Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktTax the rich.
Yet most people I know don’t want to trade their slick smartphones for “Matrix”-era Motorolas. The people I know are happier now than they were in the ’90s. They do not see a 15.1 percent poverty rate as a cause for panic. Their wages are not lower than they were 14 years ago. Today’s high poverty rate is not, as far as I can tell, a mainstream concern. This is one of the reasons the American economy is in such trouble.
The Great Recession found most of its victims among the least educated Americans. The unemployment rate for Americans who lack both high school and college degrees is 23.9 percent. But these are not the people you will typically hear from in the mainstream media; they’re not a major force in popular culture or in the policy world. Among people with bachelor’s degrees or higher, the unemployment rate is 4.3 percent — close to the number that the Federal Reserve would accept as “full employment” if it applied to the country as a whole. I hate to use the phrase “skilled labor,” as it seems like a pretty haughty thing for a guy with a degree in theater who can’t change a tire to say, but the truth is that the economy has been unforgiving to those who tried to go right from high school into a trade.
The result is that we have 46 million people living below the poverty line — and for the most part, living there quietly.
And then he says: “America can’t afford 46 million poor without raising taxes on the rich.”
As many no doubt know, I’m open to more progressive taxation on the wealthy, and especially the super-duper-wealthy. But is wealth redistribution the answer to poverty? Could we ever, even in the most optimistic light, expect to be able to tax the wealthy enough to make up the gap, and bring the poor above the poverty line? Is a model that creates economic growth by taxing the wealthy, subsidizing the poor, and seeing economic growth proceed from there one that could possibly be sustainable?
I am very dubious. Not that I don’t think the rich can afford, and maybe should be paying, more money for more government projects, money to the space program, infrastructure, and maybe even expanding medicare or shoring up Social Security.
One more thing: I commonly argue that context matters, and that it’s a worthwhile thing to consider modern American poverty in the light of worldwide poverty, both present day and historically. The common response to this is the same one the author brings up. That is, yes, poverty in America may be much better than poverty in Nigeria, but “is ‘better than Nigeria’ really a standard we want to adopt in judging American economic conditions?”
Of course not. But if you never stop to appreciate what you have achieved, and what few successes you’ve won, how do you know you are making any progress at all? Moreover, what’s the point in trying to make progress? No point in fighting a war on poverty, because as long as anybody has less than anybody else, you’ve accomplished nothing.
I’m rambling. It’s late. I should go to bed. I just happened to read that Op-Ed in The Daily, and I thought I would share it.
Good night to all, and good morning to many.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
Hi Kevin and thanks for the invite. Hello to all.I take your point but I believe you've have a flaw in your premise."Yet most people I know don’t want to trade their slick smartphones for “Matrix”-era Motorolas."I think it would depend on how that is actually viewed…yeah nobody would say take my technological gains and creature comforts…HOWEVER if matched with a benefit…for example in the case of my wife and I a concurrent drop in the stress level…I think you might be surprised at how many would join my wife and I in what we'd be willing to give up. Our cottage on Lake Superior is the one of the most valued possessions in my life, however we're getting ready to put it on the market if the economy doesn't improve. I've already given up my golf membership. I could have kept the golf…and hopefully will be able to keep the cottage…but at some point it gets really tiring laying awake at night wondering how to pay for it all if the economy keeps going down the tubes.I'm blessed to be a member of a club…just the gym now, can't afford the golf lol…point is the members are among the wealthier people of St. Petersburg. I've talked to friends worth over 10 million who look at THEIR friends and feel anxiety. Many of the folks in the "club" (metaphorical as well as physical) have now borrowed against their retirements and they are sucking for air. I think they'd gladly dump their cellphones..200 channels of cable…fancy cars etc if they could just regain some sense of security.I'm happy you hang with a more successful group Kevin..truly…my experience is that this recession has hit the vast majority of us including the upper middle class. If you ask me if I'm better off than I was ten years ago the answer would be a resounding NO in financial terms. I take pleasure though that my life has improved in so many areas. And if I might close by ripping off the Beatles…"Can't Buy Me Love"If there is a silver lining to this horrible crsis it's that it has brought my wife and I closer together. Oh that it would have the same effect on our society.
