“...the public anger about the economy is not without empirical basis.”
April 28, 2016 12:31 PM Subscribe
President Obama Weighs His Economic Legacy by Andrew Ross Sorkin [The New York Times] Eight years after the financial crisis, unemployment is at 5 percent, deficits are down and G.D.P. is growing. Why do so many voters feel left behind? The president has a theory.
Related: What Obama Really Thinks About His Economic Legacy [The New York Times]
Related: What Obama Really Thinks About His Economic Legacy [The New York Times]
1. He believes the U.S. economy is in better shape than the public appreciates.
2. But he also believes his administration could have done more if he had sold his policies more effectively.
3. These shortcomings continue to haunt him.
4. He disagrees with criticism he got from the left about his stimulus plan.
5. He’s irritated by the hatred he gets from Wall Street.
6. He believes there is no basis for the Republican presidential candidates’ economic platforms.
7. He thinks that our economic future depends on dispelling several widely held beliefs from the past.
The man is clearly out of touch with ordinary Americans who are not of the 1%.
posted by Seekerofsplendor at 12:40 PM on April 28, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by Seekerofsplendor at 12:40 PM on April 28, 2016 [15 favorites]
Obama is animated by a sense that, looking at the world around him, the U.S. economy is in much better shape than the public appreciates
BREAKING: World's Tiniest Stradivarius Sells for Record Price at Auction; Billionaire Buyer Appreciates Shape of Economy
posted by RogerB at 12:44 PM on April 28, 2016 [9 favorites]
BREAKING: World's Tiniest Stradivarius Sells for Record Price at Auction; Billionaire Buyer Appreciates Shape of Economy
posted by RogerB at 12:44 PM on April 28, 2016 [9 favorites]
"The private sector has added crappy jobs for 73 consecutive months — some 14.4 million new crappy jobs in all — the longest period of sustained crappy job growth on record."
Actually, I'm surprised to hear it so starkly from the NYT (emphasis mine): "...Obama seems to understand that his economic legacy might be judged not just by what he has done, but by how the results compare to a bygone era of middle-class opportunity, one that perhaps no president, faced with the sweeping changes transforming the global economy, could ever bring back."
posted by J.K. Seazer at 12:46 PM on April 28, 2016 [61 favorites]
Actually, I'm surprised to hear it so starkly from the NYT (emphasis mine): "...Obama seems to understand that his economic legacy might be judged not just by what he has done, but by how the results compare to a bygone era of middle-class opportunity, one that perhaps no president, faced with the sweeping changes transforming the global economy, could ever bring back."
posted by J.K. Seazer at 12:46 PM on April 28, 2016 [61 favorites]
Yeah, if you're inside the garden, the economy is fantastic and everything Obama has said about the strength and scale of the recovery is likely true. The problem is a fuckton of people got pushed out of the garden and are still lined up around the fence looking in.
And they're voting for Donald Trump. This time. So, Mr. President and other folks inside the nice fenced-in garden, if there are that many people willing - even eager - to actually do that this time, you might want to think long and hard about what they'll do when that doesn't work...
(And let me add that, looking back on 2007-8, it's hard to believe how disappointed I've been by Barack Obama. I'm actually having some trouble unpacking how much of that falls on him and how much is the fault of our own wildly unrealistic expectations of him. (I mean they gave the man a Nobel Prize for just being him instead of George W. Bush!)
posted by Naberius at 12:51 PM on April 28, 2016 [13 favorites]
And they're voting for Donald Trump. This time. So, Mr. President and other folks inside the nice fenced-in garden, if there are that many people willing - even eager - to actually do that this time, you might want to think long and hard about what they'll do when that doesn't work...
(And let me add that, looking back on 2007-8, it's hard to believe how disappointed I've been by Barack Obama. I'm actually having some trouble unpacking how much of that falls on him and how much is the fault of our own wildly unrealistic expectations of him. (I mean they gave the man a Nobel Prize for just being him instead of George W. Bush!)
posted by Naberius at 12:51 PM on April 28, 2016 [13 favorites]
The view from the streets here is that nearly everyone i know who was unemployed during the recession went from sleeping on a couch(or in their parents basement, or...) with no job to having a crappy job that barely pays the rent, which when they lose, they're back to couch surfing or worse.
No one has any savings, the only people who aren't fucked are living on the fumes of boomer money their parents had sitting around either in the form of a modest amount of cash or a home(or a home that resulted from that cash years ago).
"The private sector has added crappy jobs for 73 consecutive months — some 14.4 million new crappy jobs in all — the longest period of sustained crappy job growth on record."
Rings 100% true to me. Non shitty job growth is pretty much flat unless you have education and experience and generally in the tech or medical fields. My friends an experienced sushi chef, which is a pretty highly skilled, time consuming to train up on, and in-demand subfield of the culinary arts from what i've seen. All he can string together are multiple part time gigs that pay decently but... are rotating shift bullshit part time gigs that seem to carry the heavy implication that he should only have one job and be available all the time.
Couple that with the fact that rents are outstripping gains in income from the raised minimum wage(and upward pressure that put on slightly above min wage gigs) of crappy jobs, and landlords tightening income requirements* and i know plenty of people with halfway ok crappy jobs who are having a real hard time finding places to live, or places to live that aren't abject slumlord shitholes.
As it is, i'm sitting here thankful to have a job at all but wondering how i'm going to pay my fucking rent in a year or two and how far out of town or in to how assy of a place i'll have to move.
The economy may be "stronger than we think", but none of the gains seem to be showing up down here.
I turned 18 just in time to vote for Obama the first time. I was out in the fucking streets. Everyone i know was palpably excited. Now all i can really say is... tip your bartenders, folks.
*Because after all, if your choice is between someone who makes ~40k a year or less and someone who makes 110k for the same apartment... why wouldn't you go with the higher income person, or try and modify your fishhook so you were only reeling those people in? Free market!
posted by emptythought at 12:54 PM on April 28, 2016 [64 favorites]
No one has any savings, the only people who aren't fucked are living on the fumes of boomer money their parents had sitting around either in the form of a modest amount of cash or a home(or a home that resulted from that cash years ago).
"The private sector has added crappy jobs for 73 consecutive months — some 14.4 million new crappy jobs in all — the longest period of sustained crappy job growth on record."
Rings 100% true to me. Non shitty job growth is pretty much flat unless you have education and experience and generally in the tech or medical fields. My friends an experienced sushi chef, which is a pretty highly skilled, time consuming to train up on, and in-demand subfield of the culinary arts from what i've seen. All he can string together are multiple part time gigs that pay decently but... are rotating shift bullshit part time gigs that seem to carry the heavy implication that he should only have one job and be available all the time.
Couple that with the fact that rents are outstripping gains in income from the raised minimum wage(and upward pressure that put on slightly above min wage gigs) of crappy jobs, and landlords tightening income requirements* and i know plenty of people with halfway ok crappy jobs who are having a real hard time finding places to live, or places to live that aren't abject slumlord shitholes.
As it is, i'm sitting here thankful to have a job at all but wondering how i'm going to pay my fucking rent in a year or two and how far out of town or in to how assy of a place i'll have to move.
The economy may be "stronger than we think", but none of the gains seem to be showing up down here.
I turned 18 just in time to vote for Obama the first time. I was out in the fucking streets. Everyone i know was palpably excited. Now all i can really say is... tip your bartenders, folks.
*Because after all, if your choice is between someone who makes ~40k a year or less and someone who makes 110k for the same apartment... why wouldn't you go with the higher income person, or try and modify your fishhook so you were only reeling those people in? Free market!
posted by emptythought at 12:54 PM on April 28, 2016 [64 favorites]
I am so glad the article finally got around to making the point that kept popping into my mind as soon as they mentioned the battery factory - only 300 people work there! I understand Obama's concern with the broad economic indicators and obviously he's going to point to what has gone well, but I don't see any answer to how we address the fundamentally evolving nature of techno-capitalism in the 21st century from either side of the aisle in US politics - automation and financialization loom large.
The GOP offers more for the rich under a cloak of populist fantasy (Trump and Cruz both have insane impossible tax plans, for instance). Clinton offers the same neoliberal agenda that Obama has followed; the NYT piece does a good job of pointing out the limitations of this approach. Sanders talks a good game but I have no idea how he'd implement any of it or if it would even work.
It's scary.
posted by Wretch729 at 1:00 PM on April 28, 2016 [10 favorites]
The GOP offers more for the rich under a cloak of populist fantasy (Trump and Cruz both have insane impossible tax plans, for instance). Clinton offers the same neoliberal agenda that Obama has followed; the NYT piece does a good job of pointing out the limitations of this approach. Sanders talks a good game but I have no idea how he'd implement any of it or if it would even work.
It's scary.
posted by Wretch729 at 1:00 PM on April 28, 2016 [10 favorites]
He’s irritated by the hatred he gets from Wall Street
I'm surprised by this one, too. Hey, look, we now have states like Wisconsin and Kansas whose Republican governments are 100% on board with the agenda of the ultra-rich. Sure, the economies of those states suck worse than the rest of the country's, but in those low-tax, light-regulation environments, the ultra-rich make out like bandits. It's hardly surprising they wouldn't blame Obama for standing in the way of them doing the same to the rest of the country.
What's surprising, again, is that Obama doesn't draw a much more distinct line to point out that Republican policies, when implemented, are an economic disaster.
posted by Gelatin at 1:06 PM on April 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm surprised by this one, too. Hey, look, we now have states like Wisconsin and Kansas whose Republican governments are 100% on board with the agenda of the ultra-rich. Sure, the economies of those states suck worse than the rest of the country's, but in those low-tax, light-regulation environments, the ultra-rich make out like bandits. It's hardly surprising they wouldn't blame Obama for standing in the way of them doing the same to the rest of the country.
What's surprising, again, is that Obama doesn't draw a much more distinct line to point out that Republican policies, when implemented, are an economic disaster.
posted by Gelatin at 1:06 PM on April 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
He’s irritated by the hatred he gets from Wall Street
He should be — he kept all of them out of prison! How ungrateful.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:16 PM on April 28, 2016 [51 favorites]
He should be — he kept all of them out of prison! How ungrateful.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:16 PM on April 28, 2016 [51 favorites]
He believes the U.S. economy is in better shape than the public appreciates.
The US economy is doing great, sure, but the US citizens aren't sharing in the success.
It's like when your boss sends an email saying, "thanks to your hard work, we had record sales this quarter!" but doesn't mention any sort of bonus or incentive.
Instead of measuring economic recovery by the GDP, let's look at how we're doing as humans. Because it really doesn't matter if the Koch Bros have 20 yachts or 40. It matters whether 40% of us feel crushing poverty, or 0%.
posted by explosion at 1:17 PM on April 28, 2016 [61 favorites]
The US economy is doing great, sure, but the US citizens aren't sharing in the success.
It's like when your boss sends an email saying, "thanks to your hard work, we had record sales this quarter!" but doesn't mention any sort of bonus or incentive.
Instead of measuring economic recovery by the GDP, let's look at how we're doing as humans. Because it really doesn't matter if the Koch Bros have 20 yachts or 40. It matters whether 40% of us feel crushing poverty, or 0%.
posted by explosion at 1:17 PM on April 28, 2016 [61 favorites]
Mod note: Couple of comments deleted. Gently, let's keep it more to Obama/the article, rather than steering off into detailed individual situations.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 1:19 PM on April 28, 2016
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 1:19 PM on April 28, 2016
It's like when your boss sends an email saying, "thanks to your hard work, we had record sales this quarter!" but doesn't mention any sort of bonus or incentive.
