February 23, 2018--Occupy Tallahassee

Some are prognosticating that the gun control "movement" led by survivors of last week's shootings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL, will be short-lived.

The odds are that they are right. 

To sustain this effort would require children now ranging in age from 14 to 18 to devote themselves to it essentially full time while still enrolled in high school or when their time soon comes to attend college or for some, as members of the ROTC, are obligated to enter the army. If their cause were taken over by a formal organizational structure run by adults it would lose most of its visceral effectiveness. 

Half of Never Again's current appeal is not just the popularity of the issues these kids are insisting be addressed in Tallahassee and Washington but the fact that this is a children's crusade. Children who in their newly-imposed maturity and youthful wisdom are so amazingly good on TV and the Internet and thus are especially viable in our social-media age.

So, as CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times move on, as they soon will, it is likely to run out of visible gas. In other words, it will no longer be as compelling and deeply moving a story as it currently is. This is inevitable.

But then again, I am reminded of another movement organized and carried out by young people which popped up unexpectedly, attracted a great following among the public and in the media, and then seemingly passed from view. 

Occupy Wall Street. 

Its outward manifestation, occupying Zuccottti Park not far from the Stock Market on Wall Street, lasted just 28 days from September 17 through November 15, 2011, but its basic message lives on. Occupy itself passed from the scene but its central message is still with us and continues to deeply affect our political discourse--the relentless economic inequality that plagues our society. The disparity in the ownership of America's wealth between the top 1% and the rest of us.

Zuccotti Park is back to normal, occupied again mainly by stock traders taking a smoking break and New York City's resilient pigeon population, but we still have lively debates about economic fairness. Bernie Sanders, for example, would not have been as viable as he turned out to be if it weren't for the issues Occupy Wall Street placed before us.

And it could be, hopefully will be, also true for Never Again. I am feeling that our discourse, such as it is, about firearms will be permanently altered. These kids and millions of others vote or will vote when they are old enough and those they have already inspired (count me among those) will keep their "common sense" issues before us and will compel candidates at the state and national levels to take their views into active consideration if they want to protect their public sinecures.

If as I sense that those as rigid and craven as Marco Rubio and Donald Trump are sounding different it may be that something new and welcome is happening thanks to those inspiring young people we have this week been getting to know.

October 3, 2106--Armageddon

It surprised me the other morning when Jack said that we are approaching Armageddon.

He's as solid a citizen as there is, totally rational, totally secular, totally progressive. He of all people was talking this way?

It might have been a response to what Joe said. Joe, a Trump supporter from even before Donald formally announced he was running for president.

"I'm for him," he responded when I challenged him at that time, "because he knows how to get things done." This before the full extent of how he actually "gets things done" was well known.

On Thursday Joe said, "If Trump loses the election, or even if he wins, I predict there will be a civil war within 20 years."

"Are you being serious?" I asked, "Or just wanting to be provocative now that your boy is on the path to defeat?"

"I'm being serious. There's so much dissension, so many angry people on all sides, race relations are heading for an explosion. And then there are all those rich people while everyone else is struggling and falling behind."

That's when Jack said that about Armageddon.

"You agree with Joe?" I was incredulous. This is the first time Jack agreed with him about anything, You think we're headed for a civil war?"

Jack who was sending money to Bernie before Hillary won the nomination and since then has been a fervent supporter of hers was being serious, which caused me to be concerned. Not about him but about the possibility of what they both were predicted.

"You talking Armageddon because of what Joe said about race and economic inequality?"

"Basically yes. And of course they're related. On a collision course."

"This feels very pessimistic. You tend, as most liberals, to be optimistic because as a liberal you think things can be improved by human intervention. Including by governments."

"In general that's true. But even progressives are fed up with governments. Yes, there are some things that are working well. For me, at my age, that includes Medicare. Though I know it among other things is bankrupting the country. When the due-bills arrive, that's when Joe's prediction will come true. When the money runs out and people don't get their medical care or Social Security. Then, watch out."

