Profits Before People

Pruning relatively less-efficient employees like clerks and travel agents, whose work can be done more cheaply by computers or workers abroad, makes American businesses more efficient. Year over year, productivity growth was at its highest level in over 50 years last quarter, pushing corporate profits to record highs and helping the economy grow. - NY Times

Over the last two years I have had trouble keeping the stories straight coming from corporate America. On the one hand American workers are lazier and less productive than their counterparts in other parts of the world and then on the other hand productivity in America has never been higher. It is so high in fact that many companies are doing twice as much work with half the workforce. The good news there is that it makes the companies huge profits. As every student of business knows labor is always your highest expense. The bad news is that the American worker has become so efficient they are cutting their own throats. The proof is in the last two “so-called jobless” recoveries. Companies are using the recessions as tools to cut labor while increasing the amount of work being heaped on those employees who are left.

These remaining employees have seen the amount of work they are being asked to do more than double while their wages have remained stagnant. This has been accomplished with fear of lay-offs or fear of outsourcing jobs to overseas. So I am a little confused the employees have become more productive creating millions in profits for their employers and yet their wages have not improved markedly for the last ten years. I’m no Ivy League educated economist but even I can see that this doesn’t quite add up. How is it possible for corporate America to pull this off? It is simple really and it involves a three prong approach that has been successful for generations and continues to be so.

The first prong is that they convince enough people that someday they could be wealthy too and so it is not a good idea to create problems or taxes for wealthy people because someday they could affect you. Let’s take a closer look at this concept that anyone can get rich in America. The truth is that while this country more than any other offers the opportunity for almost anyone to become wealthy, the truth is that few of us ever will. The idea that you could go from humble beginnings to great wealth is a well worn myth that continues to be propagated in our society. The truth is that less than 40 folks a year get rich by means other than inheritance, marriage, or criminal enterprises. So good luck with that!

The second prong is to convince people that having wealthy people pay their fair share is somehow evil or socialism. You would not know it but the current tax burden of Americans is the lowest since Harry Truman was president. If this is true then why are the tea-partiers and their wealthy benefactors complaining about the government’s assault on working people by over burdening them. Much of our debt could be reduced if we just went back to the tax structure we used under Bill Clinton. The problem in America is that no one wants to pay for anything. Everybody wants free stuff. I can understand middle-class folks complaining about being squeezed but we have the biggest discrepancy between wealthy and everyone else since the “Gilded Age”. Is it unfair to ask those who have received more to pay more? If it is then our democracy and our economic system is a sham.

The third and final prong is the tactic of diversion. The wealthy get the people to focus on issues that divide versus issues that unite. This is the job of their high paid mouthpieces Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and Sarah Palin. Their goal is to focus people’s attention on the black and brown hordes who are stealing “our America” and our “way of life”. The one thing I have noticed at all of those Congressional hearings about the economic meltdown, the ecological disaster in the Gulf, and any other current complaint that the tea-partiers are complaining about all of the CEO’s and representatives were not black or brown. They were to a person white and male. So who is really stealing us blind?

If our system is to survive we will have to figure out a way to have reinvestment of some of those billions in profits that have been created not by the overpaid CEO’s but by the productivity of the American worker. I don’t believe that it is only the government’s responsibility to retool the American worker. Is it not also the responsibility of those who have profited from these workers to provide for their future or are they just responsible for their demise?

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. - Daniel Patrick Moynihan
The Disputed Truth

Read more!

You Can Get With This Or You Can Get With That

Editorial columnist Bob Herbert of the New York Times wrote an interesting piece discussing the true cost of the Iraq War. According to a Nobel prize winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz and the vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International, Robert Hormats the Iraq War will cost at least 3 trillion dollars. This figure includes cost which are never reported by the media or discussed by politicians. The truth is that the cost of a war is more than the money spent on men and material, as if it were some business venture that can be tallied with a nice spreadsheet and budget. In today’s world, war is packaged like a corporate enterprise complete with sanitized videos and reporting to make it more palatable to the disinterested masses.

Said Mr. Stiglitz: “Because the administration actually cut taxes as we went to war, when we were already running huge deficits, this war has, effectively, been entirely financed by deficits. The national debt has increased by some $2.5 trillion since the beginning of the war, and of this, almost $1 trillion is due directly to the war itself ... By 2017, we estimate that the national debt will have increased, just because of the war, by some $2 trillion.”[1]

There should be a Constitutional Amendment that states, “no President can declare war without instituting a draft”. The problem today is that so many of us are unaffecting by the war in any personal and meaningful way. Oh sure we know people are dying, but they are strangers for the most part. Many of them who have received the least from this society are being asked to sacrifice the most. Yes, they are volunteers, but make no mistake about it for many in our society the choices are so limited that it is no longer a choice. For many of them it is a roll of the dice for maybe a better future and some better choices. Because they are brought home in secret we are never confronted by their deaths. I have never understood why we honor “our bravest” by secretly sneaking them back into the country following their greatest sacrifice. Is this how we honor our fallen heroes? This amendment would at least force the politicians who are tough on security to consider the fact that their children would be subject to the same opportunity to be heroes as those they so flagrantly send into harm’s way. It would also force us as a nation to debate the merits of any action being contemplated in our name, knowing that these decisions would affect all of us in a very personal way.

Instead of pouring 2 trillion dollars down the black hole that is Iraq, here are a few things we could have done right here in the good ole USA. We could have put an end to the partisan debacle that is Social Security for 50 years or more. And based on the Senate committee’s own spending calculations we could have enrolled 58,000 more kids into Head Start for a year with just what we are spending on one day of the war. We could also have enrolled an additional 160,000 low income students into college through Pell Grant funding for a year. Not in the calculations is how many of our fellow citizens we could have provided with healthcare insurance using this money.

