Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe American middle class has toppled into a world of temporary employment, jobs without benefits, and retirement without security.
Last week over lunch, a friend in his 30s prodded me to explain how my generation, the boomers, had botched so many things. While not exactly conceding that we had, I said that the one thing none of us had anticipated was that America would cease to be a land of broadly shared prosperity. To be born, as I was, in mid-century was to have come of age in a nation in which the level of prosperity continued to rise and the circle of prosperity continued to widen. This was the great given of our youth. If the boomers embraced such causes as civil and social rights and environmentalism, it was partly because the existence and distribution of prosperity seemed to be settled questions.
Nor were we alone in making this mistake. Our parents may have gone through the Depression and could never fully believe, as boomers did, that the good times were here to stay. They remembered busts as well as booms. But the idea that the economy could revert to its pre-New Deal configuration (in which the rich claimed all the wealth the nation created while everyone else just got by), the notion that the middle class might shrink even as the economy grew: Who, among all our generations and political persuasions, expected that?
Yet that's precisely what happened. Median family income over the past quarter-century has stagnated. The economic rewards from increased productivity, which went to working-class as well as wealthy Americans from the 1940s to the '70s, now go exclusively to the rich. The manufacturing jobs that anchored our prosperity were offshored, automated or deunionized; lower-paying service-sector jobs took their place.
It's no great achievement for a people to recognize that their nation's economy has tanked, but recognizing that their nation's class structure has slowly but fundamentally altered is a more challenging task. It's harder still for a people who are conditioned, as Americans are, not to see their nation in terms of class.
Which is why a poll released this month by the Pew Research Center reveals a transformation of Americans' sense of their country and themselves that is startling. Pew asked Americans if their country was divided between haves and have-nots. In 1988, when Gallup asked that question, 26 percent of respondents said yes, while 71 percent said no. In 2001, when Pew asked it, 44 percent said yes and 53 percent said no. But when Pew asked it again this summer, the number of Americans who agreed that we live in a nation divided into haves and have-nots had risen to 48 percent -- exactly the same as the number of Americans who disagreed.
Americans' assessment of their own place in the economy has altered, too. In 1988, fully 59 percent identified themselves as haves and just 17 percent as have-nots. By 2001, the haves had dwindled to 52 percent and the have-nots had risen to 32 percent. This summer, just 45 percent of Americans called themselves haves, while 34 percent called themselves have-nots.
These are epochal shifts, of epochal significance. The American middle class has toppled into a world of temporary employment, jobs without benefits, retirement without security. Harder times have come to left and right alike: The percentage of Republicans who call themselves haves has declined by 13 points since 1988; the percentage of Democratic haves has declined by 12 points.
This equality of declining opportunity, however, isn't matched by an equality of perception. The percentage of Democrats who say America is divided between haves and have-nots has risen by 31 points since 1988; the percentage of Republicans, by just 14 points. Indeed, though that 13-point decline in Republicans who call themselves haves has occurred entirely since they were asked that question in 2001, the percentage of Republicans who say we live in a have/have-not nation has actually shrunk by one point since 2001. (It had increased 15 points from 1988 to 2001.) Apparently, so great is Republicans' loyalty to the Bush presidency that they're willing to overlook their own experience. And, in many cases, to attribute the nation's transformation solely to immigration, rather than to the rise of a stateless laissez-faire capitalism over which the American people wield less and less power. Which helps explain why Republican presidential candidates bluster about a fence on the border and have nothing to say about providing health coverage or restoring some power to American workers.
But the big story here isn't Republican denial. It's the shattering of Americans' sense of a common identity in a time when the economy no longer promotes the general welfare. The world the New Deal built has been destroyed, and we are, as we were before the New Deal, two nations.
Harold Meyerson is executive editor of The American Prospect and a columnist for the Washington Post. Click here to read more about him.
© 2007 The American Prospect
37 Comments so far
Show AllI have a book called "Greed is Not Enough" from the early 80's- an analysis of Ronald Reagan's first years in office.Guess what- the tax cuts that were to "trickle down" actually "trickled" way up- they morphed into FUR COATS and TRIPS TO HAWAII. The jobs created by the tax cuts cost many millions of dollars each- would you like fries and extra salt with your tax cuts?
Trickle down is for dogs and fire-hydrants- fair taxes do not "trickle" in any way- they are essential for public services including those for the truly disadvantaged, and for Democracy, and for any kind of civil society.
