Why Two Tropes - "There's NO Retirement Crisis!" & "Workers Earn A Shrinking Slice of Pie" Cannot Both Be True

Recently two different articles were published in two different issues of The Wall Street Journal (print edition). The most notable aspect is that the two make claims that logically must contradict each other.  Before presenting them let's agree to the proposition that unless one earns a very good wage - at least up to the standard of being able to buy a starter home in the community one lives-  s/he will not be able to have any kind of secure retirement.'

So we begin with Andrew Biggs''s op-ed "The Phony Retirement Crisis" (March 1, p. A15) in which he claims:

"There is no retirement crisis among either today's retirees or tomorrow's. Eight in 10 retirees tell Gallup they have enough money to 'live comfortably', and 6 in 10 working age households say the same. Seventy-five percent of retirees tell the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances they 'have at least enough to maintain their standard of living."

Meanwhile, from Paul Kiernan ("Workers Claim A Shrinking Slice of the Pie",  Feb. 25, p. A2) we learn:

"Labor's share of domestic income has been declining since 1970 and has barely recovered in this expansion from the lows last seen when the U.S.  was pulling out of the Great Depression."

Note that was 'Great Depression' not the Great Recession!

He goes on:

"Employee pay and benefits fell to 52.7 % of gross domestic product in last year's third quarter for the fourth straight quarterly decline, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.  It was as high as 59 % in 1970 and 57% inf 2001.  If workers were commanding as much of domestic income as they did in 2001 they'd have nearly $800 billion more or $5,100 per employed American."

Think about that!  $5, 100 more per working American.  In other words, with that added amount we would not see - as we did during the shutdown - the god awful stat repeatedly trotted out that 4 in 10 American workers did not even have enough saved to cover one emergency or income crisis - with inflow cut off 4 weeks or more. Moreover, the partial shutdown brought to light that most workers in the US of A - even with "good paying jobs" - didn't have the luxury to miss one single paycheck!  One!  Is this a solid barometer for future retirement? I seriously doubt it!

Kiernan goes on solidifying my contention that either Biggs is lying through his teeth, or the people responding to those polls are  doing so out of a misbegotten false pride:

" The numbers reflect a decades long trend that has coincided with stagnant middle class incomes...while corporate profits benefit some households in dividends and higher stock prices, wages are the biggest source of income for most Americans."

.  This is germane given that - "while the labor share has fallen, business profits are on the rise."

Kiernan noting they climbed from 12 % of gross domestic income in 1980s "to more than 20 percent now".

This report by Kiernan occurred with 3 weeks of a separate Denver Post item ('Teacher Pay Falls Below Average In Most States', Feb. 3, p. 5K) wherein we see:

"Women teachers once earned more than similar workers in other industries but now earn 15.6 percent less as of 2017.  Male teachers took an even bigger hit, earning 26.8 percent less than comparable workers."

This also dovetails with a separate D. Post piece noting the average Denver teacher's salary of $47.000 is nowhere near enough to buy even a starter home in the Mile High City, or even afford rent. (Now at about $1,500 a month).   Here in El Paso County, with Colorado Springs- the situation isn't much better.

According to one finance specialist appearing on KOAA-TV, the average renter in our county is in a retail service job and earning barely $10.22 an hour when that wage needs to be at least $20.65 an hour to make most rents and not pay more than 35 percent of income for them.   This bad news also comports with the enormous pressures on household mortgage debt  and auto loans - which have now pushed U.S. consumer debt to $13.3 trillion   (WSJ, 'Household Borrowing Hits High',  Aug. 15, p. A3), noting:

"Debts rose by $82 billion in the second quarter driven by rising mortgage, credit card and auto loan balances, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's quarterly report on household debt and credit."

Adding, ominously:

"Total debt is now higher than before the financial crisis when widespread defaults, especially on mortgages, contributed to the longest and deepest recession since the Great Depression. After paying down debt through 2013, in aggregate, consumers gradually began to borrow again and household debt is now nearly 20 percent higher than five years ago."

Further, n "aggregate household debt grew for the 16th quarter.".

All of which tells me that Biggs is full of it. Either he is misrepresenting the facts or the people responding to the Gallup, Federal Reserve Consumer polls are lying, or the polls themselves are defective. Take your pick. But it is evident Biggs' claims of a rosy retirement future for most U.S. citizens don't square with his proportions. 

Let's also try to recall that despite those earlier WSJ pieces on household debt etc.  Biggs had also trotted out codswallop ('Memo To Trump: There Is No Looming Retirement Crisis', WSJ, Aug. 15).  He basically used the same false stats, ignored others - what we call selection bias - and wrote as brazenly as he has more recently.

In that earlier iteration I also beat back his bull crap, citing  The Hill in a special report, i.e.

"The Insured Retirement Institute found that only 23 percent of the Baby Boomer generation and 24 percent of Gen X-ers are confident their savings will last throughout their retirement years.

Small wonder, as more than 40 percent of Boomers and over 30 percent of Gen Xers report having no retirement savings whatsoever.

Of those with savings, only 47 percent of Boomers and 27 percent of Gen X-ers have saved $150,000 or more. With only 25 percent expecting income from an employer-provided pension in addition to Social Security, these are very low levels of savings."

Personal finance specialist Jill Schlesinger confirmed  the preceding take in her May 15, 'MoneyWatch' segment as part of CBS News:

"According to Fidelity Investments, the average 401(k) balance among its 11.8 million accounts increased to $74,600 at the end of the first quarter 2012, a 62 percent increase since the end of the first quarter 2009. While it's good news that balances are up, the number of accounts is alarmingly low for such an industry giant.

Older employees are better off, but not by much. Workers over age 55 have about $130,000 saved on average, and, for those over 55 who have been active in a plan for 10 years, that average jumps to approximately $230,000. That's certainly an advantage for plan participants, but even this group may not accumulate what is necessary to maintain their living standards.

The reason for the trend is obvious: The recession and market crash inflicted pain on retirement accounts, lopping off about a third of their total value. Additionally, as many families sustained job losses and lower incomes, they were forced to withdraw retirement funds or reduce contribution levels"

This leads us to ask: Why is Biggs on this phony campaign to try to lie about there being no retirement crisis?  Indeed, why are the WSJ editorial writers on the same kick? (p. A16, March 4, e.g. "The current generation of seniors is the most financially secure in history.  They're receiving more generous benefits from Social Security than they've earned because of an inflation formula that increases benefits at a faster rate than actual prices as measured by chained CPI."

