A number of years ago Thomas Friedman wrote "The world is flat". The basic premise of the book was that with an increasingly sophisticated technocratic world, folks must adapt and learn modern useful skills or they won't have much to offer the market place. The flat earning curve fulfills his predictions.
4
No business or corporation that does not, on average, pay its employees a living wage has any right to exist. Corporations and businesses who require taxpayer support to keep their workers out of poverty should be shamed, or if necessary legislated, out of existence.
11
“Without stronger unions shareholders reap all the gains.” Not all, but managers do have shareholders breathing down their neck, and they have to drive a hard bargain, as they should, as they are expected to. Employees need an equally tough and powerful negotiator, and collectively they can have that. How else can the right wage be determined? It’s only a union: more money, better conditions; it’s not a labor movement, class consciousness, or public policy advocate.
3
Would the real David Brooks stand up. On Friday nights on PBS I see a thoughtful centerish thinker. But when I read this I wonder--where's the real David.
3
Supply meet demand.
Supply of individuals with highly desired technical skills is low, they get paid highly.
Supply of ditch diggers high, they get paid low.
Supply of individuals with highly desired technical skills is low, they get paid highly.
Supply of ditch diggers high, they get paid low.
7
" Since 2000, the real incomes of the top 1 percent have declined slightly."
Careful, Brooks the magician is up to his usual sleight of hand. The gains attributed to the magical "1%" are well known to have largely ended up in the hands of the .1%, and even more to the .01%. We just added 129 billionaires to the club this year. Prices for the most luxurious living spaces in Manhattan, and mega-mansions everywhere else, are soaring.
We need better terminology. The fortunes of the 99% can differ wildly. A member of that club can be in the 2% club, or in the bottom quartile. Vastly different. Similarly, a 1% is doing well. .01% is killing it. More zeroes separate the billionaires from the mere millionaires than separates the median from those who have almost nothing.
This 1% and 99% memes aren't useful anymore, time to come up with better vocabulary to describe what's occurring. Don't look to Brooks for assistance on this, or anything else. I'm almost at the point where if he says up, I think down. Light, dark. Left, right. He's completely useless, except to gain insight on how whacked the thought processes of the right wing are. The rebuttals from commenters in one column is worth more than the compete works of Brooks. would that the likes of AEI or a similar "think tank" offer David a better offer.
Careful, Brooks the magician is up to his usual sleight of hand. The gains attributed to the magical "1%" are well known to have largely ended up in the hands of the .1%, and even more to the .01%. We just added 129 billionaires to the club this year. Prices for the most luxurious living spaces in Manhattan, and mega-mansions everywhere else, are soaring.
We need better terminology. The fortunes of the 99% can differ wildly. A member of that club can be in the 2% club, or in the bottom quartile. Vastly different. Similarly, a 1% is doing well. .01% is killing it. More zeroes separate the billionaires from the mere millionaires than separates the median from those who have almost nothing.
This 1% and 99% memes aren't useful anymore, time to come up with better vocabulary to describe what's occurring. Don't look to Brooks for assistance on this, or anything else. I'm almost at the point where if he says up, I think down. Light, dark. Left, right. He's completely useless, except to gain insight on how whacked the thought processes of the right wing are. The rebuttals from commenters in one column is worth more than the compete works of Brooks. would that the likes of AEI or a similar "think tank" offer David a better offer.
14
I now know for sure that Mr. Brooks lives in the imaginary Perfect Reagan-Republican past. Oh, please let's stay grounded in reality. The first and most important step would be to raise the living standard of the middle and lower income people, starting with a real-world hike to the minimum wage. This would have a domino effect of upward mobility. We are the ones who immediately put the money back into the economy. We need to be able to be the "moving up" people instead of being squeezed by the "already-there" people. There are so very many us (with or without children) with "some college" and college is brutally expensive now. With stagnant mid- and low-range salaries, we are fast becoming "the nowhere" people. Query: which is worth more to the economy, 250 families able to buy their own home or some executive getting a $50,000 bonus?
15
An additional thought ties into to education. If our high schools were actually doing their jobs, it would not be necessary for companies to think so many of their employees required a B.A. or B.S. to perform their jobs. Additionally, companies need to quit using college degrees as a kind of easy process for weeding out "unqualified" candidates. Many of these companies were created by people with high school educations, or less. In this brave new world of ours college has become either unattainable, or financially ruinous for many.
10
Always neglected in the education argument is that folk do not all have equal intellectual abilities. Fifty percent of the US population is below average in intelligence (by definition), many of those would not profit from a university education and probably would do better in various trade fields. Trade schools should be promoted, but many of those are private for profit and thus a target for destruction by “progressives”.
4
Oh Mr. Brooks, your argument is half full. How about redistribution (how can you be against that?) and support for Obama's plan to allow everyone a free junior college education? You are a sensible thinker but you get blinded by the need to stay on the "conservative" side of the op ed culture. Be brave, tell the entire story or write about something else.
3
What ever happened to the concept of self-motivated redistribution? Unlike the one percent crowd, I worked my way through state coĺlege, earned a graduate degree in business from a private university and made a success of myself...so much so that prior to early retirement, I was a one percenter. Early-on, I carried a Teamaster's card and came to see the darker side of unions. Most of these experiences are lost on the "purple stocking crowd" which is sad because they teach one about real life.
I now live in a small town which has seen the loss of more than 4000 jobs thanks to union wage demands which forced companies to relocate, or sell. Needless to say, the impact on the city has been dramatic.
Speaking of making college cheaper, that'a a real challenge when the Teachers Union leadership has ensured that TAs man the classroom, and professors are so highly paid that they now drive BMWs, rather than the Chevys that filled the faculty lot back in the day.
There'a nothing wrong with a trade, but there'a no substitute for a good education. Getting one, and paying for it, is up to the individual.
I now live in a small town which has seen the loss of more than 4000 jobs thanks to union wage demands which forced companies to relocate, or sell. Needless to say, the impact on the city has been dramatic.
Speaking of making college cheaper, that'a a real challenge when the Teachers Union leadership has ensured that TAs man the classroom, and professors are so highly paid that they now drive BMWs, rather than the Chevys that filled the faculty lot back in the day.
There'a nothing wrong with a trade, but there'a no substitute for a good education. Getting one, and paying for it, is up to the individual.
5
Why not pursue both? There are also many "soft" redistribution policies that aren't Robin Hood. The list is long so i'll just leave it there.
4
Redistribution has become a dirty word...a misunderstood word or use of it. Redistribution via taxes on wealth is one way--although I believe it for the most part redistributes for the common good, including the taxpayer by reinforcing the infrastructure, security, education, job training, product safety, and necessary government functions....and lower on the list by assisting those in poverty or working poor with housing and food, which benefits all in the long run in that homelessness in the population degrades quality of life for all. But the REAL redistribution that needs to take effect is in wages. Productivity of the workers is at an all time high having increased exponentially over the last few decades while wages declined and profits skyrocketed. So there needs to be real rewards for the productivity that workers are producing, and not just for the profiteer.
8
Cherry pick the data. Ignore the realities of our current economy and society. Bash a liberal, or a liberal idea. Voila! You have a David Brooks column.
As recent events clearly demonstrate, perhaps exacerbated by, but not wholly due to, the recession, merely educating a workforce for jobs that are not there just produces a lot of highly educated low wage workers. Structural changes in how the benefits of productivity are distributed is required for both raising wages and living standards and providing the necessary demand for a vibrant economy. So what if Ph.D.'s are doing great? They are a small slice of the population and not everyone is inclined, or capable, to become one.
As recent events clearly demonstrate, perhaps exacerbated by, but not wholly due to, the recession, merely educating a workforce for jobs that are not there just produces a lot of highly educated low wage workers. Structural changes in how the benefits of productivity are distributed is required for both raising wages and living standards and providing the necessary demand for a vibrant economy. So what if Ph.D.'s are doing great? They are a small slice of the population and not everyone is inclined, or capable, to become one.
4
If Brooks wants to take on economics, fine, but you live by Krugman, you die by Krugman. Again, something sounds reasonable, kind of like supply-side economics, and austerity generates confidence and helps an economy, and other completely debunked theories. People get raises, any people, regardless of education level or skills, because employers believe they have to, that it is in their best interests to do so, not because they want to. Over the past "n" years, they just haven't had to due to fill in the reasons. Where has all this money gone that would have otherwise ended up in the pockets of people like, well me? The top .1%, that's where. It's math.
1
Making the rich poor isn't going to make the poor rich. And, education has very little to do with it. The answer isn't education or redistribution. It's requiring people to actually work for the things they want and have.
I have some friends who are - as defined by this article - quite uneducated. They either didn't finish or, if they did, they didn't go to college. Yet, they make far more money than I (a person two Masters degrees) do.
These friends are plumbers, electricians, and garbage men (oh, I'm sorry: "sanitary engineers"). They work hard and they do well. They don't ask for handouts and wouldn't take them if offered.
Giving people other people's money doesn't help anybody. Requiring work and providing training helps everybody.
That's a pretty simple formula. Bill Clinton got it. What's changed in the last twenty years?
I have some friends who are - as defined by this article - quite uneducated. They either didn't finish or, if they did, they didn't go to college. Yet, they make far more money than I (a person two Masters degrees) do.
These friends are plumbers, electricians, and garbage men (oh, I'm sorry: "sanitary engineers"). They work hard and they do well. They don't ask for handouts and wouldn't take them if offered.
Giving people other people's money doesn't help anybody. Requiring work and providing training helps everybody.
That's a pretty simple formula. Bill Clinton got it. What's changed in the last twenty years?
7
I haven't read all the comments so I'm sure this has been pointed out already, because it seems pretty obvious. But reading this column, two things jumped out at me. One is that increasing education levels is a laudable goal, but it doesn't help those who are barely making a living in low wage, low-skilled jobs which are the majority of jobs available now, at least in communities like mine. Just because you have a college degree and possibly training for a certain profession doesn't guarantee that the jobs will be available, so many are forced to take jobs that pay very little. Brooks' argument here doesn't address that reality at all.
Second, the same conservatives advancing this argument seem to be behind the drive to reduce income taxes at the expense of education. Maybe Brooks could address the cuts in education funding which seem to contradict the idea that this is or should be the highest priority. It doesn't seem to be true in Republican-led states.
Second, the same conservatives advancing this argument seem to be behind the drive to reduce income taxes at the expense of education. Maybe Brooks could address the cuts in education funding which seem to contradict the idea that this is or should be the highest priority. It doesn't seem to be true in Republican-led states.
7
An economy is a social construct; you can't have a market economy in which consumers have no money to spend and oligarchs have sucked up more than they can spend. I have to agree with Kevin Rothstein. The Times should find a different conservative voice. Whereas I used to read Brooks in an effort to understand where conservatives and progressives might find common ground I now read him only occasionally and then find myself throwing up my hands in consternation. His cherry-picking of facts and spinning thereof is simply perverse.
3
You conveniently overlook the fact that that while corporate profits and Upper-level executive pay has increased in the last 20 years -- no increased investment has been made in mid-level or lower level positions. This is akin to a manufacturing company refusing to expend capital to update its technology. It is simply bad business practice however profitable it is for share-holders and CEOs.
1
"(I)f you don’t get into the top 1 percent then you’re out of the game. That’s deeply, deeply incorrect.”
Yes, but you'd better get to the top 30%. Those folks will probably continue to to do well, barring some massive environmental or geopolitical disaster. The rest of us have been in decline since the 1970s, with no clear way out. Poor and pushed around.
Yes, but you'd better get to the top 30%. Those folks will probably continue to to do well, barring some massive environmental or geopolitical disaster. The rest of us have been in decline since the 1970s, with no clear way out. Poor and pushed around.
1
There are two areas that Mr. Brooks - who is, as a rule, an insightful and fair-minded writer - falls short in this particular article. As others point out, assuming that getting more people into college will automatically produce higher wages fails to understand both labor and economic structures. But more importantly, the article uses only selective criteria to assess wage changes. If we examine when income gaps initially began to widen, we must go back to the 1980s. If we examine how decreases in the tax rates, the shift of the AMT from high-income to middle-income earners, the limiting of the estate tax and the large decreases to the capital gains tax, then you see a direct correlation to wage stagnation at all but the top levels and the resulting income inequality. This evidence is too strong to be denied - perhaps why it isn't mentioned at all. It takes some inner strength to acknowledge facts that disagree with our personal ideologies, but 99% of the time, Mr. Brooks does just that; this is a rare time when he does not.
2
So much of our political discussion is a misdirection from the core structural issues that have significantly influenced the wealth creating ability of the United States. Both Democrats and Republican policies over the past 3 decades (and more) have been to promote a disinvestment in the long-term future of this Nation. It is far more profitable for those managing the policies of the US to invest in overseas infrastructure so has to manufacture than it is to invest in the talent of this nation.
We are literally to point of "a pox on both your houses". People do not want handouts. They want opportunity. Both Parties as manifested by the results are abject failures for the majority of Americans in this regard.
We are literally to point of "a pox on both your houses". People do not want handouts. They want opportunity. Both Parties as manifested by the results are abject failures for the majority of Americans in this regard.
"But their view is biased by temporary evidence from the recession. Right now, jobs are being created, wages are showing signs of life. Those who get more skills earn more money. Today’s economy has challenges, but the traditional rules still apply. Increasing worker productivity is the key. Increasing incentives to risk and invest is essential. Shifting people into low-productivity government jobs is not the answer."
Mr Brooks, this statement is wrong on many levels. First, the trends on increasing gap in income has been much longer than just this recession. American workers are already the most productive in the world. We do more with understaffed work places that result in great family and personal stress. We take less vacation than any western country. We have few supports for working parents so no way to add value to how much time they already put in. Your arguments against redistribution is weak and unsupported. Nice try to help your Wall street friends, however.
Mr Brooks, this statement is wrong on many levels. First, the trends on increasing gap in income has been much longer than just this recession. American workers are already the most productive in the world. We do more with understaffed work places that result in great family and personal stress. We take less vacation than any western country. We have few supports for working parents so no way to add value to how much time they already put in. Your arguments against redistribution is weak and unsupported. Nice try to help your Wall street friends, however.
6
95% of gain from increased productivity has gone to the wealthiest 1%.
Increasing productivity, in and of itself, is not a solution.
In fact, increasing productivity decreases the demand for labor.
Increasing productivity, in and of itself, is not a solution.
In fact, increasing productivity decreases the demand for labor.
7
So who does the actual physical labor if everyone is a 'college graduate'? We still need plumbers, gas station attendants, big box store workers. Are they all 'college graduates' making minimum wage? Or should we hire the cheap immigrant labor that Reagan (yes Reagan) who opened the floodgates for the corporations back in the 80's. Brooks, you are well meaning but oh so deluded. Cheap labor is what the corporations will always want and unless you force them to include labor into the mix of distribution no amount of college education will help.
8
"But a growing number of populist progressives have been arguing that inequality is not mainly about education levels. They argue that trying to lift wages by improving skills is an “evasion.” It’s “whistling past the graveyard.”
Ah--another one of those amusing attacks on Paul Krugman.
I'm pretty sure that Hillary Clinton is not against improving education and I'm also pretty sure that she is not looking forward to "redistributionist"attacks on Wall Street, her BFFs. Your whole column is based on a silly premise--that one has to choose between dealing with education/skills deficits and with income inequality when in fact there is no reason in the world why one can't do both. Except for the Republican stranglehold on Congress and the Supreme Court.
Ah--another one of those amusing attacks on Paul Krugman.
I'm pretty sure that Hillary Clinton is not against improving education and I'm also pretty sure that she is not looking forward to "redistributionist"attacks on Wall Street, her BFFs. Your whole column is based on a silly premise--that one has to choose between dealing with education/skills deficits and with income inequality when in fact there is no reason in the world why one can't do both. Except for the Republican stranglehold on Congress and the Supreme Court.
8
The policies of Voodoo Economics in place since the Regan years and supply-side fundamentalism in general are themselves, "redistributionist". It's just that the redistribution has been upwards. What has been redistributed, you say? Well productivity gains, largely from technology and other scientific research heavily funded by the American taxpayer. And, it is the vast working and middle classes who have seen almost no return on their investment payoff in terms of wage growth.
9
What you are describing is a multi year journey, whereas people turn on the TV and see in a short amount of time how corporations, individuals fleece the system with little to no input. People who need to get more training often do NOT want to go INTO MORE DEBT by education, because their 1st attempt doing it the "right way" obviously failed.
David -
You just don't get it. I hope you are spared the pitchfork.
David -
You just don't get it. I hope you are spared the pitchfork.
1
If voters really responded to the uplifting and unifying, there wouldn't be a single Republican in Congress. Instead, they respond to namecalling, fearmongering, and divisiveness. "Let's not let those uppity non-Christians, women wanting to control their own bodies, people of color, immigrants, gay people, ... have any of what is given by our god to us."
1
If you're article is true we wouldn't have so many foreign doctors, physicists, engineers, and others working here or tech jobs going overseas. Let's face it, American business doesn't like paying high wages... Period!
5
Let's call a spade a spade: "Redistributionist progressivism" is Communism, plain and simple. It didn't work in the Soviet Union, it's not working in Cuba, and it won't work here. Period.
Which part of this is unclear? Because, there seem to be an awful lot of people on the left and in the Democratic party who simply refuse to learn the lessons of history.
If we follow on this track, we will suffer the same fate as every other socialist/communist government around the world: In short, we - and our system - will fail.
Or, is that the left's goal? It certainly was fifty, sixty, seventy years ago. Have things changed, other than the fact that they're in charge now?
We are in the fast lane to failure. Over 200 years of liberty, independence, and economic freedom is a good run. It's too bad it couldn't last. But, all good things must come to an end, eh?
Which part of this is unclear? Because, there seem to be an awful lot of people on the left and in the Democratic party who simply refuse to learn the lessons of history.
If we follow on this track, we will suffer the same fate as every other socialist/communist government around the world: In short, we - and our system - will fail.
Or, is that the left's goal? It certainly was fifty, sixty, seventy years ago. Have things changed, other than the fact that they're in charge now?
We are in the fast lane to failure. Over 200 years of liberty, independence, and economic freedom is a good run. It's too bad it couldn't last. But, all good things must come to an end, eh?
2
Do you consider the following redistributionist?
Walmart workers form union, demand and win $14 wage and health care benefits and better scheduling of hours?
How about this?
Low income workers join forces and elect representatives that then use their political power to raise the minimum wage or force employers to provide health insurance and other benefits?
The rich have used both methods to line their pockets to the point of piling on. Unashamedly.
Walmart workers form union, demand and win $14 wage and health care benefits and better scheduling of hours?
How about this?
Low income workers join forces and elect representatives that then use their political power to raise the minimum wage or force employers to provide health insurance and other benefits?
The rich have used both methods to line their pockets to the point of piling on. Unashamedly.
3
Wages have been flat for two reasons: 1) Highly inflated wages from the '80's-90's booms which came to an end with the dot-com bust, and 2) fallout from the 2008-09 financial crisis which killed growth. Jobs are now advancing steadily, unemployment is receding and previously despondent workers are coming back into the job market. And wages are starting to budge higher. Hillary and Democrats would be wise to let the market work a while before locking into some social-democrat type fixes for what may turn out to be a non-issue by 2016. The biggest impediment to US worker advances is the shape of economies outside the US, and any big turns in geopolitical strife. Unless foreign developed economies start rising at whatever pace but rise (and developing economies advance more strongly), and turmoil doesn't get bigger & deeper, the US economy will sustain and US workers will benefit.
Give a man a fish...
Teach a man to fish...
The logic here, to my eye, is impregnable. Well done Mr. Brooks.
Teach a man to fish...
The logic here, to my eye, is impregnable. Well done Mr. Brooks.
1
"Redistributionist progressivism" is a straw man dreamed up in right-wing think tanks, so that conservatives can pretend they're winning economic debates inside their own echo chamber. There's not a single serious voice on the left proposing that people stop cultivating their skills just because the game is rigged. But the game IS rigged. Since 1979, productivity has increased over 80% while real income of the bottom 99% has remained essentially flat. Income of the top 1%, on the other hand, has risen over 240%. This is not because the top 1% is 240% more productive than the rest of us, as Brooks' argument would seem to imply. It's because of radical redistributionist policies -- not the progressive kind that Brooks criticizes, but the kind that Warren Buffett was referring to when he said, "There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning."
7
Elizabeth Warren is correct: "The game is rigged."
Period.
Period.
15
So, if we just give all the burger-flippers PhDs, they'll be rich?
No.
How about if we make them all PhD-holding hedge fund managers?
Yes!
Then who will flip the burgers?
David's camp just doesn't seem to get that as long as you have burger-flippers, and as long as they are paid badly, we will have terrible inequality. Productivity has gone up plenty in the last 35 years. The problem is that nearly all of that increased wealth has been taken in profits rather than paid in increased wages.
No.
How about if we make them all PhD-holding hedge fund managers?
Yes!
Then who will flip the burgers?
David's camp just doesn't seem to get that as long as you have burger-flippers, and as long as they are paid badly, we will have terrible inequality. Productivity has gone up plenty in the last 35 years. The problem is that nearly all of that increased wealth has been taken in profits rather than paid in increased wages.
3
How is it that Mr. Brooks has magical insight into Hillary's intentions when no one else on Earth does, not even Hillary?
1
Nobody is saying "Don't focus on education."
People ARE saying: "If you think a country where 1% own all the assets and the entire political system is NOT a country you would either recognize or want to live in, then stop fooling yourself into thinking that education will solve that problem. Something has changed, fundamentally, for the worse, and it won't."
Every once in a while you write a column so wrongheaded, so oblivious to the point, that one finds it hard to believe you mean it. This is one of those.
People ARE saying: "If you think a country where 1% own all the assets and the entire political system is NOT a country you would either recognize or want to live in, then stop fooling yourself into thinking that education will solve that problem. Something has changed, fundamentally, for the worse, and it won't."
Every once in a while you write a column so wrongheaded, so oblivious to the point, that one finds it hard to believe you mean it. This is one of those.
1
Around 1980, the era of globalization began, and worker productivity increased due to technological advances. Both have been rightly blamed for wage stagnation, the erosion of the middle class, and the ending of American Dream (if I work hard and play by the rules, I will live a successful life).
At the same time, we got Ronald Reagan as President and his "government is the problem" philosophy. Rather than use government policy to soften the impact of these profound economic changes, we got less government, less regulation, and the growth of a minimally regulated finance industry. Just when we needed good government, it's role to support economic growth for all disappeared.
The result: 35 years of wage stagnation for the 99%, the decimation of unions, dangerous levels of income inequality (CEOs of nonprofit hospital chains making millions), the shrinking of the middle class, an increase in poverty, lower taxes for the wealthy, attacks on the social safety net, enormous increases in healthcare and education costs, and a government controlled by billionaires and the NRA.
Our economy is broken, our government is broken, the American Dream is dead, and the future looks bleak.
Worst of all, it may be too late for government to return to its role as a representative democracy, looking out for the welfare of all.
At the same time, we got Ronald Reagan as President and his "government is the problem" philosophy. Rather than use government policy to soften the impact of these profound economic changes, we got less government, less regulation, and the growth of a minimally regulated finance industry. Just when we needed good government, it's role to support economic growth for all disappeared.
The result: 35 years of wage stagnation for the 99%, the decimation of unions, dangerous levels of income inequality (CEOs of nonprofit hospital chains making millions), the shrinking of the middle class, an increase in poverty, lower taxes for the wealthy, attacks on the social safety net, enormous increases in healthcare and education costs, and a government controlled by billionaires and the NRA.
Our economy is broken, our government is broken, the American Dream is dead, and the future looks bleak.
Worst of all, it may be too late for government to return to its role as a representative democracy, looking out for the welfare of all.
2
Maybe "redistributiin" should be thought of not so much as a dollar amount or percentage change, but a redistribution of the BURDEN. Wealthy people caused the huge economic collapse. Maybe they couldn't afford that second yacht, or whatever, but they hardly felt the burden of the downturn. The poor and middle class were stripped to bare bones. Public education is in the toilet.
As for the "recovery," the figures sound good, but it was the 2% (or maybe 1) that were the first to benefit in the recovery. Maybe even they were the only ones to benefit. If you take into account things like the decline in public services, loss of pensions, etc., the 98% still have a net loss.
I think the 98% is increasingly tired of hearing how this is the best of all possible worlds.
As for the "recovery," the figures sound good, but it was the 2% (or maybe 1) that were the first to benefit in the recovery. Maybe even they were the only ones to benefit. If you take into account things like the decline in public services, loss of pensions, etc., the 98% still have a net loss.
I think the 98% is increasingly tired of hearing how this is the best of all possible worlds.
1
Every time I read a David Brooks column my mind hurts a little more. Lets take the $7000 to $28000 concept. The better solution to fair wages seems to be to get all workers college educations. Then they could all have $28000 more. (Forget the capitalist idea of rising supply/lower prices.)
Not everyone has the ability to obtain college educations. (I really feel stupid pointing that out.)
Workers make the nation happen. Employers do not want to pay higher wages because it takes away from them. Ok. If the nation could not happen without the workers, and employers are not going to pay significantly more, why not have the nation do more? Providing medical care, for example. This would be one way the nation could repay its workers for keeping us going. (There are others.)
This would mean higher taxes, especially for the wealthy. David would call this redistribution. Maybe the redistribution is upward from the value of the workers' labor to the profits of the employers.
Maybe it would just be paybacks.
Not everyone has the ability to obtain college educations. (I really feel stupid pointing that out.)
Workers make the nation happen. Employers do not want to pay higher wages because it takes away from them. Ok. If the nation could not happen without the workers, and employers are not going to pay significantly more, why not have the nation do more? Providing medical care, for example. This would be one way the nation could repay its workers for keeping us going. (There are others.)
This would mean higher taxes, especially for the wealthy. David would call this redistribution. Maybe the redistribution is upward from the value of the workers' labor to the profits of the employers.
Maybe it would just be paybacks.
1
David, David, David. Do you listen to yourself? I don't believe this is the compassionate, humane gentleman I watch on the Newshour. Other commenters have unearthed truths for you to ponder. Were corporate taxes paying their share, were CEO's and all administrative worker's salaries at old historical ratios, there would be ample $$$ to pay full time workers (of all kinds) a LIVING, FAMILY RAISING wage. My governor just killed effective labor organization in our state. That'll help our work force.
2
Why does Mr. Brooks make this an either/or proposition? Take some tax money from the wealthy and use it to support education and other such programs for everyone. That worked in the 1950s when the top tax rate under a Republican president was north of 90 percent. But back then, before the triumph and deification of the "market," success was judged on other factors than the size of your pile of money.
2
Will someone assist Mr. Brooks?
Possibly get his vision, hearing, and basic cognitive skills checked out? Maybe just check for a pulse....clear his cookies, toss out his Heritage Foundation-Hoover Club cache, and while you are at it determine if he can detect any other flavor besides mild re-processed vanilla.
For an above average intelligent person, with a moderately expanding bald spot, and a proven ability to write complete sentences, I'm really concerned for Uncle Dave. He just can't seem to allow any daylight in to alter his persistent ...I don't see a problem, attitude. From A to Z, DB likes to stay as far into the middle lane of intellectual curiosity as possible. His views are predictably narrow. Not much passion behind his commentary, polite to the point of being thrilled to death with not saying much, and worst of all....sadly no jokes.
NY Times: Why is he still starring on your payroll? What is he contributing? I want some whole grain fiber in this important spot...not the same old bland diet of flavorless porridge.
It's no crime to be at home in the luke warm end of the pool It's just that we are already drowning in ho-humness.
We need some relief, and so do you.
Get out of the preppie limo side of life, and walk around where people who don't lunch at your club, are trying to hang on.
Possibly get his vision, hearing, and basic cognitive skills checked out? Maybe just check for a pulse....clear his cookies, toss out his Heritage Foundation-Hoover Club cache, and while you are at it determine if he can detect any other flavor besides mild re-processed vanilla.
For an above average intelligent person, with a moderately expanding bald spot, and a proven ability to write complete sentences, I'm really concerned for Uncle Dave. He just can't seem to allow any daylight in to alter his persistent ...I don't see a problem, attitude. From A to Z, DB likes to stay as far into the middle lane of intellectual curiosity as possible. His views are predictably narrow. Not much passion behind his commentary, polite to the point of being thrilled to death with not saying much, and worst of all....sadly no jokes.
NY Times: Why is he still starring on your payroll? What is he contributing? I want some whole grain fiber in this important spot...not the same old bland diet of flavorless porridge.
It's no crime to be at home in the luke warm end of the pool It's just that we are already drowning in ho-humness.
We need some relief, and so do you.
Get out of the preppie limo side of life, and walk around where people who don't lunch at your club, are trying to hang on.
3
Mr. Brooks makes the mistake that many of our conservative friends and colleagues make: good advice at an individual level does not necessarily make good public policy. Yes, the best way for an individual to improve his place in life is through education. But when that idea drives public policy, we all just become Alice in the Red Queen's Race: running as fast as we can just to stay where we are.
We may not be there yet, but at some point we'll have to come to grips with the fact that technology and globalization are eliminating the need for a large well-paid workforce, particularly at the middle-skill level. Two generations ago, an 18 year old could turn a C+ high school diploma into a factory job and a middle class lifestyle. Today, it takes an Masters in Engineering to even get an interview. It's not going back to the way it was and it's only going to get worse. It goes against our values, but redistribution will have to play a role in staving off a dystopian future.
We may not be there yet, but at some point we'll have to come to grips with the fact that technology and globalization are eliminating the need for a large well-paid workforce, particularly at the middle-skill level. Two generations ago, an 18 year old could turn a C+ high school diploma into a factory job and a middle class lifestyle. Today, it takes an Masters in Engineering to even get an interview. It's not going back to the way it was and it's only going to get worse. It goes against our values, but redistribution will have to play a role in staving off a dystopian future.
3
I completely agree. Acquiring real skills- the ability to write well, compute accurately and think critically -AND cultivating a robust work ethic is the key. Follow the success of immigrants such as myself and our children. Our success is built on a rigorous academic programs, hard work and frugality. Unlike those who rely on the redistributive approach, we own our success and do not have to depend on Democrat success at the polls to move on up the ladder to the American Dream. Sounds boring but it works!
1
That $7,000 dollars per household...
is half a million invested at 5% over 30 years
is a trillion dollars worth of infrastructure repair and upgrades (jobs? leading to better jobs?)
Why leave it in the idle hands of those who've had 35 years to rain it down on the rest of us?
Or best of all use that money to stop paying lip service to the glories of human capital and build a nationwide system of apprenticeships where the government brokers the connection between vo-ag schools and employers.
Foolish? 99% of German GDP is earned by firms with less than 50 workers who live in little towns, in family run firms. They are highly skilled and constantly innovate production techniques and technology. Here read all about it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/shuchingjeanchen/2013/11/07/corporate-german...
A managed capitalist economy (which already exist and thrive) is not the road to socialism, but to the kind of corporatism that makes a nation the second largest exporting country in the world.
Use that money to get serious about real job training, and let us stop pretending that individuals pimping out a worthless degree from an online college is "human capital." It's capital capital for Wall Street with government education loans. Since when did the dignity of work turn the word "human" into an adjective?
is half a million invested at 5% over 30 years
is a trillion dollars worth of infrastructure repair and upgrades (jobs? leading to better jobs?)
Why leave it in the idle hands of those who've had 35 years to rain it down on the rest of us?
Or best of all use that money to stop paying lip service to the glories of human capital and build a nationwide system of apprenticeships where the government brokers the connection between vo-ag schools and employers.
Foolish? 99% of German GDP is earned by firms with less than 50 workers who live in little towns, in family run firms. They are highly skilled and constantly innovate production techniques and technology. Here read all about it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/shuchingjeanchen/2013/11/07/corporate-german...
A managed capitalist economy (which already exist and thrive) is not the road to socialism, but to the kind of corporatism that makes a nation the second largest exporting country in the world.
Use that money to get serious about real job training, and let us stop pretending that individuals pimping out a worthless degree from an online college is "human capital." It's capital capital for Wall Street with government education loans. Since when did the dignity of work turn the word "human" into an adjective?
2
99 to 1 are favorable risks forgoing into a combative mode. For example, the insider-trading hedge funders who buy Reap-oligarchy Party politicians need to have their wings clipped, at least a bit.
The Republicans have systematically weakened or destroyed labor unions, which is one of the primary protectors of wages. They have reduced capital gains and inheritance taxes. And anyyone who is not naive knows the stock market is riddlled with insider trading among the elites. All of these measure have led to a dangerous level of income inequality, yet Brooks faults the Democrats for trying to address this inequality, and instead proposes we all go and get our master's degrees.
1
One thing the Soviet states did well was to formally educate their citizens. This did not translate into either healthy economies or an equitable distribution of wealth. No matter what labels we use for our economic systems (communism, socialism, capitalism, feudalism) it is difficult for academic education to overcome too much power in the hands of too few. A functioning meritocracy requires some real distribution of political power and a genuine appreciation of, and willingness to fairly compensate for, the full range of skills needed for a healthy community of humans. It will be difficult to strengthen the skills of a nation or a world where money is so overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of those who value and pursue it more than a healthy, balanced community. I believe that until we, as fellow community members, value the full range of needed services equitably, no market system or policy is going to distribute wealth equitably.
2
In my State, the Republican Governor and the Republican controlled legislator have cut taxes for businesses and the wealthy. They are also in the process of shifting from a progressive system of taxation via income and property taxes to an increased reliance on regressive taxes such the sales tax.
As a result, we face budget shortfalls which the Republicans have used as a cover to reduce funding for education. Our State ranks at the very bottom of all States (49th) in education funding and even after draconian cuts to the educational system over the past 8 years, the Governor and the most "conservative" members of the Legislature are currently attempting to cut university funding by 12% and the State share of funding to community colleges by 100%.
The ironic thing, is the Republicans seem to consider sacrificing our children's education "business friendly."
As a result, we face budget shortfalls which the Republicans have used as a cover to reduce funding for education. Our State ranks at the very bottom of all States (49th) in education funding and even after draconian cuts to the educational system over the past 8 years, the Governor and the most "conservative" members of the Legislature are currently attempting to cut university funding by 12% and the State share of funding to community colleges by 100%.
The ironic thing, is the Republicans seem to consider sacrificing our children's education "business friendly."
"No redistributionist measure will have the same long-term effect as good early-childhood education and better community colleges, or increasing the share of men capable of joining the labor force."
Faux pas, Mr. Brooks? No women?
Faux pas, Mr. Brooks? No women?
3
Those unskilled workers are THE problem. What nonsense. Viva La Redistribution!
1
Mr. Brooks I have watched and listened to you for years and it is obvious you are very bright. But listening to you now it is insulting. We are not idiots. It is true that American workers need to update both their skills and education to get to both compete in the world arena and just secure the available jobs. But you have used this obvious need to misdirect our attention. The system is rigged in favor of the 1% and the sad thing is that you actually already know this. Shame on you. The disparity between the 1% and the rest of us is accelerating to the point that the middle class is being destroyed. Soon it will be just two classes, the 1% and the rest of America.
1
David Brooks conveniently avoids aspects to the equation that (the unnamed) Lawrence Summers Now advocates. The share of unionized workers has steadily decreased over decades for many reasons, with an associated increase in barriers to organizing being primary among them. It would be great for David Brooks to support repeal of Taft Hartley, for instance, but the cast of his rhetoric sounds like he thinks unions are per se redistributionist rather than the vehicle for workers to get a fair return for their labor.
Reviving the union movement also goes straight to his point about promoting education as the driver of creating jobs and wealth for the 99%. While early childhood education can be a great boon in many ways, there will still be a large number of workers needed in "low skill" jobs---in healthcare, retail, farming, construction, and so on. It would go some ways to assure an adequate low skill but not exploited labor pool by passing comprehensive immigration reform. It would be even more productive to legislatively favor the opportunity for low income workers to join and establish unions.
David Brooks also ignores his fellow columnist Paul Krugman's frequent call for a full employment economy based on useful government spending on infrastructure, among other things, to truly leapfrog out of the incomplete recovery. Brooks knows very well how many cascading benefits arise from repairing broken infrastructure but maybe sees that as also redistributionist.
Reviving the union movement also goes straight to his point about promoting education as the driver of creating jobs and wealth for the 99%. While early childhood education can be a great boon in many ways, there will still be a large number of workers needed in "low skill" jobs---in healthcare, retail, farming, construction, and so on. It would go some ways to assure an adequate low skill but not exploited labor pool by passing comprehensive immigration reform. It would be even more productive to legislatively favor the opportunity for low income workers to join and establish unions.
David Brooks also ignores his fellow columnist Paul Krugman's frequent call for a full employment economy based on useful government spending on infrastructure, among other things, to truly leapfrog out of the incomplete recovery. Brooks knows very well how many cascading benefits arise from repairing broken infrastructure but maybe sees that as also redistributionist.
1
Increased productivity has only benefited CEOs and shareholders. We have people today doing the work of two or three others and not getting raises. It makes increasing your productivity an exercise in masochism.
And what about all of those college- and post-college-educated workers who are now unemployed or underemployed?
The only way to get ahead economically is, in the few fields that are creating jobs, is to move from one job to another that pays more. This is a young person's game, however; for those of middle years or older who are just getting by even in rising industries this is not an option.
Why is it that the people who have the resources to create work and jobs are so reluctant to do it? Instead they keep the wealth to themselves and scream "redistribution" if anyone suggests it's up to them to invest in their community for the common good.
And what about all of those college- and post-college-educated workers who are now unemployed or underemployed?
The only way to get ahead economically is, in the few fields that are creating jobs, is to move from one job to another that pays more. This is a young person's game, however; for those of middle years or older who are just getting by even in rising industries this is not an option.
Why is it that the people who have the resources to create work and jobs are so reluctant to do it? Instead they keep the wealth to themselves and scream "redistribution" if anyone suggests it's up to them to invest in their community for the common good.
1
Mr. Brooks' argument against redistributing wealth is cartoonish - give everyone $7,000 out of someone else's pocket - and a deliberately foolish description. Putting money back into the American economy via taxes so that the infrastructure we all share (billionaires ride on highways and bridges too), the small businesses we patronize, the hospitals we all use (albeit not the penthouse floors with butlers and catered meals) and the basic health care that keeps us out of the those hospitals is the point of redistribution. Is Mr. Brooks trying to subtly call forth President Reagan's old rallying cry against "welfare queens?" I would hope not.
1
Why does it have to be black or white, one or the other? It seems the best policy would be to address both sides - redistribution AND education/productivity.
No one is talking about erasing inequality -- it has been around forever.
What is needed are tax and spending policies that support living wages for all Americans, including those at the bottom of the heap. This means a living minimum wage and fiscal policies that support employment (doing necessary work) in reaction to fluctuations in the business cycle.
In 1968, when I was a 17 year old high school graduate working in a Dallas area 7-11, I made $1.65 an hour ($11.43 today). Where is that now?
My best friend's father at the Dallas Times Herald was able to maintain a home and support a family as a blue collar worker. Those jobs no longer exist or have been part-timed and sub-contracted into poverty-level, food stamp-supported, EITC-subsidized indignity.
Unions are on a back foot and are probably not the solution. The only solution then is One Big Union of voters but, given the individualist strain in a large part of the electorate, that's unlikely to pan out.
What is needed are tax and spending policies that support living wages for all Americans, including those at the bottom of the heap. This means a living minimum wage and fiscal policies that support employment (doing necessary work) in reaction to fluctuations in the business cycle.
In 1968, when I was a 17 year old high school graduate working in a Dallas area 7-11, I made $1.65 an hour ($11.43 today). Where is that now?
My best friend's father at the Dallas Times Herald was able to maintain a home and support a family as a blue collar worker. Those jobs no longer exist or have been part-timed and sub-contracted into poverty-level, food stamp-supported, EITC-subsidized indignity.
Unions are on a back foot and are probably not the solution. The only solution then is One Big Union of voters but, given the individualist strain in a large part of the electorate, that's unlikely to pan out.
Mr. Brooks might be right about the financial benefits of a college degree, but only if he's looking through a very tiny window. One sector that is clearly not in his sights is that of educators, themselves, including those of us with multiple degrees (3, in my case) who are teaching others intent on acquiring advanced degrees --that is, on improving their abilities -- themselves. If skilled, knowledgeable people are so valuable, the people teaching them should not be less so.
Let's say all Walmart workers were suddenly gifted college degrees by magic and left Walmart.
Walmart, the retailer, would still exist and need to get goods from trucks to shelves. So they would have to enter the labor market to pay more to get those people.
Alternatively. Walmart workers, instead of en masse returning to college, which most cannot afford, can gain political power and use that power to get more income.
The rich do it. They use their money to buy politicians and use that power to get more money for often nefarious and destructive activities.
Can't the poor do that too? Imagine the country if left and right could drop social issues and focus their joint fire power ( and votes) on gaining political power and using that power to garner higher wages.
Walmart, the retailer, would still exist and need to get goods from trucks to shelves. So they would have to enter the labor market to pay more to get those people.
Alternatively. Walmart workers, instead of en masse returning to college, which most cannot afford, can gain political power and use that power to get more income.
The rich do it. They use their money to buy politicians and use that power to get more money for often nefarious and destructive activities.
Can't the poor do that too? Imagine the country if left and right could drop social issues and focus their joint fire power ( and votes) on gaining political power and using that power to garner higher wages.
1
NO, it is about redistribution. The 1% need to be taken down for what they / mega corporations have done to society the last few decades.
2
"And, in the general election, voters respond to the uplifting and the unifying, not the combative and divisive." If that is the case, then your Republican cohorts should never ever win another election again!
2
I hope that Scott Walker new slogan won't be Huey Long's "Every Man a King," but David Brooks's "Every Man a PhD."
2
Policiies, not magic or education, is why inequality has grown. The problem is not the top 1% but the top .01%. They are so much richer and wealthier than anyone else because they have been shielded from taxes at all levels. That has to be stopped.
Also, Paul Krugman has shown often and persuasively that improving education is not going to close the oligarchic income gap.
Also, Paul Krugman has shown often and persuasively that improving education is not going to close the oligarchic income gap.
4
"And, in the general election, voters respond to the uplifting and the unifying, not the combative and divisive."
As a progressive democrat, I hope this will be true. We'll win big if it is.
As a progressive democrat, I hope this will be true. We'll win big if it is.
2
The view that capitalism is fundamentally broken is not merely biased by "temporary evidence from the recession," as David Brooks argues. It's based on 300 years of rigorously-collected and thoroughly examined evidence; Thomas Piketty's landmark book Capital is such essential reading it's surprising to see Brooks apparently ignore it.
The widespread embrace of capitalism (boiled down to the injection of capital --money -- in transactions) is essential for healthy economies (boiled down to systems to distribute goods and services).
We call today's fundamentally broken system capitalism, but it more closely resembles feudalism. And what this false version of capitalism puts at risk is no less than the consensus, only a couple of generations old, that basic capitalism is the least bad of all economic systems.
The widespread embrace of capitalism (boiled down to the injection of capital --money -- in transactions) is essential for healthy economies (boiled down to systems to distribute goods and services).
We call today's fundamentally broken system capitalism, but it more closely resembles feudalism. And what this false version of capitalism puts at risk is no less than the consensus, only a couple of generations old, that basic capitalism is the least bad of all economic systems.
When Republicans talk about redistribution, from the rich to the poor, it's a dirty word.
When they do it, from the poor to rich, as has been happening since Reagan, it's "free market capitalism"
When they do it, from the poor to rich, as has been happening since Reagan, it's "free market capitalism"
5
Republicans claim to be the party of work, but then refuse to adopt basic governing principles like every job worth doing is worth a living wage, and not just the jobs that require college education, but also the jobs that make every other job possible such as daycare workers who take care of children, waitresses who serve food, and janitors who clean high-rise offices. After all, how much wealth would they make if executives and the engineers had to empty their own garbage?
Instead, Republicans cut and divide workers against each other in every way imaginable to try and get us to blame each other for our troubles, to keep us fighting like dogs for the scraps. Here David Brooks divides low-skilled vs. high-skilled workers. Over in Wisconsin, Republicans are dividing union vs. non-union workers. Private vs. public. Citizens vs. immigrants. Whatever kind of divide and conquer strategy to distract American workers from Republican policies like refusing to raise the minimum wage, and crippling unions, and cutting taxes which cuts government budgets, which results in hanging more of the costs of education, transportation, healthcare and college around workers skinny necks.
And then when Democrats advocate policies to help workers, Republicans howl like stuck pigs in protest and them "redistributionist."
Instead, Republicans cut and divide workers against each other in every way imaginable to try and get us to blame each other for our troubles, to keep us fighting like dogs for the scraps. Here David Brooks divides low-skilled vs. high-skilled workers. Over in Wisconsin, Republicans are dividing union vs. non-union workers. Private vs. public. Citizens vs. immigrants. Whatever kind of divide and conquer strategy to distract American workers from Republican policies like refusing to raise the minimum wage, and crippling unions, and cutting taxes which cuts government budgets, which results in hanging more of the costs of education, transportation, healthcare and college around workers skinny necks.
And then when Democrats advocate policies to help workers, Republicans howl like stuck pigs in protest and them "redistributionist."
5
Making worker productivity (through higher skills and education) a main proscriptive for raising incomes ignores the fact that since the mid-1970s the returns from extraordinary productivity increases broke with wage growth and have gone to those at the top. Before then, most companies had mission statements honoring their responsibilities the various constituencies that made for their success: labor, customers, suppliers and communities. Today, any company that does not have as is primary, if not exclusive, commitment to “enhancing shareholder value” is targeted for takeover to “unlock” its value – i.e. return it to the bankers and capitalists.
The excuse that global pressures created this environment is a straw dog. It was the the sustained worldwide chase for cheaper labor combined with deliberate conservative policies attacking taxation, worker rights and consumer protections; the starvation of important governmental functions (including education, which has been shamefully neglected); and the takeover of our courts by partisan judges, that have eviscerated our middle class.
Today, we must all be on high alert as everything from our food to medicines and healthcare, our wages to basic banking and retirement, have become redistributive, designed to extract every last penny out of our pockets. Redistribution has become an epithet in service to the politics of the wealthy, when all it should mean are policies for a fair, ethical and level playing field.
The excuse that global pressures created this environment is a straw dog. It was the the sustained worldwide chase for cheaper labor combined with deliberate conservative policies attacking taxation, worker rights and consumer protections; the starvation of important governmental functions (including education, which has been shamefully neglected); and the takeover of our courts by partisan judges, that have eviscerated our middle class.
Today, we must all be on high alert as everything from our food to medicines and healthcare, our wages to basic banking and retirement, have become redistributive, designed to extract every last penny out of our pockets. Redistribution has become an epithet in service to the politics of the wealthy, when all it should mean are policies for a fair, ethical and level playing field.
