Joseph Stiglitz's The Price Of Inequality Is Required Reading

Joseph E. Stiglitz's recent (2012) book, The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future, is a book about America's and Americans' current economic status that all Americans ages, oh, 15-85 should read. As you'll find at the link, Amazon offers it in paperback for under a sawbuck. (Do you know what a sawbuck is? Look it up if you're too young to have heard the term.) Or if you're like me and want to spend even less on it, go to your public library: system-wide, HPL has 10 print copies and one audio CD; I placed a hold on one of the print editions and it came to me in under 2 days. 

Did I mention that this book is a must-read for every intelligent, caring adult American?

Stiglitz visits many topics related to inequality: how inequality across American society is no accident but rather a result of a set of conscious policy choices, choices which at least in principle could be made in ways that have more egalitarian results, but which probably won't be pursued, absent pressure from sources not yet clear to me about a third of the way through the book. Sources of inequality... corporate and individual rent-seeking, tax policies favoring the well-heeled, disguised government gifts in one form or another, government institutions' often misconceived responses to the various bubbles the American economy has encountered (housing, tech, etc.), globalization in various forms, and financial deregulation... are all examined in terms of their consequences for the top 1% and the rest of us. If you're like me, you've run across all of these in print at one point or another, but never all together in one place; let me tell you, they have a powerful impact in combination that no one of them packs singly.

Did I mention that this book is required reading?

Pete Sessions (R‑TX) Teaches Us About Morality — Rand Paul (R‑KY) Teaches Us About Service

Both of these gentlemen might better be labeled (R-Hunger) because they believe it is "immoral" (Sessions) and a "disservice" (Paul) for the government to prevent the longterm unemployed and their families from starving. But I am willing to accept the "(R)" as a valid indicator of who they are and what they believe.

If by chance you believe otherwise, and you are a citizen of either Kentucky or the appropriate US House district in Texas, you can contribute to the moral education of these gentlemen, or do them a service, by unemploying them when their terms expire. After all, there is no teacher like experience!

Missing Workers And The Unemployment Rate

According to the Economic Policy Institute, I am a "missing worker". What is a missing worker? It is someone who is not only unemployed, but who, if jobs were readily available, would be actively seeking work. A missing worker has given up looking, and thus is not counted in the official unemployment rate.

Many Americans... I am one... have utterly given up looking for work. In my case, it didn't take long for me to realize that no company wants, in this economy, to hire an IT professional near or at retirement age. As long as demand is low (read, e.g., Krugman), they simply don't need so many workers that they would engage people as expensive to employ as the elderly inevitably are, no matter how good they may be at their trade or profession.

EPI seeks to remedy the omission of people like me from the official unemployment rate by adding a "missing workers" estimate. For details of how they do this, please follow the link above. As of their most recent update, Dec. 6, 2013, the official unemployment rate was 7.0% (in some states, considerably worse)... unless one accounts for missing workers; then the effective unemployment rate becomes 10.3% (and one presumes commensurately higher in high-unemployment states). On average, one in every 10 unemployed Americans is either looking for work or has given up looking because s/he cannot find a job.

I'm sorry, President Obama... that's not good enough. How about making it a priority? I mean, a real priority, not just an item in a speech?

The 'R' Word — Robert Reich Says It Right Out Loud

Robert Reich:

Robert Reich

The President’s speech [12/4] on inequality avoided the “R” word. No politician wants to mention “redistribution” because it conjures up images of worthy “makers” forced to hand over hard-earned income to undeserving “takers.”

But as low-wage work proliferates in America, so-called takers are working as hard if not harder than anyone else, and often at more than one job.

Yet they’re still not making it because the twin forces of globalization and technological change have reduced their bargaining power ...

Better education and training for those on the losing end is critically important, as will several of the other proposals the President listed. But they will only go so far.

The number of losers is growing so quickly, and so much of the economies’ winnings are going to a small group at the top — since the recovery began, 95 percent of the gains have gone to the richest 1 percent — that some direct redistribution of the gains is necessary. [Bolds mine. - SB]

...

