The Startling Growth of Inequality

In The End of the American Century, first published in 2008, I called attention to the disturbing growth of economic inequality in the U.S., to levels (even then) unprecedented since the Great Depression of the 1920s. But since 2008, in the midst of the "Great Recession," the situation has gotten even worse. A recent (3/25) New York Times op-ed by Steven Rattner, "The Rich Get Even Richer," notes that in 2010 (during the supposed economic recovery), "the top 1 percent took in 93 percent of the additional income" generated that year. A graphic linked to that article on line shows the pattern.

In a forthcoming article I have written which reflects on the themes of The End of the American Century, four years on, I contend that the unprecedented growth of economic inequality in the U.S. is the single biggest issue preventing the recovery of the United States--and in many ways the root cause of the many problems facing the U.S. in these difficult times.

"Occupy Wall Street" Interpreted for China

Today's issue of Wen Hui Daily in Shanghai includes a long interview with me on the Occupy Wall Street movement. The editors approached me on this topic because of the Chinese publication of my book The End of the American Century. The interview is interesting as much for the nature of their questions as for my own responses (though the latter did tie in very closely to important themes in my book).

Almost all of my responses seem to have been translated verbatim. However, the editors did exclude two items:

1) My reference (in answer "A3") to the 1980 Solidarity movement and the overthrow of the communist government in Poland.

2) The last question (16) and answer, which addressed Obama's commitment to social justice and a reference to Martin Luther King's statement that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”

A link to the original Chinese publication is here.

My original English language responses to their questions appears below.

--------------------------------

Q1:The Occupy Wall Street movement is an event of global political life and social life. How to define this campaign? Is it a carnival, as Zizek worried about? or a media show? or a social movement to fight against financial oligopolies and to protest injustice?

A1. Occupy Wall Street is difficult to define because at this stage it is so amorphous, decentralized, and unfocussed. I would say it is an incipient social movement that captures a widespread sentiment in the United States against inequality and corporate greed, excess and corruption. Like many social movements, it has started out small, but has grown quickly, in terms of number, diversity of participants, and geographic scope. What started in New York has now spread to many US cities, and even to other countries.

But it would be a mistake to view these protests as a major political force, at least at this point. The protestors in New York number only about 1000 on any given day. On most days the Wall Street protests do not even make the front page of the daily newspaper in my city of Indianapolis.

You asked about Slavoj Zizek—the Slovenian Marxist philosopher who joined the protesters this week. But he is almost completely unknown in the United States, except perhaps by a relatively few intellectuals. His appearance at the Wall Street protests was not mentioned in most American news reports.

Nevertheless, I do believe that Occupy Wall Street is potentially very important in the U.S. It is focusing attention on inequality—a problem that has gotten very little attention in this country, but is, in my mind, at the heart of the serious economic, social and political problems the U.S. is now encountering. Wealth and income inequality in the U.S. are at the highest levels in 70 years—since the Great Depression—and are higher than in any other industrialized democratic state.

Q2. Some people think that liberalism in the pursuit of efficiency and profit has dominated the world for more than half a century, and the hands of the history should go to the side of fairness and justice. Do you agree with this? Will this movement really bring new social imagination to the world?

A2. I agree that neo-liberalism has dominated the world for more than half a century, but this is because the United States has been the dominant global power in that period, and the U.S. has demonstrated, exhibited and promoted this model of economic and political development. And it cannot be denied that the American model of capitalism and democracy has been both broadly appealing around the world, and highly successful in many parts of it. The fifty years following World War II were ones of unprecedented growth in global wealth and welfare—much of that fueled by the astounding growth of the economy, consumption, and prosperity in the United States.

But there was a dark underside to that economic growth, which became increasingly evident and problematic in the 1970s, and has accelerated since then. Increasing prosperity in the United States camouflaged a widening rich-poor gap in this country, and globally. Excessive consumption led to a proliferation of debt, both by governments and households. In the pursuit of profits and consumer goods, we increasingly neglected social goods: education, health care, infrastructure, and the environment. All of these are in serious difficulties now.

So in a sense, it is now time to right the balance, and to put more emphasis on fairness, justice and equality. These have always been central to the American ideal, and the American Dream, but have taken a back seat in recent years. I believe this is one of the principal concerns animating the Occupy Wall Street Movement.

Q3. We noticed that many people compare this movement to the events of 1968. But obviously, the Occupy Wall Street movement lacks clear leadership, lacks clear political pursuit, and also lacks a schedule, and a particular solution. Will all of these weaken its real strength?

A3. There are some similarities of the current movement with those of 1968 which, like the Wall Street protest, began mostly with young people. Comparisons could also be made to the recent Tahrir Square protests in Egypt; civil rights protests in the American South in the 1950s and 1960s; and the “velvet revolutions” in Eastern Europe in 1989. I think there are also intriguing similarities to the 1980 strikes in Poland, which quickly mushroomed into the “Solidarity” movement which came to topple the communist government in that country in 1989. (One of my own research specialties is Poland, where I spent much time in the 1980s).

It is true that the lack of leadership, focus and specific demands of the Wall Street movement diminishes its potential impact and power. Maybe these will cause it to collapse. But many of these other social movements mentioned above were also essentially leaderless, at least at first. The demands of some of them—including the student movements of the 1960s, and the Tahrir Square demonstrations—were quite diffuse and general. But all of those earlier movements, like this one, touched a nerve in the broader society, and in the end made significant, even revolutionary, changes in society.

