The pay packet crunch
Robert Reich, labour secretary in Clinton's administration and world-renowned economist, explains wh
By Robert Reich Published 02 October 2008
American voters go to the polls in five weeks. They are deeply angry about the bailout, voted down in the House of Representatives by 228 to 205. The bill will be enacted, though. Republicans will have to sign on because the Democrats, who control Congress, don't want to take full responsibility for one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation ever introduced. Conservative Republicans hate the idea of government taking over the free market. Liberal Democrats hate the idea of Wall Street fat cats getting a free ride on the backs of hard-working taxpayers. The more the public focuses on what has gone wrong, the angrier people become.
So why can we be sure the bailout will go forward? Because no member of Congress wants to be held responsible for the meltdown of the American economy. The stock market dropped precipitously on Monday after the House failed to pass the bailout bill - the largest one-day drop in history, by value. Roughly half of all American families have some retirement money in the stock market. And even if they don't own shares of stock, an increasing number are feeling the pinch of an economy gradually grinding to a halt.
Bailout or no bailout, the US economy is going into deep recession. One of the first things Congress will have to do when it returns in January - and one of the first initiatives of the next president - will be an economic "stimulus package", designed to get the economy moving through good old-fashioned Keynesian fiscal policy. Sad to say, even an adequate stimulus package will offer only temporary relief this time, because this is not a normal downturn.
The problem lies deeper. Most Americans can no longer maintain their standard of living. Remember, Wall Street's near-meltdown originated with the bursting of the great housing bubble. That bubble had allowed millions of Americans to take money out of their homes by using their rising home values as collateral for loans. But now the bubble has burst, those homes can no longer be used as piggy banks. As a result, America's huge middle class no longer has the money it needs to buy the goods and services that it produces.
The bubble masked this basic reality: for most Americans, earnings have not kept up with the cost of living. The earnings of non-government workers who are paid by the hour - and who comprise 80 per cent of the American workforce - are lower today than they were in 2000, adjusted for inflation. They are barely higher than they were in the mid-1970s. Indeed, the income of a man in his thirties is now 12 per cent below that of a man his age three decades ago. Productivity per person has grown considerably over the past three decades, and has continued to rise even in the lacklustre recovery of this decade. However, most Americans have not reaped the benefits of those productivity gains. The benefits have gone largely to the wealthy few.
The top 1 per cent of American earners now take home about 20 per cent of total national income. In 1980, the top 1 per cent took home just 8 per cent. Inequality on this scale is bad for many reasons, but it is particularly bad for the economy. The wealthy devote a smaller percentage of their earnings to buying things than the rest of us, because, after all, they're rich. They already have most of what they want. Instead of buying, the very wealthy are more likely to invest their earnings wherever around the world they can get the highest return.
This underlying earnings problem has been masked for years as middle- and lower-income Americans found means to live beyond their earnings, but they have now run out of such coping mechanisms. The first such mechanism was to send more women into paid work. Most women streamed into the workforce in the 1970s less because new professional opportunities opened up to them than because they had to prop up family incomes. The percentage of American working mothers with school-age children has almost doubled since 1970 - to more than 70 per cent. Yet there is a limit to how many mothers can maintain paying jobs.
So Americans turned to a second way of spending beyond their hourly wages. They worked more hours. The typical American now works more each year than he or she did three decades ago. Americans became veritable workaholics, putting in 350 more hours a year than the average European, more even than the notoriously industrious Japanese.
Yet there is also a limit to how many hours Americans can put into work, so Americans turned to a third coping mechanism. They began to borrow. With housing prices rising briskly through the 1990s and even faster from 2002 to 2006, they turned their homes into piggy banks. Now, with the bursting of the housing bubble, Americans are reaching the end of their ability to borrow and lenders have reached the end of their capacity to lend.
Regardless of the Wall Street bailout, typical Americans have run out of coping mechanisms to keep up their standard of living. That means there is not enough purchasing power in the economy to buy all the goods and services it is producing. We are finally reaping the whirlwind of widening inequality and ever more concentrated wealth.
The only way to keep the economy going over the long run is to increase the real earnings of middle- and lower-middle-class Americans. The answer is not to protect jobs through trade protection. That would only drive up prices of everything purchased from abroad. Most routine jobs are being automated anyway. Nor is the answer to give tax breaks to the very wealthy and to giant corporations in the hope they will trickle down to everyone else. We have tried that and it hasn't worked. Nothing has trickled down. The Wall Street bailout may be necessary in order to keep credit markets working, but it is almost irrelevant to this larger and more important story.
