Jeff Faux: "The Servant Economy"
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-07-17/jeff-faux-servant-economy
Jeff Faux of the Economic Policy Institute argues Americans are in denial. Everyone knows, he says, but no one faces up to the fact that the United States can no longer afford to have subsidized unregulated markets, be the world’s global power and provide a steadily rising standard of living. One of these is possible, maybe two, but not all three, according to Faux. No group -- and certainly no politician of either party -- is addressing this new reality, he contends. Despite public posturing to the contrary, it’s America's middle class that will be sacrificed on this current path. Please join us for a conversation with Jeff Faux on why he believes we’re moving from a service to a servant economy.
Guests
Jeff Faux
founding president and distinguished fellow at the Economic Policy Institute.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Without the private sector government does not exist. The road, the bridge, the traffic light or any governmental institution, none of this would have been possible without a thriving private sector. The government at best is a broker of private funds, a middle man for hiring private contractors to do it's bidding. The government creates no wealth, it lives off of it. The federal government has been operating outside the confines of the Constitution for at least a hundred years and all we have to show for it are huge debts and unsustainable programs!
Note to self:
When I make my next Billion, be sure to buy myself a set of politicians that will help me get richer and further insulated from regulation, taxes, and ANYthing that resembles my fair share of national responsibility. Of course that means greasing the skids on BOTH sides of the Congressional aisle
Oh.......and hire a bunch of cheap sycophants that will agree with my greedy lifestyle so they can slam anybody that disagrees with me........maybe even a whole TV network that slams my opponents and backs up my every whim.
My wife theorizes that the reason Mitt doesn't want to reveal his tax returns is that he doesn't want to admit HE is better off than he was 3 1/2 years ago.
Smart lady.
mchaun wrote:
Millenia of the Feudal System has caused the White American to evolve a Feudal Gene rendering Him a thoroughly innate, inborn, inbred Lackey. Look at the record, no indignity too humiliating from our de facto, if not Titled, aristocracy of the Bushes and their Jew and Anglican middle rank associates who are the real interface between the oppressors and the oppressed. These are the Journalists, Clergy, Generals, Bankers, cops, Legislators, Economists, Business Persons, Educators, the Gentry and lower Peers, that really keep the Machine humming and who are well rewarded for their Loyalty.
Blacks lack this Feudal Gene which explains their reluctance to accept the petty as well as monstrous atrocities we White Commoners must daily accept without protest.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
June 23, 2011 - 5:08 pm
Because they are not earning more than ever. I made over twice minimum wage in 80; easily. Did you listen to the program.
mchaun wrote:
Dear Pteromandias:
Wealth is indeed elastic- it can shrink too. Here is what we had in 1981 when Reagan ascended.
"Monday, March 12, 2007
WWII was followed by a huge increase in American labors productivity that has never relented. To deal with any Luddite fears, we were promised much more liberal working conditions- at one time, a 3 or 4 day work week, European type vacations, early retirement and a life of moderate ease was considered possible. An end to 7 day 12 hour work until we drop dead in our harness like mine ponies and are dragged to the dump. We had attained a relative Utopia - affordable medical care, low inflation, low interest rates, earlier retirement, greater job safety, single income households, low taxes, low crime, disability pension if we were hurt, security for our kids if the Breadwinner died- a relative Utopia indeed. Since the 1980s though, the race has been to the bottom. Now we work longer hours, retirement being pushed off by the government with an eye to ending it completely. We are paid less, even by the Govts calculus, we are losing ground to inflation and the actuality is made worse by a CPI that is understated by about 2 per-cent per year. People compensating for lower wages with debt- mind numbing credit card, mortgage and government debt- in an unstable state that any recession or falling Real Estate prices will unhinge. Squandering what we have in insane wars. Well, I'm getting tired of typing, but will wind up with a comment for the guy who brags that we ought to bust our backs working Night and Day like the Indians do. Screw you Buddy, I only get one go-around and I want a life of some security, time to enjoy my family and should one of us take sick, reasonable medical care and hope that when my mind and body are finally spent, a few years in a rocking chair. Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
By mchaun | Mar 13, 2007 1:09:01 AM | Request Removal"
(Cont)
January 30, 2012 - 7:16 pm
mchaun wrote:
(Cont)
Here is what we have now-
30 YEARS OR MORE for a TWO INCOME FAMILY to buy a lousy ticky tacky house 50 miles from our jobs. 5 Years to buy a car. 10 or more years to pay off college costs preparing for a job that will be taken by an H-1B Immigrant whose education was paid for by his Father gouging another $0.10 per Kilo of Rice from his starving Peasants. Then S/He will remit his/her wages to prepare a nice berth for when S/He goes back home to retire and live like a Rajah on Social Security.
