The Anti-Government Protests Abroad - What America's Poor Can Learn!

In the past couple of years, we have witnessed both political and social change in many countries across the globe, initiated at the grassroots level. Although much of these changes have been effected in the Arab World (wrought by the so-called “Arab Spring” general protests), they have not been confined to the Arab World. In country after country, the socio-politically and economically disenfranchised have risen up in protest over what many of these individuals perceive as indifference toward them by lawmakers and overlords alike. In the last few days, the numbers of the disaffected protesting their lots in life have increased to include those protesting in both Brazil and Turkey. Citizens in these countries have taken to the streets to denounce economic conditions and political policies which have many of them feeling as though their governments are not working in their direct interests.

A scene from this week's protests on Brazil's Capital, Rio de Janeiro

In America, the most recent analogous show of discontent by the people toward the status quo were the Occupy and the Tea Party Movements. However, with the exception of still-unfolding events in Turkey and Brazil, the “demonstrations”—for want of a better term—in America lack the broad grassroots inclusiveness of the uprisings around the world. The chief difference between say, the Arab Spring as an example of popular uprisings and those much weaker variations having occurred in America is both their lasting effect and limited scope. The Occupy movement was a rejection of corporate greed and the type of hyper-capitalism that almost tanked the global market back in 2008. Despite the number of associated protests, the Occupy Movement was less of a protest against socioeconomic inequality and Big Money influence in the legislative process it should have been. The Tea Party protests—despite having tinges of the same issues that the Occupy Movement were protesting—was too ideologically partisan to the right to truly represent a cross-section of America ethnically, politically, and/or socially.