Let us NOT be afraid- the bastards live off our fear- we gotta fight in every democratic way- or we WILL slip into Orwell's world of 1984 anytime now...can you imagine Georgie or our Stevie in Canada as a BIG BROTHER...makes you want to eat those nasty fries...
The blame cannot be laid on one generation. The fault lies with those who voted for Ronny Raygun. If you voted for him in 1980 you are guilty of a venial sin. If you voted for him in 1984 you are guilty of a mortal sin.
Daniel David October 1st, 2007 1:55 am
"lobo gris,
I didn’t say we’d be delighted about everything that happens in Democratic-controlled times, such as NAFTA, WTO, etc, as you point out."
Then your whole argument for voting for Democrats boils down to the idea that they will raise taxes on the rich? It should be done, but by itself it isn't nearly enough. People who don't have jobs or are working for a third of what they used to make because their jobs were outsourced don't give a fig about how much the rich pay in taxes. They care about good jobs that they can fill being available here.
"As for globalization, they say a billion people have already emerged from poverty worldwide in the last 15 years, and another billion are on the way out in the next 10.
As Christians, or as humanists, either one, we ought to celebrate that."
1st Who says? Who is they?
2nd. Even if true we certainly shouldn't be celebrating it when it is being done on the backs of American workers.
America, even though we’re already rich by global standards, is going the other way, and I think the series of tax changes since 1981 is the reason.
Low taxes are far from being the only reason, and that "rich by global standards" you refer to is an illusion as you will quickly find out IMO
Lobo Gris
lobo gris,
I didn't say we'd be delighted about everything that happens in Democratic-controlled times, such as NAFTA, WTO, etc, as you point out.
I said we'll need Democrats to re-steepen the income tax code in a progressive manner. Some see "taxing the rich" as a fool's redistribution game, in that it supposedly doesn't produce anything (according to Republicans). I believe that what it does is keep Pareto's theory from self-fulfilling so quickly, that is, keep the shrewdest 20% from gathering wealth from the other 80% as quickly---as they very well did in the robber-barron days before 1913, and as they do in every society everywhere if unfettered. As for globalization, they say a billion people have already emerged from poverty worldwide in the last 15 years, and another billion are on the way out in the next 10.
As Christians, or as humanists, either one, we ought to celebrate that. Meanwhile, however, America, even though we're already rich by global standards, is going the other way, and I think the series of tax changes since 1981 is the reason.
Now that the super-rich are accustomed to very low taxes, it's going to be hard to get back to where we were. We'll need Democrats to do it because for sure Republicans won't. (And, as we keep debating at great length here, third parties won't even be minor players because they won't be elected to serve.)
I don't mean to be cruel to Paris Hilton but she is the Marie Antoinette of our time. She represents a class of people who don't give a damn and her Simple Life series on TV exemplifies that perfectly, "The Princess goes to live amongst the serfs".
I agree with you about kicking Alan Greenspan's ass and the Federal Reserve they deserve it!
First, I would say that we should educate ourselves. We know we are being screwed, by taxes and bankers and by the Allen Greenspans of the world. Denis Kucinich and his economic advisor are the only ones to really acknowledge this. They are working on a new economic structure even as I type this. Go to the Guns and Butter web site and start listening to every interview, starting with the September 26th one and work your way back. You will learn a lot about what is going on in this country--you will hear voices that are not given MSM airtime.
http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?show=13
Please leave Paris Hilton alone. There is no need to be cruel. Why call her a scumbag? Has Paris ripped off the Savings & Loans--no, that was Neil Bush, and all his buddies, and didn't John McCain stop any investigations into the Keating Five--intervening for his friend and financial contributor when a bank examiner discovered something terribly wrong? Did Paris start a war in Iraq with lies and deceit? I don't think so--that was Hillary being "misled" by Dubya.
Paris is a spoiled, rich little airhead, but she is not our problem. To even bring her up on this website is beyond pathetic. Paris has no self-respect because she lives in a culture which does not foster self-respect. In a nation in which human beings no longer matter, how does one find a role model? It is as though we are all so miserable we have to find a dog to kick. I say kick some asses, but make sure they are the right ones--Allen Greenspan's old boney ass would do for starters--he is the real scumbag who has put us in such misery.
I have referred to this site before. If you haven't looked at it, please do.
Go to:
http://www.inequality.org/
click on "By the Numbers" and page down to the pie charts showing the distribution of wealth and stock ownership in 2004.
At that time, the wealthiest 1% had 34.3% of the wealth; the next 9% had 36.9%. The bottom 90% had only 28.7% of the wealth.
For stock ownership, 1% held 36.9%. The next 9% had 41.9%. The bottom 90% had 21.3%.
