous debt at the outset of their lives -- that prevents or delays marriage and household formation, the backbone of the middle class.

Yes, we do need to make college less expensive, not just offer more federal loans and grants. In fact, I say public universities should be FREE for students who qualify, as many European countries do.

More importantly, we need to develop (almost from scratch, sadly), a concurrent educational tracking system for the provision of technical-vocational training, paired with apprenticeships at real companies, as Germany does.  

Indeed, we don't need manufacturing workers or even necessarily engineers with 4-year degrees. Or if a kid wants to write software code for the next great app, he doesn't necessarily need a 4-year degree. These are artificial hurdles to entering today's workforce. But there is nothing in their place; so employers demand a degree because they don't know how else to find and filter candidates.

Meanwhile (and I can attest to this personally), in today's "parachute-in-and-start-running" hiring environment, employers are increasingly looking at certifications that attest to a candidate's concrete work skills, not necessarily their broad-based knowledge or ability to learn quickly as attested by a bachelors degree. That's sad, but it is what it is and I don't see it changing anytime soon. It's an employers' labor market now, and it will continue to be so for the foreseeable future....

And then there are all sorts of in-demand jobs that can't find enough workers, such as nurses, home healthcare workers, medical office administrators, billing specialists and cost accountants that don't necessarily call for 4-year degrees. We end up over-educating future workers to fill these jobs who end up training on-the-job anyway to gain experience. 

As Pierson and Riley allude to, teachers may be the big exception to where federal action is warranted. We can't let the employment "market" determine where our best teachers go. We need the best teachers where they are needed most. To do that, we must compensate them accordingly. This requires concerted federal and state action. We can't just hope or leave this to chance anymore. Indeed:

Under the current system, teachers have more school choice than students do. Rather than sending the most qualified and experienced teachers to educate the kids who need them the most, we do the reverse.

That's a recipe for continued failure.  

But to end on a high note, I refer to the writings of education reform over-blogger (that's the only way I describe her verbal fecundity) Diane Ravitch, who points out that our K-12 system is not necessarily broken, it's just forced to deal with huge economic disparities that it is not equipped to remedy. Indeed, educational superstar countries like Finland took their best notes from U.S. public schools back in the day. So we DO know a thing or two about teaching our kids, we just need to do them without the politics and funding shortfalls.


By James Piereson and Naomi Schaefer Riley
October 23, 2014 | Washington Post

Sunday, September 7, 2014

News digest / Catching up on news (09.07.2014)

Here's more good stuff from my mailing list that I didn't have time to re-post on TILIS:


"Russia sees a military solution in Ukraine even if the West doesn’t." By Editorial Board, September 5, 2014, Washington Post. URL: http://wapo.st/Yj13ir  


"The Senate Republicans’ foolish fight over ambassadors." By David Ignatius, Septmeber 2, 2014, Washington Post. URL: http://wapo.st/1w4aflz

"A second Sunni Awakening?" By Fareed Zakaria, September 2, 2014, Washington Post. URL: http://wapo.st/1lz1QpE

"Putin's Trap: Why Ukraine Should Withdraw from Russian-Held Donbas." By Alexander J. Motyl, September 1, 2014, Foreign Affairs. URL:http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141946/alexander-j-motyl/putins-trap  -- A CONTROVERSIAL POINT OF VIEW; BUT IF THIS PAINFUL OUTCOME IS TO HAPPEN ANYWAY, SHOULDN'T UKRAINE TAKE THE INITIATIVE?


