What Do Working-Class Voters Want? They Want A Fair Deal
Soccer moms step aside. In this year's campaign working-class voters have elbowed you aside as the demographic group that candidates covet most.
As Barack Obama and John McCain seek to outmaneuver each other in wooing John and Jane Punchclock, the question that leaps to the fore is, what do working-class voters want?
Some answers to that question became clear to me when I was interviewing hundreds of workers for my new book, The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker. (see www.stevengreenhouse.com) In many ways, working-class voters want what Harry Truman was promising: A Fair Deal, or at least a Fairer Deal.
In talking with workers--be they software engineers or hotel housekeepers, factory workers or freelancers--I often sensed a frustration, even an anger, that unfairness has muscled aside fairness in America in recent decades and especially in recent years, and it goes far beyond stratospheric C.E.O. salaries. Many workers are upset that their families have been sinking economically--median income for working-age households fell $2,375 from 2000 to 2006 (after accounting for inflation). For the typical worker, wages have inched up less than 1 percent since the most recent economic expansion began in November 2001, even as corporate profits have soared and productivity per worker has jumped more than 15 percent. And there's also widespread resentment that while middle-class and low-wage workers have been treading water, average income for the top 1 percent of households, averaging $1.1 million in annual income, has more than tripled over the past quarter century. The top 1 percent of household has more after-tax income than the bottom 40 percent of Americans.
And I hardly need to point out that for the great majority of workers, the pain has grown only worse in recent months as fuel prices, food prices and foreclosures have soared.
As Hillary Clinton shrewdly discerned, workers want someone to battle for them--and for fairness--because they often view themselves as overlooked victims of powerful forces, such as globalization, that are increasing economic insecurity and income inequality. Myra Bronstein, a software engineer, told me that her company just outside Seattle had promised that she would have a job so long as it remained in business, but then one day her company suddenly laid her off along with 17 other engineers. Management told them that if they wanted to receive any severance pay, they had to agree to spend the next four weeks training the workers from India who would be replacing them. Verette Richardson, a Wal-Mart cashier in Kansas City, told me that her supervisors were so stingy about giving bathroom breaks that some cashiers ended up soiling themselves.
In Massachusetts, I interviewed Jean Capobianco, a FedEx Ground driver who was fired soon after she contracted ovarian cancer and requested several months' leave to have chemotherapy. FedEx asserted that she was an independent contractor, not an employee, and was thus not protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act. In Jefferson, Wisconsin, 470 meat-packing workers went on strike for 11 months because their employer, Tyson Foods--which was making record profits at the time--insisted on freezing their pensions, quadrupling their out-of-pocket health insurance premiums and cutting the top pay for future workers to $11 an hour from $13.10.
The words of Kathy Saumier, a worker in upstate New York, captured the mood of many workers: "I got tired of being treated like dirt." At the plastic factory where she worked, four of the 190 employees had fingers amputated over a 13-month period.
Many working-class voters are fed up. Why else would 81 percent of those questioned in a recent New York Times-CBS poll say the country has seriously gotten off on the wrong track?
Workers of course recognize there is no magic wand to make unfairness disappear, but my interviews around the country convinced me that workers are nonetheless eager for political leaders to take some serious steps to ease the big squeeze.
Make jobs less stressful--For many Americans, wages are so low that they need to work two jobs, and many women with children under three are working fulltime to help their families make ends meet. As my book explains, all of this is making it devilishly difficult to balance job and family. The United States is the only industrial nation that doesn't guarantee paid sick days, paid maternity leave or even paid vacation to its workers.
The European Union guarantees a minimum of four weeks paid vacation per year for every worker, but a dismaying number of American workers told me that they receive absolutely no paid vacation and no paid sick days. If those workers miss two days' work to care for a flu-stricken child, they miss two days' pay--and as a result they perhaps won't have enough money to put food on the table. Many workers would like Congress to do what California and Connecticut are considering, mandate at least five sick days per year, and what California, New Jersey and Washington State have already done, guarantee paid maternity leave. Those are the type of family-friendly measures that both family-values conservatives and pro-worker progressives can support.
Increase opportunity and mobility--Many Americans who are not in the country club set worry that they won't be able to send their children to college, making it harder for their kids to move up in the world. Each year more than 400,000 high school graduates who are qualified to attend a four-year college do not go because they and their families can't afford it. Pell Grants used to cover 84 percent of the average annual cost at a state university in the 1970s; now they barely cover one third the cost.