Q4. The two political parties hold different attitudes towards the movement. On the Democratic side many people have shown understanding and sympathy towards the movement. The Republicans are opposite, saying the demonstration was "a battle with the wrong goal". So will these different attitudes lead the protests to be used by different political forces in different ways?

A4. It is true that the Wall Street Movement has been embraced by most Democratic politicians and pundits, and rejected or ridiculed by most Republican ones. However, I do believe the Occupy Wall Street movement has the potential to attract supporters across the political spectrum, from left to right. Let me offer two explanations for this reasoning.

First, public opinion surveys show a substantial majority of Americans have a favorable view of the Wall Street protests. A Time Magazine poll this week shows 54% viewing the protests favorably, and only 23% unfavorably. In contrast, only 27% still have a favorable view of the Tea Party movement. Another poll by NBC and the Wall Street Journal found that 37% of the respondents “tend to support” the Wall Street movement, while only 18% “tend to oppose” it. As I mentioned earlier, I think the Wall Street movement has touched a nerve in American society, and therefore has the potential to become much bigger.

Second, I would argue that there is actually a good deal of common ground and overlap between Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party. While they are rooted in different segments of the population, and have different agendas, both movements are populist and anti-establishment, and both are reacting against the concentration and abuse of power, and the perceived neglect of average Americans. While I am sure many Tea Partiers are skeptical, and even hostile, toward the “hippies” protesting on Wall Street, I suspect that many of them would agree with the Wall Street Occupation complaints about government policies that favor the rich, the government’s bank bailouts, and the influence of money in the political system.

Q5. Protesting the greedy of Wall Street appears to be the most direct appeal of this campaign. But wasn't it Wall Street financial innovations that brought the United States to gain the leading position in nearly 20 years of global technological and financial competition?

A5. In my view, “financial innovation” contributed almost nothing to the growth of the U.S. economy in recent years. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The awe-inspiring postwar growth of the American economy, and of U.S. global power and influence, was rooted in a combination of explosive manufacturing growth, technological innovation, rapid growth in the standard of living and consumption, rapid increases in productivity, and the expansion of global trade. Banks and financial institutions were important tools in all of this, but it was their security and stability that was most important for these developments, rather than any financial innovations.

Indeed, the rapid growth of the financial services sector of the American economy in the last twenty years is a principal cause of our current economic crisis, and of America’s domestic and international decline. Over the last two decades, manufacturing has steadily declined as a share of the American economy, while financial services have steadily increased. But financial services, per se, contribute almost nothing to the economy. They just move money around. They are based on, and primarily depend on, the accumulation of debt. Banks and mortgage companies encouraged American consumers to take out loans, even when it was unwise for them to do so, because those institutions made money on such transactions.

In 2008, it suddenly became clear that this large sector of our economy was essentially a hollow shell. But because it was so large, the biggest financial institutions—like AIG, Citigroup, and Bank of America—could not be allowed to fail, for fear that the whole economy would collapse. Thus the government bailouts.

Yet now, just a few years later, many of these institutions are thriving again, and their CEOs are receiving compensation packages worth tens of millions of dollars. Meanwhile, unemployment remains mired at 9%, and the average worker in the U.S. is earning no more, in real [i.e. adjusted for inflation] terms, than he or she was twenty years ago.

This is one of the main grievances of the Wall Street Occupiers. Indeed, it angers most Americans.

Q6. After the outbreak of financial crisis, the appeal to reform the financial industry is very high, Obama also argued for increased financial control to win the election, but after he came into power why is it so hard for him to put into practice the regulation of the financial industry?

A6. President Obama did manage to steer through Congress a major reform of the financial regulatory system, the “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act,” in the summer of 2010. This act included the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which eliminates many of the worst practices of banks and credit card companies, which had helped drive so many consumers into debt. The Dodd-Frank bill was passed when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. Since the 2010 Congressional elections, which gave the Republicans control of the House of Representatives, any new initiatives in this direction have been defeated by Republicans, who oppose almost any efforts to strengthen the role of government.

Q7. The financial system has become the solid structure of modern society. Many economists think the campaign should not alter this basic framework. Is it because of this that global politicians and thinkers have not been able to put forward an effective alternative when confronting the real world?

A7. As I mentioned before, I disagree with this characterization of the financial system being the core of the modern economy. Banks and financial institutions are an essential tool for the development of modern economies. But their primary role is to provide stability and security so economic transactions and trade can operate smoothly.

The problem is that the financial services sector became a major independent actor in generating wealth based on moving money around, often through complex and obtuse financial instruments like hedge funds and credit default swaps. Many financial institutions became so wrapped up in this money-making sideshow that they undermined their primary purpose of providing stability and security to consumers, investors, producers, and governments.

Q8. People may feel that the government has been hijacked by entrenched politicians and financial oligarchs and increasingly polarized by the two parties. Even President Obama has said that he would rather the country lose than his rivals win [sic?]. For this, will the "occupation Wall Street" movement become helpless in facing this "institutional predicament"?

A8. It is true that money plays a huge and detrimental role in the American political system. Lobbies and moneyed interests play a disproportionate role in elections and policy-making, to the detriment of ordinary citizens. This is one of the complaints of Occupy Wall Street—though it is also of concern to populists on the right, like the Tea Party.