LikeLike
Kevin: Is a model that creates economic growth by taxing the wealthy, subsidizing the poor, and seeing economic growth proceed from there one that could possibly be sustainable?You may be surprised by me, but the answer is yes. The reason I say that is because we already have that system, and have sustained it. Which is precisely what is wrong with Maiello's piece. It makes little sense to point to official poverty statistics, as Maiello does, and say "See, we need more welfare". It makes no sense because the poverty statistics don't include government transfer payments and other assistance that already exists. Things like food stamps and public housing were designed to, and do, alleviate conditions of poverty (and, BTW, provide the poor with more disposable income than they otherwise would have), but poverty statistics do not reflect this reality. We could take his advice, tax the rich more and gave even more to the poor, and nothing would change.Also, poverty is always and everywhere relative, as his comparison to Nigeria demonstrates. Maiello's complaint that we don't want to make Nigerian poverty our measure of success is kind of silly. Pointing out that Americans in poverty live outrageously better than Nigerians in poverty is simply proving that we don't. What if we could show that Americans in poverty in 2011 live better than Americans in poverty in 1960? Would that be a reasonable measure of success? Because it is true.Maiello dismisses the material well-being of Americans in poverty by saying that "cheap consumer goods are no replacement for real wealth and good wages." This makes no sense to me. What makes a wage "good" or wealth "real" if not as a measure of what one can buy with it?Maiello is essentially arguing that we should do more of what we already do based on observations that ignore what we already do. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
LikeLike
Welcome, ruk! Very glad you're here, if even just to visit. But I do hope to see you more often. I just can't go back to PL until beach is gone.scott, we might actually be close to agreement on something and I'm almost as left as they come. I do not think more handouts are the answer because "real wealth and good wages" to me means the satisfaction of earning it yourself, doing a good job, etc., while earning more than you would get on the dole. In other words, dignity and a sense that it's actually possible to make it up the ladder another rung or two. So rather than increased handouts, we need to figure out a better way to build a bridge from poverty to meaningful employment, whether that is more emphasis on education, better public transportation to enable these folks to get to a job, you get the idea. Yet we are cutting those very kinds of expenditures.
LikeLike
And, of course, there have to be JOBS.
LikeLike
Hi ruk, glad you made it. I pretty much agree with okie on this. I think the war on poverty has been a pretty dismal failure and the key to ending poverty is jobs. Whether that means through bringing manufacturing jobs back, if that's even possible, education/training, public transportation or some other inspired idea we need to do it. I also believe one of the reasons unemployment is so much higher at the lower income levels is that some of the more educated workers are taking jobs that may have gone to less educated citizens during normal circumstances.
LikeLike
okie:So rather than increased handouts, we need to figure out a better way to build a bridge from poverty to meaningful employment, whether that is more emphasis on education, better public transportation to enable these folks to get to a job, you get the idea.Would you be willing to trade government regulation for jobs? For example, If you knew that getting rid of a particular environmental regulation would result in 5,000 new jobs, would you be open to doing that? Obviously it would depend upon the regulation itself, but I am just wondering if you would be open to the idea in principle.
LikeLike
Hey, ruk! :o)Morning, okie!A couple quick thoughts here before I have to go for the day….I recently heard some commentary on NPR that the US is moving decidedly toward becoming an "hourglass" society where there are a lot of people at the top and a lot of people at the bottom, with a very narrowed middle class. I don't see how that will be beneficial to us maintaining our place as a world leader, especially if our international competition continues to grow their middle class while ours shrinks.I also agree that hand-outs are not the answer in the long term. Most people want to work and be productive, self-supporting. I don't deny that there are abusers, and there always will be, but I don't think that the majority of the unemployed and under-employed are refusing to work.As okie notes, there have to be jobs. With all the talk of raising the retirement age for SS, how do we accomplish that if jobs are scarce?