As I watch news coverage of more economic-issue-inspired protests unfurling across Brazil, I can’t help but wonder why the poor and disenfranchised in America don’t mobilize in a similar way against marginalization by politicians and policy makers? During the 2012 presidential elections, both President Obama and former Republican candidate Mitt Romney ran campaigns targeting the American Middle Class—as did Romney’s Republican Primary competitors. Democrats running for office at the national level tend to target the same constituency; at local levels they have no choice but to acknowledge poor voters simply because of the nature of local politics. However, as both, a campaign policy and policy focus, the welfare and interests of the underclass as a group in America simply doesn’t lobby on its own behalf when their interests are ignored or targeted for damning by legislators seeking to balance budgets on their already burdened backs. The underclass as a group is not usually given to vocalizing their discontent. This week’s failure in the U.S House of Representatives to cut funding to programs responsible for helping those needy families purchase food is an example of this (See: “Proposed Cuts in the House Farm Bill Mean "2 Million Less People on Food Stamps, 210,000 Children Will Not Receive School Lunches or Breakfasts”).
Those needing the program did not march on Washington to protest the attempt to cut the much-needed assistance; Democrats (and some Republicans) simply refused to support the cuts for differing reasons. Those who would benefit from the program were given the reprieve on the mercies of advocates in Congress. While the politically-connected Moneyed Class has the ears, hearts, and minds of policy-makers, the Middle Class catches policy-makers’ attention during election periods. The poor in America—lacking money, organization, and drenched in voter apathy—are nothing more than pawns in the political chess game. Having worked with and alongside (and at one time lived) with the politically and economically disenfranchised in America, my personal (and objective) observations as to why they as a group refuse to mobilize in the way that their brethren in other countries have are multidimensional.
A major reason the poor in America don’t organize and/or vocalize their discontent is the lack of interests in news and current events—such as the protests occurring abroad. Many lower income, lower class individuals tend to anesthetize with irrelevant distractions, and insulate from knowledge of relevant issues which could affect them. A great majority of them tend to spend inordinate amounts of time viewing music videos, so-called “reality television,” and other programming which specializes in commanding the narrow attention spans and interests of those who would rather be entertained than informed. And in the instances they are seeking to be informed, their curiosity extends only as far as the personal lives of celebrities and pseudo-celebrities. Having worked with at-risk kids (as well as their parents), I would observe and take note of their interests and their lack of interests in national and world events. When they have an opportunity to use the internet for schoolwork and/or recreation, they tend to use the time to listen to the latest offering of what passes for music nowadays, or view sites that delve into the meaningless lives of those “entertainers” who are responsible for today’s music. Their parents are little better in their knowledge (or interest) of current events. Of course, this is not to say that there are those of within the lower economic (and social) brackets who are not interested in what goes in Washington and their state capitals. What I speak is on the whole, this group is more inclined toward focusing on information on the most rudimentary of levels; the weather forecast, local news, and/or progress of their local sports teams. An observation that I made years ago provides an illustration. Back when I was in college, a good friend of mine and I travelled to Chicago (where I was born) and went sight-seeing along in the “Gold Coast” area of the city—where Big Money and affluence is concentrated. As we drove in the Lake Shore Drive area, I noticed that outside the couple-grand-a-month-rent condos were newspaper boxes stacked groups of 5 or more. They sold The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and a few more of the national dailies. Back in the old neighborhood, the corner newspaper boxes only carried the Chicago Sun-Times, the Tribune, and maybe the city’s historic black newspaper, The Defender. The takeaway for me was the “haves” were informed, while the “have-nots” were not.
Another reason that the poor in America are not able to gather the wherewithal to demonstrate in favor of their collective interests is that much of their time is spent simply trying to survive trying to live off of the meager wages offered in our new service-based economy. While lawmakers were busy gutting the gutting programs—in the name of “cutting spending”—that had some impact in supplementing low wage workers, those on the lower rungs of society were forced to dedicate more and more of their time trying to make up for these cuts by working two or even part-time three jobs to make up for the incomes and benefits that a single job used to offer. The 90s-era North American Free-Trade Agreement made it possible for many higher-paying U.S. manufacturers to move jobs to lower-labor costs Mexico. The manufacturers who remained lowered wages to compete with the new globalized economy. The emerging service industry didn’t have to pay as much to compete with the comparable-paying manufacturing industry; the $7.00-$9.00 starting pay is the same as moderate pay in the 1980s. With so much time dedicated to ensuring that families are able to pay bills, little things like attending parent-teacher meetings, community groups, city-council/town hall meetings, and other such gathering that would normally inform citizens of what’s going on around them (as well as fellowship with those who might also might be informed) became necessarily passé’ as a matter of survival. Among a group where many have to plan ahead just to vote in a way that doesn’t jeopardize their jobs or compromise any needed paid time, is it any wonder that voting is the only form of being “informed” or “protest” that many of them know?
There is also a level of willful ignorance as well as self-defeating thinking among the lower classes in America. Many rural poor whites for example harbor race-based animosities toward minorities; “blacks are lazy,” “Mexicans come to America and take all the jobs, “and “Foreigners are buying up American stores.” Many lower-class blacks tend to give racism more power than it has over their lives and the impact it has on their ability to work toward impacting their own lives in a positive sense. Sure, racism still exists, and it can have some negative impact over those who try to get ahead—no matter how much others want to believe otherwise. But it cannot overcome hard work or the desire to not be manipulated by uncaring legislators and policy makers who only seem to be motivated by the financially well-heeled. Such thinking leads to apathy, the feeling of powerlessness, and a fatalistic outlook toward those who expect and operate in concert with such thinking. In other words, uncaring, unmoved, and oblivious legislators and policymakers here in America need the disaffectedness and divisions among the lower-class and disenfranchised in order to keep themselves in power, and the masses from rising up in the same way those others have in other countries.
The Civil Rights, Feminist, Tea Party, and various other movements prove that people can impact decisions far more than they would give themselves credit for. The protests this week in Turkey and Brazil prove that masses of disaffected and disenchanted people can mobilize in ways that render the influence of Big Money moot. When the Founders Fathers crafted the Constitution, they intended for the people to tell government what it wants, not to have its representatives ignore the needs of the people. Since the Supreme Court’s democracy-weakening decision in Citizens United, our decision-makers and leaders have adopted the backwards notion that money should move and impact policy more than anything else. The poor in this country need to take a page from what’s happening around the world and start mass protesting in not only Washing, but in the various state capitals to show that policy and governing should be based on reality—what’s going on around us—rather than ideology—what one thinks or believes to “be right.”