The polarization of politics, and the unwillingness of politicians to compromise, is also hurting the country, and inhibiting efforts to deal with the huge problems we are confronting. I think, though, that the poisoned political atmosphere, as well as the emergence of radical populist movements on both the right and the left, are a predictable response to the protracted economic crisis that we find ourselves in. People’s jobs, homes, standard of living, and economic security are all in jeopardy, and this causes fear and anxiety. Normal politics, and political compromise, are hard to come by in such an atmosphere.

Q9. In the end of the American century, you said, "American exceptionalism" makes Americans believe that poverty and wealth are due to the individual’s faults or achievements, and has nothing to do with the system. Will the campaign lead people’s thinking to the level of the system?

A9. In a big international public opinion survey that I directed some years ago, we found that Americans, more than any other country that we sampled, were more likely to believe that an individual’s wealth or poverty was due largely to his/her own talents or work, rather than to the economic or social system. Americans tend to believe that if a person works hard, he or she will succeed, and that anyone can become rich and successful, even those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

But in fact, there is less social and economic mobility in the U.S. than there was a generation ago. Increases in poverty and inequality over the last several decades are both a cause and a result of this. Children in poor neighborhoods (especially in cities) often go to poor schools, and are more likely to be exposed to drugs and violence. This poses enormous obstacles to achieving a good education, which is essential for success in the work force.

As I mentioned before, I think the major accomplishment of the Occupy Wall Street movement, so far, has been to focus attention on and raise awareness of the issues of economic and social inequality in the United States. As people confront this issue, they will begin to learn more about the systemic aspects of inequality. Mainstream news sources like Time Magazine and The New York Times are increasingly addressing issues of poverty, wealth and inequality. At least in part this is a response to the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Q10. Many young people participate in the "occupation" movement, and US young people have always been defined by their "generation:" the youth after the first world war was called the "lost generation;" and after the second world war was called the collapse generation. Will this one be called the awakening generation because of the "occupation" movement ?

A10. While the Wall Street movement began mostly with young people, it has now spread and grown and become more diverse. The issues that they raise affect almost everyone: witness the growing popularity of the slogan “We are the 99%.” So I do not think that this is primarily a generational revolution, like the ones of 1968. In the U.S. the richest 1% receive about 20% of the country’s income, and control about a third of its wealth--more than the amount possessed by the "bottom" 90% of the population.

Q11. The new media, which takes Wall Street financial innovation as its driving force to develop, such as FACEBOOK, TWITTER, has played an important role in the campaign,. Is this a great irony?

A11. I do not see it so much as an irony, as a function of modern society. Social movements and revolutions have speeded up, like everything else in modern life. Social media and electronic communications facilitated this in Tunisia and Cairo, and are doing so now in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Q12. the participants of this movement also wrote many slogan in Chinese. Is this behavior art of consumerism, or does it show that China provides some dimensions of their thinking?

A12. There are many signs, posters and slogans carried by the protesters, and a very few of these are in Chinese, which has received much coverage in the Chinese media. But I do not think that there is much, if any, Chinese connection

Q13. Winter is coming, so what do you see as the outcome of this movement? What’s the best situation or the worst case outcome？

A13. Bad weather is likely to put a damper on the movement, or at least the most visible manifestation of it—the actual “occupation” of Liberty Square in New York City. But we have already seen the expansion of the movement to many other cities and countries, so it seems to me that the movement has gained some traction, and I doubt that it will disappear anytime soon. If it is to develop as a true social movement, it will need some organizational structure to carry it over. This will be one of the early tests of its staying power. There were some indications of this potential this weekend, when it was reported that Occupy Wall Street has collected some $300,000 through fundraising.

Q14. In "The End of the American Century, you expressed some pessimism about the future of the US. But we also see that American technology, military and finance are still in leading positions globally. For example, the annual global university rankings show that American universities still leads the way in the world. This is one important symbol showing continuing US competitive advantage in comprehensive national strength. So is the view, perhaps, not so pessimistic?

A14. In my book, I argued that the United States has lost its leading or dominant position in almost every area: social, economic, political and international. I present data showing this decline, both compared to our own past, and compared to other countries. I argued that the exploding growth of debt was particularly problematic for the United States, and that the country was destined for a sustained and deep economic downturn. It will no longer be the dominant economic, military and global power that it was in the fifty years following World War II.

At the same time, this does not mean that the U.S. is disappearing as a rich and powerful country. Even if we returned to the standard of living we had in the 1970s, we would still be one of the most prosperous nations on earth. The U.S. model of democracy, and its ideals of liberty, equality and justice, have sustained the country through many crises, and remain a source of inspiration for people all over the globe.

What this means for the U.S., in my view, is that the country will have to adjust to a different global environment—one requiring cooperation rather than dominance—and to an era of reduced growth, reduced spending, and reduced expectations. This is a psychological adjustment, more than anything else, but for that reason all the more difficult to achieve! So far, we have not met that challenge very well.

Q15. You would be on the left flank of United States intellectuals. Be are intellectuals like you the majority or minority in mainstream American society?

A15. The sorts of things I write and say—in particular the notion that the U.S. is no longer #1 in many areas, is threatening to many people. Americans are generally optimistic, proud, and upbeat, and they do not like to hear, and often refuse to hear, messages that are less positive. But I think more and more “intellectuals” are beginning to recognize that the U.S. is in serious trouble, and this is trickling out to the general public. Occupy Wall Street is one manifestation of this.