"Labor Day: The Beginning of a Breakthrough." By Robert Kuttner, August 31, 2014, Huffington Post. URL: http://huff.to/1Chs0SW

"We need to tell the truth about what Russia is doing in Ukraine."  By Wesley Clark, August 31, 2014, Guardian. URL: http://gu.com/p/4x6hh

"A Market Basket of dignity." By E.J. Dionne, August 31, 2014, Washington Post. URL: http://wapo.st/1owAqLW  -- AT LEAST ONE CEO NOW GETS IT; I GUESS WE JUST HAVE TO FIRE THEM ALL SO THEY WILL UNDERSTAND

"Russian nationalism and the logic of the Kremlin's actions on Ukraine." By Henry E. Hale, August 29, 2014, Guardian. URL: http://gu.com/p/4x5tq  -- REMEMBER, IN UKRAINE NATIONALISM IS CALLED 'FASCISM'; IN RUSSIA IT'S PATRIOTISM

"Why Russia Wants the Federalization of Ukraine." By Alexander Motyl, August 28, 2014, Huffington Post. URL: http://huff.to/1tH7Uxu



"Donetsk POW March: When Is A Parade A War Crime?" By Carl Schreck, August 25, 2014, RFE/RL. URL: http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-pow-march-war-crime/26548667.html  -- OF COURSE IT'S A WAR CRIME BUT FAT CHANCE IT'LL BE PROSECUTED

"Hawks Crying Wolf." By Paul Krugman, August 22, 2014, New York Times. URL: http://huff.to/1BJIHpT  -- I BELIEVE THAT 'CHICKEN LITTLE' IS THE MORE APT FAIRY TALE HERE.

"If this is real religion, then you can count me as an atheist." By Giles Fraser, August 22, 2014, Guardian. URL: http://gu.com/p/4xx22  -- TAKE NOTE, CONSERVATIVE XENOPHOBES: MODERATE MUSLIMS ARE SPEAKING OUT

"Never an excuse for shooting unarmed suspects, former police chief says." By Joseph D. McNamara, August 19, 2014, Reuters. URL:http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/19/idUS212937500020140819  -- IT WORKED IN THIS MISSOURI TOWN, AND GEE, ALL THROUGHOUT GREAT BRITAIN WHERE POLICE AREN'T EVEN ARMED!

Sunday, July 27, 2014

Unemployed don't need job training, they need jobs

Peter Van Buren's view is pretty controversial. Then again, anything that refutes accepted wisdom usually is controversial.

On Van Buren's side though is economics: supply and demand. Giving unemployed people job skills or even training in trades is like working only on the (labor) supply side, while ignoring whether those skills or trades are demanded by employers.

"So the $18 billion question is: If job training is not the answer, what is?" asks Van Buren.

The obvious answers, grounded in tested economics, will make self-styled "free-marketers" uncomfortable [emphasis mine]:

Jobs. Jobs that pay a living wage. The 2008 recession wiped out primarily high- and middle-wage jobs, with the strongestemployment growth in the recovery taking place in low-wage employment, to the point where the United States has the highest number of workers in low-wage jobs of all industrialized nations.

There are many possible paths to better-paying jobs in the United States where consumer spending alone has the power to spark a “virtuous cycle.” That would mean more employment leading to more spending and more demand, followed by more hiring. One kickstarter is simply higher wages in the jobs we do have. For example, recent Department of Labor studies show that the 13 states that raised their minimum wages added jobs (at higher wages of course) at a faster pace than those that did not. On a larger, albeit more contentious scale, are options such as a WPA-like program, changes to tax and import laws to promote domestic manufacturing, infrastructure grants and the like. There’s the $18 billion being spent on job training that could be repurposed for a start.

No matter the path forward, the bottom line remains unchanged: Training does not create jobs. Jobs create the need for training. Anything else is just politics.

Nevertheless, I imagine that Democrats and Republicans wouldn't be willing to give up the promising-sounding idea of jobs training. Therefore my suggestion is for the government to pay for job training only when it is tied to a real job offer at a real company. I mean, first a company must say, "I promise, before the government spends a cent on training, to hire x  number of workers who have mastered a, b and c  skills."  That might work. Then the government would have to hold them to it. 

But I doubt that many companies would go for it; they'd want to retain right of refusal.