The boss probably feels it'd be gauche to mention the bonus he or she got thanks to his or her department's increased productivity, so at least there's that.
posted by Gelatin at 1:28 PM on April 28, 2016 [28 favorites]
The boss probably feels it'd be gauche to mention the bonus he or she got thanks to his or her department's increased productivity, so at least there's that.
posted by Gelatin at 1:28 PM on April 28, 2016 [28 favorites]
I'm not greatly disappointed in Obama; despite the soaring rhetoric, his policies never seemed to be terribly radical, more like baby steps to the center. I also remembered how batshit crazy the R's were during the Clinton Years, much less these days, and adjusted my expectations accordingly.
We're getting to the point where defending/repairing the status quo isn't good enough. Both parties greatly underestimate the desire by much of the population to give the political establishment a good kick in the nuts. Too many people, even if they're doing okay, are living on the edge.
posted by Eikonaut at 1:39 PM on April 28, 2016 [9 favorites]
We're getting to the point where defending/repairing the status quo isn't good enough. Both parties greatly underestimate the desire by much of the population to give the political establishment a good kick in the nuts. Too many people, even if they're doing okay, are living on the edge.
posted by Eikonaut at 1:39 PM on April 28, 2016 [9 favorites]
The boss probably feels it'd be gauche to mention the bonus he or she got thanks to his or her department's increased productivity, so at least there's that.
Damn good metaphor, though. I'm going to borrow that one, if it's all right.
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:41 PM on April 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
Damn good metaphor, though. I'm going to borrow that one, if it's all right.
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:41 PM on April 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
Obama is America's substitute teacher. There's a lesson plan, but it hasn't been updated in a long time, so he's on his own there. The kids are high on too much sugar and they're all pissed that they're not getting as much as they want. He looks weak when he asks everyone to settle down. He's doing good, all things considered. But nobody cares.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:47 PM on April 28, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:47 PM on April 28, 2016 [8 favorites]
...unemployment is at 5 percent...
Only if you don't include all the people who lost their jobs and have given up on finding another. The "unemployment rate" is a rigged statistic which doesn't mean what most people think it means.
A better statistic to watch is the labor participation rate. Before the beginning of the recession it was 66%. During the recession it began dropping and now it's below 63%, and it isn't getting better.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 1:49 PM on April 28, 2016 [39 favorites]
Only if you don't include all the people who lost their jobs and have given up on finding another. The "unemployment rate" is a rigged statistic which doesn't mean what most people think it means.
A better statistic to watch is the labor participation rate. Before the beginning of the recession it was 66%. During the recession it began dropping and now it's below 63%, and it isn't getting better.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 1:49 PM on April 28, 2016 [39 favorites]
Obama has been saying "clap louder" since the first Recovery SummerTM. History is not going to be kind to him...
I'm really curious what the temperature of Metafilter is going to be in a year once the second tech bubble well and fully collapses. It's pretty cold here right now, outside of the bubble.
posted by ennui.bz at 1:59 PM on April 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm really curious what the temperature of Metafilter is going to be in a year once the second tech bubble well and fully collapses. It's pretty cold here right now, outside of the bubble.
posted by ennui.bz at 1:59 PM on April 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
But hey, credit default swaps are back!
posted by Automocar at 1:59 PM on April 28, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Automocar at 1:59 PM on April 28, 2016 [5 favorites]
Obama has been saying "clap louder"since the first Recovery SummerTM. History is not going to be kind to him...
He's the President not the King, it's like we've already forgotten the unprecedented obstruction heaped upon him by the Republicans.
Keep your eyes on the next presidency and see how far our next president gets, Democrat or Republican.
posted by Max Power at 2:03 PM on April 28, 2016 [18 favorites]
He's the President not the King, it's like we've already forgotten the unprecedented obstruction heaped upon him by the Republicans.
Keep your eyes on the next presidency and see how far our next president gets, Democrat or Republican.
posted by Max Power at 2:03 PM on April 28, 2016 [18 favorites]
A better statistic to watch is the labor participation rate. Before the beginning of the recession it was 66%. During the recession it began dropping and now it's below 63%, and it isn't getting better.
This is a common GOP talking point, and it's utterly baloney when adjusted for retiring boomers and an upswing in the birthrate. (Kids and retirees don't participate in the workforce.)
The stagnation of wage growth is a big worry, though, and should have been addressed earlier.
posted by Slap*Happy at 2:03 PM on April 28, 2016 [28 favorites]
This is a common GOP talking point, and it's utterly baloney when adjusted for retiring boomers and an upswing in the birthrate. (Kids and retirees don't participate in the workforce.)
The stagnation of wage growth is a big worry, though, and should have been addressed earlier.
posted by Slap*Happy at 2:03 PM on April 28, 2016 [28 favorites]
Obama is America's substitute teacher.
So I'm serving as a substitute teacher literally right now and this is, if nothing else, a painfully accurate aspect of my job--and, I think, Obama's. Particularly when you consider that there's a public perception that I have many tools at my disposal to compel students (or gov't, in Obama's case) to work with me, but the truth is that those options are far fewer, less practical, and less effective than believed...and yet every outside observer would still be irritated with me (or Obama) for their lack of effectiveness.
It's doubly more accurate when you consider that both Obama & I have to be (and are) fully qualified for the full-time job, yet at least half of everyone we work with wants to continually tell us we're just temporary stand-ins and we don't really count.
The difference being, of course, that I actually am a substitute, and Obama actually is the freakin' President and he's nobody's stand-in.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 2:05 PM on April 28, 2016 [24 favorites]
So I'm serving as a substitute teacher literally right now and this is, if nothing else, a painfully accurate aspect of my job--and, I think, Obama's. Particularly when you consider that there's a public perception that I have many tools at my disposal to compel students (or gov't, in Obama's case) to work with me, but the truth is that those options are far fewer, less practical, and less effective than believed...and yet every outside observer would still be irritated with me (or Obama) for their lack of effectiveness.
It's doubly more accurate when you consider that both Obama & I have to be (and are) fully qualified for the full-time job, yet at least half of everyone we work with wants to continually tell us we're just temporary stand-ins and we don't really count.
The difference being, of course, that I actually am a substitute, and Obama actually is the freakin' President and he's nobody's stand-in.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 2:05 PM on April 28, 2016 [24 favorites]
The U.S. Economy is biased towards making and sustaining individual fortunes at the expense of everything and everyone else. It's doing well at what it's designed to do. Would be nice if it were designed for a different audience instead of the 0.1%.
posted by ZeusHumms at 2:05 PM on April 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ZeusHumms at 2:05 PM on April 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
Meanwhile, the NYT asks the hard questions: Why aren't American workers growing relentlessly more productive with every passing moment?
posted by dephlogisticated at 2:07 PM on April 28, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by dephlogisticated at 2:07 PM on April 28, 2016 [6 favorites]
The NYT is working their editors hard to make space to fit that article in with the Beginner's Guide to Chartering a Yacht, somewhere in between the port and Stilton.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:13 PM on April 28, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:13 PM on April 28, 2016 [5 favorites]
Meanwhile, the NYT asks the hard questions: Why aren't American workers growing relentlessly more productive with every passing moment?
Come on, that's a pretty unfair characterization - productivity is an actual thing and it's perfectly reasonable question to ask why productivity growth has slowed. At no point does the article even begin to move towards some sort of individual moral argument about economic productivity. Per the neutral scenario the article goes so far as to ask whether GDP is even still meaningful or whether the standard GDP measure has some sort of bias that's preventing it from measuring certain improvements.
It's a pretty wonky article really.
posted by GuyZero at 2:14 PM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
Come on, that's a pretty unfair characterization - productivity is an actual thing and it's perfectly reasonable question to ask why productivity growth has slowed. At no point does the article even begin to move towards some sort of individual moral argument about economic productivity. Per the neutral scenario the article goes so far as to ask whether GDP is even still meaningful or whether the standard GDP measure has some sort of bias that's preventing it from measuring certain improvements.
It's a pretty wonky article really.
posted by GuyZero at 2:14 PM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's easy to criticize, but what would you have wanted Obama to do in terms of the economy instead that could realistically been done given the political realities he faced in Congress, and the country as a whole? Not that Obama is perfect and his choices were the only or best ones, but I often feel like people on the left criticize him from an ideal they wanted versus what was possible to have achieved.
posted by Sangermaine at 2:14 PM on April 28, 2016 [21 favorites]
posted by Sangermaine at 2:14 PM on April 28, 2016 [21 favorites]
Obama is America's substitute teacher.
Isn't every president just a substitute teacher until Supreme Leader Trump gets into office?
posted by numaner at 2:16 PM on April 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
Isn't every president just a substitute teacher until Supreme Leader Trump gets into office?
posted by numaner at 2:16 PM on April 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
He's the President not the King, it's like we've already forgotten the unprecedented obstruction heaped upon him by the Republicans.
It has been surprising to me since Obama took office, just how little he's called out the GOP for the depths and breadth of their unwillingness to work together. I think the Dems would have held onto the house and senate in 2010 if they had been more vocal in that regard. There was popular anger at the state of things and Obama was elected with about as much of a mandate as you can get in the post-Reagan era (Bush claimed a mandate with far less support). While steps were taken at the macro level, people haven't realized that so directly at the micro level (declined wages for 30 years, rocketing prices in housing, education, health care). There are moments in that article where he hints at all that but still does not go there. I hope he's saving it all up for when he feels freer to speak in a post-presidential book.
posted by kokaku at 2:19 PM on April 28, 2016 [4 favorites]
It has been surprising to me since Obama took office, just how little he's called out the GOP for the depths and breadth of their unwillingness to work together. I think the Dems would have held onto the house and senate in 2010 if they had been more vocal in that regard. There was popular anger at the state of things and Obama was elected with about as much of a mandate as you can get in the post-Reagan era (Bush claimed a mandate with far less support). While steps were taken at the macro level, people haven't realized that so directly at the micro level (declined wages for 30 years, rocketing prices in housing, education, health care). There are moments in that article where he hints at all that but still does not go there. I hope he's saving it all up for when he feels freer to speak in a post-presidential book.
posted by kokaku at 2:19 PM on April 28, 2016 [4 favorites]
The real unemployment rate (U-6), which includes "discouraged" workers and others not captured by the official rate, was 9.8% last month, down from 10.9% a year earlier. Quarterly and annual averages are available here. It looks like the 2015 annual average for U-6 was 10.4%, pretty much the same as 2008.
posted by Gerald Bostock at 2:26 PM on April 28, 2016 [19 favorites]
posted by Gerald Bostock at 2:26 PM on April 28, 2016 [19 favorites]
It's easy to criticize, but what would you have wanted Obama to do in terms of the economy instead that could realistically been done given the political realities he faced in Congress, and the country as a whole?
He could have used HAMP, plus the enormous leverage of having bailed out the banks, to force the banks to renegotiate in earnest with "underwater" howowners, particular African-American and other disproportionately low-income home owners.
Instead of putting a white-shoe corporate lawyer, with close relationships with Wall Street, as Attorney General, he could have appointed someone willing to prosecute Wall Street for the massive fraud that was at the heart of the financial collapse.
Between these two points you might have actually seen the capital markets being used to invest in useful enterprise, rather than the profit shifting, rent extraction, and straight out looting that dominate Wall Street today. The simple fact at the heart of Obama's recovery is that Wall Street and corporate America used 8 years of absurdly low financial capital costs to reflate bubbles and generate huge windfalls for a very select class of people, while leaving boring, low-margin business investment in the cold.
This is a common GOP talking point, and it's utterly baloney when adjusted for retiring boomers and an upswing in the birthrate. (Kids and retirees don't participate in the workforce.)
Nope.
He could have used HAMP, plus the enormous leverage of having bailed out the banks, to force the banks to renegotiate in earnest with "underwater" howowners, particular African-American and other disproportionately low-income home owners.
