Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

My Parents Managed to Raise Two Kids on One Salary. That's Impossible Today -- What Happened?

By Jared Bernstein, Berrett-Koehler Publishing. Posted April 25, 2008.


It takes two parents to earn what one did only a few generations ago. Something's gone very wrong.
41d44ezroul.ss500
crunch

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Jared Bernstein

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The following is an excerpt from Jared Bernstein's new book, "Crunch: Why Do I Feel So Squeezed?" (Berrett Koehler, 2008).

My dad had a full-time job, but my mom didn't, and they managed to raise, feed, house, and educate two kids on one salary. I can't do that today. Why not? What happened?

What happened was that the real earnings of lots of people, mostly male people, so husbands in this case, started to slip. At the same time, some of the very costs mentioned -- a home and a college education -- grew a lot faster than average inflation.

That's bad.

Also, over the last 30 years, the job market has opened up much more for women, who have made impressive gains that have helped to offset their husbands' wage stagnation.

That's good.

But it also means that family members are spending a lot more time in the job market. That's bad, or at least it's stressful.

There are three problems here and one positive development.

Problem 1: Men's earnings.


Real median hourly wage, husbands and wives, 1979-2006. (Graph is based on author's analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data.)

The hourly earnings of some men -- and not a trivially small group -- have done poorly over the last few decades. As shown above in the graph, the typical married man in his prime earning years, age 25 to 54, saw his real median wage fall a couple of percent from 1979 to 2006. His female counterpart made a lot more progress; her real hourly wage rose 30 percent, and she also worked a lot more hours. And if we cut the data a little further and look at husbands with at most a high school degree -- and only a minority of husbands were college educated over these years (16 percent in the mid-1970s; 30 percent today) -- we find a real wage loss of 8 percent over these 27 years.

But before you spouses out there start humming "Hit the road, Jack," recognize that it's not their fault. These men have been caught in the crossfire of a set of trends that have ripped the bottom out of their earnings capacity. The loss of unionized factory jobs has meant the slow bleed of high-productivity jobs in a sector where these guys had some bargaining power -- clout that enabled them to channel some of that growth into the household.

The fact is, when a man goes from making stuff to providing services, especially a man without a college degree, his wage falls between 15 and 20 percent, and he loses most of his fringe benefits. What explains a loss of that magnitude? It's not just the difference in the efficiencies between the two sectors, the so-called productivity differential -- the fact that services create less value added per hour than factory work. It's also that there's a lot more wage inequality in services, and when income grows in that sector, it tends to flow to the top.

That's where you most clearly see men's loss of bargaining power playing out; and outside of the public sector, unions have been hard-pressed to get a foothold in services. Wal-Mart has shut down operations rather than entertain the possibility of their workers forming a union.

At any rate, given that most of these men were working full time, full year, families had one (legal) strategy to undertake if they wanted to offset those negative male wage trends: more work by wives.

Problem 2 and Good Development 1: Women's increased presence in the paid labor market.

The increase in women's participation in the paid labor market over the last 40 years is widely appreciated as a huge change in our economy, our culture, and our families. Back in the mid-1960s, about 40 percent of women worked; in 2006, it was about 60 percent. And, while gender wage discrimination was and is a problem, women have made important gains in education and experience, and some have successfully penetrated barriers in high-end professions like law and medicine.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: family, wages, jared bernstein, crunch, salary

Jared Bernstein is a senior economist and director of the Living Standards Program at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington D.C. He is the author of "Crunch: Why Do I Feel So Squeezed?" (Berrett Koehler, 2008).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace! Sign up now »

Advertisement
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:
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
Mission ADMONISHED!
Posted by: williameon on Apr 25, 2008 2:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are you Working three jobs, with No health care or Benefits?
"Uniquely American" The Chimp!

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

» RE: Mission ADMONISHED! Posted by: writer7
K.I.S.S.
Posted by: carbon-based on Apr 25, 2008 2:51 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, the statement that Americans got by on one salary is a fable long past. I grew up in the 50's 60's and both my parents worked when my older brother had to go to college.. Should I blame JFK?

If I remember correctly in my economics class the advent of credit cards fueled increase prices - more money to buy things with. Arabs decide to nationalize the oil industry taking all western infrastructure investments and raising oil prices far beyond reason. Reasons for high costs can go on and on.

Today, even discounting the foreclosure problem, many more people own their own homes than in the 50's and 60's. The norm back then was one car per family - today I suspect at least 2 is the norm.

The saying he who dies with more toys wins is still holding true.

Over the long run, Americans have more possessions... but that doesn't mean life is better.. Keep it simple and be happy...

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

» RE: K.I.S.S. Posted by: Purple Girl
» RE: K.I.S.S. Posted by: carbon-based
» That is THE BIG LIE Posted by: KeepsonTickn
» RE: no, the BIG LIE is . . . Posted by: carbon-based
» HOLD ON! Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: HOLD ON! ~ But------ Posted by: Sissy
» RE: HOLD ON! ~ But------ Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: no, the BIG LIE is . . . Posted by: lasarte-oria
» RE: no, the BIG LIE is . . . Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: no, the BIG LIE is . . . Posted by: John Wilbur
» yours is the right question Posted by: e rice
» RE: no, the BIG LIE is . . . Posted by: KeepsonTickn
» RE: no, the BIG LIE is . . . Posted by: john mont
» RE: That is THE BIG LIE Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: Actually it's the big TRUTH that's the problem Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: K.I.S.S. Posted by: Lector
» RE: K.I.S.S. Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» RE: K.I.S.S. Posted by: Sissy
» RE: K.I.S.S. Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: K.I.S.S. Posted by: Sissy
» RE: K.I.S.S. Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: K.I.S.S. Posted by: Sissy
» The REAL American Idol Posted by: carbon-based
consumer society
Posted by: handwaver on Apr 25, 2008 2:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The other important fact that no one mentions is the difference in lifestyle - my parents lived a nice middle-class life with only one wage earner...BUT

They had one car - they had one telephone - dining out was rare, and then it was a family style, inexpensive place - they had one TV - most food was made from scratch - vacations were few and by car

Today people have 3 and 4 TV's, they pay cable or dish, they have a computer and a laptop, an Iphone, Ipod, pay hefty monthly internet and cell bills, own at least 2 vehicles and various other motorized toys, eat out several times a week, belong to a fitness club, get massages, have 4 or 5 phones, expensive sound systems (at home and in the car, a GPS, a Balckberry (with data plan, of course, have a nice bottle of wine every week, buy imported or premium beer, single malt scotches yadayadayada ad infinitum

The problem is one of lifestyle, not income - we consume like starving pigs on pot and then wonder why we can't live on one wage? Think back to how your parents lived, what they had and consumed...compare it with your lifstyle now - you might begin to understand just how rampant our materialistic culture has enslaved us all.

