« What Obama Must Demand from Congress on Health Care | Robert Reich's Blog | The Lessons from History on Health Care Reform »
The Real News About Jobs and Wages -- An Ode to Labor Day
Why aren't we hearing more about the worst job and wage situation since the Great Depression?
The latest employment figures (released this morning) show job losses continuing to grow. According to the payroll survey, job losses are increasing more slowly than in previous months. According to the household survey, they're accelerating -- from 9.4 percent of the workforce in July to 9.7 percent in August. Bottom line: almost one out of six Americans who need a full-time job either can't find one or is working part-time. Meanwhile, wage growth among people who have jobs has just about stopped. The Economic Policy Institute reports that between 2006 and 2008, wages grew at an annualized rate of 4.0%; by contrast, over the past three months annual wage growth has plummeted to just 0.7%. At the same time, furloughs -- requiring workers to take unpaid vacations -- are on the rise: recent surveys show 17% of companies imposing them. More than 20% of companies have suspended their contributions to 401(k)s and similar pension plans.
So why isn't the media screaming? Partly because these job and wage losses are not, for the most part, falling on the segment of our population most visible to the media. They're falling overwhelmingly on the middle class and the poor. Unemployment among those who have been in the top 10 percent of earnings is closer to 5 percent, and their earnings continue to climb -- although, to be sure, much more slowly than before the meltdown. It's much the same with health-care and pension benefits. Among people under 65 who are in the bottom 20% of incomes, only 21.9% have employer-sponsored health insurance -- if they have a job at all. Half of all people nearing retirement age have a 401(k) balance of less than $40,000.
I keep hearing that the economic meltdown has taken a huge toll on the stock portfolios of the rich. That's true. But the rich haven't lost nearly as much of their assets, proportionately, as everyone else. According to a report from the Bank of America Merrill Lynch ("The Myth of the Overleveraged Consumer"), analyzing data from the Federal Reserve, the bottom 90 percent of Americans hold 50 percent of more of their assets in residential real estate, which has taken a far bigger beating than stocks and bonds. The top 10 percent of Americans have only a quarter of their assets in housing; most of their assets are in stocks and bonds. And although the stock market is still a bit tipsy, it has rallied considerably since it hit bottom earlier this year. Home values, on the other hand, are down by an average of a third across the country, and are still falling.
What does all this mean for the economy as a whole? It raises the fundamental question of where demand will come from to get us out of this hole. If so manyAmericans are losing their jobs and wages, you have to wonder who will be returning to the malls.
That same Bank of America Merrill Lynch report notes cheerfully that 42 percent of consumer spending before the meltdown came from the top-earning 10 percent of Americans (not too surprising given that the top 10 percent was raking in half of total earnings) and the top 10 percent continues to do relatively well. So, says Bank of America Merrill, we can rely on the spending of the top 10 percent to get the economy moving again. Indeed, they conclude, Congress and the White House should be careful not to raise taxes on the top 10 percent, lest the consuming ardor of these most privileged members of our society be dampened.
This logic is morally and economically indefensible. If we've learned anything from the Great Recession-Mini Depression of the last 18 months, it's that the skewing of income and wealth to the top has made our economy far less stable. When the majority of middle-class and poor Americans are either losing their jobs or feel threatened by job loss, and when those who still have jobs are experiencing flat or declining wages, there's simply no way to get the economy back on track. The track we were on -- featuring stagnant median wages, widening inequality, and job insecurity -- got us into this mess in the first place.
The latest employment figures (released this morning) show job losses continuing to grow. According to the payroll survey, job losses are increasing more slowly than in previous months. According to the household survey, they're accelerating -- from 9.4 percent of the workforce in July to 9.7 percent in August. Bottom line: almost one out of six Americans who need a full-time job either can't find one or is working part-time. Meanwhile, wage growth among people who have jobs has just about stopped. The Economic Policy Institute reports that between 2006 and 2008, wages grew at an annualized rate of 4.0%; by contrast, over the past three months annual wage growth has plummeted to just 0.7%. At the same time, furloughs -- requiring workers to take unpaid vacations -- are on the rise: recent surveys show 17% of companies imposing them. More than 20% of companies have suspended their contributions to 401(k)s and similar pension plans.