Leaving out or ignoring the fact - in 1930s  U.S. history - sick  and indigent seniors typically went out into the bush or hovels to die by themselves.  So referring to today's seniors as the "most financially secure in history" isn't saying a whole hell of a lot.  Also, no word that the chained CPI doesn't factor in the much higher drug and other medical costs for seniors, and the need for more costly treatments such as for prostate and breast cancers, hip and knee replacement etc.. "The more generous benefits" then,   help cover the costs of things Medicare doesn't cover such as eyeglasses, eye exams, and dental care.

 Worse, the chained CPI ensures a race to the bottom via its assumptions.

Thus,  it  assumes that as prices increase, consumers will buy lower cost alternatives, reducing the amount of inflation they experience. For example, if the price of stew beef or hamburger rises by 30 cents a pound, they'll opt for cheaper pork. If pork rises too much they will descend to eating canned tuna. If that rises too much - well - bring out the Alpo! So no wonder many hard pressed seniors refer to the CPI COLA as the "dog food option".


The answer then is simple as to why neither Biggs or his WSJ editorial allies want any expansion of Social Security benefits!   This, despite the fact we can see from the preceding references and citations there is a real crisis, and also from a recent WSJ piece (WSJ,  March 1, p. B5) that it is getting more and more difficult for workers to train to get jobs with higher incomes.   This is especially so as the employers assert it is all on employees to do whatever retraining needed.  Quoting one  labor adviser (Andy Van Kleunen):

"We're asking people to negotiate an increasingly complicated labor market on their own."

Adding it can be particularly difficult to make training or education choices when "automation is making it unclear what the jobs of the future will look like."  Kiernan's article is also quick to point out, in terms  of why ordinary labor is losing an increasing portion of the 'pie' that  "workers' ability to negotiate wage increases has weakened".   Hand in hand with this, globalization has played a role in millions of job - many intermediate tech - being farmed out overseas to places like Bangalore or Delhi. This "gave manufacturers and tech companies a cheaper labor alternative."

In addition to all this, "employment contracts have become increasingly riddled with noncompete agreements, occupational licensing requirements and no poaching clauses that impeded worker mobility."  So good luck trying to move elsewhere for a higher paying job in the same industry.

What we DO know is that most ordinary workers are now missing that $5,100 per annum chunk of the pie cited by the WSJ's Kiernan, and hence are falling deeper and deeper into a savings hole for retirement.  Is there a retirement crisis? Yes indeed, according to most experts in the know. We also know a significant swatch of Social Security money is already having to suffice for many millions - who often have to choose between food and rent.

The only two options then become either implementing a universal basic income (UBI) or expanding Social Security.  Most reasonable people who've thought about it at all, believe the latter is far more politically plausible (and doable) than implementing the former.  

What we do know is that we had better act soon, or we will find the number of homeless citizens exploding - and not just in super high home price cities like Denver or San Francisco.

The new specter for older workers - and many others (an estimated 36 million according to The Denver Post Business section)- is automation- AI taking over their jobs.   

According to a 2017 WSJ  report ('Firms Leave The Bean Counting To The Robots') in the Business and Investing section (p, B5, Oct. 23) AI -based robots will soon be taking over CFO and accounting work across the land. That will essentially displace all those humans currently holding such jobs and likely pulling down big bucks in salary.  That includes older execs still salting away money for retirement.

The piece also observes:

"Two thirds of large global companies  expect to automate some or all of their finance department tasks over the next two or three years, according to new research by Hackett Group Inc. Hacket's report is based on benchmark and performance studies at hundreds of  large global companies."


Adding:

"The new technologies are designed to cut costs, liberate workers from time consuming repetitive tasks and - in many cases - reduce finance and treasury department employee numbers."

Jim Hightower - in a column around the same time - provided more insights in his recent column:

"With corporations socking away massive profits and the labor market still tight why are worker's wages stuck at miserly levels? One big reason is that corporate boards and CEOs have their heads stuck in a dreamy future. Nearly every economic sector is spending vast sums of money on workers p just not on human workers.

While few Americans are aware of it, bosses are investing in hordes of sophisticated autonomous robots powered by a cognitive technology called artificial intelligence. Instead of paying a decent wage to you, corporations are buying millions of these cheap, human-esque thinking machines in order to take a shocking number of jobs away - well, from you!"

All of which, in concert, discloses the future for older Americans will not be bright at all and also likely explains why nearly 1 in 3 near-retirees have barely $50,000 saved. Indeed, MONEY  magazine noted (November, p. 44) pointed out:

"Most Americans today haven't even got sufficient money to live to 75 far less 90 or 95."

So where do the WSJ editors and Biggs get this codswallop that most seniors have never been better off?  Well, by twisting facts to try to slap down any thought of expanding retirement security - by expanding Social Security.

Stay tuned, because the false information blitz about retirement in the US of A isn't over - not by a long shot!

See also:

Jobs | Science & Technology

What John Oliver Gets Wrong About Robots and Jobs

Are American Workaholics Better Off Than Europeans? Absolutely Not!

 Workaholic Americans could take a lesson or two from the Europeans who refuse to live to work, opting instead to do the reverse .  A new study has measured precisely how much more Americans work than Europeans, overall. The answer: The average person in Europe works 19 percent less than the average person in the U.S. That’s about 258 fewer hours per year, or about an hour less each weekday. Another way to look at it: U.S. workers put in almost 25 percent more hours than Europeans.

The study was done by economists Alexander Bick of Arizona State University, Bettina Bruggemann of McMaster University in Ontario, and Nicola Fuchs-Schundeln of Goethe University Frankfurt.  One of the more unusual findings was that Swiss work habits were most similar to Americans’, while Italians are the least likely to be at work, putting in 29 percent fewer hours per year than Americans do.  The Swiss finding really isn't that mysterious given that Geneva and Switzerland itself was the springboard for Calvinism and its rigid work ethic.  (Much of which was also transported to the U.S.)

Is it any wonder then that with all the overwork (even more than the Swiss) we have a nation featuring twenty percent of citizens with moderate to severe mental disorders, nearly half of those suffering from explosive reaction syndrome, and another 5 percent with borderline personality disorder or paranoid psychosis? The latter who, when pushed to the limit,  blow up, kill fellow workers, or go berserk in other ways. As reported in one 2014 SciAm piece, after a survey of American workers, "half of the surveyed workers  confessed that they were reaching a breaking point after which they would not be able to accommodate the deluge of data."