Q16. Could you introduce an international justice plan under your leadership?

A16. It would be nice, but I am not in a position to do so! I believe that the election of Barack Obama was the best we could do in striving to achieve more justice, both domestic and international. Unfortunately, he was elected in the midst of an economic crisis that will not soon disappear. But I often take heart from the frequently repeated words of Martin Luther King: “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”

American Values Contextualize Decline

Caleb Hamman
chamman@butler.edu

Amidst national debate on healthcare, foreign policy, and economics, with news outlets devoting coverage to pundits, officials, and political processes, it is easy to overlook the role of the American citizen in shaping public policy—the popular culpability in US decline.

To the extent American democracy functions democratically (see my earlier post and EAC chapter five), public opinion is an important variable in the furthering or the mitigating of growing challenges. Troubling trends in the American psyche are among the results of the newest study released by the World Values Survey.

The research, spanning more than fifty countries during the past four years, shows considerable divergence between American and world opinion on issues of importance.

Reaffirming The End of the American Century correlation between religious fundamentalism and rejection of science, the survey found that Americans were nearly twice as likely as non-Americans to be active in churches or religious organizations; simultaneously, Americans were 11 percent less likely to consider global warming “very serious” and three times more likely to consider it “not serious at all.”

Gaps also existed in attitude toward security and conflict resolution, reflecting a continued embrace of “hard power” in American political thought, with Americans placing more confidence in the military than non-Americans and placing less confidence in international organizations like the United Nations.

By far, the biggest gulfs between US and global attitude were in the area of economic policy. Here, Americans were much more likely than others to be tolerant of inequality, to disfavor government intervention in the economy, and to believe in the wealth-accumulating potential of hard work and individualism.

The contrast of attitude was particularly striking between the United States and the fifteen European countries surveyed. Europeans were almost twice as likely as Americans to strongly agree that incomes should be made more equal. They were also more likely to view circumstantial factors like luck and wealth as important to getting ahead, and they were much more likely to consider economic redistribution an “essential characteristic of democracy.”

Perhaps the most poignant aspect of the survey results is that they highlight an American disregard for problems the United States is uniquely victim to. Among advanced, industrialized countries, US levels of economic inequality and economic immobility are among those of the worst (see post referenced above, this post, and EAC chapter two). Despite the myriad social and political consequences of US economic problems, Americans appear remarkably misinformed and unconcerned. Meanwhile, the egalitarian measures used elsewhere to alleviate economic ills are revealed by the survey to be anathema in American thought, underscoring the difficulties faced by the current administration in its efforts to restructure the economics of health, taxation, and market regulation.

In discussion of issues like these, and in wider discussions about the rise and fall of international powers, the role of the public consciousness should not be overlooked, for particularly in democracies, popular attitude not only shapes the spectrum of debate, but is itself shaped by the institutions of policy and reform.

Immobility Furthering Decline

Caleb Hamman

chamman@butler.edu

In a time of financial turmoil and drastic inequality, one would hope the American Dream to be functioning well. This notion, that hard work will bring success to anyone in the United States, has always been central to America’s ideological fabric. Despite such tradition, recent research suggests a need to reevaluate the accuracy of the American Dream.

space

Ongoing work at the Economic Mobility Project (EMP) has been attempting to do just that. A nonpartisan effort funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, EMP has been conducting the most detailed research of U.S. economic mobility to date. Its findings, thoroughly concerning, strongly reinforce the arguments of The End of the American Century.

space

Using longitudinal income data, EMP researchers find the United States to be a more class stratified society than commonly believed. Despite the popularity of “rags to riches” notions, the EMP finds that, on average, children born into the poorest fifth of households have only a 6 percent chance of making it to the top income quintile. Conversely, 42 percent will remain in the poorest group. More than six in ten of these impoverished children never become even middleclass.

space

Similar mobility barriers exist at the top. While 39 percent of children born into the richest income quintile will remain there, only 9 percent will fall to the bottom. EMP finds remnants of mobility remains in the middleclass, although even these children are more likely to fall into poverty than they are to rise to wealth.

space

The project’s findings are particularly disturbing in the areas of gender and race. Women, already suffering multifaceted disparity with men, are also less mobile than their male counterparts. Compared to these, it is considerably harder for women born into poor families to become wealthy. Similarly, it is also easier for wealthy women to become poor.

space

The racial contrast is even starker. Black children are half as likely as their white counterparts to move from extreme poverty to extreme wealth. Simultaneously, black children born into the bottom income bracket are almost twice as likely as white children to remain there. Incredibly, EMP finds that nearly three in four middleclass black children will fall into poverty—a condition tremendously difficult for them to escape.

space

As such findings suggest, the American Dream is not as dynamic as many believe it to be. In fact, U.S. mobility levels are actually lower than those of many developed countries. As the EMP reports, the two major international comparisons to date have placed U.S. mobility levels either last or second-to-last among nations analyzed (which have included mostly Western Europe and Scandinavia). As EMP’s authors put, “the view that America is ‘the land of opportunity’ doesn’t entirely square with the facts.”

space

In light of the numerous economic, political, and social issues contributing to U.S. decline, the discovery of immobility is particularly troubling. As Americans become more economically and politically unequal, the stakes of socioeconomic outcomes continue to rise. That these outcomes are out of the hands of many is more than a contributor to The End of the American Century—it is an issue of fundamental fairness and a contradiction of one of America’s most cherished ideals.