Instead of putting a white-shoe corporate lawyer, with close relationships with Wall Street, as Attorney General, he could have appointed someone willing to prosecute Wall Street for the massive fraud that was at the heart of the financial collapse.
Between these two points you might have actually seen the capital markets being used to invest in useful enterprise, rather than the profit shifting, rent extraction, and straight out looting that dominate Wall Street today. The simple fact at the heart of Obama's recovery is that Wall Street and corporate America used 8 years of absurdly low financial capital costs to reflate bubbles and generate huge windfalls for a very select class of people, while leaving boring, low-margin business investment in the cold.
This is a common GOP talking point, and it's utterly baloney when adjusted for retiring boomers and an upswing in the birthrate. (Kids and retirees don't participate in the workforce.)
Nope.
According to data from the OECD, the employment to population ratio for workers between the ages of 25-54 is down by 3.5 percentage points from its pre-recession level. For workers between the ages of 55-64 it is only down by 0.9 percentage points.posted by ennui.bz at 2:26 PM on April 28, 2016 [43 favorites]
It has been surprising to me since Obama took office, just how little he's called out the GOP for the depths and breadth of their unwillingness to work together.
Obama came in with the idea that he could "fix" Washington partisanship just by his personality and willingness to work with Republicans. He signaled to them over, and over, and over, and over, and over again that he was willing to meet them more than halfway on pretty much everything, if only some, or a couple, or ok just one, yes even just you, Lindsey Graham, of Republicans would sign on so he could claim "bipartisan" victory. On healthcare he spent a year begging for literally any Republican to vote for it. On debt deal after debt deal after debt deal he was willing to sell out entitlement programs in exchange for just one Republican vote. He gave them the 2011 Budget Control Act and sequestration caps that are still chaffing to this day. It wasn't until well into his second term that he seemed to finally realize that Republicans really were the enemy the entire time, and no, they were never going to vote for anything he supported from the beginning, simply because they could not abide a black, Democratic President ever notching anything that could be remotely viewed as a political win. Obama squandered 4-6 years of his Presidency negotiating with an enemy that wasn't even at the table with him, rather than pointing out to the public that they were in fact the real enemy.
posted by T.D. Strange at 2:37 PM on April 28, 2016 [42 favorites]
Obama came in with the idea that he could "fix" Washington partisanship just by his personality and willingness to work with Republicans. He signaled to them over, and over, and over, and over, and over again that he was willing to meet them more than halfway on pretty much everything, if only some, or a couple, or ok just one, yes even just you, Lindsey Graham, of Republicans would sign on so he could claim "bipartisan" victory. On healthcare he spent a year begging for literally any Republican to vote for it. On debt deal after debt deal after debt deal he was willing to sell out entitlement programs in exchange for just one Republican vote. He gave them the 2011 Budget Control Act and sequestration caps that are still chaffing to this day. It wasn't until well into his second term that he seemed to finally realize that Republicans really were the enemy the entire time, and no, they were never going to vote for anything he supported from the beginning, simply because they could not abide a black, Democratic President ever notching anything that could be remotely viewed as a political win. Obama squandered 4-6 years of his Presidency negotiating with an enemy that wasn't even at the table with him, rather than pointing out to the public that they were in fact the real enemy.
posted by T.D. Strange at 2:37 PM on April 28, 2016 [42 favorites]
The Guardian has a response to the NYT articles.
posted by Gerald Bostock at 2:46 PM on April 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Gerald Bostock at 2:46 PM on April 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
1. He believes the U.S. economy is in better shape than the public appreciates.
That does make some sense beyond just Obama is the president and of course the president has to be his own cheerleader sometimes. There has been some evidence that minorities are having a slightly better economic recovery and feel significantly more optimistic about the economy than whites:
"A New York Times/CBS News poll conducted last week found that African-Americans rated the economy as good by a ratio of about four to one, versus about two to one for white Democrats and an even narrower margin for white Democrats without a college degree. A Times/CBS News poll in December found that, relative to two years earlier, roughly three times as many African-Americans said their family’s financial situation was better as said it was worse, while Democrats without a college degree were almost evenly split on this question."
posted by FJT at 2:49 PM on April 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
That does make some sense beyond just Obama is the president and of course the president has to be his own cheerleader sometimes. There has been some evidence that minorities are having a slightly better economic recovery and feel significantly more optimistic about the economy than whites:
"A New York Times/CBS News poll conducted last week found that African-Americans rated the economy as good by a ratio of about four to one, versus about two to one for white Democrats and an even narrower margin for white Democrats without a college degree. A Times/CBS News poll in December found that, relative to two years earlier, roughly three times as many African-Americans said their family’s financial situation was better as said it was worse, while Democrats without a college degree were almost evenly split on this question."
posted by FJT at 2:49 PM on April 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
One of the cute signature-nytimes touches in this piece is it's attempt to put daylight between Obama and HRC wrt the economy, when everyone knows that Hilary will represent almost total continuity in economic administration, if she is elected, as the personnel were largely Rubin-nurtured alumni of the first Clinton presidency. If, as I believe, the economy faces collapse in the coming year, this is profoundly dangerous. Depending on the timing, it either provides an opening for a President Trump or it will mean President Clinton will come into office facing an economic crisis for which the public will hold her accountable and a Congress controlled by Republicans weaned on Clinton-hate.
posted by ennui.bz at 2:49 PM on April 28, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by ennui.bz at 2:49 PM on April 28, 2016 [6 favorites]
Kids and retirees don't participate in the workforce.
This is not, strictly speaking, accurate.
I'm a retiree, in that I am retired from a job with some retirement pay. I still have a lot of work capability in me. I was working after my retirement - didn't miss a day. But then the economy in my field started to suck, and the positions got shittier, more precarious, with worse treatment.
posted by corb at 2:50 PM on April 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
This is not, strictly speaking, accurate.
I'm a retiree, in that I am retired from a job with some retirement pay. I still have a lot of work capability in me. I was working after my retirement - didn't miss a day. But then the economy in my field started to suck, and the positions got shittier, more precarious, with worse treatment.
posted by corb at 2:50 PM on April 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
So at a certain point you ask: is it worth it? But that doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer to be working - there's just a limit on the abuse I'll take to do so.
posted by corb at 2:51 PM on April 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by corb at 2:51 PM on April 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
There has been some evidence that minorities are having a slightly better economic recovery and feel significantly more optimistic about the economy than whites
That's really interesting, because it doesn't exactly match the economic trends, at least as of this report from December 2014: Wealth inequality has widened along racial, ethnic lines since end of Great Recession:
posted by dialetheia at 2:55 PM on April 28, 2016 [5 favorites]
That's really interesting, because it doesn't exactly match the economic trends, at least as of this report from December 2014: Wealth inequality has widened along racial, ethnic lines since end of Great Recession:
The wealth of white households was 13 times the median wealth of black households in 2013, compared with eight times the wealth in 2010, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of data from the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances. Likewise, the wealth of white households is now more than 10 times the wealth of Hispanic households, compared with nine times the wealth in 2010.Black workers have also been hardest-hit by the contraction of public sector jobs since the recession.
The current gap between blacks and whites has reached its highest point since 1989, when whites had 17 times the wealth of black households. The current white-to-Hispanic wealth ratio has reached a level not seen since 2001.
posted by dialetheia at 2:55 PM on April 28, 2016 [5 favorites]
The comments pointing out the bleak prospects of the next generation are spot on. It's not just that there are less jobs but those available suck. While my boomer sibs have done OK, relatively, away from the economic centers of the NE and CA, the next generations' fates so far are illustrative of the new economy. Enumerating my nephews' (20-30 year olds) current employments we have prison, engineer, product manager employed in China, prison, cook, musician (and small businessman, if you know what I mean), prison, and carpenter.
The only paths to what would be considered a middle class life seem to be professional education, not including nurses or teachers. Female-dominated fields have always been paid slave wages. The jobs in factories and in union shops are largely gone. The construction trade was, at one time, a reasonable way for a high school drop-out or graduate to make a living, but those wages and opportunities are are being beaten down as well.
The flip side of the offshoring coin is the influx of low wage workers into the US (in the construction trades, mostly undocumented Mexican immigrants; in other areas, H1Bs). Wages are depressed as these workers can't very well go the the state labor department and make wage and hour complaints. Contractors love it because they pay less and get additional income by participating in payroll tax fraud which has to be the most widespread and biggest organized crime going on. The workers provide false social security numbers (and in some cases they are provided by the employer), SS and withholding are deducted from the check, and the payroll taxes are simply kept by the employer, not paid to the IRS. After all, employers know that these undocumented workers are not going to be filing any tax returns. It's win-win trickle up economics for the business owners.
posted by sudogeek at 2:57 PM on April 28, 2016 [11 favorites]
The only paths to what would be considered a middle class life seem to be professional education, not including nurses or teachers. Female-dominated fields have always been paid slave wages. The jobs in factories and in union shops are largely gone. The construction trade was, at one time, a reasonable way for a high school drop-out or graduate to make a living, but those wages and opportunities are are being beaten down as well.
The flip side of the offshoring coin is the influx of low wage workers into the US (in the construction trades, mostly undocumented Mexican immigrants; in other areas, H1Bs). Wages are depressed as these workers can't very well go the the state labor department and make wage and hour complaints. Contractors love it because they pay less and get additional income by participating in payroll tax fraud which has to be the most widespread and biggest organized crime going on. The workers provide false social security numbers (and in some cases they are provided by the employer), SS and withholding are deducted from the check, and the payroll taxes are simply kept by the employer, not paid to the IRS. After all, employers know that these undocumented workers are not going to be filing any tax returns. It's win-win trickle up economics for the business owners.
posted by sudogeek at 2:57 PM on April 28, 2016 [11 favorites]
Dean Baker's Center for Economic Policy & Research has a good blog post covering some of the economic and historical inaccuracies in this article: Andrew Ross Sorkin's Confused Assessment of President Obama's Political Legacy: The economy has also seen close to 3 million prime age workers (ages 25-54) drop out of the labor force. No one had predicted this back in 2009 when President Obama took office. The number of people who are working part-time involuntarily is still close to 1.7 million above their pre-recession level. No one had expected this back in 2009 either.
The 73 consecutive months of private sector job growth, "the longest period of sustained job growth on record," is kind of a joke. This is sort of like a weak scoring basketball player telling a reporter about the number of consecutive games in which he scored points, it is an utterly meaningless statistic. It is the average job growth, GDP growth, and improvement in living standards that matter, not the monthly job creation streak. (And President Obama wonders why people don't feel better.)
posted by dialetheia at 3:03 PM on April 28, 2016 [14 favorites]
The 73 consecutive months of private sector job growth, "the longest period of sustained job growth on record," is kind of a joke. This is sort of like a weak scoring basketball player telling a reporter about the number of consecutive games in which he scored points, it is an utterly meaningless statistic. It is the average job growth, GDP growth, and improvement in living standards that matter, not the monthly job creation streak. (And President Obama wonders why people don't feel better.)
posted by dialetheia at 3:03 PM on April 28, 2016 [14 favorites]
He's the President not the King, it's like we've already forgotten the unprecedented obstruction heaped upon him by the Republicans.
I guess we don't have to worry about President Trump then.
Surely the same lack of actual power in the executive branch plus all those nagging Congressional checks and balances will present the same kind of obstruction to anyone else causing them to be just as ineffective in office.
....or I guess that excuse only applies when we're criticizing people from the left or campaigning for Democratic Socialists.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 3:04 PM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
I guess we don't have to worry about President Trump then.