So why isn't the media screaming? Partly because these job and wage losses are not, for the most part, falling on the segment of our population most visible to the media. They're falling overwhelmingly on the middle class and the poor. Unemployment among those who have been in the top 10 percent of earnings is closer to 5 percent, and their earnings continue to climb -- although, to be sure, much more slowly than before the meltdown. It's much the same with health-care and pension benefits. Among people under 65 who are in the bottom 20% of incomes, only 21.9% have employer-sponsored health insurance -- if they have a job at all. Half of all people nearing retirement age have a 401(k) balance of less than $40,000.
I keep hearing that the economic meltdown has taken a huge toll on the stock portfolios of the rich. That's true. But the rich haven't lost nearly as much of their assets, proportionately, as everyone else. According to a report from the Bank of America Merrill Lynch ("The Myth of the Overleveraged Consumer"), analyzing data from the Federal Reserve, the bottom 90 percent of Americans hold 50 percent of more of their assets in residential real estate, which has taken a far bigger beating than stocks and bonds. The top 10 percent of Americans have only a quarter of their assets in housing; most of their assets are in stocks and bonds. And although the stock market is still a bit tipsy, it has rallied considerably since it hit bottom earlier this year. Home values, on the other hand, are down by an average of a third across the country, and are still falling.
What does all this mean for the economy as a whole? It raises the fundamental question of where demand will come from to get us out of this hole. If so manyAmericans are losing their jobs and wages, you have to wonder who will be returning to the malls.
That same Bank of America Merrill Lynch report notes cheerfully that 42 percent of consumer spending before the meltdown came from the top-earning 10 percent of Americans (not too surprising given that the top 10 percent was raking in half of total earnings) and the top 10 percent continues to do relatively well. So, says Bank of America Merrill, we can rely on the spending of the top 10 percent to get the economy moving again. Indeed, they conclude, Congress and the White House should be careful not to raise taxes on the top 10 percent, lest the consuming ardor of these most privileged members of our society be dampened.
This logic is morally and economically indefensible. If we've learned anything from the Great Recession-Mini Depression of the last 18 months, it's that the skewing of income and wealth to the top has made our economy far less stable. When the majority of middle-class and poor Americans are either losing their jobs or feel threatened by job loss, and when those who still have jobs are experiencing flat or declining wages, there's simply no way to get the economy back on track. The track we were on -- featuring stagnant median wages, widening inequality, and job insecurity -- got us into this mess in the first place.
Advertisement
hey! let's force these people (the middle class and the poor) to buy insurance, without a robust Public Option to lower costs, and with insufficient subsidies, that are being lowered in Committee.
that'll be great for the Democratic Party!!
September 4, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Impossible to consider more than one problem at a time, isn't it? Which explains why Reich's post is so important.
September 4, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I gather the "problem" which Reich has identified is the lack of "media screaming" -- its cause being a blinkered media.
I accept your judgment that Reich's post is "important" -- I'd even add empathetic -- in spades!
But for the few of us who missed it, could you explain just what his proposed solution to the "problem" is.
September 4, 2009 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's been a long time since I got snarked by Ellen. I feel privileged that my exile is over. My point had nothing to do with solutions, it had to do with the fact that an "Ode to Labor Day" was immediately diverted to the health care issue. It doesn't seem possible to discuss more than one problem at a time around here.
September 5, 2009 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hint (and with respect): When you write something like this, LINK the post. Cheers.
September 6, 2009 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
My Own Tribute to Labor Day
I've been a Union Member since the age of 15...fifty-three years all told. First I was a member of the Building Service Employees International, AFL-CIO. The buildings I served? Burial vaults. It was an important job. I had 88,000 people under me, and people were dying to get in. (Sorry, I couldn't resist).
When I joined, my wage jumped from 90 cents and hour to $1.25. I joined as soon as I could. I would have had to be nuts not to.
My next union was the Teamsters. I was a driver's helper in a lumber yard, hauling sheetrock and unloading railroad cars full of shingles. I got coffee breaks. I got a lunch break. Thank you, Teamsters.
My next job was in a non-union company. I worked for a television station as a floor manager. I didn't quit the Teamsters. I got my inactive card, and I probably still have it someplace.
After Graduate School, I participated in an Organizing Movement at the college where I wound up teaching. The issue was one of governance, not salary. We won. I've been a member of the NEA for 36 years.
I have my job due to the generosity of my Labor Brothers and Sisters. The Vice President for Finance, taking advantage of a financial exigency clause, started layoff procedures for ten of us...based on ridiculous enrollment projections. It was purely a revenge move for unionizing. The union said..."We'll all take a 10% pay cut if your projections are correct. Of course they weren't. We had the largest entering Freshman Class to that time. I have never forgotten their courage and willingness to stand up to management.
