Truthout Original

Facebook DIGG

The Whiners' Recession

by: Dean Baker, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

photo
Jerry Walker of Denver, Colorado, searches the job posting board at a local employment center. (Photo: Matthew Staver / Bloomberg News)

    Senator McCain and his friends no doubt still believe that the economy's fundamentals are strong, but Friday's jobs numbers clearly show how bad things have gotten. The 6.1 percent unemployment rate reported for August is almost as high as the worst levels from the last recession. A broader measure of labor market weakness, that includes people who can only find part-time work or who have given up looking for jobs, is higher than at any point in the last recession.

    When the labor market weakens, workers have less bargaining power with their employers. As a result, wages are trailing more than 2 percentage points behind inflation over the last year.

    Wages are virtually the entire income for most workers. If the purchasing power of their wages falls by 2 percent, this is the equivalent of a 2 percentage point increase in their tax rate.

    This is worth thinking about. Most workers in the country have just seen the equivalent of a 2 percentage point increase in their tax rate, and it has gotten almost no attention. By contrast, Senator McCain is claiming that the economy will collapse if we increase the tax rate by 3.6 percentage points for people who can't remember how many homes they own.

    It is easy to understand how a typical family experiences real hardship when their wages don't keep up with the price of food, gas, and heating oil. It's a bit harder to understand how the folks who can't keep track of their homes will suffer by restoring tax rates to the Clinton-era levels.

    This brings us to the other important point about the Friday jobs numbers. The economy is in bad shape and getting worse. This disaster is happening while we are experimenting with the tax policies advocated by Senator McCain. We have an economy that is now shedding jobs at the rate of almost 100,000 a month. There is no prospect of turnaround in sight. We could have half a million fewer jobs by the time the next president is sworn into office than we do today.

    This is the Bush-McCain economy. Senator McCain may have forgotten, but President Bush already tried his economic policies and the results are not good. We have just been through a business cycle in which the wage of the typical worker and the typical working family fell. This is the first time that has ever happened.

    As bad as the situation is, it will surely get worse as the recession deepens. Wages and incomes will fall further behind inflation as the unemployment rate continues to rise. By contrast, the Clinton-era tax rates were associated with the most prosperous period since the early seventies.

    As I have written many times, Clinton's policies do not deserve all the credit for the prosperity of the late 90s, and President Bush's polices do not deserve all the blame for the economy's poor performance in the current decade.

    However, it strains credulity to argue that the Clinton-era tax rates are a recipe for stagnation, while the Bush-McCain tax cuts for the rich are the road to prosperity. When he pushes his tax cuts as a remedy for the economy's ills, Senator McCain is effectively imitating Groucho Marx's famous line: "what are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

    At this point, McCain should be embarrassed to even say that tax cuts for the rich help the economy. Tax cuts for the rich help the rich, they don't help the economy. It's that simple.

    This economic catastrophe was many years in the making. There is no painless way to recover from the collapse of the housing bubble and the correction from an over-valued dollar. We do know that Senator McCain's plan to keep giving the rich more money is not a road to prosperity because that is exactly what we have been doing.

    We can't know exactly how Senator Obama will address the economy's problems if he takes office in January in part because we don't know exactly where the economy will be. However, a plan that focuses on supporting ordinary workers and promoting clean technologies, is likely to produce much better results than policies that are focused on redistributing even more income to the wealthy.

»


Dean Baker is the Co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. CEPR's Jobs Byte is published each month upon release of the Bureau of Labor Statistics' employment report.

Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

Tax cuts for the rich

Tax cuts for the rich benefit the economy slightly, but not for the average person. It is obvious they do not add a whole slew of new jobs. When you pay for the tax cuts by increasing the deficit, you weaken the dollar and increase inflation. The tax cuts for people making less than $200,000 are totally illusionary because as inflation rises, consumption erases all gains from the tax cuts, except for the wealthy or people making over $200,000 a year. In addition, states and counties have to raise their taxes because the federal government has less money to give them. Basically, the Bush tax cuts really only helped the rich, especially because of the rise in gasoline prices. I predict that before November gas prices will come down to about $2.65 a gallon because the market is manipulated by the people who want their friend's the republicans in office. If the democrats win, gas prices will immediately rise until the democratic congress starts investigating.