By Peter Van Buren
July 23, 2014 | Reuters

Friday, June 27, 2014

'Sharing-economy' workers moving toward unions

The more things change.... Uber's business model of making taxi drivers into "independent contractors" is -- surprise, surprise! --leading more and more of those drivers to the conclusion that they must unionize and organize to protect their rights and wages [emphasis mine]:

Uber’s disruption of the cab industry has been welcomed by nearly everyone except those who rely on the cab industry for their livelihoods. It’s arguably made on-demand car rides easier, cleaner, safer, more accessible and, in some cases, even cheaper.

Indeed, such disruption is overdue. The high prices of regulated taxi medallions have kept a small number of bosses in control, while drivers pay high gate fees in order to access their cars and wages. Uber is right that the traditional system is not well suited to drivers’ or customers’ needs.

But the new boss is not so different from the old boss. Uber’s revolution is not actually its technology but its market power. It has disrupted the cab industry in ways so many others can only dream of by leveraging the labor of thousands of workers who are exceptionally underprotected. 

[...] Only four years after the service debuted in San Francisco, Uber drivers nationwide are getting organized and demanding better treatment.  And this could have huge implications for the trajectory of the peer-to-peer economy. As work changes, so will the ways workers seek to protect themselves and their livelihood.

Recently, one of my main bearded liberal economists Dean Baker wrote about the new "sharing economy" embodied by Uber and Airbnb that may seem like a good deal for consumers but is actually a net ripoff.

Thankfully, it seems that just as fast as Uber has disrupted the old model, actual workers and common sense are moving to disrupt Uber.



By Susie Cagle
June 27, 2014 | Al Jazeera

Saturday, June 7, 2014

HBR blogs: Western malaise spawns extremist parties

Mr. Haque at Harvard Business Review offers us as good a summary as any of the Western economic malaise [emphasis mine]:

While the super-rich are vastly disproportionately enjoying the fruits of global prosperity, too many are being left behind. What is common in societies with extremists on the rise? The poor and the middle feel cheated — because they are. In the sterile parlance of economics, their wages aren’t comparable to their productivity — but more deeply, their lives are literally not valued in this system. And so they turn, in anger and frustration and resignation, to those who promise them more.

In all these societies, social contracts prize growth over real human development. Economies “grow”; but the benefits of growth are enjoyed vastly disproportionately by a small coterie of people — usually those politically connected; at the very top of a socially constrained pecking order; a caste society. We are told this is capitalism; in fact, it’s a perversion of free markets I call “growthism.”

Indeed, we were never meant to worship at the altar of GDP, the DOW or Nasdaq as real indicators of people's well-being.  

And as I've remarked before, U.S. workers are the most productive in the world; meanwhile, U.S. labor practices are among the most efficient (meaning, hands-off) -- 4th in the 2013-14 WEF rankings -- in the globalized economy. So why do U.S. workers feel so insecure and put-upon?  

As before, John Maynard Keynes foresaw this and pointed the way [emphasis mine]:

Yet, today, the situation Keynes foresaw is repeating itself — only more subtly. The problem today isn’t a small number of creditor nations, to whom the vast benefits of global wealth are flowing. It is a small number of super rich individuals: oligarchs, monopolists, scions. In a sense, the same problem, of vast, unjust imbalances, has reemerged; this time beyond national boundaries. Today, the super-rich and their empires span multiple nation-states; whisked from home to home and country to country by private transport, they use different infrastructure (who cares if roads and airports are crumbling when you’ve got a helipad?), play by different rules (do tax laws really matter if your assets are all offshore?), and even different methods of wielding political influence (why knock on doors when you can fund your own super-PAC?).

Here's how Haque sums it up:

The paradox of prosperity is this. It is at times of little that we must plant the seeds of plenty; not fight another for handfuls of dust. And it is at times of plenty when we must harvest our fields; and give generously to all those who enjoy the singular privilege of the miracle we call life.

(Nope, extremists; that’s not communism — not government redistribution of dust. It is, as Keynes foresaw, just common sense).

Once again I tip my hat to Keynes, a giant among men.


