Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Your Economy or Your Life

By G. Pascal Zachary, AlterNet. Posted May 18, 2006.


Jared Bernstein explains how Republicans are dividing the spoils among themselves and leaving the rest of us to fend for ourselves -- and how we can change the trend.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by G. Pascal Zachary

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Jared Bernstein is the conscience of the American economy. In his new book, "All Together Now: Common Sense for a Fair Economy," he advocates an increase of government involvement in American life: primarily our economic lives. Given the public's current low expectations for government effectiveness, it sounds like a leap of faith. Bernstein says it's a leap well worth taking. Government, he says, is the only institution that can enable us to meet the challenges of health care, globalization and rampant economic inequality.

A strong country puts people's needs before corporate profits, he says. In order to make that happen we have to ditch what he calls the Bush administration's YOYO philosophy ("you're on your own") and replace it with a kinder, gentler alternative: WITT ("we're in this together").

G. Pascal Zachary: You're all about bringing fairness to ordinary workers and having an economy that serves people over profits. In your book, you say that unions do a good job of achieving many of the goals you favor. If the benefits of unions are so clear -- higher wages, stronger benefits -- why don't we have more?

Jared Bernstein: A majority of work force say they'd like to be part of a collective bargaining unit. The desire is pervasive. The problem is in the difficulties in forming such units. The playing field is very steeply tilted against those who wish to form a union. The power to tamp down a union organizing drive is very large. Employers have lots of tools to tamp down a drive to form a union. It's a steep uphill climb.

Zachary: How can the playing field be leveled? How can more workers get unions?

Bernstein: We can start by making them jump through fewer hoops. Card check, where a majority of employees sign a card saying they want a union and the union comes, is important. Then there would be fewer chances for employers to oppose a union drive and retaliate against pro-union workers.

There should be much tougher penalties on employers who fire workers who are trying to form unions. Employers who do this should be quickly punished. Right now all they get is a slap on the wrist. To get more unions, you need to increase the cost of illegal behavior by employers.

Zachary: In the absence of stronger unions, what can working people push for?

Bernstein: One of the most important sources of bargaining power these days is a full job market. When the job market is tight, the job market itself serves a similar role as unions. Workers have more clout over matters of pay, benefits and working conditions. They can switch jobs more easily. The clout workers have is severely diminished in a weak job market. So what workers can do is to advocate for better macroeconomics. This gets to the heart of my book. Workers should sign onto an agenda that elevates full employment to a critically important national goal.

Zachary: How can they do that?

Bernstein: For example, they can press the Federal Reserve to show concern for higher employment. The Fed really doesn't do that, though they are supposed to. No one calls them on this failure. The pressure on the Fed tends to be to keep inflation low and much less to keep employment full. The question gets back to whose economy is it? If a lousy job report helps to boost the stock market [because high unemployment undercuts demands by workers for raises and thus promotes corporate profits], ask yourself which market has the most constituents, the stock market or the job market?

Zachary: In your book you pit individualistic approaches against communal, cooperative approaches to government. But aren't you really talking about Republicans versus Democrats? Aren't you really against everything the Republicans stand for economically and fiscally?

Bernstein: There are ways that Democrats also are failing to pursue the agenda I outline. But it is definitely true that the Republicans are failing more often. They have no clue when it comes to eco-management, actually. The Republicans are promoting a kind of Robin Hood in reverse. They are trying to enrich their friends and donors. Along the way they're shifting risk from government's shoulders onto individuals. The Republicans are pretty much dividing the spoils among themselves and their donors and leaving the rest of us to fend for ourselves.


Digg!

G. Pascal Zachary is the author of "Endless Frontier: Vannevar Bush, Engineer of the American Century."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Wrong answer
Posted by: Lincoln fan on May 18, 2006 6:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to this interview Jared Bernstein's book is loaded with platitudes about the obvious. Although in the interview he implicity states the problem, he doesn't put his thoughts together to face what I consider to be the obvious problem. Thus he comes up with the wrong answer to vote Democratic.

