It's official: America's middle class now earns less money for more hours of work

One crucial factor left out of the NY Times story "The American Middle Class Is No Longer the World’s Richest" -- that would mean American income inequality is even worse (if you can believe it) -- is that Americans work longer hours than Europeans or Canadians too (probably more family members work those hours for more years).  

Now, if the per capita income of our middle class (defined as median income) is barely equal to or lower than that of other modern middle classes -- and --  we work more hours to get less ...

... Holy Cow; it's time for some very big changes!
  * * * * * *
From the book "The State of Working America 2006/2007", Chart 8.7 on page 334:

Average hours worked in the OECD in 2004 (just hours per worker, no count of more American family members working those more hours for more years)
United States...............1824
Japan............................1789
Germany......................1426
France..........................1441
Italy..............................1585
United Kingdom..........1669
Canada.........................1751
Australia.......................1816
Austria..........................1550
Belgium........................1522
Denmark.......................1454
Finland..........................1736
Ireland...........................1642
Netherlands...................1357
New Zealand.................1826
Norway..........................1363
Portugal.........................1694
Spain.............................1799
Sweden..........................1585
Switzerland....................1556
 

Tyrannosaurus Rich

Academic economists tend to see economies as a galaxy of utilities balancing perfectly (or almost) at the margin (according to their utility).

I see economies as made of the same wheels within wheels feedback architecture — but resulting in something more like the process of evolution, the survival of the fittest — where whoever grows the biggest fangs first gets to eat everybody else for dinner; or in the economic case, everyone else’s dinner. Think Tyrannosaurus Rich. :-)

Academic economists tend to see economies as a galaxy of utilities balancing perfectly (or almost) at the margin (according to their utility).
I see economies as made of the same wheels within wheels feedback architecture — but resulting in something more the process of evolution, more like the survival of the fittest — where whoever grows the biggest fangs first gets to eat everybody else for dinner; or in the economic case, everyone else’s dinner. Think Tyrannosaurus Rich.
- See more at: http://angrybearblog.com/2014/04/open-thread-april-8-2014.html#comment-381680

Universal matching funds: First Amendment proof answer to McCutcheon v. FEC

First Amendment proof defense against Kochs and friends buying all the next elections: matching funds for every candidate or incumbent for every dollar contributed by anybody.  Only mechanical answer possible.

Just like legally mandated, centralized bargaining (where everyone doing the same kind of work in the same locale negotiates a single contract with every employer) is the only answer possible to the race-to-the-economic and political-bottom.

Instituting the latter may be necessary before we can institute the former.

Matching funds would facilitate incumbents working for us 100% of the time -- instead of raising money 50% of the time and "earning" it the other 50%.

Nothing could be easier than selling centralized bargaining (in place over a century in labor markets around the world -- including the worlds most respected economy; think VW).  As I have been spamming for years, supermarket workers and airline employees (think the regionals) would kill for centralized bargaining (lots of others too -- try asking).

Nothing could be more exciting.  Why do the Repubs have half the Congress?  Because the Dems never venture out with something everybody would die for (or kill for).