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

» RE: consumer society Posted by: paulaH
» RE: consumer society Posted by: Sissy
» RE: consumer society Posted by: Purple Girl
» RE: consumer society Posted by: Elmo409
» In YOUR world maybe! Posted by: Gravitas
» RE: consumer society Posted by: liberalibrarian
» RE: consumer society Posted by: Sissy
» working til you die Posted by: paulaH
» Kill Your Television Posted by: frantaylor
the value of the dollar has been falling for years
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy on Apr 25, 2008 2:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
wages have not been keeping up with inflation

these days i'd sleep with my mouth closed if i had gold teeth

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

It's worse than that.
Posted by: lfish on Apr 25, 2008 3:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This has been going on for a long time and it is a much bigger problem than even the author reports. In the 50's and 60's, when I grew up, our family of four survived quite comfortably on the income of my father. Most of the families in our middle class neighborhood had similar numbers of kids and typically did quite well on a single, blue-collar level salary. It was the rare exception to have a friend whose mother wasn't home all day. In addition, medical costs were low enough, that most people didn't even worry about health insurance and most of the kids of my generation were able to get college educations without accumulating any debt. Finally, people worked fewer hours, had a less frantic life style and weren't constantly clawing to make a few more dollars.

I don't think the current situation is any accident. During the same period of time, corporate profits have gone up dramatically. I think that corporations have used the desire of women to enter the work force as a "tool." Over the past 50 years, as more and more women entered the work force, the number of two-income families increased. If two people are working to support a household, the family income goes up and corporations can gradually lower wages without people noticing. If the same thing had happened during the era of single incomes, the populations would have screamed bloody murder.

All this was going on during an era in which workers were becoming more and more productive, making more and more products for less cost. This means that corporations have been reaping of a double reward of paying workers less money while productivity was going up.

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

DEAR GOD what about the MEN?!?!?!?
Posted by: wagadog on Apr 25, 2008 3:46 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
screw 'em.

I blame the patriarchy.

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

» Just another victim Posted by: meetmeineleusis
» RE: DEAR GOD what about the MEN?!?!?!? Posted by: MartianBachelor
World Population Was 2.5 Billion in 1950. Since then we've added another 4 Billion People
Posted by: opmoc on Apr 25, 2008 4:06 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its not surprising that we have got poorer as a result and have to work twice as hard just to stand still.

The planet has limited resources to share amongst the entire population.

The more people there are, the less there is for each individual.

We are now running out of food and Billions will starve to death.

Increasing the food supply isn't a solution - because we will just have more children to eat it.

Education and contraception is the only graceful solution - but this is barred by religious lunatics promoting large families.

Welcome to poverty and death. The poorest will go first.

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

» RE: and if they did.... Posted by: Sushi
My Parents Managed to Raise Two Kids on One Salary. That's Impossible Today -- What Happened?
Posted by: LMNOP on Apr 25, 2008 4:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was by design, not bad luck.

Over those same decades, somehow the monied class has become the ruling class. Roughly speaking, there are two visions for our society: an egalitarian vision, in which the government exists to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty for the average citizen, and the elitist vision, in which both the government and the general population exist to serve the fortunate few.

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, the elitists had the money and the power, and there were two classes essentially. Somehow, the champions of the people dethroned them, and by mid century, the average American was wealthy and free under the provisions of progressivism and the New Deal. We still had the wealthy, but they didn’t run the country. They had economic power, but not undue political power. Somehow, that has reverted. Now the wealthy own the government again, and the egalitarian vision, once defended by citizen and consumer advocacy entities like unions, the press and the Democratic Party, is undefended and well on the way to being dismantled.

In the elitist vision, American citizens are capital, just like machines and working animals. They are working units that can generate wealth for the monied class if they are also the ruling class. They all cost some money for maintenance, but no more. Like all capital, farm animals (largely a thing of the past now) and slaves got whatever rations, shelter, and basic veterinary or medical service were necessary to keep them in the fields (add the cost of clothing for the humans and saddles for the horses). Machines got the mechanical equivalent: whatever power supply, enclosure structure, replacement parts and mechanical service they required to remain productive. None of these things was for the benefit of the machine, farm animal or slave.

In the elitist vision, which has been gradually retooling the American landscape since it began inflicting its vision on the American landscape in the Reagan years (following a long period of organizing and preparation), the American citizens are to be converted back into capital, which means a state of peonage. We ordinary citizens are being converted from a middle class with rights, considerable leisure time and the means to enjoy that freedom into a peonage. So, you lose your unions, your overtime, your pensions, your benefits, your raises, your job security, your forty-hour work week and your worker protections, and your ability to have half of the household stay home all day.

When they are done, both of you will work all day at jobs that injure your health for subsistence wages, getting just enough to keep you alive, assuming that you don’t need much for that. If your illness disables you or can’t be remedied cheaply, you will be left to die and be replaced with a unit that does work – like a mule

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

» Of course not! Posted by: Farasien
» you're sure? Posted by: e rice
» my apologies Posted by: e rice
» ahem...sensitivities Posted by: e rice
» my apologies to you Posted by: e rice
Heres an idea....
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line on Apr 25, 2008 4:34 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I dropped my business card in a fishbowl a few years back and "won" a free lunch with a financial adviser. It has been so unbelievably helpful. It costs me $300 a year or year and a half.. at any rate it is money well spent. I am not rolling in $$$ yet, but I have some tools that help me realize the stunning abundance that is available if you plan wisely.. And you do not have to invest in nasty corporations to realize your goals.. Just be smart.

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

» RE: Heres an idea.... Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Heres an idea.... Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: Heres an idea.... Posted by: willymack
» RE: Heres an idea.... Posted by: mike1997
» RE: Heres an idea.... Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
Two with No Kids Still have a tough time
Posted by: Purple Girl on Apr 25, 2008 4:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been married since '92- Husbands a Union Carpenter ( 28 yrs), I've Got a Bachelors. He has a daughter which we paid child support until 8 yrs ago. We lived in CA until '94- but moved to MI so we could afford a Home. WE are not big spenders, but have always been caught in the credit card trap. We finaly bought a home in '01- They tried to get us to buy a 300,000- we bought a 130,000.We have no children and his daughter has been living on her own for the last 5 yrs (some help as needed)- Yet we are still Broke, still struggling to make ends meet every month. I'm amazed when even two adults have enough money to raise kids these days. Esp considering the type of jobs remaining in this country. I have an even number of married friends who decided not to have kids for that reason- I'm in my forties, this trend of economic depravity has been going on far longer than any 'economist' or 'Public Servant ' is willing to admit.Teh only reason we have not actually filed for bankrupcy (thus far) is because of our own foresight- bought a less expensive home with a Fixed Morgage. One I could afford when my husband gets 'slow'at work- which happens more & more each year. Michigan is the Canary in the National 'Coalmine' friends. It has become obvious to me there has been a Concerted Intention to bring this countries 'standard of living' down for Decades- Lead by the Incs, accomplished by legislators and financed by foreign Sponsors. We never really pulled out the Recession of the '70's-If we could fold time, '08 is being Traced onto '78

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

» A Singleton with No Kids Posted by: socialpsych
» Poor Planning Posted by: socialpsych
» No Children Ever Posted by: FoonTheElder
RE: QUESTION:
Posted by: hagwind on Apr 25, 2008 5:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe it's the taxes?