Well, how about taking a vacation? A holiday? Time away from the damned job?  I mean real time, with no company connections, no email checking. And we're talking here of white collar workers on their electronic tethers in assorted information fields. What about the havoc in the lives of the rest of the overworked citizenry? Well, start with drug, opioid and alcohol addiction, then move on to neuroses and psychoses driven by overwork (50-60 hrs./ week)  and also (often) trying to be caretakers at the same time they meet the bosses' demands.  How do we know Americans are overworked to mental oblivion, apart from the actual hours put in?


- Over  $150 b "left on the table" each year in terms of unused vacation days

- 577 million unused vacation days each year

- 55 percent of vacation days that are taken always occur with office work taken along

WHY are Americans risking their mental health for the capitalist 0.001 percent? So the high fliers can eat even more foie gras and enjoy 18 holes on St. Kitts every month, as their wives lavish in rose wine wraps every day?  Of course, most workers will cite "fear" as the prime reason, meaning that if they take those days then they may likely return to find themselves without a job, never mind they might get ill from the added stress.

The  new study was designed to make it easier to compare countries to each other, by capturing the overall hours per person, not just for people with jobs. That incorporates not just the length of the typical workweek but also retirement, vacation, unemployment, and other time spent out of the workforce.

We also know not all time spent at the office, shop, or factory is time well spent. Output is also critical to the productivity equation, but difficult to quantify. Besides, let's not mince words, once you are in the work place you are being monitored by cameras every second you are there, whether you are a postal worker or a paper pusher. (In the latter case, keystrokes may also be measured per hour).  So it's not like you can just take 'five' every ten minutes without the boss catching on to you. In other words, if you have any sense you better be 'on' every minute you're at work.

Nevertheless, it’s important to have a reliable calculation of hours worked per person to accurately measure productivity, the amount of economic value nations get out of each hour their citizens spend working. The study’s detailed data could help researchers figure out why Americans toil so much longer than Europeans and which factors most influence productivity.

One theory is that Americans work longer hours because their additional effort is more likely to pay off. People earn a wider range of incomes in the U.S., so “workers have an incentive to try harder to move up the job ladder because a promotion is worth more,” according to Dora Gicheva, an economist at the University of North Carolina-Greensboro, citing a study that compared the U.S. with Germany.

But our long time German friends,  Reinhardt and Elli (see photo below), dispute that take.

Near Garmisch-Partenkirchen Germany in 2013.L-R: Me, Elli, Janice and Reinhardt

At the time we had discussions in May, 2013 with Reinhardt about the relative merits of the German and American work forces,  he'd been emphatic that the idea that promotions were "worth more" in the USA was nonsense. "Workers have just as great an incentive here in Germany", he said, because seniority is based on the quality of one's work and "that same seniority determines one's pension."  When I pressed him further he agreed that Germans aren't ruled 'by the buck' (or euro), "Jawohl, it is true that we do not consider the money to be the main determinant of our lives. We treasure time to be with family also to travel and see the world later on."

He did agree also that higher taxes are part of it and enable benefits like higher pensions, more widely distributed social insurance and child care provisions in Germany, as well as a less profit oriented healthcare system. He acknowledged that taxes in the U.S. are substantially lower than in Europe but made it clear that translated into more social benefits for Europeans. "It is interesting" he said, "but if Americans were willing to pay higher taxes they might have to pay less in healthcare costs because they could have a system more like ours, less based on profits!"

Too true!

Other studies have suggested that this higher tax burden reduces the incentive to earn more by putting in extra hours. According to Lee Ohanian, an economist at the University of California-Los Angeles.

“Americans are indeed richer than Europeans, and one reason why is because of taxes that depress the incentives to work in Europe,”

But that depends on your definition of being "richer", i.e. whether in terms of time or money. Most of our European friends value wealth in time over money wealth. As our Czech friends Martin and Gabriella told us while we dined out in Prague: "You can't take the money with you. But time can provide you with the opportunity to make real social contacts and travel, enrich your family and your life."

Czech friends Martin and Gabrielle in Prague last summer. Each of them gets up to eight weeks off from their respective jobs.

Martin told us a large part of the more civilized holiday structure in Europe was due to the relatively stronger labor unions there, along with other worker protections.  As Gabrielle, Martin's gf,  put it: "Here in Europe the companies cannot work us to death or insanity like they do people in your country. That's why we can travel our continent for weeks at a time. Your countrymen would probably feel they have to check their cell phones or emails every day or twice or more a day!"

Their views appear to be supported. Economists at Harvard and Dartmouth concluded in a 2006 study that:

 “The data strongly suggest that labor regulation and unionization appear to be the dominant factors explaining the differences between the United States and Europe,”

Meanwhile our German friends Reinhardt and Elli both agreed that generous pensions in Europe are also a strong factor in discouraging older people from working. Compare Germany where very few citizens are still on the job to the U.S., with more people over 65 working than at any point in the past 50 years.

But don't ascribe that to a "desire" of elders to go out there and hoof it until their bones break. It's because Germans still retain a proper pension system, provided by their companies (like Reinhardt's architectural design firm - allowing him to leave work at 55). Meanwhile, U.S. companies have gone from the defined benefit plan to the 401k as an ostensible alternative. But this has always been absurd.

William Wolman and Anne Colamosca in their book 'The Great 401k Hoax', (2002),  assert that the 401k was never designed as an "investment" vehicle but as a purely savings medium. It was meant to salt your money away in safe, low risk abodes - while being matched by your company to some degree- and all the while sheltered from taxes. But almost from the start of the plan, named after the section in the tax code, workers were driven to put money into stocks, mainly equities, and other high risk instruments.  Little wonder, that small fry investors in 401ks have been fried and refried, over and over again. Under such conditions, the small investor risks his money and security.

Little wonder also, with this deplorable 'bait and switch' - elders have been forced to put the pedal to the metal longer and longer. (Which, btw, IS a bad thing because their  retention of jobs means less opportunity for younger workers.)  So make no mistake that the U.S.’s shift from traditional pensions to 401(k) plans made it harder for Americans to know when it was safe to retire. At the same time, the constant drumbeat of the financial media to "have at least $1 million" on hand, has postponed practical retirement for too many, which they could enjoy if they just had more realistic spending expectations. In Europe they do.

One thing is clear: The difference in hours worked between Americans and Europeans is more than a difference in cultures. As recently as the early 1970s, according to several studies, people in the U.S. and Western Europe worked about the same number of hours per week. So why the change in the U.S.?  Basically, because the twin phenomena of Neoliberalism and globalization in the U.S. eroded too much worker security.