The college system is so skewed that at the nation's top 146 colleges, just 10 percent of the students come from the bottom half of households by income, and just 3 percent from the bottom quarter. Many working-class voters view America's promise of equal opportunity as largely an empty promise, and many are eager for government (and college administrators) to do far more to make college accessible and affordable for their children.
Ease the pain caused by globalization--Many workers rail against free-trade agreements because they see that globalization has destroyed many factory jobs and helped hold down wages, and they are searching for something, anything, to blame. While most workers recognize that globalization, offshoring and imports are inescapable facts of modern life, many would love to see the nation's political leaders do some high-visibility jawboning to discourage companies from reflexively moving jobs overseas, just as President John F. Kennedy once did some powerful jawboning to discourage the nation's steelmakers from raising their prices.
Many workers want better life preservers to prevent those hurt by globalization from being pulled under. Retraining programs for those who lose jobs to globalization are often poorly funded and poorly managed--and those programs are available only to laid-off factory workers, not laid-off software engineers and other white-collar workers whose jobs are offshored to India or other countries.
Here's a little-known, but highly disturbing fact--the nation has lost more than one-fifth of its manufacturing jobs since 2000. That's 3.7 million jobs that typically provide middle-class wages and benefits. Many laid-off workers want better retraining programs and stepped-up federal efforts to encourage the creation of good-paying manufacturing jobs, perhaps in future-oriented, green industries like producing hybrid cars.
Strengthen the social safety net--After the Great Depression dragged down millions of Americans, Franklin Roosevelt, Congress, corporate America and organized labor built an impressive safety net of good wages, good health insurance, good pensions and strong job security. But nowadays with job security disappearing and many workers losing health coverage and pensions, the safety net has been falling apart. Many workers complain that it is hugely unfair that they and their children often lose health coverage when they lose their jobs. Little wonder that two-thirds of Americans say they want Washington to enact universal health coverage, even if means increasing taxes.
Workers also voice considerable dismay about what is euphemistically called "the retirement security system." The solid pensions of old that provided monthly benefits after retirement are being replaced by 401(k)s, which often resemble a Swiss-cheese retirement scheme because one-fifth of eligible workers don't participate and many who do empty out their 401(k)'s when they lose a job--they need money to live on. That leaves many workers with far too little savings to retire on.
The retirement savings system is broken and badly needs fixing. In The Big Squeeze, I recommend creating a new universal savings system, like Germany's, that would be built on top of Social Security and would guarantee virtually every worker enough to retire on.
From my interviews across the country, I got the sense that many working-class voters would be delighted if this year's presidential candidates adopted a great Republican's--Teddy Roosevelt's--version of the Fair Deal: "Our aim is to promote prosperity and then to see that prosperity is passed around."
After reading your article, I have to ask then who the hell voted for George Bush the second time around. Somebody did and the numbers for the rich don't even approach his vote totals in '04.
I still wonder at the number of working class people who voted for Reagan.
Actually, I think it's the price at the pump that is finally waking up the electorate. It's not as if the people you talked to have not been suffering injustices for years. The price of fuel simply opened their eyes to all the rest of the crap they've been experiencing.
July 1, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ phelicity
If you trust Andrew Golis' analysis they did so because they're racists...and that's why those same people will vote for McCain regardless of the current economic situation.
Also, you're pretty damn arrogant to assume you're so much smarter than they are...as is Destor.
July 1, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, that's just a lie. I didn't say that, you're purposely misconstruing my argument for the sake of your rhetoric. Please stop.
July 1, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ Andrew Golis
Sure you did. You said Southerners had gone over to the Republican Party because they were racists. Who do you think those Southerners are? Wealthy suburbanites? Since the same psychology has motivated blue collar workers throughout much of the country I stand by my words until you can show me how I was wrong.
@ phelicity
You said that blue collar workers were blind to the fleecing they were subjected to...while you were awake and aware. It's quite reasonable to conclude that you believe you are considerably smarter than they are.
@ wade
You can't even get the most basic facts straight so why should anyone believe you? It's M.J. Rosenberg who I regularly revile, not Andrew Golis. And WalMart, in contrast to many other discount stores, actually provides some great deals on quality items. That's why they've done so well. If you don't know how to recognize quality and value don't blame it on the store.
You also seem totally unable to distinguish between legitimate argument which you don't like and "flaming". A most definite character flaw.
