|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 5:34 am Post subject: The Consumption Compromise |
 |
|
Bang on.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200810u/consumption-compromise
| Quote: |
Inequality Bites
Barbara Snodgrass, one of the voters George Packer profiles in his report on Ohio's white working class, is a woman of some political sophistication. She works two jobs, barely stays ahead of the mounting costs of her house, her commute, and other basics like groceries. Yet Snodgrass's political analysis beats that of most professional pundits. The next president should take heed.
After dismissing McCain as essentially Bush-like, Snodgrass questions the political realism of Barack Obama's domestic policy. Can Obama raise taxes only on Americans making over $250,000, she asks? And will he raise taxes on someone like her? Packer notes that the two percent of Americans who earn over $250,000 account for more than a tenth of national income, and he suggests that Snodgrass's fears are misguided. But the state of the budget, the cost of Obama's core proposals, and a political landscape in which affluent anti-AMT Democrats will have considerable influence, suggests that Snodgrass is right to distrust Obama's promises, not to mention John McCain's, which are even more unmoored from reality. Instead, Snodgrass wants to hear concrete proposals that address "your daily life, your daily day, job, family, what you do that keeps you from robbing the video store down the street." She has shown how to understand America's angry and anxious electorate.
Until recently, many observers, most of them on the left, have puzzled over why rising inequality hasn't sparked an outright political revolt. Well, here's why. Real income matters less than quality of life. And for the last two decades, a delicate Consumption Compromise has tamped down economic discontent among working-class voters by driving down the cost of living�we've been living in the era of cheap food, cheap gas, cheap credit, and, of course, cheap Chinese-made goods.
From 2000 to 2005, mean real money earnings rose for the four percent of the U.S. electorate that has professional graduate degrees and doctorates; all other groups saw a decrease. That's right: college graduates saw their mean real money earnings decline, and there was even sharper backsliding among those with less education. At the same time, the democratization of finance allowed consumption smoothing�spend tomorrow's money today�and the quality of consumer goods improved. Granted, this was small solace, but it gave a large number of Americans the sense that they were making economic progress.
During the same period, better-off workers�those in the top tenth�were hit by a spike in the cost of living. Two University of Chicago economists, Christian Broda and John Romalis, have looked at the inflation rates of consumer goods for the top tenth and the bottom tenth of American households. Because poor families spend a larger share of their income on tradable goods �think of the imported goods you find at Wal-Mart or Target� they've profited tremendously from free trade. Rich families spend a bigger share of their income on non-tradable services�hiring help, eating out, etc. As a result, the rich experienced a much higher effective inflation rate than the poor between 1994 and 2005. If ever you wonder why the populism of Al Gore or John Edwards resonated with affluent voters more than with the working class, look for the beginnings of an answer right there.
Since 2005, working-class voters' wages haven't improved. But thanks to a combination of the housing bust, ethanol subsidies, a bottleneck in refining capacity, low-sulfur regulations, and the collapse of the dollar, the Consumption Compromise has come undone. The outrage over gas prices was the beginning. The Republican right promises to "Drill Here, Drill Now" to lower your gas prices. But what will they do to address skyrocketing food prices and healthcare premiums, or access to consumer credit? They can't do very much, at least not yet. And as for the Democrats, they can promise redistribution or a more equitable tax code. But can an increased flow of transfers keep up with the rising cost of a middle-class life without choking off economic growth? And there is the drive to price carbon, an effort many believe to be essential to human survival� yet one that will, by necessity, cut against our highly mobile way of life.
Can the Consumption Compromise be revived? Probably not. The Compromise rested on American financial hegemony, and those days have ended. The right and the left will have to do nothing less than rethink our way of life.
|
Flat incomes were offset with more access to credit. What's next? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
What brought on the economic meltdown of 2008? Besides the bursting of the housing bubble, Wall Street's malfeasance and non-feasance, and Washington's massive failure to oversee Wall Street, fingers are also being pointed at average Americans. Some of them took on mortgages they couldn't afford, of course, but we're also hearing a more basic theme that goes something like this: For too long, Americans have been living beyond our means. We went too deeply into debt. And now we're paying the inevitable price.
The "living beyond our means" argument, with its thinly-veiled suggestion of moral terpitude, is technically correct. Over the last fifteen years, average household debt has soared to record levels, and the typical American family has taken on more of debt than it can safely manage. That became crystal clear when the housing bubble burst and home prices fell, eliminating easy home equity loans and refinancings.
But this story leaves out one very important fact. Since the year 2000, median family income has been dropping, adjusted for inflation. One of the main reasons the typical family has taken on more debt has been to maintain its living standards in the face of these declining real incomes.
It's not as if the typical family suddenly went on a spending binge --- buying yachts and fancy cars and taking ocean cruises. No, the typical family just tried to keep going as it had before. But with real incomes dropping, and the costs of necessities like gas, heating oil, food, health insurance, and even college tuitions all soaring, the only way to keep going as before was to borrow more. You might see this as a moral failure, but I think it's more accurate to view it as an ongoing struggle to stay afloat when the boat's sinking.
The "living beyond our means" argument suggests that the answer over the long term is for American families to become more responsible and not spend more than they earn. Well, that may be necessary but it's hardly sufficient.
The real answer over the long term is to restore middle-class earnings so families don't have to go deep into debt to maintain what was a middle-class standard of living. And that requires, among other things, affordable health insurance, tax credits for college tuition, good schools, and an energy policy that's less dependent on oil, the price of which is going to continue to rise as demand soars in China, India, and elsewhere.
In other words, the way to make sure Americans don't live beyond their means is to give them back the means. |
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/10/post-meltdown-mythologies-i-americans.html
In lieu of rising incomes, Americans were given larger credit lines to create the illusion of rising standards of living. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bigfeet
Joined: 29 May 2008
Location: Grrrrr.....
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The first article is good, the second one is just pandering to the audience. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cornfed
Joined: 14 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Until recently, many observers, most of them on the left, have puzzled over why rising inequality hasn't sparked an outright political revolt. Well, here's why. |
Possibly because there has been an intensive and successful propaganda effort to claim that the system still throws lots of money at anyone except complete losers, and if you are not filthy rich then it must be because of some unspecified but horrific personality disorder on your part. Because of the fracturing and dividing of society, this may seem plausible even to victims since they are not in direct contact with other people who are hurting and instead only see images on TV of young, good looking people indulging in every kind of financial and sexual excess. That and mass-drugging, mass-imprisonment and the fact that they're mostly so fat and stupid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
