http://topincomes.g-mond.parisschoolofeconomics.eu/#Graphic:
select:
United States
1917-2009
Average Incomes
bottom 90% average income - including capital gains
Shows
the submerged 90% of us earn the same (per family) in real terms as we
did in the late 1960s. Yet the typical family now has more wage
earners, working more hours.
Same site, select
Top Income Shares
top .01% - including capital gains
Shows
the hunting animals eating the entire carcass except during 1942-1981,
when we had effective antitrust law, labor law, and progressive
taxation.
In only these forty years was the average family income of the top .01% "only" 165 times the average family income. Before 1942 and after 1981, the rich took a much larger share. In 2010 it was 462 times the average and increasing. (If only the top .01% earned anything, their share would be 10,000 times the average. That the one family in 10,000 now takes nearly 5% of all the income, is appalling.)
The rich get their income not for what they do, but for what they own. They claim to be "job creators." In truth, the only job creator is a customer, who buys something. We have to get money back in the hands of those who spend it--the nonrich. When the only people with money to spend have all the stuff they can use, the economy collapses. These booms and busts happened regularly up through the Great Depression. It was political action that transformed the working class into the middle class, avoiding the booms and busts. Deregulation, detaxing the rich, eroding worker rights, free trade, since 1981 are bringing back the bad old days of many serfs, one lord. Only political action can reverse the trend. We have to restore antitrust laws, restore workers' rights, establish fair trade not free trade, tax the rich.
Norway has a much fairer balance of power between employees and employers, partly due to nationwide collective bargaining. U.S. labor laws have been eroded since they were enacted in 1935, by anti-labor court decisions and anti-labor legislation. Now, management can ignore labor agreements and labor law without serious consequences.
Showing posts with label the 99%. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the 99%. Show all posts
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Let's Talk about FEMA
Mitt Romney doesn't want to talk about FEMA anymore. Of course, he doesn't. What he wants to do is very unpopular, especially at times like this, because it would benefit only a very, very few. He wants to downsize FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency) and outsource it, make those ever-more-frequent weather disasters into another profit-making opportunity for the 1 percent, which of course means that it wouldn't work very well, if at all, especially not for the 47 percent that it's not his job to think about.
Romney, Ryan, and the rest of the Drown-Government-in-a-Bathtub folks don't believe in FEMA. To them, natural disasters like the one we experienced this week are just a way to reduce the surplus population. They don't have a stake in what happens to anyone else. Their only stake is what happens to themselves and maybe a few of their cronies.
What they don't understand—refuse to understand—is that living in a civilized society has to mean that we have have a vested interest in what happens to each other. It means acknowledging that your well-being, or lack of it, affects me, and that I'm willing to invest in our collective well-being. Because we all do better when we all do better. Our communal well-being compounds our individual well-being, and our individual well-being depends on our communal well-being.
The plundering plutocrats and corporate kleptocrats among us believe that their well-being is separate from and paramount to ours. They believe that having so much means that they deserve more. They think somehow they can horde it, like a mound of jewels in a dragon's den, and that somehow continually adding to their collection will enhance their well-being. But just like the junkies that they are, they can never get enough, and the more they get, the more they want. They will never be satisfied.
In his excellent book Billionaires and Ballot Bandits Greg Palast recounts this story of Charles Koch stealing oil from the Osage Indians in Oklahoma:
Imagine for a moment, if you will, that you live in a smallish village of humans, and it's the only such village anywhere. And surrounding your village are wild animals that occasionally attack your cattle and the cattle that belong to some of your neighbors. And occasionally a storm will blow through and damage some but not all of the crops.
Now imagine a village meeting in which you all discuss what's to be done about these threats to the well-being of some of the villagers. Will it be only the ones whose crops and cattle have been harmed that advocate for a collective response to help prevent and mitigate future damage? Will there be a wealthy villager who, having built high walls around her crops and cattle, refuses to invest in the protection of the crops and cattle of others? Will that wealthy one refuse to see that her well-being depends on the well-being of the village? That if the rest of the village does not thrive, there will be fewer able to purchase the wealthy one's produce? If so, how will the rest of the village respond to the wealthy one's recalcitrance? Maybe pass a law that requires that all contribute, whether they want to or not?
Of course, reality is seldom quite so simple, but nonetheless we are the global village. And some think that their well-being is independent of and superior to that of the rest of us. But they could not be more wrong. When it comes to our precious and fragile planet, when it comes to the dangers we all face—to our health, to our environment, to our civil liberties—we really are all in this together. That's what FEMA means, ultimately.