We keep hearing that the justification for this is that those with the money provide jobs and ideas that allow the economy to grow. So, where are the jobs? We are also told to prepare for a "service economy". What exactly is that? With the wealthiest 10% having over 70% of the wealth, does that mean that we are essentially a servant class to them? I don't look kindly on that idea.
Brothers and sisters, having lost my job 4 years ago now and back to working to just to get by and pay the rent, I am glad that I am not the only canary.
My good friends are mainly such as we are. Yesterday I spoke with a friend working as a substitute teacher and they do not allow access to Common Dreams (and other sites) on the computers there!!!! No one is supposed to learn the truth especially the young in the school systems.
My mom, eighty now, remarked this summer that she felt fortunate that she'd never felt that gnawing hunger that exists in human experience from time to time and in other places on the planet even as I type this.
There's a balance in nature that has been violated by the lifestyle we've been allowed to lead in this country. Until human beings learn how to share, I think we will see families and friends further separated and alienated from one another. Poverty and wealth will continue to tear us apart.
Though it's pop, you all ought to listen to Springsteen's latest if you haven't yet. Here's music that makes a point.
I'm paraphrasing Mr Springsteen here a little, but here's some modern lyrics that tell it like it is:
Easy street and quick buck and true lies
Smile's as sad as those dusky blue skies
A silver plate of pearls my golden child
It's all yours at least for a little while
You'll be fine long as -
(my interpretation this should be in italics)
- your youthful delusional life holds out
Then it's gonna get pretty cold out
Endless streams of stars shootin' by
You got your hopes on high
You'll be comin' down now baby
You'll be comin' down
What goes around it comes around and
You'll be comin' down
For a while you'll go sparkling by
Just another pretty thing on high
culicomorpha said
"the primary source of economic information for most people is the television news" + "Americans are educated to be blind to matters of class, and are instead filled with all sorts of fanciful notions about hard work and getting ahead"
Indeed it explains why so many have-nots continue to vote against their own self-interests.
What totalitarian dictators used to do with obligatory mass rallies, corporate owned media do one-on-one, privately and without much coercion.
If we do not find ways to educate the have-nots, nothing will ever change.
I recently hired a roofer from Alabama, making a living as a single individual contractor, his ears and pale face were so damaged and discolored by the sun that I felt compelled to advise him about skin cancer and protection.
When I asked about his opinion for a single payer national health care program he replied that he does not believe in anything the government do, for all that is welfare and he prefers the free market and individual responsibility, and that's why he always vote republican.
I really think he might die young for lack of health care access and preventive diagnostics, for obviously this type of worker can't afford health insurance...
It is mind boggling, how can people be so confused ?!
I truly believe we have returned the the guilded age of the early robber barrons. There is enough money to go around for a prosperous middle class to suceed except the super rich insist that their CEO payouts more than quadruple the wages of their average workers. Wages have remained stagnant since the 1970's. Even worse the wealthy have found the means to make a profit out of basic necessities such as housing (see the rise of NAR and the corrupt mortgage industry), education (my generation drowning in student loans-those of us in our 20's and 30's will be paying until retirement and our degrees hardley help us pay back what we owe anymore), food (if you want organic and non-chemically treated natural food you pay through the nose not to poison yourself), healthcare (this is outrageous), and child-care ($1500 a month in Washington, DC is insane and most people my age cannot afford that on our low salaries so many of us postpone having children-very sad fact). So tell me what can be done to stop the Paris Hilton class of scum???
rucognizant: You could have been describing my life. I was laid off at the age of 55, could never get another decent paying job, worked at crapola jobs until 9-11. At that time, the feds decided that our small Mom & Pop airline was a terror threat, so they closed us down during our busiest season, and I lost the job at age of 64. After that, I was unable to pay my bills for medical care (Did not have health care- little companies can't afford it)had to file bankruptcy. I am one of the people born during the late 30's and am now 70 and still broke, but I do know how to save up for things I really need. I do not buy a thing I do not need.
That the author and many others weren’t paying attention doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
Lobo Gris, thank you for pointing out the obvious. And it is part of a two-fold truth. First, in that people don't pay attention unless and until it is urgent to them specifically. Second, in that people don't comprehend the workings (which are substantial) that go on behind the scenes. People didn't understand (or believe) Ross Perot's charts because it encompassed a scope so much greater than their personal access of information and daily experience.
