The promises and the pitfalls of the new economy For the first time since the Census Bureau began tracking such data back in the mid- 1940s, the real incomes of middle-class families are lower at the end of this business cycle than they were when it started. This fact stands as the single most compelling piece of evidence that prosperity is eluding working families. Where has all that productivity growth been going? As this book extensively documents, it has gone to the top of the income scale, and the higher up you started out, the better you did. From 1947 to 1979, the top sliver of wage earners made about 20 times that of the bottom 90%. By 2006, that ratio had catapulted to 77 times more. Now, there are some smart, hard-working, and creative people up there in that rarified end of the economic stratosphere, and some deserve large returns for their labors. But they cannot possibly be the only ones whose living standards should be boosted in a growing economy. Productivity growth is a result of the efforts of the whole workforce, not just the fortunate few. Yes, it reflects the work of the CEOs and CFOs at the top of the corporate ladder. But it also reflects the work of the waitperson who serves those executives their lunch, the construction worker who builds their homes, the manufacturer who forges the steel that girds their corporate headquarters, the home health aid who cares for their aging parents, the cop who protects their beat, and the teacher who educates their kids.
For the first time since the Census Bureau began tracking such data back in the mid- 1940s, the real incomes of middle-class families are lower at the end of this business cycle than they were when it started. This fact stands as the single most compelling piece of evidence that prosperity is eluding working families. Where has all that productivity growth been going? As this book extensively documents, it has gone to the top of the income scale, and the higher up you started out, the better you did. From 1947 to 1979, the top sliver of wage earners made about 20 times that of the bottom 90%. By 2006, that ratio had catapulted to 77 times more. Now, there are some smart, hard-working, and creative people up there in that rarified end of the economic stratosphere, and some deserve large returns for their labors. But they cannot possibly be the only ones whose living standards should be boosted in a growing economy. Productivity growth is a result of the efforts of the whole workforce, not just the fortunate few. Yes, it reflects the work of the CEOs and CFOs at the top of the corporate ladder. But it also reflects the work of the waitperson who serves those executives their lunch, the construction worker who builds their homes, the manufacturer who forges the steel that girds their corporate headquarters, the home health aid who cares for their aging parents, the cop who protects their beat, and the teacher who educates their kids.
Perhaps some more familiar with the econometric statistics can say whether the current deficit, which the author describes as 2.5% of current GDP, includes the yearly cost of the war in Iraq and the interest on that money. The other factor that was not discussed is the inheritance tax, the effective repeal of which is due to expire soon. Should that tax be rejiggered for the very top ends along the lines of the income tax it could, over time, go a long way towards putting the budget into balance and reversing the current trend towards ever increasing concentrations of wealth at the top. Could trust babies get by on the proceeds of a mere $2,000,000.00 trust fund? I would think so. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
This is surprising, how?
To forestall ARGeezer ... ;-)
Yeah, if O came out with positions I would enthusiastically support he wouldn't be the nominee.
As a former fanatically devoted volunteer and worker for McGovern who worked his ass off during the campaign that ....
is ...
uh ...
accurate
:-(
:-D
... and since then I guess I only ever supported the nominee as my first choice in an open primary once, in 2000. From Udall to Gore to Babbit to Edwards ... the ambition reached for in the primary has almost always exceeded the grasp ...
... and the only time my primary pick was the nominee, he won the election but was not sworn in as President, so now I'd probably be nervous if my first choice was, in fact, the nominee. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
There are bits and pieces of Obama's policies that I can enthusiastically support. Establishment of an HVDC grid to connect sustainable wind and solar resource areas to the big population centers of the east and west, I'm real enthusiastic about that one. The substantial increase in funding for rail, that one also has my enthusiastic support.
And some of his policies that I only lukewarm support in absolute terms, when placed in relative terms there is no comparison. His Versal Health Care plan (that is, 2/3 of Universal), when compared with McCain's plan for the Healthy and Wealthy and a tax increase on health care spending on everyone else, its clearly by far the better alternative. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