Hear, hear. No magic of the marketplace can make anything resembling an equitable correction to this problem in a time‑frame preventing tragic human consequences, especially given who really runs our "free" market and what the consequences are... namely, none... for abusing that market to the advantage of the very wealthy. "Makers" and "takers," my fxxking a$$... in reality, which is which?

So... what will the losers in this rigged game do about their loss? Reich continues:

...

Without some redistribution, the losers are likely to react in ways that could hurt the economy. They’ll demand protection from global markets they believe are taking away good jobs, and even from certain technological advances that threaten to displace them (rather than smash the machines, as did England’s 19th-century Luddites, they’ll seek regulations that preserve the old jobs). [Bolds mine. - SB]

...

I don't know; smashing some servers might have some effectiveness. I don't recommend it only because for many of us it would make our lives more difficult, but the thought of it and the reminder of such response during the industrial revolution should lead the bosses to offer displaced workers some of the aforementioned protection... or appropriate redistribution.

Politicians dare not say the "R" word because redistribution is perceived as unfair to hardworking individuals. What, then, are we to call it when the forbidden word correctly names the only concept that results in actual fairness to a vast number of unemployed, underemployed or just plain underpaid Americans? An unpleasant name doesn't change the fact that everyone has a right to earn a living... and many among us are unable to do so under current conditions.

A word to our leaders: it doesn't matter what you call it, it's the right thing to do... just do it.

Unemployment Benefits Will Probably Expire

Sahil Kapur of TPM:

1 Opening for every 3 Unemployed

Unemployment benefits will likely expire as scheduled on Dec. 28 for some 1.3 million Americans who are looking for work.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) revealed Wednesday that Democrats will push "after the new year" to extend the federal emergency compensation program for those out of work.

"I believe, as many Democrats do, that an extension of emergency unemployment insurance should be included in this package," he said Wednesday in remarks on the Senate floor. "I'll stand up for those Americans who want to get back to work as soon as possible but face a market where there is only one job opening for every three unemployed workers. That's why we're going to push here after the first of the year for an extension of unemployment insurance -- when the Senate convenes after the new year." ...

...

House Republicans have been calling this week for an end to emergency unemployment benefits, citing an increase in the number of jobs added in November and a decrease in the (official) unemployment rate. "Bursts of speed right at the finish line always win marathons, no matter how far behind the runner may be when the burst starts," John Boehner did not say, but might as well have. "We'll get to this real soon now," Harry Reid did not say but might as well have.

---

It is hard to think of myself as lucky, as I am both disabled and unemployed (without benefits, of course; self-employed workers have no such safety net) for five years now. But maybe I am lucky. Barring further complications, I have just enough savings to see me through to a very skimpy Social Security income starting sometime after May, and I have a Medicare card and a supplement policy card in my pocket, both valid from Feb. 1. Of course, those are worthwhile only if the Republican-controlled House and our fake-Democratic president don't join forces to kick the props from under all the social programs I paid into for my entire working life, goddamn their souls to hell if they do that...

Krugman: America's Economy 'Mutilated'

America is doing this to itself, says Krugman in his column, "The Mutilated Economy": our government is refusing to spend the money it would take to reduce unemployment, increase demand and, in general, prime the pump... refusing in the name of responsibility to our future, while doing things which compromise that very future.

Long-term unemployment — the number of people who have been out of work for six months or more — is four times what it was before the recession.

Read it and weep. This does not have to be happening. And we all know whose fault it is.

What If They Held A Congressional Committee Meeting On Unemployment And (Almost) Nobody Came?

Attaturk at FDL tells the story, as reported at McClatchy. It seem several big-name economists were going to testify that unemployment was a crisis (du-uh)... here's McClatchy's Kevin G. Hall:

Testifying before the Joint Economic Committee, the economists, who’ve served both Democratic and Republican presidents, said the elevated percentage of long-term unemployed people among those counted as jobless underscored deeper problems in the labor market.

