Sunday, September 18, 2016
COMMENTS THIS WEEK AT ...
COMMENTS I HAVE BEEN DROPPING THIS WEEK AT [first paras -- full content in comments below to save space]:
http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/9/15/12923528/liberal-economics-great-recession-policy-clinton
IF OBAMA HAD spent the last 7+ years explaining to the general public what Mike Konczal lays out, then, he would have much trust with which to convince voters what frauds the Republicans are: golden credibility! [comment left at Economist's View]
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2016/09/do-us-economists-ignore-inequality.html#comments
Do US progressives ignore THE CORE REASON for income inequality (please include the word "income" so most people won't mistake the discussion to be about race in the 1950s)? Do they?
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2016/09/put-globalization-to-work-for-democracies.html
IOW, worry more about the folks at home in rich countries (whatever the morality of that might be) or more Donald Trumps are on the way, world wide.
http://www.bradford-delong.com/2016/09/must-read-arindrajit-dube-and-ethan-kaplan-2010-_does-outsourcing-reduce-wages-in-the-low-wage-service-occupations.html
My low skilled job, taxi driving, has been virtually outsourced all over the world (Pakistan, Russia, Nigeria, Mexico, etc.).
Lack of collective bargaining makes a wages race to the bottom that is malignant enough all by its lonesome. (Taxi fares are not set by coll barg, but a unionized country would be a diff country.) But, throw in enough poor country raised immigrants and the race for home grown labor becomes fatal.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/9/15/12923528/liberal-economics-great-recession-policy-clinton
Re: The "new liberal economics" is the key to Clinton's policies - Mike Konczal
IF OBAMA HAD spent the last 7+ years explaining to the general public what Mike Konczal lays out, then, he would have much trust with which to convince voters what frauds the Republicans are: golden credibility!
I'm starting to read FDR's radio "fireside chats." In the first FDR tried to get across to a much less educated audience than today's how the banking system worked -- in general principals.
O dropped one speech at a high school on (income -- always say "income") inequality (so people don't think you're talking about Alabama in the '50s) as the "DEFINING ISSUE OF OUR TIME." Didn't poll well following week -- he forgot it forever.
I have to say to Mike Konczal that the core pathology in our economic/political organism is the complete loss of union density -- easily recovered if anyone would get around to pursuing it (like full time). Think Germany, think Denmark, think French Canada.
Rebuild unions and everything else could resolve itself all by itself -- think the thing the Koch brothers and Scott Walker fear the most -- don't rebuild and cry and moan forever while things get worse and worse for the rest of us.
Reply Friday, September 16, 2016 at 09:03 AM
Denis Drew said in reply to Denis Drew...
5 years in jail and a $250,000 fine if you copy the DVD you are about to watch in your house. Ha, ha, ha. Actually, the FBI will enforce "the warning" if you are so foolish as to take a movie in the movie house: couple of fed years, for real.
How much jail time, how big a fine for using intimidation to prevent employees from bargaining collectively with your monopsony (one buyer -- in this case buyer of labor -- mono, mono, monopoly, monopsony: get it?). Zilch penaltes, jail or fine.
Your monopsony may be directed to rehire organizers or joiners -- but the important market warping is accomplished: union certification election has been ducked. Even if you don't re-fire within a year (usually do -- for something else); even if you give them a raise -- the important damage is done.
No penalty; no recourse.
Easy answer: WA, OR, CA, NV, IL, MD, NY, would likely make union busting actually illegal (felony backed by RICO -- 33 states have their own RICO) if somebody would only make an issue of it. States can add to fed protections -- just not subtract.
Only penalty.
Longer run answer (when change of culture caused by union states shows a better way (only way!) of life: an NLRB finding of union busting should lead to a mandated certification election.
Only recourse.
This issue could have been the virtual Bernie issue for the Democrats -- drawing the blue collar from Trump.
Not that Bernie ever thought of it for a moment either. We have been in a pathological economic/political box for so long we the foolish American people don't even know how to think outside of it.
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2016/09/do-us-economists-ignore-inequality.html#comments
Denis Drew said...
Do US progressives ignore THE CORE REASON for income inequality (please include the word "income" so most people won't mistake the discussion to be about race in the 1950s)? Do they?
MY CROSS-POSTED COMMENT ON ANGRY BEAR YESTERDAY:
Do you have any idea at all how rare it is for anyone of your “ilk” to say the words “labor union” out loud?
Obama? Hill? B-E-R-N-I-E ?! Warren? Biden? DeLong? Thoma? K-R-U-G-M-A-N ?! Baker? Bernstein? Noah? even Robert Reich, former labor secretary and as committed a progressive as you can find?!!! Konczal? Drum? Ezra? Yglesias? Angry Bear? Naked Capitalism?
The list is endless — the mention is almost never. The road back couldn’t be more open and inviting.
The same means needed to put the Crips and the Bloods back to work stacking shelves and driving taxi cabs: make something a felony that is not even a ticket now: union busting. (Only way you will ever stop the Chicago shoot-em-ups.)