By Umair Haque
June 5, 2014 | HBR Blog Network

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

A Wal-Mart manager tells why Wal-Mart sucks

Summary: Walmart pays its managers bonuses based on how much fat they can trim from hours and payroll, and how much juice they can squeeze from employees on part-time shifts.

Conclusion: Wal-Mart is designed to be a terrible place to work, and shop. They're just betting you're too poor, or live too far away from another store, to opt for an alternative.

This manager's final advice intrigued me:

I just want to add that if you really can't afford to shop anywhere but Wal-Mart, buy as much stuff on clearance as possible when you do have to shop there. All of our clearance items are sold at a loss to the store. If you buy more clearance items, we lose profit. And it helps the associates suffer less at work, because sorting clearance items is a pain in the ass. That is all!

UPDATE (13.02.2014): You should also check out this article from a couple days ago, "Walmart's Labor Practices Backfire," about how some stock analysts are downgrading Walmart because of its understaffing, among other problems.

UPDATE (14.02.2014): Another reason why Walmart sucks: it has been linked to cities with higher crime. Said the study's co-author David Pyrooz: 
"Counties with more social capital -- citizens able and willing to speak up about the best interests of the community -- tend to have lower crime rates. Counties with more crime may have less social capital and, therefore, less ability to prevent Walmart from building."

By Hamilton Nolan
February 11, 2014 | Gawker

Monday, February 3, 2014

Ames: Apple, Google, Adobe, Pixar colluded to depress tech wages

Ever trenchant muckracker Mark Ames reveals here that tech giants like Apple and Google not only outsource their manufacturing to suicidal sweatshops in China that revolt against their masters, not only do they avoid U.S. taxes by registering in Ireland, they also conspired to hold down wages for U.S. tech workers, the alleged winners in this whole globalized, "We got the brains, you got the brawn" value chain. 

Tell me again why we celebrate these "American" companies?  


By Mark Ames
January 23, 2014 | Pando Daily



UPDATE: There's this far-right libertarian Nazi that I correspond with, he says he's a millionaire, let's call him Old Dirty Bastard, who responded to this post. I think this thread is pretty instructive for all you not-so-crazy folks, and shows why we need unions and collective bargaining to protect us from the ODBs of the "free market":

(ODB): Wake up and smell the coffee---it's been happening forever. They are dumb if they don't get their best deal. They do it to states by incorporating in states like Nevada also.

(Me): Employers have always colluded to keep wages down in a given sector? Did you read the article?  You don't even believe your own libertarian mumbo-jumbo!  What a cynic you are! Don't preach to me anymore about your free-market beliefs, etc. because you believe in the Law of the Jungle, where Might Makes Right. 

(ODB): Explain the difference between free market and the law of the jungle. I do not see it

(Me): That's your definition of libertarianism.  The Sherman Anti-Trust Act, Teddy Roosevelt, Grover Cleveland... they were all long-haired hippy commies "ruining" the free market.  There's no use arguing with you, you are so far to the right that you're back on the left with Hitler and Pinochet. 

UPDATE (20.02.2014): Mark Ames followed up his original report with more court documents and e-mails, this time between Apple's Steve Jobs -- "an American hero" -- and Palm's Edward Colligan: "Steve Jobs threatened Palm’s CEO, plainly and directly, court documents reveal."

Friday, November 8, 2013

Largest civil disobedience in Walmart history for living wage

Solidarity with our fellow Americans in Walmart!

Let's recall that under $12,000 for a single person without children is a poverty wage. 

Walmart workers engaged in civil disobedience to receive $25,000, less than the median wage in the U.S. right now.


By Kathleen Miles
November 8, 2013 | Huffington Post

Friday, October 18, 2013

Americans are staying put, and that's bad

Uh-oh:

Americans are moving far less often than in the past, and when they do migrate it is typically no longer from places with low wages to places with higher wages. Rather, it’s the reverse. That helps explain why, since the 1970s, income inequality has gone up and upward mobility has (depending on who you ask) either stagnated or gone down.