I made the move from blue collar union representation to white collar representation seamlessly. Not that the Board of Trustees didn't try to convince us that we were too "intellectual" or "intelligent" to do what the custodians and electricians did.
I don't know why "middle class" white collar workers don't recognize they're being played for dupes. If I could wave a magic wand, I'd pass legislation to abolish the Taft Hartley Act, and to overturn the Yeshiva decision.
If we were as civilized as most European countries we'd celebnrate Labor Day on May 1. But we were bamboozled back in Eugene V, Debs' day to think that May Day was Socialist.
So we have Labor Day in September, picnics, fun and games, --all good things.
But we should be having rallies and political prostests like our European Counterparts do.
SOLIDARITY FOREVER
http://www.history.com/content/laborday/labor-history/labor-day-history
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-may-2-2002/may-day--may-day-
September 4, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's too bad the Democratic Party, who depends upon the left, the working class. Doesn't do more to highlight the life and works of Eugene Debs. A Union Organizer
I don't remember learning much about him in School, is this by design?
I also found this link about a May Day celebration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Day_Riots_of_1919
Debs imprisoned for speaking up in behalf of the working class
In 1924, Debs was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize...."Debs started to work actively for peace during World War I, mainly because he considered the war to be in the interest of capitalism.
The Right wing Capitalists have their Reagan
Time for the working class to promote it's great leaders, like Eugene Debs who fought and died for labors cause. Bill Clinton nor Obama could hold a candle.
September 4, 2009 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are some pretty interesting video Labor Day tributes on YouTube and elsewhere as well. This is one from the History Channel http://www.history.com/video.do?name=culture&bcpid=1676043212&bclid=1672079664&bctid=1577955613
The narrarator puts you to sleep, but the pictures are fascinating.
Here'a a playlist on labor history from Youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=252B90C079112B51&search_query=Labor+Day+History
September 5, 2009 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the links.
How do we promote the ideals of labor, and yet avoid the pitfall of being labeled Anarchists or Socialists?
It seems a bad connotation to speak of Social justice or Social this or that, and the Rightwing Conservatives get defensive and the Left cowers and acts as though they need to be apologetic.
NO! NO! We’re not Socialists, no were not the Left.
It's as though the Democrats are afraid of their heritage. Unwilling to fight for the workers, as our forefathers endured beatings and imprisonment to get worker rights.
Does the Ghost of McCarthyism still reign? Has the Red Scare so stifled America’s Independence, stifled America from eliminating want and fear, promoting an illusion of the land of milk and honey but instead we are witnesses of a land of haves and have-nots with wage slavery?
Convinced that it is okay to see your neighbor suffer. Being freed from answering the question “Am I my brothers keeper”
September 5, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was thirteen at the the time of the Army-McCarthy hearings--we didn't yet have a TV (how primitive can you get?). But McCarthy was thoroughly discredited and the witch hunts broken in a very short period of time. And I do remember his disgrace coming while I was in high school. I still marvel how someone who had risen so high could fall so low.
I don't worry too much about being called a socialist, and even many of those who call themselves anarchists don't know what classical anarchism is. I know I'm not protected by other persons' ignorance, and maybe I should worry more.
I think the way to fight begins with Joseph P. Welch's words to McCarthy,
"Have you no decency, sir?" Make it a mantra and use it whenever the right behaves outrageously. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAur_I077NA
September 5, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like that
short and sweet.
"Have you no decency" goes right to the matter of it
September 6, 2009 6:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Workers of the World Unite! Where's Trotsky when we need him - especially now in this so-called Global Economy where labor has become the cheapest commodity on the global market.
September 5, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to repeat myself, but until I get an answer from one of these liberal Democrat economists I'll have to keep posting the same thing I posted over at Paul Krugman's blog:
If the purpose of stimulus is to mitigate unemployment, then perhaps the administration — not to mention progressive-thinking economists — ought to have a look at John Maynard Keynes’s 1943 Treasury Department memorandum on The Long Term Problem of Full Employment. I’ve been posting it every month when the BLS employment report comes out and so far I haven’t seen any take-up from economists (aside from Dean Baker at the CEPR).
And I mean no other response PRO or CON. If Keynes was wrong, it would behoove economists who think so to say so and say why. But no.
