The pay packet crunch

Robert Reich

Published 02 October 2008

Robert Reich, labour secretary in Clinton's administration and world-renowned economist, explains why the American economy is grinding to a halt

The pay packet crunch

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

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

21 comments from readers

Carl Jones
02 October 2008 at 12:25

This is one of the most significant articles to appear on the NS.

However, we are in a globalised world and what Robert tells us about the American condition, also applies to Britain. I have said it in several previous comments. We Brits are 20% poorer in real terms than we were 20 years ago.

The blame can be laid at the feet of the globalization scam. This is the real reason why the elite have crashed the markets and asset stripped the banks. Globalization has ended and the bailout will fail, but will buy the NWO crooks some extra time.

As Robert points out, there have been significant productivity gains, yet Amerikans are poorer than ever....this is not capitalism, this is communism with incentives, but the so called incentives have been hyped using cooked numbers....false inflation, false unemployment and false growth.

Americans have been angry for years. The MSM has hidden this from Americans in context to seeing it reported by the MSM and the wider world. New Orleans got close to the truth) There are angry Brits as well, but they are censored when trying to phone in on BBC Radio 5 Live....the truth must never break through.

The British government is nationalising banks as if it were normal function of government.....the British people never voted for this!!!!lol

The American public should call the elites bluff....NO BAILOUT what so ever.

platonicnumber
02 October 2008 at 12:57

"Running with hare and hunting with hounds" is what comes to mind after reading this, very good, article.

Its akin to a macNamara mia culpa documentry

'Embeded' intelectuals, like Prof. Reich, have also to put their hands up, as I believe they have and still are driving short termist elite-oriented economic and cultural agendas.

writeon
02 October 2008 at 13:06

Reich's analysis is correct, as far as it goes. And there'e the rub, it doesn't go far enough. It avoids the harsh realities of the 'class war' policies pushed through over the last thirty odd years. The Reagan/Thatcher 'revolution' that have gutted civil society, weakened democracy and allowed a financial aristocracy to take control of virtually the entire economy.

Reversing this 'model', which has become so entrenced, for which there is no alternative, is not going to be easy. Building or rather re-building the economy from the ground up, is a monumental undertaking.

It means challenging the vested interests of a small but incredibly powerful elite who have profitted massively from the social and economic policies of the last few decades. Reagan and Thatcher were 'class warriors' first and formost, taking on their ideology requires a form of 'reverse class war' to promote the interests of the working and middle class against those of the fabulously wealthy elite. I believe this can only be done through 'mobilizing' these two groups politically.

However, the American middle and working class are not particularly well represented in the political system at all. For example, it's hard to find a member of Congress who isn't a millionaire.

If one is serious, and Reich appears to be, and recognizes the scale of the problem, solving it will require concerted political will and action. The last time this occured was during the Great Depression and the New Deal. The current ruling elite is rapidly losing prestige. power and legitimacy. This is an opportunity to initiate change and reforms, but will it be grasped?

Reich seems to believe that what's required is a kind of New Deal to put the United States on an even keel and pointed in a new direction. However, is a New Deal possible without a Great Depression?

writeon
02 October 2008 at 13:33

However, seen from another perspective, maybe Reich is just hopelessly old-fashioned and nostaligic for a world that's gone for ever, the strong, cosy, America, of his youth. Nothing will bring it back, and the sooner Americans accept it and move on the better it'll be for them and everyone else!

FrancisNibiru
02 October 2008 at 17:11

WELL SAID

writeon
02 October 2008 at 21:33

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.

lavinia moore
03 October 2008 at 06:31

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

Cybertiger
03 October 2008 at 18:04

@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.

Carl Jones
03 October 2008 at 20:00

righton.lol

percy_clark@hotmail.com
04 October 2008 at 18:26

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

Carl Jones
04 October 2008 at 21:14

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.

writeon
04 October 2008 at 21:33

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.

Carl Jones
06 October 2008 at 20:48

The fact that it (capitalism) doesn`t work?

writeon
07 October 2008 at 08:15

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.

JohnL
07 October 2008 at 18:07

Middle class survival over the last 30 years or so was not just fuelled by both adults working, enduring longer hours of work and running up debt. The real cost of things that give the allusion of wealth, new homes (excluding the land), televisions, food, and a cornucopia of consumer toys, have fallen quite dramatically. The only thing I can think of that goes against that trend is health care. Is it any wonder that most personal bankruptcies in the US, and hence many of the mortgage foreclosures, are the result of medical costs!

This middle class survival has come at the expense of the poor. Decent working class jobs have evaporated overseas to be replaced, for some, by temporary minimum wage work. The shift of wealth to the rich is dramatic but there are few of them. The shift from poor to middle class may not be as great but there are many many more of them

So, in that context, I'm not sure what "invest in the productivity of working people" means. Also, I'm not sure that "The answer is not to protect jobs through trade protection" is correct

Most want to see ordinary folk back in decent employment with health care and quality education for their children. Only then may benefits trickle up.