The US Economy Will Shrink (A Lot), and It Should

The U.S. economic stimulus plan passed by Congress aims to regenerate economic growth, spending and consumption. But it is almost certainly bound to fail, and not for the reasons given by partisans on both sides of the Congressional aisle. In spite of the stimulus, the economy will continue to contract. This is inevitable; it is necessary; and it is even desirable. The main task of the government should be protecting those who are displaced and impoverished during this contraction and retrenchment.

The U.S. economy must contract because it is way too large, in numerous respects. It is too large given the U.S. levels of production and exports. It is built largely on consumption and debt, not output. And it is too large for the rest of the world, even given the size and wealth of the country.

The U.S. economy is big—about 28% of global GDP. But the U.S. accounts for only about 8% of global exports; 16% of manufacturing value-added output, and 5% of the world’s population.

The main contributor to the outsized US GDP is consumption, where the U.S. is indeed the world’s leader. Consumption accounts for about 72% of US GDP, which is a record for any large economy in modern history. As we are now learning, this consumption has been built on a mountain of consumer and household debt, which now totals some $13 trillion—approximately the size of the entire U.S. economy. This is unsustainable.

Furthermore, much of U.S. debt is owed to other countries. About half of the federal debt and a quarter of corporate bond debt is held by foreigners. As former Senator Hillary Clinton pointed out in 2007, "16% of our entire economy is being loaned to us by the Central Banks of other nations."

These huge levels of consumption are a drain on the planet, its resources and its people. The U.S. has only 1 in 20 of the globe’s people, but we consume a quarter of the world’s fossil fuels; 29% of “materials” (including minerals, metals and synthetics); 19% of forestry products; and 14% of its water. The U.S. is also the world’s biggest contributor to environmental pollution, greenhouse gas emissions (a quarter of the world’s total) and global warming. At 5% of the globe, we leave a huge carbon footprint.

In the 1970s Yale historian Paul Kennedy, writing in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, suggested that eventually the U.S. would have to decline to its “natural” share of the world’s wealth and power, which he estimated should be in the 16-18% range, rather than the 30-40% held by the U.S. at that time. This would indicate a cutting of the U.S. economy by half.. But so would many of the economic indicators I mention above. Consumption, debt, and borrowing all need to be reduced by about that amount, as should petroleum and energy use.

Given the hugely bloated size of the U.S. economy, and of U.S. consumption, and of consumer and government debt, it is hard to see how the economic stimulus package will make much of a dent in things. The economy is bound to decline, and needs to.

This contraction has already begun. The country’s GDP shrunk last quarter at an annualized rate of 3.8 %. If this continues, it will be the largest yearly decline in the US economy since 1946. But a much larger decline will be necessary to bring the economy back to a more natural, balanced and sustainable level. The contraction of GDP is likely to continue for several years, at the very least. This would be unprecedented for the postwar period, when only once (1974-75) did the economy contract two years in a row.

Such a decline could be on a scale of that of the 1930s. The main problem then, as now, will be the reduction in employment, and the consequent growth in poverty. It is hopeless throwing good money after bad in an effort to revive growth, consumption and debt. Instead, the federal and state governments should focus on alleviating the suffering that this contraction will entail, by increasing funds for unemployment compensation, Medicaid, welfare, job retraining and education.

Many people will suffer in this transition, and they should be helped. For most people, though, this economic retrenchment will simply mean belt-tightening. Our standard of living will decline, in ways most of us have not experienced before. But we are still a highly developed wealthy country, and will remain so. Once the U.S. economy has stabilized at a more natural size, it will grow again. And this time, it can happen in a way that is not so destructive of the planet, other peoples, and our souls.

The Measure of America

The Social Science Research Council and Columbia University Press have published a remarkable and eye-opening book, called The Measure of America: American Human Development Report 2008-2009, which could function as a companion and statistical supplement to The End of the American Century. In analyzing the domestic situation of the U.S., The Measure of America has many of the same themes, and similar (and supporting) evidence as my book. Like my book, it shows that on most measures of societal development, the U.S. has declined over recent decades, and lost ground compared to other countries.

The Measure of America is modeled on the annual Human Development Report published since 1990 by the United Nations Development Programme. That series attempted to get away from the raw economic indicator of Gross Domestic Product, and to determine the level of human development in each country. The “human development index” used by UNDP, an alternative to GDP, was “a composite index measuring average achievement in the three basic dimensions of human development—a long and healthy life, knowledge, and a decent standard of living.” (From the Human Development Report 2006).

The Nobel Prize winning economist Amartya Sen was instrumental in developing the Human Development Report, and wrote the Foreword to The Measure of America. There, he writes that

“we have to judge the success of a society, including its economy, not just in terms of national wealth or the ubiquitous GNP, but in terms of the freedoms and capabilities that people enjoy to live as they would value living” (p. xi).

Sen observes that this approach has been “remarkably neglected in the United States in particular” and notes in this country “a major discrepancy between opulence and achievement.” The U.S. may be on some measures the world’s wealthiest nation, but “its accomplishments in longevity, secure health, fine education and other such basic features of good living are considerably below those of many other—often much poorer—countries.” He also notes, as I do in my book, that the position of the U.S. relative to other countries has been “steadily falling” over the years (p. xii).