9
Brooks' closing contention that "Increasing worker productivity is the key" rings particuarly hollow. US productivity has risen steadily in the past few decades, yet the wages of the 99% have barely budged.
The next sentence, "Increasing incentives to risk and invest is essential", gives the game away - presumably this means lower capital gains taxes for our heroic masters (I mean "job creators").
Thanks for the advice, David.
The next sentence, "Increasing incentives to risk and invest is essential", gives the game away - presumably this means lower capital gains taxes for our heroic masters (I mean "job creators").
Thanks for the advice, David.
6
Yes, that productivity things is what you can expect from someone who is not out working in the 9-5 timeclock world. I worked in a HS for 10 years and watched as retirees were not replaced, hours were cut, class sizes increased, yet the same amount of work had to be done. It already was a high pressure job, well before the yearly budget slashes began. Teachers I know cannot wait to retire. One teacher I know has 48-50 kids in each of her five classes, HS Spanish.
I would happily apply some moderate tax rates on the "1%" to put more quality educators to work, particularly in early childhood education, or to restore our infrastructure, or to offer universal health care. These are huge factors in individual "productivity".
6
To me, it's fairly basic. The Middle Class Lifestyle has never been about "having it all". That's a top 10% lifestyle. Middle Class has always been about budgeting your world to make things better, and choosing between this nice thing and that nice thing, not about having both. What has slaughtered the middle class is not wages. I would argue that the willingness to pay $200 a month for cable TV, $160 per cell phone in a household of 5, $100 per month on internet, $100 or more a month on apps for the phone, or subscriptions to services. In short, the middle class has been tricked into nickel-and-diming away their money into the aether of Telecom expenses. This is the Great Vacuum that no one will talk about. If the umbilical is cut to these extreme wastes of time, that is seen in every mall, subway ride, coffee shop and bar, household and public space, then people will get their money back.
You cannot have a good, middle-class lifestyle and live to text and play candy cru$h at the same time, all the while binge-watching all the episodes from GoT. Middle Class people use public things to round their lives.
As the old Irving Berlin song goes:
"Taking stock of what I have and what I haven't
What do I find?
The things I got will keep me satisfied
Checking up on what I have and what I haven't
What do I find?
A healthy balance on the credit side
Got no diamond
Got no pearl
Still I think I'm a lucky girl
I got the sun in the morning and the moon at night"
You cannot have a good, middle-class lifestyle and live to text and play candy cru$h at the same time, all the while binge-watching all the episodes from GoT. Middle Class people use public things to round their lives.
As the old Irving Berlin song goes:
"Taking stock of what I have and what I haven't
What do I find?
The things I got will keep me satisfied
Checking up on what I have and what I haven't
What do I find?
A healthy balance on the credit side
Got no diamond
Got no pearl
Still I think I'm a lucky girl
I got the sun in the morning and the moon at night"
5
How to accomplish "redistribution" is the problem, isn't it? Congress needs to stop being afraid of raising taxes. I know those people who have bought our nearly useless Congress are pulling the strings, but raising taxes or better yet, "fixing" the tax system would be a great place to start.
1
Sounds like Brooks must have read T. Edsall's piece the other day about Larry Summers going all Elizabeth Warren.
And he sounds a bit nervous.
In the 1950's the top tax rate was around 90% and the Country was in the midst of the largest most sustained period of growth in possibly world history.
Since 1980 when Reagan and his cult began to slash those rates at the top we have seen jobs and wages get flat or just disappear while the top 1% are hoarding more wealth than ever before seen in human history.
And while Brooks likes to promote the ideal of higher education as the path to a better life, he does not mention that the costs of a higher education have soared beyond the reach of most of those who need this boost into a better life.
If we start spending the trillions necessary to rebuild our infrastructure we will be well on the way to full employment. But republicans have never ever been for full employment.
And he sounds a bit nervous.
In the 1950's the top tax rate was around 90% and the Country was in the midst of the largest most sustained period of growth in possibly world history.
Since 1980 when Reagan and his cult began to slash those rates at the top we have seen jobs and wages get flat or just disappear while the top 1% are hoarding more wealth than ever before seen in human history.
And while Brooks likes to promote the ideal of higher education as the path to a better life, he does not mention that the costs of a higher education have soared beyond the reach of most of those who need this boost into a better life.
If we start spending the trillions necessary to rebuild our infrastructure we will be well on the way to full employment. But republicans have never ever been for full employment.
1
By all means, do what it takes to improve worker productivity, because guess who benefits the most from that? Hint, it's not the worker.
3
Yes, more education would help, but the education that is needed is in POLITICS, not math, English, and science. If people/voters do not like what is happening to OUR economy. OUR pocketbooks, then they must learn about how to fix what is a POLITICAL problem. They must vote the wannabe billionaires out of office and vote in those who would actually represent their interests.
Education, as controlled by those in power, is designed to lead students into specialization, which in turn creates workers who are educated in one narrow area and are dependent on others (controlled by those in power?) for 90plus% of what is needed to live. If we want to take back control of our lives, we must be educated as generalists who can provide the majority of what is needed for day-to-day living. We revere our American forefathers who hammered out a living on the frontier, with good reason. Imagine using today's technology to provide for yourself and your family and TRULY be (economically) free!
Education, as controlled by those in power, is designed to lead students into specialization, which in turn creates workers who are educated in one narrow area and are dependent on others (controlled by those in power?) for 90plus% of what is needed to live. If we want to take back control of our lives, we must be educated as generalists who can provide the majority of what is needed for day-to-day living. We revere our American forefathers who hammered out a living on the frontier, with good reason. Imagine using today's technology to provide for yourself and your family and TRULY be (economically) free!
1
Mr. Brooks is a not only smart---he is articulate. I am keeping this excellent piece as a reminder of how we should look at more than one option--as opposed to settling for emotional simplicity
1
Did David Brooks miss the big economic and political news of 2014, the Piketty book, where, not over the short-term, but over the last 100 - 150 years the author showed that capitalism has a tendency to concentrate wealth, that is, without "redistributionist" actions. Piketty's prescription was increased taxes on activity of the top 1-10%.
Even since 1973, income has stagnated for the vast majority. So, contrary to Brooks's assertion that progressives must look beyond the short-term, they have, and it doesn't look good without making taxes more progressive.
Even since 1973, income has stagnated for the vast majority. So, contrary to Brooks's assertion that progressives must look beyond the short-term, they have, and it doesn't look good without making taxes more progressive.
2
What utter non sense. I graduated high school in 1982 and entered St. Ronnie's union busting economy. Entered the work force and was payed a "b scale" salary by the airlines. Completed a graduate degree while working full time and was burdened with 30K in student loans. We play by the rules and watch out 401Ks get looted by the banksters and Wall Street. The simple fact is the current form of capitalism practiced in the US is not working for the middle class. I've literally been playing catch up my entire adult life. Enough!
6
Its always so interesting when another rich republican finds some way to explain why poor people are at fault for being poor and why rich people are so misunderstood.
6
I'm pretty sure that that 1% argument, of being out of the game, will never resonate with those of us in the bottom 50%. As well, accumulating more skill will always be a good thing in the workplace.
It is a pretty big leap to argue that the current $28,000 College/High School pay gap would remain as large if all High School grads obtained college degrees. Income is roughly five times as powerful as education in improving nutritional status; and budget statistics indicate that ongoing professional literature purchases are almost exclusively the province of above-average income households.
Having marketable skills is always a plus, but the biggest problem in the U.S. today is the relative lack of well-paying jobs. In an earlier time, we had a strong manufacturing base where labor unions played a role in bargaining for decent wages and benefits, and we had a strong middle class as a result. But many, probably most, of our manufacturing jobs have been moved overseas, and we're left with mostly service sector jobs. These jobs have never payed as well as manufacturing jobs, in part because most service sector jobs are non-union. And there are only so many of those jobs to go around. As a result, we've seen income inequality soar as the one percent, and especially the 0.1 percent, reap a larger percentage of total profit. And we've had a growing number of people who have to take two or more low-paying, often part-time jobs to stay afloat.
What we need is a higher minimum wage, one that allows people to actually get out of poverty, and unionization of the service sector so that service employees can bargain effectively for better pay and working conditions. Right-to-work laws have to be modified so as not to stifle unionization. We also need a more progressive tax structure at the one percent and above level. Just taxing capital gains as ordinary income would help a lot.
David Brooks may call this "redistribution" or "spreading the wealth," but others would say it would allow the people who do much of the actual work to reap a fair share of its rewards.
What we need is a higher minimum wage, one that allows people to actually get out of poverty, and unionization of the service sector so that service employees can bargain effectively for better pay and working conditions. Right-to-work laws have to be modified so as not to stifle unionization. We also need a more progressive tax structure at the one percent and above level. Just taxing capital gains as ordinary income would help a lot.
David Brooks may call this "redistribution" or "spreading the wealth," but others would say it would allow the people who do much of the actual work to reap a fair share of its rewards.
1
Does Mister Brooks mean to say "make college less expensive instead of make college cheaper"? Some expensive colleges are cheap and some less expensive colleges provide an education with the quality of excellence. I do think that David is using the term "cheap" as he'd refer to Ms Clinton.
This particular warming of the old discredited stew, that somehow our system, tax and labor constructs don't favor the rich, makes one groan with disappointment. Mr. Brooks, were you awake with the dismantling of a fair tax system and the savaging of unions? I guess not.
7
Baseball players who play AAA ball are far more likely to make millions of dollars than players who only played house league. Therefore, we should ensure that more people play AAA ball and we will all be richer. Right?
Or is AAA just a way of selecting and developing those people who are appropriate for the big leagues just as university is meant to both select and prepare people for certain jobs, which also happen to pay more.
Mr. Brooks focuses on the preparation aspect of university and misses the selection aspect. Pushing more people through university will just reduce the value of the diploma. Just ask law school graduates.
Or is AAA just a way of selecting and developing those people who are appropriate for the big leagues just as university is meant to both select and prepare people for certain jobs, which also happen to pay more.
Mr. Brooks focuses on the preparation aspect of university and misses the selection aspect. Pushing more people through university will just reduce the value of the diploma. Just ask law school graduates.
2
I always cringe when I see otherwise intelligent people such as Brooks make utterly illogical statements. College educated people make more money. People with graduate degrees make even more money. Ergo, all everyone needs to do is get a graduate degree, ignoring of course that the great majority of people aren't college material, much less qualified to seek a graduate (or professional) degree. This emphasis on education is just another way to blame the victim. Oh, you people in the bottom 50% aren't doing so well. It's your fault -- you should have put in for better genes when you were conceived. What a crock.
7
Brooks creates, like intellectuals tend to do (especially if it satisfies their ideological agenda), a false dichotomy here. We need both human capital progressivism and redistributionist progressivism. They aren't mutually exclusive. So make sure that job training and higher education is within reach of most Americans. Meanwhile, make the billionaires and capitalistic manipulators pay more taxes to support needed societal programs. A transactional tax of stock and bond buying and selling would raise billions. Raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour. Structural reforms that have entrenched primitive conservatives in congress and in most of the states need to be addressed. That is, reverse Citizens United, legislate non-partisan objective redistricting to ensure fair representation--it is startling to me that the 1960s Supreme Court ruling mandating one person, one vote has been ignored. If representation were fair, my state of Pennsylvania were not have a large majority of republicans in congress. After all, President Obama won Pennsylvania twice.
7
The "redistributionists"?
The 1% are the redistributionists. They took the flat Reagan rates and reduced them for hedge fund managers, coupon clippers and corporate raiders while raising them for everybody else.
Now that's redistribution.
The biggest handout in America always went to Walmart Incorporated who didn't have to pay real live able wages to their employees because the government dole picked up the part of their wages represented by food stamps, Medicaid, etc.
Let's get our facts straight.
The 1% are the redistributionists. They took the flat Reagan rates and reduced them for hedge fund managers, coupon clippers and corporate raiders while raising them for everybody else.
Now that's redistribution.
The biggest handout in America always went to Walmart Incorporated who didn't have to pay real live able wages to their employees because the government dole picked up the part of their wages represented by food stamps, Medicaid, etc.
Let's get our facts straight.
17
Mr. Brooks says the main problem in the economy is that workers lack skills. This insults millions of unemployed Americans whose skills would be sufficient to land a decent job in a healthier economy. And why is the economy unhealthy: well, according to Mr. Brooks, because workers lack skills! This silly big lie is finally losing its power. But what damage it has done.
9
Most of these workers would not and will not get "decent jobs" in a "healthier economy" because the healthier economy is already here. The left behind you speak of will mostly continue to languish as waves of fresh college graduates seize the spoils of the economy's upswing. "Timing is everything." The poor and almost poor, unemployed and semi-employed, will increasingly long for the "good old days" of the bad economy in which it was "normal" to struggle. "Misery loves company" is a cynical proposition, but in economic cycle matters, it's poignantly true that the pain is mitigated or exacerbated according to how others are faring. Being desperate's not that bad when others are too. The econonimically marginalized will now brook the insult added to injury of seeing new grads waltz into prosperous careers that recession grads could only have dreamed of. That's our economy, and how our so-called "meritocracy" operates.
2
I didn't even have to finish the article to know where he was going. Same old, same old conservative line.
11
Mr. Brooks:
"Human capital", really! Using technocratic language to shield yourself from the reality of human suffering doesn't change the facts. Are these the same people you write those lovely self-help columns to?
Wall St. is doing better than ever. The bailed out banks have obscene amounts of cash. CEOs are making more money than hey ever did. These are facts and a strong argument for doing things differently.
Your solution is to put the onus on workers. Do you believe that everyone needs to have a college degree? Would you support gov. funding
to make that happen? Would the Republican Party? Does your housekeeper
really need a masters degree? How about a factory worker?
What "incentives" for investmant are you talking about? How about the Fed caving in on interest rates? That would make Jamie Dimon happy, the rest of us, not so much. You may not be much of a progressive, but, your columns are becoming progressively ridiculous. You obviously don't know what you are talking about here.
"Human capital", really! Using technocratic language to shield yourself from the reality of human suffering doesn't change the facts. Are these the same people you write those lovely self-help columns to?
Wall St. is doing better than ever. The bailed out banks have obscene amounts of cash. CEOs are making more money than hey ever did. These are facts and a strong argument for doing things differently.
Your solution is to put the onus on workers. Do you believe that everyone needs to have a college degree? Would you support gov. funding
to make that happen? Would the Republican Party? Does your housekeeper
really need a masters degree? How about a factory worker?
What "incentives" for investmant are you talking about? How about the Fed caving in on interest rates? That would make Jamie Dimon happy, the rest of us, not so much. You may not be much of a progressive, but, your columns are becoming progressively ridiculous. You obviously don't know what you are talking about here.
7
"Unfortunately, this rising theory is wrong on substance and damaging in its effects."
One sentence. Two assertions. Both essentially unsupported by the balance of the article. The only "damage" would be marginal to the CEO and hedge fund class, and their welfare isn't much of a rallying cry.
One sentence. Two assertions. Both essentially unsupported by the balance of the article. The only "damage" would be marginal to the CEO and hedge fund class, and their welfare isn't much of a rallying cry.
3
Another classic "straw man" example from Mr. Brooks, kicking down at the proles.
How wonderful it must be to create hypothetical dilemmas for your ideological opponents, building their arguments with unattributed quotations, only to smash them with actual data and opinions from Ivy League sources.
I picture Mr. Brooks at a very expensive checker board, playing alone, and making all the wrong choices for his invisible opponent. Then sweeping all pieces away upon victory with the exultant cry "MERITOCRACY WORKS"!
How wonderful it must be to create hypothetical dilemmas for your ideological opponents, building their arguments with unattributed quotations, only to smash them with actual data and opinions from Ivy League sources.
I picture Mr. Brooks at a very expensive checker board, playing alone, and making all the wrong choices for his invisible opponent. Then sweeping all pieces away upon victory with the exultant cry "MERITOCRACY WORKS"!
11
A cute New Yorker cartoon from a few decades back used the same phrase in what I think captures the Republican social outlook perfectly: "Meritocracy worked for Dad, and now it's working for me!"
2
"...in the general election, voters respond to the uplifting and the unifying, not the combative and divisive."
Oh? Sure seems like the advisors who spend most of the money on the ads got their information from a different source than you did.
Oh? Sure seems like the advisors who spend most of the money on the ads got their information from a different source than you did.
3
Two fundamental problems:
1) The miniscule rise in inflation-adjusted wages is due in no small part to the decline in fuel prices, a condition unlikely to endure.
2) If only those with "post-college degrees" are "doing nicely," the bar has been placed so high that it will remain forever out of reach for the vast majority.
Healthy economies rely on money changing hands. Concentrations of wealth tend to reduce this since those in control have more than met their needs and wants. This was the fundamental problem in the pre-modern economy and we should beware its re-emergence.
1) The miniscule rise in inflation-adjusted wages is due in no small part to the decline in fuel prices, a condition unlikely to endure.
2) If only those with "post-college degrees" are "doing nicely," the bar has been placed so high that it will remain forever out of reach for the vast majority.
Healthy economies rely on money changing hands. Concentrations of wealth tend to reduce this since those in control have more than met their needs and wants. This was the fundamental problem in the pre-modern economy and we should beware its re-emergence.
2
"...wages for college grads have been flat this century, and that is troubling. But this is not true of people with post-college degrees..."
So your point is that we send everyone to grad school. I work in higher ed. and have for the last 40 years. We're about tapped out for qualified graduate students. If we didn't import thousands, many grad programs would disappear. And when "everyone" has a graduate degree, will their fate be similar to what the college grads are experiencing today?
So your point is that we send everyone to grad school. I work in higher ed. and have for the last 40 years. We're about tapped out for qualified graduate students. If we didn't import thousands, many grad programs would disappear. And when "everyone" has a graduate degree, will their fate be similar to what the college grads are experiencing today?
4
All of the whining in this comment section needs to stop. We live in a globally linked world. As this shift occurred, the first movers and the facilitators made tons of money. And they will keep making money as they exchange labor like playing cards from one country that begs for their jobs to another. The problem lies not in education or wealth. It rests in the fact that the rules changed. The game changed. How many charitable foundations would dream of the capital inflows collected by the Clintons? There is a chasm between those with "connections" and those without. Get me your smartest kid and leave him in a box, he will produce much less than a less intelligent kid whose parents belong to "right" country club or alumni association. Sorry David but you and Hillary are wrong.
1
It's a dangerous thing to take a single data point and declare a trend. Your statement "...wages are showing signs of life," presumably was based on last month's wage data. Unfortunately, this month's data sustains the trend of flat wages vs inflation. A trend that has been consistent for the past five years, with no signs of change.
I would enjoy hearing your take on the contemporary role of labor unions. It feels to me as though the erosion of their strength from the mid-80s through 2008 is bearing its fruit only now. When a person feels alone in her efforts to advocate for a raise, or health care benefits, or assistance with retirement savings, or job security, then they're much more likely to be cowed by the grumblings or threats of their boss and feel like they should just keep their head down.
We all benefited from the collective bargaining efforts of the past. We're just starting to realize now that those gains aren't so solid as we might have hoped.
I would enjoy hearing your take on the contemporary role of labor unions. It feels to me as though the erosion of their strength from the mid-80s through 2008 is bearing its fruit only now. When a person feels alone in her efforts to advocate for a raise, or health care benefits, or assistance with retirement savings, or job security, then they're much more likely to be cowed by the grumblings or threats of their boss and feel like they should just keep their head down.
We all benefited from the collective bargaining efforts of the past. We're just starting to realize now that those gains aren't so solid as we might have hoped.
2
Why is this framed as an either/or question?
Can't we hope and strive to improve education for all AND to correct our current gross inequality of wealth and income?
Republicans would seem to be on the wrong side of both issues.
Can't we hope and strive to improve education for all AND to correct our current gross inequality of wealth and income?
Republicans would seem to be on the wrong side of both issues.
4
I have often wondered if Mr. Brooks ever gets tired of being an apologist for the superrich?
5
when you play monopoly, the result of the game is that 1 person has all the money. so too is the final outcome of unfettered capitalism. The only solution to real growth is to have a consumer class capable of creating enough demand to move the engine. There are NO real examples of the free market, as monopolies and rents inevitably lead to power imbalances. THE ONLY way to maintain a vibrant consumer class is through government protections (redistribution if you want a more pejorative term). The future of this country lies in using government to provide enough essentials, that all income inequality is simply about who gets the most frills. If we were to provide healthcare to all, equal education to all, real meritoric opportunity to all, then we could live with the inequalities that are left. But to pretend that somehow this problem can be fixed without RE redistribution ( we have been redistributing upwards for the last 35 years) is a fools errand. when financiers can skim billions off our economy because their computers can spot a trend 10 seconds faster than the next guy, that is not productive. That is redistribution of wealth towards the financier without any production of anything for society as a whole.
3
I got through about half of this article and quit. That doesn't mean I don't know what Brooks is about and what he'll conclude his piece with. He seems to be making it up as he goes, one minute vague, another esoteric. What politician is not indebted to its pimps? (Saunders). He is clearly not moving in the direction of making this place better for all.
1
If getting a college degree adds half a million (after college costs) to your lifetime income, surely that is a case in favor of eliminating college costs. If society invests in college education, it reaps the taxes on that half-million, which will more than pay for the college costs. The problem is to make sure that the college students actually work in college, so it is necessary to treat college education as a job rather than as a lark (a point that was lost on me, for instance, when I went to college). Only the best students -- As and Bs -- should get free college. The others, including children of rich alumni, should go to trade school or look for work cleaning houses.
1
If education is the key and I believe it is why don't we as a society put the importance on education and fund it as all other western nations do. The problem with the college educating system today is it is os expensive that middle class students have take out huge loans to fund their education and hence graduate saddled with huge debt. Students coming from rich families do not have this burden because their parents have the ability to fund their education. Also saddling middle class students with life long debt for their education so rich bankers can make more money is the definition of wealth redistribution.
Mr Brook s talks about early education, giving high school students the skills of college grads and students moving on to post grad degrees, who is going to pay for this? The Republicans are interested only in cutting taxes to gut government and protect their wealthy patrons. the 1% is perfectly happy and will always be that way because they get all the breaks in our society. While I do not necessarily believe direct redistribution of wealth, I think the 1% should be taxed higher and the money invested in education so the 99% have a greater chance at the American Dream.
And by the way, I am a 1 percenter.
Mr Brook s talks about early education, giving high school students the skills of college grads and students moving on to post grad degrees, who is going to pay for this? The Republicans are interested only in cutting taxes to gut government and protect their wealthy patrons. the 1% is perfectly happy and will always be that way because they get all the breaks in our society. While I do not necessarily believe direct redistribution of wealth, I think the 1% should be taxed higher and the money invested in education so the 99% have a greater chance at the American Dream.
And by the way, I am a 1 percenter.
4
You write, "It is true that wages for college grads have been flat this century.... But this is not true of people with post-college degrees, who are doing nicely." Wow, when did you leave us, Mr. Brooks? Back in the glorious 60's and 70's, I'll bet. When tuition at good universities wasn't prohibitive, and student loans were relatively small. People with "post-college degrees" are not doing that "nicely" at all, and even those lucky enough to find jobs paying a commensurate salary, are loaded with debt that will accompany them into old age.
No, it seems you and the conservatives prefer a country where the bulk of the workers are poorly educated but hyper-productive and work for cheap. And without good health or adequate workers' comp insurance, without company contributions to pensions, if pension schemes even exist, and with the least vacation time of the industrialized world. And destroy workers' unions and threaten them with unfair international trade treaties, outsourcing and robotization.
I don't know where Clinton comes down in this, but I wish you would get out of the circular, repetitive, republican, untrue mantra that business: good, wages: bad. There should be both a [hold your nose and close your eyes] "a human capital emphasis" and "a redistributionist emphasis". This nation must address its huge needs in education at all levels, and find a way to claw back the obscene wealth accumulated by the rich so there is at least a veneer of fairness.
No, it seems you and the conservatives prefer a country where the bulk of the workers are poorly educated but hyper-productive and work for cheap. And without good health or adequate workers' comp insurance, without company contributions to pensions, if pension schemes even exist, and with the least vacation time of the industrialized world. And destroy workers' unions and threaten them with unfair international trade treaties, outsourcing and robotization.
I don't know where Clinton comes down in this, but I wish you would get out of the circular, repetitive, republican, untrue mantra that business: good, wages: bad. There should be both a [hold your nose and close your eyes] "a human capital emphasis" and "a redistributionist emphasis". This nation must address its huge needs in education at all levels, and find a way to claw back the obscene wealth accumulated by the rich so there is at least a veneer of fairness.
1
Two things:
1. Redistribution is a right-wing dog whistle. How about paying their fair share? How about stopping the culture of greed?
2. How about letting Ms. Clinton speak for herself? Sounds to me like Mr. Brooks wants to start a whisper campaign that Ms. Clinton is a redistributionist (communist). Forget the straw men. Admit your republicans are still in the clown car.
1. Redistribution is a right-wing dog whistle. How about paying their fair share? How about stopping the culture of greed?
2. How about letting Ms. Clinton speak for herself? Sounds to me like Mr. Brooks wants to start a whisper campaign that Ms. Clinton is a redistributionist (communist). Forget the straw men. Admit your republicans are still in the clown car.
4
"... increasing the share of men capable of joining the labor force." Really, only men? Possibly Brooks meant "men" as an all-inclusive term. Possibly his use of the word hints at a deeper, conservative notion--those pesky women need to leave the good jobs to men.
1
I doubt seriously that Mr. Brooks has felt the pangs of unemployment or underemployment in his life. therefore, he is speaking in abstracts and in the macro. Hillary is a Democrat in name only, and he knows it. This piece is no more than his view of what mask she should wear in the days ahead. Shame
on both of them.
on both of them.
1
First off I wouldn't worry overly much about Hillary going after the bankers and the C.E.Os. She hasn't exactly been picking up all of that campaign moolah from teachers' unions and George Soros. More importantly, if our government were to place its focus on education and job training as opposed to "redistribution" (boo! hiss!!), it would have to stop providing subsidies to Big Oil and other such industries and to affluent individuals in the form of beneficial tax rates on items like inheritances, capital gains and investment income. More education requires more tax revenues, and where are those revenues supposed to come from if not from the bankers and the C.E.O.s? So, come on, Mr. Brooks: put up or shut up.
3
As Mr. Brooks often does, he creates a straw man description, only to debunk it. While I agree with the premise that investing in skills is an important policy that enables people to participate more successfully in the economy, that doesn't address the fact that odds are stacked against many who are not in the highest levels of income earnings. Tax shelters for companies and wealthy individuals, campaign finance laws, and the cost of education preserve economic advantages for the wealthiest. Conservative efforts to break unions, curtail medical insurance, and "restructure" social security add to the sense that there isn't a level playing field--that the government is on the side of the rich, not the poor and middle class. This doesn't have to equate to a "redistributionist" ideology. It simply indicates that the government needs to be more even handed in arbitrating the interests of everyone in our economy.
2
So, I read yesterday that a Republican governor is trying to reduce income taxes by replacing the revenue with much more regressive sales and other consumption taxes that fall proportionately more heavily on those at the lower end of the income scale. Other Republican governors are considering similar moves to balance budgets, devasted by earlier rax cutting, on the backs of those with the least. This is using the tax code to redistribute wealth upward from those with less to those with relatively much more.
So be telling me, David, why are redistributive policies that move wealth from those with the least upward to those with the most are somehow seen as good, but policies that redistribute wealth from those with the most downward to help those with the least somehow an evil socialist plot? One might even say that such redistribution is simply the government taking appropriate action to assure that some wealth actually does trickle down!
So be telling me, David, why are redistributive policies that move wealth from those with the least upward to those with the most are somehow seen as good, but policies that redistribute wealth from those with the most downward to help those with the least somehow an evil socialist plot? One might even say that such redistribution is simply the government taking appropriate action to assure that some wealth actually does trickle down!
3
It is rather sad and duplicitous for Mr. Brooks' to use a loaded term like "redistribution" in his belittling of the party of the Common Man(D). Because it has been his team, the Greedy Or Plutocrat party(GOP), that has won the redistribution game. They have concentrated wealth as never before, exceeding the largess from the Gilded Age.
Mr. Brooks is scared and not making sense, hence the lies and blame-shifting. The only redistribution we have seen in this country for the past fifty years has been upward into the secret bank accounts in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands. The Romneys, the Kochs and the Sheldon Adelsons of our country have been doing it - and not paying taxes in the process. Mr. Brooks' team of "patriots" that he plays cheerleader for.
Mr. Brooks is scared and not making sense, hence the lies and blame-shifting. The only redistribution we have seen in this country for the past fifty years has been upward into the secret bank accounts in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands. The Romneys, the Kochs and the Sheldon Adelsons of our country have been doing it - and not paying taxes in the process. Mr. Brooks' team of "patriots" that he plays cheerleader for.
3
Thomas Picketty's recent book, 'Capital in the Twenty-First Century' argues that capital tends to concentrate itself in the hands of the few. His data span centuries, not the short term. The system, in other words, is skewed. Lacking a fair distribution to start with, if you want a stable society, some form of adjustment is necessary. Call it 'redistribution,' if you like, but why not just, 'fair pay'?
1
I am not persuaded by Brooks' position. It is hard not to accept the disproportionate influence the wealthy have in determining the nature and direction of our government. While the wealthy share many interests with the not wealthy, e.g., defense, healthy economy, etc., the wealthy also have peculiar interests including protecting their advantage, interests that tend to extend and institutionalize inequality and, by the very nature of inequality, limit opportunity for the not wealthy.
While redistributionist progressivism is one path to societal equality, equally effective in moving toward equality would be progressive campaign finance and lobby reform, i.e., structuring a truly representative government instead of a government highly influenced and directed by wealth. However campaign finance and lobbying reform are likely only if the already established influential agree to such reforms, an unlikely prospect. This takes us full circle back to redistributionist progressivism, based on an acceptance that societal equality is unlikely until the influence of wealth on making the rules, i.e., government, has been marginalized. Capital progressivism yes, but only hand-in-hand with redistributionist progressivism.
While redistributionist progressivism is one path to societal equality, equally effective in moving toward equality would be progressive campaign finance and lobby reform, i.e., structuring a truly representative government instead of a government highly influenced and directed by wealth. However campaign finance and lobbying reform are likely only if the already established influential agree to such reforms, an unlikely prospect. This takes us full circle back to redistributionist progressivism, based on an acceptance that societal equality is unlikely until the influence of wealth on making the rules, i.e., government, has been marginalized. Capital progressivism yes, but only hand-in-hand with redistributionist progressivism.
1
I've never read such a twisting of facts on the subject of income inequality. As usual when Brooks writes about "economics" he does not reference any sources backing up his allegations just mere conjecture. Brooks needs to leave the subject of economics to his colleague Dr. Paul Krugman.
I found his statement "It is true that wages for college grads have been flat this century, and that is troubling. But this is not true of people with post-college degrees, who are doing nicely" deeply disturbing. The follow up borders on the amusing "But this is not true of people with post-college degrees, who are doing nicely." Brooks is telling us here that the answer now is not merely an undergraduate degree but a post graduate degree. Does he expect us to become a nation of Phd's? This would be hilarious if not for its obvious stupidity.
I found his statement "It is true that wages for college grads have been flat this century, and that is troubling. But this is not true of people with post-college degrees, who are doing nicely" deeply disturbing. The follow up borders on the amusing "But this is not true of people with post-college degrees, who are doing nicely." Brooks is telling us here that the answer now is not merely an undergraduate degree but a post graduate degree. Does he expect us to become a nation of Phd's? This would be hilarious if not for its obvious stupidity.
3
While I accept his numbers for argument, is the increase in income because of skills and information obtained in College or because the process sorts those who have the native intelligence and drive to succeed in our economy?
David Brooks concludes: "And, in the general election, voters respond to the uplifting and the unifying, not the combative and divisive."
What about Nixon's Southern strategy, his emphasis on crime, his attacks on liberal college students and his lionizing the hardhats who beat them up? What about Reagan's "welfare queen," his evoking resentment against "liberal elites" in California universities? What about G.H.W. Bush's Willie Horton ad and the other divisive, combative ads created by Lee Atwater? What about his son's similar appeals on race and sexual orientation to the resentful white religious "silent majority" created by Atwater's protege Karl Rove?
Reliance on divisive, combative appeals helped Republicans win Presidential elections from 1968 to 2004. The Tea Party and Fox News seem to thrive on combativeness and to deeply resent "unifying" appeals.
If Mr. Brooks doesn't remember how divisive, combative Republican campaigns have helped the party, he needs to read a little recent history.
What about Nixon's Southern strategy, his emphasis on crime, his attacks on liberal college students and his lionizing the hardhats who beat them up? What about Reagan's "welfare queen," his evoking resentment against "liberal elites" in California universities? What about G.H.W. Bush's Willie Horton ad and the other divisive, combative ads created by Lee Atwater? What about his son's similar appeals on race and sexual orientation to the resentful white religious "silent majority" created by Atwater's protege Karl Rove?
Reliance on divisive, combative appeals helped Republicans win Presidential elections from 1968 to 2004. The Tea Party and Fox News seem to thrive on combativeness and to deeply resent "unifying" appeals.
If Mr. Brooks doesn't remember how divisive, combative Republican campaigns have helped the party, he needs to read a little recent history.
1
Mr. Brooks is just engaging in the conservative crucifixion of Hillary Clinton on a cross of redistributing the gold. He argues, quite unconvincingly, that we still need to invest in "human capital" as in a "college eduction" even though he admits that "It is true that wages for college grads have been flat this century." Instead, he doubles-down by noting that those with a post-graduate education are doing well. What he neglects to mention is the huge debt facing college graduates today that's well over $1 trillion at excessively high interest rates that a conservative Republican Congress refuses to lower. Why? The interest goes to the big financial institutions and their plutocrat managers. The debt is staggering, as I know personally, with a son who had a scholarship to medical school and still is facing a $150,000 debt when he finally finishes his residency program in two years at the age of 34. So, by "investing" in human capital we're producing a nation of highly educated debtors. Hopefully, Hillary will see this as a holy mission to save our children from financial predators.
1
Boy howdy, L. Frank Baum has nothing on David Brooks. This is perhaps the most expressive straw man I have seen since Dorothy pulled the Scarecrow down along the yellow brick road.
Larry Summers did not say that more and better education were not important. Of course they are. What he said was that if we expect improving workers through education to get them all more and better jobs we are "whistling past the graveyard," and he is obviously correct.
The purpose of education is to produce better citizens, not better workers. The second is a happy coincidence.
As to productivity, both the education of our workforce and the productivity has increased every year for as long as we have kept records. It is at the highest it has ever been right now. The GDP per hour worked in the U.S. is exceeded only by Norway and Luxembourg and stands at over $67 per hour (which is equivalent to $140,000 per year). As the median worker wage in this country is slightly below $20 an hour the amount of GDP that goes to profit, rents and yes taxes is about $47 per hour.
Income is already heavily redistributed away from wages paid to workers. The problems are threefold, education yes but we have a good handle on that already and more is not going to help a great deal, improper redistribution yes but as can be seen above it has all gone away from the worker for too long. The third way is to create more jobs with social utility and put more people to work and that is what we really need.
Larry Summers did not say that more and better education were not important. Of course they are. What he said was that if we expect improving workers through education to get them all more and better jobs we are "whistling past the graveyard," and he is obviously correct.
The purpose of education is to produce better citizens, not better workers. The second is a happy coincidence.
As to productivity, both the education of our workforce and the productivity has increased every year for as long as we have kept records. It is at the highest it has ever been right now. The GDP per hour worked in the U.S. is exceeded only by Norway and Luxembourg and stands at over $67 per hour (which is equivalent to $140,000 per year). As the median worker wage in this country is slightly below $20 an hour the amount of GDP that goes to profit, rents and yes taxes is about $47 per hour.
Income is already heavily redistributed away from wages paid to workers. The problems are threefold, education yes but we have a good handle on that already and more is not going to help a great deal, improper redistribution yes but as can be seen above it has all gone away from the worker for too long. The third way is to create more jobs with social utility and put more people to work and that is what we really need.
2
Having a father in the 1% helps more than anything to concentrate wealth
2
Speaking of whistling in then Dark! Its obvious that income inequality is worse then ever and increasing every year. Check any chart. Wages are falling and cost of food, housing and education is raising. Education? it does not work unless you have a very special and narrow one, math, engineering,computers ,otherwise you would be better off studying to be a cook. With the loss of Unions all workers have no representation.
Then there is the shift to having a "middleman" hire for you. Apple, UPS, Walgreens and many more discovered they could quit hiring and avoid all those bothersome rules and have the "contractors" give the low wages, no benefits or any other job safety. This was done to purposefully avoid having to pay wages. Let the Governement and taxpayer pay for food stamps, pell grants, health care while we up our returns.
By buying the government these corporations have gamed the system to make more and more. Unfortunately you can't get educated or work hard enough to overcome the odds.
Then there is the shift to having a "middleman" hire for you. Apple, UPS, Walgreens and many more discovered they could quit hiring and avoid all those bothersome rules and have the "contractors" give the low wages, no benefits or any other job safety. This was done to purposefully avoid having to pay wages. Let the Governement and taxpayer pay for food stamps, pell grants, health care while we up our returns.
By buying the government these corporations have gamed the system to make more and more. Unfortunately you can't get educated or work hard enough to overcome the odds.
David Brooks almost certainly earns an annual income (from ongoing writing, royalties, public speaking, etc.) that places him in the top 1%.
The point of this column seems to be: "Hand's off. It's mine."
Just expanded to fill the requisite number of column inches.
The point of this column seems to be: "Hand's off. It's mine."
Just expanded to fill the requisite number of column inches.
3
I look forward to Mr. Brooks' parallel column on the unneeded and vicious lurch to the Right of what was once the GOP.
2
It's all about "skills". "Skills" lead to increased productivity, which must inevitably lead to higher compensation. This is a really lovely little fairy tale. Instead of the fairy tale, Brooks might have considered some data.............some of those pesky facts that put the lie to his narrative. Productivity of American workers has risen steadily for the last 35 years while wages have not followed. Those are the plain and simple facts. The "theory" might seem perfectly logical in an econ 101 class, but reality tells us otherwise.
Sociologically speaking, the phrase "human capital" really says it all. Long ago and far away, workers were human beings, and to some extent were treated as such. Today, they have become "capital", a non-human resource which should be disregarded, marginalized (through the evisceration of unions), and mistreated according to the whim of their masters whose eye is dutifully trained on just one factor--next quarters earnings. Worse yet, labor is regarded as a "cost"--and costs should always be minimized.
Sociologically speaking, the phrase "human capital" really says it all. Long ago and far away, workers were human beings, and to some extent were treated as such. Today, they have become "capital", a non-human resource which should be disregarded, marginalized (through the evisceration of unions), and mistreated according to the whim of their masters whose eye is dutifully trained on just one factor--next quarters earnings. Worse yet, labor is regarded as a "cost"--and costs should always be minimized.
Yeesh. David brings out that tired "redistributionist" canard yet again. A more appropriate word would be RE-redistributionist considering the vast "redistribution" of wealth has been flowing to the top 1% since 1979. There is no getting around the fact that if the median wage-earner from then were to receive the same compensation today (including that workers average increased productivity) that worker would receive an extra 20K per year. It's as if every year your employer withheld 20k for, well, themselves!
It's not for no reason most people understand that we're all working harder for the same money (and sometimes less). It's not like we are not generating that extra income, it's just were not being PAID for it!
So let's try and drop this whole "redistributionist" nonsense and call it what it is— THEFT!
It's not for no reason most people understand that we're all working harder for the same money (and sometimes less). It's not like we are not generating that extra income, it's just were not being PAID for it!
So let's try and drop this whole "redistributionist" nonsense and call it what it is— THEFT!
1
Ah, so Mr. Brooks does concede the need for "good early childhood education and better community colleges." So we may expect his column supporting the President's request for nationwide early childhood education beginning with 3-year olds, especially in low-income communities, and free tuition at community colleges?
I have lived long enough and read widely enough to believe that when the next big downturn comes the so-called middle class, college educated folks will be reduced to scrambling for even lower waged, less fulfilling jobs than is the case now. This situation will come upon us sooner if the "more money for defense, less for education and infrastructure" crowd - see current Tea Party - remains in power or picks the next Supreme Court justices. Please don't get complacent, that is just what our Oligarchs want.
2
Mr. Brooks you remain one of the only rational and moderate voices on the right. I agree that we must not give up on ensuring that educational opportunities abound. But at what cost? While it is certainly true that a college education is helpful in increasing income, the expense of a college education has soared to unimaginable levels. The liberal arts college I attended has raised their rates from 12k per hear to 56k per year. No middle class person can afford tuition rates that high.
Many poor and middle class students must either forgo the benefits of higher education or become slaves to student debt. This is just one reason middle class folks perceive the economy as being rigged to favor the 1%.
There are of course many others. Healthcare and retirement costs have also gone through the roof. When Americans can no longer afford to get a college education, get sick, retire or even take a family vacation it starts to seem like educational opportunities alone are not sufficient to fix the growing inequality problem. Thanks to a veritable infestation of corporate lobbyists our political system now favors the interests of corporations over those of our citizens 99 times out of 100. In this environment the game looks rigged and things start to sound pretty bleak for the American middle class.
Nevertheless you are correct in saying that educational opportunities and worker productivity are still important. Hillary should go with "both and" not "either or".
Many poor and middle class students must either forgo the benefits of higher education or become slaves to student debt. This is just one reason middle class folks perceive the economy as being rigged to favor the 1%.
There are of course many others. Healthcare and retirement costs have also gone through the roof. When Americans can no longer afford to get a college education, get sick, retire or even take a family vacation it starts to seem like educational opportunities alone are not sufficient to fix the growing inequality problem. Thanks to a veritable infestation of corporate lobbyists our political system now favors the interests of corporations over those of our citizens 99 times out of 100. In this environment the game looks rigged and things start to sound pretty bleak for the American middle class.
Nevertheless you are correct in saying that educational opportunities and worker productivity are still important. Hillary should go with "both and" not "either or".
Of course education is vitally important but raising income for the lowest paid is also. Not only for them as individuals but for society as a whole. It will encourage more to work, lower welfare costs and reduce feelings of exploitation.
3
When is the last time there was not a glut of workers at every skill level, with the exception of artificially limited numbers of doctors (deliberately controlled to keep medical wages up despite ever-growing numbers of patients requiring care)? We have too many lawyers, accountants, and just about everything else for the job market to absorb. David Brooks is right though that the pendular economy is swinging toward prosperity for those fortunate enough to graduate as it crests. They will of course ascribe their prosperity to " personal merit" as they've been indoctrinated to do since kindergarten day 1, and accordingly lord it over the recession grads languishing in servitude and penury. The expansion grads will look with bemused pity at generation x-ers who lived with their parents till age 40 and embraced quasi-socialistic ideologies challenging rugged individualism. They will have a can-do optimistic attitude and perhaps their favorite reading will be David Brooks' columns.
For decades economists have pursued among their main objectives an end to economic cycles, replaced by steady growth. For the time being, that goal apparently unattainable, Democratic candidates should seek to ameliorate, however possible, the ravages of this cycle on people's lives.
For decades economists have pursued among their main objectives an end to economic cycles, replaced by steady growth. For the time being, that goal apparently unattainable, Democratic candidates should seek to ameliorate, however possible, the ravages of this cycle on people's lives.
4
It's ironic that every "point" that Brooks tries to make in this shallow piece has been thoroughly debunked by Paul Krugman two days ago, who is not a "populist progressive" but a Nobel-prize winning economist. Amateurs should really stay out of discussions they are not equipped to handle.
3
Productivity --- the measurement of what workers produce --- has continued to climb while workers' pay has declined steadily and management's take has soared through the roof. Corporate welfare, tax breaks for the rich, destruction of unions... all those things move income up the ladder and undermine the poor and middle class, and the country's overall economic strength with them. Those policies are primarily engineered and supported by Republicans, who decry any attempt to reverse the trend as "socialism."
It is Republicans who have been redistributing wealth... upward.
It is Republicans who have been redistributing wealth... upward.
2
Great to know that Hillary Clinton is more moderate believing in redistributional progressivism. Since it is coming from a G.O.P. Pundit it must be true. Now she definitely has my vote. As a life-long Democrat I had been very skeptical because she seemed quite hawkish, quite a bit more right off center. Since achieving unique skills and education are worthwhile goals it does not address the need of the hour. What do you tell the kids after four years in college that their degree is not worth the paper it's on and who feel hopeless,not even getting a phone interview and not have any resources to pursue Grad studies seeing the plight of their harried, helpless parents? Are we as a society going to fail and lose this generation or two of kids before education catches up? I do not know how all these stats come about. All I see is my son getting more and more hopeless as he does not even get an acknowledgement of the hundreds of applications to jobs. He is not the only one . His friends and their friends and friends of friends are in the same boat.
You don't need to distribute money to everyone in the 99%... Just to the poorest people below the poverty line. $7000 or more would have a huge impact on this group. And adding a realistic minimum wage would allow a single parent to work one job and support his/her family modestly but comfortably and still have time to see his/her children and perhaps go to school to get skills to help raise themselves out of poverty. The minimum wage now is simply corporate welfare for the rich where the government (or the rest of us) has to pick up the pieces from the destruction the low pay causes of our society. The employer runs away with the profits and the game goes on and the rich get richer.
Re: $7,000 vs. $28,000.
The $7,000 more per household for the bottom 99% from redistribution does not presume that there is any increase in GDP resulting from this change. It's simply a more equal distribution in income. And $7,000 more per year for the bottom 99% would make a huge difference in their quality of life.
The supposed $28,000 increase in household income that would hypothetically be caused by college educating everyone apparently presumes that GDP would rise as a result of the increased education. This would be a huge increase in GDP. If this were real, that would be great. But it's also hard to believe.
If everyone had a college education, you'd see college educated janitors, college educated cashiers, and more. (In fact, we already see this.) The idea that everyone can be a doctor or a lawyer or a CEO doesn't work. If everyone had that type of education, you'd merely see highly-educated people doing menial work.
I'm all for expanding opportunity, and people at the bottom don't have a good enough shot at making it to the top. Better education would result in something more like a true meritocracy, and that would increase GDP somewhat.
But GDP up by $28,000 per household? It's a lot easier to believe that we could just split the pie we have a bit more equally. Also- there's a possibility that any increase in GDP from higher skills would all be hoovered up by the ultra-rich, because they have market power and ordinary college grads don't.
The $7,000 more per household for the bottom 99% from redistribution does not presume that there is any increase in GDP resulting from this change. It's simply a more equal distribution in income. And $7,000 more per year for the bottom 99% would make a huge difference in their quality of life.