Surely the same lack of actual power in the executive branch plus all those nagging Congressional checks and balances will present the same kind of obstruction to anyone else causing them to be just as ineffective in office.
....or I guess that excuse only applies when we're criticizing people from the left or campaigning for Democratic Socialists.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 3:04 PM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
The current median household income for the United States is $53,657. Real median household income peaked in 2007 at $57,936 and is now $4,279 (7.39%) lower. - Dept of Numbers
20 years FRED chart: GDP vs Real household income, 1993-2014
=> GDP up 35%, income up 5%
posted by Twang at 3:04 PM on April 28, 2016 [8 favorites]
20 years FRED chart: GDP vs Real household income, 1993-2014
=> GDP up 35%, income up 5%
posted by Twang at 3:04 PM on April 28, 2016 [8 favorites]
President Trump would have a majority of his party in both houses of Congress. There'd be no one to obstruct anything.
posted by T.D. Strange at 3:07 PM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by T.D. Strange at 3:07 PM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
So did President Obama.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 3:08 PM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by RonButNotStupid at 3:08 PM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
Majority != filibuster-proof majority.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:10 PM on April 28, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 3:10 PM on April 28, 2016 [6 favorites]
Surely the same lack of actual power in the executive branch plus all those nagging Congressional checks and balances will present the same kind of obstruction to anyone else causing them to be just as ineffective in office.
That depends on the unity of the Democratic party now doesn't it.
And Obama had a "majority for a scant couple of months before 2010 thanks to Coleman's lawsuit challenging the election results in Minnesota effectively locking Al Franken out for almost 2 years.
And don't forget Leiberman the Senator from Hartford, with friends like these...
posted by Max Power at 3:16 PM on April 28, 2016 [5 favorites]
That depends on the unity of the Democratic party now doesn't it.
And Obama had a "majority for a scant couple of months before 2010 thanks to Coleman's lawsuit challenging the election results in Minnesota effectively locking Al Franken out for almost 2 years.
And don't forget Leiberman the Senator from Hartford, with friends like these...
posted by Max Power at 3:16 PM on April 28, 2016 [5 favorites]
All of that said, I do think Obama did a reasonable job at pulling us out of the ditch Bush left us in; the main criticism I would make is that he didn't do anything to fundamentally change the situation that put working people in that ditch in the first place. This series of charts from Robert Reich tells the story better than words could; if there is going to be a real economic recovery for working people, it will require reversing some of the trends that have been going since roughly 1980. The drastic increases in economic inequality aren't just morally wrong, they also put working people at an increased risk of being ruined by boom-bust business cycles like we saw in 2001 and again with a vengeance in 2007/8.
Changing those trends will mean fundamentally challenging Reagan-era economic thinking, not just putting a neo-Keynesian gloss on it. I know that Obama couldn't singlehandedly take those steps, but I remain disappointed that he barely made a serious challenge to the neoliberal economic consensus even when handed a near-perfect object lesson in its shortcomings. Maybe it's just a fancier version of the usual bully-pulpit objection, but he had a really good chance to make a case for moving away from trickle-down economic thinking, and I think it was a serious missed opportunity to settle for an underwhelming stimulus and assume that markets would take care of the rest.
posted by dialetheia at 3:16 PM on April 28, 2016 [32 favorites]
Changing those trends will mean fundamentally challenging Reagan-era economic thinking, not just putting a neo-Keynesian gloss on it. I know that Obama couldn't singlehandedly take those steps, but I remain disappointed that he barely made a serious challenge to the neoliberal economic consensus even when handed a near-perfect object lesson in its shortcomings. Maybe it's just a fancier version of the usual bully-pulpit objection, but he had a really good chance to make a case for moving away from trickle-down economic thinking, and I think it was a serious missed opportunity to settle for an underwhelming stimulus and assume that markets would take care of the rest.
posted by dialetheia at 3:16 PM on April 28, 2016 [32 favorites]
I'm glad that he saved the economy. The forces that continue to smush the middle class down onto the lower classes were not invented by him tho he didn't sufficiently fight back against them. Hopefully the next president will be pressured to do more since they are starting with more.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:17 PM on April 28, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:17 PM on April 28, 2016 [4 favorites]
That's really interesting, because it doesn't exactly match the economic trends, at least as of this report from December 2014
I think the two articles are talking about two different things. Wealth inequality has widened, but as you said the numbers for that are from 2014. There was a jump in African-American employment in 2015, that may have continued into 2016. The NYT article also points out working class White Democrats are as concerned with inequality as they are with job growth and economic growth, while African Americans are "overwhelmingly" concerned with the last two.
posted by FJT at 3:17 PM on April 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think the two articles are talking about two different things. Wealth inequality has widened, but as you said the numbers for that are from 2014. There was a jump in African-American employment in 2015, that may have continued into 2016. The NYT article also points out working class White Democrats are as concerned with inequality as they are with job growth and economic growth, while African Americans are "overwhelmingly" concerned with the last two.
posted by FJT at 3:17 PM on April 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
Exactly. There's plenty of Joe Manchin Democrats who would happily go along, and if you're still counting on the filibuster as a check against the Republicans doing anything they want next time they have the Presidency, I'd suggest you reconsider that position. They'll get rid of it in a hurry.
posted by T.D. Strange at 3:19 PM on April 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by T.D. Strange at 3:19 PM on April 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
it's about goddam time ostensibly grown-up business and economic journalists at ostensibly grown-up publications figured out U3 v U6. Christ. Freshmen do this all the time.
posted by j_curiouser at 3:38 PM on April 28, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by j_curiouser at 3:38 PM on April 28, 2016 [6 favorites]
I think it was a serious missed opportunity to settle for an underwhelming stimulus and assume that markets would take care of the rest.
I think they would agree that it was a missed opportunity. Going back and reading about it, they didn't submit a bigger stimulus (even though top economic advisors wanted one) because they were afraid it wouldn't pass Congress. My own guess from that is it might mean they wanted to maintain some political capital for later on or they didn't want to incite the nascent Tea Party or maybe they actually wanted to get past the partisanship from the Bush/Clinton years.
posted by FJT at 3:55 PM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think they would agree that it was a missed opportunity. Going back and reading about it, they didn't submit a bigger stimulus (even though top economic advisors wanted one) because they were afraid it wouldn't pass Congress. My own guess from that is it might mean they wanted to maintain some political capital for later on or they didn't want to incite the nascent Tea Party or maybe they actually wanted to get past the partisanship from the Bush/Clinton years.
posted by FJT at 3:55 PM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
Exactly. There's plenty of Joe Manchin Democrats who would happily go along, and if you're still counting on the filibuster as a check against the Republicans doing anything they want next time they have the Presidency, I'd suggest you reconsider that position. They'll get rid of it in a hurry.
I don't think you can apologize for Obama by citing obstructionism while simultaneously warning of the havoc a Trump presidency will create without acknowledging that much of the blame should be placed on a weak and utterly ineffectual Democratic Party. Trump would be disastrous precisely because Republicans will unequivocally support whatever insane thing he wants. That we can't even expect Democrats to use the same kind of obstructionism against him is ludicrous.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 4:03 PM on April 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
How many of the people here (and elsewhere) complaining about Obama's legacy did not vote for Democrats, did not encourage people to vote for Democrats, or did not vote at all in 2010 or 2014?
Obama isn't perfect, but I think he's done pretty much as well as humanly possible. I disagree that he will not be remembered well, if for nothing other than the ACA. Add to that opening Cuba, the Iran nuclear deal, the Paris Climate agreement, no major political scandals, and many other accomplishments large and small--he will be remembered well down the line.
posted by haiku warrior at 4:16 PM on April 28, 2016 [17 favorites]
Obama isn't perfect, but I think he's done pretty much as well as humanly possible. I disagree that he will not be remembered well, if for nothing other than the ACA. Add to that opening Cuba, the Iran nuclear deal, the Paris Climate agreement, no major political scandals, and many other accomplishments large and small--he will be remembered well down the line.
posted by haiku warrior at 4:16 PM on April 28, 2016 [17 favorites]
How many of the people here (and elsewhere) complaining about Obama's legacy did not vote for Democrats, did not encourage people to vote for Democrats, or did not vote at all in 2010 or 2014?
I... don't really see how that that's a cogent criticism in a thread complaining about neoliberal economic policy?
posted by Automocar at 4:32 PM on April 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
I... don't really see how that that's a cogent criticism in a thread complaining about neoliberal economic policy?
posted by Automocar at 4:32 PM on April 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
Isn't all of that completely separate from his economic legacy?
posted by T.D. Strange at 4:32 PM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by T.D. Strange at 4:32 PM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
Why do so many voters feel left behind?
Because they are beginning to realize that a booming US economy does not serve them. It serves an elite class of politicians and business people. The eight years that Obama has been in office has seen the proliferation of smartphones and with them the internet in our pockets - the news is out, the data is in, and everyone can see it. Ballooning corporate profits do very little to help the average person when those profits don't turn into increased wages but instead go into the company coffer. Most folks have seen their wages remain flat while the cost of living has continued to climb.
What's more is the even more frightening notion that perhaps our economy can continue to grow without us - perhaps the largest companies and financial institutions have realized that they can continue to do business by focusing on where the money is: the top 10% of our economy - while leaving the rest to die on the vine.
It's almost insulting to suggest that the pleabs share in the gains of the US economy when the data readily suggests otherwise. Quite frankly if the US economy tanked I could at least take pleasure in the schadenfreude of a bunch of rich people getting soaked. Meanwhile the reality for me on the ground would look pretty much the same as it has for the last 15 years.
posted by jnnla at 4:40 PM on April 28, 2016 [24 favorites]
Because they are beginning to realize that a booming US economy does not serve them. It serves an elite class of politicians and business people. The eight years that Obama has been in office has seen the proliferation of smartphones and with them the internet in our pockets - the news is out, the data is in, and everyone can see it. Ballooning corporate profits do very little to help the average person when those profits don't turn into increased wages but instead go into the company coffer. Most folks have seen their wages remain flat while the cost of living has continued to climb.
What's more is the even more frightening notion that perhaps our economy can continue to grow without us - perhaps the largest companies and financial institutions have realized that they can continue to do business by focusing on where the money is: the top 10% of our economy - while leaving the rest to die on the vine.
It's almost insulting to suggest that the pleabs share in the gains of the US economy when the data readily suggests otherwise. Quite frankly if the US economy tanked I could at least take pleasure in the schadenfreude of a bunch of rich people getting soaked. Meanwhile the reality for me on the ground would look pretty much the same as it has for the last 15 years.
posted by jnnla at 4:40 PM on April 28, 2016 [24 favorites]
Going back and reading about it, they didn't submit a bigger stimulus (even though top economic advisors wanted one) because they were afraid it wouldn't pass Congress.
This is addressed in the CEPR piece I linked upthread addressing Sorkin's distortions:
Also on 22 July 2011, President Obama held a press conference, opening with “Remarks by the President.” He said: “Essentially, what we had offered Speaker Boehner was over a trillion dollars in cuts to discretionary spending [while unemployment already was high], both domestic and defense. We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs – Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. … We were offering a deal that called for as much discretionary savings as the Gang of Six. We were calling for taxes that were less than what the Gang of Six had proposed. And we were calling for modifications to entitlement programs, [which] would have saved just as much over the 10-year window. … I spoke to Democratic leaders yesterday, and although they didn’t sign off on a plan, they were willing to engage in serious negotiations, despite a lot of heat from interest groups around the country.
Breaking promises on social spending aside, those kinds of moves substantially hurt the political chances of further stimulus, increases to spending, or any other economic policy that might help working people. If anything, he sent a very clear message to Congress about his administration's priorities: cutting deficits was more important. Besides, the fact that a given plan wouldn't pass Congress at that particular moment does not make for a good excuse to perpetuate right-wing framing about deficit reduction and trickle-down economics (implicit in his emphasis on monetary policy and quantitative easing, with the assumption that a resurgent stock market would take care of employment). Building the case for progressive economic policies will be a long-term project, not something that we just magically find ourselves with the political capital to achieve out of the blue one day, and Obama had a great chance to advance that cause - even if only in rhetorical terms - but largely failed to take it at that moment (although I think he has come around somewhat since his re-election in 2012). Arguably, Occupy and the few lawmakers who supported it did a better job of improving the political climate and expanding the Overton window for progressive economic policy than the White House did during the critical years following the crisis.
posted by dialetheia at 4:45 PM on April 28, 2016 [30 favorites]
This is addressed in the CEPR piece I linked upthread addressing Sorkin's distortions:
The piece then turns to the stimulus, but the discussion is very badly confused. It tells readers:Besides, my point is much larger than the size of the stimulus. Democrats had a huge opportunity to call out neoliberal economics wherein we keep lowering taxes for rich people and shunting more and more wealth to the top of the economy while cutting the social safety net that is supposed to protect people when the business cycle turns. Instead, Obama settled for an anemic stimulus and granted their framing about deficit reduction, which hindered the recovery - and predictably, they don't even give him any credit for it! And it could have been worse - we're just lucky that Republicans, ever intransigent, even turned down his grand bargain of raising the Social Security age to 67 and cutting benefits, which he was prepared to offer in exchange for a compromise on the debt ceiling. This article from 2011 covers some of the 'tensions' between Democratic lawmakers and Obama, wherein Dem lawmakers (especially Senators) wanted to do more to raise revenue, not just cut social service spending, but Obama was negotiating directly with Republicans and was ready to offer upwards of $650 billion in cuts, in addition to entitlement changes and SS benefit reductions. There's more information and links in this blog post. That attempted Social Security "reform" effort was the reason Bernie Sanders threatened a primary challenge in 2012. It's hard to argue that this quote, from 2011, constitutes a good-faith effort to improve economic conditions for working people and/or those who rely on social services:
“A January 2009 report from the president’s Council of Economic Advisers projected that the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8 percent. Instead, it climbed to 10 percent in 2009 and only fell back below 8 percent in 2012, leading to criticism that the stimulus was ineffective.”
Actually, the problem with this report was not the projected impact of the stimulus, but rather in underestimating the impact of the recession. It projected that the unemployment rate would not cross 10.0 percent even without any stimulus, not recognizing the full severity of the downturn.
The piece then justifies the limited stimulus that President Obama was able to get, saying:
"In truth, of course, the political headwinds against stimulus were extraordinary."
While there were extraordinary political headwinds, President Obama encouraged them. Instead of beginning to lay the groundwork for more stimulus, in early April of 2009 he began talking about the "green shoots of recovery," even though all his top economic advisers claim that they told him the initial stimulus was inadequate. He also spoke of the need to "pivot to deficit reduction," and appointed the Bowles-Simpson commission for this purpose. This is an important part of the story of the lack of political support for further stimulus.
Sorkin gets the whole issue enormously confused:
"If you add up all of his administration’s classic stimulus measures, including the many tax breaks the administration extended, you get $1.4 trillion, a figure that is nearly twice the original figure. The anti-stimulus, then, was counteracted by a stealth stimulus."
What matters on stimulus is not just the total, but the time frame. Spending $1.4 trillion over 8 years comes to less than one percent of GDP annually. This is not much stimulus for an economy that has faced the collapse of an enormous asset bubble.
Also on 22 July 2011, President Obama held a press conference, opening with “Remarks by the President.” He said: “Essentially, what we had offered Speaker Boehner was over a trillion dollars in cuts to discretionary spending [while unemployment already was high], both domestic and defense. We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs – Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. … We were offering a deal that called for as much discretionary savings as the Gang of Six. We were calling for taxes that were less than what the Gang of Six had proposed. And we were calling for modifications to entitlement programs, [which] would have saved just as much over the 10-year window. … I spoke to Democratic leaders yesterday, and although they didn’t sign off on a plan, they were willing to engage in serious negotiations, despite a lot of heat from interest groups around the country.
Breaking promises on social spending aside, those kinds of moves substantially hurt the political chances of further stimulus, increases to spending, or any other economic policy that might help working people. If anything, he sent a very clear message to Congress about his administration's priorities: cutting deficits was more important. Besides, the fact that a given plan wouldn't pass Congress at that particular moment does not make for a good excuse to perpetuate right-wing framing about deficit reduction and trickle-down economics (implicit in his emphasis on monetary policy and quantitative easing, with the assumption that a resurgent stock market would take care of employment). Building the case for progressive economic policies will be a long-term project, not something that we just magically find ourselves with the political capital to achieve out of the blue one day, and Obama had a great chance to advance that cause - even if only in rhetorical terms - but largely failed to take it at that moment (although I think he has come around somewhat since his re-election in 2012). Arguably, Occupy and the few lawmakers who supported it did a better job of improving the political climate and expanding the Overton window for progressive economic policy than the White House did during the critical years following the crisis.
posted by dialetheia at 4:45 PM on April 28, 2016 [30 favorites]
That we can't even expect Democrats to use the same kind of obstructionism against him is ludicrous.
Well, I think it has also to do with that a president is more constrained in enacting domestic economic affairs versus international or security related affairs.
The president (unfortunately) can run black ops programs to torture people or wage secret wars, but it's much harder to run a black ops program that taxes the wealthy or funds education.
posted by FJT at 4:47 PM on April 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
Well, I think it has also to do with that a president is more constrained in enacting domestic economic affairs versus international or security related affairs.
The president (unfortunately) can run black ops programs to torture people or wage secret wars, but it's much harder to run a black ops program that taxes the wealthy or funds education.
posted by FJT at 4:47 PM on April 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
So here's where I think we (America and the world as well) fucked up. We should have let it burn. We should have let Wall Street fail. We should have eliminated two US auto manufacturers and shattered the third. We should have ground ourselves to a halt with 23% unemployment and completely gutted the middle class, collapsing the tech bubble, wireless and cable providers, destroyed the chance at green and renewable energy for at least 15 years. We should have foreclosed on 30% of all houses. The stock market should have crumbled, leaving retirees with fewer options than cycle-4 and burning tires.
Middle america would have burned along with every major city. But, suddenly, like in an airplane - there would be no libertarians or fiscal conservatives. The myth of what people attribute to 'pulling themselves up without the support of the government would be smashed'. We could have ended any talking points by Fox that teachers weren't valuable, that it was ok for jobs to be shipped overseas in pursuit of corporate profit, that Republican plan of 'fuck you, I've got mine' wasn't a workable solution. We could have ended the conversation that social security wasn't a necessity and basic human right - because we would undoubtedly need it.
Instead, Bush sort of did the right thing (after fucking us all over for the first 7 years) by starting the bail out process, and Obama sort of did the right thing as well, and we survived enough to think that the alternative might have been better. That a more liberal policy had a chance - or that a more conservative policy would have worked. Instead, we neutered ourselves with compromise and gave enough credence to conservative talking points that people still think austerity is an actual plan and isn't just the rich locking the rest of us out of the economy.
Had we burned it down, there might actually be hope.
posted by Nanukthedog at 5:01 PM on April 28, 2016 [6 favorites]
Middle america would have burned along with every major city. But, suddenly, like in an airplane - there would be no libertarians or fiscal conservatives. The myth of what people attribute to 'pulling themselves up without the support of the government would be smashed'. We could have ended any talking points by Fox that teachers weren't valuable, that it was ok for jobs to be shipped overseas in pursuit of corporate profit, that Republican plan of 'fuck you, I've got mine' wasn't a workable solution. We could have ended the conversation that social security wasn't a necessity and basic human right - because we would undoubtedly need it.
Instead, Bush sort of did the right thing (after fucking us all over for the first 7 years) by starting the bail out process, and Obama sort of did the right thing as well, and we survived enough to think that the alternative might have been better. That a more liberal policy had a chance - or that a more conservative policy would have worked. Instead, we neutered ourselves with compromise and gave enough credence to conservative talking points that people still think austerity is an actual plan and isn't just the rich locking the rest of us out of the economy.
Had we burned it down, there might actually be hope.
posted by Nanukthedog at 5:01 PM on April 28, 2016 [6 favorites]
Yes, I voted for democrats in every election since I turned 18 (1998). I live in rural Texas. In my local races there are rarely even Democrats running, because it's a waste of their money and effort to do so. But I used to have a Democratic representative in Congress because the major population center in the next county over includes a lot of Democrats. Until the Republicans in the state legislature gerrymandered the hell out of the districts so now I no longer share a rep with the people in the next county where my family works and shops and socializes, but instead am part of a narrow strip of counties with very low populations that runs between liberal centers of population.
So yes, we're voting, but the other side isn't playing fair and hasn't been for a very long time.
posted by threeturtles at 5:03 PM on April 28, 2016 [11 favorites]
So yes, we're voting, but the other side isn't playing fair and hasn't been for a very long time.
posted by threeturtles at 5:03 PM on April 28, 2016 [11 favorites]
Obama is animated by a sense that, looking at the world around him, the U.S. economy is in much better shape than the public appreciates
Playing Devil's Advocate here, because this is an attitude I abhor, but honestly, the key word in this sentence is "world." Obama is our President, one of our representatives to the wider world. He likely means he looks at the rest of the world, and how fucking awful it is getting elsewhere (because yeah, it really is), and all he can resign himself to say is "Well holy shit guys, it's still way better here than elsewhere, so you've got to be more appreciative of that." Unfortunately, that perspective is absolutely tied in with a business/finance economic focus. I can sort of understand that detached, analytical view of the world, looking at how badly places like Syria are doing after almost a decade of drought, or the rape crises in India, and so forth, and so on.
Honestly, I get it, but to me, the fact that we are willing to continue functioning in a world economy where we benefit because people on the other side of the planet make pennies a day to do jobs people here would gladly do for decent pay really is the underlying problem, and will be until Obama (or anyone in our government really) questions the whole worldwide capitalist system and how abusive it is. I get that people in other countries livelihoods have increased fractionally over decades by capitalism. Great. Their lives still fucking suck. It's not enough. It is SICK to say "the labor of this human is worth less simply because of their geographical location." Their labor is worth just as much as mine, or anyone's.
Because they are beginning to realize that a booming US economy does not serve them. It serves an elite class of politicians and business people. The eight years that Obama has been in office has seen the proliferation of smartphones and with them the internet in our pockets - the news is out, the data is in, and everyone can see it. Ballooning corporate profits do very little to help the average person when those profits don't turn into increased wages but instead go into the company coffer.
These two ideas seem really contradictory. The ballooning corporate profits are what allowed smartphones to proliferate and become cheap, thus it seems like that did indeed help the American populace by allowing them to learn exactly how badly they're getting fucked. I mean, I get what you're saying, but I think you underestimate how many of those same corporations created the devices to proliferate the information that is now raising the ire of the people. They succeeded in making the economy work for themselves, but at the cost of the public now being very aware of it.
posted by deadaluspark at 5:04 PM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
Playing Devil's Advocate here, because this is an attitude I abhor, but honestly, the key word in this sentence is "world." Obama is our President, one of our representatives to the wider world. He likely means he looks at the rest of the world, and how fucking awful it is getting elsewhere (because yeah, it really is), and all he can resign himself to say is "Well holy shit guys, it's still way better here than elsewhere, so you've got to be more appreciative of that." Unfortunately, that perspective is absolutely tied in with a business/finance economic focus. I can sort of understand that detached, analytical view of the world, looking at how badly places like Syria are doing after almost a decade of drought, or the rape crises in India, and so forth, and so on.
Honestly, I get it, but to me, the fact that we are willing to continue functioning in a world economy where we benefit because people on the other side of the planet make pennies a day to do jobs people here would gladly do for decent pay really is the underlying problem, and will be until Obama (or anyone in our government really) questions the whole worldwide capitalist system and how abusive it is. I get that people in other countries livelihoods have increased fractionally over decades by capitalism. Great. Their lives still fucking suck. It's not enough. It is SICK to say "the labor of this human is worth less simply because of their geographical location." Their labor is worth just as much as mine, or anyone's.
Because they are beginning to realize that a booming US economy does not serve them. It serves an elite class of politicians and business people. The eight years that Obama has been in office has seen the proliferation of smartphones and with them the internet in our pockets - the news is out, the data is in, and everyone can see it. Ballooning corporate profits do very little to help the average person when those profits don't turn into increased wages but instead go into the company coffer.
These two ideas seem really contradictory. The ballooning corporate profits are what allowed smartphones to proliferate and become cheap, thus it seems like that did indeed help the American populace by allowing them to learn exactly how badly they're getting fucked. I mean, I get what you're saying, but I think you underestimate how many of those same corporations created the devices to proliferate the information that is now raising the ire of the people. They succeeded in making the economy work for themselves, but at the cost of the public now being very aware of it.
posted by deadaluspark at 5:04 PM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
These two ideas seem really contradictory. The ballooning corporate profits are what allowed smartphones to proliferate and become cheap, thus it seems like that did indeed help the American populace by allowing them to learn exactly how badly they're getting fucked. I mean, I get what you're saying, but I think you underestimate how many of those same corporations created the devices to proliferate the information that is now raising the ire of the people. They succeeded in making the economy work for themselves, but at the cost of the public now being very aware of it.
I think you're seeing an intention here that's not really there.
posted by gehenna_lion at 5:16 PM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think you're seeing an intention here that's not really there.
posted by gehenna_lion at 5:16 PM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
The ballooning corporate profits are what allowed smartphones to proliferate and become cheap
I think this is where that argument falls apart. The smartphones are cheap not because of ballooning corporate profits, but largely because trade agreements and most favored nation statuses allow producers to use low-wage workers overseas, who work in such poverty and in such abject conditions that e.g. at Foxconn, they actually install suicide nets on the buildings to prevent people from killing themselves.
You do hit on a key part of the broader issue, though, which is that the same trade agreements that have gutted the manufacturing industry and the working class have also reduced prices on goods such that most people, and especially professional-managerial class people, can still afford things that make them feel like their quality of life is increasing, even as their real wages remain stagnant or even fall, and even as housing, college, and health care costs continue to climb precipitously.
I haven't seen a single politician (or even economist) attempt to address that question in a serious way. The construction boom during the housing bubble absorbed some of the slack from the manufacturing collapse. Green jobs was the keyword for awhile, but instead we got a fracking boom which has since gone bust with lower oil prices (and was a complete disaster for our climate). Mostly I hear vague handwaving promises to bring manufacturing jobs back or solve the problem through education. Nobody seems to have any serious long-term plan for this - which is why solutions like a $15 minimum wage to improve conditions for people stuck in those service jobs long-term, or universal basic income, seem to be coming more into vogue (not to mention the increase in protectionist rhetoric).
posted by dialetheia at 5:34 PM on April 28, 2016 [5 favorites]
I think this is where that argument falls apart. The smartphones are cheap not because of ballooning corporate profits, but largely because trade agreements and most favored nation statuses allow producers to use low-wage workers overseas, who work in such poverty and in such abject conditions that e.g. at Foxconn, they actually install suicide nets on the buildings to prevent people from killing themselves.
You do hit on a key part of the broader issue, though, which is that the same trade agreements that have gutted the manufacturing industry and the working class have also reduced prices on goods such that most people, and especially professional-managerial class people, can still afford things that make them feel like their quality of life is increasing, even as their real wages remain stagnant or even fall, and even as housing, college, and health care costs continue to climb precipitously.
I haven't seen a single politician (or even economist) attempt to address that question in a serious way. The construction boom during the housing bubble absorbed some of the slack from the manufacturing collapse. Green jobs was the keyword for awhile, but instead we got a fracking boom which has since gone bust with lower oil prices (and was a complete disaster for our climate). Mostly I hear vague handwaving promises to bring manufacturing jobs back or solve the problem through education. Nobody seems to have any serious long-term plan for this - which is why solutions like a $15 minimum wage to improve conditions for people stuck in those service jobs long-term, or universal basic income, seem to be coming more into vogue (not to mention the increase in protectionist rhetoric).
posted by dialetheia at 5:34 PM on April 28, 2016 [5 favorites]
The $15 minimum wage will help some people but mostly it will force the hand of low-productivity employers to get rid of employees who were useful at $12/hr but aren't at $15/hr. Welcome to the world of touchscreen ordering at fast food restaurants and fast-casual restaurants that no longer have wait staff.
Also the protectionist rhetoric has existed forever and will remain rhetoric forever.
largely because trade agreements and most favored nation statuses allow producers to use low-wage workers overseas, who work in such poverty and in such abject conditions
These countries are going through a phase of economic development that the US itself went through a hundred years ago. I'm not sure exactly what your plan is there - to forbid developing nations from trading with the US or building factories? Developing-world conditions continue to improve and everyone - both those governments and western governments - needs to ensure that the development happens in a sustainable way. And for every Foxconn there's a SK hynix building modern factories with well-paid workers in first-world conditions.
People really need to get over their American Exceptionalism. Maybe the US is just bad at building some things and it's going to have economic troubles until it stops sucking. Maybe it needs to find a way to compete other than just complaining that other countries are cheating.
posted by GuyZero at 5:52 PM on April 28, 2016 [5 favorites]
Also the protectionist rhetoric has existed forever and will remain rhetoric forever.
largely because trade agreements and most favored nation statuses allow producers to use low-wage workers overseas, who work in such poverty and in such abject conditions
These countries are going through a phase of economic development that the US itself went through a hundred years ago. I'm not sure exactly what your plan is there - to forbid developing nations from trading with the US or building factories? Developing-world conditions continue to improve and everyone - both those governments and western governments - needs to ensure that the development happens in a sustainable way. And for every Foxconn there's a SK hynix building modern factories with well-paid workers in first-world conditions.
People really need to get over their American Exceptionalism. Maybe the US is just bad at building some things and it's going to have economic troubles until it stops sucking. Maybe it needs to find a way to compete other than just complaining that other countries are cheating.
posted by GuyZero at 5:52 PM on April 28, 2016 [5 favorites]
Maybe it needs to tax the ultra wealthy proportionally in order to increase the basic safety net to make up for the lost economic outlook of the bottom 90%.
Or borrow at real negative interest rates to provide direct stimulus.
Or provide real debt relief by reducing student loan principal and not viewing federally backed student loans as an indentured-to-the-government profit center.
There are solutions here that have nothing to do with protectionism, and everything to do with breaking the iron fist of neoliberal economic control for the benefit of the owner class.
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:58 PM on April 28, 2016 [11 favorites]
Or borrow at real negative interest rates to provide direct stimulus.
Or provide real debt relief by reducing student loan principal and not viewing federally backed student loans as an indentured-to-the-government profit center.
There are solutions here that have nothing to do with protectionism, and everything to do with breaking the iron fist of neoliberal economic control for the benefit of the owner class.
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:58 PM on April 28, 2016 [11 favorites]
A rising tide lifts all boats (capital), unless you don't have a boat.
Water seeks it's own level- labor under the expansionist policies of free trade.
Get used to it.
posted by Max Power at 5:59 PM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
Water seeks it's own level- labor under the expansionist policies of free trade.
Get used to it.
posted by Max Power at 5:59 PM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
who work in such poverty and in such abject conditions that e.g. at Foxconn, they actually install suicide nets on the buildings to prevent people from killing themselves.
But Foxconn is not an American company, but a Taiwanese one. That we have a high-tech electronics manufacturer from a place that was a poor military dictatorship in 1949 that became a democracy with ranked top 20 GDP and single payer healthcare shows that the basic model of having low wage countries get manufacturing jobs is still a workable way of providing jobs in foreign countries and helping overseas industry in both transferring technology and manufacturing expertise and investing capital in them so that they eventually have industries that stand on their own and can compete in the world economy. I think that a Taiwanese company exploiting Chinese mainlanders also shows by no means is the process perfect at all and worker safety and environmental protection should be emphasized and enforced.
posted by FJT at 6:06 PM on April 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
But Foxconn is not an American company, but a Taiwanese one. That we have a high-tech electronics manufacturer from a place that was a poor military dictatorship in 1949 that became a democracy with ranked top 20 GDP and single payer healthcare shows that the basic model of having low wage countries get manufacturing jobs is still a workable way of providing jobs in foreign countries and helping overseas industry in both transferring technology and manufacturing expertise and investing capital in them so that they eventually have industries that stand on their own and can compete in the world economy. I think that a Taiwanese company exploiting Chinese mainlanders also shows by no means is the process perfect at all and worker safety and environmental protection should be emphasized and enforced.
posted by FJT at 6:06 PM on April 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
Republicans aren't the reason that there isn't radical redistribution, it's the business and professional class of Democrats, who aren't about to put a knife through their own chests. But of course without business and professional class Democrats, there'd be no Democratic Party outside the poorest districts, because a Republican Party which truly unified business and professional class people would have the media behind them.
posted by MattD at 6:11 PM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by MattD at 6:11 PM on April 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
The $15 minimum wage will help some people but mostly it will force the hand of low-productivity employers to get rid of employees who were useful at $12/hr but aren't at $15/hr. Welcome to the world of touchscreen ordering at fast food restaurants and fast-casual restaurants that no longer have wait staff.
You gotta show your work on this one. It's a super common claim, but where's the beef?
Seattle was one of the very first places to start phasing in 15, and we're already at 12 or so. With tips our absolute lowest min wage is over $10.
Jack in the box and the other chains have taken out their automatic ordering kiosks after a trial. Nowhere seems to be gutted or in flames. After tons of kvetching, places are hiring.
Is plenty of fuckery still going on with "full time hours" and jobs generally being shitty? Yea. But $15 min wage didn't destroy the fabric of society or put tons of people out of work.
I think the blue was where i saw it, but there's an article somewhere about a company that did the math and figured out that humans are still cheaper until automation gets a lot less expensive or wages go up a lot more.
Will we likely cross that threshold within the next 10~ years or so, and do i believe in automation putting huge swaths of society out of work? Of course, but $15 minimum wage is putting us in the position global warming did in the 50s or 60s. Something to think about and that should probably be planned for a lot more seriously, but not a threat today.
posted by emptythought at 6:31 PM on April 28, 2016 [8 favorites]
You gotta show your work on this one. It's a super common claim, but where's the beef?
Seattle was one of the very first places to start phasing in 15, and we're already at 12 or so. With tips our absolute lowest min wage is over $10.
Jack in the box and the other chains have taken out their automatic ordering kiosks after a trial. Nowhere seems to be gutted or in flames. After tons of kvetching, places are hiring.
Is plenty of fuckery still going on with "full time hours" and jobs generally being shitty? Yea. But $15 min wage didn't destroy the fabric of society or put tons of people out of work.
I think the blue was where i saw it, but there's an article somewhere about a company that did the math and figured out that humans are still cheaper until automation gets a lot less expensive or wages go up a lot more.
Will we likely cross that threshold within the next 10~ years or so, and do i believe in automation putting huge swaths of society out of work? Of course, but $15 minimum wage is putting us in the position global warming did in the 50s or 60s. Something to think about and that should probably be planned for a lot more seriously, but not a threat today.
posted by emptythought at 6:31 PM on April 28, 2016 [8 favorites]
So here's where I think we (America and the world as well) fucked up. We should have let it burn. We should have let Wall Street fail. We should have eliminated two US auto manufacturers and shattered the third. We should have ground ourselves to a halt with 23% unemployment and completely gutted the middle class, collapsing the tech bubble, wireless and cable providers, destroyed the chance at green and renewable energy for at least 15 years. We should have foreclosed on 30% of all houses. The stock market should have crumbled, leaving retirees with fewer options than cycle-4 and burning tires.
It's not often one hears past tense accelerationist fantasy. What makes you think this nation would have picked Door A to social democracy with a robust safety net, rather than Trapdoor B to Supreme Dictator Trump, or perhaps His Holiness, High Priest Santorum?
posted by Existential Dread at 8:12 PM on April 28, 2016 [13 favorites]
It's not often one hears past tense accelerationist fantasy. What makes you think this nation would have picked Door A to social democracy with a robust safety net, rather than Trapdoor B to Supreme Dictator Trump, or perhaps His Holiness, High Priest Santorum?
posted by Existential Dread at 8:12 PM on April 28, 2016 [13 favorites]
The $15 minimum wage will help some people but mostly it will force the hand of low-productivity employers to get rid of employees who were useful at $12/hr but aren't at $15/hr. Welcome to the world of touchscreen ordering at fast food restaurants and fast-casual restaurants that no longer have wait staff.
After its minimum wage hike, Seattle was going to be a wasteland of unemployment, but the promised Armageddon never happened. Dick's Hamburgers still employs actual human beings to work the counters, for instance.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:33 AM on April 29, 2016 [6 favorites]
After its minimum wage hike, Seattle was going to be a wasteland of unemployment, but the promised Armageddon never happened. Dick's Hamburgers still employs actual human beings to work the counters, for instance.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:33 AM on April 29, 2016 [6 favorites]
Had we burned it down, there might actually be hope.
It would be very hard to predict what would rise from those ashes. What is certain is that many people would suffer horribly.
posted by krinklyfig at 4:43 AM on April 29, 2016 [10 favorites]
It would be very hard to predict what would rise from those ashes. What is certain is that many people would suffer horribly.
posted by krinklyfig at 4:43 AM on April 29, 2016 [10 favorites]
Possibly related NYTimes article(?) : Why is U.S. Productivity So Weak? 3 Theories
But my reaction to this article is simply "If people are sure to only get flat wages regardless, they're not going to work any harder or 'innovate'. Duh."
posted by newdaddy at 6:47 AM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
But my reaction to this article is simply "If people are sure to only get flat wages regardless, they're not going to work any harder or 'innovate'. Duh."
posted by newdaddy at 6:47 AM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
After its minimum wage hike, Seattle was going to be a wasteland of unemployment, but the promised Armageddon never happened. Dick's Hamburgers still employs actual human beings to work the counters, for instance.
So FWIW yes, there may have been some ideologues that had that opinion but it's not my position or opinion. I expect it to be part of the pressure to automate low-skill jobs. That's all. And I am the first to say there will be still be shity jobs that resist automation for a long time.
Is plenty of fuckery still going on with "full time hours" and jobs generally being shitty? Yea. But $15 min wage didn't destroy the fabric of society or put tons of people out of work.
OK, so, seriously, there's no need to rebut arguments no one is making. I'm totally in favour of a $15 minimum wage. It's not going to destroy society, quite the opposite.
People, including me, overestimate the power of automation in the short term and underestimate it in the long term. So it may not happen today - I wasn't aware there was already a lot of data from Seattle. Shows what I know. Let's see how things look in 10 years.
Per your comment on fuckery I'd almost prefer laws against shift splitting versus a $15 min wage from a quality-of-life POV - a Starbucks worker getting 16 hours a week in 6-8 shifts versus 2-4 shifts is terrible and prevents people from having multiple part-time jobs or leading a sane home life. I think this is a big productivity drag at the low end and just plain inhumane.
Possibly related NYTimes article(?)
That was the same article linked upthread. So yes, it's related.
We should have let it burn
Please return all your dystopian YA books to the library.
posted by GuyZero at 7:50 AM on April 29, 2016
So FWIW yes, there may have been some ideologues that had that opinion but it's not my position or opinion. I expect it to be part of the pressure to automate low-skill jobs. That's all. And I am the first to say there will be still be shity jobs that resist automation for a long time.
Is plenty of fuckery still going on with "full time hours" and jobs generally being shitty? Yea. But $15 min wage didn't destroy the fabric of society or put tons of people out of work.
OK, so, seriously, there's no need to rebut arguments no one is making. I'm totally in favour of a $15 minimum wage. It's not going to destroy society, quite the opposite.
People, including me, overestimate the power of automation in the short term and underestimate it in the long term. So it may not happen today - I wasn't aware there was already a lot of data from Seattle. Shows what I know. Let's see how things look in 10 years.
Per your comment on fuckery I'd almost prefer laws against shift splitting versus a $15 min wage from a quality-of-life POV - a Starbucks worker getting 16 hours a week in 6-8 shifts versus 2-4 shifts is terrible and prevents people from having multiple part-time jobs or leading a sane home life. I think this is a big productivity drag at the low end and just plain inhumane.
Possibly related NYTimes article(?)
That was the same article linked upthread. So yes, it's related.
We should have let it burn
Please return all your dystopian YA books to the library.
posted by GuyZero at 7:50 AM on April 29, 2016
Politico: The Selling of Obama- The inside story of how a great communicator lost the narrative.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:39 AM on April 29, 2016
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:39 AM on April 29, 2016
Is the economy really part of the legacy people remember? I think only for a decade or so. After that, partisanship credits or blames the adjacent presidencies as preferred. And later historians care about more interesting questions.
I think the "economic legacy" historians will actually discuss is : All the awful trade deals like TPP, TIPP, etc. that Obama's USTR negotiated and Obama personally endorses. Any economic damage caused by failure to act on environmental warnings, ala climate change. And ditto health warnings. Any cultural consequences of economic suffering caused by Obama backing Wall St over everyone else.
In short, it's way way too late for anything Obama does now to impact his "economic legacy" in any real way. And nothing he worried about in office thus far matches well with what historians will remember.
If he cares about his legacy, then he should focus on governmental transparency, human rights, and justice reforms because those can be addressed with presidential pardons and declassifying documents.
Just a few moves that would earn him real favor in the eyes of future historians : Pardon non-violent drug offenders en mass. Acknowledge abuses during the Bush years by declassifying relevant documents, including the senate torture report. Inconvenience mass surveillance by declassifying relevant documents. Acknowledge the benefit brought by whistle blowers by pardoning Chelsea Manning, Thomas Drake, Edward Snowden, etc.
If he had more time, he could appoint federal prosecutors who would bring charges against some officials responsible for torture, but probably too late for that now. And he cannot order existing ones to do so.
posted by jeffburdges at 10:11 AM on April 29, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think the "economic legacy" historians will actually discuss is : All the awful trade deals like TPP, TIPP, etc. that Obama's USTR negotiated and Obama personally endorses. Any economic damage caused by failure to act on environmental warnings, ala climate change. And ditto health warnings. Any cultural consequences of economic suffering caused by Obama backing Wall St over everyone else.
In short, it's way way too late for anything Obama does now to impact his "economic legacy" in any real way. And nothing he worried about in office thus far matches well with what historians will remember.
If he cares about his legacy, then he should focus on governmental transparency, human rights, and justice reforms because those can be addressed with presidential pardons and declassifying documents.
Just a few moves that would earn him real favor in the eyes of future historians : Pardon non-violent drug offenders en mass. Acknowledge abuses during the Bush years by declassifying relevant documents, including the senate torture report. Inconvenience mass surveillance by declassifying relevant documents. Acknowledge the benefit brought by whistle blowers by pardoning Chelsea Manning, Thomas Drake, Edward Snowden, etc.
If he had more time, he could appoint federal prosecutors who would bring charges against some officials responsible for torture, but probably too late for that now. And he cannot order existing ones to do so.
posted by jeffburdges at 10:11 AM on April 29, 2016 [3 favorites]
The Joke of U.S. Justice and “Accountability” When They Bomb a Hospital
posted by jeffburdges at 10:16 AM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by jeffburdges at 10:16 AM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
The $15 minimum wage will help some people but mostly it will force the hand of low-productivity employers to get rid of employees who were useful at $12/hr but aren't at $15/hr. Welcome to the world of touchscreen ordering at fast food restaurants and fast-casual restaurants that no longer have wait staff.
Yeah... if $3/hr is the difference here, this is coming anyway, because the cost of automating this interaction is likely to fall (and the quality is likely to rise).
My guess is that the larger obstacle for the moment is that most people would rather interact with people.
posted by wildblueyonder at 10:33 AM on April 29, 2016
Yeah... if $3/hr is the difference here, this is coming anyway, because the cost of automating this interaction is likely to fall (and the quality is likely to rise).
My guess is that the larger obstacle for the moment is that most people would rather interact with people.
posted by wildblueyonder at 10:33 AM on April 29, 2016
Is the economy really part of the legacy people remember? I think only for a decade or so. After that, partisanship credits or blames the adjacent presidencies as preferred. And later historians care about more interesting questions.
I think they do if the effects of that legacy affect them personally and deeply. That, and online and social media basically functioning as long term memory now.
I suspect the real economic legacy here isn't being left solely by Obama though, but rather by several decades of ultra-capitalistic politics. I find that encouraging in that the perspective has shifted towards the broader problem rather than any specific POTUS.
posted by kyp at 10:35 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think they do if the effects of that legacy affect them personally and deeply. That, and online and social media basically functioning as long term memory now.
I suspect the real economic legacy here isn't being left solely by Obama though, but rather by several decades of ultra-capitalistic politics. I find that encouraging in that the perspective has shifted towards the broader problem rather than any specific POTUS.
posted by kyp at 10:35 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
My guess is that the larger obstacle for the moment is that most people would rather interact with people.
At McDonalds? I'm not so sure about that. And I'm pretty sure the current state of the art in voice recognition and synthesis could produce a better experience in a McDonalds drivethru than the current $2 walkie-talkie headsets the poor drivethrough order-takers wear.
But again, change is expensive and $3/hr isn't going to crush anyone's fast food empire in the short term.
posted by GuyZero at 10:47 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
At McDonalds? I'm not so sure about that. And I'm pretty sure the current state of the art in voice recognition and synthesis could produce a better experience in a McDonalds drivethru than the current $2 walkie-talkie headsets the poor drivethrough order-takers wear.
But again, change is expensive and $3/hr isn't going to crush anyone's fast food empire in the short term.
posted by GuyZero at 10:47 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
For some reason, critics hardly ever want to include the demand part of the equation when it comes to the minimum wage. Yes, labor costs increase somewhat, but if everyone making minimum wage suddenly has more money to eat at McDonald's once in awhile, it could still be a net benefit for McDonald's in the long run by increasing sales.
posted by dialetheia at 10:57 AM on April 29, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 10:57 AM on April 29, 2016 [4 favorites]
Is the economy really part of the legacy people remember?
It is for Hoover. And Carter. And Clinton (though that might still be in your "decade or so" window).
posted by Etrigan at 10:59 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
It is for Hoover. And Carter. And Clinton (though that might still be in your "decade or so" window).
posted by Etrigan at 10:59 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
Per your comment on fuckery I'd almost prefer laws against shift splitting versus a $15 min wage from a quality-of-life POV - a Starbucks worker getting 16 hours a week in 6-8 shifts versus 2-4 shifts is terrible and prevents people from having multiple part-time jobs or leading a sane home life. I think this is a big productivity drag at the low end and just plain inhumane.
Hey, we're trying. Honestly i think this is the next big battle. Nearly everyone i know has a stupid rotating schedule to the point that i feel extremely privileged and like an alien outsider working 8-5 on consistent days.
It's basically destroyed the social life of a lot of people i know though. You never know when exactly you're going to work, so you can never plan anything and end up canceling a lot of plans. Made plans when you finally have a morning shift on thursday? Op-, now your boss assigned you 1-close every day forever with random days off! Oops!
We need regulations on hours vs number of shifts, minimum scheduling lengths and notice, and yea like the article says: Working closing then opening and getting like 4 hours of sleep.
I've done all of these things and they're all fucking bullshit and wear you down and ruin your health. And i was freaking 17-20 at the time, in great shape from cycling a ton, and generally the kind of person who could drink until 3am and still get up and open a store at 7 more than i probably should have. How much harder must it obviously be on people who are not as young or healthy?
Legislate, legislate, legislate.
posted by emptythought at 1:35 PM on April 29, 2016 [11 favorites]
Hey, we're trying. Honestly i think this is the next big battle. Nearly everyone i know has a stupid rotating schedule to the point that i feel extremely privileged and like an alien outsider working 8-5 on consistent days.
It's basically destroyed the social life of a lot of people i know though. You never know when exactly you're going to work, so you can never plan anything and end up canceling a lot of plans. Made plans when you finally have a morning shift on thursday? Op-, now your boss assigned you 1-close every day forever with random days off! Oops!
We need regulations on hours vs number of shifts, minimum scheduling lengths and notice, and yea like the article says: Working closing then opening and getting like 4 hours of sleep.
I've done all of these things and they're all fucking bullshit and wear you down and ruin your health. And i was freaking 17-20 at the time, in great shape from cycling a ton, and generally the kind of person who could drink until 3am and still get up and open a store at 7 more than i probably should have. How much harder must it obviously be on people who are not as young or healthy?
Legislate, legislate, legislate.
posted by emptythought at 1:35 PM on April 29, 2016 [11 favorites]
>>Is the economy really part of the legacy people remember?
>It is for Hoover. And Carter.
the stupid thing about Carter is that the economy was booming in the late 70s.
There were 80.7M workers on Jan 1977 and ten million more by 1980, a 12% expansion of the workforce.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PAYEMS
We've seen the same 12% expansion if you go back to 1999, 17 years vs. the 3 of 1977-1979.
It's my thesis that the economy was so hot it produced a lot of the wage-price inflation.
(The fuel was the boomers absolutely bum-rushing the workforce starting in 1976 -- median boomer was born in 1955 and turn 21 that year, plus the rise of bona-fide two-income households).
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 7:33 PM on April 29, 2016
>It is for Hoover. And Carter.
the stupid thing about Carter is that the economy was booming in the late 70s.
There were 80.7M workers on Jan 1977 and ten million more by 1980, a 12% expansion of the workforce.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PAYEMS
We've seen the same 12% expansion if you go back to 1999, 17 years vs. the 3 of 1977-1979.
It's my thesis that the economy was so hot it produced a lot of the wage-price inflation.
(The fuel was the boomers absolutely bum-rushing the workforce starting in 1976 -- median boomer was born in 1955 and turn 21 that year, plus the rise of bona-fide two-income households).
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 7:33 PM on April 29, 2016
The flip side of the offshoring coin is the influx of low wage workers into the US (in the construction trades, mostly undocumented Mexican immigrants; in other areas, H1Bs). Wages are depressed as these workers can't very well go the the state labor department and make wage and hour complaints. Contractors love it because they pay less and get additional income by participating in payroll tax fraud which has to be the most widespread and biggest organized crime going on. The workers provide false social security numbers (and in some cases they are provided by the employer), SS and withholding are deducted from the check, and the payroll taxes are simply kept by the employer, not paid to the IRS. After all, employers know that these undocumented workers are not going to be filing any tax returns. It's win-win trickle up economics for the business owners.
I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure those taxes do in fact go to the IRS, because the whole point of having these workers on payroll is to make it look legit on paper.
If you pay workers under the table, then you have money just disappearing off the books, which will show up on audit.
If you put them on the books, but don't include them when reporting to the IRS, then it still shows up on audit - the documents you sent to the IRS don't match your own documents.
Employers might do that anyway, because they think they won't get audited, but:
If you put them on the books, AND include them in the payroll you report to the IRS, and pay those taxes that you're supposed to pay, then (I'm pretty sure) it's all squeaky clean under a normal audit, and the only way to detect it is to dig into the details of the workers themselves. Which is why I assume this is the most common scenario.
(I actually worked at a place that did this. It was a local chain restaurant. I don't know the details from management side, I only talked about it with the employees, but I'm told that both sides cooperated in falsifying paperwork, and I'm also told they would change the fake SSN every so often, I'm guessing every year or two. Another benefit of this scheme is that, when other employees see the guys getting a regular paycheck and paystub, they assume the guy's working legally, with the right documents. Even the junior manager didn't know about it.)
(and this is how illegal immigrants pay income tax, folks)
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 4:32 PM on April 30, 2016 [3 favorites]
I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure those taxes do in fact go to the IRS, because the whole point of having these workers on payroll is to make it look legit on paper.
If you pay workers under the table, then you have money just disappearing off the books, which will show up on audit.
If you put them on the books, but don't include them when reporting to the IRS, then it still shows up on audit - the documents you sent to the IRS don't match your own documents.
Employers might do that anyway, because they think they won't get audited, but:
If you put them on the books, AND include them in the payroll you report to the IRS, and pay those taxes that you're supposed to pay, then (I'm pretty sure) it's all squeaky clean under a normal audit, and the only way to detect it is to dig into the details of the workers themselves. Which is why I assume this is the most common scenario.
(I actually worked at a place that did this. It was a local chain restaurant. I don't know the details from management side, I only talked about it with the employees, but I'm told that both sides cooperated in falsifying paperwork, and I'm also told they would change the fake SSN every so often, I'm guessing every year or two. Another benefit of this scheme is that, when other employees see the guys getting a regular paycheck and paystub, they assume the guy's working legally, with the right documents. Even the junior manager didn't know about it.)
(and this is how illegal immigrants pay income tax, folks)
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 4:32 PM on April 30, 2016 [3 favorites]
FAIR: Weighing Obama’s Economic Legacy–With a Thumb on the Scale
posted by homunculus at 4:13 PM on May 4, 2016
posted by homunculus at 4:13 PM on May 4, 2016
It’s time to get real about the Obama legacy: Why his economic record is much more complicated than either party wants to admit. Republicans deride the president for a largely imagined set of failures. But Democrats are overstating their praise
posted by homunculus at 4:16 PM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 4:16 PM on May 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
I am so glad the article finally got around to making the point that kept popping into my mind as soon as they mentioned the battery factory - only 300 people work there! I understand Obama's concern with the broad economic indicators and obviously he's going to point to what has gone well, but I don't see any answer to how we address the fundamentally evolving nature of techno-capitalism in the 21st century from either side of the aisle in US politics - automation and financialization loom large.
The Second Machine Age
China's robot revolution - "a government-backed, robot-driven industrial revolution the likes of which the world has never seen..."
it's robot week at the FT :P
-We should embrace robots, not fear them
-Driverless cars: when robots rule the road
-Rise of the robots is sparking an investment boom
and financialization...
-How Finance Took Over the Economy - "Financial economists Robin Greenwood and David Scharfstein took a look at this back in 2013, and found that the acceleration since 1980 has come from two sources: 1) asset-management fees, and 2) lending to households." [1,2,3]
The GOP offers more for the rich under a cloak of populist fantasy (Trump and Cruz both have insane impossible tax plans, for instance). Clinton offers the same neoliberal agenda that Obama has followed; the NYT piece does a good job of pointing out the limitations of this approach. Sanders talks a good game but I have no idea how he'd implement any of it or if it would even work.
Trump's victory proves part of conservatism "was actually a racket"
(or How One TV Showman Hijacked Half of a Superpower's Political System by Pretending to Care About White Nationalism)
re: neoliberal clinton vs. progressive sanders, and tying back to financialization, i like SWL's point:
-Obama's Policy Legacy: The Nation He Built
The Economy's Crisis Ended Under Obama, But Its Long-Term Problems Didn't
posted by kliuless at 12:12 PM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
The Second Machine Age
To illustrate the point, Brynjolfsson and McAfee cite the example of Instagram and Kodak. Instagram is a simple app that has allowed more than 130 million people to share some 16 billion photos. Within 15 months of its founding, Instagram was sold to Facebook — a company with 1 billion users — for $1 billion. It was only a few months later that Kodak, the Instagram of its day, declared bankruptcy. The authors use this little vignette to illustrate two points. The first is to point out that the market value of Facebook/Instagram is now several times the value of Eastman Kodak at its peak, creating, by their calculation, seven billionaires, each of whom has a net worth 10 times greater than George Eastman ever had. Such is the “bounty” of the second machine age.if you need more color on automation...
But the evolution of photography also demonstrates how unevenly that bounty has been divided — what the authors somewhat inelegantly call the “spread.” Not only has it created a new class of super-rich entrepreneurs and investors, but it has done so with a company that employs only 4,600 workers. Compare that with Kodak, which at its peak employed 145,000 workers in mostly middle-class jobs.
China's robot revolution - "a government-backed, robot-driven industrial revolution the likes of which the world has never seen..."
it's robot week at the FT :P
-We should embrace robots, not fear them
-Driverless cars: when robots rule the road
-Rise of the robots is sparking an investment boom
and financialization...
-How Finance Took Over the Economy - "Financial economists Robin Greenwood and David Scharfstein took a look at this back in 2013, and found that the acceleration since 1980 has come from two sources: 1) asset-management fees, and 2) lending to households." [1,2,3]
The GOP offers more for the rich under a cloak of populist fantasy (Trump and Cruz both have insane impossible tax plans, for instance). Clinton offers the same neoliberal agenda that Obama has followed; the NYT piece does a good job of pointing out the limitations of this approach. Sanders talks a good game but I have no idea how he'd implement any of it or if it would even work.
Trump's victory proves part of conservatism "was actually a racket"
(or How One TV Showman Hijacked Half of a Superpower's Political System by Pretending to Care About White Nationalism)
re: neoliberal clinton vs. progressive sanders, and tying back to financialization, i like SWL's point:
For this and other reasons (natural monopolies and other forms of rent seeking), the financial sector embodies many of the things that those who first used the term neoliberalism were opposed to. It is important that those who use the term neoliberalism today recognise this contradiction. It does not mean that using the term neoliberalism to describe the dominant ideology is wrong, but it is a mistake to assume the ideology has not been moulded/adapted/distorted by those in whose interest it works. These changes have made it intellectually weak at the same time as making it politically strong.also btw...
-Obama's Policy Legacy: The Nation He Built
The Economy's Crisis Ended Under Obama, But Its Long-Term Problems Didn't
posted by kliuless at 12:12 PM on May 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
« Older The Irony of Being Let Go for Writing a Review of... | Maggic Bioart? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Well, sure there is, but "redistribute the other half of the nation's wealth to the 1%" doesn't play in Peoria, so the Republicans have to pretend to be populist.
Also, the U.S. economy may well be in better shape than the public appreciates, but much of the public is still no better off, and possibly less so, than they were eight years ago. Those two facts are not contradictory, and the continued failure of politicians to see beyond "the economy" to "the American standard of living" is vexing, especially for such a gifted politician as Obama.
posted by Gelatin at 12:39 PM on April 28, 2016 [45 favorites]