"He's right," Joe jumped back in, surprised to find Jack agreeing to anything he had to say. "It may be a trivial example, but have you driven on the roads lately?"

"Obviously. Even to get here to the diner."

"Didn't you tell me that because of the condition of the roads you had to get your tires aligned three times in eight months? And that you had to replace all four tires after a year and a half? Michelins? How much did all that set you back?"

"For all of it," Rona said, "more than a thousand."

"Who is responsible for the roads?" Joe asked.

"I guess the county."

"And what is the county?" Not waiting for me to answer he said, "Government that's what it is. Government."

"Your point?"

"Among other reasons, that's contributing to making people crazy. Fortunately for you you can come up with the thousand, but for a lot of folks, including right here, that's a month's take-home pay. And then, like it or not, agreeing with me or not, when they see people with food stamps and subsidized heat, and all that, the resentment builds and will, as I said, boil over when things get scarcer and more unequal. Civil war, pure and simple."

"Armageddon pure and simple," Jack chimed in not smiling so I knew he was being serious.

When later in the day I told another, even more progressive friend about this, he pulled me close to him and whispered, almost  as a non sequitur, "We never should have sent troops to Iraq or anywhere else in that region. What we should have done, what we should do, is announce that anyone that attacks Israel will get nuked."

Incredulous, I said, "Nuked? That would lead to Armageddon, wouldn't it?"

He thought for a moment, shrugged, and said,"That's where we're we headed anyway so . . ."

November 21, 2014--Best of Behind: Black Friday

From November 25, 2012, here's a report about Black Friday. I mentioned Occupy Wall Street. Remember them? I hadn't thought about them for some time. How easy, how quickly we forget--

Every year all the newspapers and every TV station run reports about Black Friday, the day retailers hope that on their P&L statements they will finally begin to show a profit, move from the red into the black. 

The stories are always about how much sales are expected to increase over the year before, how early the stores will be opening, and then the frenzy when the doors finally are opened and shoppers--many of whom have been lined up for days--literally trample each other in a race to buy the latest flat-screen TV for 75% off.

This year, thanks to Occupy Wall Street which, if nothing else, has raised awareness about growing economic inequality, some of what is being reported includes inequalities in holiday shopping itself. Would the following have appeared even in the "liberal" New York Times--replete this time of year with ads for Tiffany and Rolex--if not for the Occupy folks?

One the front page, above the fold, under the headline, "Opening Day For Shoppers Shows Divide," the Times reports:

As the busiest retail weekend of the year began late Thursday night, the differences between how affluent and more ordinary Americans shop in the uncertain economy will be on unusually vivid display.

Budget-minded shoppers will be racing for bargains at ever-earlier hours while the rich mostly will not be bothering to leave home.

Toys “R” Us, Wal-Mart, Macy’s, Kohl’s, Best Buy and Target will start their Black Friday sales earlier than ever—at 9 and 10 p.m. Thursday night in some instances--with dirt-cheap offers intended to secure their customers’ limited dollars. A half a day later, on Friday morning, higher-end stores like Neiman Marcus, Saks Fifth Avenue, and Nordstrom will open with only a sprinkling of special sales.

The low-end and midrange retailers are risking low margins as they cut prices to attract shoppers, while executives at luxury stores say that they are actually able to sell more at full price than in recent boom years.

“We’re now into a less promotional environment than we were before the recession,“ said Stephen I. Sadove, chairman and chief executive of Saks. In the third quarter, for instance, Saks reduced the length of an annual sale to three days from four, and excluded the high-margin category of cosmetics from another regular sale.

The Times goes on to note that Neiman Marcus, via their "fantasy" catalog, which traditionally features very high-end stuff, this year, within 50 minutes, sold out of Ferraris at $395,000 each. All 10 of them.