So the congressional committee jumped right on it, did they? Attaturk found the answer at, of all places, National Journal, which also has a pic of the nearly-empty committee room:

When a hearing to explore how to get the long-term unemployed back to work kicked off on Wednesday morning, only one lawmaker was in attendance. That was Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who was holding the hearing in her role as the vice chair of the Joint Economic Committee. The Joint Economic Commitee is one of a handful of committees whose members come from both parties and both houses of Congress. Klobuchar was eventually joined by three colleagues (in order of their appearance): Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, Maryland Rep. John Delaney and Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings. All four are Democrats.

"All four are Democrats." What a surprise!

An Inconvenient Truther

Get off my lawn!

Who would that be? Jack Welch, former CEO of GE. Who is he inconvenient for? Any remaining halfway sane people in the GOP and the Rmoney campaign. What is inconvenient about him? He's a "BLS truther," someone who sees yesterday's improved job numbers as a vast conspiracy of BLS statisticians loyal only to Obama and determined to cook the books in his behalf. Never mind that BLS statisticians are civil servants who can be fired for politicizing their jobs; never mind that a GeeDubya Bush appointee has directed the Bureau for as long as Obama has been in the White House: Welch is just sure there's a BLS conspiracy to fake the numbers.

Here's Benjy Sarlin of TPM:

Jack Welch defended his assertion that the Bureau of Labor Statistics was engaged in a vast conspiracy to inflate jobs numbers before the election, during an appearance on MSNBC Friday. However, he admitted he had only a hunch to support his claim.

“I have no evidence of corruption, none whatsoever” he told a combative Chris Matthews on Hardball.

Nonetheless: “Jack Welch is raising the question,” Welch said.

He said it his very own self, in a third-person reference almost like Gollum. The short version of what Welch is pleading: "I offer the argument from authority, and the authority is me."

How desperate must the GOP be, to allow this doddering fool (actually only 76, but he seems much more antiquated) to go before the cameras in response to a serious turn in the race for president?

(Mainly I wanted an opportunity to use the post subject above. I'm sure I'm not the first, but hey, we do what we can.)

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs

The first two of the numbers everyone has been waiting for are in, and things look good for the home team. Shaila Dewan of NYT notes that the September unemployment rate fell to 7.8%, down from 8.1% in August. The new rate is the lowest in Obama's presidency. That's in spite of the "modest" increase in the number of jobs, 114,000 new jobs in September.

Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis

The RWNJs (no link from here; they're not hard to find) are about to shit their pants about this. Krugman points us to a CNBC post by Dan Fastenberg explaining how the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) utterly and credibly rejects claims that the changes in employment numbers were falsified. Look: I've known a few federal civil service employees in my time. They have explained their conditions of employment to me, and one of the surest ways to get oneself fired from a decently paid, quite secure job is to tamper with research results for partisan purposes. That's not what happened here; the wing-nuts may as well get the twist out of their knickers.

So... beyond being accurate and correctly executed, is this report significant? does it mean good things for jobs in the marketplace? Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight says YES, and explains his reasons for saying so. Be sure to read past the break in his post for details. Note, in fairness, that Silver demonstrates that a drop in unemployment rate is historically uncorrelated to not a guarantee of an incumbent president's re-election.

But such a drop certainly puts a spanner in the works of Rmoney's determination to make his campaign about jobs (on Wednesday, for the first time I've heard). And considering the chaotic economic mess George W. Bush left for Obama to clean up, any sign of positive trending is welcome. Of course I'd rather see 5% unemployment; I suspect everyone except the wealthy bastards would prefer a lower unemployment number. But a consistently declining number is not bad.

Mother Jones Publishes Secret Video Allegedly Of Rmoney At High‑Dollar Fundraiser - UPDATED 2x

Via Paul Krugman, we have David Corn at Mother Jones providing videos, text transcripts and of course Corn's commentary on Rmoney's remarks at what appears to be a secret fundraiser for "a loose affiliation of millionaires and billionaires" (Paul Simon). Paul Krugman expresses some minor doubt that that really is Rmoney speaking (as whoever it is, is off‑camera), but I have watched (heard) all the videos all the way through, and I am persuaded that no actor could imitate Rmoney's speech that well, nor could anyone else write a script with the unconscionable depth of mean‑spiritedness on display in the segments of the speech.