I sometimes think that they are trying to break america to make it more like the old european nations for the benifit of the few.
wishfulthinker, this is closer to the truth than you know. But it is not in wanting to style something of the old world - it is to usher in the new world order. The powers understand that as long as there is a large functional comfortable middle class, then changing government will be impossible. To implement a new government, you must break down the middle class. It's old and it's simple, and it is the truth.
A new government is not necessarily bad, and folks here are beginning to clamor for it in a variety of ways - but will it be your government or "their" government?
There is a truth that goes beyond the grasp of many. The fact is that the very wealthy elite live by such different ideas and wield such tremendous influence as to be virtually completely incomprehensible to ordinary everyday people. You may think you know but you don't.
And it may be simple to refer to the golden rule – he who has the gold makes the rules – but understanding how this actually functions in greater society to create the sphere of influence that enables the powerful time after time after time to break the middle class is yet unlearned.
And in personal experience, the vast majority don’t want to know - for good reason – because to beat them, at their own game, means thinking like them.
If Shakespeare was right,
All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.
And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slipper'd pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side,
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.
Who’s writing the script?
In 1966, I was a semi-skilled worker making $1.65 an hour. The price of an average house in California was about $25,000 to $30,000; a combination burger, freedom fries (!) and milk at McDonald was 65 cents; and a herd of camels (a pack of Camel cigarettes) was 20 cents. A carton of the same was $1.75. My bachelor apartment rent was $50.00 a month. I worked my way through a private college, paid tuition, bought a lot of 33-RPM records, and had a life of fun.
Now, I’m making about $6.00 an hour doing a service job, and am basically a displaced worker because my specialty has been shipped offshore. I don’t need to enumerate the current price of things, do I?
I say let’s begin collecting the home addresses of all our so called representatives and the rich so that as soon as shit hits the fan we can go there and get what is rightfully ours. Amen!
"I said that the one thing none of us had anticipated was that America would cease to be a land of broadly shared prosperity. "
That is BS. Ross Perot for all of his faults told everyone exactly what would happen during his two races for the Presidency in the nineties. He even showed charts and graphs on television during that time, the time bought with his own money.
That the author and many others weren't paying attention doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Lobo Gris
Daniel David September 29th, 2007 2:21 pm
"Republican economists say lowering taxes creates jobs, because rich folks with more money left over after tax will invest and hire people. Nonsense. They will hire only as many people as needed for whatever venture they can envision (a new McDonald’s franchise), and they will hire them as cheaply as possible. Even more likely, today, they will sense that emerging markets are better than the U.S. and send their money there via mutual funds that hold stocks from Asia and Europe."
That will require Democrats in control of both houses of Congress and a Democrat in The White House. 2008?"
I will remind you that it was Bill Clinton and a Democratic controlled congress that passed NAFTA. The agreement that accelerated the outsourcing of American jobs. Followed by the Carribean basin opportunity act, the African growth and opportunity act, China's entry into the WTO along with the trade agreement with them, and more enacted under Clinton's watch.
The Democrats are just as guilty as the Republicans in destroying our economy and shifting wealth to the upper class.
Lobo Gris
Impose heavy taxes on churches, guns, and bullets. Their organizations and affiliates stop at nothing to get zealots elected.
In olden times there were days, when taxation without representation was something to get up-in-arms about.
Apparently, those days are long gone, and it is a pity.