Or maybe it's who's actually paying the taxes? Or that those who pay the most aren't the ones who benefit the most from "our tax dollars at work"? And that plenty of our tax dollars are supporting projects and policies that cut our own throats?

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

» Maybe it's regressive taxes? Posted by: B. Spoon
» RE: Who decides what a fair share is? Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: QUESTION: Posted by: Quannah
RE: QUESTION:
Posted by: Amphetameme on Apr 25, 2008 6:16 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
>In 1916 the highest Federal income tax rates
>were between 2% and 15%. To be in that top
>bracket you had to have an income of $1.5m. Economists can dispute the exact inflation
>rates, but that's the equivalent of about
>$20m in today's dollars, so only a very tiny percentage of taxpayers even fell into the
>top bracket.

Uh, I believe this percentage may be incorrect. As I recall from my research, the taxes for the wealthiest Americans within this timeframe was somewhere around 90%. These people were still rich, and had no problem paying it. We didn't give 'tax breaks' or 'incentives'. We didn't radically alter those levels of taxes until the 1930's, and after that it's been spinning downward until what we have today.

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

Question back:
Posted by: SteveO on Apr 25, 2008 8:16 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If our taxes are so high, why are people in other western countries able to get by when their taxes are as much as twice as high as they are here?

Also, taxes were higher during the post war period the author addresses. Since our taxes are lower now, why aren't we doing better?

You have bought the propaganda of the moneyed elites. I'm sure they are proud of you. Keep working to lower their taxes.

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

» RE: Question back: Posted by: JSquercia
» trusts and charities Posted by: e rice
Well, when the top tax rate was highest,
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Apr 25, 2008 10:19 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the middle class was biggest. Sooo...in a way, you're right - it is the taxes.

Just not in the way you meant...and btw, taxes replaced tariffs, which our government levied on virtually EVERYTHING coming into the country.

jdfu!

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

One parent working is not a norm in the world
Posted by: richieb on Apr 25, 2008 5:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I grew up in communist eastern Europe. Both my parents worked and we had two families (plus a grandmother) living in a three bedroom apartment.

Having a stay at home mother is a privilege that is not an option for most people in the rest of the world.

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

» Were the 50s an anomaly? Posted by: asilsfable
While we're at it, this article's frame is a little cockeyed
Posted by: hagwind on Apr 25, 2008 5:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author tries real hard to make up for it by saying that "Problem 2" is actually "Good Development 1," but framing the story in terms of male incomes and female incomes skews the results and obscures some truths about those good ol' days. First, as plenty of others have pointed out, plenty of women worked for pay back in the good ol' days. Second, the good ol' single-income family was predicated on the unpaid labor -- lots and lots of unpaid labor -- by one of the adults, and that adult was usually the woman. In the fairly rare instances where the woman didn't work, her "leisure" was predicated on the underpaid and maybe unpaid labor of servants and slaves. In this cash economy, not having access to cash (or credit) makes you extremely vulnerable. And that's at heart what women's liberation is really about.

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

» RE: it's cockeyed because Posted by: Quannah
» RE: it's cockeyed because Posted by: Quannah
» i don't know what happened Posted by: goatini
» anyone who can read AlterNet Posted by: goatini
» RE: it's cockeyed because Posted by: Quannah
» RE: it's cockeyed because Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: it's cockeyed because Posted by: Quannah
Depends on how you look at it
Posted by: Toby on Apr 25, 2008 6:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many of the commentors in this thread have pointed out important aspects of this complex situation. Among the most important is that the US with about 5% of the world population, consumes 25% of its resources. This, going back to the Eisenhower era and beyond, has given us a false idea of the normal lifestyle. Added to that,consider the gross exploitation inflicted by the present plutocracy and we see 2 major factors in what for many is a present decline. My father, who graduated from college in 1929, supported his family himself, had no mortgage, paid cash for everything - zero consumer debt -owned a large house and grounds in a very nice community, always had 2 cars and paid for my college education out of pocket - and yet his income was only that of a salaried professional (power engineer) working for a large corporation. I, also a professional, am mortgaged to the rafters, have only one small car - 4 years old - and my consumer debt (credit card) while lower than average, seems like a lot to me - and I save nothing - not a cent. HOWEVER, I have a lot more expensive electronic toys, have far more complex and advanced medical care available to me, have been to Europe many times (Father? Never) have way more clothes, books and stuff in general - and devote far more time to unpaid, charitable activity (and Dad was no slouch in that regard, to do him credit - I just have more resources available for such purposes - including time) so who lives better? Father's generation or me?
It all depends on where your values are and how you are adding up the accounts.

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

» RE: Judge not lest ye be judged Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
Domelady
Posted by: domelady on Apr 25, 2008 6:06 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As you can see from the first statistic the real change occurred when the Republicans took control of Congress for the first time in 40 years.

Laws were changed that favored big business, this followed the Reagan years when the administration sold most of America to the highest bidder, caused the deficit to skyrocket and started the process of the necessity of women to work to make family ends meet.

Let's remember that the budget was balanced, the deficit was eliminated, leaving a surplus and projected elimination of the national debt in the foreseeable future, along with 21million jobs creation the lowering of unemployment, and the increase of equal pay for women during the leadership of the Clinton administration. Women didn't want to replace men in the workplace they just wanted to be free to seek out their dreams, many dreamt of being mothers full time but no chance of that now.

It is true that all was not perfect but perhaps if the Republicans had focused on what was good for America instead of what was good for the Republican party we could have achieved Health care, energy independence,(Reagan eliminated the Dept. of Energy), and the further reduction of gun violence,(which was continuing to reduce) thus using guns for their intended purpose, hunting, sharp-shooting and self defense.

Wake up America we still have a chance vote Democratic in the Congress and return a Clinton to the White House. She has the experience we need and the best advisor who is loved around the world and was admired by most Americans before this divisive campaign. Return Hope and Change from the couple who arrived from Hope and brought change to DC before and can do it again.

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

» Who brought us NAFTA? Posted by: makeadifference
» RE: Who brought us NAFTA? Posted by: Amphetameme
» domelady Posted by: domelady
» corporations and taxes Posted by: e rice
» domelady Posted by: domelady
» RE: Domelady Posted by: Stockman71
» Domelady Posted by: domelady
Quiet Weapons for Silent Wars
Posted by: makeadifference on Apr 25, 2008 6:10 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Google and read: "Quiet Weapons for Silent Wars".... American citizens are seeing the results of this plan. Wake up,.. what is happening is not an accident but a well designed and executed plan.