One reason why the poor in America maintain a sense of powerlessness...exploitation by those benefit from their unfortunate circumstances (watch the video).

Read More

Open Thread: How The Middle-Class Got Screwed (Video)

The problem with sharing ideas in America--especially as they pertain to sociopolitics and/or economics--is that no matter how sound, rational, valid, or proof-driven the idea is, we have become so ideologically and politically fractured as a nation that any explanation is usually assailed by someone with a particular ideological bias by which they view the world through.  I see this on a daily basis from both the ideological left and the right (with much of it on the political right).  To hear the average "well-informed" American tell it, every explanation which we don't agree with has either a "liberal bias" or uses "selective facts" to justify their stance; rarely do we approach an issue with open minds.  Instead, we approach any and every issue with a counter-argument cocked and loaded, and ready to pull the trigger on in an attempt at discourse.
With that having been said, I recently came across a video with what I found to be a limited-bias explanation for why and how the American Middle-Class came to find itself on such a precarious position economically. Try watching with an open mind...

Read More

America's Poorest States...In Perspective!

While trolling the internet for my daily dose of relevant news, I came across a very interesting bit of research from the investor analysis site, Wall Street 24/7 (I suppose “trolling” isn’t the right word; I actually read the news, not have it spoon-fed to me via partisan sound-bites for instant regurgitation in a “debate”). According to 24/7, an analysis of information from last year’s Census Bureau’s data revealed the “America’s Poorest States,” based on the average median income of their residents, as well as other data. According to the Bureau’s data, the 10 poorest states are:

1.- Mississippi.
2- Arkansas.
3.- Tennessee.
4.- West Virginia.
5.- Louisiana.
6.- Montana.
7.- South Carolina.
8.- Kentucky.
9.- Alabama.
10.- North Carolina.


Oddly enough, what I found based on the latest projections polls, was the voting patterns among these states.

Click on map to enlarge

1.- Mississippi. Voting for: Romney
2.- Arkansas. Voting for: Romney
3.- Tennessee. Voting for: Romney
4.- West Virginia. Voting for: Romney
5.- Louisiana. Voting for: Romney
6.- Montana. Voting for: Romney
7.- South Carolina. Voting for: Romney
8.- Kentucky. Voting for: Romney
9.- Alabama. Voting for: Romney
10.- North Carolina. Voting for: Toss-up

In order to avoid the whining accusations of my being a shill for the political Left-Wing, I will leave it up to you, the reader to reach your own conclusions…assuming you can think beyond the dissonance between your political leanings and your perceived self-interests…

Read More

Yes Virginia, There ARE "Lazy Americans!" (Conclusion)

Continued from Part 2

Let’s see now…we’ve explored the myth that Americans are not lazy from different perspectives. Americans are lazy when it comes to our children’ education. We routinely lower the educational standards instead of public school instead of raising expectations. We lazily teach for standardized testing instead of simply teaching concepts which foster academic literacy. We allow our children to routinely disrespect or even assault, teachers and staff in our public schools under the excuse that they have some sort of emotional and or/or psychological “condition.” We lazily tolerate particularly disruptive children to sap away the opportunity for the more stable children in our classrooms, under the mistaken belief that they have some sort of “right” to be there—bringing others down to their selfish level of uncaring and. We allow schools to adopt the misguided mandate to cater to students “needs’ rather than following the mandate to teach them. As a result, many students simply do not care if they pass their classes, as their poorly done work attest to.
Much of the laziness we produce in students/children is due lack of support in the home. As a former long-term substitute teacher in public schools, I witnessed many parent-teacher conference days where only one or two parents would actually show up to express concern for their children’ academic progress. Many of us lazily raise our children to embrace things rather than ideas. And they invariably develop an entitlement mentality rather than a sense of duty, an appreciation for hard work paying off, and a lack of patience; they want everything given to them now; perish forbid they’d have to actually make an effort and work for what they want. We permit them to smoke, drink, and otherwise become addicted to both substance abuse, and half-hearted efforts for most things which do not product instantaneous (and desirable) results. We defend their poor decision-making as being the result of having “issues.” We allow their intransigence to become the norm that we as adults have to adapt to, instead of the other way around.And in our relationships, laziness within ourselves prevents us—at every conceivable point—from not only finding who is good for us, but from making relationships work and/or last. The choice to personally mismanage our feelings as well as our mental well-beings has contributed mightily to our emotional laziness, which contributes to our high divorce rates and depression resulting from chronically-failed relationships.But our laziness does not stop here.