As for their "abuse" of their employees and "abuse" of employees in general, progressives, as usual, completely distort the facts for ideological reasons. The WalMart store I shop at provides employment to people who would not be able to find it anywhere else and they don't seem to be abused. You also completely overlook the abuse of rights which has caused American workers to lose much of their protected position. That's particularly true in the construction industry...as any of you would know if you'd actually worked instead of complaining and pontificating.
July 2, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me be more clear. Too many American construction workers regularly showed up late and stoned, didn't do their jobs properly, and stole from their employers. When cheap Mexican labor became available guess who got the jobs?
July 2, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well done Steven. I've learned a lot from your article. Probably numbers are not like as they were in 2008 but still I'm very interested in your topic. scabies symptoms
February 17, 2011 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
offensive - I had no idea I was smarter than they. You really think so?
Actually I did know two people who voted for Reagan. They both were unemployed, on food stamps etc. Their reason? Reagan was "going to kick ass." Reaction to the hostages in Iran under Carter's watch? Probably.
July 1, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks for useful information!
Best regards, Mary, CEO of youtube converter
December 16, 2010 5:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, there's something just wrong here, and it's not just the shameless book plugging (you really don't need to mention the book's title and subtitle in every post, btw).
The mistake here is about Hillary's purportedly populist campaign. If populism was the way to go, Edwards would have done better. Hillary didn't run as a populist -- instead she chased a population of low information voters who didn't like Obama.
Remember, Hillary and Obama had nearly identical policy platforms, so there's no way that one was a populist and the other wasn't. Compared to Edwards, neither of them were.
July 1, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Destor,
Populism was the way to go.
The only problem is that the only people that want populism are the people. They don't get a voice in the matter ya know. Some of them vote, but most of them don't because they figure (with some justification) that they're all just a bunch of politicians who aren't going to do anything for them anyway.
The corporate media didn't want to hear about fighting for the little people. The Democrats in DC didn't want to hear about that either because their real constituencies are the contributor base they have developed among mostly corporate interests. The Republicans didn't want to hear about populism because if anyone ever wakes the working people from their daze the first thing they'll do is cut off access to the trough they've been feeding from for 40 years and then they are going to want to find the culprits who led the charge to screw the little people for 40 years.
And finally, the brand spanking new and shiny idea of the year of the first woman Pres. vs the year of the first black Pres. was a much better story and so captivated the imaginations of a huge swath of Democratic voters and so the media gave em what they wanted which conveniently worked in tandem with their own wish not to be bothered with the tired old theme of populism.
Now we have a typical, cautious, DLC centrist tacking hard to the right which was predicted over and over and over again during the primaries, but nobody wanted to listen while they were focused on transcending Washington politics. Sorry for the being cynical but cynicism and the truth merge on this point, at least in my view.
July 1, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
oleeb, you tend to be right on about these matters. My only point is that Obama and Hillary are pretty much identical. She had more appeal to people who I thought would have been natural Edwards voters but neither of them were populists and Greenhouse is acting like she was.
July 1, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, she feigned populism after it was clear she couldn't win. I'll never understand why on earth she continued pursuing that poisonous strategy after it was quite impossible for her to win the nomination.
July 1, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steven should explain why we should trust a government that has so badly managed our nat'l pension plan already. Social Security is the most poorly designed retirement plan of any Western nation, and it's been treated as general revenue for decades now. A corporation that treated their pension plan like this would be shut down and people thrown in jail.
Had all these workers Steven is so concerned about been given the opportunity to invest the money they are forced to pay into their own personal accounts, instead of an account that politicians can dip into on a whim, they would be in much better shape.
Even the decidedly socially liberal government of Sweden realized they were going to have to partially privatize their nat'l pension plan in order for it to survive. Why is everyone else setting up soverign wealth funds to invest nat'l pension funds, and ours continues to lose money every day?
Steven's prescription is a moldy 60's retrofit solution to the problem that will only make the problem much worse.
July 1, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
You misunderstand what Social Security is. It is not a retirement plan; it is a social insurance plan. It provides subsistence level income should you become unable to work, can't save enough to retire on, or outlive your savings. It was never intended to serve as a sole source of income.
Money in the SS trust fund used for current expenditures is borrowed from the fund. The repayment of those funds is backed, as they say, by the full faith and credit of the US government. That means they can't renege on those loans anymore than they can on your savings bonds or T-bills. It is well understood that when SS payouts exceed current receipts that the Treasury will have to begin repayment of what it has borrowed.
Lastly, this is why I think 'private accounts' are nonsense: What happens to the people whose savings get hammered by a bear market? If someone outlives the balance in their private account, then what? I suspect that rather than leaving the elderly destitute the government will be asked to step in and provide them with an income…in which case, we would be right back where we started.