Any progressive state (WA, OR, CA, NV, IL, MD, NY) should have no trouble making union busting a felony. States can add to federal protections — not subtract.
At the federal level the NLRB needs to be able to mandate beatification elections when a finding of firing organizers or joiners is made. That is on the back burner until we change the culture to put the right kind of reps in DC. That will happen after we protect organizing in the states.
Nobody thinks outside of the frame of reference of no unions that we live in — when every problem we have just about is caused by no unions. so when are all the progressives going to start thinking outside the frame of reference they are accustomed to living in — AND START SHOUTING AND SCREAMING ABOUT THE RE-STORED UNION DENSITY THEY WANT (should want — if they ever thought about it out loud) TO LIVE IN?
Reply Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 07:27 AM
reason said in reply to Denis Drew...
Denis,
I realize that you are a one-trick pony, but you can't really believe that "every problem we have just about is caused by no unions". At that very least that is hyperbole.
Reply Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 07:37 AM
CONTINUED BELOW [space short]
Denis Drew said in reply to reason...
I see all these scandalous outrages ...
big pharma
for profit colleges
tax avoidance
etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.
... as cancers raging in the absence of any immune system.
And here's an etc., you haven't heard of: In 1977 in the Bronx they opened a beautiful new $120 million courthouse -- nothing wrong with the old courthouse then or now; built around the same year as my still pristine Cardinal Hayes High School about 10 blocks down the road -- but crime having skyrocketed, there simply wasn't room to handle all the work in the (truly) classic courthouse.
In 2004, for whatever mad motive Mayor (stop-and-frisk) Bloomberg opened a new $500 million dollar courthouse right next to the old-new ($120 million) courthouse -- after crime had dropped 75%!!! Ditto in Brooklyn for $750 million -- which being right across the Brooklyn Bridge from NYC city hall I presume was not replacing any dilapidated structure.
Links to pictures of these old, new-old and new structures in first couple of paragraphs here:
http://ontodayspage.blogspot.com/2014/03/obamas-148000th-activism-versus-real.html
My black and white TV, high school dropout generation would have carried any mayor out of town on a rail for proposing any such foolish expenditures. Now nobody never does nothing about nothing.
Late dean of the DC press corps, David Broder, said, that when he came to Washington 50 years earlier, all the lobbyists were union.
Upshot: high union density ...
... hopefully German level; but all I ask is MAKE IT POSSIBLE for people to organize IF THEY FEEL LIKE IT; just like any other economic decision they feel like, and get out of their way ...
... means not just heavy political muscle at election time but the concomitant of multiple fight-back mechanisms across the board on the part of unions who have the luxury of time to work at more than just desperately try to survive like today.
Reply Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 08:33 AM
Paine said in reply to Denis Drew...
I share your goal but not your sanguine expectations
Social democracy Teutonic style has run aground
Unions are easily co opted when their power to modify
Prohibits their power to over throw
Co operation with out conflict corrupts absolute co operation corrupts absolutely
Reply Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 05:36 PM
Peter K. said in reply to reason...
I agree with him. It would go a long, long way to solving these issues.
A strong union movement would solve political problems and then the economic and policy problems would follow with the roadblocks cleared.
That's why the rightwing destroyed unions.
Reply Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 10:37 AM
Paine said in reply to Peter K....
Without an organized disciplined well lead Wage class
nothing is possible beyond "charity "
But
Organization is never sufficient
Gains can be the path to Collaboration complacency contempt
Reply Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 05:40 PM
CONTINUED
Denis Drew said in reply to Denis Drew...
And don't forget the necessary concomitant of CENTRALIZED BARGAINING (every employee doing the same kind of job, e.g., retail clerk, works under one unified contract with all firms).
This prevents a Walmart from coming in and turning $800 supermarket jobs into $400 jobs. This also permits immigration (which is the pillars, plural, of our civilization) without tears.
With collective bargaining, labor's price is set by how much the consumer will put up with -- not how little labor will put up with. Centralized-collective bargaining perfectly insulates the wages of rich-country raised natives from being undermined by poor-country immigrants who would otherwise be willing to put up with so much less.
Bring on H-1B visas. Oh, and goodbye Crips and Bloods -- they'll be stacking shelves for $800 (not $400). And a big hello again to American raised taxi drivers (that's me, but I'm too old now -- not a market set price, but it will be a different culture).
Reply Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 07:50 AM
Paine said in reply to Denis Drew...
" With collective bargaining, labor's price is set by how much the consumer will put up with -- not how little labor will put up with. "
Catchy
But might this not
send
A bifurcated message
Pit wage labor against her exploiter
Not her customer
Reply Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 05:45 PM
Denis Drew said in reply to Paine ...
I'm just describing the way the market works. Whether we coll barg or set min wage, either way, we are really figuring how much the consumer will put up with.
Reply Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 09:14 PM
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2016/09/put-globalization-to-work-for-democracies.html
Denis Drew said...
IOW, worry more about the folks at home in rich countries (whatever the morality of that might be) or more Donald Trumps are on the way, world wide.