If this is indeed Rmoney, he holds at least half of Americans in raw, unmitigated, unjustifiable contempt. He maligns the poor in almost every way possible; I kept expecting him to say that they... we... don't wash under our arms. Yes, it was that vile.

Rmoney correctly assesses that the election turns on as-yet-undecided independents, many of whom voted for Obama in 2008. But two things are clear: those indy voters are not stupid and are unlikely to be played as a group, and many of those same voters now find themselves in dire economic circumstances more like Rmoney's much-maligned lower-income and zero-income people. Perhaps some of the independents will indeed blame Obama (who, for all his faults in matters of human rights and civil liberties, is by and large not to blame for our nation's economic failures). But many of us can see through the smokescreen, and will at a minimum not vote for Rmoney. (I will in fact vote for Obama, with regret even as I push the button, but I will do it.)

And now that some of us have seen (heard) those videos, I suspect a few soft Rmoney supporters will be driven by outrage to vote for Obama. Maybe I am overestimating the common sense of the American people, or underestimating the effect of the next month and a half of false and vituperative Rmoney campaign ads, or failing to credit the effectiveness of the GOP's voter suppression program. But the revelation of these videos can only have a positive effect from our viewpoint.

We have a nation to save from vile plutocracy. It has nothing to do with whether Obama is your favorite president, or person, or anything else. Rmoney and Ryan are worse human beings than GeeDubya and Cheney ever dreamed of being in their most villainous fantasies. We have a job to do, and these videos, once authenticated, will help us to do it.

UPDATE early Tuesday 9/18: video confirmed by Rmoney at a 10:00pm presser as indeed being him, confirming his point but (paraphrasing his own words) admitting it was not "elegantly" stated. Then he doubled down on the content, once again calling approximately half of Americans lazy bums who don't work and don't pay taxes. What a motherfucking jerk.

UPDATE 2  early Tuesday 9/18:  Jeebus! David Brooks... yes, that DAVID BROOKS... agrees that Rmoney fucked up bigtime! Brooks even makes some rare sensible, even sensitive observations. Read him quickly, before he changes his mind!

Unemployment Rate Drops To 8.1%, Birdcage Liners Call It Bad News

In this media market, you can't win for losing. New unemployment figures were announced today. The official unemployment rate dropped from 8.3% to 8.1%, but because only 96,000 jobs were created, Greg Sargent of WaPo headlined that the news was "disappointing," and did not admit the lower percentage until the end of the second graf. A Boston Herald reporter by the unlikely name of "Herald Staff" announced the percentage at the top, but complained that "[t]he lower jobless rate is a sign that more Americans have given up looking for work..."

Clearly the news is not great. But imagine what the rags would have said if the actual unemployment percentage rate had gone up. Right. Call it the "heds [sic], Obama loses" scenario.

I'd like to blame the whole economic situation on somebody. But with all of Barack Obama's flaws, and I'm the first to admit he has many, Obama is not in a position to have fixed the GeeDubya Bush mess, with a Republican House majority and a Senate that requires a 60% vote to pass any damned thing, in one term. Let's remember Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's assessment:

The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

Not to revive the economy. Not to facilitate growth in employment. Not to help people whose mortgages are underwater. Not to help women who are raped and pregnant; gawd-a'mighty, not that. No, the single most important thing the GOP set out to do over the past four years was to wreck the economy beyond easy repair. Props to Turtleface for saying it straight out... and damn him to hell for following through.

What the GOP has done may or may not turn out to have political advantage for that party. But as policy, it has held nothing but disaster for Americans in dire economic times. I believe the GOP should pay at the polls.

Unemployment In The Developed World: Business Insider Slideshow

Business Insider presents basic data on unemployment in 34 countries and two regions around the world. The slideshow contains pretty pictures, but the unemployment situation overall is not a pretty picture. Young people are particularly at risk of joblessness, and the numbers in Greece are painful to contemplate.

Most of this is preventable, but of course high unemployment benefits the obscenely wealthy, so action on the problem is liable to be slow. Pressure may or may not help. Still, wherever you are in the world, ask yourself this question: Have I hugged my child kicked my bankster today?

(H/T Enfant.)