June 18, 2014--The Six Americas

I hesitate to bring him up, he was such a . . . you know what, but John Edwards, during the 2008 primary campaign, reminded us that there are two Americas--"the privileged and the wealthy and the America of those who live paycheck to paycheck."

He of course was oversimplifying--for example among the less-privileged there are the working poor and those, without hope of work, who live in unrelenting poverty. And then there are the "privileged" who are the wealthy one percent and the simply affluent. This could then be thought of as four Americas.

But his reductionist two-Americas lens was still a good one through which to see the United States. It continued to be as the Occupy Wall Streeters reminded us.

The two-Americas idea was not entirely new, not even in it phrasing. It was derived from the findings of the presidentially-appointed Kerner Commission, which, after the urban riots of the 1960s, in 1968, reported that the United States was "moving toward [becoming] two societies, one black, one white--separate and unequal."

The Kerner conclusion about race adds two more Americas for a total of six. And though the commissions findings were and are essentially true, they too lacked nuance. For example, the report barely mentioned how poorly many other millions of color, Hispanics for example, were doing. And it did not take even a glance at how women were faring or look at the stratification within the black community.

But as with Edward's summation, it too attracted attention, debate, and led to some palliative social policies.

Thus one could say that are more than two Americas. Six at least and even eight.

I've already noted that there is an America for most people of color, not just for African Americans, and that the socioeconomic divide if far more complex and its complexity is more important to pay attention to than Edwards' simple wealthy-versus-paycheck people.

And it may be almost equally important to consider the two ideological Americas, which also has a geographic component.

A recent study conducted by the Pew Research Center found that the partisan divide stretches way beyond Congress. Liberals and conservatives prefer to live near people of like minds and want their children to marry those with similar political views.

More distressing, beyond having differing views that are subject to debate and compromise (both essential to a functioning democracy), Pew reported that 27 percent of Democrats and 36 percent of Republican see the other party as a threat to the nation's well-being.

Then there are the two cultural Americas, both closely aligned with the two ideological Americas. Some have declared the Culture Wars ended with "victory" for the progressive perspective that, among other things, supports same-sex marriage.

It is true that in a crescendo of court decisions and actions by voters and state legislators it is now legal in 17 states for men to marry men and women to marry women; but in states and cities along both coasts, in contrast to pretty much everywhere in between, battles rage about what to teach children--evolution or intelligent design; abortion, in spite of Roe v. Wade, is available on demand in only four states; and various forms of Christian prayer at public meetings, recently declared constitutional by the Supreme Court, now occurs commonly in much of America, including in Congress.

So how many Americas do we have? Ten? A dozen? Much to understand. Much work still to be done.

May 29, 2014--The $ of a College Education

Back in 1976 I wrote a book about the history and then current state of higher education--Second Best. The "second best" referred to how the system favored the affluent at the literal expense of the less fortunate.

One chapter was devoted to the financing of colleges and universities, especially the redistribution of assets from the working poor and lower middle class to the upper middle class and wealthy.

Studies that I cited showed that since the system disproportionately encouraged the enrollment and graduation of these latter students, tax money and other forms of assets flowed upward from those at the bottom to those at the top. The best evidence at the time showed that college graduates over their lifetimes earned about 50 percent more than those with only high school diplomas and even "some college," with some college including community college students who never went on the earn bachelors degrees.

I hoped the book, which was widely reviewed and discussed, would contribute to the debate about this unfairness and contribute to efforts to close these gaps in educational attainment and economic outcomes.

But from recent evidence it is clear that I and many others were less than effective.

This may come as something of a surprise since there is so much casual talk currently, supported by anecdotal stories, about how recent college graduates can't find jobs and are therefore moving back home, holed up again in their old bedrooms.

Friends have been telling me for years that they know this brilliant young person who graduated with honors from Georgetown or a talented student from the University of Michigan who has been looking unsuccessfully for work for the past three years. Or had to take a part time job.