The supposed $28,000 increase in household income that would hypothetically be caused by college educating everyone apparently presumes that GDP would rise as a result of the increased education. This would be a huge increase in GDP. If this were real, that would be great. But it's also hard to believe.
If everyone had a college education, you'd see college educated janitors, college educated cashiers, and more. (In fact, we already see this.) The idea that everyone can be a doctor or a lawyer or a CEO doesn't work. If everyone had that type of education, you'd merely see highly-educated people doing menial work.
I'm all for expanding opportunity, and people at the bottom don't have a good enough shot at making it to the top. Better education would result in something more like a true meritocracy, and that would increase GDP somewhat.
But GDP up by $28,000 per household? It's a lot easier to believe that we could just split the pie we have a bit more equally. Also- there's a possibility that any increase in GDP from higher skills would all be hoovered up by the ultra-rich, because they have market power and ordinary college grads don't.
4
Spot on, email this to Brooks. It is as simple as the ABC's.
Brooks ignores the fact that wealth and income inequality have been steadily growing for nearly fifty years; that funding for public education becomes more unequal with every passing year as cash-poor states throw the burden of education back on communities; that most of the jobs created since the recession do not support a middleclass existence; and that the best paying jobs are ever more narrow in their skill sets. It’s go STEM or go home. Worse yet, Brooks casts his recommendations in Calvinist terms: show self-discipline, get a college degree, get a PhD! and everything will be rosy. If you don't, it's your fault. This is called blaming the victim.
When I hear Mr. Brooks argue that we need to level the playing field by providing forgiving college loans, providing free health care and nearly free college education, then I'll begin to believe that he truly favors the development of human capital.
If he were to say that could be done without redistribution, without increasing taxation on corporations and wealthy Americans, he would expose himself as a delusional ideologue.
If he were to say that could be done without redistribution, without increasing taxation on corporations and wealthy Americans, he would expose himself as a delusional ideologue.
This is an interesting argument, one that favors the conservative viewpoint on this matter. I respect Mr. Brooks because I deem him reasonable yet it seems that when it comes to redistribution, facing economic inequality, and dealing with yes, poverty, the reaction of the right is to knee-jerk against the perceived "Red" Renaissance.
Why do we do everything in our power to evade the core issues in our country, which are more pressing than we realize? Yes children are starving in the U.S. Mr. Brooks's arguments are masking reality. Perhaps individuals acquiring more skills and education can help. However, is Mr. Brooks suggesting that a middle-aged, hard-working single-mom factory worker has the time and energy at the end of the day to enroll in community college courses to further her life? Why do we always want to burden individuals with more responsibility when the government is there for a reason? Mr. Brooks, why exactly do we Americans pay taxes? Is it just to have the fire department come and help me in an emergency or is that my responsibility too? One can read all of the Harvard studies they want, but they are a bit removed from reality.
Whatever Clinton's platform will be, I have the suspicion that if she wants to win, she will have to steer left. Obama's legacy, as diminished as some of us have made it, is almost 8 years old. Our President has had a wonderful effect on our country and the world. Hillary can only hope to continue that through progressive policy.
Why do we do everything in our power to evade the core issues in our country, which are more pressing than we realize? Yes children are starving in the U.S. Mr. Brooks's arguments are masking reality. Perhaps individuals acquiring more skills and education can help. However, is Mr. Brooks suggesting that a middle-aged, hard-working single-mom factory worker has the time and energy at the end of the day to enroll in community college courses to further her life? Why do we always want to burden individuals with more responsibility when the government is there for a reason? Mr. Brooks, why exactly do we Americans pay taxes? Is it just to have the fire department come and help me in an emergency or is that my responsibility too? One can read all of the Harvard studies they want, but they are a bit removed from reality.
Whatever Clinton's platform will be, I have the suspicion that if she wants to win, she will have to steer left. Obama's legacy, as diminished as some of us have made it, is almost 8 years old. Our President has had a wonderful effect on our country and the world. Hillary can only hope to continue that through progressive policy.
1
Education isn't what it used to be. If you graduated from college in the 1980s — indeed, if you graduated high school — you had a basic command of the language, a set of fundamental math and science skills, and a basic knowledge of US history. I'm a professor at a very good university, and my colleagues and I are dismayed at the declining standards.
By the time the kids reach us, they are supposed to have basic skills so that we can build on them, introducing more complicated concepts, deeper knowledge, higher reasoning skills, and more sophisticated writing and rhetoric skills.
Sadly, now we find ourselves with a class full of students who can't write a proper sentence. My students can't form the possessive (they can't use apostrophes correctly); don't know what a direct object is; don't know what the subjunctive is; constantly use commas where they should be a period (the "comma splice" error); make spelling errors; have problems conjugating; misuse words; and have poor reasoning skills, meaning they can't construct a basic argument.
My colleagues in Math and Science tell me the same. In one class, the students didn't seem to recognize the "greater than or equal to" sign (≥). When he asked, 2/3 of the kids raised their hands to say they didn't know what it was.
We have become remedial-class teachers.
I really don't know what they're doing in K-12 anymore. Until this is addressed, the education Mr. Brooks is so focused on isn't going to matter like it used to.
By the time the kids reach us, they are supposed to have basic skills so that we can build on them, introducing more complicated concepts, deeper knowledge, higher reasoning skills, and more sophisticated writing and rhetoric skills.
Sadly, now we find ourselves with a class full of students who can't write a proper sentence. My students can't form the possessive (they can't use apostrophes correctly); don't know what a direct object is; don't know what the subjunctive is; constantly use commas where they should be a period (the "comma splice" error); make spelling errors; have problems conjugating; misuse words; and have poor reasoning skills, meaning they can't construct a basic argument.
My colleagues in Math and Science tell me the same. In one class, the students didn't seem to recognize the "greater than or equal to" sign (≥). When he asked, 2/3 of the kids raised their hands to say they didn't know what it was.
We have become remedial-class teachers.
I really don't know what they're doing in K-12 anymore. Until this is addressed, the education Mr. Brooks is so focused on isn't going to matter like it used to.
1
In what you call a "very good university" 2/3 of students in your colleague's math class didn't know what "≥" means? I can understand how texting and email have wrought havoc on grammar and punctuation - after all, good (standard/formal) writing comes from practicing good habits, the opposite of patterns practiced in texting. However, how can 2/3 of students, who presumably (based on your description of your school) score relatively highly on the SAT, not know a basic concept of introductory algebra? Do they just guess well on the SAT?
I suppose I am part of the 1% due to my medical degree (though as I work full time at a non-profit agency, I will never really get rich), but I find Mr Brooks disingenuous. I recall when my father, also an MD, used to work part time at a company called W.R. Grace in Manhattan, seeing patients and doing paperwork. He made in those heady days of the mid-sixties about $60,000 a year, which was a lot back then and comfortably allowed him to raise a family. The CEO made a lot more, around $250, 000, but you can see that the salaries weren't too far apart.
Today, I make about 3 times what my father did, which basically just keeps up with inflation. The average CEO of a major company now makes at least $25 million, a huge change of about 100%.
Until those numbers come back into some sort of better equilibrium, there will be more problems and I would think more chance for civic unrest. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the problem, let's hope that it doesn't take violence to solve it as the French did in the past...
Today, I make about 3 times what my father did, which basically just keeps up with inflation. The average CEO of a major company now makes at least $25 million, a huge change of about 100%.
Until those numbers come back into some sort of better equilibrium, there will be more problems and I would think more chance for civic unrest. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the problem, let's hope that it doesn't take violence to solve it as the French did in the past...
A rise in salary from $250,000 to $25 million is not a 100% rise (which would be a paltry $500,000). This ($24.75 million) is a raise by slightly under 10,000%.
come on David , education costs money, who has the money?
It's that simple.
It's that simple.
1
Brooks, and those who share his views, always make "redistribution" sound like some kind of Robin Hood robbery, where the successful have their pockets picked of fairly earned wealth. In fact, this use the term "redistribution" is a deliberate political act that aims to obscure the many--and increasing--structural impediments to a more open and just economy. In the past two decades there as been a systematic unravelling of regulatory statutes, corporate accountability, and campaign financing. It's not about stealing from the rich, David, it's about restoring (or resuscitating) the core principles of democratic capitalism. Where is all of this heading otherwise, David?
One of the Democrats whom Brooks points out has changed his position on this issue is Larry Summers, an economist and Harvard professor. He is the source of Brooks's quote that those who claim increasing education will solve the problem are "whistling past the graveyard."
Summers is right. The economy has changed. The truth is that rising worker productivity no longer translates to rising wages and benefits for workers. So the solution Brooks recommends simply does not hold water.
Summers is right. The economy has changed. The truth is that rising worker productivity no longer translates to rising wages and benefits for workers. So the solution Brooks recommends simply does not hold water.
You keep saying "redistribution."
But something is broken when the richest 400 Americans have as much wealth as the bottom 50% of Americans.
And I'd be happy if a hedge fund manager who makes $20 million would pay the same 25% tax rate that I pay on less the $100K instead of the 15% he does pay.
Try substituting "fairness" for "redistribution" and see how it sounds.
But something is broken when the richest 400 Americans have as much wealth as the bottom 50% of Americans.
And I'd be happy if a hedge fund manager who makes $20 million would pay the same 25% tax rate that I pay on less the $100K instead of the 15% he does pay.
Try substituting "fairness" for "redistribution" and see how it sounds.
2
Not too long ago, Paul Krugman on the same page argued the opposite: that education is too often touted as the way out when in reality educated Americans in many sectors are not keeping up.
Mr. Brooks often, sometimes with rancor, seems to bait Mr. Krugman. I'm afraid the statistics speak for themselves and don't need Mr. Brooks to explain them away. Mr. Brooks is no economist and as most of his recent columns show, he is more suited to write about spiritual matters than money matters.
Mr. Brooks often, sometimes with rancor, seems to bait Mr. Krugman. I'm afraid the statistics speak for themselves and don't need Mr. Brooks to explain them away. Mr. Brooks is no economist and as most of his recent columns show, he is more suited to write about spiritual matters than money matters.
I am a card-carrying moderate and agree with substantially all of the arguments for "human capital progressivism". But there is a problem. Perception is reality, and to the extent that people believe the game is rigged, it is. People will rise only as high as they believe they can, so perhaps a bit of focus on "redistributionist progressivism" is warranted, both to boost the value of work immediately and to reduce the perception that investments in bettering oneself are futile because only the wealthiest are reaping (and keeping) the rewards.
15
The best idea is to remove the subsidies and incentives for sending wealth creating activities out of the United States. Many of the biggest gains have gone to interest groups that have made a great deal of money on dipping into the river of wealth flowing both out of and into this country.
As usual, Brooks makes lots of erudite arguments while somehow missing the point. The statement "It is true that wages for college grads have been flat this century, and that is troubling." is really the crux of the problem many families are dealing with.
How much education are people supposed to get in order to be financially competitive? There's a bill accompanying each one of the degrees a person receives, as well as time spent earning it. At some point for many people, the cost of education becomes an impossible lodestone to bear and places delays on buying a home, having children, and the other life goals behind getting an education in the first place.
One way to fix income inequality is through government legislation. After all, Reaganomics started a redistribution of income into the hands of a small minority. There's no reason why that redistribution shouldn't be redirected the other way. Since taxes and other laws are tools to support government policy, they can be shaped so that the majority of citizens can live happy, productive, financially secure lives.
How much education are people supposed to get in order to be financially competitive? There's a bill accompanying each one of the degrees a person receives, as well as time spent earning it. At some point for many people, the cost of education becomes an impossible lodestone to bear and places delays on buying a home, having children, and the other life goals behind getting an education in the first place.
One way to fix income inequality is through government legislation. After all, Reaganomics started a redistribution of income into the hands of a small minority. There's no reason why that redistribution shouldn't be redirected the other way. Since taxes and other laws are tools to support government policy, they can be shaped so that the majority of citizens can live happy, productive, financially secure lives.
39
Brooks thesis:
A carpenter with a PhD ,a waitress with a PhD, a trucker with a PhD ,and so on, would all be significantly more productive and therefor be paid significantly more . Really !
Furthermore, as an indicator of the present day disconnect between wages and productivity, ask : By what percentage did worker productivity increase in the interval between 10 hour work day and the 8 hour ? Then, how much has worker productivity increased in all the time that we've been stuck at 8 ?
The answer: the latter is very much greater than the former.
A carpenter with a PhD ,a waitress with a PhD, a trucker with a PhD ,and so on, would all be significantly more productive and therefor be paid significantly more . Really !
Furthermore, as an indicator of the present day disconnect between wages and productivity, ask : By what percentage did worker productivity increase in the interval between 10 hour work day and the 8 hour ? Then, how much has worker productivity increased in all the time that we've been stuck at 8 ?
The answer: the latter is very much greater than the former.
So why, David, were you opposed to resident Obama's State of the Union proposal to provide free community college education??
1
An embarrassing column from Mr. Brooks. Is there a single point raised here that Krugman has not resoundingly defeated in the past 12 months?
1
Brooks is wrong on all points.
First, Brooks is wrong--and risibly so--in claiming that "this rising theory is wrong on substance and damaging in its effects."
Second, he is wrong--and laughably so--in claiming that Wall-Street bootlicker Clinton is now, or ever is likely to be, an adherent of this "rising theory."
First, Brooks is wrong--and risibly so--in claiming that "this rising theory is wrong on substance and damaging in its effects."
Second, he is wrong--and laughably so--in claiming that Wall-Street bootlicker Clinton is now, or ever is likely to be, an adherent of this "rising theory."
1
"share of men capable of joining the labor force"? What the? Why not "workers" or "people"? It's not only wrong, it's really weird.
A success story from the David Brooks Miracle Jobs Program -
"Six months ago I was 49 year old unemployed retail clerk, and now I'm an MBA!" A. Lye
"Six months ago I was 49 year old unemployed retail clerk, and now I'm an MBA!" A. Lye
1
The issue is not “redistribution” but maintaining America as the “Land of Opportunity”. Education is only one part of this opportunity. I have no problem with the creation of great wealth but anyone who has richly succeeded in America has built on the foundation of an educated, healthy, stable society and owes a great debt back to their country. The issue is finding a sensible balance in sharing the burdens of maintaining our infrastructure, keeping strong pubic institutions and sustaining our democracy. We are very far from a correct balance point now. When the current Senate Majority Leader states that “we cannot afford strong support of community colleges” you can see the seeds of the problem.
29
Oh, heck, I just cannot read David Brooks this morning. The snow has me depressed enough without his disingenuousness.
2
Mr. Brooks is nothing but a stooge for the rich and super rich. His annual income I am sure is in the seven figure category. Mr. Brooks vocation is to shill
for the GOP under the guise of deep erudition not unlike Mr. Friedman, another NY Times wise man and philosopher.
for the GOP under the guise of deep erudition not unlike Mr. Friedman, another NY Times wise man and philosopher.
1
So long as the conservatives decide to put a political bulleye on Mrs Clinton, there are plenty of people gravitate toward her. So it is bizarre way, it is the conservatives who perpetuate the Clinton dynasty. Mark my word, should Chelsea choose to into public office, there will be heavy weights on the opposite side gunning for her
1
THE REAL PROBLEM WITH HILLARY AND MOST POLITICIANS . . .
...is that they use focus groups and other techniques to win primaries and elections.
Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is an fine example of this phenomenon. What her actual beliefs consists of leaves me with a huge question.
We know that she and her husband are smart but are, in the main. run by ambition -- far more than ideology.
Mr. Brooks, a prime problem that you don't emphasize in your essay is the culture values individuals have and display. Dysfunctional people who grow up imbedded in dysfunctional communities begin with an insurmountable handicap.
Also, the public educational system has so deteriorated so that most B.A.s awarded now are of less value than those high schools provided a half century ago.
I have an idea: politicians should begin saying what they believe rather than create ideologies which will win. That's real public service. But, egomaniacs are drawn into the arena.
In my lifetime, I can think of only one successful person who (mostly) spoke the truth and survived: Harvard Professor, advisor to both parties and Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He called the game like as he saw it and survived cries of racism... Even though his critiques of the war on poverty were proven to be true.
How he accomplished this cannot be expanded on in this brief comment. We need honest people who are truly the servants of the public who have ego constraints.
Well, I must be dreaming! Why not?
...is that they use focus groups and other techniques to win primaries and elections.
Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is an fine example of this phenomenon. What her actual beliefs consists of leaves me with a huge question.
We know that she and her husband are smart but are, in the main. run by ambition -- far more than ideology.
Mr. Brooks, a prime problem that you don't emphasize in your essay is the culture values individuals have and display. Dysfunctional people who grow up imbedded in dysfunctional communities begin with an insurmountable handicap.
Also, the public educational system has so deteriorated so that most B.A.s awarded now are of less value than those high schools provided a half century ago.
I have an idea: politicians should begin saying what they believe rather than create ideologies which will win. That's real public service. But, egomaniacs are drawn into the arena.
In my lifetime, I can think of only one successful person who (mostly) spoke the truth and survived: Harvard Professor, advisor to both parties and Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He called the game like as he saw it and survived cries of racism... Even though his critiques of the war on poverty were proven to be true.
How he accomplished this cannot be expanded on in this brief comment. We need honest people who are truly the servants of the public who have ego constraints.
Well, I must be dreaming! Why not?
1
Brooks pulls his first sentence out of thin air and then goes downhill from there!
1
The real difference between the two approaches is short-term vs. long-term. David's preference might be best for long-term gains, it almost certainly is! But David, people are hurting now! People are going hungry now!! People are homeless now!!! Getting them better training won't resolve those issues now!!!!
This column reflects a typically heartless conservatism. Or at best a thoughtless one.
This column reflects a typically heartless conservatism. Or at best a thoughtless one.
In the long run, we are all immortal, according to Republican economics.
1
Exactly - he also ignored the fact that Republican economics don't call for anything to help people who are struggling. I'd rather be having the debate that Democrats are having than just figuring out how to help make rich people richer
Mr. Brooks suggests, “But if we could close the gap so that high-school-educated people had the skills of college-educated people, that would increase household income by $28,000 per year.” But he does not elaborate on the type of “skills of college-educated people” that would merit this increase. Even if it were an average increase across all skills, Mr. Brooks probably would admit that this increase is largely weighted in favor of those who achieve STEM skills, which is a small percentage of college-educated people in this country. Sadly, a hefty percentage of STEM skills, especially at the post-graduate level, are foreign students who increasingly acquire American degrees and return home – no thanks to our politicized immigration policies.
Also, managing to the bottom line has so besotted Corporate America, that it chases productivity at the expense of hiring the next marginal worker. Ironically, such productivity boosting management, earns corporate CXOs heftier paychecks, which could have been probably more equitably spent hiring the next marginal worker and more! So Mr. Brooks, I am not entirely sure if you appreciate “…why Clinton might want to talk redistribution” – because people at the lower rungs of the ladder are hurting across the board, college educated or not.
Also, managing to the bottom line has so besotted Corporate America, that it chases productivity at the expense of hiring the next marginal worker. Ironically, such productivity boosting management, earns corporate CXOs heftier paychecks, which could have been probably more equitably spent hiring the next marginal worker and more! So Mr. Brooks, I am not entirely sure if you appreciate “…why Clinton might want to talk redistribution” – because people at the lower rungs of the ladder are hurting across the board, college educated or not.
EXPLODING THE MYTH OF TRICKLE DOWN
Since the 1980s we have been hearing a lot of noise about he trickledown economy, which by any measure has been, beyond an abject failure, proven to be a ruthless sham to eliminate middle class America. I wonder if David Brooks would have the same criticism for, say, Ronald Reagan, who raised taxes 11 times--that it was redistributionism? Or Bill Clinton's economic model that resulted in the greatest government surpluses in the history of the country--was that redistributionism? There is a problem with psychological perception: any advances by the 1% are touted as evidence of the success of the Free Market model (don't look free to me!), while any advances of the 99% are labeled as being redistribution! The problem is not that money flows in one direction or another, as it must do in any productive economy; but rather that if it flows up it is characterized as just rewards that strengthen the economy, while if it flows downward it is demonized as socialism, communism and the destruction of capitalism. So I think that the conversation needs to be reframed from the perspective of branding and manipulation of the citizenry. But given the Balkanization of the culture and political polarization, the chances of people being able to review and reflect on unfair branding is highly remote. So much the worse for our nation.
Since the 1980s we have been hearing a lot of noise about he trickledown economy, which by any measure has been, beyond an abject failure, proven to be a ruthless sham to eliminate middle class America. I wonder if David Brooks would have the same criticism for, say, Ronald Reagan, who raised taxes 11 times--that it was redistributionism? Or Bill Clinton's economic model that resulted in the greatest government surpluses in the history of the country--was that redistributionism? There is a problem with psychological perception: any advances by the 1% are touted as evidence of the success of the Free Market model (don't look free to me!), while any advances of the 99% are labeled as being redistribution! The problem is not that money flows in one direction or another, as it must do in any productive economy; but rather that if it flows up it is characterized as just rewards that strengthen the economy, while if it flows downward it is demonized as socialism, communism and the destruction of capitalism. So I think that the conversation needs to be reframed from the perspective of branding and manipulation of the citizenry. But given the Balkanization of the culture and political polarization, the chances of people being able to review and reflect on unfair branding is highly remote. So much the worse for our nation.
David: Today, you pulled this column from nowhere! What the heck were you attempting to state? I'll watch you on the News Hour to see if you head cleared.
1
How about just "unrigging" the game: things like taxing capital gains, "death" taxes, etc...
1
How 'bout saing up to the reality that these "death taxes," only affect people who leave very large estates, and that you've been snookered.
I47 Corporation control 40 Trillion dollars with 11 trillion in off shore accounts. You can do the math....When is enough enough.
1
AMAZING! Proves the old adage: figures don't lie, but there's many a liar who figures.
Not surprising that you, Brooks, buy into that horse-hockey.
Not surprising that you, Brooks, buy into that horse-hockey.
2
Mr. Brooks completely ignores the FACT that workers' productivity has increased SIGNIFICANTLY every year for at least the past 35 years. However, they have not been compensated for that increase in productivity. Instead, the increased productivity and value that workers have contributed to the economy, in dollars terms, has been...wait for it...REDISTRIBUTED to shareholders and highest levels of corporate management. How did this happen? It happened, essentially because the regulation of US Capitalism has been captured by the shareholders and highest levels of corporate management.
2
Significant U.S.prosperity occurred from 1947 - 1974. Three reasons.
Massive public education due to the GI Bill. Also, millions of our military had gotten training in construction, mechanics, electronics, electrical systems, food and water processing. Millions of war-industry civilians learned manufacturing techniques.
Massive infrastructure development. Thousands of suburbs were built for12 million veterans who bought homes using GI Bill mortgages. We built access roads, roads for goods distribution, sewerage systems, fresh water systems, electrical generating and distribution systems, phone systems, medical facilities, thousands of schools were built and staffed. Tens of thousands of workers built the homes. We built the Interstate Highway System.
A progressive tax system with at least 12 increments and 91% top income tax rate. It paid for public services, war debts, our Cold War defenses.
We had equitable income distribution after 50 years of union effort and progressive legislation. It gave us a balanced, functional economy with an abundance of money from shared productivity gains.
Today, nearly all our skilled manufacturing is in China; our tax, infrastructure, and education systems are shambles. If that lasts a generation, how will we catch up when we realize our national self-determination has been overwhelmed by China and better prepared nations?
It's not either or. It's all of the above. It isn't only fairness. It's about national security and identity.
Massive public education due to the GI Bill. Also, millions of our military had gotten training in construction, mechanics, electronics, electrical systems, food and water processing. Millions of war-industry civilians learned manufacturing techniques.
Massive infrastructure development. Thousands of suburbs were built for12 million veterans who bought homes using GI Bill mortgages. We built access roads, roads for goods distribution, sewerage systems, fresh water systems, electrical generating and distribution systems, phone systems, medical facilities, thousands of schools were built and staffed. Tens of thousands of workers built the homes. We built the Interstate Highway System.
A progressive tax system with at least 12 increments and 91% top income tax rate. It paid for public services, war debts, our Cold War defenses.
We had equitable income distribution after 50 years of union effort and progressive legislation. It gave us a balanced, functional economy with an abundance of money from shared productivity gains.
Today, nearly all our skilled manufacturing is in China; our tax, infrastructure, and education systems are shambles. If that lasts a generation, how will we catch up when we realize our national self-determination has been overwhelmed by China and better prepared nations?
It's not either or. It's all of the above. It isn't only fairness. It's about national security and identity.
3
Mr. Brooks discussion should capture more of the headlines than the self-named (and media named) "progressives" discussion are. The latter seems to have captured the imagination of the American people. It's easier...ALOT easier...to blame the system and not ourselves.
America wake up....As the ides of March approach I would quote the revered bard of Stratford./...."The fault, dear (Brutus), is not with our stars it is with ourselves"
Amen...
America wake up....As the ides of March approach I would quote the revered bard of Stratford./...."The fault, dear (Brutus), is not with our stars it is with ourselves"
Amen...
1
Mr. Brooks uses a blatant rhetorical strategy to attribute to Hillary Clinton positions she has not yet expressed and theories she has not espoused. He pushes Hillary from what even he admits is a moderate record way to the left by identifying her with what HE labels "redistributionist progressivism," coining the term and tagging Ms. Clinton with it to terrify and galvanize moderates. How does he do so - with actual quotes or facts from Ms. Clinton herself? No. He does so by using the word "might" over and over. "It's now becoming clearer how she MIGHT do it. She MIGHT make a shift..." And the "...stream of Democratic thinkers and politicians, including natural Clinton allies"? Mr. Brooks doesn't identify any, just assures us they are "natural allies." However, he does provide actual, identified quotes from those critical of this supposed temptation to Hillary. Worse is this example: "For Clinton herself, the appeal is obvious. The redistributionist agenda allows her to hit Wall Street and C.E.O.'s - all the targets that have become progressive bete noires." With that, Mr. Brooks virtually proclaims Hillary is a soon-to-be Elizabeth Warren. And in his last paragraph, worthy of Fox News, he tells us that it is "clear why Clinton MIGHT want to talk redistribution...." (how can it be CLEAR what someone MIGHT do?), and then calls such talk "combative and divisive" - notwithstanding that she hasn't talked that talk yet.
2
David Brooks talks about education as if it is one thing. It is not. A BS in mechanical engineering is one thing, a BA in feminist literature and comparative religions is altogether something else. One has considerable value in the market place, the other not so much.
Unless one takes into account such a fundamental difference, the economic analysis of education is simple gibberish. I am afraid that is a lot of what is going on.
We are sending ever more people to college who really have no business being in college. They get second class degrees from third rate schools in economically worthless disciplines, and then we can't understand why there is this developing disconnect between education and income.
Unless one takes into account such a fundamental difference, the economic analysis of education is simple gibberish. I am afraid that is a lot of what is going on.
We are sending ever more people to college who really have no business being in college. They get second class degrees from third rate schools in economically worthless disciplines, and then we can't understand why there is this developing disconnect between education and income.
Do the math, David. The first half of your column was correct. The second half was nonsense.
Adjuncts teach most of courses offered to college students these days. Here's a typical situation. An adjunct is paid $2500 to teach a course with 100 students. Each student pays roughly $3000 to take course (@$1000/hour, which is average for a state college). The adjunct receives no benefits and is deeply in debt after completing an undergraduate and graduate degree (typically a BS/BA and a MA and often a PhD, too).
A large portion of the students in the sections taught by adjuncts are doing the same thing that the adjuncts did (taking out student loans).
So we have $300,000 in tuition and $2500 in labor costs. God knows where the money is spent.
The debt is held by Wall Street and backed by Uncle Sam.
Hillary's friends on the boards of Walmart or Tyson understand this model, because it's the one they set into place in their own respective industries.
Right now, the Republicans are going after teachers (Failing Schools! Failing Schools!) because teachers are the last professional group in America to remain unionized. To be sure, politicians have raided their pensions to balance their budgets in many states, but the unions are still hanging in there.
That's what I want Hillary to talk about. I don't give a hoot about her friendship with Bibi or that editorial she co-authored with Bill Frist.
Adjuncts teach most of courses offered to college students these days. Here's a typical situation. An adjunct is paid $2500 to teach a course with 100 students. Each student pays roughly $3000 to take course (@$1000/hour, which is average for a state college). The adjunct receives no benefits and is deeply in debt after completing an undergraduate and graduate degree (typically a BS/BA and a MA and often a PhD, too).
A large portion of the students in the sections taught by adjuncts are doing the same thing that the adjuncts did (taking out student loans).
So we have $300,000 in tuition and $2500 in labor costs. God knows where the money is spent.
The debt is held by Wall Street and backed by Uncle Sam.
Hillary's friends on the boards of Walmart or Tyson understand this model, because it's the one they set into place in their own respective industries.
Right now, the Republicans are going after teachers (Failing Schools! Failing Schools!) because teachers are the last professional group in America to remain unionized. To be sure, politicians have raided their pensions to balance their budgets in many states, but the unions are still hanging in there.
That's what I want Hillary to talk about. I don't give a hoot about her friendship with Bibi or that editorial she co-authored with Bill Frist.
"Since 2000, the real incomes of the top 1 percent have declined slightly."
What planet did this happen on?
What planet did this happen on?
1
David Brooks makes a single point that is good and ignores everything else, typical of his writing. Sure education is a key? How are we going to pay for it? Is our current system of loans out of control working Probably Mr. Brooks has no firsthand comprehension of that one.
"Redistributionist" is the main theme right now. All the degrees and training still may not work in this Gilded Age. Very good connections might. And pay? Brooks acknowledges pay for grads is flat, but...
What a horribly weak column.
"Redistributionist" is the main theme right now. All the degrees and training still may not work in this Gilded Age. Very good connections might. And pay? Brooks acknowledges pay for grads is flat, but...
What a horribly weak column.
1
"Right now, jobs are being created, wages are showing signs of life." Oh how hard those words must have been to write and even more difficult for your republican friends to read! Up to 11m jobs created under Obama's watch...who would have thought. And can we please leave the false non-equivalency of $7000 redistribution to $28,000 education "bonus" in the journalistic junk heap?
This is a surprisingly weak essay.
3
DB- there are so many flaws in your column as usual. I do wonder why the NYT continues to retain your services. They could do better.
-You do not cite one utterance where Hillary Clinton has been on record for redistribution. You're making this up for the sake of being a provocateur and to have people pay attention to you.
-Why is redistribution ok when it gets directed at the top tier as it has been since Reagan?
_ Redistribution only means having the top tier pay their fair share in taxes as Warren Buffet has been suggesting for years. It means going back to the years when we had money to build infrastructure and not lapse into a third world country.
_It also means cutting out loopholes like inversion and Romney style off shore tax havens.
-It also means that people should expect an increase in the minimum wage so they shpould not be in poverty after working a full time job
-Why is it ok for corporate welfare for the richest companies ok but not an increase in minimum wage?
-Makes me wonder who is really paying your salary DB.
-You do not cite one utterance where Hillary Clinton has been on record for redistribution. You're making this up for the sake of being a provocateur and to have people pay attention to you.
-Why is redistribution ok when it gets directed at the top tier as it has been since Reagan?
_ Redistribution only means having the top tier pay their fair share in taxes as Warren Buffet has been suggesting for years. It means going back to the years when we had money to build infrastructure and not lapse into a third world country.
_It also means cutting out loopholes like inversion and Romney style off shore tax havens.
-It also means that people should expect an increase in the minimum wage so they shpould not be in poverty after working a full time job
-Why is it ok for corporate welfare for the richest companies ok but not an increase in minimum wage?
-Makes me wonder who is really paying your salary DB.
3
I'll put my unemployment with a PhD in an Engineering field against this argument. I have several friends in my position. Your turn Mr. Brooks, I await your rebuttal.
1
Hillary is going to ride whatever theory offers the best chance of carrying her to the Throne of Power.
The title of Mr. Brooks’ article, “The Temptation of Hillary” is misleading. He sucks people into reading this column thinking it will showcase Mrs. Clinton’s abilities but in actuality, all he really is doing is attempting to portray his mangled purported views of the economy where college graduates must now compete against post-graduates for nominal paying jobs because there are more college graduates than decent paying jobs. The real temptation of Mrs. Clinton is her ability to weather the many storms she has been through since the days Mr. Clinton was President. I was never a fan of Mrs. Clinton, but the moxie, fortitude, and tenacity she has demonstrated over the years, especially since being Secretary of State, clearly exhibits someone who could be an effective leader of this country. There is an inner strength in her not unlike Margaret Thatcher. It’s her style and strength that is the temptation.
1
Brooks is a master at packing many kinds of wrongness into one column.
He bashes positions he thinks Hillary Clinton might take without bothering to quote her taking them.
He thinks inequality isn't important because college will put you into the top half "more equal" class. Maybe he thinks it's possible for everyone to be in the top half?
He says Hillary has not suggested "redistribution" (aka progressive income tax, as the US has had, like, forever). Her other half, Bill, succeeded in making taxes more progressive.
He bashes positions he thinks Hillary Clinton might take without bothering to quote her taking them.
He thinks inequality isn't important because college will put you into the top half "more equal" class. Maybe he thinks it's possible for everyone to be in the top half?
He says Hillary has not suggested "redistribution" (aka progressive income tax, as the US has had, like, forever). Her other half, Bill, succeeded in making taxes more progressive.
2
Mr. Brooks noted that "It is a matter of emphasis, not strictly either/ or." Yet he proceeds to make it an "an either/or" issue by advocating "human capital progressivism" exclusively. Perhaps we need both.
so it looks like we all get that "redistribution" is a code word for Stalinist, Leninist, communist. they gamble, lose and we pick up the tab. its fairness. I don't want what they have. I want them to stop stealing from us.
2
A lack of skills and education plus tax laws skewed to the benefit of the top 1% are both responsible for inequality and middle class stagnation. The latter two problems must be attacked by employing BOTH strategies of human capital progressivism and redistributionist progressivism.
1
Human capital is another way of saying, you are just a cost that needs to be reduced or replaced by robots. Pay for your education, the capitalists are plenty happy to make even more money off of your back. This is exactly what has happened, more educated people, stagnant wages and the return from increased productivity going to the "job creators" while our students are left with debt. Mr. Brooks is the court jester for the 1%. What happened to fairness?
1
That the the college-educated are better off than those without college educations is no argument that a more educated work force will solve the wage problem. Or, as Joni Mitchell asked, "Who're ya gonna get to do the dirty work when all the slaves are free?"
1
"But their view is biased by temporary evidence from the recession"
Low paying jobs in the service industry were all that was available for many Americans long before the recession.
Low paying jobs in the service industry were all that was available for many Americans long before the recession.
Used to be that everyone in our country aspired to be wealthy, to be independent and self-reliant.
That's all gone, it seems. The one percenters have taken it away, and the politicians have encouraged all us to buy into a vote-based welfare state that has nothing to do with personal prosperity and everything to do with dependence.
A shocking number of ordinary Americans - and of course everyone in American politics - have no problem with that.
That's all gone, it seems. The one percenters have taken it away, and the politicians have encouraged all us to buy into a vote-based welfare state that has nothing to do with personal prosperity and everything to do with dependence.
A shocking number of ordinary Americans - and of course everyone in American politics - have no problem with that.
I find this argument amusing. The progressives have argued for decades that more education is the solution to joblessness and underemployment. Now the conservatives are pushing this argument. The truth is that technology has changed the world in ways that neither side can understand. While more education for the masses is a good thing, provided that it is affordable, it will not change the basic supply and demand equation. Demand for labor is shrinking as technology replaces people.
2
Although everyone loves taking money from other people and giving it to themselves, there's nothing more poisonous for long-term prosperity than redistribution. When wealth is attacked, it leaves the country for friendlier jurisdictions, making everyone poorer, not richer. Brooks emphasizes investing in human capital as if it's the only source of productivity, but simply attracting, creating, and retaining wealth in the US also powers productivity because savings = investment. A favorable tax and regulatory environment promotes prosperity for everyone; the sugar rush of redistribution is invariably followed by decay.
In theory, I agree with you. But the knotty details paint a much more complex picture. What of the corporate "citizens" who simply live in America but their businesses are overseas, their money is in tax havens overseas, and they have armies of lawyers who work tirelessly to externalize their costs to the rest of us while grasping every dollar they can from us. Conservative thinking is far too black and white and ignores the real lives of real people much of the time.
1
Contradictions aplenty are apparently not being overcome ENOUGH by up-grading/increasing skills and knowledge, while I concede DB has
a point about the long run eventuality of education pay-off, if
that's his hopeful point.
"Training" by itself for a particular job is not considered true "education," though the wage increase is immediate in comparison. Training for the better
paying job is seemingly the reality hereabouts.
But it's apparently still just "too much more cost-effective" to continue shutting-down manufacturing domestically, though supposedly some foreign versus domestic manufacturing situations are reversing the ugly/sickening/hellacious pattern. I'm a bit cynical with that "supposedly."
Meanwhile, Walmart reportedly is increasing wages approximately $2 within the next two (?) years, but reportedly being investor-bashed for a guesstimated (?) twenty-six cent per share loss in earnings. Why ought Walmart try to do good/ right things?
Public relations is a good reason. Pardon my skepticism about there being enough "Made In USA," while it does feel good to read
The apparent main objection to the complex immigration reform is seemingly economics from the viewpoint of natives needing jobs and/or pay raises.
Conclusion: It's okay that Hillary adjusts/adapts and synthesizes her economic politics. Because "not mutually exclusive" is mealy-mouth in comparison to Senator Warren and other Democrat possibilities, while HRC
isn't foolish to be moderate.
a point about the long run eventuality of education pay-off, if
that's his hopeful point.
"Training" by itself for a particular job is not considered true "education," though the wage increase is immediate in comparison. Training for the better
paying job is seemingly the reality hereabouts.
But it's apparently still just "too much more cost-effective" to continue shutting-down manufacturing domestically, though supposedly some foreign versus domestic manufacturing situations are reversing the ugly/sickening/hellacious pattern. I'm a bit cynical with that "supposedly."
Meanwhile, Walmart reportedly is increasing wages approximately $2 within the next two (?) years, but reportedly being investor-bashed for a guesstimated (?) twenty-six cent per share loss in earnings. Why ought Walmart try to do good/ right things?
Public relations is a good reason. Pardon my skepticism about there being enough "Made In USA," while it does feel good to read
The apparent main objection to the complex immigration reform is seemingly economics from the viewpoint of natives needing jobs and/or pay raises.
Conclusion: It's okay that Hillary adjusts/adapts and synthesizes her economic politics. Because "not mutually exclusive" is mealy-mouth in comparison to Senator Warren and other Democrat possibilities, while HRC
isn't foolish to be moderate.
It seems to me that we have two approaches. One where the govenment heavily intervenes in markets -- raise minimum wages, more unions, big tariffs, heavy taxation on the rich etc.: and one where we have minimum intervention in markets, but have an even more robust earned income credit scheme to suppliment low wages.
Key to the former approach is the rollback of globalization. The origins of globalization are back to Dean Atcheson post WWII to make all nations interdependent and to lower the the possibility of major power wars. Clearly war has not gone away, but to rollback global trade will certainly have ill effects on economies around the world.
We have a skills based employment economy. Clearly increasing marketable skills raises economic value of any individual, to argue against adding skills is silly.
My vote is little market interference, invest in skill building, a more robust earned income credit -- apply to single workers, higher incomes and bigger payouts, and ever increasing tax brackets at $500K, $1M, $5M and $10M to pay for it.
Key to the former approach is the rollback of globalization. The origins of globalization are back to Dean Atcheson post WWII to make all nations interdependent and to lower the the possibility of major power wars. Clearly war has not gone away, but to rollback global trade will certainly have ill effects on economies around the world.
We have a skills based employment economy. Clearly increasing marketable skills raises economic value of any individual, to argue against adding skills is silly.
My vote is little market interference, invest in skill building, a more robust earned income credit -- apply to single workers, higher incomes and bigger payouts, and ever increasing tax brackets at $500K, $1M, $5M and $10M to pay for it.
I think Brooks is missing the point about human capital. And I think he demonstrates that he does not fully understand the economic reality that Summers, Piketty, et al, are trying to confront. While certainly true that it is still advisable to go to college at an individual level, as Brook's suggests, the reason for doing so has little to do with worker productivity. The number of jobs that actually require the kind of skills that a college education (or even a doctorate) provide are much more finite than one would think and these jobs are not expanding exponentially. So, in essence, Americans with college degrees (a number which is expanding exponentially) aren't really using their increased "skills" to be more productive workers or to meet an insatiable demand for lit majors, they are using them to canabalize the marginal jobs of their less educated peers, like a snake eating its own tail, thus pushing the less educated further down the economic ladder. This is what middleclass wage stagnation is really about.
Apple, the most profitable company ever, can get by with about 12,000 white collar jobs. They don't need more engineers or designers or economists, or board members...etc. Of the remaining 40,000 employees, they probably generally prefer to hire college grads to work as "geniuses"in the apple store or as customer service reps, but they don't need to. Your knowledge of Chaucer has nothing to do with your ability to read an instruction manual.
Apple, the most profitable company ever, can get by with about 12,000 white collar jobs. They don't need more engineers or designers or economists, or board members...etc. Of the remaining 40,000 employees, they probably generally prefer to hire college grads to work as "geniuses"in the apple store or as customer service reps, but they don't need to. Your knowledge of Chaucer has nothing to do with your ability to read an instruction manual.
4
Compete with whom on what? India for wages or GDP per capita? China ditto. Germany for productivity per capita? How about Germany on wages. With whom are we not competing? This argument is a talisman for the workers-are-takers-and-deserve-less mantra.
1
Way to go, Brooks. Your repeated use of the term "redistributionist" gives the impression that there are people who refers to themselves as such when, in point of fact, it is a label given to people who are struggling to break the oligarchical nature of contemporary America. It is a word that you treat as pejorative and that gives the impression of one set of people "taking" from another.
As just one example of your wrong-headed "conservatism", you write "Shifting people into low-productivity government jobs is not the answer." A clear statement that "government" is tantamount to "low productivity".
But I guess we'll see you rubbing elbows with Chuck Todd this coming Sunday all the same.
As just one example of your wrong-headed "conservatism", you write "Shifting people into low-productivity government jobs is not the answer." A clear statement that "government" is tantamount to "low productivity".
But I guess we'll see you rubbing elbows with Chuck Todd this coming Sunday all the same.
1
"Redistributionist" - sounds SOCIALIST doesn't it?
David has applied the term to the wrong group. It's the top !% who are redistributionist. A broad range of policies have been skewed to promote "investment" and "growth," and to protect the wealth and income of "job creators." Capital gains, carried interest, inversion, bailout of too-big-to-fail banks, "regulatory reform" to make it easier for wall street to gamble again with our money - the list goes on and on. Walter Z (below) wants "fairness in compensation" I want fairness in policy, particularly on taxation.
Education etc is fine. Growth is fine, but increased productivity is no help if workers must subsidize the "owners."
Hillary Clinton is not much able to play a "fairness" card, because she is as beholden to wall street as republican "fat cats" Voters - as in common folks - dems and tea partiers, can unify under a fairness banner.
David has applied the term to the wrong group. It's the top !% who are redistributionist. A broad range of policies have been skewed to promote "investment" and "growth," and to protect the wealth and income of "job creators." Capital gains, carried interest, inversion, bailout of too-big-to-fail banks, "regulatory reform" to make it easier for wall street to gamble again with our money - the list goes on and on. Walter Z (below) wants "fairness in compensation" I want fairness in policy, particularly on taxation.
Education etc is fine. Growth is fine, but increased productivity is no help if workers must subsidize the "owners."
Hillary Clinton is not much able to play a "fairness" card, because she is as beholden to wall street as republican "fat cats" Voters - as in common folks - dems and tea partiers, can unify under a fairness banner.
1
"Unfortunately, this rising theory is wrong on substance and damaging in its effects."
Once again, Mr. Brooks makes an unsupportable statement that serves his party of oligarchs / plutocrats at the expense of the vast majority of working Americans. Mr. Brooks might be wise to check with those whose grasp of economics (cough, cough, Krugman) are a bit more complete than his own.
Once again, Mr. Brooks makes an unsupportable statement that serves his party of oligarchs / plutocrats at the expense of the vast majority of working Americans. Mr. Brooks might be wise to check with those whose grasp of economics (cough, cough, Krugman) are a bit more complete than his own.
1
Mr. Brooks, you immediately disqualify yourself from any well reasoned and critical analysis of the problem of income inequality when you harp on "worker productivity" while at the same time ignoring the recorded, widespread data available that shows that the American worker is and has been one of the most, if not the most, productive worker among developed nations! Please quit being such a shill for the GOP and the DEMs who have marched in lock step with the oligarchical interest that have insured the distribution of income from the poor and middle class into the coffers of the few at the top.
1
The poor should never have more money unless they develop all the skills necessary to become masters of the universe.
David, the 'redistribution' already happened - toward the top - in 1996-2006 (the culmination of 30 years of Reaganism). If you must give a name to the efforts to right our vastly out of balance economy, call it re-redistribution or un-distribution.
2
Mr. Brooks must have attended a writing course recently. Last week we had solosiptic and now we have Redistributionist progressivism
David, please, clear and understandable for all of us, even 80 year olds like me. Write concisely and to the point with no digressions or labels. And stay away from creative writing courses.
David, please, clear and understandable for all of us, even 80 year olds like me. Write concisely and to the point with no digressions or labels. And stay away from creative writing courses.
1
You did not mention the effects of globalism and technology on today's economy and how they have played an important role in gutting middle class jobs and wages. The main argument of progressive economists is that there are insufficient new jobs being created. You skated quickly past this issue. However, you are correct to point out this is a matter of emphasis because no one is proposing a purely redistributionist tax policy to fix the problem of a lack of opportunity for the middle class at any education level. But it sounds like you are. Strawman.
Mr. Brooks, you mentioned community colleges in your article. Nevertheless, after President Obama proposed changes that would enable qualified students to attend these schools for free, the Republicans screamed bloody murder.
Colleges and universities need to become less expensive for everyone, more accessible to the poor, the working poor, and the middle class. Fairness is what we need; the skills will follow.
Colleges and universities need to become less expensive for everyone, more accessible to the poor, the working poor, and the middle class. Fairness is what we need; the skills will follow.
46
The American workforce is already the most productive on earth. But since Reagan, the game has been rigged.
2
It would be better to cast this as "undistribution", where we undo the massive redistribution to the top that has happened since St. Ron was President.
2
The real question is WHY the 1% are getting massively more of the nation's wealth and income. The destruction of bargaining power of the 99% is a large part of the story, and unions are part of that part. Technology and the ability of Wall Street, politicians and Facebook (and its ilk) to mine personal data for free to fine-tune advertising algorithms is a small but hugely growing part. And the general decline in effective taxes on the wealthy is another. I would suspect that the 40-year downward trend in taxation of the wealthy has had a huge part in creating a new baseline from which conservatives can now say, "Tut tut, these benefits are no longer AFFORDABLE! The middle class must pay more and get less!" It's shocking how when taxes get cut things that were always affordable suddenly ain't anymore.