September 4, 2009 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keynes said a lot of things. Why do Krugman and Reich have to answer for every one of them? I'm going to keep posting JM Keynes' grocery list until you respond, damn it!
September 4, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
What exactly is your point here? If its to bring up Keynes statement then I would suspect neither Krugman or Reich necessarily disagree with his analysis and most definitely agree with his conclusion.
Seems to me that is pretty much what liberal economists work towards. You know funding for education, child care, environment, parks. Things that improve human welfare but aren't easily quantifiable. Krugman and Reich are using their public forums to shift resources in that direction. That was what they were asking for in the stimulus. So what's your beef?
If you are looking for pure economic analysis or a philosophical truth why don't you go to a grad school.
September 4, 2009 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since my original reply, with links, appears to have gotten bogged down in the moderation queue, I'm reposting my reply to Saladin, sans links:
My "beef" is this, Saladin (and destor23): traditionalist economists have overruled one of the most direct and effectual policy responses to maintaining full employment: the progressive reduction of working time in response to labor-saving technological advances. Furthermore, they have done so on as a result of prejudice and pressure from big business, not on the basis of theory or of empirical evidence.
The shorter working day was labor's central policy demand for fighting unemployment but most orthodox political economists of the 19th century were anti-labor as a matter of principle. Mark Blaug told the first part of the story in his 1958 article, "The Classical Economists and the Factory Acts" . By the early 20th century, though, less doctrinaire views came to be accepted by economists. The publication of Sydney Chapman's theory of the Hours of Labour in September 1909 represented a sea change in the thinking of economists about the relationship between working time, technology, output, wages and employment.
Keynes's argument -- advanced in a 1945 letter to T.S. Eliot -- that working less represented the ultimate cure for unemployment was no longer heresy for Cambridge economists of his generation. Even some industrialist relented, with Henry Ford being the most prominent business proponent of the five-day week. But after the war, Chapman's theory and Keynes's prescription were eclipsed by the paradigm of mathematical economics centered on models of general equilibrium.
The traditional taboo was restored through a combination of "bastard" Keynesianism (look it up, it's not my term), military-economic competition against the Soviet Union and a "post-ideological" delusion in economics that technical solutions would supersede class interests. "A rising tide lifts all boats." In the 1960s, even the unions climbed on board the bandwagon as they found easier pickings in "job retraining" and public spending than on the issue of shorter working time.
Well, the Soviet Union is no more. Class privilege has returned with a vengeance and economists fiddle with their mathematical models as employment evaporates. Somehow, though, the liberal Keynesians cannot remember, will not remember, believe maybe they must not remember that "The full employment policy by means of investment is only one particular application of an intellectual theorem."
What's the problem? Are liberal Keynesians afraid the Chicago boys will call them mean names and take away their PhDs if they dare to raise the specter of work time reduction?
It never ceases to amaze me, although it no longer surprises me, that whenever I raise this issue there are inevitably hostile responses such as those by Saladin and destor23. But it never seems to dawn on people that the hostility is programmed and institutionalized.
Paleo-conservative depression revisionists, like UCLA's Lee Ohanian, seem to sense almost instinctively that suppressing work time reduction is the key to keeping workers down. I patiently await an informed response to that kind of dynamic stochastic general equilibrium obfuscation and demagoguery from labor's supposed friends.
That's my beef, thank you very much.
September 5, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
1- TPM has a two link maximum in the comments. I have lost a lot of great comments to that moderation purgatory (they are gone by the way).
2- I don't think my comment was that hostile. I read your link (thank you for that) and was geniunely curious as to your hostile question. I feel that your response vindicates my query.
3- I like it. if you have the time please post the links (2 at a time) and I will read up on this.
I suspect that its not so much the Chicago boys as the specter of globalization and the 'race to the bottom' phenomenon that is preventing liberal economists from bringing this up. But then again it was the Chicago domination of economics that caused me to not pursue a career so you might very well be right.
Keep up the quest. Have you thought of writing a blog with the links that way you can link to it as you pester krugman. Saves time and confusion. If you do please let me know.
September 5, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Saladin,
Sorry I mistook your comment as hostile. It was the remark about going to grad school that raised my hackles! I blog at EconoSpeak and formerly at MaxSpeak back when Max Sawicky was still blogging.