HI,
I do not think the Boomers have botched anything. The number of activists in the sixties was far less than a voting majority. The antiwar movement grew slowly over the many years of the war. Mothers who saw their sons "come home in a box" took up the cuase. Others who did not want to see their sons die in a needless war spoke out. The best minds of the time-MLK, RFK and others connected the dots for people. Who is doing that today-RFK JR.? He and a few other are trying but they do not have a national audience. Mohammed Ali took up the cause with his memorable: "I ain't got no quarrel with them Viet Cong!" Stars today are mocked for antiwar stands that are even timid at best, ie the Dixie Chicks. Young stars of the time like Lennon, Dylan, Baez, Arlo, C_Joe and many others helped people to understand something was wrong and that drastic change was needed. B Spears and Hilton get publicity. They have nothing to say. They are a diversion. My generation is still doing more antiwar stuff than anyone else, W. Nelson and Bobby D are still out her along with the Smothers Brothers and others doing what they can. Today the media presents a completely different picture of the war. It is censored to look like a video game. There is no reality to the death, no real reporting. Today's young reporters are stenogrophers who report what they hear. They do not dig. The movement of the sixties was derailed by seveal forces. The unions started suporting flag waving Republicans who tried to destoy them economically. But they were so proud of their pickup trucks and Love it or Leave it signs that they voted in Reagun, the most extreme right wing politician in the history of the country. His first action was to destroy the air traffic controllers union. But big labor failed to see the danger and the rank and file did not turn out in droves like the old days. When my Dad voted in a mill town in PA he pulled one lever, the democratic lever, straight democractic. You cannot do that any more either. Voting was seen as class warfare. The fat cat Republicans vs the Dems who supoorted Social Security and Labor rights. As the union members grew into a middle class they rebelled against the anti-establishment left of the sixties. They mistakenly thought they had it made and were part of the establishment. The Teamsters even endorced Nixon. The Republicans then adopted the Southern strategy of going for the white racists rednecks. It worked and the working class voted against itself. The Republicans laughed all the way to the bank and invented culture wars as the thinly veiled racisim wa all to apparaent. The left was also hurt by entitlement feminsim (as opposed to Mother Jones feminiism). By this I mean womens groups who beleived all men were "the problem" and did not see a class distinction. This diluted the power of the left and changed the dialogue from equal distribution and opportunity amoung all people to equal amoung classes. If my brother goes to Harvard why shouldn't I? If my brother gets a scholarship for water polo why shouldn't I? This type of feminism left the idea of equality behind because there are millions of poor people who have none of these opportunities and they are missing from the dialogue. Anyway my generation did pretty good and we did give peace a chance for a few beautiful years. This country has never seen anything like it since. Today people are so corrupt it is mind boggling. There was an article in the NYT today about JP Morgan and lawyers stealing money from dead people who have left it in trusts through outrageous fees etc.. Capitalism must be closely regulated because it is the opposite of democracy. Democracy means equality. The market place rule is that he with the most money gets everything. There is no equality at all. One could write a book on this. Blame the people who voted for Ike, Nixon, Ford, Reagun, Bush and Bush. Truman proposed national health care and was stopped by the Republican congress. It went down hill from there as now the Republicans have undone nearly everything FDR did. Social Security still stands but it is a regressive tax aimed at the poor and middle class. The rich pay nothing. FDR taxed them at the 91% level. We need to go back there.
After WWII, the only consumer market left for U.S. corporations were U.S. workers. The workers of Germany, Japan, Britain, and most other industrialized countries were impoverished.
As a result, U.S. unskilled, and semi-skilled workers were paid fammily-living wages that allowed them to buy cheap housing, food, and transportation.
Many young men also had the GI Bill; its benefits travelled with then until death.
But the most immediate benefit was free higher education which paid for classes, books, housing, food...for your whole family.
Last, if you couldn't find work, the government was employer of last resort. You were guaranteed a good paying job.
With the economic rise of Western Europe and Japan, the market for U.S. produced goods exploded.
At the same time, because U.S. capitalists didn't retool the economy and maintain, repair and modernize our infrastructure, they began to deindustrialize, outsource (GM plants went to Mexico), cut social services, promote indebted spending (the credit card revolution), bust unions, cut back on private, productivity-oriented R & D (and passed it on to the military and universities), the vast expansion of the military-industrial complex, rely on constant warfare, etc.
We did have a folksong movement that, among other things, criticized this trajectory, but it was soon slaughtered by the mass-produced pap of today. The protest songs were connected to large social movements...not fragmented, resentful (or complacent), ahistorical music consumers.
By the way, the same slaughter of national folksong movements occurred in Latin America.
Their place was taken by the same industrialized, formulaic commodity that is U.S. music. However, in Latin America, they were literally slaughtered. And this exported drivel had (and has)little to do with their history, culture or place.
About VJ Day above............... It makes my heart bleed that today's kids won't know that joy! Right there, is all the grounds I need for Impeachment!
Sorry cosmobilly & normvincent, your family profile JUST DOESN"T FIT with my family!
Actually. Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Bremer, are in my generational group which is sandwiched between the Greatest Generation and the Boomer generation. We were children of war! Our taste buds were formed in our first years, without benefit of much sugar meat, butter..... My Aunt raised chickens so we had eggs and meat, Imagine; my task was to pluck the quill ends out of the carcass as my Mother peeled the potatos and made the dressing. Also mixed the yellow food coloring into the margerine, which arrived white like lard!
I was not yet six. We were wealthy! Can you see Paris Hilton plucking quills?
True terror is NOT duck & cover but, having your Father put on his hard hat when the sirens went off, leaving the house with his flashlight, and peering from behind the blackout curtain as he disppeared down the street. Terror was fearing a nazi submarine would come out of the Atlantic ocean, while you were playing on the beach. It was quite plausible that could happen............ I think I remember seeing a periscopes off shore.