1
Yes Brooks, post graduates certainly make better pizzas. And the more you do, the more time you have, as over achievers have frequently observed. The best way to increase productivity is to take a second or third job!
Every child should be instructed to allow his or her inner-Buffett or emerging Adelson to blossom. We are all plutocrats!
I suggest that you head a team to travel to Russia & study the technique used to preserve the remains of Vladimir Lenin & lobby for construction of a similar mausoleum here in the USA to entomb a representative capitalist to be chosen by our Congress!
Every child should be instructed to allow his or her inner-Buffett or emerging Adelson to blossom. We are all plutocrats!
I suggest that you head a team to travel to Russia & study the technique used to preserve the remains of Vladimir Lenin & lobby for construction of a similar mausoleum here in the USA to entomb a representative capitalist to be chosen by our Congress!
1
Actually, it is the Republicans/Conservatives who are the real redistributionists-to those who already possess great wealth, much of it unearned.
2
I knew there was a reason I stopped reading David's columns. He's simply stupid. Wages have been decoupled from productivity for 40 years, increasing average workers productivity simply funnels more money to the 1%.
3
Unfortunately , you appear be the one not understanding the data. The $7,000 comes from money that exists, currently, in the economy. The $28,0000 appears magically from nowhere as a result of jobs that don't exist, given to people in jobs that magically disappear and paid wages based on current labor competition.
Mr. Brooks,
I have heard whispers of what you call “redistributionist progressivism” but I had to admit to myself that I didn’t know what programs these kinds of labels were created to describe. So, I Googled several varieties of this theme to see what came up. Not much, it turned out, except for some comparisons with things like communism and socialism that were written by conservatives.
While you admit that income inequality is getting out of hand, your solution is that U.S. workers just need to acquire more skills. There are problems with that simplistic approach too numerous to get into in this space.
What bothers me most, however, is that conservative politicians in the past decade have made great political hay by placing a not so subtle blame for the economic demise of the lower and middle classes on unions, teachers and government workers, the very people who were most responsible for the heyday of economic parity (and growth) of the 50’s and 60’s. Now, with income inequality obvious to all, you have broadened the list of scapegoats to include all liberals by warning that their socialistic programs will bring disaster when, in fact, the economic and political conservatives who controlled the government and economy since the 80’s are the ones responsible.
The reality, sir, is that the reasons (and possible solutions) for income inequality are complicated. But if you want to stoop to labels, how about oligarchy.
I have heard whispers of what you call “redistributionist progressivism” but I had to admit to myself that I didn’t know what programs these kinds of labels were created to describe. So, I Googled several varieties of this theme to see what came up. Not much, it turned out, except for some comparisons with things like communism and socialism that were written by conservatives.
While you admit that income inequality is getting out of hand, your solution is that U.S. workers just need to acquire more skills. There are problems with that simplistic approach too numerous to get into in this space.
What bothers me most, however, is that conservative politicians in the past decade have made great political hay by placing a not so subtle blame for the economic demise of the lower and middle classes on unions, teachers and government workers, the very people who were most responsible for the heyday of economic parity (and growth) of the 50’s and 60’s. Now, with income inequality obvious to all, you have broadened the list of scapegoats to include all liberals by warning that their socialistic programs will bring disaster when, in fact, the economic and political conservatives who controlled the government and economy since the 80’s are the ones responsible.
The reality, sir, is that the reasons (and possible solutions) for income inequality are complicated. But if you want to stoop to labels, how about oligarchy.
The upper crust of the oligarchy owns over 50% of all wealth, virtually 100% of capital assets (production, distribution, and exchange), and a super majority of our governing bodies. They believe that half of all they have belongs to others, and once that is "distributed," they believe that half of all that others have belongs to them (old vaudeville joke). In other words, they are not going to give up control. Does anyone really believe that Hillary is not going to work hand-in-glove with the oligarchy in the same manner as Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama?
Call me a pessimist, but where is the hope? There was a WUMO cartoon in the funny papers this morning, a meeting of the Association of Optimistic Pessimists. One character says, "I believe in a future where there is even less hope than today?" And anthers says, "I know we have the power to make everything much worse within 20 years?" We can do it!
Call me a pessimist, but where is the hope? There was a WUMO cartoon in the funny papers this morning, a meeting of the Association of Optimistic Pessimists. One character says, "I believe in a future where there is even less hope than today?" And anthers says, "I know we have the power to make everything much worse within 20 years?" We can do it!
1
"Redistribution" is one of those conservative buzzwords intended to make people believe (and more importantly, fear) that progressivism = communism. The fact is, as Warren Buffett has pointed out, our tax system is set up for redistribution, FROM the poor and middle class TO the wealthy. How? Wages (honest work) is taxed right on up to 38% or more. Dividends and capital gains ("investment" income, the main source for wealthy people) maxes out at 15%. So, Warren Buffett is taxed at 15% while his secretary at more than double that rate. Wake up, America!
1
Union-supported higher wages that would re-enable a blue collar middle class to support a family and send kids to college is not redistribution, it's fairness. And it would be more healthy for our mainly capitalist democratic polity than the economic and tax system we have now, one which suits the oligarchs just fine.
The current tax systems is a welfare state for those with money, enabling them to make more money off their existing money, taxing it at a lower rate than wages earned. Changing that system should not be labeled redistribution, but rather, leveling the playing field.
1
The notion of improving one's position through education makes sense if others are not doing it; then, gaining more knowledge lifts you above the crowd. But if the crowd is doing the same, what has really changed other than, perhaps, an increase in the credentials required for employment. (Bachelor's degrees required to be a cab driver, maybe?) It's not a solution for society as a whole.
More willful disingenuousness from David Brooks. In fact, the most effective "redistributionist" policies in the history of this country have involved serial tax cuts for the richest Americans that effectively started with Ronald Reagan 35 years ago. Through the lens of my 57 years on this earth, the top marginal tax rate has dropped from 92% to 35%. Now who is redistributionist?
1
Redistributionist? We have always had a progressive income tax and a minimum wage. That the minimum wage should at least keep pace with inflation (it has not) , that Warren Buffet should pay his income tax at the same rate as his secretary (he does not) are both reasonable notions that have nothing to do with Redistributionism, or Socialism. Yet David Brooks would have us think that the Democrats are wild-eyed Bolsheviks. If we want a better educated, highly-skilled workforce it must be payed for. That's called common sense, not redistribution.
1
One can only hope, David, that the uplifiting and unifying will carry the day.
The larger problem is that there is no candiate to deliver it. On either side.
We have become what the media wants us to be: warring factions that sell more ad time, more ink, more talking heads, more rancor, and an absence of true politics.
The larger problem is that there is no candiate to deliver it. On either side.
We have become what the media wants us to be: warring factions that sell more ad time, more ink, more talking heads, more rancor, and an absence of true politics.
1
While I generally agree with David about education and skills, I think he (and many others) miss equally if not more important factors.
We under value those jobs which are considered unskilled. And degrade those who perform them. From lawn care, to senior care, to garbage collection, and more.
AND we preach follow you passion instead of being passionate about what you follow.
Sadly our standards of success are the opposite. So most people will feel that they are failures instead of successes.
We under value those jobs which are considered unskilled. And degrade those who perform them. From lawn care, to senior care, to garbage collection, and more.
AND we preach follow you passion instead of being passionate about what you follow.
Sadly our standards of success are the opposite. So most people will feel that they are failures instead of successes.
Mr. Brooks has no problem with the redistributionists on the right . Regressive taxes, no problem, ridiculously expensive collage, no problem, out of control banking and finance scams, no problem, a minimum wage that no one can survive on without food stamps that the right would like to do away with and limiting health care to the emergency room, no problem.
David, when or will you ever enter the real world?
David, when or will you ever enter the real world?
1
We live in two economies. The economy of things and the economy of people. Democrats tend to focus more on the economy of people and less on the economy of things. Republicans tend to focus more on the economy of things and less on the economy of people. The things economy consists of natural resources, mechanical things, and robotic things. The people economy consist of education, wellbeing, diversity, skills and talent. Combine the two economies and we create opportunity for all.
Hilary fouces on both economies.
Hilary fouces on both economies.
2
The problem with conservative ideology is that conservatives believe we can all become the CEO if we just work hard enough and get enough education. That ideology neglects the reality that we don't need everyone to be a CEO. We need teachers, fire fighters and fast food workers. We need janitors and plumbers and toll booth operators.
The conservatives believe those jobs lack value and don't deserve to receive a living wage. It is CEO or bust in the conservative mind. Why can't we have an economy where everyone benefits instead of this cut throat mentality that there are only going to be a few winners and everyone else will be losers.
The conservatives believe those jobs lack value and don't deserve to receive a living wage. It is CEO or bust in the conservative mind. Why can't we have an economy where everyone benefits instead of this cut throat mentality that there are only going to be a few winners and everyone else will be losers.
84
And even worse, they think that the janitor and taxi driver aren't important for the CEO to do his CEOing -- I'm high up in the Ivory Tower and an Assistant Professor I'd work late and the janitor would knock on my office door and come in to clean my trash - if they weren't doing their job, I'd not be able to do mine. For capitalism to work, a number of moving parts have to work together. The lionisation of individuals for group achievements is part of the problem.
1
"Americans with a four-year college degree make 98 percent more per hour than people without one. The median college-educated worker will make half-a-million dollars more than a high-school-educated worker over a career after accounting for college costs. Research by Raj Chetty of Harvard and others suggests that having a really good teacher for only one year raises a child’s cumulative lifetime income by $80,000."
All you've down here is to shift the argument from comparing educated workers upwards, towards the 1-percenters, to comparing them downwards, towards the uneducated and poorer. And just because educated workers are doing better in comparison to their uneducated counterparts doesn't necessarily mean they are doing better in general: it could just as easily mean that the poor are getting poorer, which is exactly what has been happening.
All you've down here is to shift the argument from comparing educated workers upwards, towards the 1-percenters, to comparing them downwards, towards the uneducated and poorer. And just because educated workers are doing better in comparison to their uneducated counterparts doesn't necessarily mean they are doing better in general: it could just as easily mean that the poor are getting poorer, which is exactly what has been happening.
2
Increase the productivity of workers? Are you kidding me? What do you think workers have been doing for the last several decades as they see the gains of this economy going only to the top?
When I started at my company 15 years ago, it was a network of 10 branches in the US. Now it has 60 across the world. Revenue is skyrocketing. Several CEOs have come and gone, each one consolidating our jobs into fewer "hubs" and pretending that removing personalized service is somehow better for the clients. These changes have resulted in less client satisfaction and more employee time wasted since we have to now channel people to these hubs when we could have just dealt with a problem directly.
Has my pay, or any of my (all) college-educated coworkers, gone up? Nope. You know what has happened? We've been followed around by guys with stopwatches and step-counters, to gauge our efficiency. Pushed every month to come up with ways to save this multi-billion dollar corporation money. Some are good ideas, like consolidating purchasing power. Most involve berating the staff into walking a different path to the warehouse, to the savings tune of a hundred dollars on the year. Probably doesn't cover the cost of the guy with the stopwatch.
This is all to say that David really sounds out of touch here.
When I started at my company 15 years ago, it was a network of 10 branches in the US. Now it has 60 across the world. Revenue is skyrocketing. Several CEOs have come and gone, each one consolidating our jobs into fewer "hubs" and pretending that removing personalized service is somehow better for the clients. These changes have resulted in less client satisfaction and more employee time wasted since we have to now channel people to these hubs when we could have just dealt with a problem directly.
Has my pay, or any of my (all) college-educated coworkers, gone up? Nope. You know what has happened? We've been followed around by guys with stopwatches and step-counters, to gauge our efficiency. Pushed every month to come up with ways to save this multi-billion dollar corporation money. Some are good ideas, like consolidating purchasing power. Most involve berating the staff into walking a different path to the warehouse, to the savings tune of a hundred dollars on the year. Probably doesn't cover the cost of the guy with the stopwatch.
This is all to say that David really sounds out of touch here.
1
Mr. Brooks made a slam at "low productivity government jobs". That got me thinking about the guy I read about recently who made a lot of money betting against Lumber Liquidators stock, especially after the 60 Minutes piece last week. How productive is that kind of money making and is Mr. Brooks okay with that kind of "productivity".
My guess is that "nonproductive" government worker actually contributes more to society.
My guess is that "nonproductive" government worker actually contributes more to society.
1
"Increased productivity" in the limit results in humans not being needed to produce things and, hence, not able to buy them. This the fundamental problem of capitalism (or is instability?). Not heard anybody addressing this problem but that's not surprising since it will call for reorganization of society. Good luck on that one.
1
It seems to me there's a third option that never gets talked about: Level the playing field. Why do we still have tax incentives for American companies to move jobs overseas? Why do we allow American companies to move our jobs to countries that have weak environmental and safety regulations? Why do we allow CEO's to collect huge salaries while laying off employees? etc, etc.
It's not a question of redistribution of wealth or more training. It's a question of simple fairness.
It's not a question of redistribution of wealth or more training. It's a question of simple fairness.
59
I wouldn't call them redistributionists, but, instead, realists. Let's be real here. As the population grows, as automation increases, the amount of these "skills" jobs will decrease. Furthermore, access to the schools that adequately teach these skills will be limited.
The real competition is for service jobs that barely pay a living wage, certainly NOT a wage one can pay a mortgage and support a family. Cashiers, waiters, clerks, hotel service, cleaners, Jobs that don't need a college education. People are not stupid. Many see others exit college with massive debt, no job, then compete to be an assistant manager at Starbucks with a high school grad who has more tenure at the job because he/she started right out of high school. Why go into debt, they say, why not start at the service now. College is too expensive and does not provide a good job for many. and sends many into a lifetime of ridiculous debt.
I say the answer is a living wage--one that supports a mortgage, one that supports a family--for service jobs. That's why capitalism is not working. People are not paid a living wage for very hard service work.
The real competition is for service jobs that barely pay a living wage, certainly NOT a wage one can pay a mortgage and support a family. Cashiers, waiters, clerks, hotel service, cleaners, Jobs that don't need a college education. People are not stupid. Many see others exit college with massive debt, no job, then compete to be an assistant manager at Starbucks with a high school grad who has more tenure at the job because he/she started right out of high school. Why go into debt, they say, why not start at the service now. College is too expensive and does not provide a good job for many. and sends many into a lifetime of ridiculous debt.
I say the answer is a living wage--one that supports a mortgage, one that supports a family--for service jobs. That's why capitalism is not working. People are not paid a living wage for very hard service work.
73
But why do those jobs carry a low wage? It's because the supply of that sort of labor exceeds the demand for it. Raising the minimum wage - increasing the cost of that sort of labor - isn't going to help, it will simply result in MORE people chasing fewer jobs.
No, jkw, it may just decrease massive profit margins and obscene Board of Directors and CEO pay. Money in the pockets of the poor and middle class through living wage service jobs will result in more commerce, more spending--demand for MORE service jobs and opportunity for employment. One very rich person can only go out to eat once a night; 10, 000 comfortably paid service workers may go out to eat once a week. The 10, 000 well paid service workers is what creates a mulched and healthy economy, not the hoarding millionaire who hides all his/her wealth in finance. More people paid well equal more people active in retail equals more jobs.
1
Interesting and valid points, as usual, from David Brooks. But there is an omission that is glaring. What about the compelling need, right now and for years to come for vast improvements in our country's physical resources; infrastructure, schools, the facilities for elder care. We know we have huge challenges in these areas where direct private sector investment is unlikely and where government funding is far more likely to create jobs for years to come and the resources we all need now.
"No redistributionist measure will have the same long-term effect as good early-childhood education and better community colleges, or increasing the share of men capable of joining the labor force."
Precisely...My wife teaches 3rd grade, and in every class, there are 3 or 4 students she knows are not only every going to finish high school, but who will probably end up in the criminal justice system. If she had a little help either through smaller class sizes or additional help in the classroom, she could save one or two of those at-risk students that would go on to contribute to the tax base rather than draw from it. I don't care if you tax the rich or just print the money to do it, it needs to be done if we're going to improve efficiency and productivity.
Precisely...My wife teaches 3rd grade, and in every class, there are 3 or 4 students she knows are not only every going to finish high school, but who will probably end up in the criminal justice system. If she had a little help either through smaller class sizes or additional help in the classroom, she could save one or two of those at-risk students that would go on to contribute to the tax base rather than draw from it. I don't care if you tax the rich or just print the money to do it, it needs to be done if we're going to improve efficiency and productivity.
1
Mr Brooks claims that policies favoring education would make more sense than redistributive tax reform. But it is worth noting that the Republicans have actually been against both, for a long time. (Don't tell me about Charter Schools - there is no evidence that they are better than public schools). The Republicans' goal is to preserve the wealth of their right-wing supporters. And, cynically, they have rallied around the prejudices of enough voters to get themselves elected to Congress. Wake up America! It is time to elect a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President again.
1
I am not so sure. The non college education jobs have had decreasing value even as they are necessary for an economy that benefits those with an education. I agree with Democrats that this is partly a moral issue as to how we choose to structure the economy. The question is, if we absolutely depend on the person who cleans our buildings or takes care of our kids , shouldn't he or she make a living that at least allows basic food and housing? There was a time when that was the case or when we at least subsidized housing if it was not. And what about the cost to our economy of social services that make up for the non living wage so that our streets are not teeming with homeless people?
1
Redistribution by tax is not the only way to solve the problem of growing inequality. As Larry Summers says, there are just not enough jobs. We need to find a way to create jobs that does not rely solely on private enterprise. Repairing infrastructure and paying for that with user taxes is one way. Surely, with all of the creative energy in this country we can find other ways.
Mr. Brooks presents a false choice....."redistribution" or "better education". However, they are not mutually exclusive.
The reason conservatives like to present it as a choice is because it allows them to suggest "better education" is enlighten. It speaks to our sense of self-worth. The problem with that conservative mantra is it doesn't work. it merely allows the Right to divert attention from the fact that obscene concentrations of wealth, as we currently have in this country, has never, in all of history, produced a society with a strong middle class. The 1920's in the U.S. is a perfect example.
The reason conservatives like to present it as a choice is because it allows them to suggest "better education" is enlighten. It speaks to our sense of self-worth. The problem with that conservative mantra is it doesn't work. it merely allows the Right to divert attention from the fact that obscene concentrations of wealth, as we currently have in this country, has never, in all of history, produced a society with a strong middle class. The 1920's in the U.S. is a perfect example.
First, let's address your mistaken assumptions about redistribution---all tax policies are redistributionist measures. The question alway is, who benefits from the redistribution---of course the answer in the U.S. is those who own the most capital. This brings me to the next mistaken assumption about redistribution---capital always grows faster than income---so now the perfect storm of redistribution goes into effect: capital grows faster than income and capital is taxed less than income ---nice to be one of the 1% with all that capital, but not so nice if you are minimum wage Walmart employee. Finally, stop with all this talk about education as the strategy for remedying income inequality---the numbers you cite to support this myth ignore the economic reality of more college graduates, more STEM graduates, and yet, no move in incomes or job prospects for all these newly educated young persons. No, the only answer for income inequality is some for redistribution--it is working for the rich, let's make it work for the poor and middle class.
So let me make sure I get this right.
Going to college these days puts the average student tens of thousands - some times hundreds of thousands - in debt. Such debt is a yoke they carry around for decades.
And Brooks's solution to stagnant wages is to take on even more debt by going to grad school?
Examples like the above is why people don't take conservative economic policies seriously (and it becomes clear why conservatives appeal to cultural issues so heavily to connect with the middle and working classes).
Going to college these days puts the average student tens of thousands - some times hundreds of thousands - in debt. Such debt is a yoke they carry around for decades.
And Brooks's solution to stagnant wages is to take on even more debt by going to grad school?
Examples like the above is why people don't take conservative economic policies seriously (and it becomes clear why conservatives appeal to cultural issues so heavily to connect with the middle and working classes).
The difference is that we know how to redistribute wealth. No one knows how to make high school graduates as smart as college graduates. "Early childhood education" has never been shown to have any long term effects. Head Start, it doesn't work. And even if you could make every single student who now graduates high school go to college and graduate, guess what would happen to the wages of college graduates? They would go down, significantly. David Brooks wouldn't think so, because no matter how "moderate" he says he is, he is an ideologue who believes that the only reason people's wages differ is because of their "skills" or their ability to "create wealth."
His solution would be for more "reforms" in education which haven't worked over the last 40 years and won't work now, because it has never been based on actual science. Google "twin studies intelligence." All the while the hostile elite keeps grabbing an ever larger share of the national pie for itself.
His solution would be for more "reforms" in education which haven't worked over the last 40 years and won't work now, because it has never been based on actual science. Google "twin studies intelligence." All the while the hostile elite keeps grabbing an ever larger share of the national pie for itself.
1
Many government programs improve productivity, and quite a few of them -- such as those funding education and health care -- are the target of continuous Republican proposals to cut government expenditures. The issue of redistribution of wealth has to do not with trickle down, but instead with trickle up: Continued tax cuts for the rich. To which the Republicans, seemingly unanimously, are so committed that last time around they nominated Mitt Romney, who refused to share all his tax returns with the public. The returns he did share had him paying around 15% of his income in taxes, a level about which most Americans can only dream.
1
Tell me David. Why is it that worker productivity during the past decades has gone up dramatically and yet wages have remained flat or fallen. Workers fear that their jobs will be shipped overseas or eliminated by mechanization. It is true that some people may gain with education, but it is also true that changing careers is risky as you may need to start at the bottom in that new position.
Education is an attempt to make yourself more marketable. But it is still the rich who hold all the cards and their ability to manipulate that market is considerably more powerful than the average worker. So by all means let's help with education, but we also need to create a more level playing field through programs that support the worker and taxes that spread the money around more equitably.
Rhe rich will fight this as they claim that they will no longer have the means to trickle down prosperity to the rest of us, but tell me have the rich done anything to help us other than salt away their riches mostly gained by the sweat of the working man's brow?
Education is an attempt to make yourself more marketable. But it is still the rich who hold all the cards and their ability to manipulate that market is considerably more powerful than the average worker. So by all means let's help with education, but we also need to create a more level playing field through programs that support the worker and taxes that spread the money around more equitably.
Rhe rich will fight this as they claim that they will no longer have the means to trickle down prosperity to the rest of us, but tell me have the rich done anything to help us other than salt away their riches mostly gained by the sweat of the working man's brow?
3
It doesn't take an economist to know that the shift on our economy (which began around 1970) which has resulted in the demise of the middle class is a result of technology rendering moot the need for the amount of manual labor once required by our industrial base.
No political strategy stressing redistribution or human capital will change that circumstance - from Hillary or any other candidate.
No political strategy stressing redistribution or human capital will change that circumstance - from Hillary or any other candidate.
2
i think it is false to describe the democratic position on income inequality as either/or. democrats always try to do everything possible to improve education and expand opportunities for college. at the same time, they seek to improve the worker's position in an age when even matching retirement funds, let alone pensions, are becomming a thing of the past. instead of presenting this false dichotomy, you should ask why republicans resist attemps to make college more avaiable and affordable, while also making it easier for business to rip off their workers. the latter, as i see it, is the true "redistibutionist" thinking.
2
Increasing worker productivity is the key. Could not agree more, whether that is done from a person investing in their education from pre K onward or building job skills on the job or in the community. However, what is missed is the need for the workforce to be mobile. As technology creates more jobs they will not be always where the work force is. This traps to many workers today in a no growth job. So, a persons personal responsibility to be in charge of what they earn is paramount. The idea that government can do this is delusional.
1
To follow David's logic, if we all got advanced college degrees, we'd all be in fat city. This is clearly hogwash. Advanced degrees don't create jobs. The present system distributes wealth upward so the winners can then cry "redistribution" about any corrective action. Better we stop the upward flow in the first place - restore progressive taxes, include all income with no deductions or loopholes. If we don't get more income into the hands of true consumers, our economy is doomed to stagnation or worse.
1
Mr. Brooks presents all this data on human capital while ignoring the humans who have labored to produce it. Also, there is an element of confusion in the conclusions that increased training won't increase wages; but increased worker productivity will. Or, college degree wages are flat; but an advanced degree gains increased wages. Conclusion: The hierarchy is further simplified into those two tiers, the ones with the advanced education who are deemed to succeed; and the ones who are doomed to toil toward "increase productivity" to buoy up the anointed. There is no middle!
This concept supports my theory that,once you have been fed the royal jelly, the worker bees continue to feed you and make you more royal.
This concept supports my theory that,once you have been fed the royal jelly, the worker bees continue to feed you and make you more royal.
Brooks is setting up a straw man argument by implying that progressives are split into "human capital progressives" and "redistributionist progressives" when in fact what we really need is both and they are related.
There is both a widening educational gap between not just the top and middle classes, but between the middle-class and the bottom. The way to fix this is to give better educational opportunities to the bottom (and the middle). Despite the right-wing rhetoric this will require more money. Unfortunately the money is concentrated at the very top, so "redistributive" policies are necessary to raise the money to pay better teacher salaries, to attract more and better teachers to teach in the poorer performing districts, etc.
There is both a widening educational gap between not just the top and middle classes, but between the middle-class and the bottom. The way to fix this is to give better educational opportunities to the bottom (and the middle). Despite the right-wing rhetoric this will require more money. Unfortunately the money is concentrated at the very top, so "redistributive" policies are necessary to raise the money to pay better teacher salaries, to attract more and better teachers to teach in the poorer performing districts, etc.
2
If there was a shortage of educated workers, as Brooks claims, then wages for the highly skilled would be rising; instead, they have been stagnant since the late 90s. If we close the gap under such conditions, as Brooks recommends, "so high-school-educated people had the skills of college-educated people", the laws of supply and demand tell you that wages for the highly skilled would simply decline. Since, as Krugman pointed out recently, the rate of return on investments has been level, but the corporate share of profits has soared, that indicates that old-fashioned political exploitation and expropriation are at play. The real "redistribution" has been upward.
2
No small number of those doing well are the conservative college graduates tasked with controlling the English language in this country. The evidence of double-think is abundant, but this article relies on two of my favorites--redistribution and the notion of "entitlements." If any group had redistributed the wealth of this nation, it is the one percent. It is they who have practiced class warfare (another favored right wing inversion). How one can call Medicare and Social Security "entitlements" when workers pay for these programs out of the paychecks is yet another mind-blower. Repeating these distortions ad infinitum seems to turn on the right wing.
1
David forgets the Tax Cuts over the past 35 years that have impacted the healthy tax policy that supported a robust middle class, and expanded opportunity for the poor. The Republicans have been cutting taxes to shovel more money to the 1%, THEN simultaneously 'starve the beast' to offset the budget deficits they created with the tax cuts. The beast they want to starve is not ALL the government, only the safety net and other investments we make as a society and great country. The ones we used to make as a pragmatric investment in our entire population.
And of course, no mention of the rigged capitalistic system that the wealthy sustain with massive lobbying and campaign money. I would prefer to fix that source problem, but that seems more difficult than restoring a previous progressive tax code, especially since the wealth gap is even larger than it was in the decades when we did have such a progressive and fair tax code.
And of course, no mention of the rigged capitalistic system that the wealthy sustain with massive lobbying and campaign money. I would prefer to fix that source problem, but that seems more difficult than restoring a previous progressive tax code, especially since the wealth gap is even larger than it was in the decades when we did have such a progressive and fair tax code.
1
In the 1960's 40% o corporate proceeds were invested in employment of workers or capital. Now only 10% of it goes for that purpose and the rest is paid out to stockholders. This change came about by 1980.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/02/25/why-companies...
That owners of capital are doing well and the workers are not. Statistics show that the fraction of GDP is going to profits has been increasing and the amount going to wages has been decreasing.
The movement to increase the minimum wage is finally causing some companies like Walmart to increase wages , in order to retain workers who have become extremely dissatisfied and demoralized. They are hoping to improve worker productivity. They are also anticipating that the movement to improve the minimum wage will be succrssful anyway.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/02/25/why-companies...
That owners of capital are doing well and the workers are not. Statistics show that the fraction of GDP is going to profits has been increasing and the amount going to wages has been decreasing.
The movement to increase the minimum wage is finally causing some companies like Walmart to increase wages , in order to retain workers who have become extremely dissatisfied and demoralized. They are hoping to improve worker productivity. They are also anticipating that the movement to improve the minimum wage will be succrssful anyway.
2
In the last few years productivity has been rising, but compensation has not. Who has reaped the benefits of that rise?
The answer is obvious, and that situation will continue to prevail so long as the game is rigged.
We have had a long period of redistribution, right. But it has been in the upward direction. And is it not ridiculous (or worse) to propose that only those with the means and the intellectual ability to survive years of post-graduate existence have earned the right to a decent standard of living?
The answer is obvious, and that situation will continue to prevail so long as the game is rigged.
We have had a long period of redistribution, right. But it has been in the upward direction. And is it not ridiculous (or worse) to propose that only those with the means and the intellectual ability to survive years of post-graduate existence have earned the right to a decent standard of living?
1
It is true that wages for college grads have been flat this century, and that is troubling. But this is not true of people with post-college degrees, who are doing nicely.
I have a PhD from a good state school in Social Psychology, which I have applied successfully to a career in market research. In the most recent part of my career, I have worked for more than a dozen years for a very large US corporation. All my performance reviews are above average and five are top.
If US workers with advanced degrees and superior on the job ratings are doing well, perhaps you can explain why my compensation has grown at the rate of inflation?
My colleagues are in the same boat.
With your finding in tatters, maybe enough light penetrates to reveal the Plutocrat game riggers as the only ones doing well For the last 35 years in the US. Have a look at some of Saez and Piketty's long term income and wealth series, which I recommend in place of the data source saying US citizen workers with advanced degrees are doing well when we are not.
I have a PhD from a good state school in Social Psychology, which I have applied successfully to a career in market research. In the most recent part of my career, I have worked for more than a dozen years for a very large US corporation. All my performance reviews are above average and five are top.
If US workers with advanced degrees and superior on the job ratings are doing well, perhaps you can explain why my compensation has grown at the rate of inflation?
My colleagues are in the same boat.
With your finding in tatters, maybe enough light penetrates to reveal the Plutocrat game riggers as the only ones doing well For the last 35 years in the US. Have a look at some of Saez and Piketty's long term income and wealth series, which I recommend in place of the data source saying US citizen workers with advanced degrees are doing well when we are not.
Mr. Brooks -- and all the other "human capital progressives" -- fall for a simple fallacy: what might be good for the individual (i.e. improving your skills relative to the population as a whole) would not improve the lot of the American middle class or working class as a whole. Suppose the government spent $20 billion and sent 10 million American workers off to a one-year intensive retraining program to become computer programmers. All this would accomplish would be to give the companies I work for the leverage to drive down wages for their skilled professionals, too. While this might flatten out the bottom 99% of the curve, it will do nothing to change the distribution of wealth and income between the top 1% and the rest of us. Mr. Brooks' prescription is simply a redistributionist policy for the 99%.
1
Disappointed that Mr. Brooks uses terms like "redistribution" and the even nastier sounding "redisrtibutionist." These terms seem better suited to Hannity or Limbaugh and not to one who notes in his essay that the distinction between those emphasizing education and training and those in favor of more progressive taxation is a simply "a matter of emphasis". On a more substantive level, it is hard to look at the last 40 years -- not just the last 6 -- and see the stark evidence that a steady stream of tax cuts at the higher ends of the spectrum have left us with a more regressive tax structure, divisive deficits, crumbling infrastructure, failing schools, and perpetually threatened social safety net. We need serious discussions about how to relieve the pressure on the middle class. We don't need any more nasty sounding names.
Here in Washington state, we have many opportunities to experience the benefits of those "low productivity government jobs" from 80 years ago. Forests that were planted, schools and civic auditoriums built, park shelters and trails. Public art that was created for the benefit of all, regional music that was archived. It is still all around us today, and we appreciate it more than we appreciate yet another strip mall or fast food joint employing people at minimum wage, while their corporate masters rake in ever-increasing profits! Yes, there are even a few college-educated people in my family currently unemployed or underemployed who could make a valuable contribution through a government job other than with the military!
"If we could magically confiscate and redistribute the above-average income gains that have gone to the top 1 percent since 1979, that would produce $7,000 more per household per year for the bottom 99 percent. But if we could close the gap so that high-school-educated people had the skills of college-educated people, that would increase household income by $28,000 per year."
But going to college and earning a degree in a major that actually increases one's value added in the world economy is hard work. It's much easier to simply redistribute income from the haves to the have-nots, so that is what the low-information voter will be inclined towards. That is what is driving the rebranding efforts of HRC and Larry Summers.
But going to college and earning a degree in a major that actually increases one's value added in the world economy is hard work. It's much easier to simply redistribute income from the haves to the have-nots, so that is what the low-information voter will be inclined towards. That is what is driving the rebranding efforts of HRC and Larry Summers.
1
Brooks says people with "post college degrees are doing nicely". I am not sure he is aware that the percentage of adjuncts teaching in colleges has gone up to 76%. They make about $2000 to $2500 a class per semester. And yes, that includes teachers at the community colleges Brooks wants to be "better". Brooks writes that "those who get more skills earn more money". Not always true. And some of the people with the most money seem to have skill sets that involve dodging taxes.
And why the phrase "low productivity government jobs". Jobs like police, firemen, child welfare workers? Jobs like we have out a West that try to preserve our federal lands for multiple use and for prosperity? Some Republicans in Montana want to switch federal lands to state control but it is clear that the state could not afford to maintain the lands and they would get sold to the highest bidder.
He writes of "temporary evidence from the recession". No. Income inequality has been building since Reagan.
And why the phrase "low productivity government jobs". Jobs like police, firemen, child welfare workers? Jobs like we have out a West that try to preserve our federal lands for multiple use and for prosperity? Some Republicans in Montana want to switch federal lands to state control but it is clear that the state could not afford to maintain the lands and they would get sold to the highest bidder.
He writes of "temporary evidence from the recession". No. Income inequality has been building since Reagan.
Teaching as an adjunct I was never paid less than $4500 for a class, and often higher. At both a large private school and a small liberal-arts one, I was paid $7000-$8000 per class. They $2000 salary you cite must be only at community colleges, not 'including'.
That said, I agree with everything else Anne says.
That said, I agree with everything else Anne says.
In my opinion we should all be wary of politicians who make careers on blaming other Americans for our problems. For the left they try to convince us that we would all be better off if we punish the most monetarily successful Americans. For the right, they also assign blame to other groups of people.
Here's a scenario. My wife is a first generation American (parents immigrants from Southeast Asia). Grew up in modest household income. Worked hard. Valedictorian of her high school. Worked through college and med school accumulating hundreds of thousands of dollars of student loan debts. Medical residency spending 80-100 hours in the hospital per week for $30,000 a year. Now is a practicing gastroenterologist. She literally saves peoples' lives when she is on call.
Now our household income is close to the villified top 1%. Yet no one has worked harder than we have to get to that point. Why are we considered by some to be the problem?
Here's a scenario. My wife is a first generation American (parents immigrants from Southeast Asia). Grew up in modest household income. Worked hard. Valedictorian of her high school. Worked through college and med school accumulating hundreds of thousands of dollars of student loan debts. Medical residency spending 80-100 hours in the hospital per week for $30,000 a year. Now is a practicing gastroenterologist. She literally saves peoples' lives when she is on call.
Now our household income is close to the villified top 1%. Yet no one has worked harder than we have to get to that point. Why are we considered by some to be the problem?
Of course you are not the problem. The problem is how you (not personally, but the class in the aggregate) vote. Too many of "you" fall for the story told by Republicans that if we just keep your taxes low, you'll invest and spend that well-deserved income and create jobs and opportunity for all the rest of us. It sounds plausible, and it makes you feel OK about keeping as much of your income as possible, but it's a fairy tale, proven false by 30 years of economic data. When you pay a capital gains tax rate (and much of your future income will be in capital gains) that is far less than the marginal tax rate on my salary as an experienced software engineer, then there is something fundamentally wrong and unfair about how you've rigged the system (again, leveraging your wealth into disproportionate political power).
It's not that you are the problem, vincentgaglione. It's how the government approaches you that is the problem. You worked hard, you deserve a good life, and I don't think anyone would reproach you that.
But at that level of wealth, recognizing that we live in a human community and that poverty isn't good for society, the government should ask you for a greater contribution — for the simple reason that you can make it without any significant hit to your wellbeing and lifestyle.
But at that level of wealth, recognizing that we live in a human community and that poverty isn't good for society, the government should ask you for a greater contribution — for the simple reason that you can make it without any significant hit to your wellbeing and lifestyle.
1
A living wage, that is what I want to see every American achieve, no matter their skill or knowledge levels. The top 50% of the nation's earners, maybe more, survive comfortably. The rest of the nation's earners just (and many don't) get by! Their lives are consumed with finding enough resources to survive week to week. In a nation this rich, that is both immoral and unconscionable.
The people who take care of our elderly and disabled, the people who harvest our onions and strawberries, they deserve to work and go home and not be worried if there is enough money for food, shelter, and health care for them and their children. That is not how it is in these United States now. The Judeo-Christian foundation of the nation which gets flaunted at every patriotic event is in reality a myth to comfort the contented in their wealth!
All the discussions and debates about how to help people achieve economic success are irrelevant to the basic moral question that is never resolved!
The people who take care of our elderly and disabled, the people who harvest our onions and strawberries, they deserve to work and go home and not be worried if there is enough money for food, shelter, and health care for them and their children. That is not how it is in these United States now. The Judeo-Christian foundation of the nation which gets flaunted at every patriotic event is in reality a myth to comfort the contented in their wealth!
All the discussions and debates about how to help people achieve economic success are irrelevant to the basic moral question that is never resolved!
1
"Increasing worker productivity is the key. Increasing incentives to risk and invest is essential. "
No, David Brooks, the facts say otherwise. The link between productivity and wages has been broken for several decades now, and all the "increasing incentives to risk and invest" that have been enacted over the same period have only increased inequality. Your prescription for more of the same is going to deepen the crisis, not fix it. What is needed is precisely the opposite: restore the right of workers to form, join and support unions, so they can bargain for a bigger share of the wealth they create, and require the wealthy to pay a greater share of the costs of educating and providing the needed infrastructure and public services we all need.
No, David Brooks, the facts say otherwise. The link between productivity and wages has been broken for several decades now, and all the "increasing incentives to risk and invest" that have been enacted over the same period have only increased inequality. Your prescription for more of the same is going to deepen the crisis, not fix it. What is needed is precisely the opposite: restore the right of workers to form, join and support unions, so they can bargain for a bigger share of the wealth they create, and require the wealthy to pay a greater share of the costs of educating and providing the needed infrastructure and public services we all need.
Important points, but mostly unpersuasive. As I read Brooks, he calls for more advanced degrees, but then devotes most of the column's argument for that proposition to the wage differentials between the college- and non-college- educated. He never supports the implicit arguments that there is a job market for more advanced degrees and that advanced degrees improve productivity. I suspect not. His remedy (and focus) won't solve the problems he acknowledges. And we are left with Summer's pitch: not enough jobs, not enough jobs here, not enough jobs for people who want them, and not enough jobs of the type we have outsourced that don't require advanced degrees. And not enough money and political will to finance the [likely] ineffective remedies he advances.
As Mr. Brooks notes himself, it is a matter of emphasis. To believe that some level of distribution may be, or even is, necessary is not to say that education, skills training, and productivity increases are irrelevant or even less important. But look at what had happen in state after state where Republicans reign: cuts to education spending and to needs programs that benefit the less well off. The North Carolina legislature has reduced the state income for all filers and is paying for it, in part, by eliminating the long-standing deduction for medical expenses, likely to affect the less well off considerably more than the wealthy. They are finally addressing the miserable starting salary for new public school teachers, have so far only managed to fix it so that six-year veteran teachers earn the same as first-year teachers and are paying for that by reducing spending on the the university and community college system. Modern capitalism may not be “fundamentally broken”, as Mr. Brooks implies, but Republican ideology and evidence-based decision making is a train wreck, and Mr. Brooks' reasoning is simply dishonest.
Increasing worker productivity is not the answer. We've already done that and seen the results. Since 1979 average productivity is up 80%, and average real wages are up 10%, while income for the top 1% is up over 250%. There's no argument that a college degree improves lifetime earnings, but overall, ordinary people are getting squeezed. There are important structural factors at work here (globalization, automation) but the redistribution of the benefits of increased productivity towards the wealthy is the real story. Mr. Brooks implicitly demonizes redistribution, and ignores the redistribution taking place over the last 35 years that takes money from the people who do the work and puts it in the pockets of millionaires.
1
Mr. Autor's findings that "skills differences are four times more important than concentration of wealth in driving inequality" may well be true, and were the supply of high-paying jobs infinite, closing the skills gap might well be the magic bullet Mr. Brooks asserts. But this is clearly not the case. There is no question that redistributive taxation policies, such as this nation had in place for several decades following WW II, are workable and effective. The presumption however that our economy will create a limitless supply of high paying careers to accommodate as many highly skilled professionals as we can manage to educate is at best speculative, if not entirely specious.
40
I am not confident that continuing increased worker productivity is the key because (a) returns on worker productivity are not going to labor anymore, they are going to capital and to top management; and (b) increased worker productivity is eliminating tasks for workers and increasing tasks for robots, which will eventually lead to higher and higher unemployment as things stand now. Increased worker productivity is surely good for companies and for those productive workers, but what about those who strive but fall short? So long as they strive society at large should want an economy that includes them somehow, perhaps through (badly needed) public works projects. If a society's economy cannot serve society at large anymore as it always has in history, it has lost its historic anthropological survival and purposes and will be destructive to social cohesion, national morale and shared citizenship.
The following paragraph contains a serious error of aggregation:
"... If we could magically confiscate and redistribute the above-average income gains that have gone to the top 1 percent since 1979, that would produce $7,000 more per household per year for the bottom 99 percent. But if we could close the gap so that high-school-educated people had the skills of college-educated people, that would increase household income by $28,000 per year."
It's not possible for all high-school educated people to acquire the skills of college-educated people without hugely reducing going market rates of pay for college-educated people. There is no serious case that demand exists or could be created for all U.S. workers to hold jobs requiring the prevailing level of college education. What is true for one or some individuals cannot in this instance be true for all.
Times readers are well-served when a column such as this is authored by a holder of public office: the revelation of dim bulbs in office is a public service. However, regular columns published under the imprimatur of The New York Times should not contain provable errors.
"... If we could magically confiscate and redistribute the above-average income gains that have gone to the top 1 percent since 1979, that would produce $7,000 more per household per year for the bottom 99 percent. But if we could close the gap so that high-school-educated people had the skills of college-educated people, that would increase household income by $28,000 per year."
It's not possible for all high-school educated people to acquire the skills of college-educated people without hugely reducing going market rates of pay for college-educated people. There is no serious case that demand exists or could be created for all U.S. workers to hold jobs requiring the prevailing level of college education. What is true for one or some individuals cannot in this instance be true for all.
Times readers are well-served when a column such as this is authored by a holder of public office: the revelation of dim bulbs in office is a public service. However, regular columns published under the imprimatur of The New York Times should not contain provable errors.
1
We have nation full of adults who are not well educated and are not likely to return to school, be it high school or college or graduate school. Some people, probably because of history and circumstances, are simply not higher education material.
We also have a nation full of crumbling infrastructure. The less educated, but motivated, are possibly the best suited to fix these infrastructural problems. If that were to happen, much as it did during the '30's and through WWII, it is likely that would translate to these worker's offspring joining the ranks of the well educated in the future, much like the way things shaped up in the '50's and '60's.
That's the point conservatives miss when they reduce the poverty problem and solution to nothing more that "redistribution" or "socialism". What's truly surprising is the fact that so many of them are proof of the theory, they being the beneficiaries of their parents labors and rewards. It wasn't redistribution then, and it wouldn't be now.
We also have a nation full of crumbling infrastructure. The less educated, but motivated, are possibly the best suited to fix these infrastructural problems. If that were to happen, much as it did during the '30's and through WWII, it is likely that would translate to these worker's offspring joining the ranks of the well educated in the future, much like the way things shaped up in the '50's and '60's.
That's the point conservatives miss when they reduce the poverty problem and solution to nothing more that "redistribution" or "socialism". What's truly surprising is the fact that so many of them are proof of the theory, they being the beneficiaries of their parents labors and rewards. It wasn't redistribution then, and it wouldn't be now.
46
With the safety nets, the motivation is absent. The other alternative is bread and circuses or, now that Barnum & Bailey is eliminating elephants, bread and cable television, mobiles telephones, and the internet.
"The less educated, but motivated, are possibly the best suited to fix these infrastructural problems."
It should be noted that those workers who originally built that infrastructure were paid a living wage! They were able to afford to raise a family and get a better education for their children. Those in today's economy are not afforded that luxury. And in today's economy, it is a luxury.
So what are you suggesting? That these "less educated" people who fix our infrastructure have to make less than a living wage in hopes that their children can become well educated? How can they afford to do that on a less-than-living wage and considering the less-than-equal educational opportunities facing the poor (becoming worse as states are slashing funding of schools)? And even if their children do become "well educated", the data shows that their wages are not keeping up with the cost of living. Education is important, but even the data Mr Brooks provides demonstrates that it in now way addresses the huge disparity between the 99% and the 1%. The education response is slight-of-hand diverting attention from the underlying problem.
It should be noted that those workers who originally built that infrastructure were paid a living wage! They were able to afford to raise a family and get a better education for their children. Those in today's economy are not afforded that luxury. And in today's economy, it is a luxury.
So what are you suggesting? That these "less educated" people who fix our infrastructure have to make less than a living wage in hopes that their children can become well educated? How can they afford to do that on a less-than-living wage and considering the less-than-equal educational opportunities facing the poor (becoming worse as states are slashing funding of schools)? And even if their children do become "well educated", the data shows that their wages are not keeping up with the cost of living. Education is important, but even the data Mr Brooks provides demonstrates that it in now way addresses the huge disparity between the 99% and the 1%. The education response is slight-of-hand diverting attention from the underlying problem.
"The real problem, some of them say, is concentrated political power." David, you are giving in to the temptation, by partisans on both sides, to attribute to the other side arguments that you want to refute rather than the real arguments to be made. You gloss over the fact that, since the 1980's, corporations and the rich have had their way with government and have systematically altered the tax system and the law to shift income away from those who labor to those who invest. Just one of many, many examples is the way states are awarding huge tax breaks and changing the law on workers compensation to attract more investment. This is essentially corporate welfare. All this is done while insisting that programs that benefit working-class people are too expensive and inefficient and must be slashed. For heaven's sake, governments actually build sports stadiums for millionaire owners and athletes! This is madness. Increasing productivity is always nice, but the middle class and the poor are not being squeezed because they are not productive enough.