From this one might suspect that the income gaps at least have narrowed and that unemployment among college grads would have risen.

But a recent study cited in the New York Times by the Economic Policy Institute, using Labor Department data, shows that the unemployment rate among college graduates is only 3 percent (while for those with "some college" it is more than 25 percent) and that the earnings gap is even more pronounced than in the past.

Five years ago grads earned 89 percent more than non-graduates, ten year ago it was 84 percent more, back in the early 1980s it was a 64 percent premium, and as my research showed it was "only" 50 percent more in the mid-1970s.

On the other hand, the most recent data reveal a shocking 98 percent advantage in earnings for college graduates when compared to those with either a high school diploma or a year or two of college. This translates to $1.0 million more in earnings over a working lifetime.

It may be true that a percentage of employed college graduates feel they are underemployed or are working in fields that do not align with their interests or aspirations; but the anecdotes, which confirm predetermined presuppositions about the state of things, do not represent the truth.

The truth however, is mixed--it is good news that college graduates are doing so comparatively well (though it is not good news that the average graduate is $25,000 in debt); but it is little comfort to think about those falling further and further behind. That was true in 1976 and, sadly, it is even more so today.

March 20, 2014--The Rich Get Richer, The Poor Get . . .

The intellectual firepower in economic theory that claimed that economic growth over time reduces inequality was provided during the 1950s and 60s by Simon Keznets.

Most starkly, he put forth the Kuznets Curve that graphically illustrated what he argued was a natural curve, a natural cycle that begins with widening inequality while an economy grows but then decreases, again naturally, over time until a "certain average income is attained." In other words, after overall economic growth, inequality, if we are patient, is reduced.

His work was derived by his assembling reams of data primarily from tax returns. He argued that between 1913 when the income tax was introduced in the United States until the end of World War II in 1948, the portion of the national income earned by the richest 10 percent of Americans declined from a little under half that total income to "only" about a third.

In other words, Karl Marx and more benign progressives were wrong--the free market was a self-correcting system and governments should get out of the way and allow economic justice over time to express itself.

Now there is a new, massively data-rich study by Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics, Capital in the 21st Century, that looks at even more data. Much more data. He studied income and wealth disparity over hundreds of years in dozens of countries and comes to very different conclusions than Kuznets.

In brief, Piketty found that the rate of return on capital investment (machinery, real estate, land, financial instruments) is much higher that the rate of economic growth.

This means that wages cannot keep up with capital formation, inequality therefore increases rather than decreases over time, and it is not self-correcting. That is, if markets are left to themselves. But when governments intervene through, say, progressive taxation, the gaps between the haves and have-nots can be narrowed.

From his data Piketty cites numerous examples of how the unfettered market increases inequality but how with shifts in public policy it has been and can be reduced.

He shows that inequality today is reaching and exceeding the upper limits of the Gilded Age. According to a essay in the New York Times from data mined by Piketty, investment profits account for the largest share of national income since the 1930s and as a result, the richest 10 percent of Americans control a larger share of the economic pie than at any time since 1913.

In regard to Kuznets, Piketty demonstrates that the data that underlie the Curve were amassed from an idiosyncratic period in one country's history--the years in the United States when the Depression destroyed a large portion of the richest people's wealth while at the other end of the period Kuznets studied, the economy benefitted disproportionately by the spending and government investments required to arm the country to fight the Second World War.

Ironically, the forces that ultimately led to the end of the Depression and an era in which income equality was reduced were more the result of government taxation and spending policies than the Invisible Hand of the free market.

The free market brought about the Depression while government intervention and a world war were essential to ending it.

Piketty argues that unless we amend current fiscal policy--especially taxation--the concentration of wealth will continue and inequality will worsen. There are no examples in history since the Industrial Revolution that the market will in and of itself make a difference. Not even expanded investments in education, which to many is the best way to proceed.