Comments on: “In the United States, almost all the gains from productivity growth have been going to the top 1 percent”

By: Rose

Rose — Mon, 07 May 2012 17:31:22 +0000

They were closer to the beginning of civilization back then so it did not need to be said.

By: itzac

itzac — Mon, 07 May 2012 17:00:48 +0000

Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “I like paying taxes. With taxes I buy civilization.” What he didn’t say because it probably didn’t need to be said explicitly in his time was, “civilization is good for my bottom line.”

By: Dalillama

Dalillama — Mon, 07 May 2012 16:29:14 +0000

Personally, I'm a fan of a more communist system, in the particular sense of "means of production are owned by the workers." By this I do not mean "the workers" as a class, but rather "the workers" as in those who are working at an enterprise are who own it. This is of course entirely compatible with a strong social safety net and a liberal democracy, it just means shaping the incorporation statutes to encourage cooperatives rather than joint stock corporations with employees. I support my position with reference to the Mondragon Cooperatives in Spain (I know, wikipedia, but there are loads of good sources at the bottom) as well as Emilia Romangna in Italy . The Emilia Romagna model includes a great deal more than merely cooperatives, of course, nor are all of the businesses that make it up, but it has played a strong role. The rest of the economic model is something that should be looked into as well, frankly, since it seems to be working very well.

By: Russell

Russell — Mon, 07 May 2012 13:46:35 +0000

Definitions are malleable, of course. But my tendency has always been to use “socialism” in its historical sense, for economic systems where the means of production are not privately owned. I suspect that’s close to how Reich is using the term. Closer to the old socialist party in France than the current one. In that sense, you’ll know France has become truly socialist when there’s no longer a CAC40.

To me, the term “social democracy” seems better to describe a liberal democracy with strong social safety nets. And, of course, a capitalist economy to fund those.

By: baal

baal — Mon, 07 May 2012 13:13:24 +0000

It’s not just the south tuibguy. I work for a huge employer and while I’ve had a good experience, a good many of my co-workers don’t usually get a COLA level of increase. i.e. they are treading water at best.

@ Dr. Reich, I agree with most all of what he says. I don’t see how the US can have a decent economy when all the gains are hoarded off.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Mon, 07 May 2012 13:00:22 +0000

Is this guy in a Union? He needs to be in a union!

By: tuibguy

tuibguy — Mon, 07 May 2012 12:05:30 +0000

A friend of mine works for a large company. For the upcoming year his raise was $.10 per hour, despite the fact that he had above average ratings on his review. However, he is at the salary midpoint of his job pay grade and so will not receive larger raises unless he is accepted for a job at a higher pay grade.

Shortly after his annual review, his company announced that the prior quarter’s profits were much higher than projected and decided to reward shareholders with a dividend increase rather than reward the higher productivity of the employees by adjusting the salary ranges.

Of course, the dividend increase benefits the board of directors who are given deferred stock options in exchange for their services.

The only reason that he has for pushing his productivity higher is to keep his job. He has given up on expecting any reward for higher work.

And that’s what I like about the south.

By: Katkinkate

Katkinkate — Mon, 07 May 2012 07:00:39 +0000

Best results are never achieved by going to extremes. You need some capitalism, but society needs the ‘socialist’ safety-nets to keep it peaceful and working productively. Letting capitalism take over and suck so much money out of circulation that ever more people are forced below the poverty line is not conducive to a safe, peaceful community. A growing pool of poor, desperate people losing their jobs and hopes for the future leads to more crime and violence.

By: Rose

Rose — Mon, 07 May 2012 05:46:11 +0000

Depends on who is doing the less work. People looking for work do not want less, they want more People working two jobs to meet ends would like less work if there was some more payment. The 1% might like to have less work and have the bottom 10% do more for them.

A simple higher tax on higher income brackets with the resulting funds used to rebuild infrastructure and so create jobs is a good idea that is always talked about but never done.

By: D.J. Miller

D.J. Miller — Mon, 07 May 2012 05:43:24 +0000

“Top down” maybe but not trickle down.