Who could be against upgrading our human capital base, although how and with what objectives could use a lot of discussion. But it needs tob e paid for, so the "redistribution" issue is unavoidable and since the rich by definition have more money, somethihng is going to have to be taken away.
-- more taxes on various kinds of income especially carried interest and securities transactions
--fewer subsidies through the tax system such as the mortgage deduction
--reduction in corporate welfare such as in agriculture subsidies to big farmers or even the subsidies to the low paid which are actually subsidies to business (provided we raise the minimum wage so that business and its customers actually pay for what they are buying, and not the general taxcpayer
-- further (?) reform ofthe medical/industrial and the educational/industrial systems to reduce their costs
I suggest that Mr. Brooks read Thomas Edsall's column published yesterday about the views of Larry Summers. Personally, I do not like "either/or" arguments and the education vs. redistribution discussion is a good example.
-- more taxes on various kinds of income especially carried interest and securities transactions
--fewer subsidies through the tax system such as the mortgage deduction
--reduction in corporate welfare such as in agriculture subsidies to big farmers or even the subsidies to the low paid which are actually subsidies to business (provided we raise the minimum wage so that business and its customers actually pay for what they are buying, and not the general taxcpayer
-- further (?) reform ofthe medical/industrial and the educational/industrial systems to reduce their costs
I suggest that Mr. Brooks read Thomas Edsall's column published yesterday about the views of Larry Summers. Personally, I do not like "either/or" arguments and the education vs. redistribution discussion is a good example.
Modern capitalism IS broken, Mr. Brooks. Why, we just learned that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was over 400 parts per million throughout February. This has not happened in tens of millions of years and has never happened before in the long history of Homo sapiens. Why is it happening? Because our capitalist system permits the unregulated dumping of pollutants into the atmosphere.
We see that two men plan to spend nearly a billion dollars to elect the presidential candidate of their choice. We see that members of Congress spend at least half their time raising money to run for reelection. We see that, despite this frenzy of bribe-seeking, vritually none of our society's problems are addressed.
We see that companies constantly shift their workforce overseas, so that human beings can be paid a pittance instead of a just wage, and we see those same companies demand more and more tax breaks, loopholes from the rules that protect our families and communities, and less and less accountability for the safety of their products or the well-being of their employees. We see a wholesale assault on what is left of our labor movement, on our pension system, and even on the common sense idea that health insurance coverage should be universal.
We see a capitalist system in which poverty continues to grow, children are suffering more and more, and where democracy itself is threatened by the inexorable power of big money.
We want change. We love our country.
We see that two men plan to spend nearly a billion dollars to elect the presidential candidate of their choice. We see that members of Congress spend at least half their time raising money to run for reelection. We see that, despite this frenzy of bribe-seeking, vritually none of our society's problems are addressed.
We see that companies constantly shift their workforce overseas, so that human beings can be paid a pittance instead of a just wage, and we see those same companies demand more and more tax breaks, loopholes from the rules that protect our families and communities, and less and less accountability for the safety of their products or the well-being of their employees. We see a wholesale assault on what is left of our labor movement, on our pension system, and even on the common sense idea that health insurance coverage should be universal.
We see a capitalist system in which poverty continues to grow, children are suffering more and more, and where democracy itself is threatened by the inexorable power of big money.
We want change. We love our country.
David Brooks is correct in my view. Education is a prime determinant in upper economic mobility. I have witnessed it personally as have many of my peers. Stable supportive families that stress education and the work ethic achieve economic success. Witness the student population in N.Y.C. premier schools. The biggest majority are Asian students who go on to being top performers in colleges and post graduate degrees. Patrick Monahan identified that the family unit without a father was a key determinant of poverty. His observations hold true today. Government has provided disincentives to single parent households. The education system has spent vast sums to achieve stagnant results in academic achievement and graduation among minorities especially Blacks and Hispanics. David Brooks understands redistribution is popular but corrosive . Tom Sewell has said"what part of what I worked for are you entitled to." I write this as a man who grew up in low income Jacob Riis houses, , got a Catholic grammar and high school education and attended C.U.N.Y. My parents taught me the work ethic and both worked to educate my sisters and me. We are the sum of our life decisions. Waiting for redistribution is not a successful strategy to achieve the American dream.
17
I guess your parents forget to teach empathy. To bad.
1
What you say may be true, but you (and Mr. Brooks) are missing the point. Productivity has continued to rise for the last 30 years, but wages have not. So you may have the correct question, but you are addressing it to the wrong people. To the CEO of a large company, "what part of what your workers worked for are you entitled to." To the financiers who are skimming off increasing percentages of everyone's retirement accounts "what part of what I worked for are you entitled to." We have corrosive political and financial inequality in our country. We need to balance the scales, and we can only do that by taking back the money the richest have been skimming from the rest of us for the last 30 years.
I think that the current economic concept of productivity, and what it means to be productive, is a fundamental problem with our society that needs to change. E. F. Schumacher's book "Small is Beautiful" is an old book, but it provides a more reasonable viewpoint and approch that values our environment, natural resources, human life and the pursuit of happiness. It is not about redistribution of wealth, but about giving people a chance to succeed and to enjoy their hard work. It is difficult for small book stores to compete with Amazon, or small grocery or clothing stores to compete with Walmart or Target. It seems like our country is controlled by huge global corporations that have enormous capitalization, and their money has corrupted the government as well as the press and media. There is also a perception that the goal is to live in a huge mansion, accumulate fancy cars and toys, and basically consume as much as possible. According to Oxfam, http://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2015-01-19/richest-1-wil..., the richest 1% will own more than the rest of the people by 2016. This is an unsustainable trajectory. It is not so much a redistribution of wealth that is needed, but a new perspective towards how we value the earth, human life, health, and happiness.
Once upon a time, long ago, a high school diploma was a ticket to a middle class (white collar) job. Only a small percentage of students progressed to college. A profession in medicine and law was accessible through apprenticeship.
It was thought that enlarging the percentage of students attending college would increase economic opportunity for a greater percentage of the population, and in part that has been true. However, in order to do so, the actual content of a college education has been adjusted downwards to accommodate the huge increase in attendees. Now entry to truly well paying jobs require an MBA or 3 or 4 years of study towards a professional qualification.
I suspect that the flatness of earnings of college graduates reflect 1) the requirement that ambitious students now pursue post-graduate education before entering the labor force, and 2) the competition among the increased numbers of college graduates for jobs for which they qualify. 100% of the population graduating from college would only lower the wages further.
Indeed, the answer may be Common Core, or any series of examinations insuring that students who complete high school are sufficiently educated for access to middle class jobs. Students pursuing this path, if offered, would gain 4 years of work experience while skipping the cost of college and the crushing burden of student loans.
It was thought that enlarging the percentage of students attending college would increase economic opportunity for a greater percentage of the population, and in part that has been true. However, in order to do so, the actual content of a college education has been adjusted downwards to accommodate the huge increase in attendees. Now entry to truly well paying jobs require an MBA or 3 or 4 years of study towards a professional qualification.
I suspect that the flatness of earnings of college graduates reflect 1) the requirement that ambitious students now pursue post-graduate education before entering the labor force, and 2) the competition among the increased numbers of college graduates for jobs for which they qualify. 100% of the population graduating from college would only lower the wages further.
Indeed, the answer may be Common Core, or any series of examinations insuring that students who complete high school are sufficiently educated for access to middle class jobs. Students pursuing this path, if offered, would gain 4 years of work experience while skipping the cost of college and the crushing burden of student loans.
6
Mr. Brooks completely ignores four key factors in the income inequality situation: 1) Minimum wage levels; 2) Corporate vs. personal tax rates and the role of government as a job creator; 3) Technological unemployment; and 4) Off-shoring of jobs to low-wage countries and US employer preference for low-wage contract labor. First, as many comments note, it is ludicrous to suggest that more post-college degrees are going to solve the problem. The economy cannot do without lower-skill functions until robots become as smart and cheap as humans (which will take several more decades to fully develop). To help the large cohort of low-skill workers, the minimum wage should be doubled or tripled. The Danish have a $23/hour minimum wage, the lowest inequality in the world, and also happen the highest happiness. Go figure. Next, we need to reverse the shift from corporate to personal taxation. Under Eisenhower, corporate taxes support about 35% of federal spending. Today the rate is less than 15% and falling. Next, we need to acknowledge that technological unemployment is a key factor and intentionally expand employment in areas (like early childhood education and clean energy and transport infrastructure) that need more investment and also have strong multiplier effects. Finally, we need trade agreements and labor policies that slow off-shoring of jobs and spur a "race to the top" in environmental restoration -- as a way to counteract wage erosion and climate change.
78
There is a fallacy here in the interpretation of the scholarly research about the income potential of increasing education. The research is best interpreted as saying, when the distribution of levels of education within the population is as it has been during the period covered by the study, those with college or post college degrees have shown the stated income edge over their less-educated peers. The research does not tell us the effects if the entire population had college and post college degrees. It cannot tell us that because that experience is outside the range of the data. This is called a problem of "external validity."
Further, I think the article likely exaggerates Clinton's position as if she were not interested in having a well educated population. Her position is that increasing education- the supply side solution- will simply not be enough.
Further, I think the article likely exaggerates Clinton's position as if she were not interested in having a well educated population. Her position is that increasing education- the supply side solution- will simply not be enough.
We have income inequality because the American income tax system provides deductions, credits, subsidies and lower tax rates. But only for certain industries, transactions, sources of income, business entity structures, contracts and securities favored by the corrupt crony capitalist plutocrat oligarch class and the government legislators and executives that their lobbyists buy.
With little or no government regulation the myth of a free market American economy is promulgated. They send their money and our jobs overseas by keeping all of their "capitalist" profits and spreading and socializing all of their organized crime losses on to the American taxpayer. The less they pay the more we pay.
They did not earn their vaunted status through superior education, management and ideas. The system rigs our governmental societal institutions in their favor by malicious focused intent. Their money works for them and so do we. They are too big to fail or jail.
We have income inequality because some of us win the genetic lottery birth caste which has nothing to do with either individual merit or qualifications.
Instead of living in the mythical American free market meritocracy home of the brave and the land of the free we are living in a combination of Stevie Wonder's "Pastime Paradise" and Coolio's "Gangsta's Paradise.". The deadly combination of racism, poverty and war that Dr. Martin Luther King. Jr. warned about in a speech at the Riverside Church on April 4, 1967.
With little or no government regulation the myth of a free market American economy is promulgated. They send their money and our jobs overseas by keeping all of their "capitalist" profits and spreading and socializing all of their organized crime losses on to the American taxpayer. The less they pay the more we pay.
They did not earn their vaunted status through superior education, management and ideas. The system rigs our governmental societal institutions in their favor by malicious focused intent. Their money works for them and so do we. They are too big to fail or jail.
We have income inequality because some of us win the genetic lottery birth caste which has nothing to do with either individual merit or qualifications.
Instead of living in the mythical American free market meritocracy home of the brave and the land of the free we are living in a combination of Stevie Wonder's "Pastime Paradise" and Coolio's "Gangsta's Paradise.". The deadly combination of racism, poverty and war that Dr. Martin Luther King. Jr. warned about in a speech at the Riverside Church on April 4, 1967.
The country has failed the poorer half of the population. These 62 million families had 4% of the wealth in 1995 and today they have just one percent like third world countries. With much irony, the decline in net family wealth is largely due to government pressure on borderline students to go to college. The lack of work, mounting debt and high rate of default (and all the tax credits and government safety net programs) have harmed rather than help the family economics of the less competitive students. Too many young adults cannot afford to marry and make babies and this has caused a crisis of family formation.
The top 10% of the population has acquired 75% of the wealth and the next 40% (the middle class) dropped from a 29% share in 1995 to 24% today. World averages show the U.S. middle class is ahead (24% vs. 12%) and the U.S. richest 10% are behind (75% vs. 87%) in share of wealth. Unfortunately, the U.S. rich have nothing more to take from the working poor and their future gains must come entirely from the struggling middle class. Larry Summers thinks the redistribution upward is as much as one trillion dollars a year. This is conservative considering the increase in individual wealth from $56 trillion in 2010 to $83 trillion five years later.
Bold tax reform like replacing the job killing payroll taxes and denying government help for those with above average wealth and income is needed to stop the economic trends which have destroyed millions of families.
The top 10% of the population has acquired 75% of the wealth and the next 40% (the middle class) dropped from a 29% share in 1995 to 24% today. World averages show the U.S. middle class is ahead (24% vs. 12%) and the U.S. richest 10% are behind (75% vs. 87%) in share of wealth. Unfortunately, the U.S. rich have nothing more to take from the working poor and their future gains must come entirely from the struggling middle class. Larry Summers thinks the redistribution upward is as much as one trillion dollars a year. This is conservative considering the increase in individual wealth from $56 trillion in 2010 to $83 trillion five years later.
Bold tax reform like replacing the job killing payroll taxes and denying government help for those with above average wealth and income is needed to stop the economic trends which have destroyed millions of families.
1
Researchers at the Milken Institute calculated that the real median earnings of college-educated men have decreased 2% since 1969:
http://www.hamiltonproject.org/files/downloads_and_links/07_milken_green...
Again, that's college-educated men, the people with the most privileged and advantageous position in our society. Even that group has gone forty-five years without a pay raise. They only look like winners next to men who did not graduate from college, whose wages have decreased anywhere from 17% (some college) to 38% (high school dropout) over the same period.
Our GDP has more than tripled and productivity has soared since 1969, but wages haven't increased. In fact wages today seem to be at an all time low, and corporate profits at an all time high, as percent of GDP.
I agree that "modern capitalism is fundamentally broken," because I do not believe that the sole point of our economy is maximizing dividend payouts and CEO salaries. Why should I care about increasing worker productivity if none of the proceeds flow back into my pocket, and those of my fellow employees? We are not serfs content to work solely for the benefit of boardroom lords!
Our government needs to stop redistributing upwards though low real tax rates, stepped-up estate tax valuations, government-enforced monopolies, weak labor laws, and a thousand other things. Half a century without a raise?! Enough is enough!
http://www.hamiltonproject.org/files/downloads_and_links/07_milken_green...
Again, that's college-educated men, the people with the most privileged and advantageous position in our society. Even that group has gone forty-five years without a pay raise. They only look like winners next to men who did not graduate from college, whose wages have decreased anywhere from 17% (some college) to 38% (high school dropout) over the same period.
Our GDP has more than tripled and productivity has soared since 1969, but wages haven't increased. In fact wages today seem to be at an all time low, and corporate profits at an all time high, as percent of GDP.
I agree that "modern capitalism is fundamentally broken," because I do not believe that the sole point of our economy is maximizing dividend payouts and CEO salaries. Why should I care about increasing worker productivity if none of the proceeds flow back into my pocket, and those of my fellow employees? We are not serfs content to work solely for the benefit of boardroom lords!
Our government needs to stop redistributing upwards though low real tax rates, stepped-up estate tax valuations, government-enforced monopolies, weak labor laws, and a thousand other things. Half a century without a raise?! Enough is enough!
What's ignored in this discussion is the Recession Generation of working professionals whose student loan burden has silenced them economically. Now the average student loan debt is $30,000, but some struggle with loans as high as $300,000. Many are in default. This does not mean they are not trying to repay the loans.
We have to examine the past decade's student loan standards and call the industry to account. We need to quickly pass laws providing for income-based student loan repayment, both private and federal. Then these young professionals can take full part in our national economy.
Only after our legislators respond effectively to this problem, can we debate education vs. redistribution in a meaningful way. Only then can we have a complete picture of today's jobs and spending economy. Until then, a huge, productive part of it has no voice.
We have to examine the past decade's student loan standards and call the industry to account. We need to quickly pass laws providing for income-based student loan repayment, both private and federal. Then these young professionals can take full part in our national economy.
Only after our legislators respond effectively to this problem, can we debate education vs. redistribution in a meaningful way. Only then can we have a complete picture of today's jobs and spending economy. Until then, a huge, productive part of it has no voice.
15
You left out an important part of the equation. The cost of a college education has been rising faster than inflation for many decades now. With wages stagnating for college graduates for many years, what hope do they have to repay those loans quickly and move up the economic scale. Let's get the cost of a college education under control. The huge endowment funds of many colleges continue to increase without enough being distributed for student aid or scholarships.
My problem with Mr. Brooks thesis is the implied 'either or solution' that is couched in the idea of 'emphasis'. I don't see these two issues as competing. They are relatively separate and can be dealt with that way.
Education is part of constructing and building the human infrastructure of society. It is one of the most effective means to raise the poor from poverty, minimize prejudice, and to increase the wealth of people. Education should be investments in people by society using government. And these investments should be continuous from early childhood into adulthood.
The concentration wealth and its corresponding disproportionate increase of economic power, is destructive of the construction of society's human infrastructure. The evidence is clear that wealth has moved toward the upper one percent over the last 30 plus years. This will continue unless the people, using the tools of government, reverse the trend. This means a redistribution of wealth and a compression toward the middle class. Laws can effect this change, but will take a major political movement of the people.
I believe that investing in education and redistributing the concentration of wealth can work together. This is not an issue of emphasis on one over the other.
There are other actions that may be taken, but that is for future comments.
Education is part of constructing and building the human infrastructure of society. It is one of the most effective means to raise the poor from poverty, minimize prejudice, and to increase the wealth of people. Education should be investments in people by society using government. And these investments should be continuous from early childhood into adulthood.
The concentration wealth and its corresponding disproportionate increase of economic power, is destructive of the construction of society's human infrastructure. The evidence is clear that wealth has moved toward the upper one percent over the last 30 plus years. This will continue unless the people, using the tools of government, reverse the trend. This means a redistribution of wealth and a compression toward the middle class. Laws can effect this change, but will take a major political movement of the people.
I believe that investing in education and redistributing the concentration of wealth can work together. This is not an issue of emphasis on one over the other.
There are other actions that may be taken, but that is for future comments.
We have a tax system that is highly redistributive toward established capital and inherited wealth. Nominal tax rates appear to have a progressive bias, but only within what is now a solidly middle class bandwidth. There is no economic or social rationale for taxing dividends and capital gains or inheritances at with preferred treatments or rates. Employment taxes are highly regressive, yet there is no constituency on the left to repeal them, and replace those revenues with the trillions of dollars set to shift between generations over the next 20 years. The founding fathers sought to eliminate the permanent aristocracies of Europe, but now instead of calling ours Duke, Earls and Princes, we refer to them in ways that seem to convey a sense of capitalism such as Walmart Heirs. The effect is an increasing static economic system, not the dynamic one envisioned by the founders. Why do Republicans believe that a fascist third world economic model is any more sustainable than a communist economic model? If death and taxes are both inevitable, wouldn't we all benefit if they were also more concurrent?
David Brooks has no concept of how our tax code works, and even less of a clue to how our society or economy functions. Yes, its working now, albeit dysfunctionally, and it will until it doesn't. The next collapse will be worse because nothing was fixed and it is unlikely to be as peaceful.
David Brooks has no concept of how our tax code works, and even less of a clue to how our society or economy functions. Yes, its working now, albeit dysfunctionally, and it will until it doesn't. The next collapse will be worse because nothing was fixed and it is unlikely to be as peaceful.
1
Oy yeah. Good jobs. The times they are a changing'. So what are we gonna do about the Scott Walkers of the world who want to break what little power unions have left and the un-responsible 1% who are intent on raising profits and cutting jobs. There may be no answers here. But what we now is a visionary who can see past the Hillarys and Davids and Scotts and see something that no one sees now, who can see that what we have now is untweakble.
What we don't need are more leaders, i.e., the Hillarys and the Jebs who have an emotional and, yes, financial stake in not ruffing the same-old too much.
So I think it's disingenuous to reduce the issue or the debate to redistribution. I think it is and should be more about rethinking and revisioning.
What we don't need are more leaders, i.e., the Hillarys and the Jebs who have an emotional and, yes, financial stake in not ruffing the same-old too much.
So I think it's disingenuous to reduce the issue or the debate to redistribution. I think it is and should be more about rethinking and revisioning.
1
There is palpable fear emanating from the right. If the majority of American citizens conclude that the game is rigged, and contrary to Mr. Brooks misreading and cherry picking of stats it is, the Right has lost the argument. The right's support depends on people believing that their son or daughter can be a Koch brother, and when it doesn't come true convincing them it's the government and 'the others' fault not the oligarchs or the systems fault.
Essential to the development and increase of human capital is orderly households, committed parents, sound values and the atmosphere and habits those factors create for the raising of children. Individuals, neighborhoods, and communities have to do that; government programs and benefits can't do much otherwise and may even have negative outcomes.
Let's don't worry about all that--the place of the individual and the idea of individual responsibility-- and just redistribute more income. Good luck.
Let's don't worry about all that--the place of the individual and the idea of individual responsibility-- and just redistribute more income. Good luck.
13
When a child is being brought up by single mother and sees her working more than full time, struggling to get her children any kind of reasonable childcare, having no hope of getting a college degree because she hasn't the time or the money and there are no outside resources to support her, only able to afford to live in a neighborhood with a high crime rate, and then getting called "lazy" by politicians who have a six-figure investment income and oppose all the programs that might help her out, don't you think that that child would end up feeling that hard work and individual responsibility don't seem to matter one whit? If you wanted to design a system to discourage people from working hard and getting ahead, you couldn't do much better than the miserable conditions that half the country lives in these days. I want to live in a country that supports people in having hope and taking responsibility -- that's why I hate hate it when people say things like "it's all up to the individual." It's code for "I've got mine, I don't care about you."
3
Even the most basic knowledge of human behavior and human motivation would help you understand that people must first satisfy their "security needs" before they can address higher order needs. Food, shelter, clothing, safety and medical care are the only priority. Without those needs being met there can be no efforts made to achieve personal or social development.
Providing for the basic security needs of all our citizens would unleash a torrent of individual and social development.
Providing for the basic security needs of all our citizens would unleash a torrent of individual and social development.
Yes and it is very difficult for people to have orderly households, committed parents and "sound values" in a civilization that moves in the direction of diminishing opportunity and redistributing wealth to those individuals that do not add true material wealth to the civilization.
Sometimes Brooks has to write pieces like these to maintain his bona fides with the 1% moneyed class. Without throwing them a bone every now and then he ceases to be relevant to the conservative infrastructure of wealthy donors, think tanks and media.
The piece doesn't have to make sense. It just has to promote conservative talking points and argue that the 1% have nothing to do with the growing inequality in our society,.
Box checked.
The piece doesn't have to make sense. It just has to promote conservative talking points and argue that the 1% have nothing to do with the growing inequality in our society,.
Box checked.
1
Brooks dismisses the idea of government's redistributing wealth as though it were some fantastic idea like time travel. In fact, economists will tell you it's the main reason we haven't had a depression since the 1930s. Income supports in the form of Social Security, unemployment compensation and welfare boost aggregate demand throughout the economy.
In Germany, a nation with pre-tax inequality of income much like ours, government does much more. It uses taxes to pay for tuition-free education, a national health care system and a world-class infrastructure that includes sustainable energy sources and state-of-the-art surface transport the US can only dream of.
As a progressive, I'd like to think rich Germans do this from a sense of fairness. More likely they do it because it fuels growth and makes society work better.
In Germany, a nation with pre-tax inequality of income much like ours, government does much more. It uses taxes to pay for tuition-free education, a national health care system and a world-class infrastructure that includes sustainable energy sources and state-of-the-art surface transport the US can only dream of.
As a progressive, I'd like to think rich Germans do this from a sense of fairness. More likely they do it because it fuels growth and makes society work better.
As a retired college professor, I'm a firmly believer in higher education as an investment in "human capital." But, here I depart from Mr. Brooks. First, the cost of college has skyrocketed even in public universities where I taught for my last 20 years. The redistribution of wealth through tax cuts has resulted in states like Michigan and New York where I taught in cutting state support by both Democrat and Republican governors leaving students with the over $1 trillion debt facing them. This is one disastrous consequence of Reagan-Bush income redistribution through tax cuts. Second, post-graduate degrees are essential to get a good job, but again that requires even more debt. My oldest son is now in his third year of a medical residency in a major east coast hospital making only $65,000/year after four years of college, four years on medical school and one year of internship. It will be two more years before he makes any money and can start paying off his $150,000 medical school loans (which is on the low side). Right now I'm helping pay for his child care so his wife can work. So, by all means invest in human capital (aka education), but stop pretending that there are no significant costs in doing so. In Europe higher education is free and has the positive consequence in health care that costs are low. To do that requires a reversal or redistribution of income.
Same difference. The uber wealthy need to contribute more to support education, infrastructure improvement, and increasing access to affordable health care.
1
I would like to read this column with an open mind, yet I know that Mr. Brooks has cherry-picked his data and sources. Government policies redistribute wealth and income in many ways. In general, since in my lifetime Republican policies have ended to redistribute income and wealth from the less well-off to the better-off. (Mr. Brooks should consult with his colleague Tom Edsall, whose book written with Mary Edsall, has data that clearly show Republican federal tax policies shifting income toward the top in the 1980s, at the same time deindustrialization was promoting the same shift.) As a Democrat and a retired educator I want policies promoting human capital development (and applaud the call to make junior college free of tuition charges, as does Obama) but I also know that the tax system is rigged against those Americans at the bottom rungs. Making the tax system more progressive will help Americans to choose to improve their skills.
3
What should we make of all this? Do we reason based on partisan assertions of either stripe (we do, actually)? How good are the numbers pitched concerning the value of a single good teacher or escalating to "college level skills"? Would it be possible that some of these things might make competition even worse? Can one rely on theoretical calculations or data derived from apparently successful but narrow experiments in individual school systems? Why do we have to take polar views? Why shouldn't we do a little of both? Upper tier individual income taxes are not that high, by historical standards.
As to Autor's work, it has been seriously criticized: http://www.epi.org/publication/wp295-assessing-job-polarization-explanat... . But all conversations are tinged with partisan views and it remains unclear as to what would happen with sudden shifts. As Mr. Brooks says, jobs are growing and upward wage pressures are starting to appear. As we baby-boomers disappear from the work scene, that might well put additional upward pressures on wages.
Mr. Chetty's assertions about the value of a single good teacher have also been seriously criticized: http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/01/chetty-and-friedman-release-education... . Mr. Brooks gives the appearance of jumping to conclusions too quickly, but given the nature of popular partisan economic theories, he is hardly alone.
As to Autor's work, it has been seriously criticized: http://www.epi.org/publication/wp295-assessing-job-polarization-explanat... . But all conversations are tinged with partisan views and it remains unclear as to what would happen with sudden shifts. As Mr. Brooks says, jobs are growing and upward wage pressures are starting to appear. As we baby-boomers disappear from the work scene, that might well put additional upward pressures on wages.
Mr. Chetty's assertions about the value of a single good teacher have also been seriously criticized: http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/01/chetty-and-friedman-release-education... . Mr. Brooks gives the appearance of jumping to conclusions too quickly, but given the nature of popular partisan economic theories, he is hardly alone.
What was the bailout of 2008 of the 1% by the 99%? Redistribution.
What are tax subsidies to the oil companies? Redistribution.
What is the special tax rate for hedge fund owners? Redistribution.
What is the non-profit status for the NFL? Redistribution.
What are the bonds used to build stadiums for billionaires? Redistribution.
What is the tax deduction for the 1% for their pet cause? Redistribution.
I could go on, David. Republicans have redistributed to the 1% since the time of Reagan. The 1% even got 95% of the recovery made since 2008, after THEY CAUSED the financial meltdown. Elizabeth Warren is the one politician who has been pointing this out for years now. Clinton, Rand Paul and the rest are just paying lip service to what is obvious to everyone but you.
What are tax subsidies to the oil companies? Redistribution.
What is the special tax rate for hedge fund owners? Redistribution.
What is the non-profit status for the NFL? Redistribution.
What are the bonds used to build stadiums for billionaires? Redistribution.
What is the tax deduction for the 1% for their pet cause? Redistribution.
I could go on, David. Republicans have redistributed to the 1% since the time of Reagan. The 1% even got 95% of the recovery made since 2008, after THEY CAUSED the financial meltdown. Elizabeth Warren is the one politician who has been pointing this out for years now. Clinton, Rand Paul and the rest are just paying lip service to what is obvious to everyone but you.
6
Increasing incentives to take risk is t[w]hat today's and yesterday's economy needs has always been a government expenditure. Why? It creates the conditions for the access and the potential [emphasis on potential] for a "median college-educated worker" to "make half-a-million dollars more than a high-school-educated worker over... ."
I agree with Larry Summers that the private sector does not have the capability to take the risk needed for big projects (long-term). Entrepreneurs utilizing technologies does not generally create jobs to employ the number of unemployed that do have the skills for today's retooling economy.
I agree with Larry Summers that the private sector does not have the capability to take the risk needed for big projects (long-term). Entrepreneurs utilizing technologies does not generally create jobs to employ the number of unemployed that do have the skills for today's retooling economy.
Of course education is critical; no one is saying otherwise. But it is not up to the task of slowing the systemic, self-reinforcing, unproductive stockpiling of assets at the very the top. This stockpiling is dangerous; it is destroying institutions democratic societies need to function. The few statistics you parse are unpersuasive. Worker productivity has dramatically increased, with bulk of it harvested by the .01%. You overlook the massive debt burden students assume to attain degrees at interest rates that by today's standards are exorbitant. Why is education not treated like the investment you state it is by the tax code? Why is only $2,500 of the interest tax deductible when money shufflers, race horse owners, oil conglomerates, luxury real estate owners, and similar speculators get better tax treatment? Power bought with money and legitimated by shoddy scholarships, that is why. Perhaps the saddest example of how the weight of student debt is harming the economy is by inhibiting household formation. But it has long been obvious family values are subordinate to money, has it not? Predatory, for-profit, "educational" institutions have been allowed to flourish and steal with impunity from the vulnerable striving for a better life. My daughter cried tears of joy because she has money left over this month, yet plutocrats are attacking her health insurance subsidy. Even the military is for sale; why else Netanyahu's nauseating treatment by Congress?
9
Every treatment of this I have seen shows that productivity and income gains tracked each other, more or less, until sometime in the 1970's or 1980's. Then it broke off and now productivity rises do not result in income gains for those producing, but rather for those NOT producing (shareholders and investors). That is the crux of the problem.
9
The mid-80s is when the long slow steady decline in entrepreneurial activity began. Ask the would-be entrepreneurs why they decided to remain employees. You'll find that for many it's related to three things: taxes taking too much, burdensome regulations, and lack of access to capital.
1
I like how Brooks moves from the college level to the POST college level to show how well human capital progessivism is working.
It has ALWAYS been true that the college educated make more than the non college educated. The fact is the college educated of today are doing more poorly than the college educated of past generations.
Maybe Brooks needs to speak to the elected officials in red states who are cutting state education budgets to finance state tax cuts for the rich and special interests.
Then he can come back and write another column about conservative redistributionists.
It has ALWAYS been true that the college educated make more than the non college educated. The fact is the college educated of today are doing more poorly than the college educated of past generations.
Maybe Brooks needs to speak to the elected officials in red states who are cutting state education budgets to finance state tax cuts for the rich and special interests.
Then he can come back and write another column about conservative redistributionists.
5
Has it ever occurred to you that the quality of high school and college education has significantly declined?
1
I'm sure you've read James Fallows blog re our Department of Energy investment potential for job creation initiatives with China. This is the future.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/03/could-this-vide...
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/03/could-this-vide...
As you note, it's not "either/or" but rather emphasis. What you are avoiding is the increasing political power of the top 0.01%, especially since the SCOTUS Citizens United decision and the failure to force disclosure of the sources of political funding. Why is a pipeline the "top priority" of the GoP in Congress? Why are we faced with the high likelihood that voters in the general election will only be allowed to choose between Bush vs Clinton? What is the likelihood that a candidate who can't attract huge sums in the run-up to the primaries will survive? What do those donors expect from their generosity? More pipelines?
3
It's true that combative and divisive is not going to work as a campaign stratedgy, but a little of it can go a long way. After all, the competition for power is by it's very definition is a mix of offense and defense -- it's a given in the world of sport. And politics is a sport.
A politician needs the physical and mental energy to compete in the long run -- no pooping out. You need to eat your breakfast in peace, and eat your opponents lunch with vigor. Your evening meal is up for grabs.
Sometimes you eat your sandwich with one hand and fight off the rats with the other. I believe it was Eric Hoffer who said that years ago about the dock workers in New York City.
Hillary reminds me of Maggie Thatcher, Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi, Catherine the Great -- a strong woman, and a strong leader who does have a certain charm about her that attracts attention as one of compasssion for others.
Compassion does not mean pity. She does not pity the hard worker; she appreciated her and him. Why? she is a hard worker.
A politician needs the physical and mental energy to compete in the long run -- no pooping out. You need to eat your breakfast in peace, and eat your opponents lunch with vigor. Your evening meal is up for grabs.
Sometimes you eat your sandwich with one hand and fight off the rats with the other. I believe it was Eric Hoffer who said that years ago about the dock workers in New York City.
Hillary reminds me of Maggie Thatcher, Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi, Catherine the Great -- a strong woman, and a strong leader who does have a certain charm about her that attracts attention as one of compasssion for others.
Compassion does not mean pity. She does not pity the hard worker; she appreciated her and him. Why? she is a hard worker.
19
If I understand you, Mr. Brooks, youre defending the very defenses we've had to listen to for the past decade, the fault lies not in our stars (eg, titans of industry) but in us workers. We don't know enough, produce enough, and these days consume enough, to satisfy the needs of CEOs to keep the capitalisic party going.
Hogwash. The problem with business (and the 1%) today is their protectect status, the fact that new revenue streams for beleagured state and local governments come from cutting services not asking business to suffer the pain. Thr right's insistence on no new taxes on the rich have only one effect: a worsening of economic opportunityand services for the middle and lower classes. And that doesnt even take into account globalization, offshoring, tax loopholes and fancy ways like inversion to avoid taxation.
So yes, capitalism is broken. Distribution of income which for years has been trickle up, needs to be shared. In a nutshell, the rich simply don't play by the same rules or pay their fair share.
So I don't know what hillary will do--assuming she survives emailgate which is far from clear. But the democratic agenda needs to fight hard to get capitalism back to where it was in the 50e and 60s when the gap between CEO pay and worker pay was reasonable, noy obscene.
Hogwash. The problem with business (and the 1%) today is their protectect status, the fact that new revenue streams for beleagured state and local governments come from cutting services not asking business to suffer the pain. Thr right's insistence on no new taxes on the rich have only one effect: a worsening of economic opportunityand services for the middle and lower classes. And that doesnt even take into account globalization, offshoring, tax loopholes and fancy ways like inversion to avoid taxation.
So yes, capitalism is broken. Distribution of income which for years has been trickle up, needs to be shared. In a nutshell, the rich simply don't play by the same rules or pay their fair share.
So I don't know what hillary will do--assuming she survives emailgate which is far from clear. But the democratic agenda needs to fight hard to get capitalism back to where it was in the 50e and 60s when the gap between CEO pay and worker pay was reasonable, noy obscene.
21
Individuals are less concerned with long range trends than what is happening to them in the here and now. You have to meet the conditions you confront on a daily basis.
2
Increasing incentives to take risk is that today's and yesterday's economy needs has always been a government expenditure. Why? It creates the conditions for the access and the potential [emphasis on potential] for a "median college-educated worker" to "make half-a-million dollars more than a high-school-educated worker over... ."
I agree with Larry Summers that the private sector does not have the capability to take the risk needed for big projects (long-term). Entrepreneurs utilizing technologies does not generally create jobs to employ the number of unemployed that do have the skills for today's retooling economy.
I agree with Larry Summers that the private sector does not have the capability to take the risk needed for big projects (long-term). Entrepreneurs utilizing technologies does not generally create jobs to employ the number of unemployed that do have the skills for today's retooling economy.
As usual, Mr. Brooks trots out a number of "data points" as though they represent clear causal relationships. A really good teacher for ". . . only one year raises a child's cumulative lifetime income by $80,000." And that, folks, proves that redistribution of wealth is a flawed idea. The claim, wherever he dragged ti from, is meaningless. What teacher? Where? What does "really good" mean? I might add that current educational reform policies are making teaching so unpleasant that we soon will have only Teach for America grads filling in for a year or two before they get a job at a hedge fund.
I love how Brooks et al talk about how "getting more skills is the single best thing you can do to improve your wages." What skills? What are these well-paying jobs just awaiting the undefined "skills" that our poor neighbors lack?
Citing higher wages for those who have four year college degrees is similarly empty. It is not the four year degree that leads to higher wages. It is a deeply entrenched system of privilege, mostly white privilege, that results in both things: Those with relative privilege receive both the credentials and the income to which they believe they are entitled. There is no cause and effect.
I love how Brooks et al talk about how "getting more skills is the single best thing you can do to improve your wages." What skills? What are these well-paying jobs just awaiting the undefined "skills" that our poor neighbors lack?
Citing higher wages for those who have four year college degrees is similarly empty. It is not the four year degree that leads to higher wages. It is a deeply entrenched system of privilege, mostly white privilege, that results in both things: Those with relative privilege receive both the credentials and the income to which they believe they are entitled. There is no cause and effect.
12
HC will pursue whatever agenda it takes to get elected notwithstanding any core philosophy which may or may not exist. Beyond that we would experience politics in the worst sense of the word and partisanship that makes the current state of nothingness look like the enlightenment. If H actually cared about the country she would place her machine at the disposal of Ms. Warren.
1
Why is it that inflation-adjusted pay for college graduates being flat is a bad thing? Assuming a college education has a certain intrinsic value, then unless that education is somehow better now you'd expect exactly that. Add with the proliferation of garbage degrees like black and feminist studies that few employers are likely to value, it's surprising that the average has held up.
1
David - I have spent the last 40 years selling to distributors who sell to end-users. Here is what I have witnessed -
Capitalism has done its job. Reduced gross profit has prompted consolidation. Consolidation has led to higher productivity...fewer people doing more work. The reduced competition has led to greater profits...more net dollars. These "more net dollars" have not gone to new plants or R&D but to executive pay and Wall Street which uses them to further consolidate. These displaced workers have gone into "survival mode." When in "survival mode" survival is the primary consumer of your time not education. A new culture is created. There is plenty of money around to invest but insufficient demand to justify it being put to work. So, it is used to consolidate and speculate. Its a case of the snake eating its tail! It is ubiquitous. This is what I have witnessed.
Capitalism has done its job. Reduced gross profit has prompted consolidation. Consolidation has led to higher productivity...fewer people doing more work. The reduced competition has led to greater profits...more net dollars. These "more net dollars" have not gone to new plants or R&D but to executive pay and Wall Street which uses them to further consolidate. These displaced workers have gone into "survival mode." When in "survival mode" survival is the primary consumer of your time not education. A new culture is created. There is plenty of money around to invest but insufficient demand to justify it being put to work. So, it is used to consolidate and speculate. Its a case of the snake eating its tail! It is ubiquitous. This is what I have witnessed.
12
Thanks, Mr. B., for admitting that our community colleges should be better. I have the impression that we, like northern Europe, intends to create (or pay for a continuation of) a skilled class of employees. If such a notion/system allows anyone to "do what you love", then amen. However, the craft of teaching (Grades 13 and above) is essential. Also, the status of such instructors is also the point. In other harsh words: dump the deadwood who don't have an ability to teach.
In this New Gilded Age, major changes are necessary, right?
In this New Gilded Age, major changes are necessary, right?
1
Education is valuable and will generally increase one's income. But much of 'the skills gap' is corporate / establishment propaganda to justify increasing levels of high tech visas. In fact the job market for new scientists is terrible, with most stuck in low paying postdoc positions for many years.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/the-phd-bust-america...
In industry, by age 40 engineers are typically fired and replaced by younger, cheaper foreign workers.
Companies like Microsoft demand more visas while laying off huge numbers of people - more than show up in news reports because many independent contractors are being cut also.
http://venturebeat.com/2015/01/20/disposable-employees-may-be-tech-indus...
'Looking broadly at tech, layoff announcements from that sector increased almost 80 percent last year.
That was seriously bucking a trend during a year in which layoff announcements across all industries in the U.S. fell...
These companies are making a choice. They’re deciding that it’s faster and cheaper to chuck people overboard and find new ones than it is to retrain them...
HP’s layoff count has climbed over 120,000 since 2002. It’s an amazing number for a company that remains profitable.
And how’s all that cutting working out? I don’t think anyone would argue HP is anything but still adrift.'
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/the-phd-bust-america...
In industry, by age 40 engineers are typically fired and replaced by younger, cheaper foreign workers.
Companies like Microsoft demand more visas while laying off huge numbers of people - more than show up in news reports because many independent contractors are being cut also.
http://venturebeat.com/2015/01/20/disposable-employees-may-be-tech-indus...
'Looking broadly at tech, layoff announcements from that sector increased almost 80 percent last year.
That was seriously bucking a trend during a year in which layoff announcements across all industries in the U.S. fell...
These companies are making a choice. They’re deciding that it’s faster and cheaper to chuck people overboard and find new ones than it is to retrain them...
HP’s layoff count has climbed over 120,000 since 2002. It’s an amazing number for a company that remains profitable.
And how’s all that cutting working out? I don’t think anyone would argue HP is anything but still adrift.'
3
I think the GOP leaders in Congress would just as soon have Hillary as one of the GOP candidates. They know her and know that she is just like them. Electing a GOP Rino would be worse than electing Hillary.
Mr. Brooks should consider supply and demand before settling on his conclusions. Without wage growth, consumers will not provide the demand that a more productive work force can truly take advantage of to create growth. In the meantime, corporation do whatever they can to maximize profits by keeping wages low. It's a vicious circle, but it benefits those at the top. The key is not (in his rather silly example) "redistributing" wealth, but rather, raising minimum wages, and supporting collective bargaining so that workers get both a fair shake, and the ability to spend more to benefit the economy as a whole.
By keeping wages low, the prices of finished goods are kept low, and those low wages go farther. Increase wages, the prices of finished goods go up, and the higher wages don't go as far. So a low-wage environment should see increased employment and consumption related to services or high-labor goods, and the opposite for a high-wage environment. They're different, but hard to see that either alternative is objectively preferable for the country.
I usually find Mr. Brooks's arguments sensitive and compelling, but here he stumps me. What does he think should be done about those occupying the much-needed lower third of the income scale? The people who clean his house, turn his dying parent in bed, pick his grapefruit, clear the snow from the sidewalk of his apartment house? We can educate people until the cows come home--that's what on-line, for-profit institutions are for: do issue "degrees" for "better jobs"; we will still need babysitters and stone cutters. Should they not have a decent income? More importantly, should they not have an equal voice in the future--a voice that has become increasingly stifled by the concentration of wealth in a smaller and smaller proportion of people who call the shots?
207
Brooks is clueless with this argument. First of all why can't we focus on both education and redistribution? It's not strictly a matter of either or. Secondly where is the proof that the American worker is not highly productive? Brooks just throws that out as an assumption. And when the top 1% is referenced, is not the real issue that it is actually a smaller percentage that has accumulated all the wealth? A much smaller percentage? Seems like he is cherry picking the statistics.
There are many reasons why our form of modern capitalism is stuck in a low growth phase, e.g., due to computerization, outsourcing work to slave labor counties and the decline of unions. Brooks conveniently ignores them all.
It's easy for Brooks to talk about redistribution as if this is a drastic change being proposed. It would actually be a return to what has historically been the norm in this country when the middle class thrived. That is until Ronald Reagan (and later George Bush) started his debt fueled revolution to lower taxes on the wealthy. This worked until federal debt levels reached a point where it brought down the world economy.
There are many reasons why our form of modern capitalism is stuck in a low growth phase, e.g., due to computerization, outsourcing work to slave labor counties and the decline of unions. Brooks conveniently ignores them all.
It's easy for Brooks to talk about redistribution as if this is a drastic change being proposed. It would actually be a return to what has historically been the norm in this country when the middle class thrived. That is until Ronald Reagan (and later George Bush) started his debt fueled revolution to lower taxes on the wealthy. This worked until federal debt levels reached a point where it brought down the world economy.
I agree - we have hired a person to plow our road. He is doing a wonderful job, the price he gave us for the job was too low, we upped it and he said nobody has ever done that. That is one way we can make things more equal, pay your lower third of the income scale people more for a job well done. That is done by us not the government.
1
I'm a conservative when it comes to tax policy. We had a pretty good system in the 50's a 60's when the rich paid their fair share, college was free for millions, and wages kept pace with worker productivity.
Since the mid-70's, this has flipped. People located in strategic positions in finance and business - many of which are inherited aristocracies in practice - are taking a larger and larger share of the economic pie. This isn't the "free hand of the market" - it's people using their wealth, power and influence to gain more wealth, power and influence - often using politicians at their behest. Wages for the average worker stagnate despite increased productivity.
Why not just go back to the old system? Bump up taxes for those who have gained way too much money by rigging the system, and put it to use rebuilding infrastructure and funding education. This isn't a radical proposition.
I never understand people who have more sympathy for the super rich than hard-working people struggling to get by.
Since the mid-70's, this has flipped. People located in strategic positions in finance and business - many of which are inherited aristocracies in practice - are taking a larger and larger share of the economic pie. This isn't the "free hand of the market" - it's people using their wealth, power and influence to gain more wealth, power and influence - often using politicians at their behest. Wages for the average worker stagnate despite increased productivity.
Why not just go back to the old system? Bump up taxes for those who have gained way too much money by rigging the system, and put it to use rebuilding infrastructure and funding education. This isn't a radical proposition.
I never understand people who have more sympathy for the super rich than hard-working people struggling to get by.
7
Why make it a rich vs. poor battle at all? Why not go after all that corporate off-shore money and use it for Americans workers? There is over $2 trillion sitting waiting to be repatriated.
Instead of taxing it and giving it all to unions for infrastructure projects, dramatically reduce taxes on it with strict conditions that companies hire and retrain American workers while paying them decent wages.
At least then it will be the right people figuring out how to best utilize workers and not the government with useless training programs and less than effective tax incentives.
How better to target tax incentives exactly where they are needed?
Instead of taxing it and giving it all to unions for infrastructure projects, dramatically reduce taxes on it with strict conditions that companies hire and retrain American workers while paying them decent wages.
At least then it will be the right people figuring out how to best utilize workers and not the government with useless training programs and less than effective tax incentives.
How better to target tax incentives exactly where they are needed?
2
Your first sentence and the rest of your common sense post are at complete odds with each other in today's political landscape. I am one of you, but no longer consider myself a conservative.
The effective tax on it now is about 10%. How low do you want to go? With only 7% of the private work force unionized, it would take a long time for them to featherbed that 2 trillion, eh?