It is clear to any one who

It is clear to any one who does not qualify as rich that things are growing steadily more difficult for those who used to be called , or perhaps more properly considered themselves middle class. If the Republicans don't realize this it is only because they choose not to. It amazes me however, that the party of Lincoln believes they can fool all of the people all of the time.

Speaking of McCain’s

Speaking of McCain’s adviser and dear friend, the former Republican senator-turned-lobbyist Phil “nation of whinners” Gram, wasn’t he the primary sponsor of the deregulation legislation that enabled the Enron scandal and the Not-So-Sub-Prime-Anymore Mortgage crises in the first place? I wonder if Gram listed California energy blackouts and the responsibility for the largest bailout in U.S. history (200 billion) on his resume when McCain engaged him as an adviser? Is not Gram, the man whose vision and leadership started this whole debacle, also the very person McCain is considering for his cabinet as Secretary of the Treasury? Didn’t Freddie and Fannie operate smoothly and soundly many years until the Republican controlled congress and the Bush administration disempowered the oversight agencies and gutted the regulations that governed them? If the Republican truly believe in their mantra of “free markets” and “degreulation”, why did the current administration intervene and take control of the Freddie and Fannie?

'us stocks climb on

'us stocks climb on fanniemae, freddiemac takeovers[9-8-08:1500] bloomberg.com---now WHAT was that about deregulation being so good for everyone?? obviously no, deregulation is not good.we deserve better than 'trickle down'. question: would it have cost less to invest and help in the individual homeowners at the beginning?

Mr Baker has many strong

Mr Baker has many strong points in his essay, but all economists seem to be forgetting that we actually are running up against resource limits on planet earth, and that wages in rich countries will go down. It is no fun, but we are going to have to shrink the economy to survive. Of course the rich will resist all the way to warfare, note St Paul at the RNC, and the goal is more equity as the economy shrinks to one the earth can survive, so do not mourn. Organize and vote Green. McKinney Clemente in 08. greg gerritt

I have a question Mr. Baker:

I have a question Mr. Baker: How are the funds provided by the Treasury to secure Freddie Mac and Fannie May accounted for and where do they come from? If the amount required to maintain their liquidity totals 10 billion next quarter, how is that accounted for by the federal government? Will it increase the budget deficit? Will it increase the national debt? How much money is the federal government planning to spend to buy back the securities and debt issued by these institutions? If the malfeasance and fiscal irresponsibility that filled their portfolios with bad paper requires a correction of twenty percent to the underlying asset values, doesn’t that translate into a 1 trillion dollar loss for the U.S. government? (20% of 5 trillion equals 1 trillion, 5 trillion is the combined asset value of Freddie and Fannie). Won’t this amount need to be added to the national debt? If so, would that cause interest on the national debt to exceed military spending in next budget cycle? In other words, if our national debt is currently 9 trillion dollars, and you add another 1 trillion dollars as a result of this rescue operation, would interest expense on national debt (10 trillion) exceed military spending (currently 700 billion)? and if so, would taxes need to be raised to pay for this? Would this require reducing the amount we spend on social security and Medicaid/Medicare to pull this off? Thanks!

"Trickle-Down" economics and

"Trickle-Down" economics and this so-called Supply-Side mentality is totally bogus. It's worth remembering that there is not economic evidence at all that it was EVER worked. In fact, Bush's father called it "Voodoo Economics" to mock it back in the 1980 presidential debates. Yep, that's where the term came from.

What amazes me is that at

What amazes me is that at least half the public is believing McCain rather than their lying eyes.

Trickle down? It's like

Trickle down? It's like asking the rich for spare change. Maybe that's the change McCain is talking about. Spare Change.

Ask anyone able to wear a

Ask anyone able to wear a $300,000 outfit like the one Cindy McCain wore the final night of the Republican convention and of course the recession is for whiners only. Only cynicism tops the Republican obscene hypocrisy.