Financial/EconomicLaziness

Given how close the country—indeed the world—came to the totalcollapse of the current economic regime, our sluggishness when it comes tomatters of finance mirrors that of other aspects of our society. For starters, Americans—despite high rates of unemployment, housing foreclosures, anddiscontent with the economy—are investing in personal savings at almost historicallylow rates; some 3.6% of disposable income (“Savings Rate Is Dropping, and Experts Are Puzzled”),which was a minor contributor to the financial crisis of recent times. A major aspect of our lazy attitudes is ourpropensity to avoid putting off gratification, preferring instead to indulgeourselves in terms of raw consumption. Granted, some of the spending is done “to cover necessities like medicalbills and gasoline,” Americans also tend to spend money on frivolity such ashigh-end designer clothing and shoes, gourmet coffees, cigarettes, lotterytickets, recreational drugs, and fancy automobile trappings—money which couldotherwise easily be saved in interest-bearing accounts. The live-for-todayspending we tend to indulge in is a modern-day variation of the Ant and the Grasshopper…with no thoughtsabout not only saving for rainy days and/or retirement, but basicinvestment. This is especially true forindividuals in the lower- and lower-middle classes.

Another consequence of our laziness and our lack ofmotivation to save is that many of those who simple were not “designed” to workfor others—that is, those who desire to work for themselves—are not willing toput forth the effort that it takes to establish our own businesses (and no, I’mnot talking about internet start-ups). While it is true that national chainstores have taken some of the sting out of purchasing high costs items such agroceries for the typical family, they have done little in the way of fosteringthe sense of economic independence for the individual who simply wants to be hisown boss and control his own time. As achild growing up in both Chicago, and later in Michigan, I can remember beingable to walk to numerous stores in my neighborhood(s) and buying whatever mylittle heart so desired—when I hadthe money. Whether it was to buy a soda,pick up a drug prescription, or a quick run to buy a can of tomato paste torush back for my anxiously waiting mother, it was a given that there was alwaysa neighborhood market, store, or small shop owned and operated by Mr. or Mr.So-and-So. In many cases, they werepeople I could identify with on many levels. In some cases, I went to school with the stores owners’ children. But now, and at the risk of soundingethnically-insensitive or intolerant, most neighborhood stores are owned byrecent immigrants to America…those who have aggressively filled the vacuum of entrepreneurialmotivation once held by those born here. Unwilling to work and maintain a semblance of economic independence, manynative-born Americans, especially in urban areas, have sold their livelihoodsfor a quick monetary offer, and in short order become employees (remember, manyof us do not invest or save…we simply buy things meant to impress) instead ofemployers . Now, instead of thousands ofproud Mom & Pop shops in every neighborhood, we have a landscape dotted withforeign-owned convenience stores operated and staffed by hard working familiescomprised of first-generation immigrants.

The same can be said of wage-labor positions, once proudlyheld by individuals such as my father and myself. Such physically-demanding and labor-intensivejobs, which were often on the lower-end of the pay scale, were once the onlymeans Americans could get by economically. I myself remember working on various farms in my youth…not to acquireextra spending money, but to contribute to the overall household income (alongwith my mother and siblings). Most of us who found ourselves doing this type ofwork were black, with a sprinkle of poor whites and Latino migrants. Today,most of those doing these types of jobs are immigrants—both documented and notso—from Latin America. Now this is notto say that I do not value these individuals as contributors to the melting potof America, or that I do not admire their economic tenacity and hard-work ethic.It’s just that their presence represents how quickly someone else will workwhen Americans become lazy.

