The problem isn’t just a crippling recession and an economic “recovery” that has mostly gone to the richest one percent, but the larger shifting of wealth from the middle to the very top that’s taken place since the late ‘70s.
That sort of "shift" turns out to be impossible to measure inasmuch as the definitions of "wealthy", "very top", and "1%" turn out to mean whatever the author of the moment intends them to mean for the purposes of narrative. And it neglects one major shift in spending that contrasts this present government budget from the ones of 50 - 200 years ago. It neglects the economic costs of social welfare spending, where the transfer of money is from the productive middle class to the less productive welfare classes. This is fairly well-defined to have occurred since the onset of the Great Society programs in the 60's. How much did that take out of the economy? Try an estimated $22 Trillion. It's a pretty big hole - the entire GDP of the U.S. was $3 trillion in 1960 (measured in 2005 dollars). This has been like that since the Boomers left short pants in the 60's. It doesn't appear to have made it over the author's intellectual radar horizon.
we’ll nod to the usual suspects: Globalization, technology, and the depletion of natural resources (especially energy) meant that the postwar boom would not last forever.
The author is welcome to nod anywhere he likes but that doesn't make it true. Technology in particular has been a net generator of wealth, not a drain, and I'd love to know what natural resources (especially energy) the author considers "depleted" - oil, whose production is at a record high? Nuclear power, whose production has been curtailed by political obstruction? Coal, whose industry has been deliberately targeted by the sitting administration? Hydroelectric, the target of a deliberate turn-back on the part of the environmental movement? Nor are we short of a mighty wind of hot air so long as Salon is being published. What depletion?
This is particularly silly stuff for any economist to propose, contrary to the facts and blissfully neglectful of the ravages of progressive social policies. Wait, did I say "economist"?
Scott Timberg is a... longtime arts reporter in Los Angeles...
Oh. An arts reporter. We're getting economic analysis from an arts reporter.
...He's the author of the new book, "Culture Crash: The Killing of the Creative Class."
So...what exactly is the author's view of this indispensible "creative class"? Let's check Amazon. Wait for it...
A persistent economic recession, social shifts, and technological change have combined to put our artists—from graphic designers to indie-rock musicians, from architects to booksellers—out of work.
Ah - that would be the very bulwark of productivity within the middle class, wouldn't it? Well, not exactly. Nor is it obvious that redistributive programs benefiting them would help the economy much, if at all. A nice article overall if one enjoys fairy tales.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/pelosi-celebrates-loss-full-time-jobs/
“....In light of widespread criticism, including from traditionally Democrat labor unions, that ObamaCare will necessarily result in the loss of full-time jobs, Pelosi tried desperately to put a positive spin on things.
She sat down for an interview with Candy Crowley on CNN, during which the host brought up the issue by sharing critical comments made by union boss James Hoffa Jr.
“That’s pretty tough from a loyal Democratic constituency,” Crowley added, prompting Pelosi to suggest that the government can find common ground with union leaders.
The 73-year-old former House Speaker then indicated that a work force dominated by part-timers is a good thing for employees, indicating ObamaCare will give workers more free time.
“Overwhelmingly, for the American people, this is a liberation,” she contended, adding that the monstrous law will give citizens “the freedom to pursue [their] happiness.”
The multi-millionaire politician apparently believes that the rest of the nation lives as lavishly as those in her elitist circle of influence. Cutting an employee’s hours in half, she suggests, has no impact aside from the instant creation of superfluous free time.
In reality, of course, millions of Americans are going to suffer financially from the implementation of ObamaCare. The pain has already begun for many whose employers have slashed hours in advance of upcoming mandates. In many cases, these workers will be forced to work multiple part-time jobs, thus giving them decidedly less time during which they can “pursue happiness.”
Working class citizens are worried about putting food on the table, not picking up a new hobby.
Considering the refusal of legislators like Pelosi to enroll in the healthcare system they passed, one questions the authenticity of her statements. At this point, though, she is far too committed to the cause to turn back.