When a ginormous hurricane pummels the East Coast, those of us in Wisconsin know that we are not unaffected, even though all we get here of the storm itself are a few gusty winds. We know that our well-being depends on the speedy recovery of those whose lives and livelihoods have been damaged by the storm. We are in this together. That's why we have a federal government and why we have FEMA.
And that's why Romney doesn't want to talk about it. Because he's that one person who believes that his well-being is more important than that of others, and he knows that's not going to play very well with the rest of the village.
Romney, Ryan, and the rest of the Drown-Government-in-a-Bathtub folks don't believe in FEMA. To them, natural disasters like the one we experienced this week are just a way to reduce the surplus population. They don't have a stake in what happens to anyone else. Their only stake is what happens to themselves and maybe a few of their cronies.
What they don't understand—refuse to understand—is that living in a civilized society has to mean that we have have a vested interest in what happens to each other. It means acknowledging that your well-being, or lack of it, affects me, and that I'm willing to invest in our collective well-being. Because we all do better when we all do better. Our communal well-being compounds our individual well-being, and our individual well-being depends on our communal well-being.
The plundering plutocrats and corporate kleptocrats among us believe that their well-being is separate from and paramount to ours. They believe that having so much means that they deserve more. They think somehow they can horde it, like a mound of jewels in a dragon's den, and that somehow continually adding to their collection will enhance their well-being. But just like the junkies that they are, they can never get enough, and the more they get, the more they want. They will never be satisfied.
In his excellent book Billionaires and Ballot Bandits Greg Palast recounts this story of Charles Koch stealing oil from the Osage Indians in Oklahoma:
I'd been a racketeering and fraud investigator for twenty years already when I jumped into the investigation of the Kochs. Koch's motive for the skim was obvious: he wanted the money. But, for me, this was a new level of weird. Why in the world would Charles Koch, then worth about $2 billion, want to take three dollars from some poor Indian lady?This plundering pirate actually believes he is entitled to all of it. That his fair share is all of it. Just cuz. Talk about "entitlements"!
It even puzzled his own henchmen. Roger Williams asked Koch, who was literally giggling over the amount of "overage" he'd pocketed, why the billionaire bothered to filch pocket change from Osage families.
Williams was wired, and what he related on the tape has stuck with me a long time. According to Williams's recording, Koch answered:
"I want my fair share—and that's all of it.
Imagine for a moment, if you will, that you live in a smallish village of humans, and it's the only such village anywhere. And surrounding your village are wild animals that occasionally attack your cattle and the cattle that belong to some of your neighbors. And occasionally a storm will blow through and damage some but not all of the crops.
Now imagine a village meeting in which you all discuss what's to be done about these threats to the well-being of some of the villagers. Will it be only the ones whose crops and cattle have been harmed that advocate for a collective response to help prevent and mitigate future damage? Will there be a wealthy villager who, having built high walls around her crops and cattle, refuses to invest in the protection of the crops and cattle of others? Will that wealthy one refuse to see that her well-being depends on the well-being of the village? That if the rest of the village does not thrive, there will be fewer able to purchase the wealthy one's produce? If so, how will the rest of the village respond to the wealthy one's recalcitrance? Maybe pass a law that requires that all contribute, whether they want to or not?
Of course, reality is seldom quite so simple, but nonetheless we are the global village. And some think that their well-being is independent of and superior to that of the rest of us. But they could not be more wrong. When it comes to our precious and fragile planet, when it comes to the dangers we all face—to our health, to our environment, to our civil liberties—we really are all in this together. That's what FEMA means, ultimately.
When a ginormous hurricane pummels the East Coast, those of us in Wisconsin know that we are not unaffected, even though all we get here of the storm itself are a few gusty winds. We know that our well-being depends on the speedy recovery of those whose lives and livelihoods have been damaged by the storm. We are in this together. That's why we have a federal government and why we have FEMA.
And that's why Romney doesn't want to talk about it. Because he's that one person who believes that his well-being is more important than that of others, and he knows that's not going to play very well with the rest of the village.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Hizzoner Da Mayor versus Occupy Madison
Madison Mayor Paul Soglin threw a hissy fit yesterday about Occupy Madison, which he is determined to evict and close down—end of story—at the end of the month. And boy howdy was Soglin ever on the defensive. When it was suggested that the site didn't cost the city anything, he said, "That is one of the most narrow, selfish statements I have ever heard." Really, Mr. Mayor?
The highly visible Occupy encampment is located on the 800 block of E. Washington Ave. and currently houses about fifty women and men, which is, according to residents, as many as have lived there since the site was first occupied. The project is both innovative and empowering to its residents. The costs to the city have indeed been minimal, especially considering that the public service costs Soglin complains about would likely be incurred on behalf of the residents regardless of whether they were occupying the site on East Wash., sleeping in window wells, or staying at one of the city's shelters. Unlike the Occupy encampment, the shelters limit the number of nights people can stay and require that they leave during the day. So every morning they're back out on the streets, with no place to keep their things and few sources of support. But the Occupy encampment is different. It is run for and by those who live there and has come to mean a great deal to them.