The book itself assembles data in clearly presented tables on the three main “building blocks” of the human development index: a long and healthy life; access to knowledge; and a decent standard of living. In all three areas, the U.S. fares poorly in comparison to other countries. Compared to other wealthy countries, for example, the U.S. ranks #24 in life expectancy; #18 in high school graduation rates; and #2 in poverty rates (you don’t want to rank high on that one!).

The data shows the downward trend for the U.S. over time in most of these measures as well. And for the overall index, the U.S. world rank dropped from #2 in 1980 (behind only Switzerland) to #12 in 2005. Countries ahead of us include much of western Europe, Canada, Australia and Japan.

(The American Human Development Project also maintains a useful website at this link.)

These are all trends and themes presented in The End of the American Century, where I also use authoritative data (including many of the same measures used in The Measure of America). They point out how far the U.S. has fallen, and how much work we have to do. The problems of the U.S., both economic and social, predate the disastrous Bush presidency, which simply exacerbated them all. It took more than eight years to dig us into this hole, and will take at least that long to recover. But we have to recognize these problems and understand them before we can begin to solve them.

The Measure of America: American Human Development Report, 2008-2009 (A Columbia / SSRC Book)

Limit Bailout CEO pay to U.S. President's Salary

President Obama called Wall Street bankers "shameful" after reports that they had given themselves some $20 billion in bonuses this year, just as the economy was deteriorating and the government spending billions to bail them out.

Here's a modest proposal: for companies receiving federal bailouts, let's limit the pay of those CEOs to what the President of the United States earns--$400,000.

Once those bailout companies have repaid our tax-paid bailout money, they can return to paying themselves tens of millions of dollars yearly, as they do now.

Indeed, just this week Senator Claire McCaskill (Dem, Missouri) introduced a bill that would cap compensation at $400K for all employees of bailout recipients.

To give you some context, here are the top ten recipients of federal bailout money under the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program).


1. Bank of America, $45 billion
2. Citigroup, $45 billion
3. AIG, $40 billion
4. JPMorgan Chase, $25 billion
5. Wells Fargo, $25 billion
6. General Motors, $10.2 billion
7. Goldman Sachs, $10 billion
8. Morgan Stanley, $10 billion
9. PNC Financial, $7.6 billion
10. U.S. Bankcorp, $6.6 billion

And here are the 2007 total compensations for the CEOs of those same firms:

1. Kenneth Lewis, $20.4 million
2. Vikram Pandit, $3.2 million
3. Martin Sullivan, $13.9 million
4. James Dimon, $28.9 million
5. John Stumpf, $11.4 million
6. G. R. Wagoner, $15.7 million
7. Lloyd Blankfein, $54 million
8. John Mack, $41.4 million
9. James Rohr, $14.5 million
10. Richard Davis, $5.9 million

These men are all multimillionaires, even if you only count their take from last year. They can afford to slum it for a while on the salary of the President of the United States. And if these CEOs are genuinely committed to help their companies, and the United States, recover, then they should be willing to forego a little extravagance for a few years. If they are unwilling to do so, then the federal government should appoint a caretaker CEO until the bailouts have been repaid.

The rules of the game have changed. These companies and their CEOs have brought this country to the brink of economic disaster. The government has stepped in to save these companies, as a means of rescuing the economy. There can no longer be any argument that multimillion dollar compensation packages are necessary to attract "talent." It was not true in the past (when CEO salaries were far lower); it is not true in other countries (where CEO salaries are a small fraction of American ones--see chart below); and it is not true now--when this "talent" drove their companies, and the economy, into the ground.

Congress has talked about limiting the pay of bailout CEOs, but they have done nothing about it. It is time. And this idea--of limiting these CEO salaries to the level of the highest paid government executive--was even profferred by Republican John McCain during the campaign:

"no C.E.O. of any corporation or business that is bailed out by us, that is rescued by American tax dollars, should receive any more than the highest paid person in the federal government.”

CEO Pay as a Multiple of Average Worker Pay, in US and Other Countries

(from The End of the American Century, p. 40.

Retrenchment, Not Recovery

Economists and politicians are debating whether we are in a recession or a depression, and how many months or years it will take to recover from the downturn. As I have argued on this blog and in my book, what is now happening to the economy is not typical or normal. I would call it a "retrenchment" rather than a recession. In that sense, it is a permanent correction, and will result in a substantial and long-term contraction of GDP, the standard of living and the stock market. It will take many years to return to where we were. The problem is that the U.S. government and consumer have both been living on borrowed money for a generation, so that most of the gains of that period are illusory. We were never really that wealthy, and now we have to start paying for that extravagance.

A similar argument is made in an interesting article entitled "Will There Be A Recovery?" by Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He also sees the current situation as different from past recessions. Recovery in the past could be stimulated by cuts in interest rates, allowing consumers to spend more against rising real wages. This would lead the economy to rebound.

Now it is different though. For one thing, for most workers, real wages have remained stagnant for almost twenty years. Consumers have maxed out their credit and can no longer borrow so freely. And interest rates are already at rock bottom levels.

"And there’s another problem," says Roberts. "Much of what American consumers purchase today is made offshore. Stimulating consumer demand in America puts factories back to work, but those factories are located elsewhere in the world." The U.S. consumed more than it produced, by borrowing from abroad. But this source of funds is also drying up now.