LikeLike
scott, to me that depends entirely on the regulation. I am not convinced that regulations are an impediment to job creation. Got a specific regulation in mind that you can prove would result in new jobs?
LikeLike
I also believe one of the reasons unemployment is so much higher at the lower income levels is that some of the more educated workers are taking jobs that may have gone to less educated citizens during normal circumstances.Say it over and over and over again! It's a double whammy, increasing both unemployment and underemployment.
LikeLike
Morning, sue. Best of luck with the kiln work today. Hope to see you this evening.
LikeLike
okie:I am not convinced that regulations are an impediment to job creation.I don't see how it can be denied. To me the question isn't whether regulations are a drag on the economy. The real question is whether the expected benefit of a particular regulation is worth the inevitable economic trade-off.Got a specific regulation in mind…No. I was just curious if you were opposed in principle, and if you recognized the inherent trade-off.
LikeLike
I believe another impediment during this economic downturn to employment is that so many 60+ citizens are unable to retire freeing up what jobs there are for younger, less skilled workers. Increasing the age of retirement via SS or the age of Medicare eligibility will not solve this problem but may in fact exacerbate it.
LikeLike
scott, I do recognize the inherent trade-off. I should not have been so simplistic in my statement. Perhaps I should say that except for a very few industries, e.g., coal, I am not convinced there is a direct link between the two. But IMHO clean air and water, etc. cannot be traded away for a few jobs so I am a hard sell on this one. More jobs are not much improvement if we're all sick and dying from pollution.
LikeLike
The Laffer analogy applies to government regulation of the marketplace, to much is bad and too little is bad. Hobbes, Leviathan. Regulation has to be optimized and it can always be improved. Fair trade creates the most best jobs and upward mobility, the crucial promise of capitalism. Utterly free trade is as catastrophic as totalitarian regulation of trade.
LikeLike
too, not to, aak I hate that, ruk, if I punish myself each time this way, I maybe can train myself to proof read my posts mo betta.
LikeLike
okie:But IMHO clean air and water, etc. cannot be traded away for a few jobs so I am a hard sell on this one.But our air and water are not as clean as they could be even now. Should we cease all industrial production that puts any amount of pollution in the air? Should we dismantle all our sewage systems because they put impurities into the ocean? I'm sure you don't believe we should.As always, the question is whether the marginal benefit is worth the marginal cost.More jobs are not much improvement if we're all sick and dying from pollution.The EPA wasn't created until the 1970, and yet somehow the country managed to increase its population in every 10 year period prior to that. We're not all going to be sick and dying from pollution if we stop trying to outlaw carbon emissions.
LikeLike
How ironic…a fine illustration too"Hundreds of villagers in eastern China have held three days of protests at a solar panel plant over pollution fears. Around 500 people started gathering at Zhejiang Jinko Solar company in Haining city, Zhejiang province, on Thursday.Some of protesters stormed the factory, overturning several company cars and destroying offices, officials said.Residents in the nearby village of Hongxiao said they became concerned after the deaths of a large number of river fish." BBC
LikeLike
China's corporate rent seekers make ours, whether TBTF banks, or General Dynamics, or General Motors, seem like amateurs. No regulations! Only our lunch is free!
LikeLike
scott, on your first point: Agreed that we need to be practical and look at the trade-off. This is one area that I firmly believe we are better off going full-speed into another area of "green jobs" if you will, i.e., technologically developing better and less costly methods of reducing pollution. As with coal, there might be some larger costs in the initial implementation but I think we would be better off in the long run.On your second point, you are inching over to a discussion of climate change. We know much more about the effects of pollution than we did in 1970. Are you positing that there is not a cumulative effect?I'm off to church and then work, but I'll check back in here later. I would love to hear your suggestions rather than just questions; we may not be that far apart.
LikeLike
The enemy isn't the FDIC (how laughable), the enemy is crony capitalism, "free" trade, pay to play, the spoils system, race to the bottom, that we commonly refer to as globalization.