July 2, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
the absolute fear of taking any risk is a standard argument and the reason that SS is in such bad shape. Imagine if the fund had invested just a portion in US real estate over the past 50 years. Talk about a solid return on investment. Annuities have a guaranteed minumum return, which means you CANNOT LOST MONEY. Please get this, folks.
Call SS what you want it's a 7% deduction from my paycheck, and I resent the hell out of the way politicians abuse it. The full backing of the US government means nothing if the government goes broke. It was never designed to be a government piggy bank.
We can't even make a play to support the dollar anymore, because our foreign currency reserves are now less than Polands. Privatizing is going to have to be done, and it'st the only thing that will save the program.
July 2, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
BrookD, you wrote: "Privatizing is going to have to be done, and it'st the only thing that will save the program."
If Social Security is privatized then in what sense is it the Social Security program any more? We need to destroy the program in order to save it?
I had thought folks such as Dean Baker and Paul Krugman had shown that with relatively modest adjustments the program's fiscal integrity, which they maintain does not even come into question for another couple or three decades anyway under current trends, can be put on a solid longer-term footing. The sooner those adjustments are made the milder they will need to be in order to do this.
July 3, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
July 1, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Offensive -- I kind of wonder about that Wal-Mart example as well. I kind of doubt that would exactly enhance the shopping experience for people.
July 1, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I must confess surprise at seeing how quickly people here level accusations of shameless or disgraceful behavior -- of even making things up.
With regard to Verette Richardson, she described to me at length about how a cashier next to her had menstruated on herself because she was not given a rest break and then several of the cashiers banded together to get her to the bathroom and get her clean clothes. (p. 143 of my book)
By the way, a state judge in Minnesota, Robert R. King Jr, issued a ruling yesterday about Wal-Mart. One of the things he wrote was that "Nancy Braun (the lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit involving 56,000 workers)recounted the humiliating experience of soiling herself while at work becuase she was not permitted time to use the restroom. After the accident, Wal-Mart told her to go purchase new clothes with her own money."
Judge King described another Wal-Mart employee who "had to beg to use the restroom during one of her menstrual cycles."
While saying that these incidents were aberrations, Judge King wrote, "The court finds that the treatment these women received in regard to being restricted from using the restroom was dehumanizing and reprehensible."
July 1, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for responding.
"Bathroom breaks" have been the scene of labor-management power struggles since at least the days of the Model T. Unreasonably withholding and/or delaying them is a management tactic intended to undermine worker dignity and to increase worker anomie. Reduce worker self-respect and you reduce worker power, and management knows and counts on it.
Cf. Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.
July 1, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed Ellen, sad but so true.
July 1, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
sgreenhouse: offensivetoyou flames every post (he goes after Andrew Golis every chance he gets...). No need to worry about that flippin' guy. I liked the post; keep blogging!
I don't doubt for one second these Wal-Mart stories. Compare them to CostCo, and you can see these kinds of charges aren't just "looney-liberal" corporation bashing... Wal-Mart just plain fails on so many levels. (Everything I've ever bought from there breaks within 30 days, and the belt I bought there once gives me a rash, even though it doesn't touch my skin very often...)
July 1, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only reason people "wonder" about these sorts of things and the only reason some people (with no knowledge whatsoever)cast aspersions on those who report information like this is because they have no firsthand experience in the world of the average worker. These sorts of incidents come as no surprise at all to those of us who know what it's like to be a common worker, with no rights, and with no choice if you want to pay the rent. Few people on a site like this are going to have had much experience in the work world you're discussing. It is only news to those who are not regular workers that workers in this country are, generally speaking, oppressed. They are overworked, underpaid, totally taken for granted and unappreciate by those whose lives are made better by the thankless work most of them do.
July 1, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen, oleeb.
July 1, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ oleeb
Now THAT is CERTAINLY true!
I know something about those who post to Free Republic; there's a large group with military service and/or military background, another large group of small businessmen, another from the financial world (stock and bond traders, bankers, etc.), many who've been in the oil business, and quite a few plain ordinary blue collar workers.
But over here? Quite a few who don't work and don't think they should have to, a number of students and academics, many "principled" draft dodgers, some in advertising. Who have I missed?
July 2, 2008 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
When you get around to it, offensivetoyou, you might add to your list -- Offensive Trolls.
July 2, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Only an authoritarian state-worshipper (fascist?) would refer to someone who avoids the draft as a "draft dodger."