In many ways, it was this same type of laziness which contributedto the financial crisis a couple of years ago. Buttressed by greed and our proclivity to want things now, many Americans failed to follow thetraditional route toward obtaining the part of the American dream that includeshome ownership. In droves, manyAmericans opted to bypass the more traditional and economically-sound practicesof working to strengthen their credit ratings and/or levels of savings, andrushed to purchase homes with a bare minimum of savings, and with credit scoreswhich shouldn’t have allowed in a banks front doors. Unwilling to put in the work to avoidqualifying for subprime mortgage loans, many were willing brave the risks of easy(but costly) credit, high (and in some cases, variable) interest, and long-termfinancial commitment (despite an unstable economy) to purchase homes theysimply could not afford. This phenomenonoccurred en masse, and the result wasa hair’s approach to a sequel to the Great Depression similar to that of the1930’s.

Summary

Despite the flack that President Obama caught late last yearfor his taken-out-of-context remark that “Americans are lazy,” he actually tolda bold truth that many refuse to accept or see. Yes, many Americans are lazy, whether it be personally, professionally, academically,or emotionally. In addition, I suppose itwould not be too late to add that many of us are lazy mentally and civically too;too many of us are too apathetic to being a part of the political process and torationally analyzing issues affecting their lives (most would rather leave evenhow their beliefs are shaped up to talking heads on pundit TV and radio). We simply cannot delay immediate gratificationfor long-term benefit. We are fat, fullof excuses, and in ill-health, ridden with preventable maladies such asdiabetes, certain cancers, and heart disease.

Many of us routinely show up late for work, do as little aspossible, and ask for too much (especially in the case of corporate officers, CEOs,and others whose “success” is built up the backs of those who do work hard).

A successful America requires the active participation of amotivated citizenry to ensure that socioeconomic equality is at the very least achievable. Any loss of freedoms, rights, or economic viability is due in partto the laziness on the part of American citizens.A successful America requires the active participation of a motivated citizenry to ensure that socioeconomic equality is at the very least achievable.

Read More

Record High Black Male Unemployment -- The Non-Issue For Campaign 2012

With the Republican contenders for the 2012 party nomination already lining up, one issue in the news which started the usual talk of policy and political rhetoric was—oddly enough—the issue of the high rate of unemployment among African-Americans, particularly among black males. CBS evening news reported last week that unemployment among African-American males was an astounding 17% nationally, a rate not seen since the Great Depression.

This high number seems almost welcoming when you consider that in some areas, the unemployment rate for black males is actually double this figure. According to the think tank, the Community Service Society, 34% of black men, ages 19 to 24 in New York City are not working. In Milwaukee, the rate is also 34%.

With such a tailor-made campaign season issues served up to them, some GOP candidates took the cue and began bringing attention on the problem. With an African-American Democrat in the White House, it was easy for those seeking to unseat President Obama to make the accusation that his administration’s policies were responsible for “causing” this crisis among this particular demographic, and “reveal” the failures of his policies. Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich has referred to President Obama as “the most successful food stamp president,” an all-too subtle racial jab as his being both black and [perceptually] “liberal.” Fellow contender Michele Bachmann noted that "This president has failed the Hispanic community. He has failed the African-American community" when it comes to the issue of high unemployment among these traditionally Democratic voting groups.
Ordinarily, this would be a welcome focus. But in an early election season, a time when political opportunism is seized without a second’s hesitation by those jockeying amongst a crowd of contenders for top billing in the polls, the sudden “interest” in the plight of black males is suspect to say the least. Although most Americans know all too-well this phenomenon of election season “awareness” and “concern” of voter issues by Republicans and Democrats, black males have always seemingly been an overlooked demographic, election season or not.
So when Gingrich and Bachmann blame President Obama for his inaction in addressing black (male) unemployment, they fail to mention that same lack concern from their own party in Congress is a contributing factor. Even as they accuse Obama of failing black males, “Republican leadership has not considered or introduced one single jobs bill,” according to Congressman Emmanuel Cleaver (D-MO). Democrats, whom the majority of African-Americans’ have traditionally given their voting allegiance to since the days of FDR, haven’t been that much more helpful on the issue. The pitiful few Democratic legislators supporting the even fewer number of legislative initiatives introduced in Congress attempting to address this issue reflects the near-apathetic level of concern among even their political party.
Trying to discern which action—or lack thereof—is more shameful, Republicans trying to exploit the long-existing socioeconomic troubles of black males for political gain or relative Democratic inaction with regards to addressing the issue (despite unswerving allegiance by black voters) is almost a lose-lose proposition. But whichever the more dishonorable act, many black males are unable to partake in even the most minimalist aspect of the American Dream…employment.
Why are so many black males unemployed? The answer(s) is/are a convergence of socioeconomic factors meeting on the corners of individual selfishness and market realities boulevards.