Americans are getting more sedentary, and not just when it comes to their couches:

In the early 1950s, about 3.5 percent of all American households moved from one state to another in any given year. This proportion held up through the 1970s, and then started to fall around 1980. By 2006 interstate migration had dropped to 2 percent, and by 2010 to just 1.4 percent, or less than half the rate of the early 1950s. The latest available data, for 2011-12, shows interstate migration still stuck at a mere 1.7 percent. Though it may not square with our national self-image, America today is a nation of people who tend to stay put, with a population that is no more mobile than that of Denmark or Finland.

So what isn't the explanation for all this, according to Tim Noah?  Not aging Baby Boomers. Not two-income-earner households. Not "housing lock" due to underwater mortgages.  Not telecommuting.  Not state income tax rates.  And certainly not an abundance of jobs at home:

But while unemployed people remain likelier to migrate than employed people, they are much less likely to migrate than in previous decades. In 1956, for example, 7.6 percent of unemployed males moved from one state to another during the previous year. Subsequently that rate fell to 7 percent (1966), 5.9 percent (1976), 5.3 percent (1986), 4.4 percent (1996), 4.3 percent (2006), and, finally, 2.7 percent (2012).

It gets worse:

The larger picture is one in which migration is not only declining but also tends to be away from places where, according to recent studies, young adults have the best chances of moving up the income scale.

In essence, we're talking about a failure of the free market for labor, in the fourth most efficient labor market in the world (efficient from employers' point of view):

If labor markets were operating efficiently, construction workers, along with electricians, plumbers, nurses, nannies, elementary school teachers, and other working-class Americans, would receive enough compensation to live near the places where their work is most needed. But our labor markets are not efficient; rather, they are rigged and skewed, offering too much compensation to people with some skill sets (merging companies and writing derivatives, for example) and not enough to others whose skills are often just as hard to learn (e.g., brick laying and teaching children to read) and often more vital to society.

So we're dealing with a factual counter-intuitive, the kind of thing that drives conservatives nuts because it doesn't fit into their ideological cookie-cutter:

In 1940, the income of “lower-skilled” workers captured 88 cents of every dollar increase in state per capita income. That share began to decline in the 1970s, and by 2010 it was down to 36 cents. Put another way, working-class people in the richest regions of the country have a much lower share of the income around them than they once did. That, more than any other reason, is why they have such a hard time moving to where incomes are highest. Incomes aren’t high for them.

Yogi Berra supposedly once said, “Nobody goes to that restaurant anymore. It’s too crowded.” We might similarly observe, “Nobody moves to that state anymore. It offers too much economic opportunity.” It doesn’t make any sense, but that’s life in our present post-migration era. For all his historic foresight, Greeley could never have imagined an outcome so undemocratic and economically perverse.

You can also check out an interview with the author Timothy Noah here.


By Timothy Noah
November/December 2013 | Washington Monthly

Friday, August 16, 2013

No accident U.S. is most unequal

I'll continue to hammer away at America's growing wealth inequality that is here by design, not by accident. What do I mean? 

One the one hand, we have government policies that help out the rich: the tax code (that gives U.S. corporations an effective tax rate lower than any official rate among G-20 countries, encourages overseas outsourcing and offshoring of income, favors capital gains and executive stock options over wages, protects 401-k and IRAs for rich people who save anyway, and has dramatically lowered inheritance tax over the past 30 years); deregulation of banking combined with the $30 trillion TBTF bank bailouts; deregulation of health, safety and environmental codes; fraudulent H1B visas that displace U.S. workers to cut corporate costs; and allowing more money -- and more independent money -- into our elections.  

One the other hand, we have government policies that hurt workers and the poor: a regressive tax system that targets workers; Social Security cuts; laws against unions; public transportation fee hikes and service cuts; public employment cuts; public education cuts; falling real minimum wage; and exploding student debt that is immune from personal bankruptcy.