Thanks for the tip about the two link limit. I guess I should read the comment policy more closely. So here the links are, two at a time:
Mark Blaug's"The Classical Economists and the Factory Acts." Just the first page. You need access through a library to read the rest.
Sydney Chapman's theory of the Hours of Labour.
September 5, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two more links.
The "mean names" Chicago (& Harvard & UCLA) boys call folks who advocate reduced working time policies.
Lee Ohanian's theory that Herbert Hoover's rabidly pro-labor policies (including work-sharing) caused the Great Depression.
September 5, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Sandwichman. I'll go check your blog out too.
September 5, 2009 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
We should be seeking a rollback of the Kennedy tax cuts. If we had a 93% marginal tax rate on incomes over $2million it would boost research, investment, and hiring.
Silly Steven Moore argues that LaBron James earns his money, surely a CEO is entitled to whatever he can garner. However, in Basketball only 5 men are allowed on the court at one time. If a CEO isn't getting compensated enough, he needs to learn to delegate some of his onerous duties to some underlings.
What happens to all that money he's denied? Well, at worst it goes to the stockholders--the owners of the company! Or, he might well invest in capital improvements/equipment, research, or other investments aimed at avoiding having his dollars drained by the tax/cap.
It's a cap rather than a tax since there is no way, no incentive to cash out at such a rate. And, does he really spend more than $2million a year? If he does, is this spending equal, better or worse than corporate investment in capital expenditures?
Entrepreneurs, who I have less interest in taxing also wouldn't be taxed at this rate either. They are even better positioned to direct this money into investments that will defer the takings but increase his (access to his) assets.
Corporate managers are the real bad actors in this economy. They are managers, not the owners. Their compensation is set not by the stockholders but by a panel of their buddies. Would a restaurant owner allow the managers' buddies to pick his pay? Never. Yet this is
(large cap. publicly traded) corporate structural reality today.
John Bogle makes this very point. Another he makes is that these excessive salaries actually encourages risky behavior and investments. Proof of this is that on average credit unions out perform banks, mutual/non-profit insurance out perform their for profit rivals, and index funds out perform the most respected high tone investment managers/funds.
Yet, as a gardener, I out perform any non-profit gardeners. This is true in the free market but not in these complex markets that are monopolies/utilities. In the case of health care, these markets are complex layers of professions, but who is the principal?
September 4, 2009 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stephen Moore, a member of the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board and frequent pundit on Diane Rehm and other shows is best understood by looking at his books:
Moore - 2004 - Bullish on Bush: How George Bush;s Ownership Society Will Make America Stronger
No second edition of this one, available at Amazon for 1 cent, which is about 1 cent more then Stephen Moore's opinions on economics are worth.
Moore's recent work, Moore - Sept. 2009 - The End of Prosperity: How Higher Taxes Will Doom the Economy--If We Let It Happen
Since Moore has shown a knack for being 100% wrong in his economic forecasts, Reich must be on the right path, higher taxes on the CEO's and upper 10% would help the economy, not 'doom' it.
September 5, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the Charlottesville/Albemarle, Virginia area, 47% of the people cannot afford housing, food and health care at the same time. Yet, these localities are in the top ten of per-capita incomes in the US. So, what does it take to nudge anyone into that 47% group? Don’t we need to think about what causes a collapse of a social/economic/political system for that many people to become marginalized, including their health care?
Bob Spencer
September 5, 2009 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Dr. Reich for clearing up something I've always wondered about. A city (San Francisco) child in the '30's, I grew up in relative affluence and in fact so did my relatives, friends and neighbors. So when I've read accounts of widespread poverty during those years, I've wondered why it never seemed to touch us (me.) Now I know why - we were in the 10% group.
If now is like then, the ten-percenters do quite well during a severe economic downturn - prices were low, labor (especially household labor) was practically free - just give me a roof over my head and food to eat and I'll work for pin money, the downside for the country as a whole being, of course, the ten-percenters are in no hurry to change anything - and they're the group most likely to be able to.
September 5, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alas, these look like more expenditures on consumption -- except now it is public consumption and public borrowing instead of the private consumption and private borrowing that got us into the present economic mess.
Nowhere do I see an appetite for investments that actually increase the productive capacity of our economy and lay the foundations for future prosperity. Without the capital investments, any jobs created by consumption expenditures will be strictly temporary.
September 5, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Education is very much an investment in productive capacity. So is child care.
I don't disagree with your general sentiment but what is your goal for future prosperity?