Black Males
Among the individually selfish reasons for high unemployment among black males are black males themselves. Many black men are simply not participating in the lives of young black males (who have the highest unemployment rate among the highest unemployed demographic), with whom they could be a key asset in preparing them for a competitive national employment market. Fathers, community leaders, business owners, and other otherwise
socially and economically productive male figures should be among the obvious first-liners in crafting positive images among future black men, while directly or indirectly mentoring them. Roles models for this group are desperately needed, and such civic-mindedness would go a long way towards making a difference in the numbers. Sagging pants, recreational drug use, young fatherhood, inappropriate slang use, and unprofessional behavior with regards to employment needs to be discouraged, while job/employment skills, a sense of responsibility, a professional appearance and demeanor, appreciation and emphasis on education, and training need to be instilled in these potential economic resources (and to put too fine a point on the issue, black women—despite the will, good intentions, and/or attempts by many—simply are not up to the task of helping young black boys become productive and employed adult males). Growing up in the 1970s and even into the early 1980s, it was not uncommon—at least for me—to see older black males showing younger black males how to perform work-related tasks around the house, in the neighborhood, or even taking them to work with them (as many more were more economically stable enough to do so).

Ineffective Practices & Shifting Economic Trends
After ill-preparation from lack of family and community support, perhaps the biggest factor contributing to the high unemployment rate is an outdated public education system model. An over emphasis on designating many young black males as being special needs or placement in special education does not help. Lack of direct parental participation and support (outside of the occasional visit to the principal’s office to address disciplinary problems), lack of an emphasis on discipline, strong curriculums which resist political pressure (and negative parental interference), early intervention for potential issues interfering with education, and laws which allow many young people to drop out of school are all absent in a public education dynamic more conducive to encouraging failure rather than success for many young black males. And with more and more local school districts cutting back on already substantively anemic educational curriculums, difference-makers like vocational programs, high school co-op, career-track curriculum- building and counseling have all but become extinct.
With a lack of appreciation for (or an emphasis on) secondary and higher education, many black males who graduated from public schools tended to head immediately into employment, mostly in vocations which required little in the way of education beyond the basics such as manufacturing, construction and certain segments of the service industry. Many of these jobs have evaporated, especially in the last decade due to shifting market trends. And with the lack of career diversity among many males in general and black males in particular, many simply did not and do not have other career options outside of the most menial, most low-paying offerings…or criminal activity.
On that point, many black males have criminal records, which make them undesirable as potential employees, which segues into another reason for so many black unemployed males, discrimination.
Dr. Rodney Green, chairman of the economics department at Howard University and the executive director of the university’s Center for Urban Progress sums up the situation best:

There has been a consistent pattern of black male unemployment rates that are twice the unemployment of white, even in good or bad times,” Green said. He said this is due to continuing discrimination against black males in the labor market and also a split in the labor market where job loss is greatest in industries that employ large numbers of African-Americans such as construction, service and retail.

In the final analysis, even in the best economic times, when black males manage to overcome socioeconomic disadvantages, possess education backgrounds comparable to other successful males from other ethnic groups, and lack criminal records, employers will invariably still manage to overlook these individuals based on some minor prejudice or preference—conscious or not (a reality which I can personally attest to).
In an effort to address this issue—and to prove that not all public servants are oblivious to this issue—a few in Washington have opted to tackle the issue. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) have taken up the cause, drafting and introducing some 40 bills in Congress in an effort to marshal the power of government to do what the private sector is clearly not up to task to do insofar as the high rate of unemployment among African-American males. Members of the CBC like Cleaver have introduced legislative initiatives such as his-14 House Democrat-sponsored Urban Jobs Act, mean to provide training and other related services to at-risk youth preparing to enter the work force through the allocation of federal grant money to already established programs (http://politic365.com/2011/05/18/urban-jobs-act-seeks-to-address-youth-unemployment-crisis/). But in the defense of the lack of Republican support on the issue, the support of only 14 Democrats is hardly something which Democrats can tout as “concern.” It says that there is the lack of concern is being exhibited by both parties, and that maybe there is something to the Republican accusation that Democrats take the African-American vote for granted.
The lack of legislative success has spurred the CBC to take drastic action in the form of its For the People Jobs Initiative, a cross-country roving job fair of sorts, scheduled to visit many of the most hard-hit urban areas where black unemployment is at it highest beginning this summer. With a schedule start in Chicago, the initiative will be comprised of more than just a roving job fair. Each two-day stop will also incorporate a town hall meeting in which job seekers can offer feedback and describe their employment challenges in cities like Cleveland, Detroit, and Los Angeles. And despite the lack of broad initial Democratic and Republican support, the CBC plans to continue introducing legislation based community response and feedback gathered at from its cross-country tour, and culminating in the commission of a jobs advisory council of top black economic and business experts. It is hoped that the end result will a report proposing a long-term solution for job creation and economic growth.
So while certain politicians—including members of Congress—seemed more concerned with holding town hall meetings regarding “attacks on our Constitutional rights” from health care reform, they neglected addressing an issue that had already been problematic in the black and urban communities. If conservatives want to reach out to black voters, blaming a president they voted for overwhelmingly for his lack of directly addressing such a crucial issue, all the while engaging in the same lack of concern is not the way to do so. And if liberals (actual and self-professed) want to give only half-hearted support to concerns which affect those who blindly support their political representatives, then perhaps it would be best for African-Americans to adopt a swing-block voting attitude.
Even more so, it would be sensible for African-Americans males to take to the streets and rally in much the same way they did during the Million Man March of the mid-1990s and politicize an issue of such vital importance to their economic livelihoods. At any rate, its time to make the high rate of unemployment among black males an issue for the next campaign season.

Read More

Policy Vs. Facts -- The Economy in Perspective

In the last few days, an interesting article has been making the rounds on various news-oriented websites. Its a piece written by the Wall Street Journal 's Personal Finance columnist, Brett Arends revealing the biggest myths (read: lies/misconceptions) about the American market economy. As I read the article, I couldn't help but be reminded of two things: how much We The People and our elected representatives shape our political policies, beliefs, and actions based on misconceptions, and how much religion—which has managed to creep its way into our national politics—functions in similar ways.
Before I present my point, first read the article in question, reprinted below.


The three biggest lies about the economy
Commentary: The truth about jobs, the market and U.S. socialism

By Brett Arends, WSJ.com and MarketWatch

BOSTON (MarketWatch) -- The counter-revolution is underway.

The G-20 calls for members to slash their budget deficits. The U.S. Senate ices further aid for the unemployed. The head of the Business Roundtable slams President Obama for undermining American capitalism. Wall Street succeeds in watering down reform.