If tax incentives are less than effective, then why are Republicans all over them this election cycle with their deep and abiding concern for the middle class?
If tax incentives are less than effective, then why are Republicans all over them this election cycle with their deep and abiding concern for the middle class?
"It is true that wages for college grads have been flat this century, and that is troubling. But this is not true of people with post-college degrees, who are doing nicely."
Finally Mr. Brooks offers a remedy to all of us who have been living on crumbs and wish for a larger slice of the pie -- get a post-college degree! This would be reasonable if education were free, our families were supported while we were going to school and we all had the intellectual capacity to attain that degree.
Get real Mr. Brooks.
Finally Mr. Brooks offers a remedy to all of us who have been living on crumbs and wish for a larger slice of the pie -- get a post-college degree! This would be reasonable if education were free, our families were supported while we were going to school and we all had the intellectual capacity to attain that degree.
Get real Mr. Brooks.
7
Of course he doesn't explain how that is going to help when everyone has one of those degrees - the minimart worker, the trash hauler, the big box cashier. The great Republican tactic. Find someone who has made it and then say everyone can do it. Not explaining how that bit of illogic would look in real life.
1
What he doesn't examine is what it will be like when everyone has one of those degrees - the minimart worker, the trash hauler, the big box checkout person.
Typical Republican solution. Find someone who made it, state that anyone can do it, problem solved. All without explaining how or what it would like in real life.
Typical Republican solution. Find someone who made it, state that anyone can do it, problem solved. All without explaining how or what it would like in real life.
It doesn't seem likely Hillary or any other candidate is going to attract a winning vote by slamming people like her husband and herself who make "too much" money. Americans have historically been optimistic, believing that they too could reach higher income levels -- or maybe win the lottery. And whether we look at the income growth models of Communist states (China, Russia), Socialist states (France) or welfare states (UK, Germany), we see people at the top taking bigger and bigger shares of national wealth -- in the case of China and Russia, often facilitated by corrupt practices made possible by the concentration of political power in the hands of one political party or leader. Education leads to better jobs and higher incomes as long as students are being properly guided to and trained in areas of the economy where they'll have the best opportunity to succeed.
4
There is a problem with the theory that we just need to make sure we "train" people in college to get the skills they need for the jobs the economy will create. I am 66 years old. During my lifetime those jobs included teaching, health care (for women especially nursing although no longer a "women's" job) computer science and heaven only knows what else. I saw hospitals fire as many as 1500 nurses at a clip. Jobs for the 2015 economy are not necessarily the jobs that will be around for the 2025 economy.
Further, Mr. Brooks still has his head in the sand. We live in an economy where government engages in redistribution constantly. It is redistribution to the top .01 percent. The rest of us can whistle period for all the good it will do us.
And, Hillary Clinton, Wall Street's favorite Democrat, will never convince any of us who are populists that she is one. So she might as well stick with her finance sector friends. That way, conservatives like Mr. Brooks will continue to tolerate her and promote her as the least objectionable Democrat. She is the most objectionable Democrat to me and many others.
Further, Mr. Brooks still has his head in the sand. We live in an economy where government engages in redistribution constantly. It is redistribution to the top .01 percent. The rest of us can whistle period for all the good it will do us.
And, Hillary Clinton, Wall Street's favorite Democrat, will never convince any of us who are populists that she is one. So she might as well stick with her finance sector friends. That way, conservatives like Mr. Brooks will continue to tolerate her and promote her as the least objectionable Democrat. She is the most objectionable Democrat to me and many others.
So, everyone in the USA needs to obtain a Ph.D. and then we'll all be doing fine. Problem solved!!
16
“The core problem,” according to Summers, is that "there aren’t enough jobs, and if you help some people, you can help them get the jobs, but then someone else won’t get the jobs. And unless you’re doing things that are affecting the demand for jobs, you’re helping people win a race to get a finite number of jobs, and there are only so many of them." --Thomas Edsall, NYT, March 4
6
Now that you've declared college a must have, how do you propose to make it affordable? Putting millions of young people in debt as they start out on life is obscene. We're a rich country. We choose unwisely. Take some from the military. Close a few bases around the world and then we can help our young people - and older people who need to re-train, get new 'skills' as you say we all must have. But putting people into a modern debtor's prison is wrong. College must become affordable again.
I am 63, went to Ohio State and worked part time jobs to pay for it (with a little help from my parents a couple of quarters). I lived at home and I could afford my classes and books. What the heck happened to this country? We just got unbelievably greedy, I think. If our great, exceptional Empire is going to bounce back from so many mistakes (thank you Mr. Bush) we have to find a way to make college affordable.
I am 63, went to Ohio State and worked part time jobs to pay for it (with a little help from my parents a couple of quarters). I lived at home and I could afford my classes and books. What the heck happened to this country? We just got unbelievably greedy, I think. If our great, exceptional Empire is going to bounce back from so many mistakes (thank you Mr. Bush) we have to find a way to make college affordable.
6
I did the same and my tuition at a state funded school was affordable. Not the case now. Even state colleges are expensive. My rent while in college was $80 per month. my tuition rate was $6.00 per hour. Anyone could afford college if those costs still existed.
2
What does "affordable" mean? Affordable for whom? What is the equation? Who decides that? Who gets what breaks for being what? How does it work?
I certainly don't know.
But I do know that if the government gets involved, as it did after I went to college, then the price goes up. What is odd is that the price of a college education did NOT go up when the bulk of baby boomers were students. It started going up when their children - many less than the boomers at that time - started school. Go figure out the demographics of that one.
I certainly don't know.
But I do know that if the government gets involved, as it did after I went to college, then the price goes up. What is odd is that the price of a college education did NOT go up when the bulk of baby boomers were students. It started going up when their children - many less than the boomers at that time - started school. Go figure out the demographics of that one.
1
Again, how do you do that? Stop whining, and it's getting really late to blame Bush or Clinton (thank you NAFTA and Glass-Steagall, among many other things). This is now. So offer a solution to how "we" need to do anything, not your own sob story. Please.
1
I think Mr. Brooks is whistling past something fundamental in his argument. Redistribution is the wrong term and therefore the wrong argument. He should be addressing NOT REDISTRIBUTION but FAIRNESS IN COMPENSATION.
16
I suspect you'll have a hard time finding someone to argue that compensation should be UNFAIR. But a much easier time finding someone who has a different idea of what "fair" looks like.
And what's a minimum wage or "fair compensation" rule if not a redistribution from those who would otherwise pay a lower wage, to those who would otherwise accept a lower wage?
And what's a minimum wage or "fair compensation" rule if not a redistribution from those who would otherwise pay a lower wage, to those who would otherwise accept a lower wage?
So an egg flipper at the local deli get as much as your brain surgeon?????
If answer No then the debate is what "fairness" means......I remember my little children telling this concerned dad "That's not fair."/......maybe I should have listened to them and let them grow up to be a bunch of punks.
Your quote is merely Motherhood and Apple Pie but without substance.
If answer No then the debate is what "fairness" means......I remember my little children telling this concerned dad "That's not fair."/......maybe I should have listened to them and let them grow up to be a bunch of punks.
Your quote is merely Motherhood and Apple Pie but without substance.
1
And just how would "fairness" be managed? How do you do that? Redistribution can be measured if you agree to the criteria. There must be criteria other than your "feelings". So how do you that?
1
Tax wealth as the income that it really is. Eliminate carried interest. Eliminate a distinction between capital gains and income. Such a distinction is false.
And tell me, David, are you suggesting that everyone must now have a graduate or professional degree? Really? Few actually qualify or can afford such an education and even if, then what?
And tell me, David, are you suggesting that everyone must now have a graduate or professional degree? Really? Few actually qualify or can afford such an education and even if, then what?
5
When someone steals money and the police take it back do you call that redistribution? When CEO's pay themselves 300 times the average employee salary and give themselves huge bonuses even when their performance is mediocre and the company is paying gigantic fines to the government for illegal business practices is that free market capitalism? When financial sector profits have nearly tripled as a share of the economy as a whole is that reflective of productivity? Casting the argument in terms of redistribution is an attempt to get back to the pathetic fallacy that any attempt to regulate the market is tantamount to communism. It's not that the obscenely rich are undertaxed, they are overpaid.
11
Redistributionist? It is now redistribution it's to return to the form of democracy and capitalism we had through the previous century? This thinly veiled attempt to resurrect fears of communism reminds me of the 70s.
Speaking of the 70s, I don't know how old Mr Brooks is, but I am old enough to remember what democratic capitalism looked like before the excesses of Bush/Reagan/Citizens United.
A little history lesson. Under Nixon the highest income tax rate was 77%, highest capital gains rate 36.5%. Corporate contributions to candidates were illegal. When Nixon was caught soliciting and accepting such contributions they were rightly seen as bribes and he was ushered out of office.
In America's heyday there was an understanding that a first rate country needed first rate roads and schools, that a solid middle class was the best protection against civil unrest and that corporations were not people. Patriotism, in the form of supporting your government through taxes, was not considered soft headed. "Ask not what your country can do for you. . ." Was stirring, not laughable.
The current state of affairs is not conservative, it is a radical experiment gone wrong. Labeling a desire to return to the norm is not redistributionist, it's sanity. Returning to the tax and governance system that we had under DDE and RMN, not to mention JFK and LBJ, can hardly be labeled a radical redistributionist goal.
Speaking of the 70s, I don't know how old Mr Brooks is, but I am old enough to remember what democratic capitalism looked like before the excesses of Bush/Reagan/Citizens United.
A little history lesson. Under Nixon the highest income tax rate was 77%, highest capital gains rate 36.5%. Corporate contributions to candidates were illegal. When Nixon was caught soliciting and accepting such contributions they were rightly seen as bribes and he was ushered out of office.
In America's heyday there was an understanding that a first rate country needed first rate roads and schools, that a solid middle class was the best protection against civil unrest and that corporations were not people. Patriotism, in the form of supporting your government through taxes, was not considered soft headed. "Ask not what your country can do for you. . ." Was stirring, not laughable.
The current state of affairs is not conservative, it is a radical experiment gone wrong. Labeling a desire to return to the norm is not redistributionist, it's sanity. Returning to the tax and governance system that we had under DDE and RMN, not to mention JFK and LBJ, can hardly be labeled a radical redistributionist goal.
18
If voters respond to unifying messages not combative and divisive - how did the Republicans take control of the Senate and add to their divisive margin in the House?
56
Mid-term voters are "rational"* voters according to Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight*. They vote for the party they view will best handle the issue that is most important to them.
Democrats have a harder time getting their "rational" voters to vote every time.
*****
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/voters-are-rational-in-midterm-electi...
Democrats have a harder time getting their "rational" voters to vote every time.
*****
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/voters-are-rational-in-midterm-electi...
2
Gerrymandering - pure and simple. The GOP took control with a small minority of votes and a majority of Dem voters sat on its hands.
Because the Democrats have no answer other than class warfare and stealing from the rich to hand out to their base.
1
Mr. Brooks, it's not just the "temporary evidence from the recession", it's also the fact that we have been stuck in an equally disastrous recovery.
2
So Mr. Brooks explain to me why the economy is getting better but workers wages remain stagnant?
Yes, going from MINUS 9% GDP to plus 3% is awful, as is going from minus 700K jobs per month to plus 300K jobs per month.
Just AWFUL!
Just AWFUL!
1
Ah, "redistribution." Mr. Brooks and his Republican colleagues like to use this word instead of "tax the rich." That's really what it comes down to. If people really voted their economic interest, there are a lot more 90 percent-ers than 10 percent-ers. And, yes, the rich really would be forced to pay their fair share.
Mr. Brooks belittles the notion of a $7,000 per year increase in income for the 99 percent. Our son, like many Americans, makes $37,000 as a graphic artist -- much less than the median annual income of $51,000. That $7,000 per year would be a much larger boost to his financial situation than even $7M to a billionaire.
Get it right, Middle America. You're being fleeced.
Mr. Brooks belittles the notion of a $7,000 per year increase in income for the 99 percent. Our son, like many Americans, makes $37,000 as a graphic artist -- much less than the median annual income of $51,000. That $7,000 per year would be a much larger boost to his financial situation than even $7M to a billionaire.
Get it right, Middle America. You're being fleeced.
24
Please ask Warren Buffet and the CEO of Aetna what they think of this--they are the only two members of the 1% who seem to care about inequality and do something about it...ask them if its redistribution or human capital...I'd bet they'd say "Both in equal measures."
2
Another Brooks straw man. For heaven's sake. We have rich people, but they do no work. The Fed prints money, the public gets the tab and corp execs use it for stock buybacks and acquisitions they then dismantle. We need "redistribution", much higher taxes on accumulated estates and single payer health care. What we have now is socialism for the rich and capitalism for the rest of us.
4
We have had 35 years of redistribution to the rich so that the 1% pay a lower percent of their income than the median earner and the 0.1% less than that.
We need a progressive tax system again, when in 1950-1980 the top CEOs were rich making 60 time the average worker's salary and now they are stealing 250 times the average employee's income in spite of increased labor productivity. Billionaires cannot by more happiness than millionaires nor does transmitting too much wealth help their spoiled children. Executives and bankers are not increasing their productivity as much as professionals, scientists, and programmers, who get paid a small fraction.
Paying all workers more fairly will increase demand and therefore will grow the economy more.
We need a progressive tax system again, when in 1950-1980 the top CEOs were rich making 60 time the average worker's salary and now they are stealing 250 times the average employee's income in spite of increased labor productivity. Billionaires cannot by more happiness than millionaires nor does transmitting too much wealth help their spoiled children. Executives and bankers are not increasing their productivity as much as professionals, scientists, and programmers, who get paid a small fraction.
Paying all workers more fairly will increase demand and therefore will grow the economy more.
2
Why don't those "underpaid workers" start their own business? It has never been easier and required less capital than today to start a business.
1
This column is fundamentally dishonest. Productivity has risen dramatically, for decades, without increased wages. Mr. Brooks scares his rich readers with the assertion that liberal politicians want to just hand out their money, without ever acknowledging that we earned it a long time back.
7
'... having a really good teacher for only one year raises a child’s cumulative lifetime income by $80,000.'
And most really good teachers are the most experienced, hence expensive, teachers. Therefore, their jobs are on the chopping block of fiscal austerity.
And of course, the theoretical gains of $28k/year for a college education for all Americans will lead to a 100 million new, highly paid jobs utilizing those skills. Dream on.
And as an earlier commenter pointed out, who then will perform all the unskilled work necessary for the functioning of everyone's daily lives? Why, the much-despised immigrants (who, as well as doing this menial labor as they make their way into our society, are keeping social security afloat).
And most really good teachers are the most experienced, hence expensive, teachers. Therefore, their jobs are on the chopping block of fiscal austerity.
And of course, the theoretical gains of $28k/year for a college education for all Americans will lead to a 100 million new, highly paid jobs utilizing those skills. Dream on.
And as an earlier commenter pointed out, who then will perform all the unskilled work necessary for the functioning of everyone's daily lives? Why, the much-despised immigrants (who, as well as doing this menial labor as they make their way into our society, are keeping social security afloat).
3
The argument Brooks makes here is that precisely society is progressing in a meritocratic manner (those with education, natural ability find their way to success) and that this meritocratic progression is more closely associated with the right wing rather than left and that the left can most closely align with this meritocratic progression by "human capital progressivism" than "redistributionist progressivism".
Unfortunately this is nonsense. I know this because I stand for meritocracy and I do not sugarcoat meritocracy, what I believe the best political course. Even the best political course, meritocracy, is a disaster because it means using best of knowledge (scientific primarily) to separate human wheat from chaff, which of course means separation of say, top 30% as intellectual elite of society. Which means bottom 40% of little intellect and very common ability are literally born to bottom of human society.
America dares not state meritocracy. Perhaps "human capital progressivism" aims in general direction and is associated more with center left than hard left but the right wing has little to do with meritocracy or "human capital progressivism" unless we believe the Bushes are outstandingly talented above all other people at politics and Christianity and more Christianity is an important skill set in a modern economy. In America rather we have this group (interest) pummeling that and little meritocracy to be found. Bad political situation.
Unfortunately this is nonsense. I know this because I stand for meritocracy and I do not sugarcoat meritocracy, what I believe the best political course. Even the best political course, meritocracy, is a disaster because it means using best of knowledge (scientific primarily) to separate human wheat from chaff, which of course means separation of say, top 30% as intellectual elite of society. Which means bottom 40% of little intellect and very common ability are literally born to bottom of human society.
America dares not state meritocracy. Perhaps "human capital progressivism" aims in general direction and is associated more with center left than hard left but the right wing has little to do with meritocracy or "human capital progressivism" unless we believe the Bushes are outstandingly talented above all other people at politics and Christianity and more Christianity is an important skill set in a modern economy. In America rather we have this group (interest) pummeling that and little meritocracy to be found. Bad political situation.
Why has everyone allowed the oligarchs to frame the debate as "redistribution?" That makes it sound like the oligarchs have an inherent right to all the wealth, and that whatever the little people earn is subtracted from their pot of gold. We should be talking about a more equitable distribution of the wealth that is created by the productivity of all.
14
in 1933 "No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country."
Today jobs that once provided better than living wage plus benefits have largely been outsourced overseas. The owners of those companies advise our president and are lauded for innovation.
Today jobs that once provided better than living wage plus benefits have largely been outsourced overseas. The owners of those companies advise our president and are lauded for innovation.
5
You could have stopped at "The real problem, some of them say, is concentrated political power". All the rest of this is, primarily, a blaming the victim exercise. Our particular form of capitalism at been too successful at concentrating capital into the hands of too few; who now have more incentive to retain it (and attendant political power) than to spread it around; no matter what the skill level of the American people.
Our form of government was ostensibly formed to be "of the people, by the people, for the people." It's time to take it back and to do so we need to change the rules (like in the The New Deal) to strengthen the hand of the people (not capital).
Our form of government was ostensibly formed to be "of the people, by the people, for the people." It's time to take it back and to do so we need to change the rules (like in the The New Deal) to strengthen the hand of the people (not capital).
3
The destruction of the power of money to make money when deposited in banks for the sake of absymally stupid and destabilizing monetary policy remains the biggest economic travesty of modern times.
3
Workforce productivity has been increasing steadily and substantially since the 1970s - hardly temporary - and salaries have been more or less stagnant over that period. Clearly the focus on productivity has not eased inequality and it has redistributed wealth to the richest.
Our 'modern capitalism' is broken because it is not modern. It is a throwback to the ages of the robber barons in which the poor scrabble for jobs that won't support them and the rich get fatter. The Wall Street/Board room mantra of "Eat what you kill" has devolved to cannibalism.
Waiting for the fruits of increased productivity to trickle down to the average worker has not worked. A 'modern capitalism' needs proactive mechanisms to ensure that all can benefit from rising productivity and social and technological progress.. and yes that regulation - there I said it.
Our 'modern capitalism' is broken because it is not modern. It is a throwback to the ages of the robber barons in which the poor scrabble for jobs that won't support them and the rich get fatter. The Wall Street/Board room mantra of "Eat what you kill" has devolved to cannibalism.
Waiting for the fruits of increased productivity to trickle down to the average worker has not worked. A 'modern capitalism' needs proactive mechanisms to ensure that all can benefit from rising productivity and social and technological progress.. and yes that regulation - there I said it.
14
David, there are two economies of necessity. The consumer economy, the one that requires skills of its workers, corresponds to your human capital argument. The other economy is the one that sets up the consumer economy. It's comprised of the government (including the Fed though we could argue they are a separate entity) and the largest financial organizations who are not only 'in the know' but 'in the fold'. No argument from me they are a required cog. My argument is about their abuses and unethical actions that have led to a third 'economy', referred to as the 1%. You can't expect the consumer economy to resolve the problems that have generated poverty and inequality and underscored the argument for redistribution. The cart is broken; the horse is sick.
4
The horse is dead. Its been butchered and the meat has been resold as Filet Mignon by our corporate owners.
Divisive. Mitt's writing off 47% of the population as takers didn't sound inclusive to me.
And your use the word "uplifting" given the modern GOP dog and pony show is incredible.
As my daughter put it; "A bachelors degree qualifies you to be manager at your local McDonalds".
Divisive. Mitt's writing off 47% of the population as takers didn't sound inclusive to me.
And your use the word "uplifting" given the modern GOP dog and pony show is incredible.
As my daughter put it; "A bachelors degree qualifies you to be manager at your local McDonalds".
The problem is this word: redistribution. The correct word is fairness. I wrote IBM systems software for 35 years and designed and coded systems that are still running at major corporations world wide. But my proudest moments on the job came before that.
One Sunday in the late 70's in Florida I threw 24 pallets of sod by myself. You couldn't do that, not when you were young and healthy and strong and even if you were willing and able to work almost non-stop for 11 hours in the hot sun. Unless you'd been doing it for a long time. I was making 25 cents over minimum wage because I was the foreman.
Around the same time period we were re-sodding a retirement home. Just as the truck pulled up with 16 pallets of sod it started pouring rain. We had to unload the sod before we left. I was a wizard with a forklift. I never slowed down approaching the truck, adjusting the forks as I came in and was tilting back before I jammed it into reverse. Dropped them all into a neat 4 x 4 grid on the dirt, again no pause between forward and reverse. There were a bunch of retirees standing in the entryway to the home and when I was done they applauded and cheered. I bowed. I probably earned about 35 cents for that performance.
I barely made enough to survive even working 50+ hours a week and it was still more in real terms than minimum wage is today. There are people who work harder than you can imagine and deserve to be able to support themselves. They can't. It's not fair. It's that simple.
One Sunday in the late 70's in Florida I threw 24 pallets of sod by myself. You couldn't do that, not when you were young and healthy and strong and even if you were willing and able to work almost non-stop for 11 hours in the hot sun. Unless you'd been doing it for a long time. I was making 25 cents over minimum wage because I was the foreman.
Around the same time period we were re-sodding a retirement home. Just as the truck pulled up with 16 pallets of sod it started pouring rain. We had to unload the sod before we left. I was a wizard with a forklift. I never slowed down approaching the truck, adjusting the forks as I came in and was tilting back before I jammed it into reverse. Dropped them all into a neat 4 x 4 grid on the dirt, again no pause between forward and reverse. There were a bunch of retirees standing in the entryway to the home and when I was done they applauded and cheered. I bowed. I probably earned about 35 cents for that performance.
I barely made enough to survive even working 50+ hours a week and it was still more in real terms than minimum wage is today. There are people who work harder than you can imagine and deserve to be able to support themselves. They can't. It's not fair. It's that simple.
20
Ran out of room. I meant to add - I had a B.A. at the time. It didn't help. I don't think a masters would have either. Of course I probably would have had a different job, but then somebody else would have been doing what I was doing.
When I occasionally talked to homeowners while I was doing that work they often (not always) 'talked down' to me. Maybe I should have whipped out my diploma but I was never so inclined. They judged me by the work I was doing. A lot of people still seem to be doing that.
When I occasionally talked to homeowners while I was doing that work they often (not always) 'talked down' to me. Maybe I should have whipped out my diploma but I was never so inclined. They judged me by the work I was doing. A lot of people still seem to be doing that.
Today Hillary's name is click bate and Brooks and Egan got me going. A staunch
Obama supporter, I am looking for an alternative to Hillary. Please!
Obama supporter, I am looking for an alternative to Hillary. Please!
3
They're both wrong. Focusing on education is just getting on a treadmill, because India and China can supply 'credentials' just as well as the US, and they will still underbid you. What corporations want is to get US credentials at India wages. Anyone who's ever tried to deal with 'offshored' services (customer service, tech support come to mind) is aware that there is a trade-off of quality and efficiency, but the corporations no longer care about the customer, much less the worker - only the executives and the stockholders.
Give it up, Mr Brooks. Don't worry about 'redistribution' because pretty soon there will be nothing left to 'redistribute' - the 1% are already readying their Third World retreats, and when America is sucked dry they will simply throw away the husk and leave, because capital now owes no loyalty to anything save itself.
Give it up, Mr Brooks. Don't worry about 'redistribution' because pretty soon there will be nothing left to 'redistribute' - the 1% are already readying their Third World retreats, and when America is sucked dry they will simply throw away the husk and leave, because capital now owes no loyalty to anything save itself.
7
As usual I disagree with much or most of what Brooks has to say. Its about trust,and I don't believe the substance behind his citations, especially in defense of the one percent.
According to him, the the "game" isn't rigged. It most certainly is rigged and has been forever and will continue to be rigged by yes, the oligarchs.
"Focusing on human capital" is certainly appropriate for enhancing the overall population through education, but the game is still rigged and in all sectors be it education, housing, immigration, you name it.
The oligarchs pull the strings and everyone else chases their own tails.
The oligarchs buy the congress and democracy becomes a word meaning " how we pretend to be free while being manipulated by the few."
Clinton may try to appeal to the "progressives" who may Have to "play along" to keep anybody but a republican out of the White House, In the end, thats what the discussion is all about; who will screw the people less, and for the ninety five percent the best bet is typically a Democrat.
According to him, the the "game" isn't rigged. It most certainly is rigged and has been forever and will continue to be rigged by yes, the oligarchs.
"Focusing on human capital" is certainly appropriate for enhancing the overall population through education, but the game is still rigged and in all sectors be it education, housing, immigration, you name it.
The oligarchs pull the strings and everyone else chases their own tails.
The oligarchs buy the congress and democracy becomes a word meaning " how we pretend to be free while being manipulated by the few."
Clinton may try to appeal to the "progressives" who may Have to "play along" to keep anybody but a republican out of the White House, In the end, thats what the discussion is all about; who will screw the people less, and for the ninety five percent the best bet is typically a Democrat.
2
Mr. Brooks makes one important observation (among many) that today's views are heavily biased by the recession. Establishing policy based on a one-off albeit horrendous event doesn't make sense, except perhaps for political expediency. That the recovery has been so slow has only soured people and made them more prone to poor policy decisions.
Some things have not, in fact, changed. It still has to make sense for a company to raise its employees' wages. Companies like Walmart, TJ Maxx, Starbucks, Gap, etc., are raising wages because it makes sense for them to do so.
And one constant remains: A worker still has to have value to his employer in order to be paid more. If anything, government should focus on making workers more valuable. Work with what works.
Some things have not, in fact, changed. It still has to make sense for a company to raise its employees' wages. Companies like Walmart, TJ Maxx, Starbucks, Gap, etc., are raising wages because it makes sense for them to do so.
And one constant remains: A worker still has to have value to his employer in order to be paid more. If anything, government should focus on making workers more valuable. Work with what works.
3
"But if we could close the gap so that high-school-educated people had the skills of college-educated people, that would increase household income by $28,000 per year."
That is a flat out, anti market, anti reality, lie. There is no such choice available. The claim is worthy of a Soviet Central Planner.
So, why does someone who knows better say such a thing?
That is a flat out, anti market, anti reality, lie. There is no such choice available. The claim is worthy of a Soviet Central Planner.
So, why does someone who knows better say such a thing?
4
Query - it may be that you are giving Mr. Brooks too much credit by assuming that he knows better. Hard though it may be to believe, Brooks may not understand the simple distinction - which so many of the commenters clearly do - between necessary and sufficient conditions. And he may also not understand that if there have been high-paying jobs out there for which there are no takers this is by definition a market failure.
1
Wait, are you saying if we gave everyone a college degree they wouldn't automatically make 28 grand more? That money wouldn't materialize out of thin air? There wouldn't be a glut on the marketer over educated people?
1
I think, I have had it described to me a hundred different ways (pyramid, hole in paper sack, Gallipoli, tub drain) if you don't take care of the guy on the bottom, you will soon find yourself there.
And, of all the people in this world, more than anyone else, I would think you would understand all of this? (I don't get it.) Why do you support the party that does not understand the importance of a respectable minimum wage? What message are you sending to a man, when he labors all day, to the best of his ability, and still cannot survive? Personally, as far as I'm concerned, it's the best way to break a man's spirit - and once that happens, the building blocks in the brain never do stack up neatly.
And, of all the people in this world, more than anyone else, I would think you would understand all of this? (I don't get it.) Why do you support the party that does not understand the importance of a respectable minimum wage? What message are you sending to a man, when he labors all day, to the best of his ability, and still cannot survive? Personally, as far as I'm concerned, it's the best way to break a man's spirit - and once that happens, the building blocks in the brain never do stack up neatly.
7
Asking the rich to contribute their fair share to the country that provided the platform for their great wealth is not redistribution. Just maintaining that platform with decent infrastructure would be a start. That also includes developing the future workforce and consumers of tomorrow.
We have allowed an unsustainable degree of socialized costs and privatized profits, while simultaneously strangling the funds for those costs. The natural excesses of capitalism have to be mitigated with regulation, taxes and fees that recapture those costs that can't be directly tied to the source.
We have allowed an unsustainable degree of socialized costs and privatized profits, while simultaneously strangling the funds for those costs. The natural excesses of capitalism have to be mitigated with regulation, taxes and fees that recapture those costs that can't be directly tied to the source.
9
THANK YOU. "Asking the rich to contribute their fair share to the country that provided the platform that allowed them to become wealthy IS NOT REDISTRIBUTOIN." Many of the rich did make substantial contributoins to our economy, and bless them, I am happy to see them rich. But they are riding first class and paying 20% more than those in tourist class (or in some cases flying first class for less than tourist class). If they simply paid the real price of a first class seat the problem of inequality would be mostly solved. There is little or no need for 'resdistribution.'
(I assume we all agree that 'redistribution' is a good idea when it applies to kids born with brain damage, or disabled veterans, etc. That's another issue.)
(I assume we all agree that 'redistribution' is a good idea when it applies to kids born with brain damage, or disabled veterans, etc. That's another issue.)
Chetty's research is ridiculous and proves absolutely nothing. It does not deserve to be taken seriously and certainly not as the basis for policy. What Chetty has "proven" is that children who grow up in higher-income homes tend to both A) score well on standardized tests and B) grow up to earn higher incomes themselves. It's a great piece of research for people who don't understand the difference between correlation and causation. For everyone else, it's a ridiculous waste of time.
7
In "Wealth and Democracy." Kevin Phillips points out that there is a feedback in economic distribution because as the rich get richer, they use their wealth to get more power. They then use their power to get more wealth and so on. There seems to be a tipping point where this process becomes impossible to reverse. When inequality becomes bad enough, the country soon goes down the tubes. He gives several examples, e.g. the 18th century decline of the Dutch Republic. Chrystia Freeland used 14th century Venice to illustrate this process in a Times article, but history is replete with other examples.
According to Phillips, the great success of America has been that before the tipping point was reached, something has always happened that reverse the flow of money upwards, e.g. the rise of unions, FDR's reforms.
Will that happen this time?
In "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" by Thomas Piketty, one of the world's expert's on inequality thinks not.
According to Phillips, the great success of America has been that before the tipping point was reached, something has always happened that reverse the flow of money upwards, e.g. the rise of unions, FDR's reforms.
Will that happen this time?
In "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" by Thomas Piketty, one of the world's expert's on inequality thinks not.
16
This argument is total nonsense.
There are 2 basic reasons why:
1. US workers are currently the most productive workers to have ever existed anywhere on the planet. The US work force is also one of the most educated to have ever existed. None of that has translated into higher overall wages, which have been basically stagnant since 1979. US workers also work longer hours than almost everyone else in the developed world, which also doesn't help them do anything other than hang onto their jobs by the skin of their teeth.
2. The claim that post-college degrees lead to "doing nicely" is simply not born out by the facts. Right now, approximately 60% of law school graduates are not practicing law and some are working $9/hr retail jobs. Scientists and academics get about $15,000 a year toiling away in post-doc labs or as adjunct faculty. Take-home pay for doctors has also shrunk slightly, and their workload increased.
The idea that the problem is a lazy and undereducated work force is not only blatantly wrong, it's offensive to those that are working harder than ever and have nothing to show for it but poverty.
There are 2 basic reasons why:
1. US workers are currently the most productive workers to have ever existed anywhere on the planet. The US work force is also one of the most educated to have ever existed. None of that has translated into higher overall wages, which have been basically stagnant since 1979. US workers also work longer hours than almost everyone else in the developed world, which also doesn't help them do anything other than hang onto their jobs by the skin of their teeth.
2. The claim that post-college degrees lead to "doing nicely" is simply not born out by the facts. Right now, approximately 60% of law school graduates are not practicing law and some are working $9/hr retail jobs. Scientists and academics get about $15,000 a year toiling away in post-doc labs or as adjunct faculty. Take-home pay for doctors has also shrunk slightly, and their workload increased.
The idea that the problem is a lazy and undereducated work force is not only blatantly wrong, it's offensive to those that are working harder than ever and have nothing to show for it but poverty.
28
Your claim that Mr. Brooks was referring in any way to a "lazy and undereducated work force" is borderline ad hominem.
The effects you are referring to are the symptoms of this disastrous recovery, which remains the worst since the depression.
The effects you are referring to are the symptoms of this disastrous recovery, which remains the worst since the depression.
3
No, those effects are not the symptoms of the disastrous recovery, because all the trends I'm referring to started over 20 years ago.
1
Dave K:
Support for redistribution is a knee-jerk response to conditions exacerbated by the financial collapse and the disastrous recovery.
It is the equivalent of fighting over crumbs. Battling it out for whatever is left after everything has gone overseas. Americans want to grow the pie. They want to compete.
They are still more likely to band together and try to beat a foreign competitor than they are to try to take from another American.
Redistribution will be seen as just another attempt at democratic overreach and control. Like with health care, Americans will not buy it.
Support for redistribution is a knee-jerk response to conditions exacerbated by the financial collapse and the disastrous recovery.
It is the equivalent of fighting over crumbs. Battling it out for whatever is left after everything has gone overseas. Americans want to grow the pie. They want to compete.
They are still more likely to band together and try to beat a foreign competitor than they are to try to take from another American.
Redistribution will be seen as just another attempt at democratic overreach and control. Like with health care, Americans will not buy it.
1
To say a redistribution policy is destructive because it takes away from our emphasis on education is to create a false dichotomy. The proportion of college educated people has never been higher, yet the proportion of people living near or below poverty is also near record highs.
People say "educate the masses", then when companies like Corinthian and other career colleges try, we call them scams because of their high costs and high failure rates. I ran one of those colleges and I know that some of those students who refused to stop trying as the bills added up while they struggled to pass classes would easily have moved on if the wages at their capability level would have met their needs.
A college degree is 5x more in real dollars than when I got mine. My father was a janitor with five kids and we got a new car every few years. The effects of trickle down-based redistribution are clear.
Company executives choose how much to pay investors, how much to pay themselves, and how much to pay everyone else. The last 40 years of the trickle down experiment has empirically shown that executives will choose to raise the pay for themselves and the investors at a much greater rate than they will for everyone else. Regulating that choice of who gets a raise and its consequences does not take anything away from education or its value. Sensible regulations involve minimum wage laws, unionization laws, and tax laws. Nothing about that harms education or its benefits. Nothing.
People say "educate the masses", then when companies like Corinthian and other career colleges try, we call them scams because of their high costs and high failure rates. I ran one of those colleges and I know that some of those students who refused to stop trying as the bills added up while they struggled to pass classes would easily have moved on if the wages at their capability level would have met their needs.
A college degree is 5x more in real dollars than when I got mine. My father was a janitor with five kids and we got a new car every few years. The effects of trickle down-based redistribution are clear.
Company executives choose how much to pay investors, how much to pay themselves, and how much to pay everyone else. The last 40 years of the trickle down experiment has empirically shown that executives will choose to raise the pay for themselves and the investors at a much greater rate than they will for everyone else. Regulating that choice of who gets a raise and its consequences does not take anything away from education or its value. Sensible regulations involve minimum wage laws, unionization laws, and tax laws. Nothing about that harms education or its benefits. Nothing.
11
The US really is an interlocked directorhip of mutually back-scratching CEOs.
1
Why is this couched in either /or terms?
3
I agree, Priscilla. Why not institute both policies at once: both more education and more redistribution or fairness? Compromise involves doing both, in my opinion.
1
Wait, Mr. Brooks want's Hillary to win?
1
A. From 1946 - 1973, productivity and wages moved in lockstep. Since 1973 and especially since 1981, productivity has pulled ahead of wages. Most of the gains from the increased productivity have gone to the rich owners, not to the workers.
B. 1. Practically all the Rich go to college.
2. The share of the wealth and income of the Rich has been drastically increasing since 1973.
3. This explains why the college educated earn much more than those without degrees. Remove the Rich from the group of those with college degree,s and the picture becomes very different. Those left don't earn that much more than those without degrees and their real incomes have decreased.
4. This is even more true of those with advanced degrees since even a higher percentage of those come from the Rich.
C. Brooks ignores the long term data that shows the gap in the share of wealth and income between the Rich and the rest of us is still growing. For example, in 1979 the richest 0.1% had 7% of the nation's wealth. In 2012 they had 22%
D. Brooks denies that "modern capitalism is fundamentally broken."; he is right. As Piketty has shown, capitalism is simply reverting back to where it was before WWI. WWI and WWII destroyed a lot of capital, then after WWII a virulent burst of sanity broke out, and we had policies that limited inequality--high tax rates on the Rich, strong unions, persistent deficit spending on projects like the interstate highways, etc. Now those policies have stopped.
B. 1. Practically all the Rich go to college.
2. The share of the wealth and income of the Rich has been drastically increasing since 1973.
3. This explains why the college educated earn much more than those without degrees. Remove the Rich from the group of those with college degree,s and the picture becomes very different. Those left don't earn that much more than those without degrees and their real incomes have decreased.
4. This is even more true of those with advanced degrees since even a higher percentage of those come from the Rich.
C. Brooks ignores the long term data that shows the gap in the share of wealth and income between the Rich and the rest of us is still growing. For example, in 1979 the richest 0.1% had 7% of the nation's wealth. In 2012 they had 22%
D. Brooks denies that "modern capitalism is fundamentally broken."; he is right. As Piketty has shown, capitalism is simply reverting back to where it was before WWI. WWI and WWII destroyed a lot of capital, then after WWII a virulent burst of sanity broke out, and we had policies that limited inequality--high tax rates on the Rich, strong unions, persistent deficit spending on projects like the interstate highways, etc. Now those policies have stopped.
11
Wow, so much to contradict, so little time, so little space. I'll hit TBO's. Since the early 80's the productivity gains have gone to capital/ownership. Those charts are ubiquitous. Even DB should be able to find one. Workers are not being paid their Marginal Product, a sure sign of market breakdown.(monopsony anyone?) The Chetty piece written with Freidman is base upon the Sanders Model, who was a Tennessee agricultural economist where the only input is the teacher. Don't believe me, attempt to read the paper. It is free online. Plus this "one good teacher" argument was flogged by Michelle Rhee, a the free market education shill. Her contentions have been debunked over and over. But saying the problem is due to the short term nature of the issue ignores the fact this has been going on for about 50 years. And last, calling government jobs low productivity is an insult. Turn on Bloomberg or CNBC today. See how many times "the jobs report" is flogged to sell crappy products. Who do you think gathers the data, crunches it and produces it? Government workers Brooks, who get none of the surplus for the output they create, the private sector does and paid nothing for it.
5
People who work for a living are limited in the number of hours they can physically work. When you invest you capital it works for you 24/7/356 1/4. Of course, capitalism has a bias toward mal-distribution of resources. It is built in. People resources to invest will always have an advantage at accumulating wealth compared to people with fewer resources. Assuming the people making investments make reasonably good ones, the advantage will be passed down from generation to generation. Having money and time to be politically active is clearly a political advantage.
For example, Mitt Romney was able to use the stock given to him to live comfortably while he went to graduate school. That stock was in large measure the seed money for the wealth he accumulated over the rest of his life. Given his obvious limitations as a politician, one would think that his wealth allowed him to go farther in politics than he would have otherwise. This story gets repeated for lots and lots of people.
Really, it isn't that complicated. Haven't you been paying attention David?
For example, Mitt Romney was able to use the stock given to him to live comfortably while he went to graduate school. That stock was in large measure the seed money for the wealth he accumulated over the rest of his life. Given his obvious limitations as a politician, one would think that his wealth allowed him to go farther in politics than he would have otherwise. This story gets repeated for lots and lots of people.
Really, it isn't that complicated. Haven't you been paying attention David?
3
No, M. Brooks, you can't blame the "the recession" for the impoverishment of educated young people. The linkage has been broken since about 1980-55 -- capitalism, as Piketty and Krugman proved, has lowered the tie between new skill sets and wealth. CEO wealth reached unprecedented levels -- and worker income stagnated at Reagan-era levels. Only tuition debt has grown.
Worse, your Strawman Argument that Hillary wants "low-paying government jobs" to fix things is plain untrue. Where has she or any Dem said that? And "trickle-down" as no answer to 'trickled-away'. There is zero evidence for that fantasy..
Finally, "redistribution" is not a liberal fantasy. Taxes redistribute from me to someone else. Ask Romney. And what do poor people do with a penny more? They pay bills and buy stuff. We call this "expanding an economy." No one thinks "the traditional rules apply" and "increasing worker productivity is the key". Who has higher productivity, Germany or the U.S.? We do. So what? "Productivity" is NOT measured by "risk" or "skills". It is measured by the amount of production per unit cost. Wages were slashed in autos, but profits rose. What happens when they fall farther? Not "redistribution", the opposite. 30 years of shrinking adjusted worker wages, lowering corporate costs, increasing profits and professionals are feeling the pinch. Not the Waltons or the GOP. Read a book on economics... then back unions, taxes on the wealthy, and social safety nets.
Worse, your Strawman Argument that Hillary wants "low-paying government jobs" to fix things is plain untrue. Where has she or any Dem said that? And "trickle-down" as no answer to 'trickled-away'. There is zero evidence for that fantasy..
Finally, "redistribution" is not a liberal fantasy. Taxes redistribute from me to someone else. Ask Romney. And what do poor people do with a penny more? They pay bills and buy stuff. We call this "expanding an economy." No one thinks "the traditional rules apply" and "increasing worker productivity is the key". Who has higher productivity, Germany or the U.S.? We do. So what? "Productivity" is NOT measured by "risk" or "skills". It is measured by the amount of production per unit cost. Wages were slashed in autos, but profits rose. What happens when they fall farther? Not "redistribution", the opposite. 30 years of shrinking adjusted worker wages, lowering corporate costs, increasing profits and professionals are feeling the pinch. Not the Waltons or the GOP. Read a book on economics... then back unions, taxes on the wealthy, and social safety nets.
20
More education means higher wages ONLY if there are jobs that pay those wages!
And not everyone should go to college/uniersity. My plumber charges $125/hr, electrician the same, furnace terchnician even more and the waiting line for anything but emergencies is months long.
And not everyone should go to college/uniersity. My plumber charges $125/hr, electrician the same, furnace terchnician even more and the waiting line for anything but emergencies is months long.
4
Your plumber CHARGES 125.00 per hour. He does not MAKE 125.00 per hour
And to suggest that 'college is not for everyone ' based on this somewhat apocryphal? anecdote is just silly.
And to suggest that 'college is not for everyone ' based on this somewhat apocryphal? anecdote is just silly.
1
The problem is that, in some sense, once you get outside of the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" argument, every policy move can be classified as redistribution. How are we to make early childhood education (which would be an excellent thing) possible? It has to be paid by the state. IE, it's forced redistribution, at least for some. How are we to get men into the workforce? That's a sticky question, but it comes down to either incentivizing job creation (redistribution) or creating job skills programs men can afford (redistribution) or perhaps not slicing up worker benefits (redistribution). That's the problem I have with the anti-redistributionist argument. Even President Obama has been criticized as a redistributionist, and yet he's only marginally left of former President Reagan, at times. Incidentally, I have worked in public health at the state level, and in that arena one gets plenty of "unfunded mandates," which are essentially what happens if you take a rigid stance against redistribution. The few remaining government employees are ordered to solve every problem, with no money. And that's about useless.
4
There's a simple fact that destroys this argument put forth by David Brooks and others, which is that education levels haven't gone *down* over the past few decades, yet during that time the economic fortunes of all levels except the wealthy has shrunk dramatically.
How was it possible for the working class and middle class to have been better off decades ago, since the panacea that Brooks prescribes as the solution, higher education levels, hadn't been achieved?
David Autor's flawed arguments on this score were pretty handily dismantled by Larry Summers and others the other night by the way, link below. Of course, David Brooks wants to characterize the arguments that Summers made as just extreme left-wing ranting, but it's a becoming a harder to do so now that they've gone a little more mainstream.
http://www.nextnewdeal.net/rortybomb/one-where-larry-summers-demolished-...
How was it possible for the working class and middle class to have been better off decades ago, since the panacea that Brooks prescribes as the solution, higher education levels, hadn't been achieved?
David Autor's flawed arguments on this score were pretty handily dismantled by Larry Summers and others the other night by the way, link below. Of course, David Brooks wants to characterize the arguments that Summers made as just extreme left-wing ranting, but it's a becoming a harder to do so now that they've gone a little more mainstream.
http://www.nextnewdeal.net/rortybomb/one-where-larry-summers-demolished-...
6
Believe it or not, there was a time in this country when paying one's taxes was considered a patriotic act because it made our country strong, and we all (mostly) shared in the benefits of how those taxes were spent - good schools, good roads, a functioning democracy.
"Divide and conquer" is the mantra of the corporate elite now and they have been spectacularly successful. Now polarization and atomization rule the land. "Redistribution" has become the rallying cry against pooling resources for the common good, because we are made to believe that we have no shared needs, that there is no common good.
Privatization demands that someone must profit from all enterprises, including those that in civilized societies are considered basic human rights, like water, education, or health care, regardless of the actual added cost to stakeholders.
With ever increasing expectations to "take personal responsibility" for paying for everything a la carte: school, job training, health care, retirement, on top of housing, food, transportation, etc., it’s no wonder young people are looking for alternatives to what capitalism has become.
"Divide and conquer" is the mantra of the corporate elite now and they have been spectacularly successful. Now polarization and atomization rule the land. "Redistribution" has become the rallying cry against pooling resources for the common good, because we are made to believe that we have no shared needs, that there is no common good.
Privatization demands that someone must profit from all enterprises, including those that in civilized societies are considered basic human rights, like water, education, or health care, regardless of the actual added cost to stakeholders.
With ever increasing expectations to "take personal responsibility" for paying for everything a la carte: school, job training, health care, retirement, on top of housing, food, transportation, etc., it’s no wonder young people are looking for alternatives to what capitalism has become.
14
I question the unspoken presumption that the jobs currently generated by the U.S. economy, either in the past two decades or today, require the alleged elevated but unspecified skill set of a college degree. Outside of STEM degrees and the job areas where these educational backgrounds are clearly required, like petroleum or computer engineering, a "college degree" could be in medieval history or classic literature. I do not see the connection made between the majority of college degrees being awarded in the past few years, predominantly in areas outside of STEM, providing a college graduate with additional job related skills justifying the differential in wages.
