Inequality

In a recent blog I told the story of Janet Yellen, chair of the Federal Reserve Bank, who spoke about economic inequality without mentioning any of the problems in our economic system that produce and reinforce that inequality. There is a good deal of discussion of inequality these days but not many people are willing to look at the real causes of it.

A while ago, The Nation magazine reported some terribly distressing facts about one other source of economic inequality, the role that racism plays in the lives of children of color in this country.

The nation's report rested on government figures published by the US Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights. Here are some highlights from that report:

"Black students accounted for 18% of the country's pre-K enrollment, but made up 48% of preschoolers with multiple out-of-school suspensions.

Black students were expelled at three times the rate of white students.

Black girls were suspended at higher rates than all other girls and most boys.

A quarter of the schools with the highest percentage of black and Latino students did not offer Algebra II.

A third of these schools did not offer chemistry.

Less than half of American Indian and native Alaskans high school students had access to the full range of math and science courses.

Black, Latino and Native American students attended schools with higher concentrations of first-year teachers.

Black students were more than three times as likely to attend schools where fewer than 60% of teachers meet all state certifications and licensure requirements."

These stark facts help us understand the history of many young black men. In a recent book, On the Run, Alice Goffman reports that many of the young black men who are in serious difficulties with the law first ran afoul of the government when they were 10 or 11 or 12 years old. The fact that black children in preschool are already singled out for punishment and expulsion explains their early conflict with the police.

They clearly never had a chance.

Don't believe everything they tell you.

The Federal Reserve Bank held a conference recently in Boston on economic opportunity and inequality. Janet Yellen, Chair of the Federal Reserve Rank, addressed the meeting.

She frankly admitted that inequality has been increasing rapidly in recent years. Between 1989 and 2013 the income of the top 5% of households increased 38%. The incomes of the remaining 95% of households increased by 10% or less.

What to do? Yellen had all sorts of ideas to even out the increasing inequalities in our nation. Specifically she had three suggestions: "early childhood education, affordable higher education, and increased business ownership."

Most of these are all sensible suggestions. There exists a good deal of evidence that children's school trajectories are affected by their learning in the very first few years of life. More Head Start programs might produce a better educated workforce.

College education has become terribly expensive and is prohibitive for some people. Many other students need to work, some of them full-time, in order to afford college. If students have a full-time job and go to school full-time, the odds are that they are not going to learn a lot. There is not time or energy enough to assimilate what they read or hear in class.

I am less certain about the third suggestion that more people should go into business for themselves. That takes some money doesn't it?

But I was really struck by what chairman Yellen did not talk about. Her suggestions seem peripheral. She did not address the economic problems responsible for the growing inequality.

There is still a good deal of unemployment; many people are working part-time who would prefer to work full time.

Significant numbers of people work minimum wage jobs that do not bring in enough for people to live comfortably, let alone send their kids to college.

Since the early 1970s, working-class wages have been pretty stagnant. Employers have outsourced jobs to very low wage countries, thus setting up competition between American workers and those in different Asian countries with a much lower standard of living than ours. More and more people are not regarded as employees of the firms where they work; instead, they are 'independent contractors' or they work for subcontractors. Their employment is uncertain and intermittent. Their wages are held down by competition between subcontractors.

Continuing unemployment gives employers the upper hand when it comes to negotiating wages.

All of these assaults on working-class incomes were made possible by the concerted effort of business during the Reagan administration and thereafter to destroy the powers of labor unions. Fewer and fewer workers are represented by unions. Partly as a consequence of the unions' very precarious position, they can only offer limited protection to their members.

If we look at the society as it is, it is clear that there are some more central remedies for inequality than expanded Head Start programs: raise the minimum wage, abolish Right-to- work laws (anti-– union laws), encourage unionization, and put limits on temporary employment, subcontracting and other ways of increasing business profit and impoverishing working people.

All of this is well known. Janet Yellen, of course, knows all this a lot better than I do. Why did she not say so?

There are a number of possible reasons. If she were taking the side of the workers in the struggle between workers and employers, she would be in deep trouble with the people who have most of the power. People on the right of the political spectrum, rich corporate types, would make sure that she would soon be out of a job.

On the other hand, she does not want to agree with people on the left that so many working people are suffering because the economic system is skewed against them. As the head of an important federal agency, part of her job is to tell citizens that things are really alright and that the problems you have are open to easy fixes: combat inequality by expanding Head Start.

That is of course also what people on the right want her to do: tell everyone that it is not the fault of employers if workers's wages and incomes deteriorate every year. Our actually very serious economic problems are made to look benign if they can be fixed by expanding Head Start programs.