When the war ended, ( I was 6) must have been VJ day.........the world went bonkers! We kids strapped big juice cans on our feet with string and went joyously stomping clattering up and down the block, delirious with joy like the Grownups. The Uncles came home in one piece!
And the Daddies came home and started making babies......BOOM!
Dr. Spock's book on child care was published in 1946, recommending feeding babies on demand rather than by a schedule. Sugar was available and everybody went around in a big sugar rush.
The Social Revolution BEGAN at the end of the 40's, early 50's. The local Blacks began testing, they started to use the "public beach at the city lake" ( horror of horrors) The Whites decamped, Mothers driving their kids to the OTHER lake, except my brother and me, our family thought that was just foolish, we kept on going to the "invaded" beach. 1950-51!
The fifties........we were rebellious.......you were 5 or 6 year old! Jack Kerouac's " On the Road" was published in 1957. He was already 35 years old! ( born 1922) one of the Greatest Generation) But his book was of US! You claim the Beatles, they were ABOUT YOU, but they were of my age group as was Dylen, Baez.etc, etc,!
First come the ideas...then the following! Cheney & Wolfawitz and Bremer are my peers.... ( exceptions to the rule) and Bush, Rove & Rice, are Boomers R & R, 56 & 53.
I think you are right foxwizard, it's non-generational ! Prescott Bush was a war profiteer, in the 40's, GHW Bush in the 80's, It character & ideology NOT age!
BUT I will say this! A whole bunch of us preboomers were kicked away from the trough in 1990 following te S & Loan heist by Neil Bush, the stock market crash of '87, and the sudden onslaught of 40 something CEO's taking over from the 60 somethings and we were laid off early retired, bankrupted, or what ever. ( collective unconscious?) Many decided a financial takeover was preferable to getting shot at Kent State?SO a lot of 55 and over are NOT well heeled! You must be hanging with a different crowd!
ANother observation....those old bous sure did runa tight ship. It was a lot easier to pull yourself up by the bootstraps, when busness transactions were smooth & efficient.Today running a Very small business is "crazy making"! Send your older wealthy parents and friends by my Gallery I could use a few customers!
one more thing;
let us stop being afraid.
it is unbecoming of free men and women especially in a time of crisis when our country needs us.
let us stop being afraid.
"The American middle class has toppled into a world of temporary employment, jobs without benefits, retirement without security. Harder times have come to left and right alike:.."
And we haven't even touched the surface of the hard times which are still ahead of us. I suspect as more people lose the good paying jobs they have and we see more foreclosures take place over the next year and beyond, the "Republicans'loyalty" to the Bush presidency will eventually become a reality awakening for those who are now under the spell of delusional, Bush politics and policies.
Most people are not yet aware that our new service society, run by many Fortune 500 companies, are offering low "starting" wages regardless of how much experience someone might have. As long as 30-50 computer-literate people are out there applying for that one job, the company knows they will find someone they can train who will work dirt cheap just to have some form of income.
The divide between the haves and have nots is growing at warp speed!
one more thing:
let us not be afraid any longer.
no matter what, let us not be afraid.
it is unbecoming free men and women, especially in a time of crisis when our country needs us.
The disappearance of the middle class is part of the overall plan by the central bankers and corporations to reduce us (anyone who actually works for a living) to serfdom. Americans have been fooled into thinking that just because they can "afford" a McMansion, 2 (or more) cars, TV's, cruises, meals out, etc etc etc, that they are
the "haves." In fact, they are up to their eyeballs in debt, and will be on an economic treadmill until they either die or wise up.
about george bush:
the palestinians have a saying:
"just because a man rides on the back of a horse it does not mean he is telling the horse where to go."
I appreciate this article, and agree with the author. I do not believe this is a generational issue. Ronald Reagan became a spokesman for the economic royalists during WWII. He came, during the 1950's, to challenge not only the Roosevelt Democrats and the New Deal, but the broad consensus that both mainstream Republicans and mainstream Democrats shared about economic prosperity needing to be broadly shared.
Yet, the royalists were always there, with the John Birch Society, the Ronald Reagans and the Joe McCarthys serving as their mouthpieces. It only took an alliance of these (who were known as right-wing kooks when I was growing up) with the Milton Friedmans and the neo-cons to smash the consensus and re-establish economic royalism.
It really is not much of a puzzle, because the electorate was scared s---less with the Cold War, the Viet Nam War, the generational revolt of the 1960's and the Reagan 'missle gap', that tough talking neo-con repugs (like Reagan and Kristol, neither of whom ever served in uniform) to rattle the sabe while the man behind the curtain (Friedman) began dismantling banking regulations, labor unions and the social safety net.