Yikes! Isn't this exactly

Yikes! Isn't this exactly what Karl Marx was getting at: The ultimate collapse of the capitalist system. It's a rigged game anyway, favoring the rich. The Russians tried valiantly for seventy years to create a system that was rigged in favor of the working class, but that didn't work out very well either. They scrapped the system -- to the horror of conservatives everywhere. They are desperately in need of an enemy to keep their system working. It seems like we have to have one or the other. What a shame that we lack the collective wisdom to find a middle way between capitalism and communism, liberals and conservatives. The main difficulty comes with those people who believe the free-market economic theory as though it were an article of faith, if not one of the 10 Commandments, then certainly in the sacred writings of St. Thomas of Jefferson. Those who are now confronted with the reality that the "free market" ultimately fails without government intervention will certainly understand the problem that theologians in the 17th and 18th Centuries had in adjusting to the reality of the heliocentric solar system rather than a flat earth.

McCain up 4 points against

McCain up 4 points against Obama. Who's stupid?

George Bush and company

George Bush and company (including John McCain) are for the rich, make no mistake about that. They give lip service about how they feel our pain, but how on earth can John McCain who has more houses than he can count feel the pain of someone who's struggling to make their mortgage payments? When Cindy McCain (whose father went to prison for racketeering) can only feel good about herself by throwing $300,000 worth of clothes & jewels on her scrawny body--how can she know what it's like not even to be able to afford a new dress from Wal Mart? Those 2 fly around in her corporate jet, go from lavish home to home, are waited on like a king and a queen--how any American in his/her right mind could vote for those two is beyond me. They don't live in the same world most of us do. And they don't care about ours.

It does not require

It does not require communism or Marxism to have a an economy fair to majority of the citizens. What we we now have is not a market capitalism, and Bush and the neocons are not traditional Republicans. What we now have in the U.S. is crony capitalism - where the rulers and rule makers greatly favors and oligarchy of corporations who have no loyalty to the US or other government. They pretend to protect the boarder, but it is open to cheap labor which keeps wages low. Since Reagan there has been a widening of the gap in wages and wealth in the US so that we have the widest gap of any of the industrialized democracies. Until the democrats pushed for an increase in minimum wage in 2006 there had been a steady decline in the real earning at minimum wages since 1968 (we are no where close to what it was but it is now above the nadir) and almost all the growth in the average houshold income has been from the movement of women out of the home and into the workforce. Dean, the government may say we have low inflation, but they have eliminated housing, fuel and food from the measurements. Yes stuff made in China and sold at Walmart is cheap. We do not have 2% inflation. Gas prices are 200% of what they were a few years ago. Milk, bread, eggs, have all nearly doubled. Even with a real estate glut of foreclosures, housing is much higher than it was before 2000. Inflation is probably at around 15% - but this is only a guess. If the government used a real measure of inflation they would have to pay more SSI, higher wages, higher bond prices, higher medicare costs - the government would be insolvent. And the FED keeps the supply of new money high to keep interest rates low so we can keep the party going!

It is scary that after 8

It is scary that after 8 years of Foreign Policy failure, a horrible economy in recession, no health care, etc., this race still has to be close. Wasn't it the Americans who invented slapstick comedy and the expression "duh-uh ". Well, at least to me, it is an obvious choice between four more years of failure or at least a change. And, if we still don't get it, if we really still have to think about whether we want a candidate who jokes about bombing Iran, and his 'running mate to nowhere', we certainly play the part of the village idiot, rather than scoffing at others who play it.

That 6.1% unemployment rate

That 6.1% unemployment rate is actually far worse when you consider the 1,000,000 people incarcerated in our prison system. They don't count on the unemployment stat but they undoubtedly would if they were out on parole. What would that make it? 7.5%? 8%?

51% will be jobless before

51% will be jobless before the people change the parties in power. Even at 6.1% unemployment, the bars are still full, cars still clog the highways, and it is easy to find people who think everything is great. Meanwhile, those of us losing jobs, cars, homes, and struggling to feed our children and keep warm this winter, will continue to be ignored by the media. So really, who cares? Hope is dead.