More likely the difference between the earnings of a "college graduate" and "high school" graduate is reflective of endemic class bias in employment not skill set. Yes, a college education can be a valuable experience and may, in any number of unspecified ways, provide benefits. But to directly attribute productivity differentials between classes of wage earners solely on the basis of an unspecified job related skill set from obtaining a college degree is not supported.
In addition, a significant number of Americans have neither the resources or interest in obtaining a "college degree". Technical education provided by competent non profit educational institutions such as community colleges should definitely be a part of any agenda to elevate the educational and productivity of American wage earners.
More likely the difference between the earnings of a "college graduate" and "high school" graduate is reflective of endemic class bias in employment not skill set. Yes, a college education can be a valuable experience and may, in any number of unspecified ways, provide benefits. But to directly attribute productivity differentials between classes of wage earners solely on the basis of an unspecified job related skill set from obtaining a college degree is not supported.
In addition, a significant number of Americans have neither the resources or interest in obtaining a "college degree". Technical education provided by competent non profit educational institutions such as community colleges should definitely be a part of any agenda to elevate the educational and productivity of American wage earners.
85
I wholly agree. But moreover, as I read Brooks, he calls for more advanced degrees, but then devotes most of the column's argument for that proposition to the wage differentials between the college and non-college educated. He never supports the implicit arguments that there is a job market for more advanced degrees and that advanced degrees improve productivity. I suspect not, so his remedy won't solve the problems he acknowledges. And we are left with Summer's pitch: not enough jobs, not enough jobs here, not enough jobs for people who want them, and not enough jobs of the type we have outsourced that don't require advanced degrees.
I don't see class bias in preference for college graduates over non-grads for certain jobs. The possession of a college degree implies that the candidate has sufficient initiative to reach a goal over a long period, and had sufficient academic achievement to be admitted to college in the first place.
After one's first job, it's experience and references that matter.
After one's first job, it's experience and references that matter.
1
The point is that even a degree in Medieval History or Classic Literature provides a student with certain skill sets and says important things about the graduate/eventual job applicant: that you can meet deadlines, that you have basic writing and mathematical skills (required to get into college in the first place), that you can learn new things (essential to any job), that you can stick things out, that you can set goals and meet them, that you have above-average intelligence, that you demonstrated intelligence and ambition already in high school, and that you took and passed SATs with some reasonable grade.
3
Brooks writes: "Above all, increase the productivity of workers so they can compete."
It is my understanding that productivity HAS increased enormously in the last two decades.... and that worker pay has NOT.
Wouldn't you think that basic fairness would compell Brooks to acknowledge this disparity?
Naw.
It is my understanding that productivity HAS increased enormously in the last two decades.... and that worker pay has NOT.
Wouldn't you think that basic fairness would compell Brooks to acknowledge this disparity?
Naw.
14
David presents the alternatives of human capital progressivism vs redistributionist progressivism as either or. We need both. We need more education and more income equality. We need education that ensures first chances and continues throughout our lives. Regardless of your position in the 99%, we need the economy to work for us. That means a higher minimum wage, sick and family leave, good health care, fair workers compensation benefits and retirement benefits. We have experienced a wealth grab by the 1%. To say they grabbed it fair and square in an economy that is rigged in their favor is disingenuous. Let's get back to balance.
2
David Brooks once again stands up proudly for the earnest efforts of vulture capitalism, Mitt Romney and the complete economic strip-mining of the average American.
The Republican Party has systematically redistributed income upward to the richest Americans for at least 35 years via state and federal tax code hijackings, rabid support for corporate hegemony and the installation of vast disinformation-propaganda industry that carefully dispels facts, data and truth from Americans on an industrial scale.
Mr. Brooks, no one can explain with a straight face why American CEO:worker pay ratios of 350:1 exist or why the ratio is substantially lower in civilized countries.......because of very exceptional American psychopathic greed.
Very few bother to report the massive corporate income tax welfare that exists in America.
Twenty-six of America's largest corporations, including Boeing, General Electric, Priceline.com and Verizon, paid no federal income tax at all over the five year period 2008 - 2012.
Ninety-three of America's largest corporations paid an effective tax rate of less than 10% over that period.
Meanwhile, worker wages stagnate ad infinitum, regressive sales and use taxes abound and highly discounted income tax rates for capital gains and dividends disproportionately favor the gilded class.
Republican redistributionism upward has been the official GOP party platform for 35 years.
Executive wage and income tax theft has run its feudalistic course , Lord Brooks.
The Republican Party has systematically redistributed income upward to the richest Americans for at least 35 years via state and federal tax code hijackings, rabid support for corporate hegemony and the installation of vast disinformation-propaganda industry that carefully dispels facts, data and truth from Americans on an industrial scale.
Mr. Brooks, no one can explain with a straight face why American CEO:worker pay ratios of 350:1 exist or why the ratio is substantially lower in civilized countries.......because of very exceptional American psychopathic greed.
Very few bother to report the massive corporate income tax welfare that exists in America.
Twenty-six of America's largest corporations, including Boeing, General Electric, Priceline.com and Verizon, paid no federal income tax at all over the five year period 2008 - 2012.
Ninety-three of America's largest corporations paid an effective tax rate of less than 10% over that period.
Meanwhile, worker wages stagnate ad infinitum, regressive sales and use taxes abound and highly discounted income tax rates for capital gains and dividends disproportionately favor the gilded class.
Republican redistributionism upward has been the official GOP party platform for 35 years.
Executive wage and income tax theft has run its feudalistic course , Lord Brooks.
172
Here are my questions:
Let's say every person in the US earns a PHD. Who will pick the vegetables, mop the floors at the YMCA, and empty the trash cans in the executive suites? If those jobs still need doing, (and in fact since my lifestyle is subsidized by their cheap labor) shouldn't we take better care of those doing them?
If I graduate from college, and there isn't a job available for me, what good is my college degree? And won't a larger professional labor force decrease salaries because of increased labor supply?
Despite my questions, I am all for education. But my questions leave me wondering how it can solve inequality issues.
Let's say every person in the US earns a PHD. Who will pick the vegetables, mop the floors at the YMCA, and empty the trash cans in the executive suites? If those jobs still need doing, (and in fact since my lifestyle is subsidized by their cheap labor) shouldn't we take better care of those doing them?
If I graduate from college, and there isn't a job available for me, what good is my college degree? And won't a larger professional labor force decrease salaries because of increased labor supply?
Despite my questions, I am all for education. But my questions leave me wondering how it can solve inequality issues.
5
Brooks should leave the Econ writing to Krugman. This column is a huge miss. Wages for college grads are flat because the number of jobs and available workers are in relative balance. More college grads would drive wages down.
6
Brooks says "redistributionists" have a "short time horizon" and use "temporary evidence." But he ignores the centuries-long time horizon and evidence of economists like Thomas Piketty, who showed that the rapid growth and shrinking inequality of the mid-20th Century -- the basis for the Kuznets Curve and Brooks' free market ideology -- was merely a temporary interlude caused by two world wars and the Great Depression. The true long-term trend is toward extreme inequality of wealth and income, typified by the Gilded Age and what we see again today.
Moreover, Brooks commits a fallacy of composition. Yes, in theory, more workers could get college and graduate degrees. But data show this merely increases the education thresholds for various income brackets. A century ago, most people did not graduate high school and only a tiny few attended college, let alone graduate school. Yet income and wealth distributions on the eve of World War I were almost identical to today. The typical worker with a graduate degree today falls in the same income bracket as did a worker with a bachelor's degree in 1963, and one with a high school diploma in 1913.
No matter how many PhDs we turn out, we'll still need stock clerks, food servers, and others who are being left behind. Today's inequality is not a too-few-are-qualified education problem. It's a too-few-share-the-growth distribution problem.
Moreover, Brooks commits a fallacy of composition. Yes, in theory, more workers could get college and graduate degrees. But data show this merely increases the education thresholds for various income brackets. A century ago, most people did not graduate high school and only a tiny few attended college, let alone graduate school. Yet income and wealth distributions on the eve of World War I were almost identical to today. The typical worker with a graduate degree today falls in the same income bracket as did a worker with a bachelor's degree in 1963, and one with a high school diploma in 1913.
No matter how many PhDs we turn out, we'll still need stock clerks, food servers, and others who are being left behind. Today's inequality is not a too-few-are-qualified education problem. It's a too-few-share-the-growth distribution problem.
315
There are many graduates with PhD's that cannot find a good job. In higher education the majority of those who actually do the teaching hold a PhD in the fields in which they teach as required by the institution. They are adjuncts or lecturers that are paid a couple thousand dollars per course per semester. I know many who travel between institutions every day just to teach 2 or 3 courses and the pay is not even that of minimum wage. Some of these adjuncts are even required to do research. These are the people that are teaching your children and they should be paid accordingly.
"Human capital progressivism" still involves government redistribution as those types of programs cost money.
The Tea party zealots will never pass any legislation where taxes are to be raised on anyone.
So I ask Brooks: what are you talking about? And how do you get away with spouting jibberish so well?
The Tea party zealots will never pass any legislation where taxes are to be raised on anyone.
So I ask Brooks: what are you talking about? And how do you get away with spouting jibberish so well?
14
I would say David has the least productive job of them all.
Twice a week, he gets paid a large sum of money to write fiction from a glass house without a clue as to the political and economic realities resulting from decades of conservative ruination of our society.
When progressives propose non-redistribution policies to lift the 99%, they are still called socialists or worse.
Brooks should direct his criticisms where he lives.
And the Times should look for a better conservative voice, and not one who talks out of both sides of his mouth.
Brooks derides "low-productivity government jobs". What a joke.
Twice a week, he gets paid a large sum of money to write fiction from a glass house without a clue as to the political and economic realities resulting from decades of conservative ruination of our society.
When progressives propose non-redistribution policies to lift the 99%, they are still called socialists or worse.
Brooks should direct his criticisms where he lives.
And the Times should look for a better conservative voice, and not one who talks out of both sides of his mouth.
Brooks derides "low-productivity government jobs". What a joke.
125
If David would just move to the Heritage Society, I'd drive him there myself and move all his furniture too.
1
I think you're jealous. You have to respond to his columns for free.
Please name a conservative pundit whose writings you'd feel better about. Personally I think David is too tame and nuanced.
Please name a conservative pundit whose writings you'd feel better about. Personally I think David is too tame and nuanced.
1
Do not call me a redistributionist as if it is some abhorrent pejorative to desire greater equality for all. What you deem an expletive I wear as my proudest moral position. Most of us are being consumed by the largest inequality of any developed nation. Your efforts to malign the desire for equality and dignity as something born by clueless vacillating progressives will not succeed. But, if you do, you and the GOP can hold as proud successes the end of our Democracy and the epoch of Plutocracy.
Since 2008, 95% of all income gains went to only 1% of the people. Real wages adjusted for inflation have not risen since 1974. Americans work more hours per week than any nation on Earth. Health-care & education costs have skyrocketed, Corp. taxes are near their lowest in history, CEO pay ratios are 350x their employees, Buffett & Romney pay less % in taxes than their secretary & house cleaner, and the NFL is a non-profit. Don't tell me the game is not rigged or that capitalism is not broken so you can conceal the truth. The American dream is dying in GOP hands; its failed platform surviving on belief, division, and pitifully ignorant voters.
DB, I want redistribution and reparations because I've given my entire life to a country and an ideal that is funneling my efforts to the richest Americans. I will not negotiate with you, the Walton's, or Jeb or Hillary and I will not let you lie about the history of progressive calls for equality while you justify indentured servitude.
Since 2008, 95% of all income gains went to only 1% of the people. Real wages adjusted for inflation have not risen since 1974. Americans work more hours per week than any nation on Earth. Health-care & education costs have skyrocketed, Corp. taxes are near their lowest in history, CEO pay ratios are 350x their employees, Buffett & Romney pay less % in taxes than their secretary & house cleaner, and the NFL is a non-profit. Don't tell me the game is not rigged or that capitalism is not broken so you can conceal the truth. The American dream is dying in GOP hands; its failed platform surviving on belief, division, and pitifully ignorant voters.
DB, I want redistribution and reparations because I've given my entire life to a country and an ideal that is funneling my efforts to the richest Americans. I will not negotiate with you, the Walton's, or Jeb or Hillary and I will not let you lie about the history of progressive calls for equality while you justify indentured servitude.
261
@ Chris Koz: Hooray for this letter!
" But if we could close the gap so that high-school-educated people had the skills of college-educated people, that would increase household income by $28,000 per household."
David, either your thought experiment skills are atrophying or you are being totally disingenuous with us. If we could magically raise everyone's level of education, where pray tell, would we find the workers to care for their children as this highly educated cohort goes off to their new high skill jobs; to prepare their morning lattes for the commute; to staff the high end stores where they will now shop? Or are you assuming that the level of compensation for all those jobs in the service sector somehow soars because the people who occupy them are also college educated? The theory that is "wrong on the substance" is the one that touts education as the panacea for inequality.
David, either your thought experiment skills are atrophying or you are being totally disingenuous with us. If we could magically raise everyone's level of education, where pray tell, would we find the workers to care for their children as this highly educated cohort goes off to their new high skill jobs; to prepare their morning lattes for the commute; to staff the high end stores where they will now shop? Or are you assuming that the level of compensation for all those jobs in the service sector somehow soars because the people who occupy them are also college educated? The theory that is "wrong on the substance" is the one that touts education as the panacea for inequality.
23
I encourage my children and grandchildren to do well in school based on my belief that a good education will make a positive difference in every part of their lives. When I read your column wherein you use that belief to hawk a laissez faire ideology from the early part of the previous century, I cringe. I read your columns regularly. I am also regularly stunned by your 'Horatio Alger' solutions to political/economic problems that cry out for bold action.
News flash: Redistribution already exists. It's just going in the wrong direction. As long as big money runs government, that will continue. Stronger unions would certainly help. Or perhaps Mr. Brooks should just call a post-grad student when his car breaks down or his plumbing leaks.
70
David's comments as always are insightful and well thought out. The danger however is that a concentration on more education leads to efforts to send everyone to pre-school and everyone to college. Such emphasis leads to ignoring education quality, erodes respect for craftsmen such as plumbers, carpenters, etc. Most importantly in the context of this article is that it ignores the overcompensation of the rich. This includes top level atheletes, lop level businessmen, celebrities, etc. It leads to a mis-distribution of wealth, toward luxary living and away from services and infrastructure needs. We need to avoid making this an argument that pits education against equality of opportunity and a reasonable distribution of our country's wealth.
5
If fewer people used to have college degrees and such degrees used to assure good-paying jobs, and now that phenomenon has shifted to graduate degrees as the pool of people with college degrees has increased, what does that say about whether it's skills or whether it's something else, like a filter?
3
The stakes have been raised for well-paying jobs. It's a new market for the American worker.
The big problem is that we have an entire generation of workers who did not "translate" well. Their jobs are gone because of automation and global workers who are working for a fraction of the cost.
What's being debated is the reaction to all. People are angry and want to "brute force" things back to the way they used to be. Force companies to give workers a chunk of the profits. Force wages up. Punish CEO's for their greed. It won't happen that way.
The redistributionists are going about it in the wrong way.
The big problem is that we have an entire generation of workers who did not "translate" well. Their jobs are gone because of automation and global workers who are working for a fraction of the cost.
What's being debated is the reaction to all. People are angry and want to "brute force" things back to the way they used to be. Force companies to give workers a chunk of the profits. Force wages up. Punish CEO's for their greed. It won't happen that way.
The redistributionists are going about it in the wrong way.
2
AACNY,
I'm not sure whether the following responds directly to your reply, but sometimes I think we have mistaken means for ends and that we need to create an economy that includes jobs that suit workers' talents and skills -- rather than pursue some goal about increased efficiency or ease and assume that that pursuit will produce jobs adequate in number and kind to provide livelihoods for the workforce (by "workforce" I mean here people who need jobs).
I'm not sure whether the following responds directly to your reply, but sometimes I think we have mistaken means for ends and that we need to create an economy that includes jobs that suit workers' talents and skills -- rather than pursue some goal about increased efficiency or ease and assume that that pursuit will produce jobs adequate in number and kind to provide livelihoods for the workforce (by "workforce" I mean here people who need jobs).
1
I don't understand David Brooks' one-or-the-other argument. The need for education to lift people up out of poverty and the need to reign in Corporations-gone-wild is not mutually exclusive. But this is all a moot point if we don't get big money out of the election system. The amount of money spent on elections is gross. It makes me sick to my stomach, and I KNOW my voice is not being heard.
44
All this is discussion is how to improve the symptoms, not cure the disease. The disease is that there are going to be fewer and fewer jobs around the world, not just in the US, that people with traditional blue collar education and training qualify for. The cause of the disease is the world economy's ability to produce goods with relatively fewer people involved in the production process. We need to focus on how we are going to keep people busy in a service ecoonomy, how we are going to train them for service jobs, and how to assure that the profits generated in such an economy are fairly distributed. The train is coming at us and we are worried about a problem in the coffee machine in the station. Time to shift focus.
10
Education, Skills, Inequality, Wages, Redistribution, (Wealth).
By playing fast and free with the first 5 words (and not discussing wealth) Brooks is trying to make a clever argument. He describes the issue as inequality of wages. But the issue he is addressing is more fully described as inequality of wages and of wealth. And these are more fully described as connected to inheritance, tax policy as well as skills and wages. So he begins with a sleight of hand. Accept his terms and you fall for his trickery.
Examine each of his five words. For example, the wage issue needs to be further disassembled into the issues of extremely high wages of those at the top (related to corporate structures, Boards, cronyism, semi-monopoly nature of multinational companies) and the broader wage issue of wages at the bottom (lack of organized power of workers, global competition). Education needs to be examined in its many parts -- pre-school, K-12, higher ed, quality of the instruction, varied student preparation. Once we honestly look at these terms and the others and state the problem in its fullness Brooks' argument falls apart. The dichotomy of human capital (skills of people) and redistribution (tax the rich) becomes less important, and wealth distribution and the "rules of the system" (having a fair playing field on which wage bargaining can take place) become more important. And the meaning of and interconnectedness of education, wages, and wealth is seen in a different light.
By playing fast and free with the first 5 words (and not discussing wealth) Brooks is trying to make a clever argument. He describes the issue as inequality of wages. But the issue he is addressing is more fully described as inequality of wages and of wealth. And these are more fully described as connected to inheritance, tax policy as well as skills and wages. So he begins with a sleight of hand. Accept his terms and you fall for his trickery.
Examine each of his five words. For example, the wage issue needs to be further disassembled into the issues of extremely high wages of those at the top (related to corporate structures, Boards, cronyism, semi-monopoly nature of multinational companies) and the broader wage issue of wages at the bottom (lack of organized power of workers, global competition). Education needs to be examined in its many parts -- pre-school, K-12, higher ed, quality of the instruction, varied student preparation. Once we honestly look at these terms and the others and state the problem in its fullness Brooks' argument falls apart. The dichotomy of human capital (skills of people) and redistribution (tax the rich) becomes less important, and wealth distribution and the "rules of the system" (having a fair playing field on which wage bargaining can take place) become more important. And the meaning of and interconnectedness of education, wages, and wealth is seen in a different light.
4
Mr. Brooks writes: "Research by Raj Chetty of Harvard and others suggests that having a really good teacher for only one year raises a child’s cumulative lifetime income by $80,000." That's probably true. Consider this: A typical high school teacher has about 80 students a year. This works out to a productivity gain, in the only measure that matters to many, of $6.4M. But in most cases, that really good teacher will be lucky to be paid $80K for that year's work. When teachers wake up to the fact that they are being paid what amounts to 1.25% of the value of their labor, either they are going to demand better wages, or, more probably, no one will enter the profession. I've been teaching for 36 years. What can I say, I'm a slow learner.
6
Me Brooks, ou assume that because people with higher levels of educational attainment earn more than those with less education, increasing everyone's level of education will necessarily increase everyone's income, yet even a cursory look will show the flaws in this logic. Education might make an individual better at carving out a bigger piece of the pie for himself, but if everyone becomes an expert pie-cutter, the only way individuals' shares can increase is if the whole pie is made bigger, and the evidence that increasing the aggregate level of education--whatever that even means--leads to gains in overall productivity is scanty, to say the least.
And even if total production does increase, you still have a distribution problem. We can assume that in your ideal, more highly-educated society, gradations in educational attainment will persist. How then will income shares be distributed? Who decides?
And even if total production does increase, you still have a distribution problem. We can assume that in your ideal, more highly-educated society, gradations in educational attainment will persist. How then will income shares be distributed? Who decides?
My favorite part of this whole column doesn't have anything to do with the subject really, but it's highly amusing coming from a right-winger:
"And, in the general election, voters respond to the uplifting and the unifying, not the combative and divisive."
"And, in the general election, voters respond to the uplifting and the unifying, not the combative and divisive."
19
"Voters respond to the uplifting and the unifying".
So THAT'S what happened in 2014; the GOP/TP/KOCH AFFILIATE's message of "kill ACA before it kills us", "kill immigration before THEY kill us" and "kill any attempts at meaningful firearms legislation" is a "positive" position?
Why not just "simplify" your column thus:
a. Democrats, bad
b. Republicans, good.
Easier to handle and nobody has to trundle through that messy "inequality" thicket. Those less than 40 hour a week jobs at minimum wage abound in fast food chains across the country so the 99% should just be happy with what they've got!
Piketty and Steglitz, just what do they really know? As you have pointed out, inequality is not a problem especially if you are in the upper 10% or so. People like the Koch Brothers have the country's best interests at heart.
Now, where's the Easter Bunny; certainly don't want to miss him either!
So THAT'S what happened in 2014; the GOP/TP/KOCH AFFILIATE's message of "kill ACA before it kills us", "kill immigration before THEY kill us" and "kill any attempts at meaningful firearms legislation" is a "positive" position?
Why not just "simplify" your column thus:
a. Democrats, bad
b. Republicans, good.
Easier to handle and nobody has to trundle through that messy "inequality" thicket. Those less than 40 hour a week jobs at minimum wage abound in fast food chains across the country so the 99% should just be happy with what they've got!
Piketty and Steglitz, just what do they really know? As you have pointed out, inequality is not a problem especially if you are in the upper 10% or so. People like the Koch Brothers have the country's best interests at heart.
Now, where's the Easter Bunny; certainly don't want to miss him either!
11
This is an amazing argument.
“If we could magically confiscate and redistribute the above-average income gains that have gone to the top 1 percent since 1979, that would produce $7,000 more per household per year for the bottom 99 percent. But if we could close the gap so that high-school-educated people had the skills of college-educated people, that would increase household income by $28,000 per year.”
Although I don’t know what kind of research design Mr. Autor had taken, I think your interpretation of his research may be wrong because you don’t mention whether the mass of income is the same or increased by the skills improvement.
Anyway, your argument about inequality is misleading. There are only two main issues to rectify the current problem; one is to cap the ridiculously high executive remuneration and the other is to raise tax rate for capital gain.
“If we could magically confiscate and redistribute the above-average income gains that have gone to the top 1 percent since 1979, that would produce $7,000 more per household per year for the bottom 99 percent. But if we could close the gap so that high-school-educated people had the skills of college-educated people, that would increase household income by $28,000 per year.”
Although I don’t know what kind of research design Mr. Autor had taken, I think your interpretation of his research may be wrong because you don’t mention whether the mass of income is the same or increased by the skills improvement.
Anyway, your argument about inequality is misleading. There are only two main issues to rectify the current problem; one is to cap the ridiculously high executive remuneration and the other is to raise tax rate for capital gain.
19
The point of redistribution is increasing economic demand. If rich people invested their money in enterprises that generated jobs and contributed to the real economy inequality would be much ameliorated and redistribution would be unnecessary. But they don't. They park their excess income in unproductive financial instruments the profits of which trickle into the real economy at a rate too slow to generate significant growth In the absence of an asset bubble: the US economy has only really grown during the three great bubbles of the last 35 years.
It is plain and obvious that the neoliberal experiment of radically depressing the share of profits going to labour and shifting the tax burden down the income distribution has not resulted in significantly increased productive investment in the real economy and sustained economic growth.
If the purpose of fiscal policy is to make *everybody* better off neoliberalism has been an abject failure. It is time to try something else.
It is plain and obvious that the neoliberal experiment of radically depressing the share of profits going to labour and shifting the tax burden down the income distribution has not resulted in significantly increased productive investment in the real economy and sustained economic growth.
If the purpose of fiscal policy is to make *everybody* better off neoliberalism has been an abject failure. It is time to try something else.
7
Three points:
Social science research has long since concluded that education does not so much help those who attain it as it handicaps those who do not. Our society has to address whether redistribution is consonant with our values. So-called Capitalism cannot do this for us.
Mr. Brooks is right that shifting workers into low-productivity government jobs is not the answer. Then why not high-productivity government jobs? The Civilian Conservation Corps built state parks facilities that are still in use after 80 years. This is far more productive than most free-market activity.
Hillary Clinton, et al., will say whatever is necessary to further their own ambitions. This issue is far too important to leave to the politicians.
Social science research has long since concluded that education does not so much help those who attain it as it handicaps those who do not. Our society has to address whether redistribution is consonant with our values. So-called Capitalism cannot do this for us.
Mr. Brooks is right that shifting workers into low-productivity government jobs is not the answer. Then why not high-productivity government jobs? The Civilian Conservation Corps built state parks facilities that are still in use after 80 years. This is far more productive than most free-market activity.
Hillary Clinton, et al., will say whatever is necessary to further their own ambitions. This issue is far too important to leave to the politicians.
13
Brooks states correctly that "No redistributionist measure will have the same long-term effect as good early-childhood education and better community colleges ..."
Quite true, but someone has to pay for those initiatives. And that someone ought to be the people at the top of the ladder, who earn more and have more than the middle class, yet pay a smaller share of their income and wealth in taxes.
Quite true, but someone has to pay for those initiatives. And that someone ought to be the people at the top of the ladder, who earn more and have more than the middle class, yet pay a smaller share of their income and wealth in taxes.
15
"if we could close the gap so that high-school-educated people had the skills of college-educated people, that would increase household income by $28,000 per year"
Why? Will there suddenly be an increase in demand for those better jobs... and no more need for fry cooks or waitresses?
Why? Will there suddenly be an increase in demand for those better jobs... and no more need for fry cooks or waitresses?
14
Um, wouldn't it make sense to redistribute some of the vast wealth in this country TOWARD investments in human capital on the broadest possible scale?
7
What's clear is people like you and in particular the Republican members of the US Senate and House believe income inequality is perfectly acceptable . So now instead of a college degree, folks need a post graduate degree in order to have a chance at success. Wonderful, what an " equalizer". You fail to account for the loans the average American teenager would incur and be burdened with paying for a 4 year college degree, plus a Master's and PHD. How many people can afford to attend and pay for school until they are in their late 20's? Why do you refuse to address the fact that CEO's and other corporate Oligarchs are paid obscenely and disproportionately to what they are worth especially when compared with the average successful worker! Why not discuss and impose a fair tax rate and eliminate all the corporate loopholes and deductions and exemptions only the top 1 % have access to? Because that would incur their wrath and stop the campaign contributions!
322
Of course they believe it. The GOP motto is "I've got mine, too bad about you."
Thank you, you nailed it. The payments in excess to the CEOs are like the elephant in the room - - its not education or any other ideal equalizers we need but the acknowledgement of over abundance of absolute Gross-Greed - in the 1% of the population that is already gifting themselves . . Again thank you.
First off , what campaign contributions is David Brooks getting!
I am not a 1% but I lead a nice life, live in a nice house and have children who go to college.
None of my friends are 1%ers and we all have nice lives and are content.
I work hard, went to school for 18 years and paid off my debts.
What I hear are a lot of people whineing about it is so difficult and "I want to take money from someone who worked 50-60 hours a week for many years so I can relax with my guarentee'd 40 week job and drink a latte!
I am not a 1% but I lead a nice life, live in a nice house and have children who go to college.
None of my friends are 1%ers and we all have nice lives and are content.
I work hard, went to school for 18 years and paid off my debts.
What I hear are a lot of people whineing about it is so difficult and "I want to take money from someone who worked 50-60 hours a week for many years so I can relax with my guarentee'd 40 week job and drink a latte!
1
This column is a thinly veiled attempt to refute a recent Paul Krugman column. Brooks seems to have signed on as the mouthpiece for those trying to blunt the increasing impact of Krugman's commentary. The problem, alas for them, is that Krugman is intellectually honest and correct, and they are intellectually dishonest and wrong. Brooks has shown no evidence over the years of personally understanding either economics or the American economy; he is in real danger of losing all credibility if he allows himself to be used in this way. Alas for him, he may have no clue as to what's really going on when he talks to those who feed him his transparently hollow "arguments."
61
Mr. Brooks does his usual fine job of laying an out issue fairly and thoughtfully, but he It is wrong to dismiss redistributionist progressivism as populist. The redistribution camp has some pretty deep economic research and thought behind it.
Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century supports the idea that capitalism (without a system of redistribution mechanisms and transparency) leads to greater income inequality. The overwhelming influence of wealth (capital) is a problem that spans centuries and continents. Income from capital overwhelms the influence of income from labor with few historical exceptions. So while a magical fix to the human capital problem might make a small dent in labor income, its impact on overall income inequality would be small.
Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century supports the idea that capitalism (without a system of redistribution mechanisms and transparency) leads to greater income inequality. The overwhelming influence of wealth (capital) is a problem that spans centuries and continents. Income from capital overwhelms the influence of income from labor with few historical exceptions. So while a magical fix to the human capital problem might make a small dent in labor income, its impact on overall income inequality would be small.
8
Every time money changes hands, it is redistributed. The more it changes hands, the larger the GDP grows.
The way I figure it, anyone addled enough to be concerned about Hillary's emails is gonna end-up being grist for somebody's mill, so they might as well be grist for mine.
3
"Increasing worker productivity is the key," he says. Brooks, who half the time seems to be calling it in with fuzzy philosophical pieces, wants the workers to work harder, ignoring the massive increases in productivity over the past decades that have not been matched by increasing wages. Those fuzzy think pieces are meant to make him sound like a very thoughtful person so these propaganda pieces go down easier. It's an embarrassment.
18
If the minimum wage had kept pace with workers increased productivity over the last 40 years it would be well over $20. If it had kept pace with increases in executive pay it would be well over $30. This has been reported in this paper and elsewhere MANY times.
If workers' productivity doubles again under these circumstances where will the benefits go? This seems like one of those questions about statistics and evidence that I remember professors in my government and economics classes using to show us how poor our critical thinking is, only this one's not that tricky.
Has David Brooks somehow missed all the reporting on the numbers, or can he not do the thinking? Or is this whole piece a disingenuous smokescreen?
I ask only for information.
If workers' productivity doubles again under these circumstances where will the benefits go? This seems like one of those questions about statistics and evidence that I remember professors in my government and economics classes using to show us how poor our critical thinking is, only this one's not that tricky.
Has David Brooks somehow missed all the reporting on the numbers, or can he not do the thinking? Or is this whole piece a disingenuous smokescreen?
I ask only for information.
20
I vote smokescreen
1
There is so much wrong, so much uneducated, so much unsupported material in this piece David, I wouldn't know where to begin. Economics is clearly not your strong suit so I would suggest that your future op eds stick to areas you can support. Just a few key words: Unions, middle class, wages, taxes. Think about it.
6
MIT's Prof. David Autor says, "“What I find destructive is the message that if you don’t get into the top 1 percent then you’re out of the game. That’s deeply, deeply incorrect.”
This is a straw man, if there was any. To summarize what many others are saying: "“What I find destructive is that the economic system is rigged to help those in the top 1 percent. That’s deeply, deeply incorrect.”
This is a straw man, if there was any. To summarize what many others are saying: "“What I find destructive is that the economic system is rigged to help those in the top 1 percent. That’s deeply, deeply incorrect.”
4
About 20% of Americans believe they are in the top 1%.
"No redistributionist measure will have the same long-term effect as good early-childhood education and better community colleges..."
Great, Mr. Brooks, then please ask your Republican friends to fund Head Start and to support President Obama's universal free community college initiatives.
Great, Mr. Brooks, then please ask your Republican friends to fund Head Start and to support President Obama's universal free community college initiatives.
7
"wages for college grads have been flat this century, ... But this is not true of people with post-college degrees, who are doing nicely."
I want to stand up and in the words of Joe Wilson say "You Lie!" (or worse)
What am I supposed to believe? Your words or my own horrific experience?
In the last century I only had a B.A. and made as much as 6 figures. At the century's turn I went back to school, got post graduate degree and I am poorer now than when I got my first job (took 3 years) after college in the mid 1980s
What kind of carbon fiber are you peddling here Mr. Brooks?
The U.S. has only 1 governing principle: free contract. In such a society bargaining power is everything. What you make is a function of it.
Nobody knows this better than the rich. They have their own collectives: the corporation which is an ownership collective. You'll see GOPers going after unions but never after the corporation even though society gives them a huge concession in Ltd liability. In exchange for that concession they should be forced to give the majority of their workers tenure (life time employment, as they do in Japan) or the concession should be withdrawn
Doctors still make a lot of money. Why? It's not education. They've got a good union that limits the size of the work force in their field
Hillary doesn't have to go after redistribution of money, just the redistribution of bargaining power, then let the chips fall where they will. Not everyone chooses money. In 2000, I didn't.
I want to stand up and in the words of Joe Wilson say "You Lie!" (or worse)
What am I supposed to believe? Your words or my own horrific experience?
In the last century I only had a B.A. and made as much as 6 figures. At the century's turn I went back to school, got post graduate degree and I am poorer now than when I got my first job (took 3 years) after college in the mid 1980s
What kind of carbon fiber are you peddling here Mr. Brooks?
The U.S. has only 1 governing principle: free contract. In such a society bargaining power is everything. What you make is a function of it.
Nobody knows this better than the rich. They have their own collectives: the corporation which is an ownership collective. You'll see GOPers going after unions but never after the corporation even though society gives them a huge concession in Ltd liability. In exchange for that concession they should be forced to give the majority of their workers tenure (life time employment, as they do in Japan) or the concession should be withdrawn
Doctors still make a lot of money. Why? It's not education. They've got a good union that limits the size of the work force in their field
Hillary doesn't have to go after redistribution of money, just the redistribution of bargaining power, then let the chips fall where they will. Not everyone chooses money. In 2000, I didn't.
19
Everything gets cheaper when more abundant. Labor needs to form cartels to be paid at all.
The assumption that Democratic primary voters are further left than in the general campaign may not be valid. If it were, we would not have had two centrist, two term Democratic Presidents since 1992. The 2008 Democratic primary was similarly fought between two centrists.
The voting core of the Democratic party took a lesson from the disastrous campaigns of McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis.
There is also no evidence that HRC will shift away from her centrist position. That idea is merely speculation on the part of Mr Brooks, perhaps getting confused with the GOP and their Tea Party driven primaries.
The voting core of the Democratic party took a lesson from the disastrous campaigns of McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis.
There is also no evidence that HRC will shift away from her centrist position. That idea is merely speculation on the part of Mr Brooks, perhaps getting confused with the GOP and their Tea Party driven primaries.
5
Typical Brooks hyperbole: "The redistributionists seem to believe that modern capitalism is fundamentally broken."
Not at all. Those who want to restore our middle and working class to 20th century security do not think capitalism is broken-- fundamentally or otherwise. They just want economic law and order, so capitalism can work for the masses as well as the corporations. That is the purpose of having universal voting rights and separating big money from election financing.
Is democracy defined as 'redistributionist'?
The examples of other advanced nations exist for Brooks to ponder.They achieve various combinations of capitalism, profits, private enterprise along with better economic equality and protection of salaried people to be unexploited. Not paradise on earth, but far more democratic and less economically polarized than the backward US.
Not at all. Those who want to restore our middle and working class to 20th century security do not think capitalism is broken-- fundamentally or otherwise. They just want economic law and order, so capitalism can work for the masses as well as the corporations. That is the purpose of having universal voting rights and separating big money from election financing.
Is democracy defined as 'redistributionist'?
The examples of other advanced nations exist for Brooks to ponder.They achieve various combinations of capitalism, profits, private enterprise along with better economic equality and protection of salaried people to be unexploited. Not paradise on earth, but far more democratic and less economically polarized than the backward US.
80
Without money people cannot create demand.
"It’s clear why Clinton might want to talk redistribution. On substantive policy grounds, it would be destructive to do so. And, in the general election, voters respond to the uplifting and the unifying, not the combative and divisive."
In the mid-term 2014 election, the voter turn-out was the lowest it has been in over seventy years, so not just general election voters respond to an uplifting and unifying message. The powers that be have created an atmosphere of cynicism in voters that has reduced even the lowest level of participation in the political process to a 70 year low. Voters are responding to how they view the process and its fairness, not with satisfaction.
In the mid-term 2014 election, the voter turn-out was the lowest it has been in over seventy years, so not just general election voters respond to an uplifting and unifying message. The powers that be have created an atmosphere of cynicism in voters that has reduced even the lowest level of participation in the political process to a 70 year low. Voters are responding to how they view the process and its fairness, not with satisfaction.
11
"Increasing the share of "men" capable of joining the labor force".
Maybe you need to have a lunch with Sheryl Sandberg. Or your daughter.
Clinton will do whatever the mood of her die-hards dictates.
Too bad she follows rather than leads.
Maybe you need to have a lunch with Sheryl Sandberg. Or your daughter.
Clinton will do whatever the mood of her die-hards dictates.
Too bad she follows rather than leads.
4
College degrees do help individuals gain skills, better wages, and the ability to be more responsible for their lives as Republicans like to say. My question is why are so many Republicans governors like Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, and Sam Brownback cutting state funding for education? I think they are trying to repair state budgets from the damaging effects of their tax cuts while trying to look fiscally responsible with tax cuts paid for with spending cuts to education among other things. This does not help the inequality equation at all. It does help drive up the cost of tuition which only hurts if you're on the wrong side of the inequality equation.
329
Perhaps the less people that attend college the less likely the Republican plot to undercut the working class and allow those in need affordable educations to have an opportunity will be exposed. Better to keep them barefoot and pregnant.
they are cutting education to turn it towards free-market education in the form of charters.
2
In Arizona, Gov. Ducey asked for $75 million in cuts for the state's three public universities. A few days ago, under pressure from Republican legislators, he agreed to make $104 million in cuts to the state's universities. The first proposal was disastrous; the current proposal is catastrophic. Even before that, the full-time first-year writing instructors at Arizona State University were asked to teach ten classes a year for the same $32,000 they are making teaching eight classes a year, and these workers all have a graduate degree.
Something is very wrong with David Brooks' grasp of economics.
Something is very wrong with David Brooks' grasp of economics.
2
HRC is not for redistribution or anything marginally similar to your convoluted argument. More interestingly, you advise, go get a PhD and you'll be fine is thoughtless (as evidence of a fair meritious society balancing incomes). Imagine the workplace, "good morning doctor, oh goodness: Doctors". Doctors everywhere!
4
The first error in this analysis: "increase the productivity of workers so they can compete." is belied by the historical decline in wages as productivity doubled (http://www.epi.org/publication/ib330-productivity-vs-compensation/).
The human capital argument is identical to the "job creator" argument. They sound reasonable but given excess wealth, the wealthy gamble, ala 2007, and increasing skills would be worthwhile except that efforts to "reform public education" has had the singular effect of destroying public education through privatization ("Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America’s Public Schools"). That privatization coupled with "business tax breaks" that reduce school taxes erodes funding for public education. What is going on in higher education is tantamount to "rape and pillage" of the future (A Generation Hobbled by the Soaring Cost of College, NYT).
"Americans with a four-year college degree make 98 percent more per hour than people without one." without college amounts to $14 per hour, translating to less than $28 per hour for college educated workers who on average have a debt of $30,000 resulting in payments of $313/month or $3700/year. Rough if jobs are few and far between.
Redistributionist are the 0.01% whose incomes have soared while the general population languishes. Restoring Eisenhower progressive taxes will restore equity. He was a real Republican. Reagan was a draft dodger.
The human capital argument is identical to the "job creator" argument. They sound reasonable but given excess wealth, the wealthy gamble, ala 2007, and increasing skills would be worthwhile except that efforts to "reform public education" has had the singular effect of destroying public education through privatization ("Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America’s Public Schools"). That privatization coupled with "business tax breaks" that reduce school taxes erodes funding for public education. What is going on in higher education is tantamount to "rape and pillage" of the future (A Generation Hobbled by the Soaring Cost of College, NYT).
"Americans with a four-year college degree make 98 percent more per hour than people without one." without college amounts to $14 per hour, translating to less than $28 per hour for college educated workers who on average have a debt of $30,000 resulting in payments of $313/month or $3700/year. Rough if jobs are few and far between.
Redistributionist are the 0.01% whose incomes have soared while the general population languishes. Restoring Eisenhower progressive taxes will restore equity. He was a real Republican. Reagan was a draft dodger.
32
We need to shift the conversation to what America will look like after the death of capitalism. The next collapse should be its last, as people are finally starting to use the word "capitalism" in the streets and the shops. And they do not speak of it fondly.
3
Oh, yes, another Republican attack on "redistribution", from the party that has been redistributing wealth and income ruthlessly upward since Reagan. By plutocrat-financed attacks on progressivity in the tax code, by essentially eliminating most corporate taxation, by globalizing capital, by allowing states to run "race to the bottom" crusades to steal jobs, by allowing financial predators to run wild for years, by vicious attacks on collective bargaining.
Stay out of economics, David. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Stay out of economics, David. You have no idea what you are talking about.
751
Well said! He's not particularly good at politics either. Or determining what's fair or is in the best interests of the general population. But then again, he is a Republican so by definition he is only interested in the top one percent!
3
Redistribution has worked well for the 1% - Could it not work equally well for the 99%.?
we need better education etc. is just another way to stall out calls for a redistributionist approach. before that we had a rising tide lifts all boats, supply side economics, and "everything comes to he who waits" whilst those in charge raid the banks, the pension funds and the cookie jar.
However, while ever the republicans pander to the Christian right and the NRA they can buy enough votes to keep the keys to the castle and pay the guards to pull up the drawbridge very night as it gets dark to keep out the riff raff.
Mr Brooks - just how much more do you think the 1% need before the 99% can be helped.
we need better education etc. is just another way to stall out calls for a redistributionist approach. before that we had a rising tide lifts all boats, supply side economics, and "everything comes to he who waits" whilst those in charge raid the banks, the pension funds and the cookie jar.
However, while ever the republicans pander to the Christian right and the NRA they can buy enough votes to keep the keys to the castle and pay the guards to pull up the drawbridge very night as it gets dark to keep out the riff raff.
Mr Brooks - just how much more do you think the 1% need before the 99% can be helped.
4
It would be nice if I saw some of that 'ruthless upward redistribution.' Have you?
The intolerance, verbal abusiveness and obtuseness of progressives on this site is a pathetic reflection of the sad state of U.S. politics. But Brooks is correct if tepid, as far as he goes. The larger reality is that U.S. economic woes reflect multiple other factors: huge rises in personal and economic lifestyle expectations of the average U.S. adult, which are taken for granted, as well as extraordinary rises in lifestyle expectations. But most of all, the emergence of rising economies driven by vast populations in the rest of the world is driving US economic woes. This last has undermined the relative economic value of what used to be "middle class' jobs in the U.S. and will continue to do so for a long long time. What can be done? The educational goals need to be much much higher to restore former U.S. dominance Bringing more people to levels of competence and expertise that elevate the economy will require huge improvements in our educational institutions, which are in pathetic shape and cater largely to an educator caste whose self interest often exceeds their contributions to the community and the economy. Other major inefficiencies exist in governmental structures at every level from federal to local. And the private sector is equally at fault: excessive dependence on marketing and use of social media, tax evasion and self indulgent leadership are no substitute for competitive innovation and inept governmental overregulation only worsens the situation.
2
I agree our educational goals should be higher, though this may be most practically accomplished by setting our sights lower - at least in the pre-college years. Young people today, even graduates of "good" colleges, are shockingly incapable of performing even the simplest of tasks. They do not know how to pay attention, be careful, and follow through. They don't take ownership of their work. This is a massive societal failure, and exhausting to the well-trained men and women who do all the work. The world really does consist of makers and takers, though that dichotomy cuts through all economic levels. After all, Mitt Romney is the quintessential taker.
1
Though I fundamentally disagree with you as to emphasis, you raise many correct and important points.
How would you ameliorate these problems?
For one: would you agree to junk most of free trade, recognizing that the U.S. economy and society are big enough to produce most (not all) of the goods and services that we require? And that by doing so (recirculating the wealth within our country and local communities), we could partially offset the negative effects of the vast pools of lowly paid labor in other countries?
The manufacture of clothing is a good example of both your theories and mine: there is actually a shortage now of workers who can operate equipment for cutting and sewing. Your emphasis on training, my emphasis on tariffs, both are relevant.
I wish those of us who fundamentally disagree (you and I) could work together to devise and implement optimum policies like this. Think of Hegelian dialects--Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis (in which the Synthesis is not some wishy washy middle ground, but rather an optimum construct that derives from and integrates the strengths of both Thesis and Antithesis.
Please reply.
How would you ameliorate these problems?
For one: would you agree to junk most of free trade, recognizing that the U.S. economy and society are big enough to produce most (not all) of the goods and services that we require? And that by doing so (recirculating the wealth within our country and local communities), we could partially offset the negative effects of the vast pools of lowly paid labor in other countries?
The manufacture of clothing is a good example of both your theories and mine: there is actually a shortage now of workers who can operate equipment for cutting and sewing. Your emphasis on training, my emphasis on tariffs, both are relevant.
I wish those of us who fundamentally disagree (you and I) could work together to devise and implement optimum policies like this. Think of Hegelian dialects--Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis (in which the Synthesis is not some wishy washy middle ground, but rather an optimum construct that derives from and integrates the strengths of both Thesis and Antithesis.
Please reply.
4
You're repeating the same old right-wing baloney about education. In fact, our educational system is overall the world's best. It educates the intellectual elite at the same high level as in the past, and our public schools are as good as those in the world generally--except for poor people. We have an inordinate number of poor people in this country and nobody, not charter school proponents, etc., have any idea how to overcome the educational deficits resulting from poverty. We've done all we can reasonably expect to do educationally with the class system we have as a result of our failing economic system. Reform must come in empowering the people politically and economically.
David Brooks, the "thinking man's" propagandist.
6
Pathetic. Even when you play Monopoly you at least get a chance to start over no matter how badly you may have been beaten in the the previous game. There is absolutely no way to reset our capitalist system that will leave the top 1% intact and untouched. Some of them, like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates say so themselves. Just take a really juicy portion of their wealth through redistribution and let's see how long it takes them to get it back. It will be fun for everyone!! Let the games begin.