Live Free or Die!
July 2, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ Ellen
You're out of your mind. No state exists without armed forces to protect its interests and someone has to serve in them. It's always considered a civic duty, as important and fundamental as taxes.
July 2, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
"And before I'll be a slave I'll be buried in my grave."
July 2, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Question for you, Steven:
Given what you've written, how do you explain Edwards' campaign not catching on? I have some thoughts/guesses on this but would like to hear yours.
July 1, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think the welfare state solutions that liberals/ Democrats *still* propose, even when they know it's not popular, really appeal to most who vote on economic issues for the simple reason that they're associated with poverty (because they are). And today, it is *clear* that these are being used to "soften the blows" that are landing on people who need to work for a living, while the capitalist class and its money managers (especially) practically pilfer the financial system while running the institutions in their charge into the ground. Flagrantly.
It's clear that there is a lot more that's wrong here than just simple "international competition," which has become an excuse for mismanagement as much as anything else. The political parties just don't seem to be addressing all of these issues, and it's a little hard for people to just go wholeheartedly vote for the party that seems to think the solution is to put them on welfare, even if they decide to call it something like "income insurance" a la Jacob Hacker.
It's all just a little too spineless.
July 1, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
JTFaraday:
I don't know--is Social Security "associated with poverty." It was set up deliberately not to be and the sense I get is that the issue with that is not so much that people associate it with poverty as that they are concerned about its future solvency.
Hacker's "income insurance" is accurately named insurance, not "welfare". "Welfare" is of course now time limited but is unpopular because of who its clientele is. Income insurance would be for anyone who experiences a dramatic loss in income on account of losing their job, and just about everyone these days knows is no more than 2 people removed from someone to whom that has happened, through no fault of their own.
On UHC, overwhelmingly, if you believe poll after poll over the years, the public supports it. It's a classic collective action plan dynamic--the people fighting it are very highly focused and organized (and also have lots of resources at their disposal). The people for it are diffuse, not organized, and not focused. In addition, those for it disagree on important details of how to do it. No politician has succeeded in winning over enough of the business community to give it enough juice to get through the Congress. But having health insurance problems simply is not, in our society at this time, seen as only a problem afflicting the "undeserving poor" = "losers" in our society.
I don't disagree if you are saying the political leadership in the country simply hasn't found the right rhetoric--for example, UHC as "pro opportunity", "pro mobility", "pro-growth", and "pro-business"--or maybe a new "responsibility for security and opportunity"-type social contract to address the needs of families and working people of ordinary means arising from the world of today.
Edwards too often, even to this observer who was and remains sympathetic to him--sounded as though his primary emphasis was on fighting poverty. That just isn't the kind of message that is going to prevail in the political arena. Updating and upgrading our social contract, such as it is, versus fighting poverty are radically different objectives. The latter is even considerably less appealing today than in the 1960s, when living standards were rising across the board and the downsides of economic globalization were nowhere on the horizon.
July 1, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Social Security is the most poorly designed retirement plan of any Western nation, and it's been treated as general revenue for decades now.
It wasn't intended to be the sole source of income - it was supposed to make up the difference between your savings and pension income and the actual cost of living.
Then we got politicians who decided that pensions were unnecessary (except for executives and elected officials), all interest on savings was as taxable as earned income, and Social Security itself was an excellent piggy bank for their pet programs - none of which ever seem to bring in money, only spend it.
Oh yes, and that the ceiling on contributions should not be raised, because somebody making a couple of hundred thousand a year might not be able to afford to live with less money. [/snark]
July 1, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
What "they" want is a government that represents their interests and that doesn't fuck them over at every turn. "They" don't have that and haven't had it for many years.
The Democrats are only marginally better than the Republicans in terms of protecting the interests of our normal, average, everyday citizens. If they were significantly better for our people, the Democrats would long ago have passed a single payer, national health care program like every decent, civilized country on earth has had for years--exept the US! If the Democrats were interested in a fair deal for the common people of this country we would have free or nearly free higher education for anyone who qualifies. If we had a Democratic Party interested in making sure the needs of the people were met instead of the needs of the powerful and wealthy special interests we would have first class mass transit systems in every major city in this nation, we would have implemented an energy policy 30 years go that would have allowed us to avoid the economic hardships that we are experiencing and those yet to come because of our overdependence upon foreign oil and oil in general. And if the Democrats were really and significantly better than the Republicans for working Americans they wouldn't have done nothing (at best)while many of the best jobs available to working people were exported to third world nations.