Neoliberalism, arguing that citizens must not expect economic security (including from pensions and "entitlements") reared its ugly head in the 1980s. Most won't say it, but it was Neoliberal ideology that drove the impetus to withdraw the defined pension and offer the 401 k in its place. Enough of guaranteed retiree security at the hands of companies! Then in the 1990s the globalization aspect took hold with the signing of the NAFTA deal and we know where that's led. See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/03/krugman-loses-it-brands-bernie.html

It is also the U.S. Neoliberal mind virus driving the demand to cut Social Security, just as it is Neoliberal economics which is using a false measure of inflation to cut retirees' Social Security COLAs - effectively translating into a significant Medicare premium hike for many. So no wonder many seniors have to go back to work.  But not Reinhardt! With his $8,000 euro/month pension he is free to pursue his many hobbies, including horticulture, as well as visit many different places with wife Elli.

Another American work aspect which galls both Martin and Reinhardt is the lack of off time for illness. In contrast to the European Union, which mandates 20 days of paid vacation (the Netherlands has 26), the U.S. has no federal laws guaranteeing paid time off, sick leave or even breaks for national holidays. This is disgusting! Or to use Reinhardt's phrase: "Shrecklich!"

Both were also nonplussed to learn that  a survey by Harris Interactive found that, at the end of 2012, Americans had an average of nine unused vacation days. And in several surveys Americans have admitted that they obsessively check and respond to e-mails from their colleagues or feel obliged to get some work done in between occasional swims, and going on a sightseeing junket.

Unfortunately, it is more likely most Americans will simply use the new study to justify their workaholism, as opposed to fighting it. While we need most average American workers putting their feet down and saying 'NO More!', the odds of that happening are about the same as Trump asserting he will accept the results of the election before Nov. 8th.  So we have to face the fact that most Americans would rather remain half-sick, mentally unstable worker drones than seize that precious commodity of time to anchor their lives and families. 

Alas, because of this misplaced value system, we can expect many more to come apart at the seams in the years ahead!

Examining The Roots of Economic Inequality

Economic Inequality occupies such a prominent place in today's political-economic discussions that even the high-powered elites (at least some of them, like the Bank of International Settlements) have actually warned of its metastasis. This suggests the problem is at once global but still far more pernicious in some nations, such as the USA.

The general measure is the Gini coefficient and for the U.S. it has dramatically increased the past 25 years and is now nearly 0.40. This is nearly on a par with the Philippines and Mexico. Not only that but inequality is increasing.

There are two ways to look at what's happening: 1) simplistic or 2) systemic. In the simplistic narrative inequality is simple because it's just reduced to income inequality. People-workers are naturally unequal in means, salary, perks etc. because they occupy different stations in life, have different training, aptitudes, education, background etc. so some will "get to the top" and have it all or most of it with humongous incomes, while others will flounder as flunkies in bottom feeder jobs like burger flippers or maybe street cleaners.

Following from this, the elites will always be able to buy more and bigger, whether cars, homes, TVs, home theaters or even vacations. By this narrative, it's the fault of the "flunkies" for accepting what are supposed to be starter jobs and keeping them instead of moving on to bigger and better things, preferably by getting more training, education etc. (No mention here at all of the fact that 95% of all wealth is inherited, as first exposed by Michael Parenti in his book 'The Dirty Truth')

As a corollary to this, the poor  - those in poverty and needing welfare or food stamps - are also to blame for not pulling themselves up and making more of their lives by getting higher paid jobs as opposed to say "settling" for a $7.50 an hour fast food McJob.

Of course, this is all a balderdash right wing fairy tale that may console the Right winger's conscience but barely touches on reality.

Thus, to really get at what's going on one needs to use a systemic approach and analysis. In doing so we learn a number of brutal truths:

1) The Job profile in the U.S. now is like a steep pyramid with only a few "great" jobs at the top, mainly techies (Google, Microsoft etc.) but the bulk are mediocre or poorly paid. Also, with few benefits. Look at the typical WalMart worker. The latter doesn't go for food stamps or Medicaid because he is endemically "poor" but rather is too poorly paid. Since his company won't provide him the health benefits he needs, of course he must go on Medicaid.

2) The pyramid took this form since the 1990s, and especially after NAFTA, when millions of manufacturing and production jobs were sent out of the country and plants - as well as steel mills and auto factories (paying truly living wages of $35/hr or more) were shut down.

3) While many econ gurus made predictions that computer -software and other better paying jobs would come to the fore this didn't materialize. Instead companies (e.g. Dell)  "outsourced" their tech help software expertise to India. (Indian schools now train their s/w students not only in the various online help techniques but also how to imitate American accents).

4) Thus, the fact of the matter is the elite jobs never came back and hence upward mobility - once a cornerstone of the U.S. work force- went into abeyance and is perhaps now extinguished permanently according to some authors (See Juliette Schorr, 'The End Of Work') .  The WSJ in one article back in August actually predicted that by 2020 fully 44 percent of the workforce would be in retail- and receiving a truly 'royal' average wage of about $9.50 an hour. When the Wall Street Journal recognizes such a huge proportion of retail jobs you know upward movement is a thing of the past.

All of which shows that claiming income disparity is at the root of economic inequality is true in one big sense, but misplaced if  massive U.S. job outsourcing via globalization is not factored into the equation - and acknowledging this interjects a systemic defect.

5) American workers have gang-busted with productivity gains since the early 1970s, but have virtually nothing to show for it. Wage increases have only marginally increased (last month to barely 2.2 percent)  and meanwhile benefits have been pared back. Worse, productivity is now almost uniformly measured not the way it once was - by how much a worker did per hour - but instead how many workers can be CUT so that those remaining can still do the work of the earlier total.

The other systemic side of economic inequality has to do with how many advantages the wealthiest have which average workers do not. For example, they have enough disposable extra income that they can afford to be in the stock market and sustain heavy losses - say in a correction or downturn - without having to eat cat food. The ordinary worker with his or her 401k of only $100,000 can't afford that luxury.

Also, the wealthy can make use of  computer flash trading to cash in shares before the ordinary Joe can reach for his smart phone. The rich also know how to use fractional trading to benefit as well as get tax write-offs the ordinary bloke can only dream of and can use trusts to protect his estate that the ordinary Joes and Janes can't.

From a systemic viewpoint then we see the plight of the U.S. worker can be laid at several forces which are causing available jobs of any quality to plummet: 1) globalization, including the oncoming TPP trade deal, and 2) automation - which is enabling companies to jettison even more workers and thereby save on salaries and benefits. These factors,  in tandem with the wealthy stacking  market transactions in their favor, means it will always be a rigged game. Worse, the wealthy will make extra money off the backs of the workers via the stock and mutual fund losses of the latter.

The solution to the problem then must be systemic but not as the 'simplistic' folks portray it. First, the market and stock market in particular must be held to account for the little guy. No more flash trades or fractional share buying, selling. No more carry trade. Plus each transaction carries a tax hit, no more unlimited exchanges.

At the same time,  the  rich alone can't be taxed to sustain an economically equitable society. Everyone of middle means must be taxed more highly but also understand they will get it back in higher benefits (like the Europeans do), including: lower health care costs, lower drug costs, and lower thresholds for Medicaid and even food stamps. Also, low cost or free child care to enable parents to work or even have the chance to get better jobs (if such become available0.

In Europe, citizens accept much higher taxation but this is balanced by much more government support they can depend on, whether for pensions, healthcare or childcare. In the U.S. model, Americans are taught to be rabid individualists and "go it alone" without any support,  but if they stumble (say by getting a fatal cancer or being in a bad accident), too bad. However, if they hit life's lottery - yeah, they will live like kings, or at least Trump.

Trouble is 99 percent will not make life's lottery, so will end up scrabbling for a life line at some point. (Which is also why you see so many hard working Americans throwing their money at lottery tickets the only chance they have- in their mind.)

Donald Trump in all his economic bloviations, has gotten one thing correct - and it is driving the anti-tax fanatics of the GOP nuts: higher taxes have to be paid, especially by the super rich. But if economic inequality is ever to be conquered and real productivity returned - higher taxes must be borne by everyone of decent means - which is also why the Bush middle class tax cuts were one of the worst things ever for this country. Especially as they were implemented when Bushie boy was starting $ 4 trillion wars. Sadly, the Dems contributed to that malaise by voting for them in the first place then extending them past their sunset date (which even the Bushies knew was needed to prevent a deficit blowout.)

Now all those war debt coppers got to be paid back, and the rich alone - rich as they are - can't do it. The burden falls on us all. But it's surely a cautionary point against starting any future conflicts we can't pay for and which will only increase inequality!

The truth for my bible -believing friends is that the "parable of talents" would end up a poor joke in today's rigged financial world. I don't believe Yeshua, if he was alive now, would even be daft enough to propose it. He'd know in advance, given he's God, whoever received a talent to invest would lose it - in about the time taken to be fleeced in a flash trade.

See also:

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/08/dear_middle_class_welcome_to_poverty_partner/

http://www.salon.com/2015/09/09/robert_reich_americas_economy_is_immoral_partner/

Clutter, Capitalism and Inequality: Why So Many Uncaring 'Muricans ?

Young woman during an Occupy protest in 2011. Young people - under 35 - are more likely to be invested in issues of income inequality.


It was somewhat shocking to read in the Denver Post yesterday ('Income Inequality, Americans Don't Care', p. 12A) how blasé most of our countrymen are to the growing problem of income, economic inequality. It's as if all their brains have been numbed or administered a powerful narcotic. Another possibility is that their consciousness has been falsified by a drumbeat  of framing by the corporate media to ignore the problem or regard it as inapplicable to them. We call this regrettable mental condition "false consciousness" about which I have written earlier, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/09/class-consciousness-or-false.html

Anyway, the Post piece is extracted from  this article in the Associated Press, which pulls data from the General Social Survey and the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. The saddest aspect of the central article is that the gap between the rich and the rest of us continues to grow, but just as American wages have stagnated, so too has the public’s interest in combating income inequality.

Why? Don't they believe this inequality applies to them? Do they not think it will ever catch up to them? Say after losing a job and health care to a serious illness and having no lifeline, not one - while the elites howl with laughter. Who knows? But one of the most pathetic segments of the piece noted:

"The public's focus on income inequality has remained stagnant over the past 36 years.  Less than half of Americans — 46 percent — say the government ought to reduce income differences between the rich and the poor, a level that has held fairly steady since the survey began asking the question in 1978. Thirty-seven percent say the government shouldn't concern itself with income differences, while the rest don't feel strongly either way"

WTF?! Are these people comatose or zombies? Or, maybe they are so enmeshed in their 'toys' - from X-boxes, to new cars or big homes, they don't care anymore. Consumption has converted them all into deadheads  It's as if all their brains have been numbed, de-sensitized by all the crap they've bought. 

This isn't that farfetched. According to Stanford Professor Janet Spitz in her article: "I Have Way More Stuff Than You': How Is This Normal? ('Democratic Left' magazine, p. 4) , consumption and clutter plays a major role in desensitizing brains to the predicaments of others.  How much consumption and clutter are talking about?

According to a recent article in TIME, p. 44, March 23, Americans now have so much 'stuff' they have to either rent storage units to put it all or their homes have become nests of clutter - with stuff piled up in ever room to the extent the living space is non-existent.  There are now 48,500 storage facilities  nationwide- raking in $24 billion a year. There are so many they "could fill three Manhattans and outnumber all the Wendys, McDonalds, Burger Kings and Starbucks in the U.S. put together".

How is this even possible? Well, one reason is that the consumption is fueling ever lower prices. According to the TIME article: "In the past decade, the cost of cell phones, toys, computers and televisions has plunged - thanks in large part to overseas manufacturing."

But that overseas manufacturing is mainly paying slave wages, after the decent American manufacturing jobs were shipped out  (via "globalization") to places as diverse as Beijing, and Bangalore. So, the stuff you have accumulated basically comes from capitalist wage slaves in poor nations. Your cheapo prices sustains their misery while it befuddles your brain by the sheer accumulation and distractions. All this was well described by Benjamin Barber in his book, 'Consumed'.

Thus, according to Prof. Spitz, a large part of our blasé attitude to inequality derives from being blinded by our own consumption. This in turn is fed by a run amuck market fundamentalism. As she puts it (p. 5): "The rightward ideological shift toward market fundamentalism creates problems for practical democracy too."

Well, of course! Because bastardized Supreme Court decisions like 'Citizens United' have basically converted our election process into a race to the bottom by political whores. Those whose money caches are filled the most and fastest by their corporate owners-  whether the Koch bros. or Sheldon Adelson,  become the winners and get to govern. But they do so for the corporations and special monied interests, not us.  That also includes domination of the media by which can they control what we get to see and hear about issues. If those problems like income inequality are never discussed, or else dismissed, then it will be off people's radar. So no wonder their disinterest. As noted in the Post article, quoting the Center for American Progress’ John Halpin: "This is an elite debate, and it's filtered through partisan lenses. It hasn't been strong enough to change the public's mind."

Well, it should!

People's lack of education also plays into their false consciousness or disinterest in inequality, leading to false beliefs regarding perception of class in relation to income levels. As a first test, ask ten Americans off the street what income class they belong to. Nine of ten, or more likely all ten, will say "middle class" - even if unemployed for a year, on food stamps, and about to have their home foreclosed.

A more concrete study of class in relation to income level was a (2003) survey conducted by The Economic Policy Institute. It asked generally where people thought they were in the economic spectrum: upper 1% (earning $320,000 year or more); upper 5% (> $80,000) or where?

Unbelievably, a full 19% in this random survey claimed they were in the privileged class of the top 1%.!  A virtual statistical impossibility in any random study. In fact, internal survey cross-check questions on income category showed many of these working at a little above minimum wage, and even the highest were at barely $44,000/yr. Nowhere near the 1% threshold! Other commentators at the time on this study (e.g. Froma Harrop, Ellen Goodman) pointed to this ignorance as a basis for supporting such crap as the Bush tax cuts, which overwhelmingly favored the rich elites. Thus:

A) They didn't know where they themselves fit, and indeed inflated their wealth and positions and

B) they actually believed they'd be millionaires one fine day and be able to partake of the tax cuts. (Or 'death tax' benefits).

In fact, they were deliriously out of touch with reality. As author Michael Parenti has noted ('Dirty Truths') 94% of all wealth comes by way of inheritance, not paid work. So, they are fooling themselves. Unless they have a rich elder relative hidden away with a vast fortune, they'd be better off thinking they may have to work until they're 70 or 80 and even that may not be enough to stay in place.

But sadly, the Overclass and its minions (including the GOP Party, a basic "sub-division") consistently get working class folk to act against their own vested interests by distracting them with moralism ploys - raising "moral" issues like abortion, porn, gays and what not - just long enough so that many working class voters keep they're eyes off the ball when election day arrives. Then these workers wonder why they never get ahead.

Fortunately, there appears to be a ray of hope. Young people, Millennials, appear to be more likely to have income inequality on their personal radar. According to the AP piece:

"Younger adults — those under age 35 — are more likely than older adults to say the government should do something about the gap.”

Let's hope they take up the banner again, perhaps in a revived 'Occupy Wall Street' movement, driven by as many or more people than we've seen act in the post-Ferguson racial milieu. Because, in the end, the two issues are inextricable bound.

The "Neoliberalism Frankenstein" - If You're Against It You Should Be Rooting for Greece and Russia!

Is it true as salon.com author Patrick L. Smith opines in a recent piece,

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/12/neoliberalism_is_our_frankenstein_greece_and_ukraine_are_the_hot_spots_of_a_new_war_for_supremacy/

 that we Americans have all become supine and surrendered to the mind -fucking U.S. media, and so are unable to discern truth from propaganda any more? Smith observes:

"Americans have by now surrendered to a blitz of propaganda wherein Russia and its leadership are cast as Siberian beasts, accepting as truth tales the National Enquirer would be embarrassed to run"

 It seems so, as polls disclose too many of us are siding with the Neoliberal media machine in two of the last arenas where Neoliberal world supremacy is at stake: Greece and the Ukraine. In the former a 'gun' is being held to the country's head to pay up all its owed debts despite the fact most level-headed people familiar with the structuring know it can't work. Putting the Greeks and their new PM in a hopeless, losing wicket position.   As Smith points out:

"At writing, Yanis Varoufakis, Greece’s imaginative new finance minister, has just made his first formal effort to present European counterparts with new ideas to get foreign debts of €240 billion ($271 billion) off the books and the Greek economy back in motion. These ideas can work. Even creditor institutions acknowledge that Greece cannot pay its debts as they are now structured. But at a session in Brussels Wednesday, the European Union’s arms remained folded."

Why the obstinacy? Because if Greece is allowed to restructure so will Spain and likely Portugal too. This the Neoliberal debt mongers cannot afford to allow. (And let's note that Barbados too is under the neolib gun, after the most recent credit downgrade, as the vultures of the IMF circle getting ready to pick the country's bones.  In Bim's case, of course, it was a profligate gov't that allowed the situation to get out of control.)

Meanwhile, in the Ukraine - the West's Neoliberals have handed PM Petro Poroshenko an "offer he can't refuse" - a la the Godfather when he had his hit men chop that thoroughbred's head off and place it in the bed of the movie mogul who refused to cooperate (giving the Godfather's godson a movie role.) The West, featuring the EU and its U.S. ally as well as NATO puppets, want that Ukraine gem in their Neoliberal constellation - backed up right against Russia's border.  They refuse to allow it to be a buffer state  - which is exactly what's needed now.  Smith again:

"Also at writing, the Poroshenko government in Ukraine appears to have recommitted to a cease-fire signed last September in Minsk and promptly broken. It is not surprising given Kiev’s very evident desperation on all fronts. But neither would it be if Poroshenko once again reneges. There is a sensible solution on the table now, but these are not people who have so far been given to one."

Again, why not accept the sensible solution? Because that is not what Neoliberal supremacy is all about. Like a Frankenstein monster created by economic dimwits who believe in the deus ex machina of markets with humans as its cogs, they are all about absolutism. Solutions must therefore be all or none, with the 'none' being no Russian input that can be respected. Ukraine is therefore dictated to be a satellite in the greater NATO conglomerate and subject to Neoliberal debt rules.

Smith in his essay rightly puts it thus:

"There is something tragically irrational driving both of these crises. The genesis of each, at least nominally, is the question of whether markets serve society or it is the other way around. Economic conflict, then, has been transformed into humanitarian disasters. This is what Greece and Ukraine have most fundamentally in common.
 

It is in search of a logical explanation of the illogic at work in these two crises that something else, something larger, emerges to bring them into a coherent whole. Washington has so many wars going now, none declared, one can hardly keep the list current. But the most sustained and havoc-wreaking of them is unreported. This is the war for neoliberal supremacy across the planet. Greece and Ukraine are best viewed as two hot fronts in this war, a sort of World War III none of us ever imagined."

And he nails it right there! "World War III" going on right now,  yet most of us are somnolent, or better, comatose under the haze of Neoliberal puppet media propaganda. The barrage on the nightly news has been so effective, the poorly informed are left with their mouths agape as those brutal Russians (backing the separatists)  emerge with pretty well the same "evil" aura as ISIS.  No surprise that like the brainwashed denizens of Oceania - in the scene where the uber villain Goldstein is depicted on the giant theater screen - they go nuts clamoring for blood and action.  DO they not know that action more fully ensnares them as complicit bait in their future slavery and destitution  in a perpetual war state? Frankly, they no longer care. Having lost the ability to critically and logically think, thanks to the bastardized vocabulary of Newspeak, their brains have now been colonized by "Big Brother" to his own ends.

The people of Oceania were no longer authentic beings in their own right but mere extensions of Big Brother and his will to power, to keep grinding their bodies and state resources up in a never-ending war to attain global domination. SO it is with the "Neoliberal Frankenstein" and how it now seeks to grind Greece and Ukraine into more fodder for its misbegotten global ends.

Smith asserts that "Neoliberalism is our Frankenstein" and also says "it is profoundly undemocratic, never mind that the English and American variants of democracy are the mulch from which it arises." He also adds:  "It is also unrelentingly absolutist because it is intimately related to the myth of America’s providential exception, neoliberalism can tolerate no alternative".  His definition (formal) starts out:

"Neoliberalism denotes the revival since the 1970s, plus or minus, of English liberalism as expounded by Locke in the 17th century and numerous others in the 18th—Adam Smith and his “invisible hand,” most famously. John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, the utilitarian, are notable among 19th century apostles."

But then goes into a lengthy discourse comparing early and 18th century forms of  liberalism to the neo-mutant. Let's just cut to the chase here and give Smith's core definition:

"Classical liberalism in its neo phase denotes not thought but belief, ideological conviction. It is the ideology of radical deregulation, radical corporatization, radical privatization—prisons? water? kindergartens? human health?—maximal profit without regard to consequences, and the radical devaluation of any serious consciousness of the communities in which all individuals are suspended."

I would add to this columnist Jay Bookman's insight from a 1998 Baltimore Sun piece ('The New World Disorder Evident Here, Abroad'):

“The global economy has been constructed on the premise that government guarantees of security and protection must be avoided at all costs, because they discourage personal initiative."

And there is Henry Giroux's insight on Neoliberalism:

"As an ideology, it casts all dimensions of life in terms of market rationality, construes profit-making as the arbiter and essence of democracy, consuming as the only operable form of citizenship, and upholds the irrational belief that the market can both solve all problems and serve as a model for structuring all social relations. "
 

Thus we see where the yen to cut social insurance arises, and why profit is amplified for the richest, and  also how  the wealthier nations  especially benefit by placing newcomer additions in regimes of adversely structured debt. This is exactly why the West's Neolibs are determined to make Ukraine part of the Neoliberal imperative and orbit. It follows from this that the true liberal must inveigh against this mission and that means siding with Russia. At least to the extent that the Ukraine outcome ends essentially in a draw - translated to mean neither in the West's orbit or Russia's but a separate buffer state. (This was advocated by Ret. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson two years ago.)

But this may be difficult given as Smith writes:
 

"I was astonished many times as a correspondent to see how readily foreign leaders and their finance ministries drank the Anglo-American Kool-Aid. Here I single out Continental Europe as especially disappointing. A long social-democratic tradition notwithstanding, almost all European leaders—and every last technocrat in Brussels—went down like sticks of butter when neoliberals at State, Treasury and in the think tanks launched the post-Berlin Wall campaign."

Thus, the Europeans have now become puppets of the U.S. which let's face it, is the primary force bearer - the 'cop of the world' there to enforce Neolib standards. Hence, the threat to send lethal weapons to the Ukrainians - who will then get to actively fight for their own Neoliberal debt enslavement.

They may never have heard of FDR's famous words that "Necessitous men cannot be free men" but who knows, they may instead buy into the old Nazi saw "Arbeit Macht Frei" - the sign hanging over Auschwitz.

The same applies to the case of Greece, as Smith observes:
 

"It is preposterous. Greek debt can be efficiently restructured so that losses are minimized and properly shared. This is a European crisis in the final analysis, not Greece’s alone; behind every incautious borrower is an incautious lender. Yet there is no hint of open minds among Europe’s leaders, notably the Germans. What, we have to ask, is this all about?"

Again, what it's about is the Neoliberal imperative. The ability to structure debt in the most adverse way possible to convert nations into debt slavery states and their citizens into slaves for the Neoliberals.  How accomplished? Well, via the draconian conditions required by the EU and the IMF: the privatization of numerous state-held assets, including airports, rails and the entire port of Piraeus. Also,  divestment of the most profitable of these first.  Leaving the gov't impecunious and a beggar beholden to the Neoliberal empire.

If you consider yourself to have any skin at all in this ongoing war, you need to back Greece and Russia as bulwarks against Neoliberal advance. If not, then you are part of the problem not the solution and if the whole world turns into a slave state for the richest, you must share the blame.
 

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/eric-zuesse/60991/gallup-americans-fear-of-russia-soars

and:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dean-baker/60995/greece-does-battle-with-creationist-economics-can-germany-be-brought-into-the-21st-century

and:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/eric-margolis/60987/putin-heads-off-a-us-russia-war

and:

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/16/ukraine_is_the_new_iraq_why_history_is_repeating_itself_in_eastern_europe_partner/

Chrystia Freeland's 'Plutocrats' - A Must Read

On MSNBC's  'Up With Chris Hayes' yesterday morning, financial columnist Chrystia Freeland (formerly an Editor with The Financial Times) nailed the situation of global wealth disparity with apolmb and clarity - citing her recent book:  Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else.
                         
 As Ms. Freeland noted yesterday morning, we now have a situation of wealth disparity within the wealthy 1% as the merely wealthy are left behind by the rapidly expanding fortunes of the new global super-rich. Forget the 1 percent; Plutocrats proves that it is the wealthiest 0.1 percent who are outpacing the rest of us at break-neck speed.

While it's true that fragmentation of wealthy from the über wealthy is a novel development, we've known about the risks of globalization and what it means to average citizens for at least 15-20 years. Commentator Ian McDonald, writing in The Barbados NATION (Aug.14 1998, p. 8) may have articulated the threat most compellingly:


"We should cease making speech after speech accepting that our fate and the fate of the world, will inevitably be decided by impersonal,market controlled forces and the sooner we accept this the better off we will be. Instead we should be denying most strongly, in every forum available to us, that such a fate is inevitable.... That instead the world deserves a better future than the one on offer from the the ruthless money men and sleaze-ridden free trade marketeers, who are making this terrible bid to dominate the world.

Do we really believe for one moment that those who preach free trade and the inevitable triumph of market forces have anything other than their own increased wealth and aggrandisement in mind? Do we honestly believe they think the system they espouse is fundamentally a good one for all concerned? Are we so naïve as to think if, by any chance, the system were to operate against their interests, that they would not make sure it was changed or abridged to suit them?

Are we so innocent and trusting that we cannot recognize bullying and crude self-interest when our noses are being rubbed in it constantly?"

McDonald wrote this some 4-5 years after the primary globalization machinery was put into place, including the World Trade Organization, G.A.T.T. and NAFTA. All of these ensured what most citizens never foresaw at the time: a massive race to the bottom. Author Willaim Greider's take is equally pungent ('Who Will Tell The People-The Betrayal of American Democracy', Touchstone, 1991), p. 401:


"It does not require great political imagination to see that the world system is heading toward a further dispersion of governing power so the closet dictator of the marketplace can command things more efficiently, from everywhere and nowhere. The historic paradox is breathtaking: At the very moment when Western democracies and capitalism have triumphed over the communist alternative, their own systems of self-government are being gradually unraveled by the market system."

And further (ibid.)

"..what is emerging now is a power system that more nearly resembles a kind of global feudalism- a system in which the private economic enterprises function like rival dukes and barons, warring for territories across the world and oblivious to local interests.......In that event, vast throngs of citizens are reduced to a political position resembling that of  the serfs....who followed church or nobility in the feudal system."

 Again, what neither Greider or McDonald could foresee was: 1) the fact that multi-national corporations would become more powerful than nation states and hence be able to leverage almost total power to their benefit, and 2) that a coterie of plutocrats associated with these multinationals, or using them to speculate (as in hedge funds) would amass such vast fortunes as to compete with the legendary Croesus.

All Freeland is doing in her book, as she noted on Chris Hayes' 'Up' , is pointing out how absolutely ridiculous wealth has enabled and promoted a detachment from the social bond.  In other words, the Über Plutocrats  no longer feel any civic allegiance or social obligation to the average citizen. While in decades past, the massively wealthy acknowledged on some level the need to contribute to the welfare of the whole society via just taxation, they no longer believe so. They now (as Mitt Romney does) employ complex tax avoidance schemes to park their money in places like the Caymans and in Swiss Banks where it can metastasize unseen and basically unreported.

The primary aim of these plutocrats is now merely to compound their own wealth - and whereas before,  in earlier decades -  they used that wealth (at least part of it) to create jobs for their fellow citizens, they now have abdicated the role of Job creators and prefer instead to increase their capital by hedge fund investing, buying art or blood diamonds, or spending tens of millions to purchase influence in political campaigns (as Sheldon Adelson is now doing, along with the Koch brothers).  In other words, the plutocrats have left their fellow citizens to suck salt or pound sand. In some cases these scum have even opted to divorce themselves from their fellow citizens by giving up their U.S. citizenship - explicitly to avoid further payment of taxes for the commonweal!

What is the economic basis for this malignancy? Author John Gray (False Dawn, The New Press, 1998) put it in the context of misapplied Ricardian comparative advantage. Thus, deliberately applying Ricardian comparative advantage EXTERNALLY (where it was never intended to be applied) as opposed to internally. As Gray notes:

"Ricardian comparative advantage applies internally in trading nations, not externally between them. It implies that in a regime of unrestricted free trade the allocation of resources will be maximally productive within each trading nation and thereby, by inference, throughout the world. Insofar as the world then becomes a single market, efficiency and productivity in every country will be maximized."


In other words, David Ricardo would never have remotely conceived of allowing American furniture, clothing, toys, and other (e.g. software) products to be manufactured in China or India. He'd have regarded that as an economic abomination, and further he'd have warned that the country so foolish to do such a thing risked the health and integrity of its own markets, as well as its citizens welfare. He'd have added that those moving such manufacture outside and thereby lowering wages and benefits inside risked demolishing capitalism in said nation - by virtue of the fact that citizens-workers would no longer be able to spend as much on the consumer goods distributed- hence it would slow GDP. We'd have a crisis in aggregate demand which is precisely what we behold now. Yet, under G.A.T.T., NAFTA etc. that's exactlly what we've done.

Indeed, in one treatise ('On The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation') Ricardo observed:

"the fancied or real insecurity of capital, when not under the immediate control of its owner, together with the natural disinclination every man has to quit the country of his birth and connections, and intrust himself with all his habits fixed, to a strange government and new laws, checks the emigration of capital".


 Thus, Ricardo perceived the innate preference of nations (that are sane) for their own laws, culture, customs and economic benefit - which perception would naturally limit the flow of capital outward for other extraneous nations' benefit. The problem is that the global Plutocrats felt no such allegiance, becoming instead the equivalent of economic traitors and terrorists. Thus, in order to earn more profit and do it globally, they shifted jobs, markets to the cheapest place with the cheapest labor costs and least regulations. It was win-win for them.

As this process accelerated, and more and more nations were ground under in the global  'race to the bottom', the plutocrats' wealth increased.

Of course, nonchalant citizens have played into this as well, and aided and abetted the plutocrats' goals. They have done this by over-reproducing, and thereby creating a global over supply in labor.

On account of procreating a vast surplus labor pool, people - ordinary citizens - have also procreated themselves out of jobs, including decent paying jobs with decent benefits. Now, with so many competing with the same skill sets across the globe, the plutocrats can basically pick and choose winners and losers, as well as 'winner nations' and 'loser nations'. As we approach a global populace of some 8 billion the situation will only get worse - with only Peak Oil or a runaway greenhouse effect to slow it down. In each case, up to two thirds of humanity is likely to be extirpated (see also www.dieoff.org ) which means in any new "rebuilding" world - assuming such is even feasible, the plutocrats - if any remain- will not be able to leverage labor against itself.

Recall that it was Vladimir Ilyich Lenin ( 'Imperialism, the Highest Form of Capitalism', 1916) who first sounded the warning that mobile finance capital was designed to continually leverage labor to the lowest common denominator.

Perhaps, the best thing people across the globe can begin to do to assist themselves is to cease having kids beyond maybe one per family. To do otherwise is to continue to procreate a surplus labor pool that ensures poverty and destitution for many decades to come .....and which no politico, no matter how clever ....will be able to repair.