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

The best of two systems
Posted by: richholland on Apr 25, 2008 6:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The communisme didnt work. To control everybody is costly but people had free education, cheap houses, health care free and a dream; The American Dream"
Now communisme lost and suddenly the so called Dream; your own house, a car etc. is much easier to obtain in Ireland then in USA.

American switch off the TV and awake.

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

Economist my inflating derriere
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Apr 25, 2008 6:43 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A real economist would be talking about how the Federal Reserve is continually and deliberately inflating the money supply and declaring economic warfare against the poor and middle class. Everyone needs to understand this war and how they are waging it. The Fed, the CFR, and the Bush administration are the true "axis of evil".

My Youtube Ron Paul Playlist and Chris Martenson's Crash Course would be very helpful to that end.

The Bush administration encourages congress and the people to incur huge deficits. The deficits are paid with T-bills that the Fed exchanges for money. This is new money created out of thin air which inflates the money supply and drives up prices. The CFR controlled media propagates the myth that Bush (and Reagan before him) cut taxes, when in fact they raised taxes. (Except the money didnt even go to the treasury, it went directly to the rich, which makes it a much more devastating tax.) The CFR controlled media also helps to hide all knowledge of true inflation. I include all CFR controlled think tanks as part of the CFR media. There is no point in separating them.

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

» RE: conomist my inflating derriere Posted by: edgeofnowhere
» HE MENTIONED HE WHO SHALL NOT BE NAMED Posted by: meetmeineleusis
» RE: conomist my inflating derriere Posted by: wearesilhouettes
Will she be able too?
Posted by: Hovey on Apr 25, 2008 7:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My wife and I raise One child on two salaries...Will she and her futre partner be able to?

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

The present non-system emerged from the breakup of the Bretton Woods system
Posted by: JimmyVaughan on Apr 25, 2008 7:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Financiers and politicians have cut the American standard of living in half over three decades, reducing the value of a dollar to 8 cents of the Eisenhower-Kennedy era; the typical American job now pays less than it did in 1960. This is the data "professional economists" love to avoid.

A viable human society cannot be founded on the usury and speculation which underlie "globalism".

Clearly "globalization" is a "system" in which a tiny world elite of plutocratic financiers attains fabulous wealth, while the middle class is crushed and billions suffer.

On August 15, 1971, President Nixon ended gold settlement among nations and fixed currency parities, and thus pulled the plug on the Bretton Woods world monetary system, the most successful world currency arrangement that the world has ever known. Since then, world economic growth has gone negative, into reverse, with net world deindustrialization in the US, the former USSR, eastern Europe, the UK, the EU, and elsewhere.

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

» These bastards Posted by: meetmeineleusis
» RE: These bastards Posted by: HoboHomo
We all worked in rural America
Posted by: davidhhahn on Apr 25, 2008 7:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most of my family on the family farm or in farm-related businesses like feed, produce, buildings, etc.

Everyone worked.

We could spend weekends at a sand-pit lake in a one-room cabin that we built in about one week with a cement slap floor and a shower. Our neighbors built theirs next to ours.

Everyone was happy, but we were working. We were working together in close proximity so when it was time to go to the lake, we just jumped in the car and went. Dad came later, or sometimes on Saturday morning.

We are loosing family farms (so much for "family" values when it comes to real economics) and rural life is, well, a lot more stressful these days.

So, it ain't the work, buz we were all busy...it is the structure and pace of work and the "grandosity" of the things we have to have.

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

» RE: We all worked in rural America Posted by: makeadifference
» RE: We all worked in rural America Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
BACK TO BASICS
Posted by: fearn on Apr 25, 2008 8:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The money in a country is limited, even the government can't print endless money without ramifications. If the people in that country have more and more inequality, hundreds of billionaires for example, then millions of citizens will have less. For some reason most Americans don't seem to make the connection between the guy who made $3.7 billion in one year, yes that happened in America, and the fact that they are struggling.
If you support millionaire politicians who allow America's 400 billionaires to pay an average of 18.2% tax then you are shafting yourself.

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

» RE: BACK TO BASICS Posted by: Kodiak44
» RE: BACK TO BASICS Posted by: Falang
pdennany
Posted by: Pop on Apr 25, 2008 8:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is an Capitalist state. The big get bigger, and the average get smaller, as is seen by the catistrophic increases in their wealth while the common people take a lessoning individual share. The monopolies on the top take an increasing amount for their profits at the expense of the bottom "class". Our elected "representitives" tell us what we want to hear, while taking bribes from the monopolizers and doing works in their behalf. The few good representative that do insist on working only for the people they swore to serve are usually forced out of office by the those that are stealing freedon rights and our life blood. Special interests have to be completely removed from politics if the people want a more fair share of our real worth.

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

» RE: pdennany Posted by: kellysgarden
Frauds Amok
Posted by: Turiye on Apr 25, 2008 9:00 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Too, way too many coinky dinks today on Alternet. I suspect many trolling suspects, go back to your Dow Jones F$$KS fav-o-rite spots, or this is FDL Election Season Guide to the Left-Wing Traitorsphere, 'Ya Think?
Adieu, ad hominem....

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

Also costing more...
Posted by: astockton on Apr 25, 2008 9:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cars cost more than they used to because they have more comfort and safety features and are computerized. Plus, less public transportation means that most families have at least two cars.

Houses also cost more because they're bigger and have more conveniences. My parents' house had only one bathroom and no a/c. Even single-wide mobile homes are more "luxurious" than that now.

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

» Cars do not cost more Posted by: frantaylor
OK. here's the deal
Posted by: willymack on Apr 25, 2008 9:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good article. Even better comments. The answers to the questions posed by the article have been amply answered, to say the least. Here's MY life in a nutshell. I grew up in the industrial Northeast of New Jersey, a grim, grimy area aptly known as "Cancer Alley". I'm one of four children, and the oldest. While growing up, conversations between my parents when they thought we were asleep often revolved around what bills they weren't going to pay so we'd have enough money for food. My father held down a full-time job plus two part-time jobs. He got so run down, he almost died from pneumonia. Things starting getting better only after my mother went to work and my father's job became unionized. The goal back then (40s & 50s) was to GET AHEAD, that is, reach a point where you kept up with the bills and had a few bucks left over. Nowadays, many of us seem to feel we're entitled to the "good life" wherein we can buy the latest doo-dad to show the neighbors we're SOMEBODY, and worthy of attention and respect, never mind the cost or the hardship the "easy credit" may cause in the future. We have a "government far more concerned with their own enrichment than the needs of the people, and headed up by psychopaths, who think nothing of starting phony wars for fun and profits, as long as there's no physical danger to themselves, of course. As a result of the war without an end, or even a real goal, except obscene profits and kickbacks to a select few, our eonomy is in ruins, and only awaits an official announcement of its demise, while the evil bastards responsible for all this skate out of any accounting, and retire to a life of luxury with money stolen from those of us to whom "getting ahead" is but a fading memory.