His implications are:
The Republicans are robbing the poor and giving to the rich. (reverse Roobin Hood)
The Democrats aren't going to solve our problem. (unionize)
The Democrats aren't going to solve our problem. (pressure the Federal Reserve)
Neither Democrats or Republicans are for the people (neither are following his agenda)

The Democrats are not representing the people. (He asks "Where are the political forces that are pushing against this craziness")

The Democrats are "the lesser of the evils" (The Democrats follow his agenda more than the Repiblicans do)

Politics is a competition between classes. (Not convinced that people vote against their class interest)

He advises to the electorate to vote Democratic (Maybe the electorate will send a message)

He hopes that workers will vote for "the lesser of the evils" (Maybe the electorate will send a message)

To me his implied message is this. The Democrats won't help us but they're not as bad as the Republicans. Waste our votes by voting for candidates who don't represent us.

If you don't agree with his solution join The Lincoln Initiative. A grassroots movement with no organization, no leaders, no contributions, no registration, and no meetings. Make "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" a reality. Click on Join Us Today

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wrong answer Posted by: VisionQuest
» RE: Wrong answer Posted by: Lincoln fan
otto
Posted by: otto on May 18, 2006 6:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like the basic ideas, but this interview didn't really touch me. There seemed to be too many vague general things, like approval of Hilary Clinton, an uninspiring explanation that Bush and Cheney are just playing politics, etc. I liked the excerpt from his book better, and the expression "YOYO".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

griggsy
Posted by: griggsy on May 18, 2006 8:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
May hesell many, many books. Go ,Hillary , go!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes go, Hillary, please go
Posted by: veive on May 18, 2006 10:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please get off the political stage and take your pal Rupert with you. Leave room for some non-triangulators who can actually start doing some good for the vast majority of we, the people. Russ Feingold could fill the bill, as could a drafted Bob Kerrey. We need someone with guts enough to convey the real problems that are destroying what once was a good nation. We've become the Land of the fleeced and the Home of the Knave.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lots of talk
Posted by: ravengrrrl on May 18, 2006 11:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
okay - #1 - I'm pissed. We're in the middle of fighting credit card debt, bankruptcy, and might possibly lose our house right now. We're environmental biologists and the businesses involved (developers, agencies, lawyers, even the Fed govt with its crippled agencies - Fish & Wildlife Service and Bureau of Land Management) are making it very difficult for our business to survive. We're getting pushed out of business so that younger people with less experience who are willing to work faster (and therefore miss important and rare stuff) and charge less (making it a short-term endeavor, not life-long development). Big business, neocons, and W's cronies are raping and pillaging our land and I'm pissed.

That said - I agree with Lincoln Fan's first comment. Lots of talk... I've heard it all before... And the Dems are NOT solving our problems - in fact, they're the wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Bill Clinton was so suave and smooth, his saxophone and squinty eyes lulled us progressives into a stupor while he allowed businesses to begin the rape and pillage. The 90's weren't a great economic time for nothing... We ignored infrastructure and community and cultural development.

And NAFTA!!!!!!! I will never forgive him or all those other Dems who railroaded that one through.

And sweet Hillary and Barak are not so gentle as they seem. Those two got significant donations from credit card companies and voted FOR the new bankruptcy bill. When all you middle and upper-middle class folks start losing *everything*, don't just blame the neocons for that!!!!!!

The populace is asleep and doesn't care. Congressional incumbency rate is over 95%. W's approval rating the week before 9/11 was down to 26%. Two weeks after, it was up to 70%. Now its back down in the 20's. Get this - the *reason* that everyone gave for why they approved or disapproved (ie, how he's running the country, how he's affecting the environment, how he's affecting the economy) NEVER changes... Those percentages always remain the same. Its just if they think its Good or Bad.

What a bunch of fickle idiots!!

Oh, and same-sex marriage is *never* a top issue for anyone's agenda in polls on "level of priority of issues to you", but that is what essentially won W the last election.

I'm sick of it all and I'm sick of the idiots in this country.
Don't have any solutions... Just pissed off and I think this article is pointless.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lots of talk Posted by: aussidawg
HereticSpeaks
Posted by: HereticSpeaks on May 18, 2006 1:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Republican's By Word,..... "Take your share ,.... then steal the rest"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Give me a break
Posted by: TWilliams on May 18, 2006 6:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Democrats have done the same. Do they really care about middle class Americans? Nope. Amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants that have taken millions of jobs and have depressed wages. The middle class and lower class are running out of options. Look at the recent voting records - Dems are just as much to blame as Republicans. I hope the author of this article keeps his eyes closed and only blames one party - ignorance is bliss.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Give me a break Posted by: aussidawg
The latest "false binary" at Alternot
Posted by: CounterCorp on May 18, 2006 6:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why, oh why, do Alternot writers insist on deliberately perpetuating falsehoods and other nostrums of conventional wisdom for the sake of journalistic inflection?