I think on a personal level Obama cares about regular people and some Congressional Democrats do too, but the fact is, Obama is demonstrating that he's just another Washington Democrat, pushing the same half measures and spouting the same bromides all the rest of them have been spouting for years. The American worker needs to look elsewhere (like in the mirror) if it expects to find someone who will actually fight for their interests vs those of the corporations and the wealthy. The only time either party has ever paid attention to the interests of workers was when they demanded it through labor unions.
July 1, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Hacker's "income insurance" is accurately named insurance, not "welfare". "Welfare" is of course now time limited but is unpopular because of who its clientele is. Income insurance would be for anyone who experiences a dramatic loss in income on account of losing their job, and just about everyone these days knows is no more than 2 people removed from someone to whom that has happened, through no fault of their own."
I don't have much to say about UHC or Social Security and I am opposed to neither. I do think we need to challenge the notion that the only thing to be done about today's economic dislocation is to cave to it and smooth it over with with government programs hatched by a careerist Harvard policy elite. It seems to me that liberals would choose this response over labor and labor law because it is less problematic for *them.* I don't think that's what the voting and working population would choose, and I'd be hard pressed to say they should.
I've heard very little about the ways the Bush Admin undermined labor law during this campaign. I'm not saying it's a vast right/left wing conspiracy, exactly, but it does sort of look to me like the left hand would wash the right.
July 1, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly on labor and labor law reform as well. I don't see it as "either/or" as between upgrading the safety net via government policies and a better deal for working people through increasing union density in our workforce.
Edwards was open and explicit about labor law reform.
For those unfamiliar with labor law and its shortcomings in our country, the best primer I've seen is Lance Compa, aUnfair Advantage: Workers' Freedom of Association in the United States Under International Human Rights Standards, 2004, a Human Rights Watch book.
What it documents and explains, among other things, is how firing employees who try to organize their workplaces makes entirely good sense as a cost of doing business in our country, given how weak our labor laws and the penalties for breaking them are. There is a whole cottage industry of specialists available to advise employers on how to do this either legally or at minimal cost.
July 1, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, JTFaraday, I don't see the stuff Hacker is talking about as amounting to a point of view that "the only thing to be done about today's economic dislocation is to cave to it and smooth it over with with government programs hatched by a careerist Harvard policy elite."
As I understand The Great Risk Shift, Hacker's latest, the piece of the puzzle he is trying to address is about sharing risk much more equitably and both protecting people from some of the worst consequences of economic dislocation to the extent we can and providing greater security so that people feel more able to take risks in how they seek to make a living.
I seriously doubt that Hacker means to say that the "only" things we should do, policy wise, in response to the economic dislocation, are to bolster the safety net along the lines he suggests. Because he advocates A doesn't mean he is opposed to B or C or D, measures that could help to promote growth in decent-paying jobs, for example.
As to the "Harvard elite" that supposedly hatched this agenda, Hacker is at Yale and personally I don't care what the source of the ideas is, I care about whether they are good ideas or not.
July 1, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's that? Working class voters are mad about getting royally shafted up the you-know-what? But that's "class warfare," which has no place in American politics. Don't they understand they're supposed to bend over and take it -- for the good of the country?
July 1, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
A fair deal would be nice.
But is it even possible given the lopsided influence powerful lobbyists have in our nations capitol?
I'm tired of writing and emailing my congresspersons only to have legislation that I feel is citizen unfriendly pass into law. Equality of representation is a joke.
I see no indication the congress cares. Few would argue that Bush has violated multiple laws but nothing happens. Congress doesn't care. Mostly they are raising campaign money and angling for the big payday when they leave office. Honestly serving their constituents is a low priority.
July 2, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Verette Richardson, a Wal-Mart cashier in Kansas City, told me that her supervisors were so stingy about giving bathroom breaks that some cashiers ended up soiling themselves.
nytimes, july 2, 2008:
twin cities daily planet, september 26, 2007:
pioneer press, july 2, 2008:
July 2, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
oleeb, you are usually right on about these matters but to anyone who thinks that hillary and obama are the same, you are nuts!! Hillary had 8 years experience in the White House!