These are all themes that I raised in The End of the American Century. While I do not totally agree with all of Roberts' arguments, his overall point is a good one. There will not be a recovery, like recoveries in the past. The task for the U.S., and the Obama administration, is to figure out how to navigate this difficult transition, and to convince U.S. citizens that we can live a good life without all the excesses of the past.

Take a look at Roberts' essay, and offer your thoughts in the Comments section here.

Merrill Lynch's John Thain: Poster Boy for Greed and Incompetence

Last week, John Thain, the former CEO of Merrill Lynch was sacked by the CEO of Bank of America, which recently absorbed the bankrupt brokerage firm. Thain is a prime example of the mind-boggling greed, incompetence and cluelessness of the captains of the U.S. financial services sector. I called attention to Thain in my September blog on CEO pay, where I noted that Thain was the highest paid CEO in 2007, with compensation exceeding $83 million. This was a year in which Merrill Lynch lost $7.8 billion, mind you. Granted, Thain didn’t take over Merrill until November of 2007. But 2008 was even worse. Merrill’s losses of $27 billion last year was what led to its absorption by Bank of America.

But Thain’s greed and arrogance gets even worse. He apparently demanded a bonus of $30-40 million for 2008, the year he presided over the company’s bankruptcy and collapse. This was after Merrill had already received some $10 billion from U.S. taxpayers as part of the federal government’s financial bailout. Furthermore, according to a story in the Financial Times, Merrill granted some $4 billion in bonuses to other executives in the company, just before the Bank of America takeover was finalized. As the Financial Times observers, “this was money that appeared to come directly from US government funds.”

A New York Times story says that Thain spent $1.2 million to redecorate his Merrill Lynch office last year, including an $87,000 rug and a $68,000 credenza.

John Thain stands out as the worst abuser of corporate and government funds. But the problem is much wider than John Thain or Merrill Lynch, and extends across the entire corporate landscape. In my earlier post on CEO pay (and in my book), I point out that these huge CEO compensations in the U.S. are horribly inflated, both by historical standards and in comparison to other capitalist countries. In the 1980s, average CEO pay in the U.S. was about 50 times that of average worker pay. In Germany, Canada, and Japan, the ratio is less than 25 to 1. In the United States in recent years, on the other hand, that ratio has approached 500 to 1.

Thain is out, thank goodness. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is investigating the bonus payments in Merrill Lynch. There is some accountability there, at least. U.S. representatives and taxpayers should make sure, though, that U.S. citizens do not subsidize the lavish lifestyles and obscene salaries of executives in companies that are receiving taxpayer money. Most of them are multimillionaires already. If they truly want to help the economy and the country (as most of them say they do), let them live on an average worker’s salary for a few years.

Are CEOs Paid Too Much?

Jessica Williams-Gibson interviewed me on the issue of CEO pay for The Indianapolis Recorder, a newspaper founded in 1895 with a mission "to support and empower African-Americans." Her story is at this link.

For my earlier post on this subject, see "CEO Pay and the Bailout."

The End of Affluence

Increasingly, even economists and bankers are coming to understand that we are in the midst of a global economic shift. The core of this change is the inevitable decline in American consumption, which for a generation has been fueled by borrowing and debt. The bill now has to be paid, so the trend of steadily growing U.S. affluence can not continue. Because consumer spending constitutes almost three-quarters of the U.S. economy, a decline in consumption will cause a general and long-term economic decline in this country. A slowdown in the world’s biggest economy will, of course, affect the whole globe.

The centrality and toxic nature of U.S. consumerism is highlighted in an op-ed piece in this week’s New York Times by Stanley Roach entitled “Dying of Consumption.” “It’s game over for the American consumer,” writes Roach, who is the chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia. His argument and many of the statistics he uses are similar to those I marshal in my chapter on “The End of Affluence” in The End of the American Century. Roach points out that for over a decade, “vigorous growth in American consumption has consistently outstripped subpar gains in household incomes.” The consequence has been a long-term decline in household savings and a huge increase in household debt. From 1950 to 1985, American consumers saved roughly 9% of their disposable income. Beginning in the 1990s, that rate steadily declined, dipping below zero in 2005—for the first time since the Depression. At the same time, consumer and mortgage debts rose from 77% of disposable income in 1990 to a record 127% in 2008.

According to Roach, this

“decade of excess consumption pushed consumer spending in the United States up to 72 percent of gross domestic product in 2007, a record for any large economy in the modern history of the world. With such a huge portion of the economy now shrinking, a deep and protracted recession can hardly be ruled out.”

The problem is that the whole American economy is built on consumption. The U.S. doesn’t actually produce much any more. Manufacturing has steadily declined as the linchpin of the American economy, and now constitutes less than a fifth of GDP. The imminent bankruptcy of the U.S. auto companies is simply another (albeit big) element of this downward trend. Meanwhile financial services—primarily banks and mortgage companies—have steadily grown, mostly by providing loans to consumers to finance purchases their incomes will not allow. So when both consumption and financial services decline, on top of the previous decline in manufacturing production, there is not much left. It will take a long time to rebuild the U.S. economy. There will be much belt-tightening for the middle class, growing unemployment, and more suffering by the poor.