The long-term answer is for Americans to invest in the productivity of working people, enabling families to afford health insurance and have access to good schools and higher education, while also rebuilding infrastructure and investing in the clean energy technologies of the future. We must also adopt progressive taxes at the federal, state and local levels. We must rebuild the American economy from the bottom up. Bailout or no bailout for Wall Street, the economy of America's Main Streets cannot be rebuilt from the top down.
Robert Reich is professor of public policy, University of California at Berkeley, former US secretary of labour, and the author, most recently, of "Supercapitalism: the Battle for Democracy in an Age of Big Business" now available in the UK from Icon
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


21 comments
The major problem with the 'bailout' is that it's simply too litlle, too late. The scale of the blackhole at the heart of the US economy is arguably ten to twenty times the size of the bailout, and that's just the immediate problem, over the longer term the collapsing debt blackhole is probably bigger than anyone alive can comprehend.
It's been growing almost exponentially for a long time because the creation of debt was made so much easier and so much more profitable than actually investing in real products and real industries. Capitalism has evolved into a culture based on and biased towards unatural and unreal optimism, divorced from reality and only held together by the will and personalities of a tiny group of men who have personally profitted from the system they have created almost out of thin air.
Such an 'unreal' system can survive, like massive confindence trick or fraud, for a very long time, until having expanded way beyond the rational into the realm of fantasy it simply collapses under the weight of its own speculative nature. This is what is happening now. A systemic collapse of a gigantic fraud of unimaginable size.
The Paulson bailout is a sign of desparation, it's not a cure at all. 700 billion is peanuts. Like trying to patch the gash in the side of the Titanic with Gaffa tape. It won't work. It's not the right solution, and what's worse, there may not be a solution, within the confines of the stage of global capitalism we currently find ourselves languishing in. It may actually require a dreadfu collapse before the necessary 'reforms' can be implimented and heaven knows how long that will take.
Reich is partial correct that the American economy needs to be rebuilt from the bottom up, but the ruling elite also needs to be replaced by new people and new blood, this will require root and branch political reform, and this will be a gigantic task as the US political system is so slow to react to change. Returning the United States to a democratic republic when it's evolved into militeristic, world empire, isn't exactly going to be easy.
My father would say, and has often done so, that my and subsequent generations want too much. I reply that in his and in my and subsequent generations, many people do not get what they need because a few get more than they need.
Is it right that some must accept that they must cringe before the landed gentry and be satisfied with their lowly and inferior status?
Is it right that given an equal amount of effort expended one man earns a few shillings, and the other a few million pounds?
Ever since the depression generation was replaced with the baby boomers, the good old capitalist system has worked its butt off selling us the idea of perfect families and infinitely growing economies.
Its the combination of selling the fantasy ( because it is for most people in the world, even in the west) and lying to the people about the likelihood that if they over-consume they will be like us- the rich few- too.Problem is that driven by this as their measure of worth, people work longer and longer hours- to the cost of family relationships and health and civil society- and in the end mostly dont get the rewards they aspire to.
No longer is worth llinked with being a half decent person or trying to live a good life: its to do with "success" and "achievement".
And success has come more and more to be associated with monetary worth.
But the Catch 22 in the situation is that while our governments and capital corporations keep on spinning the spin about what a wonderful world we live in and how we have never been better off, those of us in households who actually go out and purchase the food, or pay for education or medicine know that gradually we are finding it less and less possible to even afford necessities.
I am not talking about pandemic overconsumption as if it is all the fault of the working people. And especially not the fault of those unfortunate not to even have a paying job.
Wages are falling at the same time as corporations are making bigger and bigger profits.
Our money, that which we spend in grocery stores and on petrol, and on housing goes somewhere. Someone is getting richer while we are getting poorer.
That is how our system works.
And that is what must change.
We the people need to insist that all workers get a living wage. From one job!
We all ought to be able to manage to buy the necessities of life-everywhere in the world.
If our governments promoted the production of goods that we needmore than goods we are taught to want, and invested money in their people- like with education and health care etc- then they would not need to invent evil enemies or fend off imaginary or real threats in order to appear to be doing something caring for us.
We do not need wars and more military hardware. we do not need star wars or missile defence.
What we need is for rich individuals and corporations to pay taxes so that our governments can provide the people with what we need to live fulfilling and productive lives.