A Reagan-Gingrich CPI-COLA that screws Workers and Social Security Annuitants from 2 to 4 % per Year.
Then the final indignity of being told we should have prepared better for our Retirement.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
March 31, 2011 - 2:42 pm
January 30, 2012 - 7:19 pm
I think we should look at the Australian educational mode: let 16 yr. olds be apprenticed to people in the trades and professions, esp. give training to youth in areas of electrician, plumber, cabinet-making, carpentry, constructing solar panels, tile-laying, etc. And then use gvt. stimulus money to fix up old buildings in big cities, using some of the youth who have been trained, going through the companies that trained them....There are so many rundown buildings in innercity areas--Victorians, etc.
With an infusion of funds, using skilled youth, it would help the economy, lower unemployment, help provide housing, offer alternatives to going to college to get job skills, etc. Australia has a strong vocational component in their educational sysem. Would our departments of education be flexible enough to change? There are some good ROP programs now in some school districts. More are needed to help youth acquire usable skills.
Additionally, people who are training to be doctors should be given more gvt. assistance. With single-payer healthcare, it would help keep healthcare costs down for individuals.
LibVet wrote: "My wife theorizes that the reason Mitt doesn't want to reveal his tax returns is that he doesn't want to admit HE is better off than he was 3 1/2 years ago"
Yea a genius, kind of funny how no one really knew and didn't care to find out anything about Obama in 08 and thought he was the greatest thing to happen since Christ. Four years later and many of the same people hold on to him for no logical reason and can't see that he is more like the anti christ. Yea boy gotta see those tax returns!
partisan politics,
My lady sez she recalls the O having released 12 years of returns back in '08.
But will the Mitt follow suit?? (Mitt gave McCain a bunch of them when he did his veep check.)
Actually I think Obama released all of his returns back to 2000 in March '08......not sure of others. Thats what CBS said back then.
Although, I agree with your guests economic forecast, I'm still amazed that the left keeps propping up the myth that the deregulatory era came in from the middle class voting against it's own interest. This is nonsense. It's not voting against your short term interests to remove surplus money in 2000 from Gore's social security lock box when bills are due. Nor was voting in deregulation in 1980. There was plenty of room to cut the big society because generation X (then in it's teens mostly) was no where near as big as the baby boomers. Back then The neediest groups: retirees and young families were dwarfed by the baby boomers (who were in their productive prime). Why keep all that extra spending around?
The middle class is required to think in the short term, because there are always immediate expendatures (dental appointments, auto repair, a new computer, etc.). The left fails to deliver short term relief to the middle class and only promises long term solutions to problems no one is currently experiencing. The right hands out checks after Bush wins the presidency. It's not psychology, it's simple math. The one Keynesian idea Republicans hold dear is "in the long term we're all dead." So they employ bribery politics on an indebted class in need of financial relief, in return the middle class hands them the keys to the kingdom to remake the country. And somehow the left still thinks they win elections through magic or mysterious marketing techniques.
If the left wants to contend it needs to come up with simple short term relief solutions: single payer healthcare (not the mess they gave us), equity based student loans, cheap reskilling opportunities. A simple, vote for me and I'll give you this basket of goods. Then, maybe, the middle class will trust them again to rebuild America.
Here is another idea........required national service.
Young people could choose military or peace corps style service......but NO deferments at all........not even missionary stints in France.
That worked pretty well for the Israelis and for the young guys in my generation. It would give all the notion of shared citizenship.....aka skin in the game.
I keep my dad's medals displayed on the wall and even take a peek at MY old dog tags occasionally. That would do a lot to dismiss all that phony something-for-nothing crud. Ninety bucks a month was not much but it was a shared experience and Oh those 1505's!!