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

Late Capitalism is inherently Stagnant. Deepening Concentration and Financialization go hand in hand
Posted by: yellow on Apr 25, 2008 11:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Late Capitalism is stagnant. This is because increased concentration on a global basis has so constricted consumer demand that capitalists begin to financialize the economy at the expense of real investment in production. Between 1965 and 2005, financial profits as a proportion of total profits went from only 15% to about 40%. Net new, non-residential private investment has fallen off completely. In only one year, 2000, did such new investment reach the 1950-1973 average of 4.2%. Deepening financialization has relied on massive consumer borrowing financed by investment from abroad. Only massive public investment is the answer.

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

The Regulation of Capital
Posted by: cultureindustries on Apr 25, 2008 11:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's a pretty persuasive explanation for the current state of the average American. The Regulation School of economics predicted the unraveling of the American dream starting in the 1970s. Specifically, the gains made under modern industrial production in the 1st half of the 20th century created enough surplus wealth to fund a "rising tide to lift all boats," from right after WWII up to the first Arab Oil Embargo. At the same time, as Paul Krugman notes in his most recent book, The Conscience of a Liberal, American tax policy was geared to flattening out the disparity of incomes between the upper and lower brackets. An analysis of the net rate of profit of the advanced industrialized nations from the period, as evidenced by Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development statistics, shows a peak in the middle 1950s, a decline into the late 1960s, with the rate in the early 1970s about 60% of the earlier highs. Allan Greenspan, then head of the Council of Economic Advisors under Gerald Ford, warned that the high wage/high output welfare state system could not be sustained, and indeed it wasn't, starting with the Carter policies that sought to balance payments by inflating the US currency (not unlike what happened in Weimar Germany between the two world wars) and the start of the effort to rollback entitlements. At the same time, more women entered the workforce effectively increasing the number of household work hours (something the Regulationists term absolute surplus, i.e., value derived from actual labor power, vs. relative surplus, i.e., the value derived by increased labor productivity from technology), and the expansion of credit in the form of increased unsecured revolving debt and lower down payments coupled with extended terms on durables. Naomi Klein's book, The Shock Doctrine, lays out the neoliberalist agenda that has taken away from working people the wealth that had been stored up by them in absorbing the excess capacity of modern industrial production (i.e., buying those suburban houses, multiple cars, refrigerators, TVs, lawnmowers, and such). Klein further notes that "disaster capitalism" is the logical evolution of the redistribution of wealth upward at a time of lower rates of return on investment. The question really is whether anyone thinks the system can be saved. From the longer view, the way we live now can be seen as the real life under capitalism and the boomer heyday of Ward, June, and the Beav the aberration. The Regulation School takes its name from the concept that it is the rate of profit that dictates the terms of economics not equilibrium.

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

What happened is
Posted by: audiodef on Apr 25, 2008 11:48 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My Parents Managed to Raise Two Kids on One Salary. That's Impossible Today -- What Happened?

The People refused to get off their fat asses and take their own lives into their hands.

It's that simple.

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

An Illegal Federal Reserve and illegal paper money.
Posted by: Reader11722 on Apr 25, 2008 12:06 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Inflation happens when an illegal bank issues unbacked illegal paper currency. Fiat Money, yet another infringement on our rights by the gov't. Add it to the ever-growing list of violations:
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like America Deceived (book) from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
Write in Dr. Ron Paul and save this great country.

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

» Why don't you just grow up! Posted by: yellow
» Reader's right Posted by: LMNOP
Women's Lib
Posted by: oo_hay on Apr 25, 2008 2:26 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is perhaps anecdotal, but I recall seeing a video interview (youtube?) wherein Aaron Russo discusses a conversation he had with Nick Rockefeller vis a vis the origin of Women's Lib. A quick google on those keywords turned up this page: http://www.fdrs.org/brainwashing_women.html
and this (quasi-)transcript of the interview:

...believe the so-called “elite” themselves. In a recent interview with Alex Jones, Aaron Russo (creator of America: Freedom to Fascism), discusses his past friendship with Nick Rockefeller:

“… Rockefeller asked Russo what he thought women's liberation was about. Russo's response that he thought it was about the right to work and receive equal pay as men, just as they had won the right to vote, caused Rockefeller to laughingly retort, ‘You're an idiot! Let me tell you what that was about, we the Rockefeller's funded that, we funded women's lib, we're the one's who got all of the newspapers and television - the Rockefeller Foundation.’

“Rockefeller told Russo of two primary reasons why the elite bankrolled women's lib, one because before women's lib the bankers couldn't tax half the population and two because it allowed them to get children in school at an earlier age, enabling them to be indoctrinated into accepting the state as the primary family, breaking up the traditional family model.

Like I said, perhaps anecdotal, so take it FWIW. Still, try following the money behind G.Steinem and Ms. Magazine.

peace

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

» tax half the population Posted by: e rice
» the same tone the bushes have Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» It's actually even worse than that Posted by: MartianBachelor
Mr. Bernstein was a lucky child.
Posted by: observing on Apr 25, 2008 2:33 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both my parents had to work to raise two children. My uncles and aunts worked to raise their children. All four of my grandparents worked to feed their children.

Pining for a past that served only a relatively small portion of the population skewers the viewpoint. The post WWII boomer bubble was relatively short lived.

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

Let us not talk falsely
Posted by: LMNOP on Apr 25, 2008 5:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe I'm missing something important and just not seeing the big picture. But from my perspective, it looks like the bad guys have won. I understand "never say die", but just because you never say it doesn't mean you don't do it.

I personally don't subscribe to unjustified optimism or pessimism. I like objectivity insofar as it is possible. That is, when, when you're up by six runs in the ninth, being optimistic is not being an optimist. It’s being a realist. An optimist is someone rooting for the other team who expects to win. Being pessimistic when you're down six runs is not being a pessimist. Worrying that you'll blow a six run lead is pessimistic. In summary, an optimist is not someone who's optimistic when things look good. That's a realist. He or she is someone who is unjustifiably optimistic when the prognosis is poor, and vice versa for pessimist and pessimism.

Having said that, I don't see a value for me in unjustified optimism (or pessimism). And I don't see a solution here, so I'm pessimistic, but don't call me a pessimist. Being right is more valuable than being up.

And I'm open to being shown that I'm wrong. I'm far from confident in my analysis. But until someone can show me a viable plan for victory, at which time I'll readjust my optimism-pessimism axis, I'm still going with the asteroid as the most direct route to escape from the bad guys. I feel like we're the plains Indians, or the plains bison for that matter. Now, who could have foreseen the casinos? Maybe the Indians will eventually escape the chains of the white devils. But not the bison. They lost, and bison optimism may feel better if you’re a bison, but you're still a future burger.