We have met the enemy and he is us, as Pogo observed.
When you are the only economic power left standing after WWII, it is like shooting fish in a barrel. Almost any business person could run a company and make a profit. As the rest of the world caught up, it took more skills to stay on top. This was obvious and we should have seen it all along.
This is an interesting article, but I think it is curious that the author fails to observe an obvious factor – that the primary source of economic information for most people is the television news. Since television news organizations are owned by the rich, it is in their interest to be deceptive about the real distribution of wealth and the structural imbalance of power. The rise of the public relations industry is predicated upon this belief that perceptions are more important than reality, and so it has been able to hold up the house of cards to this point. But the author is right to point out that Americans are educated to be blind to matters of class, and are instead filled with all sorts of fanciful notions about hard work and getting ahead that simply aren’t matched by the available evidence.
However, in the subprime mortgage crisis to come, I doubt even the most intensive PR blitz will persuade those being evicted that this system does not produce haves and have-nots. Perhaps some Republicans will learn first-hand what happens when you are thrown out on the street and all social programs are gone.
Wow! I got the same Experience as this Guy... mid-century boomer... parents survived the Depression. My Experience exactly matches your astute observations stated in the Article.
So, my question is...as Educational achievement during this period skyrocketed, with heretofor unimagined numbers of us getting College Educations, and sending our kids there, too....
How the F#%K did Americans become So Cosmically STUPID!!!! Electing over and over again the Same Treasonous Politicians who Sold Us Out to Corporate Interests right before our Eyes Wide Shut... Now, tell me That !
"the boomers, had botched so many things"
I have a very hard time with this comment, as it was/is our parents, not us boomers, that have botched so many things.
Before that, it was our grandparents, not our parents, that enabled the Great Compression, which created the opportunity our parents have thoroughly enjoyed and leveraged to their own advantage – with little concern or attention to long term consequences or for their children’s futures.
History will show (is showing) that our parents have enjoyed the very best of what this country has had to offer, at the expense of boomers retirements and the quality of life for future generations. It has been our parents self-interest, short-term economic motivations and blissful political naivety that has enabled the neo-conservative capitalistic religious fundamentalism to take root so firmly.
On the other hand, it has been the boomers that protested the system, exposed the corruption, fought for civil rights, brought attention to environmental abuses and died at Kent State.
Sure enough, as a group the boomers are guilty of selling out – to our parents, to the establishment, to the powers that said to us, “leave it alone, don’t rock the boat, why do you want to bring attention to yourself, just try to get along,†etc. Our parents emphasized career, financial security, expediency and conformity over independent thought and high-minded motivation. Our parents took a government that provided for the general welfare and invested it in general warfare, against the warnings of Ike. We boomers, ultimately, tried to appease our parents, to make them proud and not cause them grief. Indeed, as a group, they didn’t hesitate to ostracize us or otherwise make us miserable if we didn’t. And yet while we were learning and doing more than they ever dreamed possible, they were certain it was us, not them, doing and wanting the wrong things for the wrong reasons.
I don’t mean to be disrespectful of my elders and I don’t think generational wars are constructive, but this should positively be made clear as to what is really what. As a matter of collective influence, you can clearly see the downturn of our nation’s social well-being occurring as our grandparents yielded wealth, business leadership, education and political influence to our parents – and now, as our parents have barely begun to yield such to us, we boomers and our children are inheriting a mess that is arguably the most bleak of our nation’s history.
I challenge anyone/everyone to do the deconstructive social studies and prove this wrong. (And please, don’t argue things like dubya being a boomer. He is still very much operating under the sphere of influence of his parent’s generation. It won’t be until that generation has thoroughly yielded the majority of its influence that you can argue for or against the nature of the boomer’s influence as a collective group – which is probably a decade or yet down the road. As an example, estimates are that those over age 55 control nearly 2/3 of ALL the nation’s financial assets, whereas the majority of boomers are not yet that old.)
When I was a kid, a long, long time ago, there was a quite large building just off the highway to the farm where I grew up. That building was the Poor Farm. There were poor farms all over the country. Elderly people, families, and younger people lived there when they had no money for a home of their own, or much else. I lived in fear of ending up there.
With all the "entitlement" programs for the seniors, poor kids, and other lower class citizens destroyed, or will be soon, and that money diverted to the filthy rich, the churches, and big corporations (of course it's been given a different name - for instance "the war on terror") as a struggling senior, I see the possibility of ending up in one of those poor farms yet.