Some anti-worker policies are well-intended. For example, cities often seek to outbid each other with ever-growing subsidies and tax breaks to attract large retailers that promise job creation... with the unintended effect of ruining local mom-and-pop businesses that used to offer better wages and benefits -- wages and benefits that never come back -- and degrading their local tax base.  

We Democrats and liberals can't ignore inequality or its root causes and hope they go away, or fear accusations of "class warfare" for our speaking out. Class warfare is already being waged against the poor and working class, whether we admit it or not.


By Mark Gongloff
August 15, 2013 | Huffington Post

Hey, who says America is in decline? The U.S. is still more awesome than the rest of the world at making at least one thing. And that thing is income inequality.

A new paper by economists Facundo Alvaredo, Anthony B. Atkinson, Thomas Piketty, and Emmanuel Saez lays out just how much better at making inequality the U.S. is than everybody else and tries to explain how it got that way.

Since the 1970s, the top 1 percent of earners in the U.S. has roughly doubled its share of the total American income pie to nearly 20 percent from about 10 percent, according to the paper. This gain is easily the biggest among other developed countries, the researchers note. You can see this in the chart below, taken from the paper, which maps the income gains of the top 1 percent in several countries against the massive tax breaks most of them have gotten in the past several decades. (Story continues after chart.)



The higher the dot, the more income inequality has grown in that country. See the red dot waaaay up in the left-hand corner, far away from everybody else? That is the United States, where the top earners have made more while getting their taxes slashed by over 40 percent.

This echoes an OECD study from earlier this year that found the U.S. had the highest income inequality in the developed world. It followed only Chile, Mexico and Turkey among all nations.

So how did America get so darn great at ratcheting open the chasm between the haves and have-nots? Thank the dynamic duo of Wall Street and Washington, which have been working so well together for the past few decades to make laws that favor banks. Turns out this Axis Of Making It Rain has also been making laws that favor the exorbitantly wealthy. Win-win. Unless you are poor, in which case: Sorry, be born to richer parentsnext time, maybe?

One thing you'll notice in this chart is that, typically, the bigger the tax cuts given to the 1 percent (the horizontal scale on the chart), the bigger the income inequality. This is consistent with other studies that have shown the tax code has a big effect on income distribution. That's one way Washington has boosted inequality: By slashing taxes on the rich, for freedom and growth and trickling down on the poor. Unfortunately, the paper points out, contrary to what you will hear from conservatives, lower tax rates on the wealthy offer no obvious benefits to growth, or to the poor.

One other thing you'll notice from the chart is that the United Kingdom has slashed taxes on the top 1 percent almost as aggressively the U.S. has, and yet the share of income going to the top 1 percent is not nearly as big. So there's something else going on here besides just tax breaks.

That something is Wall Street, more or less, as Matthew O'Brien of The Atlantic points out. The same politicians that have busily been slashing taxes on the wealthy have also been loosening fetters on banking, allowing the financial sector to swell to bloated size and mop up ever-more income while contributing ever-less back to the economy. Again, this is consistent with other studies that have attributed much of the rise in in inequality to the pay being sucked up by bankers and overpaid CEOs.

At the same time, U.S. lawmakers have also made it easier and more tax-friendly for the wealthy to pile up more capital gains on their investments. As O'Brien puts it, "The top 1 percent leveraged itself to the market, and haven't looked back."

One nifty benefit to having nine metric craptons of money is that you can use it to buy politicians to help you craft the laws you like, particularly those that will help you end up with 10 metric craptons of money. The poor and middle class, meanwhile, just get ever more discouraged about the political system and stop bothering to fight it, increasingly turning the whole process over to the wealthy and the politicians they own, according to arecent paper by Frederick Solt at Southern Illinois University. Sound familiar?

Saturday, June 29, 2013

Temp Nation

We need a national Temp Workers Bill of Rights. These are the most vulnerable people in our country, people who really want to work, and they need protection under the law.