And by the way- who needs wall street?
If we were paid adequate wages, we could sort out our own retirment without the need of rapacious hedge funds.
Bailing them out will not help ordinary workers and non workers families and individuals. All it will do is prop up a disgracefully exploitative system for another decade or so.
Then the sins of the fathrs will be visited on the next generation of sons- again.
Lavinia moore
@lavinia
"Bailing them out will not help ordinary workers and non workers families and individuals."
They're financial terrorists: don't bail them out, send the buggers to Guantanamo Bay.
righton.lol
The current financial crisis is man made, thus could be prevented.
There should be laws to set the limits of borrowing, lending, spending and financing by the various financial institutions and government bodies. Then there should also be a limit set for individuals who approve all money matters and should be made responsible both personally and the top management involved. This is to prevent individuals or top management from getting off the hook. They will then be more prudent in their decisions and actions.
Now, considering the total amount of the US financial debacle currently totalling USD13 trillion is only about 0.0933 percent of its GNP. If compared with the world's GNP the amount is negligible. But how can such an insignifcant amount in the first place be affecting the global economy? This is due to the irresponsible reporting by the media and the speculators. Instead of calming the public, the media created panic in the markets hand in hand with the speculators. These people should also be dealt with beacause they are the ones who have so many times sabotaged the global economy and yet no action has been taken against them!
The next thing to do is that the government must stop all unnecessary spendings, the obvious one being spending money on never ending wars!
i can't really make sense of the ideas put forward to explain the difference between income and lifestyle in this article.
obviously the goods which constitued 'lifestyle' thirty years ago are now cheaper, yet 'lifestyle' has come to require more goods, so slightly decreasing wages can't explain the lack of link between purchases and income.
as for an elite taking an unjust amount of profits without returning them to the economy, this very lack of spending should only lower the supply levels of the economy, lessening the difficulty for demand to match it.
the social splits described are doubtless a huge injustice in their own right, but surely the phenomenon of living beyond our means is in large part simple human fallacy, and if blame should be placed elsewhere, it is more fairly placed on any in the media and advertising who inflate expectancy of affluence for their own financial interest
ghoulardi, yes, it would reduce the supply, but many things are cheaper today, everything from the Far East is cheaper, but for the last 10 years or so and espacially the last 6 years, the inflation numbers are way below main street reallity. Our incomes and pensions are fix by these rigged numbers. The average American and Brit is much worse off, than they were 20 years ago.
Take food costs, not only have my Sainsburys Butchers Choice sausages gone up in price, they are not half the original size when they came out. Someone gave me a Club chocolate biscuit the other day, I couldn`t believe how much it had shrunk, so there`s much more to the cost of food.
The idea that people expect more in life is misplaced. Home ownership has hardly changed in 20 years and is now falling, car ownership has only increased in certain income brackets. A typical package holiday costs around £475-500 for two weeks per person, 20 years ago it was £350, but wages have not increase anywhere near as much over that period.
In the UK its typical to use credit cards to juggle the bills, this was standard practice in the US 10-15 years ago. They tell us average UK income is around £26,000, but in reallity, its near £19-20,000 and this isn`t much higher than 20 years ago.
All I`m saying is that all the numbers have been massarged many times over. The public have become INTOXICATED on NWO DEBT, so the NWO can perpetuate their sham globalisation project....now its run out of steam.
Just to put the 700 billion 'bailout' in some kind of perspective, apparently US banks in the last week have been 'borrowing' over 367 billion dollars a day, up from around 136 billion the previous week!
Where is this money coming from, or is it simply being conjured out of the air?
What seems to be happening is that the 'oil' that keeps the wheels of captalism turning smoothly, that means the creation of vast ammounts of liquidity and debt, is rapidly drying up, and the great machine may simply come to a messy stop, like a car engine without oil.
This is, of course, almost impossible to believe, surely something, someone, will appear and save us from this unimaginable fate? But as George Bush said the other day, 'this sucker could go down!'. This was the single most intelligent and astute thing he's ever said.
One of the worst things about this crisis is the idea that the 'credit crunch' is the cause of the crisis. It isn't. The credit crunch is merely a symptom of far more serious and deeper structural problems at the heart of capitalism.
The fact that it (capitalism) doesn`t work?
Carl,
I'm not sure about this, Carl. I think that capitalism does 'work' in a way. But it's the longterm consequences of 'working' that concern me, and then there's the problems that arise when it stops 'working', as it is now.