I forgot what I was talking about. Oh, yeah, something about being appropriate for the circumstances. For example, should I fight or should I adapt? And if adapt, does that mean in the US or as an expatriate? I don't need to ask the panel. They'll say stay and fight, of course. But the best chance to make the best choice comes from objective analysis, not unjustified optimism.

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

To K.I.S.S.
Posted by: Maryanne on Apr 25, 2008 5:45 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That Americans got by on one salary in the 50s and 60s is a "fable long past" may be true for the present but it was not in the 50s and 60s. I, too, was growing up then.

After a serious accident at work, my father was forced to retire, and died a couple years later as a result of this. He had received no compensation for his accident, apart from a small amount ordered by the court for a scar. His subsequent hospitalizations had exhausted all the family assets, leaving my mother and me with $50 a month annuity for the next five years. My mother, who was not well, did not work and was too young to qualify for social security; I was about to turn 18 so I was not eligible for social security benefits, even though I had started college.

For the next five years, while I attended college and grad school (both of which involved tuition) we lived on that annuity. I paid for my schooling through three part time jobs- all at minimum wage, which as everyone knows was extremely minimal then. (I believe one job paid 65 cents, another 75 cents per hour- and one [which reduced tuition costs] compensated at 10 cents per hour.) I was even able to afford one cashmere sweater and one pair Capezio shoes; both were de rigeur at the time. I even had some social life and went on vacation with my friends.

How did we manage? We never felt deprived. We lived comfortably in a warm house, with plenty to eat and adequate clothing.Taxes were low,we had no debts, no mortgage, no car. We lived within our income; my mother was an excellent manager of money. Moreoever the cost of living was not high then. Everyone we knew lived as simply as we. Those were the good days. It was easy to make ends meet then. Not now.

When I finally went to work full time as a teacher, it was for the munificent sum of $2500 a year! Then I changed careers and took a cut in salary.

All above true.

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

» RE: To K.I.S.S. Posted by: opmoc
Change in average income versus average productivity
Posted by: PaulK on Apr 25, 2008 7:25 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The computer has doubled in power every 18 months. The assembly lines have gotten incredibly fast and automated. These triumphs of science are the measures by which we must measure income. In the 1960s we had, relatively, next to nothing.

So, has your salary doubled every 18 months? That's an exaggeration but you get the point. In relative terms, vast quantities of technological wealth that we used to hold in common, and now we just don't know that we have access to, are now flowing to the richest.

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

CommonDreamer
Posted by: CommonDreamer on Apr 25, 2008 9:29 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I remember those times too. They were great. There was upward mobility that hasn't been seen in decades since. Most of the mothers stayed home in my neighborhood - it was a middle class existence and we had "fun" (remember when you could still do that?). When these women got "liberated" they bought right into the corporatocracy and accepted the outmoded work schedule we have now, which is was built on men working outside the home and women working inside of it....and built on lack of respect for home life and the important work done there.

Now, there is literally no one at home taking care of these important things. So we were let down not only wagewise, but timewise. To help us forget this, the corporatocracy created rampant mindless consumerism as sport - and inane keeping up with the Joneses as some kind of mantra. Everything new, new, new. Go into debt and mindlessly go off to work to pay it off after plunking your kids in daycare. No time for yourselves to speak of, no let up from the drumbeat of striving to keep up with the Joneses. It's an empty life. I would like to tear down the McMansions and go back to when we had smaller houses, more fun, more time, and more hopeful and interesting lives.

The disparities intentionally created by the market in income, along with the blame game (get an education, and so on) are actually anti-progressive. Instead of having everyone go for a Ph.D (admirable, but not realistic, as not everyone fits in the same box)...we should be ensuring by progressive taxation that everyone has a shot at happiness and success. Instead there is only a narrowly defined avenue for "success" - that is in the corporatocracy - and narrowly defined options for living (overpriced housing, overpriced education, "luxury" this and that - when our median salaries certainly are not luxury). You have a box with limits in every way - corporate and unyielding - that has taken too much of our collective time, and funneled the money towards the top without gains for the rest of us.

The unjustifiable tax cuts only worsened the situation by enabling the driving up of prices of all commodities and fueling the inane striving of the underpaid workers who tried to emulate standards they can't keep up with financially.

Lastly, the U.S. is about the most backwards country ever in terms of social growth. You will only hear one thing here - that's GNP and Wall Street over and over - but nothing about what's good for families.

We haven't made any real progress. We gave up family time, freedom and upward mobility for entering the corporatocracy and following its rules...inane small amounts of time off, lack of flexibility, etc.

It's been great and interesting working...being able to have a career and so on....but in the process we put down our own family lives as not important and we wimped out on demanding more time for everyone. Most importantly, we wimped out on progressive taxes (because the right wing badmouthed that at every turn). Clearly, CEO and corporate greed are factors in this decline of buying power (although citizens also need to understand where they really are in terms of buying power).

I am hoping that in the future some sanity will be restored in economics and instead of seeing falsely inflated assets such as housing, and enduring sophistry and deception, we will return to old values such as saving our money, having houses we can afford, spending time with our families, and throwing off the yoke of the corporatocracy that wants a stable of mindless consumers. Maybe when we wrest more control of our own lives from this cabal, we could have more flexibility, more of us able to stay at home at times when we need to, and more sensible economic policies that benefit everyone - not just the top.

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

I Know, I Know!
Posted by: Morgan Mghee on Apr 25, 2008 10:01 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Psychologically produced commercials happened. Keeping up with the Jones turned into keeping up with the sex in the city girls. A summer on the patio isn't worth it unless it looks like the royal gardens. We don't need a 3000sq home for 3 people, 3 cars and a garage for each. 40 pairs of shoes, satellite TV, 24hour dsl internet service...blah blah yada yada. I hear in Sweden you can't tell an affluent person's home from any other until you walk inside...what a concept. I remember in the early 70's a woman's income 'couldn't' be included on a mortgage application, when that changed the prices of homes went up.
I remember reading a story a while ago that investigated the costs of a 2 working parent family, it concluded that only the most highly paid parents, or parents with family to watch the children, actually came out ahead on the deal. And this story didn't even take into account the time saved that could be used to keep active and informed about local and national politics, giving people a chance to make their opinions heard. Time to be involved in children's lives, ensuring it's their morals that are learned and not the nanny's or the coach's.