Compare today's Temp Nation to what we had from 1950 to about 1980, with a blue-collar U.S. middle class with steady wages, hours and benefits like medical insurance and a pension.  Those people and those jobs made America the greatest economy the world has ever known.  And we're shipping those jobs overseas and replacing the ones that are left with temps.  America cannot sustain its greatness in this way.  We need to think bigger and not leave the "free market" to destroy our labor force and middle class.  

Check it out [emphasis mine]:

Across America, temporary work has become a mainstay of the economy, leading to the proliferation of what researchers have begun to call “temp towns.” They are often dense Latino neighborhoods teeming with temp agencies. Or they are cities where it has become nearly impossible even for whites and African-Americans with vocational training to find factory and warehouse work without first being directed to a temp firm.

In June, the Labor Department reported that the nation had more temp workers than ever before: 2.7 million. Overall, almost one-fifth of the total job growth since the recession ended in mid-2009 has been in the temp sector, federal data shows. But according to the American Staffing Association, the temp industry’s trade group, the pool is even larger: Every year, a tenth of all U.S. workers finds a job at a staffing agency.

The proportion of temp workers in the labor force reached its peak in early 2000 before the 2001 slump and then the Great Recession. But as the economy continues its slow, uneven recovery, temp work is roaring back 10 times faster than private-sector employment as a whole – a pace “exceeding even the dramatic run-up of the early 1990s,” according to the staffing association.

The overwhelming majority of that growth has come in blue-collar work in factories and warehouses, as the temp industry sheds the Kelly Girl image of the past. Last year, more than one in every 20 blue-collar workers was a temp.

And wanna talk about racial inequality?  Blacks and Latinos each make up 20 percent of all temp workers in the U.S., or 40 percent, total.  As conservatives like to note, minorities make up a disproportionate number of welfare recipients, relative to their share of the U.S. population.  Well, the same is true of temp and minimum-wage laborers.  These are poor and minority Americans who want to work and they are forced to live on the knife edge of poverty, with constant insecurity.  We must do better by those who want to work!


By Michael Grabell
June 27, 2013 | Pro Publica

USA! USA! We're # 27! USA!


Does anybody else see the irony?  We went to war in 1991 to liberate Kuwait and today their middle class is richer than ours.  Maybe Kuwait should come and save us?  

Les Leopold tells us why the U.S. middle class is so poor:

The International Labor organization produced a remarkable study, (Global Wage Report 2012-13) that sorts out the causes of why wages have remained stagnant while elite incomes have soared. The report compares key causal explanations like declining bargaining power of unions, porous social safety nets, globalization, new technologies and financialization.

Guess which one had the biggest impact on the growing split between the one percent and the 99 percent?

Financialization!

I've shown you this chart before:



All the growth in U.S. wealth over the past 30 years has been financial wealth and the growth of Too Big Too Fail Banks.  Obviously this is no way to grow our middle class or ensure economic growth for Americans who are not bankers and who do not derive most of their wealth from financial securities.  


Sunday, June 23, 2013

U.S. tax system targets workers

Everybody in America -- but especially anti-tax conservatives -- needs to read and understand this:

To sum up: The overall rate for wealth-based taxes has been decreasing while the overall rate for labor-based taxes has been increasing. At the same time, the potential base for labor-based taxes is migrating to the wealth-based tax side. And an ever-increasing portion of that potential base for wealth-based taxes faces no tax at all.

Lord and Pizzigati also note what I've been saying for a while now, that redistribution of wealth is alive and well in America -- but from the bottom-up, from workers to shareholders and managers -- not from the rich down to lazy welfare moochers:

Here's how. Until around 1980, wages kept pace with gains in productivity. Since then, productivity has continued to increase while wages have stagnated. The result? The allocation of income between labor and wealth has shifted, with more dollars going toward higher corporate profits, dividends and capital gains than toward wages. Tax rates are shrinking for booming profits, while rising for shrinking wages.