Here is what I don’t understand we fight and we argue over providing support for those among us who are less fortunate and yet we spend this ungodly amount of money without batting an eye. What does it say about a country that spends trillions of dollars to kill people, but won’t spend any money to insure the healing of its own people. And to make matters worse one of the nominees for the next President considers the money well spent and wants to spend more. I don’t even blame Bush, McCain, or any of the other warmongers they are only doing what they do. I blame the American public for putting up with this crap. We have an economy that is in recession because we have allowed Bush to fight a war by mortgaging the future of our kids. We have allowed the politics of fear and false patriotism to trump democracy. In modern America war is good. Universal healthcare is bad. Free education is bad. Laying the groundwork for the neediest Americans with pre-school funding, tax credits and college grants, or employment training all bad.

Why is war good? It is good because it fuels the transfer of wealth from the middle-class to the wealthiest. It fuels the military-industrial complex and the war profiteers who in turn feed the lobbyists, who in turn purchase the politicians. You can’t spend all that money on war material and preparation and not use it. We must begin to cut our defense budget. We have spent all of this money on defense and it could not nor can it prevent 9/11 or any other terrorist type of attack regardless of the lies being spread to the contrary. This isn’t about look at all the wrong that America has done, it is about look at all the good America could do with a change in focus.

Of course there is also the toll that war takes on people’s lives through absences, injuries, and deaths. How can one calculate those costs? The loss of a parent, a brother, or son does not fit tidily into a balance sheet. The loss of a limb, a mind, or the trust in one’s government cannot be found in the defense budgetary process. How long will we continue to justify these types and sizes of expenditures for death and ignore the suffering going on right next door with our neighbors. You can get with the war or you can get with life, the choice belongs to all of us.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/opinion/04herbert.html?em&ex=1204779600&en=c44ca333e64258c9&ei=5087%0A

Read more!

McCain: The Worst Panderer?

I recently read a piece by the NY Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof about the pandering abilities of John McCain. The soft-sell and false narrative of John McCain continues to be pursued by writers and pundits and pushed out to unsuspecting readers and listeners. According to Mr. Kristof, because John McCain has so much integrity and honesty he is incapable of pandering with any degree of dexterity in comparison to other politicians. It seems the Straight-Talk- Express has run over another pedestrian on the road to the White House. The truth is that Senator McCain has spoken against his Party on some issues, but let’s not get carried away these were not issues of visionary proportions. Let’s examine the issues that Mr. Kristof believes Senator McCain deserves special merit for disagreeing with his Party for.

The issues that Mr. Kristof mentions in his piece are the following: whether we should torture prisoners, lynch immigrants, and racism. The fact that Senator McCain would choose to disagree with his Party on these issues says as much about “his Party” as it does about Senator McCain. Are we now to applaud a member of the Klan who refused to take part in a lynching but continues his membership in the organization? To consider Senator McCain a maverick for choosing to take such enlightened stances on these issues in and of itself is remarkable, but in order to shore up his cred with the less enlightened of his Party and of the human race, he has now fudged on his torture and immigration stances. So I am left to wonder where is this man of honor and integrity?

His most famous pander came in 2000, when, after earlier denouncing the Confederate flag as a “symbol of racism,” he embraced it as “a symbol of heritage.” To his credit, Mr. McCain later acknowledged, “I feared that if I answered honestly I could not win the South Carolina primary, so I chose to compromise my principles.”

In short, Mr. McCain truly has principles that he bends or breaks out of desperation and with distaste. That’s preferable to politicians who are congenital invertebrates.

I disagree with Mr. McCain on Iraq, taxes, abortion and almost every other major issue. He has a nasty temper, which isn’t ideal for the hand holding a nuclear trigger. For a man running partly on biography, he treated his first wife, Carol, poorly. And one of the meanest put-downs in modern political history was a savage joke that Mr. McCain publicly related about Chelsea Clinton when she was 18 years old; it was inexcusable.[1]

So according to Mr. Kristof, because Senator McCain compromises his principles with such great agony he should be exalted over other compromisers. Have we gotten to the place where we expect so little of our elected officials? Today we don’t expect them to stand on their principles, we only expect them to surrender them with anguish. What ever happened to expecting and electing leaders who refuse to surrender their principles? I’m sorry, I am all for compromise and the art of the deal, I am not so idealistic to believe that in politics one agenda will be completely accepted at the exclusion of all others. But in my opinion there are some principles that are non-negotiable; torture is not an option, racial intolerance and bigotry the same. The strange thing about this piece is that Mr. Kristof himself seems to defeat the purpose of it being written and yet as with the myth of McCain he continues to a conclusion that does not merit the facts. How can one man be seen by so many in such disregard to the facts?

The fact is that John McCain is a panderer and as he attempts to increase his support among the social conservatives it will become more obvious. No matter how odious it may appear to the casual observer pandering is still pandering and in the case of Senator McCain it is even worse because of the issues involved and his own history. It will be extremely difficult to pander to a Party base that is filled with intolerance and yet present yourself as being something different. There are those in the Democratic Party who fear McCain, I don’t see it. Senator McCain represents all that this election is revolting against. He represents the Party of old white men and the continuation of Bush policies, if we choose that then I guess we are not the country we thought we were. I believe that the American public is looking for a change and no amount of political hyperbole is going to stop it. Senator McCain represents the past and no matter how hard they try to present him as the future, it can’t be done. There is not enough makeup left in the case to make this a silk purse.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/opinion/17kristof.html?ref=opinion

Read more!