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

» RE: I Know, I Know! Posted by: CommonDreamer
RE: illusion or collusion?
Posted by: chuckeseats on Apr 26, 2008 12:46 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I remember well that very few women worked outside the home. If a mother in the neighborhood could drive a car, that was something! And I'm talking about the early sixties.
I think what happened was that women were sold a bill of goods about men having all the fun out working while they stayed at home all day; drab and dreary, wasting away watching the kids and doing thankless housekeeping. They could have an exciting career, two cars, fancy trips and the latest TV and money for a college fund.
They just had to get out and work. Like Goria Steinem and Women's Lib proselytized. Done deal! Except; the powers that be, realized this new work force would work cheaper and with inflation they would be forced into two incomes to maintain a modern lifestyle. They still have two cars and the latest TV but what about the millions and millions of kids who started coming home to a microwave and no adult supervision? Ever wonder why 80% of juvenile crime happens between 4 to 8 o'clock PM and that the teen pregnancy and obesity numbers are staggering?
I'm not very religious but I remember the bible says that the, "love of money is the root of all evil". So maybe it's simply a question of greed that got us into this situation. Now the corporate power brokers have us pretty much where they want us, don't they?

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

» RE: illusion or collusion? Posted by: buzzsaw
Government by brown envelope by Octagenarian
Posted by: fhughes on Apr 26, 2008 1:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A few months ago here in Canada we learnt, by a law case, that a politician was paid $300,000 in brown envelopes. what for did not come out yet.
If all start fair, after a time the clever, the lucky, or the criminal get a great deal of money. With this they can suborn the politicians, and get laws passed favorable to themselves. I believe that, some years ago, a few million distributed to the conservative party here enabled the Corporate Free Trade bill to pass.

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

1980
Posted by: lamac66 on Apr 26, 2008 5:01 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reganomics!That's what happened. The trickle down theory never happened. So the rich got richer and every else was left to stay stagnant.

The thinking that big business should get their money first and then they will trickle that down to the common every day folk never happened.

They got richer, wanted to keep all profits. When it came share the riches that the common every day person that made the money for them, the outsourced oversees.

So much for conservative values.

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

One Word
Posted by: BlackbirdHighway on Apr 26, 2008 5:06 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reagan

That's what happened.

Ronald Reagan got elected, the conservatives took over America, and the New Deal got demolished.

It all started with Reagan.

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

» RE: One Word Posted by: lamac66
If you want to live cheaply yet have luxuries, here are my recommendations
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on Apr 26, 2008 7:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Learn how to ride a motorcycle. A Kawasaki Ninja 250 is a hell of a lot of fun to ride, tops out at 100mph, gets 55 - 70 mpg, and used models (which have been relatively the same over the past decade and a half) can be had for less than $2K on eBay for 2000+ models and around $1500 for 1990's models.

Any day that isn't raining and freezing out is a good day to ride it to work, saving gas and having fun at the same time.


Only pay for Broadband Internet. No Cable TV, No Cellphone. You can get a Skype phone number that people with regular phones can call you at for about $65 for a year. A low cost decent quality headset hooked up to your PC is all you need. Unlimited incoming and outgoing calls in the U.S. and Canada.

There are lots of legal free streaming TV stations, ABC streams some of its shows like Lost for free in HD over the internet, HBO streams some of its show for free over the internet in low quality. Fancast, Joost, and Hulu all provide ad supported programming with many channels that are normally only available via cable TV.

When you buy a PC or laptop make sure it can be connected to your TV. Then you can watch this programming on the TV rather than your computer if you so choose.

Your local library, especially libraries for mid-size and large cities, have a wide variety of DVDs to take out for Free. You don't have to pay anything to take them out, many let you take out a large number of DVDs at one time. Carry a backpack while riding your Ninja and you don't even need to use a car to go take them out.

Most PCs have a DVD-ROM and you can play your DVDs on your PC.


This is a little more on the illegal side, a little more on the technical side of PCs but don't buy video game consoles. There are plenty of video game console emulators available for the PC. They can play lots of games from NES, SNES, 2D Arcade, Playstation, and even some Playstation 2 games.

On Ebay you can often find used video games to play for a fraction of the price they cost when new.


Fat Wallet is a good place for deals on products.

Before buying a PC, if you want it to be able to play games well, look for reviews on low-end gaming PCs or budget gaming PCs. These will be systems that are much better at gaming on than the standard PC you will find at a department store or on Dell.com. Tom's Hardware, Hard OCP, Sharky Extreme are all good places to see reviews of PC components to help you find the best bang for the buck with PCs.


Go out for drinks with friends a lot or would like to? Invest in a flask. Many carry 8 shots of alcohol. Buy 1 drink at the beginning of the night and keep refilling it when no one is looking. It keeps my bar bill low. A handle of Jim Beam, if you can stomach it, costs around $26 before tax at a good package store. A handle of Jack Daniels is around $40 nevermind the prices on smaller bottles.


If you are reluctant to invest, atleast put your money you are saving in a savings account that earns good interest. Normal checking accounts pay .05% interest. With the Fed's rate cuts interest rates have gone down a lot but Wamu is about 3.25% and Etrade is at 3.01%. Way better than leaving your money in a normal checking account. Find a bank with a good savings account rate and no fees that is easy to hook into your checking account.


As with all my recommendations, Shop Around. You can find good deals out there.

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

pretty upbeat for something that's killing us
Posted by: smadaj on Apr 27, 2008 9:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was very difficult to read this economist's fairly perky article when my husband just lost his $20/hr job due to budget cuts at the Library of Congress - which was funding a project at the non-prof he worked for. We were hardly making ends meet - paying about $1000/month for so-called "health insurance" plus the co-pays, we just got one child through 2 years of college, but we have nothing to help her get any further. I have fibromyalgia so on some days I feel like I have a very bad flu and can't get out of bed - this makes being employed difficult; too many sick days. But since I have good days, too, I don't qualify for disability coverage. My husband lost his job through no fault of his - in fact, at age fifty, this is the first time he's ever lost a job. However, Maryland unemployment is denying him coverage because he can't jump through the impossible hoop system they have set up to keep him from collecting unemployment from a system he's been paying into all of his working life - example, and I will stick to just one although there are a couple of dozen problems with their system - they will only pay him up to $350/week, which equals $1400/month. If he finds a minimum wage job to bridge the gap between what they will pay him and the total of our monthly bills, MD unemployment will deduct what he earns from what they pay. And only if it's part-time work. If it's full-time minimum wage work, they will drop him. So while he's looking for something that pays a living wage, they will penalize him for any part-time work he is able to find so that we don't lose our home. We are a family of four. MD unemployment - which won't even allow us to use their toll-free number because we live in PA (although MD residents can use it) - will actually "allow" my husband to earn up to $400/month on the side, without penalizing him, so if we want their "help" we have to live on $1800/month. My husband's been digitizing field recordings, for the Smithsonian, and then for the Library of Congress; that's his skill, so finding work in his field is difficult. With his health problems, he can't go into construction or do any lifting. We have lost our health care and we're looking at the possibility of losing our home. Our mortgage and the one and only bank loan we have equals $1200/month. We have no other debt. Our Honda has 430,000 miles on it, and our Toyota has 248,000 miles. We are fortunate to have such great cars, but it looks like we may have to move into them. In no time at all we will have to decide between paying our mortgage and buying food. If we lose our modest 1100 sq ft home, we will have no place to move to. We don't have money for a rental deposit, and most rentals cost more than our mortgage anyway. And, because we just got federal tax money back - over half of which went to pay state and local taxes - we have enough money in the bank to cover about six weeks to two months of bills. This "cushion" - and we don't have retirement or any other savings - this "cushion" prevents us for qualifying for food stamps or medicaid. So, we're screwed. Reading this article is frustrating because it's so upbeat, and we know that we are not alone in the quagmire created by Bill Clinton's NAFTA, which shipped thousands of good jobs overseas, and Bush's greedy brand of economics. This country is in the toilet. The insane military spending that has given all of our money to corporate war-mongers has thrown the hard-working middle and lower-middle class into the streets. We are just a couple of inches away from living in our car. Until I became ill a few years ago, I worked full-time jobs my entire life. So has my husband. And even so, we'll end up living the way our grandparents did during the depression, living in shacks or cars, burning all of our furniture and books to keep warm, and dying young. That's the direction our corporate-run government is taking Americans.