LikeLike
Oh and the massive population increase is exactly why environmental regulations have to become more rigorous. If you don't think the world isn't sick and dying from pollution, you aren't paying attention. We exported a lot of environmental degradation along with those manufacturing jobs, but the air over China becomes the air over the United States in just a few days. And the oceans are dying, one fishery, one estuary, one reef at a time.
LikeLike
Okie, do you think it's possible for regulations to demand standards that provide little demonstrable additional benefit, arsenic at parts per trillion, for example, that can have consequences like making it fiscally for certain townships to have water? Any conceivable regulation designed to ensure clean air and water, so regulations should be considered in the larger context of consequences. Certainly, there are regulations that may move some manufacturing to China in order that they polite their country instead, but there are also other regulations that are financial, or even designed to protect jobs, that can potentially cost jobs. Clearly, not every regulation has a negative job cost, just as some regulations may have a negligible real world benefit. But once we got 'em, it's hard to get rid of them.
LikeLike
Everyone agrees with your second paragraph Kevin. There is no binary, regs good, regs bad issue, the question is, how do we want to live?
LikeLike
On a related topic, wowzer, the Bosh are serious about getting out of nuclear power.
LikeLike
Free trade gone bad, UBS has added another $300,000,000. to the $2,000,000,000. it says their free trader lost. Bet they'll be looking into some regulations that will inhibit agility, innovation and creative investment strategies.
LikeLike
Hi, ruk–Kevin, I have some sympathy with this argument from the inevitability standpoint–the poor ye shall always have with ye sort of thing. And, admire it or not, a big part of the American dream is the desire to make a buck and, not just to feed a family but in a truly acquisitive sense. Donald Trump didn't create the mold.But there's a big jump from acknowledging this to accepting the current state of play in the Republican party and the idea that raising taxes on the rich means economic suicide for the country and that keeping or expanding their tax breaks and cuts is sacrosanct. It's a wacked notion, and it's become way too mainstream in political statements and media coverage even if polls indicate most Americans aren't on board.
LikeLike
shrink:it says their free trader lost.Self-serving mischaracterizations may make you feel good (or perhaps funny), but they don't really serve the purpose of making a coherent point. It's a dead certainty that UBS doesn't call or consider him a "free trader".
LikeLike
oh no, he's a rogue, like Palin I guess, but if made money, he'd be promoted and if traders aren't free, then no on is free!Here is a heartwarming, "we won't protect your money" story, WaMu, Countrywide, BoA the rogues gallery…hope they spend that $36 wisely.http://tinyurl.com/3emlyff
LikeLike
My boys! Socialists, DeFazio and Sanders can save SS, but of course that would be class war.http://tinyurl.com/3e8pa9mDeFazio doesn't like the jobs bill either, but who cares, he's a sanctimonious professional leftist who needs a diaper change and doesn't understand the art of the possible in a center right country.DeFazio was one of the strongest critics – from either party – immediately after the President outlined his plan Thursday before a joint session of Congress and a national TV audience.DeFazio says, “This bill has the same misplaced priorities and the same scatter-shot approach. More than 50 percent of the spending will be for tax cuts and less than 12 percent will be investment in infrastructure to put people back to work and make our nation more competitive,” he said that night. He expressed similar concerns in an interview." Oregonian
LikeLike
Ok, last one for me today…http://tinyurl.com/65ju79fSomeone should tell the wine producers, Republicans know global warming is a myth, or it is natural and we're not making it worse. Either way, I wonder what is going to happen when the middle latitudes become deserts. Not everyone can move to Canada. Gotta run!, the Walla Walla (over $1B in wine money invested there in the last 10yrs) 1/2 marathon is on 10/16!
LikeLike
shrink:oh no, he's a rogue, like Palin I guess, but if made money, he'd be promotedUnlikely. They'd have breathed a sigh of relief and fired him anyway, much more quietly. The notion that trading operations don't care about violations of risk position limits or active attempts to hide those violations as long as the violation makes money is absurd. Besides, although it hasn't been explained precisely what this guy was doing, it's almost a certainty that if he was making money, he wouldn't have compelled to either hide his positions or violate the limits.Your unbridled cynicism (I am willing to call it that) does not serve you well, shrink. Especially regarding things with which you have no experience.