To get there an economic structure is needed that would give advantage to local production, the thing we want, and disadvantage transportation which we don't want. Possibly taxation on transportation could accomplish this with revenue rolled back into local enterprises. If governments buy us out of this mess by funding small local development and diversified agriculture before the taxes kick in the poor may no longer be poor and can afford the increased costs.

Finally "Wall Street fat cats getting a free ride on the backs of hard-working taxpayers". Yes, but what about the hard-working taxpayers getting a free ride out of the backs of the poor (both in the US and the Far East.)

writeon
07 October 2008 at 20:19

I think what we need is completely different social and economic strategy, a brutal and almsot total reversal of the last thirty years of rightwing 'trickledown' economic policies.

Trickledown meant favourizing the rich first, as they were the 'best' and 'most productive' layer in society, and hoping that eventually the newly created wealth would spread to the rest of society. This was of course thinly disguised 'class warfare'. Bascally everyone else was meant to live off and be grateful for the crumbs from the table of the rich.

This strategy, though conceptually ridiculous and emperically false, has never-the-less been extremely popular, especially among those who directly benefitted from it?

Of course one of the biggest problems was that there was less and less wealth left to trickle downwards as everyone too their cut. It was a propaganda confidence trick played on society, almost like a chain-letter scam.

If we want to avert the current crisis we need to direct resources at the bottom end first, not at the top.

Nationalize all the financial institutions and stop people losing their homes. Free healtcare for all. A job creation programme. Directing resources from the military towards a Green New Deal. Breaking up the media corporations. Root and branch reform of all our democratic institutions. Education reform. Free public transport.

One could make a longer list, but that's enough to begin with.

Carl Jones
08 October 2008 at 20:09

Johnl; do some research on the growth in government related employment. Sure, the trinkets are getting cheaper, our manufacturing is shrinking, hidden taxes are rising and UK debt is going through the roof.

US foreclosures have nothing to do with medical costs. Some people in the US were earning $30,000 and getting $1,000,000 mortgages, I very much doubt that an American earning £15,000 was paying for medical insurance.

writeon
08 October 2008 at 21:04

Unfortunately, I think the signs are all pointing in one very ominous direction, and that is towards economic meltdown, followed by a long and very deep slump, comparable to the Great Depression.

The debt blackhole created by financial capitalism unbound is simply too big to be filled by the state or the taxpayer. It would, on balance, be better to allow the banks to be swallowed whole, rather than let them drag the rest of the economy and the country into the abyss as well. Of course the question arises, could we live without the banks? But can we really live with them anymore?

JohnL
08 October 2008 at 22:11

Carl Jones: Although I agree with your first paragraph, the point I wanted to make is that the shift in wealth to the rich is (at least in the States) part of a continuum. The middle class losses to the rich were partly offset by cheap goods and services. These have come at the expense of the poor as manufacturing jobs moved offshore and many low-end services are now performed by casual/illegal/migrant workers. All leading to a loss to the “lower” classes.

I have no sympathy for people earning $30,000 and getting $1,000,000 mortgages. My concern is for the 2 million Americans who experienced "medical bankruptcy" in 2001.

Writeon: Thanks for your suggestions for actually solving this mess. Too much hand wringing about what is wrong and vague statements about “structural change”.

nawawimohamad
10 October 2008 at 04:32

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!

navel-gazer
12 October 2008 at 08:36

Thank you Professor Reich for speaking out about the widening gap between the rich and poor. Regarding your “long-term answer” however, I infer, that you want Governments to spend more taxes doing, what they are supposed to be doing already! It’s like “Oliver” saying “Please Sir, I want some more!”. I expect the answer will be another famous fictional quote “Let them eat Cake!”.

I believe we need to address the cause and not the symptom. That cause is that most western countries don’t have proper separation of Market and Government. While central banks now provide a buffer to prevent undue Government interference with the Market, there are few barriers to the Market interfering with Government.

Simply, voters no longer control western governments, they just elect them. We have let the Market (Corporations, Moneyed Elites, Special Interest Power Brokers & their Lobbies) buy our Politicians and our Governments. We’ve gone to sleep at the wheel and the worst of the crash is still to come.

Capitalism is based on Greed & Ambition, which is also the path to Monopoly and to Tyranny. The interests of Individuals, Nations & the Environment need independent representation. We must sever the Market’s undue influence over Government by banning all private funding of politics.

Only then will our Governments and Institutions be free to act as the independent checks & balances against a Globalised World Market, motivated by Greed & Ambition, that they were originally designed to be.

It will not be that simple of course. Once again we have sold our birthright for a mess of pottage and I dread to think of the number of martyrs & the amount of blood it will take to buy back our freedom this time.

navel-gazer

Nicholas Clark

nrclark@dodo.com.au

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

You may enter up to 2000 characters (about 300-350 words)

Characters left:

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Read More

Vote!

Will China rule the world?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker