Share

The Real News About Jobs and Wages - An Ode to Labor Day

by: Robert Reich  |  Robert Reich's Blog

photo
Nearly 15 million Americans like David O'Bryan (above) will not be enjoying Labor Day. It is not a day off, for them every day is a day without work. (Photo: Toby Talbot / AP)

    Why aren't we hearing more about the worst job and wage situation since the Great Depression?

    The latest employment figures (released Friday) show job losses continuing to grow. According to the payroll survey, job losses are increasing more slowly than in previous months. According to the household survey, they're accelerating - from 9.4 percent of the workforce in July to 9.7 percent in August. Bottom line: almost one out of six Americans who need a full-time job either can't find one or is working part-time. Meanwhile, wage growth among people who have jobs has just about stopped. The Economic Policy Institute reports that between 2006 and 2008, wages grew at an annualized rate of 4.0%; by contrast, over the past three months annual wage growth has plummeted to just 0.7%. At the same time, furloughs - requiring workers to take unpaid vacations - are on the rise: recent surveys show 17% of companies imposing them. More than 20% of companies have suspended their contributions to 401(k)s and similar pension plans.

    So why isn't the media screaming? Partly because these job and wage losses are not, for the most part, falling on the segment of our population most visible to the media. They're falling overwhelmingly on the middle class and the poor. Unemployment among those who have been in the top 10 percent of earnings is closer to 5 percent, and their earnings continue to climb - although, to be sure, much more slowly than before the meltdown. It's much the same with health-care and pension benefits. Among people under 65 who are in the bottom 20% of incomes, only 21.9% have employer-sponsored health insurance - if they have a job at all. Half of all people nearing retirement age have a 401(k) balance of less than $40,000.

    I keep hearing that the economic meltdown has taken a huge toll on the stock portfolios of the rich. That's true. But the rich haven't lost nearly as much of their assets, proportionately, as everyone else. According to a report from the Bank of America Merrill Lynch ("The Myth of the Overleveraged Consumer"), analyzing data from the Federal Reserve, the bottom 90 percent of Americans hold 50 percent of more of their assets in residential real estate, which has taken a far bigger beating than stocks and bonds. The top 10 percent of Americans have only a quarter of their assets in housing; most of their assets are in stocks and bonds. And although the stock market is still a bit tipsy, it has rallied considerably since it hit bottom earlier this year. Home values, on the other hand, are down by an average of a third across the country, and are still falling.

    What does all this mean for the economy as a whole? It raises the fundamental question of where demand will come from to get us out of this hole. If so manyAmericans are losing their jobs and wages, you have to wonder who will be returning to the malls.

    That same Bank of America Merrill Lynch report notes cheerfully that 42 percent of consumer spending before the meltdown came from the top-earning 10 percent of Americans (not too surprising given that the top 10 percent was raking in half of total earnings) and the top 10 percent continues to do relatively well. So, says Bank of America Merrill, we can rely on the spending of the top 10 percent to get the economy moving again. Indeed, they conclude, Congress and the White House should be careful not to raise taxes on the top 10 percent, lest the consuming ardor of these most privileged members of our society be dampened.

    This logic is morally and economically indefensible. If we've learned anything from the Great Recession-Mini Depression of the last 18 months, it's that the skewing of income and wealth to the top has made our economy far less stable. When the majority of middle-class and poor Americans are either losing their jobs or feel threatened by job loss, and when those who still have jobs are experiencing flat or declining wages, there's simply no way to get the economy back on track. The track we were on - featuring stagnant median wages, widening inequality, and job insecurity - got us into this mess in the first place.

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.

  

»


Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.

I certainly don't take issue

I certainly don't take issue with the message of this piece but I'm irked by the undefined usage of the term"top 10 percent" six times with no definition of that term. What is the demarcation? Who is the top 10 percent?

"top-earning 10 percent of

"top-earning 10 percent of Americans"===does that give a hint? The CEOs , bank Presidents, Insurance Company executives, hospital administrators, the already wealthy who did not have the biggest percentage of their investments in real estate....

Ignatious - I believe the

Ignatious - I believe the top 10 refers to those making $109,000. or more annually.

"Top ten percent of

"Top ten percent of Americans" "Those in the top ten percent of earnings" The wealthy, in other words. Those who, if they have living expenses of one million after earning three million, will continue to live off one million dollars a year even if their income drops to two million a year - unlike most Americans, or that bottom ninety percent. We wouldn't want to upset that structure, now would we.

It was the Democratic Party

It was the Democratic Party led by Bubba Clinton who outsourced our inudstrial base to China. We the working classes have been doublecrossed by our fearless leaders in the Democratic party, including Sen Dodd and former Sen Phill Gramm of Enron..Why is this being kept a secret ? Move-on should be making this public, however if they are led by money interests, we should Move-out of the Party..

Ignatius: In answer to your

Ignatius: In answer to your question, this is from another article on this topic today on Truthout: " In fact, every bit of economic growth in the 21st century has gone to the top 10 percent-those earning at least $109,000. Two-thirds was captured by the top 1 percent-folks earning more than $400,000." Mark Brenner, Labor Notes, 9/7/09 I hope this helps to clarify the article for you.

In reply to comments

In reply to comments concerning Bubba Clinton - Clinton was nothing more than a backdoor man for the neo-conservatives, and he did, in fact, follow their advice concerning privatizing, The Balkans, Kosovo, NAFTA, and encouraging outsourcing. Having said that, you should not have to be reminded of every action taken by the Bush administration, neo-conservatives, in dragging this country down, furthering outsourcing, bailing out companies that did not need to be bailed out, including his own family's Carlylse Corp., and on and on and on. This is not a problem arising from Just the democrats. It is ALL of them on both sides. The Bush administration was neither. They were corporate fascists.

Whatever damage has been

Whatever damage has been done to the economy has obviously been caused by those evil Democrat socialists, Clinton and Obama. Don't let your kids listen to Obama's predatory Marxist indoctrination speech today.

Geez, what with supporting 2

Geez, what with supporting 2 married children & wives, and two grandchildren, if I hadn't read this article I'd never have guessed we were in the top 10%. No way could that be right. One kid found a very good 'green' job after 14 months of unemployment, but at far less than he was making - he's tremendously lucky (and talented). He used to be in the 'top 10%'.

If you look at the US, it's

If you look at the US, it's very interesting. These are the stats from 2008 (before the worst of the financial crisis). About 25% of the after-tax income is now owned by the top 1%. (If you added up all of the incomes in the top 10% and the bottom 90%, the top 10% would be bigger) Within the 90-95 percentile of income, they've actually LOST net income (after inflation). Between the 95-99 percentile of income, they've gained only a little; wage stagnation. The top 1% control the income. And 60% of those gains have gone to the top 0.1%. If I recall the stats correctly, in 20 years, the top 0.1% have managed to triple their wealth. And in the top 0.01% (just 15,000 people), they've managed to quadruple their wealth. Given the current economic climate, one can only imagine that this scenario has gotten worse.