To me good economics is effectively managing scarcity. In many ways we have hit the limits to what we need. I have a house, car, great food. sure I would like to work less play more but really their is a lot out there. Our problem is one of fairer allocation and changing the means of production to a sustainable ones. we don't really need to produce more just need to change the way we produce what we already have and distribute it more fairly.
As a philosophical aside- What is really wrong with public borrowing? I mean after all we just print the money. As long as the economy grows larger then that which inflation eats away we are improving. Private borrowing has a finite pool to borrow from, where as public doesn't really have conventional "limits". Our only concerns are perception of inflation and what other countries are doing. If everybody borrows then really it doesn't matter (Okay so you would like interest not to overtake the budget too) But it seems to me its just a game of managing perceptions. Besides if things get really bad we always have the Defense department.
That said I do agree with the general need to improve our productive capacity.
Also I would recommend Sandwichman's Keynes link. It is thought-provoking.
September 5, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
With regard to education, there is probably an optimal amount to be spent on education. Beyond the amounts needed to provide an excellent education on core subjects, spending on primary and secondary education tends to increase adminstrative burdens, marginally effective programs, and the pursuit of the latest educational fads. This can actually reduce outcomes for the bulk of students.
At the college level, the popularity of majors with little economic value, the spending on grounds and buildings, ever more lavish living and recreational accommodations, and the pursuit of intercollegiate athletics means that a large part of the expenditures go for consumption. Furthermore, a large part of the student's future economic success is predicted by how they do on the entrance screening criteria, and is unrelated to the actual instruction provided by the college.
I'm sympathetic to the idea of shortening hours worked. In fact, the situation has deteriorated since WW II if you look at hours worked per household. Women generally are now forced by necessity to adopt the same work hours as men, effectively doubling the hours worked in a two-earner household. Wages have also dropped to the level that a single mom or dad has a real struggle to sustain a one-earner family.
So I'm all for cutting back on hours per week and for flexible working hours that allow parents more time with their children. This would also reduce the need for child care.
As for investments --
1. establish a new set of national laboratories for civilian basic research, and coordinate funding with key universities,
2. spend more on urban mass transit systems and urban redevelopment areas in order to make it attractive for peope to live closer to their jobs.
3. design and build nuclear breeder reactors.
4. increase participation in the ITER fusion reactor project.
5. fund a project to identify and develop a solid state memory technology to succeed disks and flash.
6. establish a high-voltage DC national electrical grid to allow shipping of power from wind/solar and other localized sources to where it is needed, efficiently and without problems of dynamic instabilities.
7. revamp building standards and materials to create housing that is longer lived and more easily maintained than the plastic and sawdust McMansions.
I could go on.
September 6, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please do. These are excellent suggestions.
September 6, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't feel up to participating in the discussion here, but I love to read it. It's an intelligent and provocative conversation.
September 6, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
“over the past three months annual wage growth has plummeted to just 0.7%”
Hello? We are in DEflation, remember?
OK, it is the first time in about 50 years, but that doesn’t mean you get to ignore it.
Add two (2) percentage points to that 0.7% figure and you’ll get the REAL change in wages.
September 6, 2009 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you think that the "Green Job Czar" was sacked on Labor day in the late evening by someone that bows to the Saudi Prince. Who is kidding who Mr. Reich.
The jobs you are counting on there is no technology to support them. Environmentalism has to be looked at as a business. When you stop debate on science it is no longer science.
September 7, 2009 2:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
this day always reminds me of my grandfather, the coal miner, who moved north in 1921 for a better life, who found a job at a factory where he showed up every day at 6am and was told when he could leave when he could leave-sometimes at 7 or 8 at night, who couldn't complain because there were a 100 other men at the gate waiting to take his place, who believed sincerely in the power of unions, who was a fervent democrat, who thought FDR was a god.
today i work in an office with benefits because of
the unions who represent the workers out in the factory.
today that plant is represented by 2 unions, and
a bunch of spoiled whiners. well at least that's
what mamagement calls them. and i spose in some
sense they are because all of the big issues have
been solved, and what remains to fight for is
unimportant. That convoluted contract with the
"this times" and "whens" were negotiated during the roaring years. Now its viewed as an albatros
around managements neck. But everyone from management to the union members to the office staff have given up and given up and given up
including non-paid forced furloughs in order to
save the business for a better day.......
i spose my question is - how long will it be until
that better day?
September 7, 2009 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink