Trump’s Carrier speech ‘absolutely chilling,’ economic analyst says
Robert Shapiro, former undersecretary of commerce for economic affairs under President Bill Clinton said the problem in this country is not about getting people to work.
“Unemployment is below 5 percent today. We’ve largely achieved that. The goal is to keep that going and to do it with rising incomes,” he said in an interview with CNBC’s “Power Lunch” before Trump’s speech.
That means a serious agenda of public investment in education, training, infrastructure and other things that make companies more productive, he explained.
Ahem, as the ever growing by leaps and bounds Gross Domestic Product keeps leaping….Median Household Income in the United States lifts a little and then stalls.
Making companies more productive is great, except for the reality that in the USA, all the gains of that productivity go to the 1% regardless of who we’ve put in the White House.
But Shapiro still delivers the Democratic version of trickle down, that education and job training will be the remedy and eventually, the American worker will reap their due rewards.
Here is the entirety of what Mr. Shapiro said, as reported in your own cite (emphasis mine):
What more do you want the man to say, for crying out loud?
Here’s what he’s already said:
– Wages need to increase. Isn’t that what you’ve been saying?
– We need to invest in workers (“education, training, infrastructure and other things”). Are you so opposed to education that you think this is WRONG?
– We should not be rewarding executives at the expense of workers
– We should not be taking money from taxpayers in order to increase the wealth of the already wealthy
How on earth is any of this “trickle down”?
Your comment, to me, exemplifies cutting off your nose to spite your face.
He says he wants wages to increase. Great. When I was five, I wanted a pony. He says we need to invest in education. Sure, but that’s not going to make the changes in wages that we need. We need to wear seat belts, brush our teeth, invest in education, all true and none of that is behind the wide and widening wealth gap in the USA. He says we ought not reward executives at the expense of workers. More lip service. Is he willing to come out and say out loud “we need higher tax rates on the upper earning brackets and higher minimum wages!” …..nope, he will not say that.
He’s full of “should” and a lot more.
Your failure to see through his bullshit exemplifies why Democrats are becoming less and less attractive to voters and why we got shellacked on election day.
then you counter that we should raise the minimum wage.
Brilliant!
Saying “I want wages to rise” is a wish, a talk, lip service.
Saying ” I want the government to raise the minimum wage” is an action, the walk, something real.
The minimum wage isn’t responsible for all wage increases. Demand for labor drives up wages. That’s not neo-liberalism. That’s economics.
Low wage workers need more money. So do I. My income has also flattened. I’m unionized and receive COLAs, and minimum wage workers don’t compete in my employment pool. I’m not as poor as a low-wage worker, but a minimum wage increase isn’t going to help me much personally. In the grand scheme of things, they should come first, but my point is, minimum wage isn’t going to affect everyone’s incomes.
Shapiro is sort of wrong when he talks about increasing productivity, which has increased without a corresponding increase in wages. Productivity=output/man hours. Productivity is economically good, though these days it tends to lead to the elimination of jobs through automation. To benefit workers, we need more man hours. Productivity is not necessary.
He’s right about unemployment to the extent that people re-enter the workforce who have given up.
were the ones that got my attention and anger
canard. It’s a piece of the puzzle, but it’s illusory, particularly for people who live in a place where even an education doesn’t mean a job.
Differences in education (or hard work, for that matter) are not the causes behind our growing wealth divide. It’s true that a formal education and hard work will allow members of the working class to earn more than others within that class, but that class as a whole continues to fall, without regard to education and hard work when compared to the wealthy class.
Picketty illustrates it brilliantly. Even Bill Gate’s recent increases on wealth proves it.
Our party has to be on record as being in full opposition to the wealthy class of this level, to tear it down.
…is what exactly it is you DO want. Education isn’t going to change things overnight, especially for people your age frankly, but it is by far the most worthy long term goal there is.
or what is posted in the comments, like it never happened. Expect another one in a few days.
I will push for change.
My hunch is you are waiting for Chelsea to run in 2020?
You know what they say about people who do the same thing over and over and expect a new result.
All roads come back to the Clinton Crime Family™.
“When you lose the White House to the least popular candidate in the history of America, when you lose the Senate, when you lose the House, and when two-thirds of governors in this country are Republicans, it is time for a new direction.” Bernie Sanders
“All We need is job training and education!” : some guy from Somerville and his fan club….
I think you made the point already.
She’s not ready to be President and I see no groundswell of support for her. IF she decides to go into public service at all I’m sure she will start further down the ladder.
Link
The Clintons were part of the 1990s, not the cause of the era. They reflected their times. Personalizing the zeitgeist is not only stupid but counterproductive and a conservative fallacy.
Hillary’s platform, pushed by Bernie, reflected 2015. Unfortunately, her campaign was caught in the 1990s in some ways. (People have called it identity politics, but I think it’s as much demographic politics).
It’s stupid to obsess on the Clintons. Bill and Hillary are done. If Chelsea runs, BMG will have plenty to say, and no say in the matter. And Chelsea would have to appeal to the 2020 electorate.
“The 1990s were not the Clintons” And to some extent, neither was their success.
Bill Clinton happened to be president at the time of the invention of the greatest change in the economy since the railroad – the Internet. The older among us remember when anything ‘dot com’ was an immediate economic boom; the stock market, businesses, all of these exploded. It has been liked by economists to the tulip bulb craze in the 1630’s, the first real investment bubble. But, as the economy assimilated this change, as many if not more of the startups went bankrupt, jobs dried up, stocks fell, etc. in the course of a normal correction. When Clinton gets credit for this, it is at some level like the guy born on Third in the baseball metaphor.
This is not a reflection on Clinton, per se, but just an observation that he was a lucky guy to hold office when he did.
…which as I recall got no GOP votes, Clinton and the Dems created the environment in which it could happen.
I thought that Clinton’s stimulus died in the Senate.
I think GHWB’s tax hike– which, ironically, did him in– did far more to crate the environment for the 90s economy than anything Clinton or the Dems did.
Especially a stimulus that didn’t happen.
…is that Al Gore had to break the tie for it to pass the Senate.
politics. Ask Jimmy Carter.
I typically roll my eyes, but I think jtm is on to something here, even if he has a penchant for not selling it with sweetness.
Americans in their 20s are more educated than in any time in history. What do they have to show for it? A lower net worth, lower paying jobs, less job security, and longer hours. And those are the educated ones!
I’m all for education, but pushing education as the solution for the entire lower half of the income distribution is absurd. We need outcomes where people who put in an honest days work get a living wage. We can nibble a little bit of that with tax policy — EIC, pushing out the first few steps of the graudated tax, adding deductions, the works. But if a person is making $18,720/yr ($9 x 40 x 52), no amount of tax cuts are going to make that a living wage.
It’s clear that we need higher minimum wages, lower rents, and far lower out-of-pocket health care costs. We can achieve some of that by taxing the highest income earners more, but some of that will come with higher prices and reduced employment overall, and we’re going to have to live with that. Leaving behind the imperfect is no way forward for this country.
I’ll try to be a bit sweeter next time.
An education is key in the differences within the working class. No one denies that. I don’t deny that. I encouraged both of my kids to get a great education. They did. They are going to be economically secure no matter who is in the White House.
But here’s the thing. Even doctors are making less today than they were 20 years ago. There are a few occupations here and there with a bubble here a bubble there, but due to a surplus of labor and other things, wages are toast.
Even so, the nation as a whole continues to make more and more wealth. The GDP rose 70% in a period of years from the 60’s to today while the median household income rose 10%. Where’s the 60%?
It’s in the hands of a very few people who got there by birth, chance, and sometimes extraordinary physical or mental aptitude. If you read Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century, you’ll see proof that when people get that much money, NO amount of education, hard work, or even luck will be able to catch them. And THEY are in control. They are financing the candidates of both parties. Take a look at Steve Mnuchin, Trump’s pick for Sec. of Treasury. He has “donated” to Trump, Clinton, Gore, Edwards, Bradley, Forbes, and Kerry. Steve Mnuchin is the reason women are not getting equal pay. Steve Mnuchin is the reason we can’t have universal health care. Steve Mnuchin is the reason we can’t retire at 65. Steve Mnuchin is the reason our kids are saddled with debt after college. And NO amount of education or job training is going to remove Steve Mnuchin from power.
There are too many Democrats willing to kiss the ass of all the Steve Mnuchins because they tell is “the money has to come from somewhere”. To them I say, why don’t we just fold up our tent along with the Republicans give up because our political races are as believable as the WWE.
…but I can personally vouch for your second paragraph:(
I entered the work force in 1973 which, according to most economists, was the last year that the working class class (and wages) were actually expanding. For me, it was like walking into a movie just when the credits started to roll….
It wasn’t an answer then, and it isn’t now. It has had a lot political currency for a very long time. The neo-liberals like it because it allows them to ignore the inequities of our economic system and policy choices.
I’m an educator. I’m also pretty educated. I really value education, but it’s not going to get everyone a job if there are not well-paying, highly skilled jobs that require an education. And education still doesn’t solve the issue of providing jobs that will result in a decent lifestyle for people who will inevitably work in jobs that require less skill.
…but we should always strive to have the highest quality public education in the world and for financial circumstance to never be a barrier to pursuing higher education for those who desire it.
The issue is that there aren’t enough high-paying jobs period. We use education as much as a sorting mechanism as job preparation. If you went to college, you have dedication, organization, and literacy at a certain level. So what if you majored in sociology and we’re hiring a maitre d’ at a fancy hotel?
Americans can’t work cheaper than overseas Third World workers, or robots. The solution right now seems to be to “invent” more jobs those categories can’t do (those jobs Trump ‘saved’ at Carrier will be automated soon enough). Does that work?
It doesn’t count all the people who are no longer counted, because they lost their jobs in the Great Recession and went so long without new ones that they’re basically unemployable.
It doesn’t count those who are working temporary jobs, or contract jobs, or part time jobs, or jobs in the low-paid/no benefits “gig economy,” who would prefer full time, permanent positions.
It doesn’t all those who are underemployed, or working outside their trained skill, working for less pay and fewer benefits than they may have years ago, or than what they’d like to find with their training.
The fact that we have all too many neoliberal democrats celebrating these figures shows that they, too, don’t think everyone else counts.
Our party needs to cast them out.
The first three paragraphs are valid points (and I personally fall in the third category), but given that we’ve had a consistent metric by which we do measure unemployment I’d much rather have 4.6% than, say, twice that. I reject cast them out rhetoric entirely.
We, allegedly have 5% unemployment and the people running for office in government promise “more jobs”, never “higher pay”! Why is that?
Remember who is in control. Steve Mnuchin and his ilk are in control. They control the government, the banks, the media. They do not want to upset us with reports of all the people who are no longer counted, because they lost their jobs in the Great Recession or who are working temporary jobs, or contract jobs, or part time jobs, or jobs in the low-paid/no benefits “gig economy,” who would prefer full time, permanent positions.
And they certainly do not want to raise their labor costs.
Disagreeing on the solution does not change agreement on the problem