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

Remember the Problem of Leisure?
Posted by: SavagEye on Apr 27, 2008 2:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I remember well the projections of futurists of the 1960's who worried how the majority of Americans would spend their additional leisure time as automation and other technologies freed their lives from toil. There were even predictions that work would be optional for those who needed to feel productive! (Sorry I don't have the references.) Who saw this forced march coming, way back then? But, here we are. Ironically, there seem to be fewer people "dropping out" of the treadmill than there were in the 1960's. This might be a result of ordinary life becoming much harder to sustain. I remember being able to keep an apartment and buy basic food for very little money. Choosing an alternative life style today would be much tougher.
However, looking at the comments on this article, I would say the discontent is palpable. What are the real sources of these consumerist treadmills? I don't know. But a retired labor lawyer answered my complaints one day by asking: "What do you think this economy and society is based on now? It is consumerism. And, if you think about it, what other ism has made people happier?" Clearly, we have reached the crest of a wild cycle of advertising, credit, and goods consumption. And the "Problem of Leisure" is no longer on the agenda.

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

CommonDreamer
Posted by: CommonDreamer on Apr 27, 2008 9:21 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is what happens when you let corporations take over our very lives. Life is work. All of it is important. Women made housework and home work and child raising less important because they ran to escape it and then...they let the corporatocracy (which never respected home life anyway) run over all of our lives.

Where is the change that women should have brought to this world now that we all see the flaws in meeting human needs that the corporate world has? Women have not helped by becoming like men - demanding and inflexible (although some are not that way, thankfully). It is not a weakness to care for your family...it's not a weakness to need more time off to be human. I do believe it is a pathology and weakness to cling to work as some kind of salvation and treat it as the only important thing in life.

Unsurprisingly, housework, child rearing, and all of the other important things in outside life did not magically disappear once we "all" started working. We are not all CEOs who can hire anyone we want to do any thing (and why would you want someone else raising your family anyway?). This happened because women let the corporatocracy dictate how their careers were going to be successful (instead of demanding that men take more time off to deal with family issues, as I believe it takes two people to create a family the last time I checked). In fact if we changed the system, we could then change the bar for "success". This system with its miserly two weeks off and boring sameness every day is ineffective, unimaginative and unkind to humans. I'll bet we'd have less people getting sick...less people taking mental health days and so on if we had a better and more compassionate system.

I think the writer who said that the CEO pathologies are rewarded is entirely correct. If you are a sick individual you too can do the Dilbert system where you make people feel they don't quite deserve their jobs...and reap more rewards because of it. When we stop rewarding pathological behaviors..that day cannot come too soon.

We need to bring the corporatocracy down to some kind of level that makes sense. The rip offs, the lack of shame, the amoral behavior...has all been enabled to some degree by the worship heaped upon corporate life (and again, women going off to work as if it was the only important thing in life is a big part of this problem). (BTW I am a woman so please do not think this is a chauvinist rant). Instead of admiring work outside of the home so much, we need to first get respect for the family as the most important thing. We need to put work outside of the home in its place. It's just a part of life, that's all. Then we can wrest some power from corporations and get back our lives....stop rampant consumerism that gets us nowhere...and mindless keeping up with the Joneses...get back to the simple and enjoyable life (like we had in the '50's and '60's.) We can only hope this might happen if we elect someone with some sense.

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

Death of the Unions
Posted by: matthood on Apr 29, 2008 4:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I worked the last Union Job in 1981 ater Dow invented a covert war against the Unions since 1963 Union Strike. With in 6 months because of the deliberate overstauration of illegal aliens to come to Freeport,Texas. My wages went from $15 dollars an hour with full union benefits to $10 dollars an hour with zero benefits Until this day. When the Union died,we had no one to negotiate with on our wages and benefits. Wages where frozen because they did not have to give us a raise. In 1983 our cost of living raises to allow for inflation was taken away.The non-union contractor with the use of illegal aliens gave the non-union companies monopoly where they would have their little meeting to keep denying our wages that we earned from the sweat of our brow but who like Cain cheated his brother. It is the illegal who owe me around $300,000 dollars of the money they stole from me and my fellow americans. Dow and the petrochemical industry has turned my highly educated tradesman into sharecropper on a petrochemical plantation where all the highly skilled tradesman hasve left for other states because American corporation refuse to pay us a just raise. I was forced work out of state to get a raise when I cant make any money in my own state.Many of my friends have just quit working their craft because of the discrimantion of the hiring of illegal mecxican. They had become just over paid employees of McDonalds. So they quit working constuction allto gether.They got tired of working 7 days a week 10-12 hours a day when they forget they have a family. The RIGHT TO WORK LAW made the life of a man expendable.Our employers do not care if our marriages fall apart;if we are never their. They dont care if our kids hates us because they think that we dont love them because we are force work all the time. For 20 years I could not find a 8 hour work day. I hope Dow Chemical and the industry loves mexican because I will tell all of the young people to stay our of construction, They are 20 years behind on wages. If all the American government want to do is let the illeagl mexican take our jobs then the day is coming for a civil war

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

» RE: Death of the Unions Posted by: Dianka
Single-wage families
Posted by: Dianka on May 6, 2008 4:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, I was born in 1955, one of three kids. My father was a factory worker with a high school education, and my mother was a full-time home-maker. We weren't rich, but entirely comfortable, with a lakeside rural home, a large yard, etc. My father's insurance provided full coverage for the whole family. By the 1970's, my mother had her car, my father his pick-up truck, neither vehicle more than 5 years old. It was a pretty good life. Now, at 53, I realize that probably the best thing about it was the sense of security we had back then. It wasn't unusual to keep a job throughout one's working life. Unions made a tremendous difference. Workers had far more protections and rights prior to the 1980's.

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