LikeLike
As lms pointed out elsewhere, there are some good new (to me) comments I had missed on scott's FDIC post.Sorry this is a drive-by for now, but I'll be back later.
LikeLike
Some of this stuff with the great quotes and data ought to find itsnway into an official blog post, shrink. I'm just saying.
LikeLike
BTW, I'm a cynic. Optimist, but cynic. I think shrink is really a pessimist. But I certainly hope I'm wrong about that.
LikeLike
Scott, may I first note how neatly you segued this thread from poverty to environment and regulations. Perhaps we should start an environmental regulations post? I would start with Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s “Crimes Against Nature,” published 2005 I believe. Been a while since I read it so I would need to review. If you have never read it, at least a skim might be informative and it’s not a long read in entirety anyway. On the environmental topic, As always, the question is whether the marginal benefit is worth the marginal cost. I think this best summarizes where we are in the conversation. Generally agree with you within certain parameters, not sure we would agree on where that line would be best drawn. I’m not advocating runaway knee-jerk regulation. But I think we run into a serious impediment in being able to measure benefit vs cost. Do you have any sources that quantify in some way the benefits of env regs vs quantified costs?
LikeLike
Kevin, yes. But see my comment to scott above; I think we have a measurement issue and possibly some disagreement where the line is balancing the two is drawn. I would hope for less politicization (is that a real word?) and more scientific basis. I think jobs cost should be in the equation.This is weird. I had a previous paragraph to this comment that is cut off in preview. kevin, help!
LikeLike
1st paragraph to previous comment:do you think it's possible for regulations to demand standards that provide little demonstrable additional benefit, arsenic at parts per trillion, for example, that can have consequences like making it fiscally for certain townships to have waterkevin, I figured out one thing I had wrong, but in addition just now figured out that you cannot (at least within html codes) include a question mark even in a quote.
LikeLike
I am neither cynical nor a pessimist. But I think Republicans as a political force are cynical pessimists (look out! who is getting a free lunch [rich people excepted, obviously, they earned it], the witch hunt that never stops: get the poor free lunch seekers) and that is no joke.Scott, I am not willing to tell you what I think about you, so be nice, show respect, let's just give your opinion of what is wrong with me a rest, ok?Meanwhile…
LikeLike
"Some of this stuff with the great quotes and data ought to find itsnway into an official blog post, shrink. I'm just saying."What are you saying? How do I know whether a quote is any good? I can't tell the difference between commenting and posting. As long as you don't mind new posts that attract no comments…I don't know.If there are lots of new posts, conversations can't develop and mature. But if there are not, comments become non sequiturs and there are too many conversations, so Kevin, tell me what you think about new post criteria. Because I don't know what just sayin' means.
LikeLike
shrink:let's just give your opinion of what is wrong with me a rest, ok?Don't exaggerate. I didn't say anything about what is wrong with you. I said simply that your cynicism doesn't serve you well when talking about things with which you have no experience.Your claim was the very epitome of cynicism. And wrong. QED
LikeLike
I will now leave this place for a few days,or more.
LikeLike
okie:Scott, may I first note how neatly you segued this thread from poverty to environment and regulations.Not really my intent. Enviro regs are just the most high profile regs at this point, so an obvious choice for an example.But I think we run into a serious impediment in being able to measure benefit vs cost.Yes, that is a big problem. Particularly before the fact.Do you have any sources that quantify in some way the benefits of env regs vs quantified costs?Nope. But I am sure there are plenty out there to be found. And I would bet that you'll find various studies coming to diametrically opposed conclusions.
LikeLike
Thanks, scott. I'll set to looking for some sources on costs and benefits of environmental regs in my spare time. I suspect you are correct about "diametrically opposed conclusions."
LikeLike