Our boy G. Pascal actually asks this question with a straight face:

With the economy booming, with housing prices still healthy, why should voters embrace economic alternatives?

Oh, so the Bushmen are right: the economy's "booming" (despite plenty of indications and metrics to the contrary; tell that to all the people who's real wages are either stagnating or falling) and we're all supposed to be thrilled that housing prices are "healthy" (read: "high") -- and that's good?!?! Did G. Pascal just stumble in from the Atlantic Monthly or The New Republic?

Oh, but wait, G. Pascal is just baiting us with one half of the false binary question that is intended to serve as pantomime of objectivity and balance, and thus is apparently compulsory at Alternot, because he follows that gem of received wisdom with the other -- it's complete opposite:

Or is our perceived economic health a fraud? Is the economy simply held together by foreign investment, high deficits and low-interest rates? Do we have a Ponzi scheme economy, as the economist and columnist Paul Krugman repeatedly suggests in the New York Times?

Gee, G. Pascal, I don't know, which is it? Are you informing your readers, or quizzing them -- and confusing them in the process? Why do you insist on purveying nonsensical notions of economic propaganda that you yourself don't even appear to believe, only to question them in the very next sentence? Does it make your prose seem zippier, and more like Tom Friedman's? Should we care?

Instead of playing rhetorical games to seem as if you're just sorting out these issues as you're typing your questions, why don't you instead make better use of your time -- and ours -- by writing about "perceived" economic health, the "fraud" that is our modern, corporate-feudalism capitalist system, and the systemic and structural flaws in our economy and society that perpetuate our indetured servitude to the stock market and so-called "shareholder value"?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Edwards
Posted by: MEL810 on May 18, 2006 8:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I voted for Edwards in the Dem primary because he was the ONLY candidate out there that spoke to the working person and talked about the economy and the average American.
The author did mention Edwards.
I was against the bankruptcy bill as it was written, but boy howdy, someone has to do something about credit card abuse in this country. 18 year old kids without jobs have them. Many people have 10 cards.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

not enough outrage
Posted by: Gregor on May 31, 2006 6:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Frankly, I think reasonableness is the enemy right now. People should be outraged that their country is in this coondition and their lives have been hijacked by greedy selfish politics. Jared just seems way too placid, reasonable, and "gee, work with the system" type to really effect change, concern or any motivation to gain momentum in any movement. We need people to stop being such "go along get along" types and feel that they need to act to change things.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who Represents the Poor?
Posted by: Dianka on Aug 19, 2006 8:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, it surprises me that anyone still imagines that Democrats are blameless in creating the economic disaster we have today. First, Dems have supported this insane war. Secondly, it was the Dems that gutted our social welfare policies to help cover the costs of tax cuts for the wealthy.
This has a domino effect: To "prove" that this anti-poor agenda worked, several million people had to be put into jobs in a short time. To give companies an incentive to hire the poor, they were given the option of paying these people a fraction of what "regular people" are paid. While it's too complicated to address in a single post, this agenda has been vital to reducing the workers' rights and protections of all Americans, and to keeping wages very low. And there's nothing you can do about it. Go on strike? So what? The company need only make a quick call to the local welfare department for a shipment of labor. And these people have no choice but to cross your picket line.

That's only one part of a very complex issue. Not one politician has had the courage to adequately address US poverty, particularly since the very poor were "liberated" from "the bonds of welfare". We ignore the range of issues that leave families in poverty. I never thought I'd see the day in my own country when we actually leave the poor to die in abandoned buildings, but this is what we have today. We ALMOST got a clue from seeing the government's response to Katrina. Every day, more people lose everything they have, but our political leadership ignores it. At best, they talk about
"moving people from welfare to work"...but the jobs, much less family-supporting jobs, aren't there, nor are the fundamental supports that would enable people to work. And conditions continue to deteriorate in the US. But let's not talk about it, beyond telling people to "find a job", even if a range of circumstances makes it impossible to do so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]