Roach is opposed to “tax cuts aimed at increasing already excessive consumption.” I make a similar argument in my previous post on “Tax Cuts Will Make Things Worse.” Such cuts will decrease federal revenues, which are desperately needed to allay the new and mushrooming costs of unemployment insurance and mortgage foreclosures, not to mention the preexisting problems of health care, education, the environment, Social Security, and Medicare, all of which have been under funded for a generation.

Meanwhile, both the Bush administration and the incoming Obama team seem to feel that the best way to alleviate the economic crisis is to promote even more deficit spending, by both government and consumers. The federal deficit, already at record high levels, will balloon even higher with a trillion dollars or more of bailout money. Much of this money is being thrown at banks, mortgage companies and financial institutions to enable them to lend even more money to consumers who are already deeply in debt. This may (possibly) help stimulate the economy in the short run. But in the long run, we all have to stop spending and buying so much, and learn to save and invest. As Roach sums it up:

"Crises are the ultimate in painful learning experiences. The United States cannot afford to squander this opportunity. Runaway consumption must now give way to a renewal of savings and investment. That’s the best hope for economic recovery and for America’s longer-term economic prosperity.”

This shift, from consumption to savings, will be wrenching and painful for America, and for much of the rest of the world. As Britain’s Economist magazine notes (in "The End of the Affair"), America’s “return to thrift” presages a recession that will be both “long and deep.” It marks a fundamental shift in global economics, and in America’s role in the world.

BBC wonders if this is The End of "The American Century"

BBC "Newsnight" recently had a 10 minute segment entitled "The End of the American Century?" inadvertently (I think) employing the title of my book. The segment begins with a reference (as my book does) to Henry Luce's 1941 "American Century" essay. The opening segment, by Paul Mason (no relation), wonders if the recent financial crisis is "the start of a wider American decline." The broadcast includes commentary by economists Joseph Stiglitz (winner of the 2001 Nobel prize) and Irwin Stelzer, and Gillian Tett of London's Financial Times. The link here is to the youtube posting of the BBC segment, in two parts.

A Power That May Not Stay So Super

New York Times economist David Leonhardt, who is one of the few economists to raise alarms about the long-term structural problems of the U.S. economy, had a column on Oct. 11 that compares the decline of the British empire to the current situation of the U.S. His story raises many of the issues I address in The End of the American Century, including the long-term growth of deficits, debts and excessive consumption, as well as the pressing needs for spending on infrastructure, health, Social Security and Medicare.

Is the bartender finally presenting us the bill?

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson has a column today in the Indianapolis Star entitled "A Rude awakening from the American dream." He, like most of us, is bewildered by the economic upheavals and wonders if this means that the U.S. will become poorer and if the "next generation of Americans [will] lead lives of less affluence and comfort."

"I want to know if this is some kind of financial reckoning for the way we've been living so far beyond our means. Is the bartender finally presenting us the bill for our tab?"

He worries, as we all do, that this economic crisis "may be more than just an episode."

"I'm worried that what's at stake is not just a few years of lost economic growth, but our traditional notion of the American dream."

He wants straight talk from Obama and McCain.

"Don't give me empty words about American exceptionalism. Tell me in plain language what our new place is in the world and how we're going to give our children the good life that we've enjoyed."

I second all of these sentiments by Mr. Robinson, but I fear the answers are not what he would like to hear. We do need straight talk and truthtelling from our leaders, but it will mean facing up to the reality that the U.S. place in the world will be diminished, and our children will not have the affluence that we have enjoyed--mostly on borrowed money. But a good life can be built on other things than consumerism and instant gratification.

CEO Pay and the Bailout

Even in Congress, a lot of people are concerned that President Bush’s proposed $700 billion bailout for the financial sector will unduly benefit the superrich CEOs who contributed so much to this mess in the first place. Most Americans are appalled by the bloated CEO compensations that we occasionally hear about.

But maybe you didn’t hear about the CEO pay for the very firms that are most in the news these days.Last year, for example, AIG’s Martin Sullivan received compensation of $13.9 million, including a performance based bonus of $5.6 million. And this was after a 50% cut in his compensation from 2006! Who topped the list of CEO compensation in 2007? John Thain of Merrill Lynch, another failed enterprise. His compensation in 2007 was $83.1 million.

These amounts are breathtaking, but most people don’t realize, I think, how much this has changed over the last twenty years, and how out of line US CEO salaries are with those in other countries. I raise this in my book, in Chapter 2 on “The End of Affluence and Equality,” which I excerpt here:

In the 1950s, big-company CEOs in the U.S. earned about fifty times the pay of an average worker. Even then, that ratio was very high compared to other countries. But since then, CEO pay in the U.S. has skyrocketed in comparison to average salaries. By 1990, average CEO pay was about 100 times the average worker’s salary, and by 2000, it was more than 500 times that of the average worker.

These benefit packages are far out of line with those in other wealthy countries.

In 2004, the New York Times reported comparative ratios of CEO pay to employee averages. In Japan, CEOs earned about ten times that of the average employee. In Germany, the ratio was 11 to 1, in the UK 25 to 1, and in the United States, 531 to 1! It is difficult to see how American companies can justify these huge executive compensations when these other countries, which much smaller CEO pay, have generally managed faster economic growth, greater productivity increases, and greater gains in their stock markets.

CEO pay is another glaring example of how far out of kilter the U.S. economy is, how eroded is the sense of fairness in this country, and how out of sync the U.S. is with the rest of the world. It is yet another example of The End of the American Century.