By Bob Lord and Sam Pizzigati
June 20, 2013 | Los Angeles Times

Imagine a society with two tax systems. One taxes the wealth people have accumulated. The other taxes the labor people perform. This society seems to be getting along well enough, raising enough tax revenue to finance the public goods and services that voters have told lawmakers they want to see supported.

Now imagine that lawmakers have decided to cut the tax rates on wealth and raise them on labor. At the same time, the amount of wealth subject to the lower tax rates is rising as income from labor is shrinking.

That society, we would agree, is asking for trouble. In real life, would any society choose to take such an unsustainable course? One already has — the United States since 1980.

In America today, virtually all the taxes that local, state and federal governments levy can be classified as either wealth-based or labor-based.

The wealth-based taxes include the state and local property taxes we pay on an annual basis and the one-time taxes on large inheritances and estates. Wealth-based taxes also include taxes on the income people get from holding wealth — dividends and interest, for instance — and the capital gains income from buying and selling assets. Throw in the corporate income tax here, too.

Labor-based taxes obviously cover the levies paid on the income we earn from the work we do. These include personal income taxes and the payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare.

These labor-based taxes also include the more difficult to categorize sales and sin taxes. The lion's share of the revenue raised from these taxes, we would argue, comes from people spending their labor-based income on basic living expenses or, in the case of sin taxes, on cigarettes and alcohol.

What has happened to the rates in these two tax systems?

Over the last three decades, the rates for wealth-based taxes have been plummeting.  In 2011, the effective corporate income tax rate dropped to a 40-year low of 12.1%. The top federal estate tax rate has sunk from 70% to 40% since 1981. Estate-tax avoidance strategies have brought the actual rate paid on large estates down to less than half that. Many states have abandoned the state inheritance tax altogether.

The tax rate on capital gains did recently increase at the federal level, but the long-term trend has been downward, and the rate of tax on dividends has fallen dramatically, from 70% in 1980 to 20% today. Finally, beginning with the passage of California's Proposition 13 in 1978, average property tax rates nationwide have declined sharply.

Meanwhile, the rates for labor-based taxes, taken together, have increased.  Average Americans do pay federal income taxes at a slightly lower rate than 30 years ago. But the effective payroll tax rate has increased sharply, as the ceiling on wages subject to Social Security taxes has risen and the ceiling on wages subject to Medicare taxes has been removed entirely.

On top of that, sales taxes have also increased steadily, as have sin taxes.

The two tax systems, however, don't operate on a totally separate basis. The money that makes up the base in one system can migrate to the other. Over the last three decades or so, the available tax base from our labor-based tax system has been migrating to the wealth-based tax system.

Here's how. Until around 1980, wages kept pace with gains in productivity. Since then, productivity has continued to increase while wages have stagnated. The result? The allocation of income between labor and wealth has shifted, with more dollars going toward higher corporate profits, dividends and capital gains than toward wages. Tax rates are shrinking for booming profits, while rising for shrinking wages.

But that's not the worst of it. Tax rates in the wealth-based tax system aren't just decreasing. An increasingly higher share of the dollars in that system escape taxation entirely.

This growing exempt pool of wealth includes pension plans, IRAs, 401(k) plans, life insurance and annuity policies, municipal bond portfolios and funds held offshore. Most of this wealth sits in the portfolios of the richest families. Over recent decades, this tax-exempt chunk of American wealth has grown faster than our aggregate wealth — about $20 trillion, not including what may be as much as $10 trillion in wealth parked in offshore tax havens.

In the estate tax arena, it's the same dynamic. The exemption from estate tax has swelled. In 1981, the first $175,625 of the estate an affluent American left behind faced no estate tax. Today, the first $5,250,000 is exempt. And with the help of a decent estate planner, that exemption can be leveraged into a much higher number.

To sum up: The overall rate for wealth-based taxes has been decreasing while the overall rate for labor-based taxes has been increasing.  At the same time, the potential base for labor-based taxes is migrating to the wealth-based tax side.  And an ever-increasing portion of that potential base for wealth-based taxes faces no tax at all.

This is unsustainable.