The ultraconservative

The ultraconservative financial writer and Gold Bug "The Mogambo Guru " has an interesting note at the Asia times about how the stats on US GDP have been distorted - to avoid showing a decline in GDP -by manipulation of the price deflator. the article is at http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JI05Dj01.html Lines from the article: "the government's GDP deflator was revised DOWN to 1.2%!" "Mish Shedlock at Globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com" . . . ""Part of the reason the GDP number looked so good," he says, "was because the GDP price index for the second quarter was marked at just 1.2. In other words, (the Bureau of Economic Analysis) subtracted from nominal GDP 1.2% in order to produce their version of 'real' (inflation-adjusted) GDP. GDP would have been negative if a larger deflator was used."

They only have to fool most

They only have to fool most of the people most of the time to get elected. Oh, to hell with it...let's all vote McSame/Palin and cut to the chase...let's end this experiment called democracy and put to rest once and for all the outworn and out of date American promise for freedom and justice. Freedom and Justice, these are very repugnant terms to the ears of the repugnuts. Corporate profits and endless war, now these are terms that we can cherish and sing about in our evangelical gatherings when we finally become an evangelical nation and all the other heathens are being vanquished and eradicated from Yahweh's corrupt earth. Bring it on!!!

I do not understand what all

I do not understand what all of these 'poor' rich people did during the (pre tax cuts for the rich) budget surplus years of the Clinton administration. Did they lose their retirement nest-eggs, homes, health coverage? Was there no food on their tables and did they have to cancel their travel and vacation plans to pay for gasoline or daycare? Did the stock market's upward trend frighten them, or was it the low unemployment rate that led them hunker down in their second (or third) homes.... in silence, and awaiting the rescue of the GOP? It must have been the phrase "Budget Surplus" that had them and their GOP team rushing like hyenas to the site of a fresh kill. The opportunity to grab what they could from the 'budget treasure chest' unearthed by the Texas Pirate had to be the catalyst. If only we could make the tax cuts permanent so they will not have to suffer any longer. Maybe we should outsource the IRS to one of Mr. Cheney's firms.... that way the rich could get the money directly from us and Congress could stay on their "Ooh! I'm afraid to REALLY fight" vacation.

All in all,whining about the

All in all,whining about the super rich and making noises like you want them get broke like us and live like "real people" is a total waste of time, money effort and newsprint. The simple, by that I mean as uncomplicated, way to take care of the situation is to VOTE the current thinking out of office. No more super perks, just plain perks. More luxury tax, not more income and salary tax. If Obama is elected President, he will be as unpopular as Bush is now because the conditions we are left with after the last 8 years, plus Reagan and GHW Bush, leaves him no alternative but to try to make the country recover. That will cost all of us a lot of money for several years. He knows it. The Demos know it. The Repubs know it. Get over it! PRF

all of these problems are a

all of these problems are a direct result of lack of interest in government by a huge number of our citizens. what's the voting turnout? 50%, 60%? that means at least 40% are staying home, not paying attention to what's happening in washington. that's how these crooks keep getting away with this stuff.

Even laissez-faire Milton

Even laissez-faire Milton Friedman understood market gaps, and we are in the midst of this country falling into a huge one because the "trickle down" myth only dug it deeper. The reason markets cannot correct for economic failure is that markets are driven only by the bottom line. Economics, however, is driven by human behavior. And when humans get power and wealth they have the annoying perspacacity to not just retain what they have but to want to horde even more. And how quickly the wealthy forget the rest of us who actually MADE them wealthy by having the highest value-added productivity in the world. So it's imperative that we force the wealthy to pay their fair share, a share that must be bigger than ours because we helped them attain their wealth. (And, let's face it, they can afford it. And before some of you start screaming about innovation, let's bear in mind that most of the wealthiest among us are deeply entrenched in huge bureaucratic corporations. Innovators and entrepreneurs will actually have MORE room to innovate and create jobs if we get the corporate behemoths out of their way. And they will be rewarded, as they should be.) The wealthy may want to ignore their responsibility to society, and even Andrew Carnegie argued about the responsibility of wealth, not the argument I'd offer, but still.... the wealthy shouldn't be allowed to ignore their responsibility. (The middle class doesn't, the government makes sure of that.) This is where government can have a positive effect when it interjects itself into the economy, by leveling the playing field. Which is why our central banking function should never have been outsourced in the first place by those scheming Christmas grinches of 1913 that pulled together the tiniest possible Congressional quorum (arguably the smallest in history) to vote for a cartel of private bankers (the Fed) to be our central banker after years of voters telling them no. Between that and an illegal tax code - which could be made legal and FAIR easily enough if anyone had the political will to do it - that allocates over half our resources to a 1960s military, its a wonder we haven't had another Great Depression sooner. And yes, we are still on the path to a Great Depression. Our best bet (and having trained in Chicago-school economics, I still find it hard to hear myself say this) is to look south and watch the ways in which our Latin American neighbors are balancing (or not) socialist principles with free markets. It may not work, but early signs suggest that much of what they are doing will actually work, and if we can stop being arrogant for five seconds, maybe we could learn something from that.