Once they've gotten rid of the ??, those big detainment centers Haliburton or Blackwater are building will be given over to the churches, with bigger entitlements, so they can take care of us "riff raff."
Daniel, you are absolutely correct. All those capitalists who "pulled themselves up by their bootstraps" were subsidized by the government with free college for openers. Now College is priced out of range for most people.
They got tax incentives for buying out companies and laying off all their workers. They even get tax incentives and free use of the commons to off shore their headwwuarters so they are exempt from US income tax whatever pittance they really pay. When they have a little extra money, yes, they do create jobs - in China, India, Pakistan and VietNam.
Reagun and the two bushes and yes, clinton I all contributed to the decline of the middle class. At least the war on the middle class is one war that is going well.
The widening of the gap between haves and have-nots is directly proportional to the flatening of income taxes.
We would do very well to again have 50%, 60%, 70%, or even higher tax brackets at the astronomical levels of income, including on capital gains.
Republican economists say lowering taxes creates jobs, because rich folks with more money left over after tax will invest and hire people. Nonsense. They will hire only as many people as needed for whatever venture they can envision (a new McDonald's franchise), and they will hire them as cheaply as possible. Even more likely, today, they will sense that emerging markets are better than the U.S. and send their money there via mutual funds that hold stocks from Asia and Europe.
Popular culture stupidly says "well, if you made it, you ought to get to keep it." "Tax cuts for everybody!"
This ignores that the money that is "made", actually comes from somewhere, usually from the present or future wealth of consumers (the customers) and by cutting costs (squeezing employees or moving the work overseas.) The more a corporation gets to "keep" after tax, the greater its incentive to gouge both customers and workers, and the greater the incentive for a CEO to do those things, then demand a bonus for great results.
I am aware that there are academics who will call me a quack. I also know that even President Bush, in a meaningless nod to citizens, recently said in a speech:
"Income inequality is real. It has been growing for more than 25 years." (Making sure to note that HE wasn't admitting to having caused it.)
Well, what he said is exactly true. And it corresponds exactly to the trend started with the Reagan tax cuts of 1981 and a series of them since. Yes, the economy grew. And yes, the preponderance of wealth shifted upward to a far smaller number of people.
Economist Art Laffer is right that tax cuts grow the economy. They also separate society into segments.
When the large lower segment pays less attention to American Idol, and more attention to "oops, we're poor", we might get some voters to put the tax cuts in reverse gear.
That will require Democrats in control of both houses of Congress and a Democrat in The White House. 2008?
My lady just sent me this. It's the Governor of Michigan saying all non-essential servises are shutdown as of Sunday midnight because there is no budget and the state treasury is empty.
http://www.michigan.gov/som/0,1607,7-192--176882--,00.html
Translation - 'We're broke, the poor and middle class are screwed, and if they figure this out WE'RE screwed.'
Zoya: Don't slash your wrists. Slit their throats.
A viable economic regime has two functions: the PRODUCTION of wealth and the DISTRIBUTION of wealth.
Capitalism is very good at producing wealth but because it's fueled by greed, it knows bugger-all about how to distribute wealth.
It's the responsibility of the state to serve the nation by distributing the wealth produced by capitalism. That involves -- among other things -- the regulation of capitalism, since greedy capitalism cannot be trusted to regulate itself.
Instead, what we've got is a state that panders to the greedy -- a state that whines and complains about social welfare but supports the biggest corporate welfare program the world has ever known.
Besides subsidies and grants and entrepreneurial incentives, the state also supplies armies to defend the "right" of capitalist enterprise to exploit the natural and human resources of any country stupid enough or weak enough to sign some abysmal "free" trade agreement.
If one more narrow-minded capitalist economists gets a Nobel "Peace" Prize, I'm gonna slash my wrists.
I once asked a guy that I was working with (Much older than me)how he made it to millionaire status. His reply blew me away: "I just saved the excess from my paycheck on a regular basis." He grew up in the '30's and '40's when the dollar was worth a dollar and only 11% of his income went to living expenses!
With a worker-friendly President (Dennis Kucinich) in office, we might not be able to reach those staggering statistics again, but I'm betting there will be a MAJOR narrowing of the gap. Consider this: With the newly-inflated price of a gallon of milk, a minimum wage earner would put in ONE FULL HOUR (after taxes) to buy that nutritional product for his/her family!!!
Please join me in sharing the word on our "Worker's President-To-Be": http://www.dennis4president.com/home/