***************************
THE CONVERSE (CONCOMITANT) -- must read article by Rick Newman:
Why Clinton's pitch on the economy is so weak -- September 16, 2016
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-is-blowing-it-on-the-economy-193752302.html
Be good idea COMMUNICATE to those rich country folks that you are on their side -- and how you are on their side (THINK FDR!).
**************
I've been wondering for a long time how such intelligent and highly motivated people as Obama and the Clintons can be so useless.
Got a little insight (maybe) reading a book about the Vietnam war. Seems first JFK and then LBJ would repeat the same (super?) flawed information gathering approach over and over: sending fellow big shots from DC to interrogate fellow big wigs in Vietnam. Which big shots in Vietnam would predictably feed the DCs with whatever they wanted them to believe, they having their own big wig agendas.
A good size gathering of everyday level folks for Vietnam field level for several hours of interrogation for a few weeks would probably have told JFK and successor all they needed to know (JFK and successor being really, really talented at discerning what they needed to know -- if they ever got close enough to see it).
Universal problem for
Obama/Clintons
Macro econs/fresh water econs
JFK/LBJ
is ...
... and this will seem to simple to state (have to come up with a slicker presentatio) ...
... that big shots are positively sure that big shot thinking (whatever is CURRENT in DC politics/econ theories/foreign policy, military views) must be the broadest and deepest view of the real world because, well, er, uh, big wig thinking must by definition or something be the best thinking.
This may have been identified by others as a "bubble" -- but seems and all consuming bubble for some of our most brilliant.
Not getting close enough to the real world (street level world) to discern what is needed (labor unions in today's USA!!!!!!!!!!) is bad enough -- Hillary doesn't even communicate to the street level what she does know -- but the "discernment distance" is the core problem.
And what a problem -- for all of us.
*******************
More from Rick Newman:
What is Hillary Clinton’s economic plan? I conducted an informal poll in the Yahoo Finance newsroom, staffed by people who read news stories all day long and know a lot about what’s going on. A sampling of answers:
“Aw, geez.”
“I shouldn’t talk with my mouth full.”
“Whatever Obama’s plan is.”
“Help us with student debt?”
“She hasn’t come out with one yet, has she?”
“Infrastructure. More infrastructure.”
“Cut taxes?”
“Make sure unions get a fair shake. Is that right?”
“I have no idea.”
Reply Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 03:25 PM
http://www.bradford-delong.com/2016/09/must-read-arindrajit-dube-and-ethan-kaplan-2010-_does-outsourcing-reduce-wages-in-the-low-wage-service-occupations.html
Denis Drew said...
My low skilled job, taxi driving, has been virtually outsourced all over the world (Pakistan, Russia, Nigeria, Mexico, etc.).
Lack of collective bargaining makes a wages race to the bottom that is malignant enough all by its lonesome. (Taxi fares are not set by coll barg, but a unionized country would be a diff country.) But, throw in enough poor country raised immigrants and the race for home grown labor becomes fatal.
Collective bargaining -- plus the necessary concomitant of centralized bargaining would solve the race-bottom of security guards and janitors. More generally, with collective bargaining labor's price is set by
how much
the consumer will put up with (how we judge min wage hikes); not by
how little
labor will put up with ...
... worst of all, with a big enough cohort of poor country raised immigrant labor, with how very little labor will put up with.
We laugh at the "FBI Warning" preceding DVD movies. But you will actually draw a couple of years fed hospitality if you actually take a movie inside a movie house (for all the minor market warping that might cause).
There is no such every silly parallel in the labor market. Get caught firing organizers and you have to hire them back with back pay if any -- you can even fire them again for "something else" if in a vindictive mood. In any case there is no deterrent of any shape or form for blocking a union certification election -- Wild, Wild West.
Ultimate resolution at the NLRB level would be to mandate an election anytime there is finding of union busting -- new regulation awaiting a new Congress.
At the (progressive) state level (WA, OR, CA, NV, IL, MN, MD, NY, MA) union busting should be treated as as serious a free market cheat as, say, taking a movie in the movie. States can add to fed protections -- just not subtract -- so the logical next step is to make union busting a felony, automatically backed by RICO (the latter will keep employers from playing around with "something else").
100,000 Chicago gang age, minority males out of my guesstimate 200,000 are in street gangs. My diagnosis: because what could be (many were) $800 jobs pay $400. My explanation: willing immigrants minus collective bargaining (and centralized bargaining). Need look no further.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gang-wars-at-the-root-of-chicagos-high-murder-rate/
Collective bargaining will bring Fight for 15ers what they want much quicker (no five year wait for what's really $13.50 -- which the market would pay now if it will then) along with immediate relief from abuses like just-in-time work schedules, etc. Immediate, meaning imposed by the membership -- not dribbled by reluctant politicians.
High union density will bring answers to just about all the problems reviewed in these blog pages: drug monopolies, for profit schools, corporate tax avoidance -- because there will be enough people powered lobbyists minding all the many stores.
Collective bargaining is something you have to do anyway if you want a just and civilized society. So what (progressive) state wants to get the ball rolling.
Reply September 18, 2016 at 07:33 AM
Post a Comment