The 6.1 figure may be half

The 6.1 figure may be half the actual value as it does not include those (chiefly in the over-40 age group) who have given up looking. Also, once the troops and contractor in Iraq are taken off the dole, the figure may rise to 30%. http://aaaaa5.blogspot.com

Thanks to Greg Garritt's

Thanks to Greg Garritt's comment and admonition to vote McKinney-Clemente 2008. I actually am voting Nader-Gonzalez 2008 but I agree with Garritt. I am amazed with this belief that a vote for Obama will be a vote for the good old days of the young, suave, smooth talking ruling class faction called the Democrats. You know, John Kennedy (Vietnam), Clinton (Iraq), Obama (Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, what else). If Obama is elected, it will be clear quickly how little he intends to do and how little he can do. Democrats (liberals and centrists and conservatives) will go back to sleep thinking the great hope is in the White House. The velvet gloved iron fist of the Democrats will do great damage, of a different sort that the bared iron fist of the Republicans but, one guarantee, it will be no threat to the ruling class (if Obama was a threat he would have been eliminated a la Kucinich long ago.) The real hope is not to be found in this fascist state (corporate control of business AND government AND media AND military) which will have to face real crisis before real change comes. The real hope lies in the rest of the world seeing increasing what this country stands for and doing increasing what they have done over recent years, most clearly manifested in Latin America, i.e., call the U.S. what it is: anti-democratic, imperialist, fascist, lying, bribing, murderous, etc. The weakening of U.S. controlled international instituations and the isolation of the U.S. to greatest extent possible combined with rejection by any means necessary of U.S. dominance is what the world needs. At this point in time the U.S. populace is essentially a non-player, trapped by its ignorance, cowardice and helplessness into an endless cycle of voting for one or the other of the two ruling class candidates. Can't all just get together, declare the system bankrupt, and vote our rejection of it by voting McKinney or Nader. Or will be doing this again in 4 years voting for other Senators and other governors. Ruling class pigs one and all, with or without lipstick.

This could be an interesting

This could be an interesting misconception of others. This can also help you defining accurately the difference between recession and depression. The good thing here also is the solution with this two. Payday loans are useful when you’re stuck in a situation that requires quick cash that you may not have until your next paycheck. During a recession like the one America is currently mired in, it’s good to know they’re available when necessary. But what’s a recession, or a depression, for that matter? It all depends upon whom you ask. I checked out Yahoo Answers recently, and I had to laugh. The “Asker” wanted to know the difference between recession and depression, and she (the avatar is female) wanted the information in “girly terms.” I’m not sure what girly terms are, but the Asker received a very straightforward response. The American economy is analyzed by quarter. When production is high, it’s considered economic growth. Three consecutive quarters (nine months) of decreased production is considered a recession. A depression occurs when a recession is deep and long. Some common characteristics of a depression include long-term unemployment growth, low prices and low levels of trade and investment. So when it comes to recession and depression, understand that one is bad and the other is worse. If you need a payday loan when things get rough, don’t be afraid to try. Be responsible and you’ll make it through your short-term financial difficulties. For more info on Payday Loans, click the link.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.