Here then is today's lesson: don't believe what high level bureaucrats tell you about the state of the economy and of our world. They are not to be trusted.

Don't let your employers exploit you and then tell you that it is all a problem of early childhood education.

Bombing ISIL: defense of or attack on democracy?

In a democracy citizens share equal power in determining government policy and/or who is going to be in the government.

Now ISIL a group we did not know about three months ago, rampages thought Iraq and parts of Syria, killing innocents, beheading hostages. President Obama decides to start bombing them.

The President refuses to consult Congrees because he says, they are only bombing, there are no soldiers involved in the fighting. So it is not a war. In actual fact we are sending soldiers to Iraq to train the Iraqi army. “Well,” the White House says. “They are not shooting at anyone.” Suppose they get shot at? And anyway is training soldiers not participating in a war?

The White House is not only threatening democracy by not asking citizens, it is treating us a utter idiots. And, yes, if citizens are idiots then democracy may not be such a good idea.

You'd have to be a lawyer to take the claim that we are not starting another war seriously. Can you imagine the people on the ground saying, as the bombs rain down on them, “Thank God, this is not a war”?

The President starts an air war unilaterally. His legal staff assures him that he does not have to consult Congress.

But that is surely an insult to our democracy. It says that the President can get us involved in one more war and the people are not to be consulted, neither are their representatives.

Congress is not doing much better. Leaders of both parties have suggested Congress not talk about this latest war before the elections. Their first priority is to win the upcoming elections. But why are they so eager to get elected or reelected? They are not eager to formulate national policy on this all important issue of war or peace. They are certainly not interested in representing voters. Many people are concerned about this new war. But Congress says: “let's not talk about it.” That is hardly the ideal choice of those who want to be the peoples' representatives.

Being in Congress must be a nice job even if you don't do what people elect you for.

With the November elections looming, I get frequent messages from my Congressman asking me for money. I have not heard any questions about the new air war. The congressman wants me to help him get reelected so that he can represent me. While he is running for reelection, he cannot interest himself in what I and other constituents think on this terribly important question of war and peace. He is an exceptional Congressman and I support him gladly. But it reflects on the terrible distortions of our democracy that election campaigns are ever longer—look at Hilary running for President—and are all consuming so that our representatives cannot do the job we elect them for.

What a sorry state of affairs! This new war shows clearly the extent to which ordinary citizens have been disenfranchised.

Bombing ISIL: defense of or attack on democracy?

Democracy is generally considered to be a political system in which citizens share equal power in determining government policy and/or who is going to be in the government.

Now ISIL a group we did not know about three months ago, rampages thought Iraq and parts of Syria, killing innocents, beheading hostages. President Obama decides to start bombing them.

The President refuses to consult Congrees because he says, they are only bombing, there are no soldiers involved in the fighting. So it is not a war. In actual fact we are sending soldiers to Iraq to train the Iraqi army. “Well,” the White House says. “They are not shooting at anyone.” Suppose they get shot at? And anyway is training soldiers not participating in a war?

The White House is not only threatening democracy by not asking citizens, it is treating us a utter idiots. And, yes, if citizens are idiots then democracy may not be such a good idea.

You'd have to be a lawyer to take the claim that we are not starting another war seriously. Can you imagine the people on the ground saying, as the bombs rain down on them, “Thank God, this is not a war”?

The President starts an air war unilaterally. His legal staff assures him that he does not have to consult Congress.

But that is surely an insult to our democracy. It says that the President can get us involved in one more war and the people are not to be consulted, neither are their representatives.

Congress is not doing much better. Leaders of both parties have suggested Congress not talk about this latest war before the elections. Their first priority is to win the upcoming elections. But why are they so eager to get elected or reelected? They are not eager to formulate national policy on this all important issue of war or peace. They are certainly not interested in representing voters. Many people are concerned about this new war. But Congress says: “let's not talk about it.” That is hardly the ideal choice of those who want to be the peoples' representatives.

Being in Congress must be a nice job even if you don't do what people elect you for.

With the November elections looming, I get frequent messages from my Congressman asking me for money. I have not heard any questions about the new air war. The congressman wants me to help him get reelected so that he can represent me. While he is running for reelection, he cannot interest himself in what I and other constituents think on this terribly important question of war and peace. He is an exceptional Congressman and I support him gladly. But it reflects on the terrible distortions of our democracy that election campaigns are ever longer—look at Hilary running for President—and are all consuming so that our representatives cannot do the job we elect them for.

What a sorry state of affairs! This new war shows clearly the extent to which ordinary citizens have been disenfranchised.