August 22, 2010 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think the welfare state solutions that liberals/ Democrats *still* propose, even when they know it's not popular, really appeal to most who vote on economic issues for the simple reason that they're associated with poverty (because they are). And today, it is *clear* that these are being used to "soften the blows" that are landing on people who need to work for a living, while the capitalist class and its money managers (especially) practically pilfer the financial system while running the institutions in their charge into the ground. Flagrantly. bear facts
November 29, 2010 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I do not know. As well, there is the Internet, and you can read about it DENAS
December 12, 2010 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too many American construction workers regularly showed up late and stoned, didn't do their jobs properly, and stole from their employers. When cheap Mexican labor became available guess who got the jobs?
Sofia by Iscsi Server Software
December 22, 2010 4:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice blog, although took me a little while to fully understand it, but after reading it a few times its really useful. Thank you.
ДиаДЭНС
December 23, 2010 4:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
This was so very interesting and fun to read! I really appreciate everything and I think you can teach us so much.
Сайт для девушек Скачать бесплатно книги о медицине Please keep up the great work.
January 22, 2011 4:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have been depressed and low in energy due to some personal problem, but after reading your article today, I suddenly felt a boost within me and guess what there was a sudden change in my behavior, that’s because your article gave me the best solution for solving the problems in my life. Thanks!!! pmp exam prep Definitely believe that which you stated. Your favorite reason seemed to be on the internet the easiest thing to be aware of. I say to you, I certainly get annoyed while people consider worries that they just don’t know about. You managed to hit the nail upon the top and defined out the whole thing without having side effect , people can take a signal. Will likely be back to get more. Thanks
Testkings
February 26, 2011 4:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice blog, although took me a little while to fully understand it,Animated Logo | Company Logo
March 18, 2011 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Be thankful for that.
Logo Design | Stationery Design
March 18, 2011 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I adore what you have got right here.
Brochure Design
March 18, 2011 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
You misunderstand what Social Security is. It is not a retirement plan; it is a social insurance plan. It provides subsistence level income should you become unable to work, can't save enough to retire on, or outlive your savings. It was never intended to serve as a sole source of income.
Money in the SS trust fund used for current expenditures is borrowed from the fund. The repayment of those funds is backed, as they say, by the full faith and credit of the US government. That means they can't renege on those loans anymore than they can on your savings bonds or T-bills. It is well understood that when SS payouts exceed current receipts that the Treasury will have to begin repayment of what it has borrowed.
Debt | housing
March 24, 2011 3:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
You helped me a lot indeed and reading this your article I have found many new and useful information about this subject. the diet solution
March 26, 2011 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Definitely believe that which you stated. Your favorite reason seemed to be on the internet the easiest thing to be aware of. I say to you, I certainly get annoyed while people consider worries that they just don’t know about. You managed to hit the nail upon the top and defined out the whole thing without having side effect , people can take a signal. Will likely be back to get more. Thanks
cheap replica watches | men's health
March 31, 2011 6:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you! it was a wonderful chance to visit this kind of site and I am happy to know. thank you so much for giving us a chance to have this opportunity!
Badsanierung
April 7, 2011 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
This article gives the light in which we can observe the reality. this is very nice one and gives in-depth information. thanks for this nice article
agriturismo abruzzo
April 7, 2011 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for making such a killer blog. I arrive on here all the time and am floored with the fresh information here! You are great!
Medicare
April 8, 2011 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is a very informative and useful post… Thank you it is good material to read this post increases my knowledge.......
wheat bags
April 9, 2011 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks so much for sharing your wealth of information. I certainly appreciate the effort! keep up the good work!
Deutschlands neues Vergleichsportal für Versicherungen, Kredite, Strom, Gas, DSL und vieles mehr...
April 10, 2011 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post, one of the few articles I’ve read today that said something unique! One new subscriber here :)
toronto waterproofing companies
April 12, 2011 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another very solid tutorial. Thank you. Not something I can use right now but I bookmarked for the future.
milton hvac
April 13, 2011 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is the first time I am visiting this post.I have gathered much of it.Really a interesting firm things.
tongue whistle
April 14, 2011 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
These kind of articles are always attractive and I am happy to find so many good point here in the post, writing is simply great, thanks for sharing.
Nähkurs in Berlin
April 15, 2011 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Still there is room for greater development and I would recommend more emphasis on research and of course it will bring a better situation. Thanks for sharing a nice read. Cheers
Uruguay Properties
April 16, 2011 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like it very much because it has very helpful articles of various topics like different culture and the latest news. I am a googler and search on many topics.
Tapeten
April 18, 2011 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks so much for sharing your wealth of information. I certainly appreciate the effort! keep up the good work!
Met
April 19, 2011 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
How long have you been in this field? You seem to know a lot more than I do, I’d love to know your sources. Cheers!