And it's not like the Occupiers are asking for all that much. They'd like an extension so they can stay on the East Wash. site until the end of June (just two more months), and then they'd like the city to help them find another location. They're asking for a modicum of support so that they can continue helping and empowering themselves.
Fortunately, Occupy Madison has some friends on the Madison Common Council. In a meeting tonight at 6:30pm (second floor of the City-County Building), the council will consider a resolution to extend the Occupiers' permit until June 30. Soglin called yesterday's news conference to register his vehement objection to the very modest resolution.
By Soglin's own admission, the needs of Madison's poor have multiplied in recent years. "'When I left office in '97, 28 percent of the children enrolled in Madison Public Schools came from families living at or below the poverty line,' Soglin said. 'That number is now 58 percent ... as poverty and homelessness grows, the base for funding it shrinks." So in other words, the needs are greater while resources are fewer. Should we not then explore new ways to meet those needs, especially ones that cost little and empower those who need help?
And those who need help could be any one of us at any time. An alarming number of us are one major medical bill away from poverty and homelessness. When the city turns its back on the homeless—or even just some of the homeless—it's turning its back on all of us. This is a conversation about who we are. Are we a city that cares for its image more than for its residents? Are we more concerned about our reputation than our people?
Soglin squawked that "'it is highly irresponsible for anyone to suggest that this city's response to homelessness and poverty is anything less than stellar. We cannot be everything to everyone,' he told the news reporters, homeless people and housing advocates who packed the conference room next to his office for a news conference Monday afternoon.'"
Wouldn't a really "stellar" response to homelessness include pursuing low-cost opportunities to improve and broaden the services offered? If Soglin gets his way, Madison will lose a great opportunity to help some of our most vulnerable neighbors, to empower these Madisonians to help themselves and others in similar circumstances. Now what exactly are you calling narrow and selfish, Mr. Mayor?
The highly visible Occupy encampment is located on the 800 block of E. Washington Ave. and currently houses about fifty women and men, which is, according to residents, as many as have lived there since the site was first occupied. The project is both innovative and empowering to its residents. The costs to the city have indeed been minimal, especially considering that the public service costs Soglin complains about would likely be incurred on behalf of the residents regardless of whether they were occupying the site on East Wash., sleeping in window wells, or staying at one of the city's shelters. Unlike the Occupy encampment, the shelters limit the number of nights people can stay and require that they leave during the day. So every morning they're back out on the streets, with no place to keep their things and few sources of support. But the Occupy encampment is different. It is run for and by those who live there and has come to mean a great deal to them.
And it's not like the Occupiers are asking for all that much. They'd like an extension so they can stay on the East Wash. site until the end of June (just two more months), and then they'd like the city to help them find another location. They're asking for a modicum of support so that they can continue helping and empowering themselves.
Fortunately, Occupy Madison has some friends on the Madison Common Council. In a meeting tonight at 6:30pm (second floor of the City-County Building), the council will consider a resolution to extend the Occupiers' permit until June 30. Soglin called yesterday's news conference to register his vehement objection to the very modest resolution.By Soglin's own admission, the needs of Madison's poor have multiplied in recent years. "'When I left office in '97, 28 percent of the children enrolled in Madison Public Schools came from families living at or below the poverty line,' Soglin said. 'That number is now 58 percent ... as poverty and homelessness grows, the base for funding it shrinks." So in other words, the needs are greater while resources are fewer. Should we not then explore new ways to meet those needs, especially ones that cost little and empower those who need help?
And those who need help could be any one of us at any time. An alarming number of us are one major medical bill away from poverty and homelessness. When the city turns its back on the homeless—or even just some of the homeless—it's turning its back on all of us. This is a conversation about who we are. Are we a city that cares for its image more than for its residents? Are we more concerned about our reputation than our people?
Soglin squawked that "'it is highly irresponsible for anyone to suggest that this city's response to homelessness and poverty is anything less than stellar. We cannot be everything to everyone,' he told the news reporters, homeless people and housing advocates who packed the conference room next to his office for a news conference Monday afternoon.'"
Wouldn't a really "stellar" response to homelessness include pursuing low-cost opportunities to improve and broaden the services offered? If Soglin gets his way, Madison will lose a great opportunity to help some of our most vulnerable neighbors, to empower these Madisonians to help themselves and others in similar circumstances. Now what exactly are you calling narrow and selfish, Mr. Mayor?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)