Potential "fans" of a future Servant Society would do well to watch a few episodes of "Downton Abbey" on PBS. It's fascinating to see how a baronial estate was run in pre-WWI but even more illustrative to see the attitudes and habits of the serving staff. e.g. a maid bought herself a typewriter and taught herself via correspondence course how to type and take shorthand etc. to perhaps "leave service" and work as a clerk. The rest of the staff learned her secret efforts and were shocked......even accusing her of being disloyal and ungrateful to her lord. The senior staff were most offended....even worse than the master and his wife.
Imagine the audacity (yup, I used O's word) of a servant wanting to better oneself!
Bernie Mihm- you're not only a biased ideologue but also a poor scholar. The report you cite, which covers 1979-2007 (ignoring the enormous disparity of the past 5 years) addresses income after transfers and Federal taxes, but DOES NOT factor in inflation. You refer to a 40% increase in the 'middle class' income over 28 years. Big whoop. The CPI says that it takes $3.16 in 2012 to buy what a $1 did in 1979. Put another way, a dollar's worth <1/3 now than then. So a 40% gain is meaningless. Dissecting your citation, it includes the 61-80 percenters, who did manage to stay a little in front of inflation. Remove them and look at the bottom 60%, and we find that about 70 MILLION HOUSEHOLDS got poorer over the last 28 years.
Publicola- Your comment is that the Congressional Budget Office report that I cite does not include the effect of inflation.
The figures DO include inflation, which is exactly what I stated in my post. Your post is the one that is incorrect. That info is on the first page of the report.
LibVet wrote: "My lady sez she recalls the O having released 12 years of returns back in '08"
Tax returns from a guy that never did anything off the public dole, how bold!.
Truth be told Romney's private and public sector life are pretty much out there for everyone to see and it's pretty impressive.
Obama had a very small resume by presidential standards. We heard nothing of his quotes from his book about going through "High School in a marijuana alcohol induced daze" No college transcripts and or records, all of his "present" votes in the senate etc. etc. Obama told us almost nothing and the main stream media acted as a protecting body guard to shield him, still does.
Mr. Obama wrote, "I spent the last years of high school in a daze, drank beer heavily and tried drugs enthusiastically."
partisan politics,
Are you being facetious? I would hope that crack about the "public dole" was just a lame joke. A self made man who zoomed to the top of a major law school.....a guy who selflessly worked in the poorest communities in the US.......the child of a single parent who excelled in just about everything he tried, especially in helping the disadvantaged rather than piling up mounds of personal cash.........a guy who has yet to "enjoy firing people".
Gee, since Mtt's pop was a governor, doesn't that mean Mitt also lived on "the public dole" ? And I don't recall anything from the Pres's book about humiliating a younger kid because the kid was "different". But maybe frat boys can explain away aberrant bullying of others with a glib comment or by paying off somebody. And I'll bet Mitt made his first million at a popsicle stand without daddy's influence too.
What a LOAD!!
partisan politics on July 17, 2012 @ 9:26 am wrote: “. . . there are always side issues and the relevance of the economy is always dictated by it's state of failure or success at the time of the campaign. But it is always job #1 . . . . Your a liberal and like the ‘free’ stuff! I got your M.O.”
Well, you’re certainly living up to your name, a typically partisan and ideological reply, which only serves to evade and avoid the point.
Remember? You originally asserted that “presidential campaigns used to be about who would best serve the goal of a strong and growing private sector economy.” I responded by pointing out other issues past campaigns were “about”, and you simply reply they are “side issues”, and that the economy is always “job #1”.
Baloney.
There’s a big difference between saying presidential campaigns are about (as in only about) growing the private sector, and saying the economy (which isn’t the same thing) is always the most important issue. Your attempt to "spin" that difference away fails.
Furthermore, I’ve demonstrated that other issues can be just as important, and can often determine the outcome of an election. You’ve merely demonstrated the ability to mindlessly repeat the same nonsense.
What do you think was the most important issue during the Great Depression, World War II, the Vietnam War? Not growing “the private sector economy”. Did the 2004 election turn on that issue, or on the issue of the Iraq War, national defense, and (to some extent) the issue of gay marriage (and other social issues)?
As for my “M.O.” - guess again. I’ve never asked for or taken “free stuff” in my life. But I’ve got your M.O.: as a Republi-Con you don’t care if people DIE because they can’t afford health care or health insurance. After all, it costs you nothing!
partisan politics on July 17, 2012 @ 12:54 pm wrote: "Without the private sector government does not exist."
There you go again, employing the false dichotomy and Manichean thinking of the Republi-Con: it's either the private sector or the government. We can't have both involved in the economy.
Guess what, without government your precious "private sector" wouldn't even exist. Who enforces the contracts that are essential to the private sector? The government. Who insures that private property is respected, that theft, embezzlement, and fraud (not to mention murder) are punished? The government.
As for the government not creating wealth, tell that to the cities of Las Vegas and Phoenix, which grew and thrive on electricity produced by the government funded and built Hoover Dam. (And that's not even mentioning the other benficiaries.)
As for the Constitution, there's no room to respond, but you're just as wrong there! (Oh, and let's not forget it was Republi-Con promotion of "voodoo economics" that's largely responsible for our surge in debts. Funny, isn't it, how when taxes were raised during the 1990's the deficit became a surplus.)
In his interview with Diane Rehm, author Jeff Faux stated repeatedly that the late 1970's (especially 1979's "Reagan Revolution") marked the beginning of the end of middle-class high-wage, good benefit jobs and workers rights.
He could not be more wrong: Through the 1970s unemployment increased to near-depression levels. Wages and housing inflation increases dramatically. Imports of expensive consumer goods (especially cars and electronics) destroyed entire U.S. industries. Investor confidence plummeted. Interest rates soared.
The exporting of jobs to overseas manufacturers began long before Reagan. He won 48 states: the greatest presidential landslide victory in U.S. history.
LibVet wrote: "Are you being facetious? I would hope that crack about the "public dole" was just a lame joke. A self made man who zoomed to the top of a major law school"
Ask Obama himself, there aren't any self made men. A product of affirmative action, undeserving and unqualified. Unless he discloses his transcripts I guess will never know. What is he hiding?
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote: Tantrum.
You threw a bowl of spaghetti at the wall and called it a response. Show me a government that can survive and exist without a private sector and I will show you hens teeth. The private sector was first, government was an after thought.
Corporate greed will kill our planet's ability to support human beans (sic).
Case Closed.
mrbvlo on July 17, 2012 @ 12:45 pm wrote: “You can't let this ‘clown’ ruin our Country.”
If you are referring to Mr. Etch-A-Sketch, I agree. But given the complete ignorance displayed in the rest of your Comment, I suspect you mean someone else.
Government regulation has been around since the world began, and certainly since this nation began. The Constitution even expressly calls for it. Congress has the power “to regulate commerce”. Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3.
Regulations have benefited us in thousands of ways. Anti-Trust laws prevent monopolies and oligarchies from distorting and corrupting the “free market” you worship so blindly. Building and fire codes prevent disasters. (Research the infamous Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire for an example of what happened before such regulations existed.) Do you like having wholesome food to eat, safe medicines to use, clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, relatively safe cars to drive (with seatbelts and functioning brakes, etc.)? Thank those “dreaded” government regulations!
Oh, and growing government regulations during the 1930’s, 40’s, 50’s and 60’s didn’t prevent one of the greatest and longest sustained economic booms in our history!
Governments are not businesses. They’re not supposed to be “economically healthy” (whatever the heck that’s supposed to mean). But government programs have contributed mightily to our economic health. The railroads required massive government aid to be built. Hoover Dam and the Tennessee Valley Authority were all government programs. So was Rural Electrification. And let’s not forget one of the biggest public works projects of all time: the Interstate Highway System!
Stop living in the fantasyland composed of nothing but Republi-Con rhetoric, ideology, and lies.
To mchaun, writing on July 17, 2012 @ 2:16 pm:
I’d offer a reply, but what you wrote is so completely incomprehensible and inane that, aside from pointing out it’s obvious bigotry, a response is impossible!
partisan politics on July 17, 2012 @ 4:25 pm wrote: “kind of funny how no one really knew and didn't care to find out anything about Obama in 08 and thought he was the greatest thing to happen since Christ.”
Again, I have to wonder what country (or planet) you live on.
As I recall Republi-Cons were busy spewing “guilt by association” crap against Obama throughout the 2008 campaign. (Sometimes it backfired hilariously, as when it was learned that McCain was on the board of the same charity as Obama which also had a board member who was a former member of the Weathermen.)
I also recall there was plenty of “birther” nonsense back then too - directed at McCain, who was defended by one Barack Obama.
Finally, the only people I’ve ever heard refer to Obama as the Messiah are sarcastic right-wing blowhards like you. For the record, I voted for him for just three reasons: 1) He’d make better Supreme Court nominations than his predecessor or McCain (and he has), 2) He’d sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (which he did) and McCain wouldn’t, 3) He’d run a “reality based” Administration, instead of one based on “spin” (like Bush the Second did). In short, very modest reasons. I admit he hasn’t been “perfect” (what President has?), but he’s better than his predecessor, and better than either McCain or Mr. Etch-A-Sketch would be!
William Williams on July 17, 2012 @ 4:53 pm wrote: “It's not voting against your short term interests to remove surplus money in 2000 from Gore's social security lock box when bills are due.”
While I somewhat agree with part of what you wrote (and I don’t have the space to parse all of it), this is pure nonsense. However, it is Republi-Con nonsense, and a prime example of their hypocrisy.
When Bush the Second was busy turning the Clinton era surplus into “deficits as far as the eye can see”, the prevailing “wisdom” was that “deficits don’t matter”. Now that the GOP is out of the White House, of course, deficits are all that matters!
And yet we are told to vote for Mr. Etch-A-Sketch, the man who is still singing the “voodoo economics” song. Those policies (short-term thinking, mindless deregulation) are what caused our economic meltdown, and we’re asked to “return” to them! I guess some people won’t get the point until the GOP turns our Great Recession into a second Great Depression!
LibVet on July 17, 2012 @ 5:22 pm wrote: “The rest of the staff learned her secret efforts and were shocked......even accusing her of being disloyal and ungrateful to her lord. The senior staff were most offended....even worse than the master and his wife.”
As someone who’s watched Downton Abbey many times (on the PBS broadcast, downloaded video from their website, VCR recording, and the complete DVD’s) I can state with confidence that you’ve got your “facts” wrong. (It is a work of fiction after all.)
Yes, some members of the staff were shocked, but others were supportive. The senior staff weren’t shocked, just concerned whether Gwenn was making a wise decision.
On the other hand, Lord and Lady Grantham were supportive, and Lady Sybil practically functioned as Gwenn’s employment agent! (Not so surprising. As one character remarked during Season Two, the servants are often more conservative than their employers.)
Now, let’s turn to something more important. Who do you think will “win” the inevitable face off? Wonderful Dame Maggie Smith’s Dowager Countess (Lady Violet), or the incomparable Shirley McClain’s American millionairess (Martha Levinson)?
(And, like me, are you impatient for Season 3? Where’s Doctor Who’s TARDIS when you really need it?)
partisan politics on July 17, 2012 @ 7:31 pm wrote: “Tax returns from a guy that never did anything off the public dole, how bold!.”
Gee, I never knew the University of Chicago Law School (one of the more conservative law schools by the way) was financed by “the public dole”. That’ where Obama taught constitutional law for 12 years. He’s also worked for the Business International Corporation (probably a “commie front”). His community organizing work was done for Developing Communities Project, a church-based community organization originally comprising eight Catholic parishes. (Well, with all the tax exemptions and tax deductible donations religious organizations receive, that’s almost like being “on the public dole”.) He also worked for a private law firm.
I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point: Once again we see that you live in an “alternate reality”.
Todd Heinrich on July 17, 2012 @ 11:01 pm wrote: “Through the 1970s unemployment increased to near-depression levels.”
Where do you people get your “facts” from? The Bizarro World Daily News?
Let’s look at some unemployment figures from the 30’s (the Great Depression), the 70’s (particularly the Carter years), and during Reagan’s 80’s:
1932 = 23.6%
1934 = 21.7%
1936 = 16.9%
1938 = 19.0%
1940 = 14.6%
____________________________________
1976 = 7.7%
1978 = 6.1%
____________________________________
1980 = 7.1%
1982 = 9.7%
1984 = 7.5%
1986 = 7.0%
1987 = 6.2%
1988 = 5.5%
Hmm, during the Carter years unemployment averages about 6.97%. During Reagan it was 7.18%. And neither of them were anywhere near as bad as the Great Depression.
By the way, if I provided a monthly breakdown, you’d learn that the highest post World War II unemployment (10.8%) was reached during Reagan’s “wonderful” years.
Sources:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000