Ephesus Tours & Information
April 20, 2011 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice one, there is actually some great points on this post some of my associates will find this worthwhile, will send them a link, thanks
Tiefenwärme
April 21, 2011 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I meant it is good to know that someone mentioned also having trouble finding the same information elsewhere. This was the first place, that tells me the answer. Thanks.
Hotel München
April 22, 2011 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your work is very good and I appreciate you and hopping for some more informative posts. Thank you for sharing great information to us.
flowers in Canada|flowers delivery Australia
April 23, 2011 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Facebook
Nice blog, although took me a little while to fully understand it, but after reading it a few times its really useful. Thank you. Thailand Hotels
April 23, 2011 2:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
In fact your creative writing abilities has inspired me to start my own Blog
bezienswaardigheden berlijn
April 23, 2011 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I meant it is good to know that someone mentioned also having trouble finding the same information elsewhere. This was the first place, that tells me the answer. Thanks.
Wandtattoos
April 24, 2011 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
These facts are amazing . I was searching for at least 5 weaks and i didn't get the perfect answer. But after all i found from your site. thanks for posting such a interesting topic.
wizard of oz books
snow cone syrup
April 24, 2011 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for making such a killer blog. I arrive on here all the time and am floored with the fresh information here! You are great!
sparen
April 25, 2011 6:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Its very awesome article,all the content is so beneficial and valuable for us.Thanks for sharing nice and pretty post.
london bathroom fitters
April 25, 2011 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate the work that you have put into this page. Genuinely good,and informative most comfortable shoe.
April 25, 2011 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
motorcycle transport, motorcycle shipper, motorcycle transportation, motorcycle shipping, motorcycle transporters, motorcycle transport.
April 29, 2011 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
san francisco mover, moving companies san francisco, mover companies, moving quotes, mover packer, moving company, moving services, local mover, moving leads, san francisco mover.
April 29, 2011 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
shipping a car, auto transport, automobile transporters, auto shippers, auto transporters, shipping a car.
April 29, 2011 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
automobile transporters, auto transport, automobile transporter, auto shippers, auto transporters, automobile transporters.
April 29, 2011 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
car shipping, auto transport, car transport, car transportation, vehicle shipping, car shipping.
April 29, 2011 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
car shipping, auto transport, car transport, car transportation, vehicle shipping, car shipping.
April 29, 2011 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ft Lauderdale Search Engine Optimization, search engine optimization, search engine marketing, sem, seo services, local seo, link building, Ft Lauderdale Search Engine Optimization.
April 29, 2011 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
tech house, house music, electro house, tech house, funky house, progressive house, tech house.
April 29, 2011 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
seo, search engine marketing, search engine optimization, sem, seo services, local seo, link building, seo.
April 29, 2011 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It should be fair enough. Schwinn 460
May 1, 2011 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I high appreciate this post. It’s hard to find the good from the bad sometimes, but I think you’ve nailed it! would you mind updating your blog with more information?
Gartenfiguren
May 2, 2011 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm extremely impressed with your writing skills as well as with the layout on your weblog. Is this a paid theme or did you modify it yourself? Anyway keep up the nice quality writing, it’s rare to see a nice blog like this one these days..
Honigwein
May 2, 2011 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for posting this informative article. I haven't any word to appreciate this post.....Really i am impressed from this post....the person who create this post it was a great human..thanks for shared this with us.
kostenlose Bilder
May 3, 2011 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really appreciate this wonderful post that you have provided for us.Great site and a great topic as well i really get amazed to read this. farmville cheat codes
May 3, 2011 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
mind blowing working from you i will definitely share this with my friends mothers day flowers Paris
May 4, 2011 3:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for posting such a nice article. I love the way you have described the whole article. Thanks and keep posting new things
Forex Trading
May 4, 2011 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think I could disagree with the main ideas. I won't share it with my friends.. You should think of other ways to express your ideas.
penny auction software
May 4, 2011 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice information many thanks to the author. It is incomprehensible to me now but in general the usefulness and significance is overwhelming! Mudanzas madrid
May 5, 2011 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dont know what to say. This is definitely one of the better blogs Ive read. Youre so insightful have so much real stuff to bring to the table. Commercial Cleaning London
May 6, 2011 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
The post is absolutely fantastic! Lots of great information and inspiration both of which we all need! Also like to admire the time and effort you put into your blog and detailed information you offer! I will bookmark your blog!
Pool Plaster
May 6, 2011 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink