it's a mistake to blame Reagan. (If we want to blame any single individual, I'd blame Paul Volcker, a Carter appointee and for awhile part of the left wing of Obama's economic team.) In any event, it's a full-scale social movement, a reaction to the low profit rates of the 1970s and the stagflation it provoked. The employers' offensive to restore profitability and the financiers' offensive to restore _their_ profits spawned a whole bunch of "Reaganite" social and economic policies. These policies would best be described as "neoliberal." Larry Summers -- until recently Obama's main economic man -- can be called a neoliberal but not a Reaganite.
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 6:25 AM, c b <[email protected]> wrote: > Latest Reagan Revolution Price Tag: A $313 Billion Wage > Cut > By Isaiah J. Poole > October 25, 2010 > Campaign for America's Future OurFuture.org > http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010104325/latestreagan-revolution-price-tag-313-billion-wage-cut > > There's another chapter to add to the narrative my > colleague Dave Johnson sketched out some weeks ago > about how the Reagan revolution has come home to roost > [1], based on sobering statistics uncovered this > morning by David Cay Johnston at Tax.com [2] about how > The Great Recession has harmed working families while > worsening income inequality. > > New data compiled by the Social Security Administration > reveals that the total wages earned by American workers > fell by a total of $313 billion from 2007 to 2009, > Johnston writes. That's a 5 percent cut, and is > measured in 2009 dollars. > > In one year alone, from 2008 to 2009, wage income > declined $215 billion. > > One major reason for the wage declines is that in 2009 > one out every 34 working Americans earned zero income > in 2009. In fact, there were fewer people collecting a > paycheck in 2009 than there were in 2005. Plus, those > who did collect a paycheck earned on average less, > Johnston says: $39,269, down $243 or 0.6 percent, > compared with the previous year in 2009 dollars. > > But that's only 99 percent of the story. > > Johnston also points out that while working-class > people on average are demonstrably poorer, the > super-rich are getting super-richer: > > The number of Americans making $50 million or more, the > top income category in the data, fell from 131 in 2008 > to 74 last year. But ... the average wage in this top > category increased from $91.2 million in 2008 to an > astonishing $518.8 million in 2009. That's nearly $10 > million in weekly pay! > > You read that right. In the Great Recession year of > 2009 (officially just the first half of the year), the > average pay of the very highest-income Americans was > more than five times their average wages and bonuses in > 2008. And even though their numbers shrank by 43 > percent, this group's total compensation was 3.2 times > larger in 2009 than in 2008, accounting for 0.6 percent > of all pay. These 74 people made as much as the 19 > million lowest-paid people in America, who constitute > one in every eight workers. > > Johnston in his article makes it clear that these > conditions aren't simply unfortunate aftereffects of > the Wall Street crash. This was a long time in the > making: > > The story the numbers tell is one of a strengthening > economic base with income growing fastest at the bottom > until, in 1981, we made an abrupt change in tax and > economic policy. Since then the base has fared poorly > while huge economic gains piled up at the very top, > along with much lower tax burdens. > > The story can't be repeated enough: Starting with the > Reagan administration and continuing through the > calamitous George W. Bush administration, conservatives > rammed through a combination of tax and regulatory > policies that slashed taxes on the wealthiest (and > critical investments that could have been paid for with > those taxes), upset the balance of power between > workers and corporations in favor of corporations, > encouraged the movement of jobs overseas and set the > foundation for the Wall Street casino, which diverted > capital from investment in job-creation to > bubble-creating speculation. > > The result is an economic crisis for millions of > working-class people, to be sure, but it is also a > moral crisis that strikes at the heart of what we have > become as a nation. Johnston writes: > > The American economy in the three decades before Ronald > Reagan's election did not produce a mass audience for > celebrating wealth. In that era, books that emphasized > character sold better than today. > > During the years from 1950 to 1980, the share of total > income going to those at the top declined, and the real > incomes of the vast majority grew much more quickly > than did nearly all incomes at the very top. > > In those years, America had the money, and vision, to > invest in the future through education, research, and > infrastructure. > > In nearly three decades of Reaganism, however, we have > become a society of mine-here-and-now. Now what we hear > from Washington is about today, not tomorrow. War > without sacrifice (or a congressional declaration). > Savings without interest. More government services > while lowering taxes. > > This is what the 2010 election should be about: how we > create an economy where people who don't have jobs can > get one and in which people who do have jobs can begin > to see their income grow. On Sunday, "60 Minutes" aired > a story [3] about the millions of well-educated, highly > skilled and once high-earning people who are rapidly > reaching the ends of their economic ropes because > conservatives in Congress keep blocking measures that > would help them [4]. Stories such as that one and > Johnston's post should make you angry--make that > thoroughly disgusted--that the legitimate economic fears > of working-class voters are being manipulated by > deep-pocketed right-wing, corporate interests [5] into > voting for the very politicians whose ideologies [6] > will deepen their economic pain [7], while making the > anonymous benefactors of those politicians even more > obscenely wealthy. > > That's one reason to vote on November 2 [8], with a > message that we are not going to sit still and allow > the working class to keep falling behind while a > handful of people at the very top grow financially > obese. > > Links: [1] > http://www.ourfuture.org/features/reagan-revolution- > home-roost [2] > http://tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/UBEN-8AGMUZ > ?OpenDocument [3] > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/21/60minutes/ > main6978943.shtml [4] > http://www.ourfuture.org/features/jobs-crisis-fall-2010 > [5] > http://www.ourfuture.org/features/tea-party-getting- > played [6] > http://www.ourfuture.org/features/young-guns-deadly- > ideas [7] > http://www.ourfuture.org/features/pledge-rob-middle- > class [8] http://www.ourfuture.org/votingfor [9] > http://www.twitter.com/ijpoole [10] > http://www.twitter.com/ourfuturedotorg > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