8
On Brooks the Rich always can count,
When cries 'gainst those flat wages mount,
His banner unfurls,
He knits and he purls,
His tendentious tapestries mount.
When cries 'gainst those flat wages mount,
His banner unfurls,
He knits and he purls,
His tendentious tapestries mount.
10
That shift was accompanied by one on the right that turned labor from value added into a commodity. Once labor changes forms, and its social costs shifted to government by the corporate right, the political economy becomes necessarily not by choice redistributive, locked in by the right, which, engaged in the politics of resentment, offers no alternative path, while blaming the left for the forced choice the right created.
17
Why would Brooks engage in cherry-picking such data as:
" Since 2000, the real incomes of the top 1 percent have declined slightly. "
to support his argument ? In a time period when it is well-known that almost all the income gains since the 2009 recovery began have gone to that 1%:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/business/economy/income-gains-after-re...
accented by the fact that lower rungs of that 1% fell behind 1/10th%-ers ?
The entire piece seeks to obliterate the fact the inequality accented by the Bush tax cuts, which even Alan Greenspan called for repealing in their entirety in Aug. 2010, have decreased the country's economic mobility:
http://www.epi.org/publication/income-inequality-by-state-1917-to-2012/
which is the lifeblood of a capitalistic society.
In addition to decades of bad corporate governance allowing management to sweep productivity gains from workers up to CEO managers, Brooks ignores that capitalism is supposed to be a results-driven economic system.
The results of 35 years of trickle-down-ism are certainly in, and they're pretty indefensible, on a societal basis, though undeniably an absolutely fabulous period for the new Gilded Age set.
" Since 2000, the real incomes of the top 1 percent have declined slightly. "
to support his argument ? In a time period when it is well-known that almost all the income gains since the 2009 recovery began have gone to that 1%:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/business/economy/income-gains-after-re...
accented by the fact that lower rungs of that 1% fell behind 1/10th%-ers ?
The entire piece seeks to obliterate the fact the inequality accented by the Bush tax cuts, which even Alan Greenspan called for repealing in their entirety in Aug. 2010, have decreased the country's economic mobility:
http://www.epi.org/publication/income-inequality-by-state-1917-to-2012/
which is the lifeblood of a capitalistic society.
In addition to decades of bad corporate governance allowing management to sweep productivity gains from workers up to CEO managers, Brooks ignores that capitalism is supposed to be a results-driven economic system.
The results of 35 years of trickle-down-ism are certainly in, and they're pretty indefensible, on a societal basis, though undeniably an absolutely fabulous period for the new Gilded Age set.
50
Alan Greenspan calling for repeal of Bush tax cuts:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/business/economy/07greenspan.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/business/economy/07greenspan.html
4
Your lack of knowledge and insight are so extraordinary that it's really impossible to set you straight. But for starters:
If the bottom 50% (in terms of knowledge) were made equal to the top 50%, please explain what jobs they'd hold? And what are the economic consequences of that?
How do you explain the different stratifications in the 1950's and 60's, compared to the current period?
How productive is financial speculation? (Are you aware that 1% of currency transactions relate to trade; 99% are speculation.) How productive are mergers and acquisitions? Etc, Etc.
"if we could close the gap... $28000 per year." What jobs would they fill (and who would fill their current jobs?) Please, take a year's sabatical from th opinion wars, and study elementary economics and history!
If the bottom 50% (in terms of knowledge) were made equal to the top 50%, please explain what jobs they'd hold? And what are the economic consequences of that?
How do you explain the different stratifications in the 1950's and 60's, compared to the current period?
How productive is financial speculation? (Are you aware that 1% of currency transactions relate to trade; 99% are speculation.) How productive are mergers and acquisitions? Etc, Etc.
"if we could close the gap... $28000 per year." What jobs would they fill (and who would fill their current jobs?) Please, take a year's sabatical from th opinion wars, and study elementary economics and history!
17
As if there could be no solutions, no new ways of organizing a socio-economic order? Are you against getting creative there?
You raise a profound question. Thank you. I totally agree with you on the need for creativity in restructuring our economy and society. More effective education aimed at developing skills needed for jobs that society needs; far less free trade, far more manufacturing here; policies that effectively circulate income within local communities, states, regions and country; an understanding that work (for a living wage) is a fundamental necessity for happiness; a focus on GNP where "P" is a measure of happiness (this is not a woo woo idea, but with the Internet, it would be possible to accurately poll citizens, from quarter to quarter, on their happiness, and on their problems that interfere with happiness.
I invite all who have written such perceptive rebuttals of Brooks to add to this discussion: what creative restructuring of society and economy might we do?
I invite all who have written such perceptive rebuttals of Brooks to add to this discussion: what creative restructuring of society and economy might we do?
2
Would the French Revolution count as an example of creative restructuring? Is there a kinder, gentler alternative?
Mr. Brooks is sadly mistaken if he thinks his evidence demonstrates that educational obtainment is the focus we need to keep our eyes on. This generation of workers is the most educated in American history. The problem is the opportunity, or the lack, thereof, on the other side of education -- at all levels.
Raj Chetty's research rests on some laughable assumptions -- such as students being randomly assigned to teachers and that income gains from the first decade of employment remain stable across a career.
Worse, Mr. Brooks acknowledges that wages have stagnated but then plunges ahead with a focus on the college wage premium -- without looking at where it comes from. Yes, today's college graduates make much more money than people without college degrees, but that has not come from increasing wages for the college educated. In 2013, a college graduate made $730 more per year than one in 1986, but a two year degree holder made $4,595 less than in 1986 -- and a high school graduate made $2,525 less. The college wage premium did not grow because of a growth in reward for obtaining education -- it grew because the penalty of not obtaining that education exploded.
Under these conditions, what happens to wages if we greatly INCREASE college graduates? The focus is on WAGES because that is where the problem is. Full time work should not leave people in poverty, and corporations who leave taxpayers on the hook to support their workers should be our focus.
Raj Chetty's research rests on some laughable assumptions -- such as students being randomly assigned to teachers and that income gains from the first decade of employment remain stable across a career.
Worse, Mr. Brooks acknowledges that wages have stagnated but then plunges ahead with a focus on the college wage premium -- without looking at where it comes from. Yes, today's college graduates make much more money than people without college degrees, but that has not come from increasing wages for the college educated. In 2013, a college graduate made $730 more per year than one in 1986, but a two year degree holder made $4,595 less than in 1986 -- and a high school graduate made $2,525 less. The college wage premium did not grow because of a growth in reward for obtaining education -- it grew because the penalty of not obtaining that education exploded.
Under these conditions, what happens to wages if we greatly INCREASE college graduates? The focus is on WAGES because that is where the problem is. Full time work should not leave people in poverty, and corporations who leave taxpayers on the hook to support their workers should be our focus.
444
Not to mention, the vastly increased COST of higher education. A new barrier, and with privatization, another way to fleece the middle/lower classes trying to improve their lot. There are new barriers at every socio-economic level, except for maybe the top 5% (being generous there).
1
Most educated in our history? I guess that's why they're so good with history, geography, political science, reading and writing skills? Or, is it just computers and coding? I wouldn't call that a good education; I'd call it a decent set of work skills for the current era.
1
The problem here is not "Wages". The problem as noted in this comment is "opportunity". We become confused with "isms" be it Capitalism or Communism or Socialism or Fascism. Adam Smith never once employed the word "Capitalism" and yet he sought very much to understand why some nations are wealth creating and some are impoverishing. Darin Acemoglu has added to Smith's observations in the recent book, Why Nations Fail.
I post the following Smith metaphor because it is at the heart of our problem. Smith observed:
"A man grows rich by employing a multitude of manufacturers; he grows poor by maintaining a multitude or menial servants.
Smith, Adam - Wealth of Nations (Optimized for Kindle)
This metaphor strikes at the heart of adding material value to material goods through labor. Menial servants are "unproductive labor" in that the end result of their efforts lasts no longer than the time in which they have labored. Making shoes, buggy whips, gloves, clothing etc. all such activity results in 'value-added' material goods. Goods which can last years and which people need in their daily lives.
The United States has been running Trade Deficits of $500 billion for years now. Fully 50% of the cost of an iPhone is immediately sent outside this Nation. Given that America no longer creates a material wealth surplus is it any wonder that opportunities are less and wages are low?
I post the following Smith metaphor because it is at the heart of our problem. Smith observed:
"A man grows rich by employing a multitude of manufacturers; he grows poor by maintaining a multitude or menial servants.
Smith, Adam - Wealth of Nations (Optimized for Kindle)
This metaphor strikes at the heart of adding material value to material goods through labor. Menial servants are "unproductive labor" in that the end result of their efforts lasts no longer than the time in which they have labored. Making shoes, buggy whips, gloves, clothing etc. all such activity results in 'value-added' material goods. Goods which can last years and which people need in their daily lives.
The United States has been running Trade Deficits of $500 billion for years now. Fully 50% of the cost of an iPhone is immediately sent outside this Nation. Given that America no longer creates a material wealth surplus is it any wonder that opportunities are less and wages are low?
1
Not all populists focus on redistribution. Many concentrate on fighting crony capitalism. We can promote education, make the tax system a little more progressive, and reduce economic privileges at the same time.
18
Exactly, John. Brooks sets up education vs. redistribution as if it is an either/or choice. There's no basis for that.
5
Our wealth and resources have ALREADY been redistributed, away from the producing majority, up to the top few. This notorious fact is widely reported with wage gap comparisons to the past.
College degrees get higher salaries only compared to the plunging wages of most jobs in the US.
Many grads take lower paying jobs, their huge loans are a tax on their futures. Making college a lifetime debt issue is to kick Americans when they’re down.
Brooks ignores that if you send millions of jobs to Asia over decades, and destroy union bargaining powers affecting all salaried workers, you get a spiral down in equality. Then paths to training are cut off by soaring costs. Govt efforts to rebalance are labeled socialistic, so candidates have to be careful of what they say.
With our rising inequality is the increased private financing of both parties by billionaires. This is unique in world democracies to turn over our entire campaigns to big money, with our Court blessing this as free speech.
Other countries with publicly financed elections can mitigate the effects of globalization and tech advances by supporting working populations with social safety nets, free or low cost college, apprenticeships training for high school grads, health care for all, and unions on corporate boards. The result is a higher tax base, more social stability and less polarization. Brooks consistently ignores this since he lacks the arguments.
College degrees get higher salaries only compared to the plunging wages of most jobs in the US.
Many grads take lower paying jobs, their huge loans are a tax on their futures. Making college a lifetime debt issue is to kick Americans when they’re down.
Brooks ignores that if you send millions of jobs to Asia over decades, and destroy union bargaining powers affecting all salaried workers, you get a spiral down in equality. Then paths to training are cut off by soaring costs. Govt efforts to rebalance are labeled socialistic, so candidates have to be careful of what they say.
With our rising inequality is the increased private financing of both parties by billionaires. This is unique in world democracies to turn over our entire campaigns to big money, with our Court blessing this as free speech.
Other countries with publicly financed elections can mitigate the effects of globalization and tech advances by supporting working populations with social safety nets, free or low cost college, apprenticeships training for high school grads, health care for all, and unions on corporate boards. The result is a higher tax base, more social stability and less polarization. Brooks consistently ignores this since he lacks the arguments.
26
Hillary Clinton has NOT endorsed economic redistribution and, in my view, will NOT if she runs for the presidency.
For the best indication of what her presidency might look like we need to look at her husband's successful Third Way which was NOT redistribution, but a reconciliation of right-wing and left-wing policies. His policies promoted social democratic and social liberalism in pursuit of new capitalism and egalitarianism. She will, in my view, emulate her husband's successful policies with populist language.
For the best indication of what her presidency might look like we need to look at her husband's successful Third Way which was NOT redistribution, but a reconciliation of right-wing and left-wing policies. His policies promoted social democratic and social liberalism in pursuit of new capitalism and egalitarianism. She will, in my view, emulate her husband's successful policies with populist language.
5
Er, Cowboy.....Bill Clinton's way WAS super redistribution---upward to the top few. The rw didn't reconcile, they pulled the dems rightward. What else was it to sign the Repub sponsored repeal of Glass Steagall banking regulations, and Nafta? And then give power to the Ayn Rand worshipping Greenspan over years? Look up Sen Graham, if you can stand it.
Those were precisely what accelerated the upward transfer of our power and resources away from the majority. The Democrat Clinton continued the trend set in motion by anti govt Reagan. But many Democrats didn't realize, or chose not to. So the march was on to further monopolies, and atrocious banking crimes and the 08 crash, and ever widening inequality.
Those were precisely what accelerated the upward transfer of our power and resources away from the majority. The Democrat Clinton continued the trend set in motion by anti govt Reagan. But many Democrats didn't realize, or chose not to. So the march was on to further monopolies, and atrocious banking crimes and the 08 crash, and ever widening inequality.
5
Meredith, I think you mean Senator Phil Gramm. Besides the repeal of Glass -Steagall, he was responsible for the Commodities Futures Modernization Act which was secretly inserted by reference in a footnote in an 11,000 page appropriations bill. The insertion was done in the dead of night AFTER the conference meeting between the House and Senate was over.
Th CFMA opened the Enron loophole,forbid regulation of derivative (credit default swaps et al) and allowed shadow exchanges to be established.
Th CFMA opened the Enron loophole,forbid regulation of derivative (credit default swaps et al) and allowed shadow exchanges to be established.
3
Modern capitalism is not fundamentally broken. It's fundamentally corrupt when nearly all the gains since the financial catastrophe have gone straight to the top. Those at the top own the politicians who are only too happy to keep the pathological hoarding and the epic bling binge alive.
We are but serfs in a global plutonomy. A rising tide simply lifts all yachts, while the middle class refugees are clinging to the sides of our leaky life rafts.
The skills gap and the education gap are myths dreamed up at plutocratic think tanks in order to justify the most extreme wealth gap of modern times. I would suggest that Mr. Brooks and his party have more to fear from Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders than they do from Hilary Clinton, whom Wall Street has embraced with open arms.
They have more to fear from a new bill, introduced by Democrat Barbara Lee of California, called the Income Equity Act of 2015. Under her legislation, corporations can’t deduct anything over $500,000 or 25 times a company’s median worker compensation.
If advanced degrees were such a great predictor of rising income, why are so many highly educated adjunct college professors forced to go on food stamps? Whey did many of them just walk off their jobs in a general strike?
CEO pay has grown by over 1000% since 1978. The rest of us just don't feel like subsidizing it any more.
http://kmgarcia2000.blogspot.com/
We are but serfs in a global plutonomy. A rising tide simply lifts all yachts, while the middle class refugees are clinging to the sides of our leaky life rafts.
The skills gap and the education gap are myths dreamed up at plutocratic think tanks in order to justify the most extreme wealth gap of modern times. I would suggest that Mr. Brooks and his party have more to fear from Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders than they do from Hilary Clinton, whom Wall Street has embraced with open arms.
They have more to fear from a new bill, introduced by Democrat Barbara Lee of California, called the Income Equity Act of 2015. Under her legislation, corporations can’t deduct anything over $500,000 or 25 times a company’s median worker compensation.
If advanced degrees were such a great predictor of rising income, why are so many highly educated adjunct college professors forced to go on food stamps? Whey did many of them just walk off their jobs in a general strike?
CEO pay has grown by over 1000% since 1978. The rest of us just don't feel like subsidizing it any more.
http://kmgarcia2000.blogspot.com/
338
Karen.....Ah, why can't one of our great liberal columnists on this op ed page write sometime about those adjunct college professors forced to take public assistance and go on strike!? Fair and balanced.
We need to finance economic swimming lessons for the drowning middle class in a municipal public pool.
We need to finance economic swimming lessons for the drowning middle class in a municipal public pool.
6
Ms. Garcia,
It should be noted that most yachts over 75 feet owned by our American 1% "job creators" are foreign registered in order to avoid paying United States' sales tax at the time of purchase.
It should be noted that most yachts over 75 feet owned by our American 1% "job creators" are foreign registered in order to avoid paying United States' sales tax at the time of purchase.
2
THE SOLUTION
The real problem...is concentrated political power. The oligarchs have rigged the game so that workers get squeezed...the private economy isn’t generating jobs."...David Brooks 3/6/15 NY Times
Thomas Piketty in "Capital In The 21st Century" has proven data on the United States economy that proves what David Brooks says above is true.
By current calculations for the USA to achieve a $22 Trillion GNP by 2016, where it needs to be for every citizen to be out of poverty and living a lower-to-upper middle class life by 2025, all that is necessary is for the $1.7 Trillion Quantitative Easing Stimulus given to the supply side banks by the US Treasury and the FED, be distributed equally among all US Citizens by Social Security Number.
This $1.7 Trillion stimulus would jump-start US growth because most would spend the $5,200 check from the Treasury Dept. within one year, creating a series of transactions that multiply the $1.7 Trillion issued in 2015 to produce a $5.1 Trillion jump in GDP in 2016.
Thus, the $1.7 Trillion stimulus pays for itself in the first year, and generates an excess that allows a larger stimulus distribution to every US Citizen every year after, creating the worlds fastest growing economy.
It's simple, immediate, and it solves every personal economic shortfall for every US Citizen, forever.
Data available: [email protected]
The real problem...is concentrated political power. The oligarchs have rigged the game so that workers get squeezed...the private economy isn’t generating jobs."...David Brooks 3/6/15 NY Times
Thomas Piketty in "Capital In The 21st Century" has proven data on the United States economy that proves what David Brooks says above is true.
By current calculations for the USA to achieve a $22 Trillion GNP by 2016, where it needs to be for every citizen to be out of poverty and living a lower-to-upper middle class life by 2025, all that is necessary is for the $1.7 Trillion Quantitative Easing Stimulus given to the supply side banks by the US Treasury and the FED, be distributed equally among all US Citizens by Social Security Number.
This $1.7 Trillion stimulus would jump-start US growth because most would spend the $5,200 check from the Treasury Dept. within one year, creating a series of transactions that multiply the $1.7 Trillion issued in 2015 to produce a $5.1 Trillion jump in GDP in 2016.
Thus, the $1.7 Trillion stimulus pays for itself in the first year, and generates an excess that allows a larger stimulus distribution to every US Citizen every year after, creating the worlds fastest growing economy.
It's simple, immediate, and it solves every personal economic shortfall for every US Citizen, forever.
Data available: [email protected]
3
You're generally right, except for the proportion of the money that would have gone to China, et al, due to "free trade."
What you propose would be a good idea, but spending the money on worthwhile projects would still get the money to the people, but, in addition, would have long term benefits. Some of these projects are fixing infrastructure, grants to states for education, more research, designing and building a new power grid, etc.
2
Brooks has no business diving into a discussion of inequality. For him, it doesn't matter as long as GDP is growing...... its the "a rising tide lifts all boats" idea.
Unfortunately, it only applies to super yachts
Unfortunately, it only applies to super yachts
12
And so how would you categorize a free college or trade school education for all.
2
When the productivity of workers increases, the rich get richer. Also, at the micro (individual) level, education is one way to increase income. But education is not sufficient at the macro level, where the correct policy is paramount: raising taxes on the rich, higher tariffs, and a much higher minimum wage. These policies are needed because unfettered capitalism is like a huge vacuum machine which sucks money from the rest to benefit the rich. Capitalism is the real redistributionist policy: it redistributes money from the middle class to the rich. Republicans are the redistributionists.
Many jobs are being destroyed by Republican "free trade". Wages are flat except for the rich. Millions of Americans got more skills and still lost their jobs. Increasing "incentives to risk and invest" means cutting the taxes of the rich. Shifting people into low-productivity private jobs (janitors, baristas) is not the answer.
It is clear why Mrs. Clinton would want to talk about fixing inequality. On substance, it is the right thing to do. And, in the general election, voters understand if they do not combat the forces of greed, they will pay a stiff price when a Republican is elected President.
Many jobs are being destroyed by Republican "free trade". Wages are flat except for the rich. Millions of Americans got more skills and still lost their jobs. Increasing "incentives to risk and invest" means cutting the taxes of the rich. Shifting people into low-productivity private jobs (janitors, baristas) is not the answer.
It is clear why Mrs. Clinton would want to talk about fixing inequality. On substance, it is the right thing to do. And, in the general election, voters understand if they do not combat the forces of greed, they will pay a stiff price when a Republican is elected President.
271
Very good.
A huge share of any type of redistribution should come in the form of free college ed and early childhood ed.
A huge share of any type of redistribution should come in the form of free college ed and early childhood ed.
1
With most employment already cut to the bone, I doubt that there is much room left for additional productivity. Face it. Employers will do anything to avoid adding jobs. Employees are viewed as an expense, not an asset, even though no money can be made without some of them.
1
Reading the above is like listening to a book report by a fifteen year-old who has just read their first Das Kapital.
Every word presupposes there is an overarching power that will magically transform all levels of income - if we just give them more money than they have now! Which of course is nonsense because we all know human nature can't be suspended. The only ones who will prosper are those slick enough to convince others that this nirvana will all come about if they give THEM some money.
'Give everyone the same amount and in ten years it will look just like it looks today' - J. Paul Getty.
Every word presupposes there is an overarching power that will magically transform all levels of income - if we just give them more money than they have now! Which of course is nonsense because we all know human nature can't be suspended. The only ones who will prosper are those slick enough to convince others that this nirvana will all come about if they give THEM some money.
'Give everyone the same amount and in ten years it will look just like it looks today' - J. Paul Getty.
3
For the last 30+ years productivity has increased significantly but inflation adjusted wages have remained almost constant. Brooks simply ignores pertinent facts. Cherry picking the data is standard right wing procedure but that doesn't change the real situation.
16
Two thoughts.
It is clear that our capitalist system is rigged in a way that it hasn't been since the days of the robber barons. Companies are all about hyping their stock value, paying huge bonuses to their execs but not building a lasting enterprise where all employees benefit. Outsourcing overseas has become an epidemic. The days of corporate responsibility to employees are over. Couple that with little and lax regulation and you get the crash of 2008.
Secondly, the strength of our economy used to rest on the middle class. Not everyone is college material. The blue collar, union jobs that used to be a backbone of this country have disappeared overseas. These included a huge amount of manufacturing jobs that paid well and allowed worker a decent standard of living. What we have left are service jobs here that pay, for the most part, substandard wages. Their are no strong unions left to represent these workers and so they work hard but can't earn a living wage.
No, Mr. Brooks. Education is great but our current system is rigged. Until meaningful legislation is enacted (ha ha), we will continue to be a nation of a few haves and a multitude of have nots.
It is clear that our capitalist system is rigged in a way that it hasn't been since the days of the robber barons. Companies are all about hyping their stock value, paying huge bonuses to their execs but not building a lasting enterprise where all employees benefit. Outsourcing overseas has become an epidemic. The days of corporate responsibility to employees are over. Couple that with little and lax regulation and you get the crash of 2008.
Secondly, the strength of our economy used to rest on the middle class. Not everyone is college material. The blue collar, union jobs that used to be a backbone of this country have disappeared overseas. These included a huge amount of manufacturing jobs that paid well and allowed worker a decent standard of living. What we have left are service jobs here that pay, for the most part, substandard wages. Their are no strong unions left to represent these workers and so they work hard but can't earn a living wage.
No, Mr. Brooks. Education is great but our current system is rigged. Until meaningful legislation is enacted (ha ha), we will continue to be a nation of a few haves and a multitude of have nots.
14
We need to emulate the French Revolution, in which the "few haves" became "have nots"... that is, they have not their heads!
4
True, jobs are being created, but not the kind that pay living wages. True, wages are showing signs of life, but barely and after a decade-plus of virtually nothing at all. The basic reality is people need more help, direct assistance, in these economic times than what even well-meaning people like David Brooks would offer them. And many of them would love a stable, good-paying government job. They are too far behind, for example, to acquire the skills needed to demonstrably increase their work productivity. They don't have time. They also don't have the time or especially the money to make their way through a four-year college program, let alone a post-graduate degree, when they're too busy trying to earn enough to make ends meet. Columns such as this one today, despite its best intentions, can do real damage, especially given Mr. Brook's elite, influential audience. Modern capitalism is not fundamentally broken, but it is in poor condition. There are serious questions about long-term growth in this country absent a war on wealth inequality. The recession ended five years ago, how much longer can we still call its effects temporary?
10
"If we could close the gap so that high-school-educated people had the skills of college-educated people, that would increase household income by $28,000 per year." This proposition holds good only if the demand for 'college-educated-skills' also increases by the corresponding number in a corresponding time-frame! Is this a reasonable assumption?
219
Avinash poses a good question: will the demand for college graduates keep up with a growing supply?
Three things driving demand for college grads:
Retiring Baby Boomers, 10,000 a day. Those most able to retire are opening up jobs most likely to require more education.
Global economy. Half of S&P500 revenue comes from outside the US, resulting in both localized lower wage jobs and higher wage jobs in the US.
Employee development. Better companies are hiring more college grads for entry level jobs, because they want employees who can grow with the company, earn more and remain motivated.
A college degree or technical training is no guarantee of success, older workers have to fight age discrimination but in general the demand will be there (just Google "shortage of skilled workers")
Three things driving demand for college grads:
Retiring Baby Boomers, 10,000 a day. Those most able to retire are opening up jobs most likely to require more education.
Global economy. Half of S&P500 revenue comes from outside the US, resulting in both localized lower wage jobs and higher wage jobs in the US.
Employee development. Better companies are hiring more college grads for entry level jobs, because they want employees who can grow with the company, earn more and remain motivated.
A college degree or technical training is no guarantee of success, older workers have to fight age discrimination but in general the demand will be there (just Google "shortage of skilled workers")
1
Of course it is not a reasonable assumption, and David must know that it is not a reasonable assumption so it is a reasonable assumption that David is being deceptive.
No, it is a ridiculous idea. Brooks knows nothing about economics. If he did, we would know how ridiculous it is to assume that increasing the number of people with college degrees automatically increases the number of jobs for people with such degrees.
2
Modern republican politics is not uplifting and unifying, it's anything but.
Reagan announced his candidacy in, of all the places in these United States, Philadelphia, Mississippi. Which just happens to be where the three civil rights workers were murdered and entombed in a levee.
Nixon was a pioneer of using the southern strategy of hatred and divisiveness.
Sarah Palin's appeal was not to unity and uplift nor was Willard Mitty's 47% speech.
The Tea Party, a wholly owned subsidiary of the eco terrorists of Koch Propaganda & Pollution, is all about hatred, ignorance and dividing people.
Reagan announced his candidacy in, of all the places in these United States, Philadelphia, Mississippi. Which just happens to be where the three civil rights workers were murdered and entombed in a levee.
Nixon was a pioneer of using the southern strategy of hatred and divisiveness.
Sarah Palin's appeal was not to unity and uplift nor was Willard Mitty's 47% speech.
The Tea Party, a wholly owned subsidiary of the eco terrorists of Koch Propaganda & Pollution, is all about hatred, ignorance and dividing people.
19
I want to believe David Brooks' arguments here, but this is such a complex situation, that I cannot take his points at face value. There is so much going on with the apparent stratification of society, it's hard to know what exactly is going on, but I suspect that it's far more than what is presented here. I will say that I am skeptical of his argument that college educated people are, in general, doing that well.
1
David: how about a compromise. Let's tax the rich more to pay for human capital investment. You know, like the US used to do.
50
David, you would be well advised to focus on the temptations facing the motley crew of GOP candidates, and leave Hillary to us.
According to a March 2013 study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, the minimum wage would be $21.72 today had it kept pace with inflation and increases in worker productivity since 1968.
$21.72.
Given that businesses must naturally compete for workers, a $21.72 an hour minimum wage would naturally be impacting the compensation of workers across the entire economic spectrum - thus putting significantly more money into everyone's pockets, and guaranteeing that that much more money is perpetually recirculated through our economy.
The opposite has instead happened. Because Republicans since Reagan were able to decimate organized labor and exploit globalization, in their efforts to dramatically boost corporate, management, and shareholder profits at the expense of workers, wealth has instead been concentrated at the very tip of the economic pyramid, by people who would sooner hide it in the Cayman Islands or invest it in an emerging market economy than patriotically recirculate it in America.
Voodoo economics has been tried and tried again, and failed every time to lift the boats of the vast majority of Americans. Not only do American workers deserve dramatically higher wages, but the American economy urgently requires the perpetual shot in the arm that the establishment of an authentic living wage would provide.
According to a March 2013 study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, the minimum wage would be $21.72 today had it kept pace with inflation and increases in worker productivity since 1968.
$21.72.
Given that businesses must naturally compete for workers, a $21.72 an hour minimum wage would naturally be impacting the compensation of workers across the entire economic spectrum - thus putting significantly more money into everyone's pockets, and guaranteeing that that much more money is perpetually recirculated through our economy.
The opposite has instead happened. Because Republicans since Reagan were able to decimate organized labor and exploit globalization, in their efforts to dramatically boost corporate, management, and shareholder profits at the expense of workers, wealth has instead been concentrated at the very tip of the economic pyramid, by people who would sooner hide it in the Cayman Islands or invest it in an emerging market economy than patriotically recirculate it in America.
Voodoo economics has been tried and tried again, and failed every time to lift the boats of the vast majority of Americans. Not only do American workers deserve dramatically higher wages, but the American economy urgently requires the perpetual shot in the arm that the establishment of an authentic living wage would provide.
86
Matthew,
Your $21.72 number is ridiculous.
Worker productivity increases is largely due to capital and technology investments made by the firm. Why on earth would you expect the firm to spend the money to make the investments and give all the benefits to the employees?
Your $21.72 number is ridiculous.
Worker productivity increases is largely due to capital and technology investments made by the firm. Why on earth would you expect the firm to spend the money to make the investments and give all the benefits to the employees?
I'm quoting the figure from the CEPR. My personal plan calls for a $16 minimum wage offset by a cut in domestic (and only domestic) corporate tax rates, thus initiating a new experiment in "bubble-up" economics.
As to why businesses should share productivity gains with employees, it's because employees fuel consumer demand - without which domestic growth is either difficult or impossible.
When employees aren't paid sufficient wages, they must go into debt - either personal or mortgage debt - in order to buy the staples they need (as they did in the years 2001-2007, in the run-up to the World Financial Crisis). We all saw how the World Financial Crisis worked out, didn't we?
I used to watch CNBC back in the day, and my strong recollection of that period is of the commentators consistently remarking on how, in the aftermath of the implosion of the tech bubble and the rise of the real estate bubble, increasingly hard pressed consumers were now using their home equity and credit cards to keep the economy afloat, in lieu of pay raises or even jobs.
There is no free lunch. Without a consumer being paid enough to be able to consume, demand must suffer - and in a economy that is 70% consumer based, suffer mightily. Eventually, given enough suffering, the entire pyramid can and will implode.
As to why businesses should share productivity gains with employees, it's because employees fuel consumer demand - without which domestic growth is either difficult or impossible.
When employees aren't paid sufficient wages, they must go into debt - either personal or mortgage debt - in order to buy the staples they need (as they did in the years 2001-2007, in the run-up to the World Financial Crisis). We all saw how the World Financial Crisis worked out, didn't we?
I used to watch CNBC back in the day, and my strong recollection of that period is of the commentators consistently remarking on how, in the aftermath of the implosion of the tech bubble and the rise of the real estate bubble, increasingly hard pressed consumers were now using their home equity and credit cards to keep the economy afloat, in lieu of pay raises or even jobs.
There is no free lunch. Without a consumer being paid enough to be able to consume, demand must suffer - and in a economy that is 70% consumer based, suffer mightily. Eventually, given enough suffering, the entire pyramid can and will implode.
6
I recently saw a post that said if the minimum wage had kept pace with the growth in productivity since 1961, it would be $32 an hour now.
2
It seems that Mr. Brooks wants to compensate for progressives' whistling past the graveyard by blowing smoke. The smoke clears when you recall Paul Krugman's column of March 30, 2014, "Job Skills and Zombies," which addresses the job-skills specter, and in which he tries to put to rest the shambling corpse of a conservative meme that will not die.
Krugman points out that workers at all educational levels have been affected by higher unemployment, not just the unskilled. But employers aren't willing to raise salaries to attract worker with the skills they need. Reading Krugman's column will dissipate Brooks' smoke, and it will also reveal the loaded question that encouraged employers to buy into the "gap" idea in the first place.
Redistribution apparently wasn't a problem when it was raising C.E.O. salaries and creating the excesses of the one percent. But I can see why the idea that there's a skills-gap appeals to Mr. Brooks, because it shifts the blame to the victims of the Republican recession. It also gives him another opportunity to say that quality people will rise to the top, while the rest will wallow in a despair of their own making. The fact is that college is out of reach for many people. To say that everyone simply needs to get a degree ignores that fact that millions of people are barely able to stay ahead of the economic decay that is making housing, medical care and every other aspect of daily life a struggle.
Krugman points out that workers at all educational levels have been affected by higher unemployment, not just the unskilled. But employers aren't willing to raise salaries to attract worker with the skills they need. Reading Krugman's column will dissipate Brooks' smoke, and it will also reveal the loaded question that encouraged employers to buy into the "gap" idea in the first place.
Redistribution apparently wasn't a problem when it was raising C.E.O. salaries and creating the excesses of the one percent. But I can see why the idea that there's a skills-gap appeals to Mr. Brooks, because it shifts the blame to the victims of the Republican recession. It also gives him another opportunity to say that quality people will rise to the top, while the rest will wallow in a despair of their own making. The fact is that college is out of reach for many people. To say that everyone simply needs to get a degree ignores that fact that millions of people are barely able to stay ahead of the economic decay that is making housing, medical care and every other aspect of daily life a struggle.
458
gemli,
You make the rather invalid assumption that Krugman's articles are always accurate. Anyone with critical reading skills will be appalled that other readers ignore his cherry picking of data to make his assertions.
You make the rather invalid assumption that Krugman's articles are always accurate. Anyone with critical reading skills will be appalled that other readers ignore his cherry picking of data to make his assertions.
4
It’s “whistling past the graveyard.”
Brooks entire column is one long whistle past the graveyard.
All Dems need to win the WH next election is add to their current positions on women and minorities, a campaign on the redistribution of bargaining power (not money). People's know their own lives are slipping away, even if Mr. Brooks tells them that they've got it so good. If Hillary wins, they'll likely be out until 2025.
Here Brooks pushes the idea of focusing on education and skills development, so as to Pied Piper like, deflect people from going directly for more bargaining power,... to instead seek more bargaining power indirectly through education. But when you get the education and you still don'w have the bargaining power, then what? You've lost money and time and have less leverage than you did before.
Enough with all of that. Do what the rich do: go directly for bargaining power. Once bargaining power is reclaimed, everything else will fall in to place.
In the 80s while they were out sourcing manufacturing jobs, they said "go back to school, get more education, go into computers." Many people did. And in the 90s, many made a lot of money. But when Bush got into office, the H1B visas and outsourcing of IT skills skyrocketed. It would have been much better to gain bargaining power that keeps BigMoney from shipping jobs overseas to fatten 1%'s wallets to begin with. Remember Uncle Miltie said, 4% ROI is the historical rate. They should be satisfied with that.
Brooks entire column is one long whistle past the graveyard.
All Dems need to win the WH next election is add to their current positions on women and minorities, a campaign on the redistribution of bargaining power (not money). People's know their own lives are slipping away, even if Mr. Brooks tells them that they've got it so good. If Hillary wins, they'll likely be out until 2025.
Here Brooks pushes the idea of focusing on education and skills development, so as to Pied Piper like, deflect people from going directly for more bargaining power,... to instead seek more bargaining power indirectly through education. But when you get the education and you still don'w have the bargaining power, then what? You've lost money and time and have less leverage than you did before.
Enough with all of that. Do what the rich do: go directly for bargaining power. Once bargaining power is reclaimed, everything else will fall in to place.
In the 80s while they were out sourcing manufacturing jobs, they said "go back to school, get more education, go into computers." Many people did. And in the 90s, many made a lot of money. But when Bush got into office, the H1B visas and outsourcing of IT skills skyrocketed. It would have been much better to gain bargaining power that keeps BigMoney from shipping jobs overseas to fatten 1%'s wallets to begin with. Remember Uncle Miltie said, 4% ROI is the historical rate. They should be satisfied with that.
9
It is also extremely disingenuous to suggest that all of us are "college material". There are many who are not blessed with the intelligence to do well in college. We should be promoting good jobs in the trades as well. My husband, who didn't go to college due to lack of income not intelligence, supported a family of seven on one income working in the residential heating industry, as well as managing a service department for 14 years. This, and other high skilled trades, were at one time good paying, secure jobs for the mechanically gifted. Now plumbers, electricians, licensed oil burner men and other highly skilled laborers are sent "home" when there is no work. This was unheard of 15 years ago when the employer valued his employee. How can any one plan a life, let alone a budget, when he/she doesn't now whether he'll even be working a 40 hour work week. I know of highly skilled nurses who shuffle between 2-3 hospitals on a per diem basis to scratch out a 40 hour work week. The 40 hour work week is an anachronism. No amount of education will fix this problem or change this mindset. Employees have no value to their employer. They are only seen as a drain on ever more obscene profits and nothing will change as long as this mindset is not only encouraged but promoted as well.
4
When the wealthiest .1% of families control as much wealth as the bottom 90%, or 22.0 versus 22.8 in 2012, I suggest there is a problem. The control of wealth of the top .1% of families has increased from 8.0 to 22.0 from 1980 to 2012, while the control of wealth of the bottom 90% has decreased from 32.9 to 22.8 from 1980 to 2012.
The way in which the problem of severe social-economic inequality becomes failing to appreciate "that having a really good teacher for only one year raises a child’s cumulative lifetime income by $80,000" is shockingly myopic.
The way in which the problem of severe social-economic inequality becomes failing to appreciate "that having a really good teacher for only one year raises a child’s cumulative lifetime income by $80,000" is shockingly myopic.
34
Well there are only so many well paying jobs and if you don't have the connections that the elite do or the legacy appointments to an Ivy League school followed closely by a job then you are in a real rat race for one of the crumbs that fall off the table. Sorry David the game is indeed rigged and capital gains as a tax must be the same as earned income and the progressive income tax needs more, not less brackets and higher rates.
101
You're right! the single, simplest, most effective measure would be to tax capital gains (adjusted for inflation) at them same rate as wages.
6
And then remove all exemptions for churches.
6
I'll never vote for HC whatever her variable policy is. HC is not a leader, just a follower.
5
If she follows the right people, I'll happily take that.
5
Clinton MIGHT want to talk about redistribution.... some left wingers are talking redistribution, after all. But she hasn't started talking redistribution, yet....
Why doesn't Brooks argue with somebody who has, indeed, talked about redistribution, such as Krugman?
Why doesn't Brooks argue with somebody who has, indeed, talked about redistribution, such as Krugman?
7
Because, compared to Krugman, Brooks is in the bottom 1% of intellect and "training".
14
You don't bring a rubber knife to a gun fight, and you don't bring a babbling brook(s) to fight an ocean of experience and knowledge whose depth and breadth would swamp it. On the other hand, it might turn Brooks' commentary from saccharine to saline. This wouldn't be David v. Goliath, it would be Pangloss v. Descartes.
6
The very definition of whistling past the graveyard, Mr. Brooks, is ignoring inconvenient truths as you do so very unsparingly here.
Rick Santorum called Obama a snob for wanting everyone to go to college, not the inverse. It's Republicans, not Democrats, who will burn Obama's community-college-for-all initiative. And then they'll burn the ashes. It's Republicans, not Democrats who want to dismantle the federal Department of Education and turn childhood education into a capitalistic, for-profit free-for-all with charter schools and vouchers.
At best, suggesting that "redistribution" comes at the expense of education is disingenuous (not to mention ludicrous). At best, distilling substantive progressive policy proposals down to the GOP dog-whistle of "redistribution" is duplicitous (not to mention ludicrous). At best, slyly suggesting that Democrats want everyone in "low-productivity government jobs" is cynically deceptive (not to mention ludicrous).
I find this kind of unsubstantiated take-down of an approach Democrats may or may not consider to be in itself combative and divisive, not uplifting and unifying.
Rick Santorum called Obama a snob for wanting everyone to go to college, not the inverse. It's Republicans, not Democrats, who will burn Obama's community-college-for-all initiative. And then they'll burn the ashes. It's Republicans, not Democrats who want to dismantle the federal Department of Education and turn childhood education into a capitalistic, for-profit free-for-all with charter schools and vouchers.
At best, suggesting that "redistribution" comes at the expense of education is disingenuous (not to mention ludicrous). At best, distilling substantive progressive policy proposals down to the GOP dog-whistle of "redistribution" is duplicitous (not to mention ludicrous). At best, slyly suggesting that Democrats want everyone in "low-productivity government jobs" is cynically deceptive (not to mention ludicrous).
I find this kind of unsubstantiated take-down of an approach Democrats may or may not consider to be in itself combative and divisive, not uplifting and unifying.
128
When the wealthiest .1% of families control as much wealth as the bottom 90%, or 22.0 versus 22.8 in 2012, I suggest there is a problem:
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/
October, 2014
Top .1 Percent Wealth Share in the United States, 1980-2012
1980 ( 8.0)
1981 ( 8.8) Reagan
1982 ( 9.4)
1983 ( 8.9)
1984 ( 9.3)
1985 ( 9.7)
1986 ( 9.3)
1987 ( 10.2)
1988 ( 11.6)
1989 ( 11.5) Bush
1990 ( 11.7)
1991 ( 11.2)
1992 ( 12.2)
1993 ( 12.5) Clinton
1994 ( 12.1)
1995 ( 12.3)
1996 ( 13.2)
1997 ( 13.9)
1998 ( 14.5)
1999 ( 15.0)
2000 ( 16.0)
2001 ( 15.7) Bush
2002 ( 14.5)
2003 ( 14.7)
2004 ( 15.6)
2005 ( 16.3)
2006 ( 16.8)
2007 ( 17.7)
2008 ( 19.0)
2009 ( 18.9) Obama
2010 ( 20.7)
2011 ( 20.3)
2012 ( 22.0)
-- Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/
October, 2014
Top .1 Percent Wealth Share in the United States, 1980-2012
1980 ( 8.0)
1981 ( 8.8) Reagan
1982 ( 9.4)
1983 ( 8.9)
1984 ( 9.3)
1985 ( 9.7)
1986 ( 9.3)
1987 ( 10.2)
1988 ( 11.6)
1989 ( 11.5) Bush
1990 ( 11.7)
1991 ( 11.2)
1992 ( 12.2)
1993 ( 12.5) Clinton
1994 ( 12.1)
1995 ( 12.3)
1996 ( 13.2)
1997 ( 13.9)
1998 ( 14.5)
1999 ( 15.0)
2000 ( 16.0)
2001 ( 15.7) Bush
2002 ( 14.5)
2003 ( 14.7)
2004 ( 15.6)
2005 ( 16.3)
2006 ( 16.8)
2007 ( 17.7)
2008 ( 19.0)
2009 ( 18.9) Obama
2010 ( 20.7)
2011 ( 20.3)
2012 ( 22.0)
-- Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman
143
@Nancy..... thank you for providing readers with these stunning statistics in both of your comments that lay it all out. But we need a column that addresses these specifics.
It's rather embarrassing that our esteemed PBS commentator and columnist for America's most authoritative and prestigious op ed page cannot even argue back to these historical facts. He doesn't think that's his responsiblity. So he takes up valuable space blaming the victims of our rapacious political system, with his usual pious condescension and distortion.
At least Brooks elicits comments that inform readers.
It's rather embarrassing that our esteemed PBS commentator and columnist for America's most authoritative and prestigious op ed page cannot even argue back to these historical facts. He doesn't think that's his responsiblity. So he takes up valuable space blaming the victims of our rapacious political system, with his usual pious condescension and distortion.
At least Brooks elicits comments that inform readers.
22
Bravo!
Clearly, these data reflect "lack of training", and not:
tax policy
shift from neutral economic effect of Wall Street's activities to wildly negative effects on the real economy
"free trade"
Clearly, these data reflect "lack of training", and not:
tax policy
shift from neutral economic effect of Wall Street's activities to wildly negative effects on the real economy
"free trade"
4
http://goo.gl/U5WK7M
Look at that Apollo-era Federal minimum wage. Just look at it! Those were the days I tell ya.
Look at that Apollo-era Federal minimum wage. Just look at it! Those were the days I tell ya.
6
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/index.html
September 16, 2014
Households with Householder 25 Years Old and Over by Median Income
Median real incomes for those 25 years old and over from 2000 to 2013 declined from $58,545 to $53,231. *
(Educational attainment of householder)
Median real incomes for those with doctorate degrees from 2000 to 2013 declined from $128,613 to $121,284.
Median real incomes for those with master's degrees from 2000 to 2013 declined from $105,958 to $95,948.
Median real incomes for those with bachelor's degrees or more from 2000 to 2013 declined from $97,181 to $86,411.
Median real incomes for those with bachelor's degrees alone from 2000 to 2013 declined from $90,112 to $79,522.
Median real incomes for those with community college degrees alone from 2000 to 2013 declined from $68,313 to $56,185.
Median real incomes for those with high school degrees alone from 2000 to 2013 declined from $49,409 to $40,701.
* Income in 2013 dollars
September 16, 2014
Households with Householder 25 Years Old and Over by Median Income
Median real incomes for those 25 years old and over from 2000 to 2013 declined from $58,545 to $53,231. *
(Educational attainment of householder)
Median real incomes for those with doctorate degrees from 2000 to 2013 declined from $128,613 to $121,284.
Median real incomes for those with master's degrees from 2000 to 2013 declined from $105,958 to $95,948.
Median real incomes for those with bachelor's degrees or more from 2000 to 2013 declined from $97,181 to $86,411.
Median real incomes for those with bachelor's degrees alone from 2000 to 2013 declined from $90,112 to $79,522.
Median real incomes for those with community college degrees alone from 2000 to 2013 declined from $68,313 to $56,185.
Median real incomes for those with high school degrees alone from 2000 to 2013 declined from $49,409 to $40,701.
* Income in 2013 dollars
196
Redistribution started under Reagan when the relationship between wages and productivity ended. As worker productivity increased, the value was redistributed to the o.01%. The redistribution to the wealthy accelerated under Clinton and took a "great leap forward" after the great recession when the gamblers and creators of the bubble were insulated from loses and then rewarded. The "job creators" whose taxes were lowered to "promote investment" instead gambled and jobs stagnate, wages decline, and the infrastructure crumbles.
20
Brooks (and his ilk) deal in Opinions, not facts. I challenge him to respond to these comments with one of his pompous opinions.
And then, let him return to school to acquire some education, which he dearly needs!
And then, let him return to school to acquire some education, which he dearly needs!
7
Don't try to confuse conservatives with facts.
1