Mobile  |  About us  |  Photos  |  Videos  |  Subscriptions  |  RSS Feeds  |  Today's Paper  |  Classifieds  |  Contact Us
The Daily Star
THURSDAY, 17 APR 2014
03:53 AM Beirut time
Weather    
Beirut
17 °C
Blom Index
BLOM
1,214.01down
Commentary
Follow this story Print RSS Feed ePaper share this
Rising inequality in America is causing the economy to sputter
A+ A-

The last documentary film that used dry charts and statistics to make an abstract argument about a global issue and nonetheless became a pop-culture hit was Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth.” But the hit of this year’s Sundance Film Festival was a low-key affair called “Inequality for All,” in which Robert Reich, a labor secretary in the Clinton administration, explains how rising income inequality and the demise of the middle class is causing so many Americans to suffer. With President Barack Obama recently taking up some of these themes in his second inaugural address, it is worthwhile to examine the message of “Inequality for All” more closely. The film’s charts are not boring, but actual showstoppers: Reich makes the point that the mid-1940s to the mid-1970s were decades of relative income equality, which corresponded with overall affluence. (The last time that income inequality in the United States was as deep as it is now was immediately before the 1929 stock-market crash.)

But the last 20 years have witnessed a spike in the difference between the top earners and the middle class: The “1 percent” really are living in a stratospheric bubble. As the journalist Chrystia Freeland has argued, a meta-class of global “plutocrats” is emerging – people who have little in common with the rest of us.

“Inequality for All” makes the case that the wealthiest 1 percent simply cannot consume enough, no matter how hard they try, to generate the revenue that an affluent middle class could. The secret to a strong economy is to invest in education, strengthen household incomes with a decent minimum wage and strong unions, and raise skill levels, thereby generating sustained consumer demand. This, Reich argues, is the “virtuous cycle” that we see in strong economies such as Germany, in which workers are highly skilled and educated, unions are protected, and the middle class has leisure and money to spend.

Reich also persuasively describes the “vicious circle” – with falling wages undermining consumer demand and leading, in turn, to shrinking output – that has made the U.S. economy fragile and boosted social instability. He analyzes a middle class that is skating on the thinnest of ice, with employment coming at the price of lower wages and benefits. Moreover, millions of middle-class American homes are “underwater” (the mortgage is more than the home’s underlying value).

The film interviews one of the rich, a charming millionaire who owns a pillow company and points out that he and his fellow rich guys and their families simply cannot spend enough to offset the lost demand of a strong middle class. In fact, the richest save rather than spend their dollars, and send them around the globe in transnational hedge funds rather than using them to create more jobs at home.

So, the “trickle-down” story that the middle and working classes are told every election cycle in America – that cutting wealthy people’s taxes means more job creation in America – is simply not true. Those wealthy people’s untaxed dollars stay in hedge funds and out of the revenue stream. The cost to social programs, infrastructure, and public schools intensifies stress on the middle class, who end up poorly educated, work long hours in dual-career ill-paid jobs, lack leisure time and money to spend, and so on.

Are we stuck with this vicious circle, which advocates of laissez-faire globalization have told us for 15 years is an inevitable consequence of the “invisible hand?” Or could Reich’s retro prescriptions, which he has affirmed for decades, be taken up again? Could they bring back the affluent years of the early Clinton era, when it seemed as if domestic policies could actually influence and even benefit the U.S. economy?

I asked Reich what three policy prescriptions he would give to an American president and Congress today, especially drawing on the lessons of other countries. “I’d like to see what we did so successfully in the first three decades after World War II, when prosperity was widely shared.” That means large investments in public education, including higher education; substantial investments in infrastructure, funded by a highly progressive tax whose top marginal effective rate never fell below 50 percent; and strong labor unions.

“Anyone who thinks these policies are no longer feasible in a global economy,” Reich told me, “hasn’t looked at modern Germany, which features all of them, and where the median wage is higher than ours.”

It sounded great – but it also seemed to contradict the conventional wisdom, according to which cut-rate labor in Pakistan or Mexico is the inescapable death knell for $25-an-hour union jobs, with benefits, in Detroit.

“How do you keep U.S. labor unions strong if Mexico, for example, undercuts U.S. hourly wages?” I asked. Reich replied in more detail: “Strengthen labor unions in industries sheltered from global competition – workers in retail chains, hotel chains, restaurant chains; child care and elder care; hospital workers; and so on. Attract manufacturing and manufacturing engineering back to the U.S. by improving the skills and productivity of U.S. workers (as Germany has done for German workers). And encourage trading partners to improve their own wages and labor standards (for example, by requiring in all trade treaties that a country’s minimum wage be half its median wage).”

Is this agenda feasible in America today? To be sure, one would have to mend the broken political system first. But looking at the affluent German middle class from the U.S., where a quarter of jobs pay wages that place workers at or below the poverty line, Reich’s recommendations seem worth fighting for.

Naomi Wolf is a political activist and social critic whose most recent book is “Vagina: A New Biography.” THE DAILY STAR published this commentary in collaboration with Project Syndicate © (www.project-syndicate.org).

 
A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Daily Star on February 12, 2013, on page 7.
Home Commentary
 
     
 
inequality in America / United States of America
Advertisement
Comments  

Your feedback is important to us!

We invite all our readers to share with us their views and comments about this article.

Disclaimer: Comments submitted by third parties on this site are the sole responsibility of the individual(s) whose content is submitted. The Daily Star accepts no responsibility for the content of comment(s), including, without limitation, any error, omission or inaccuracy therein. Please note that your email address will NOT appear on the site.

comments powered by Disqus
More from
Naomi Wolf
Why some Western feminists prefer black shirts
Anti-gay laws have nothing to do with preserving traditional values
India has moved far into the lead in fighting sexual harassment
On women, JFK was both prescient and predatory
The NSA is still threatening journalists
Advertisement


Baabda 2014
Advertisement
Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Linked In Follow us on Google+ Subscribe to our Live Feed
Multimedia
Images  
Pictures of the day
A selection of images from around the world- Tuesday April 15, 2014
View all view all
Advertisement
Rami G. Khouri
Rami G. Khouri
Silencing Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s hate talk
Michael Young
Michael Young
Why confuse gibberish with knowledge?
David Ignatius
David Ignatius
Putin will keep rolling, until Obama says no
View all view all
Advertisement
cartoon
 
Click to View Articles
 
 
News
Business
Opinion
Sports
Culture
Technology
Entertainment
Privacy Policy | Anti-Spamming Policy | Disclaimer | Copyright Notice
© 2014 The Daily Star - All Rights Reserved - Designed and Developed By IDS