Depending on your politics, you'll love this or hate it.
But there's just one problem.
We're still living in a fantasyland. Most people have no idea what's really going on in the economy. They're living on spin, myths and downright lies. And if we don't know the facts, how can we make intelligent decisions?
Key updates on the economy this week
Economists worry that jobs, consumer confidence readings won't support hope for economic recovery, Barrons.com's Bob O'Brien reports.
Here are the three biggest economic myths -- the things everything thinks they know about the economy that just ain't so.

Myth 1: Unemployment is below 10%

What nonsense that is. The official jobless rate, at 9.7%, is a fiction and should be treated as such. It doesn't even count lots of unemployed people. The so-called "underemployment" or U-6 rate is an improvement: For example it counts discouraged job seekers, and those forced to work part-time because they can't get a full-time job.
That rate right now is 16.6%, just below its recent high and twice the level it was a few years ago
And even that may not tell the full story. Many people have simply dropped out of the labor force statistics.
Consider, for example, the situation among men of prime working age. An analysis of data at the U.S. Labor Department shows that there are 79 million men in America between the ages of 25 and 65. And nearly 18 million of them, or 22%, are out of work completely. (The rate in the 1950s was less than 10%.) And that doesn't even count those who are working part-time because they can't get full-time work. Add those to the mix and about one in four men of prime working age lacks a full-time job.
Dean Baker, economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C., says the numbers may be even worse than that. His research suggests a growing number of men, especially in deprived, urban and minority neighborhoods, have vanished from the statistical rolls altogether.

Myth 2: The markets are panicking about the deficit

To hear the G-20 tell it, the U.S. and other top countries had better slash those budget deficits before the world comes to an end.
And maybe the markets should be panicking about the deficits.
But they're not. It's that simple.
If they were, the interest rate on government bonds would be skyrocketing. That's what happens with risky debt: Lenders demand higher and higher interest payments to compensate them for the dangers.
But the rates on U.S. bonds have been plummeting recently. The yield on the 30-year Treasury bond down to just 4%. By historic standards that's chickenfeed. Panicked? The bond markets are practically snoring.
They aren't seeing inflation either. On the contrary, they're saying it will average just 2.3% a year over the next three decades. That's the gap between the interest rates on inflation-protected Treasury bonds and the rates on the regular bonds. By any modern standard the forecast is low. Instead of worrying about inflation, some are starting to worry about something even more dangerous: deflation, or falling prices.
If that takes hold, cutting spending and raising taxes would be a bad move.
It's certainly possible the lenders buying these bonds are being foolish. And it's worth noting that the Treasury market is also subject to political distortions, because foreign are among the heavy buyers of bonds. So it's worth treating its apparent verdicts with some caution. Nonetheless, the burden of proof, as usual, is on those who argue the market is wrong.

Myth 3: The U.S. is sliding into "socialism"

For a system allegedly being strangled in its bed, U.S. capitalism seems to be in astonishingly robust shape.
Numbers published by the Federal Reserve a few weeks ago show that corporate profit margins have just hit record levels. Indeed. Andrew Smithers, the well-regarded financial consultant and author of "Wall Street Revalued," calculates from the Fed's latest Flow of Funds report that corporate profit margins rocketed to 36% in the first quarter. Since records began in 1947 they have never been this high. The highest they got under Ronald Reagan was 30%.
The picture is also similar when you exclude financials.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DOW:DJIA) is above 10,000. Small company stocks have rallied astonishingly since early last year: The Russell 2000 index is back to levels seen not long before Lehman imploded. Meanwhile Cap Gemini's latest Wealth Report notes that the North American rich saw an 18% jump in their wealth last year.
Meanwhile, federal spending, about 25% of the economy this year, is expected to fall to about 23% by 2013. In 1983, under Ronald Reagan, it hit 23.5%. In the early 1990s it was around 22%. Some socialism.
These days, three-fifths of the entire budget goes on just three things: Insurance for our old age (through Social Security and Medicare), defense, and debt interest.

Conservatives don't want to cut the $700 billion-plus we spend on defense. We can't cut debt interest payments. And while Social Security and Medicare certainly need reform, the main "problems" are simply rising life expectancy and health care demands. If we didn't provide for the insurance through our taxes we'd have to do it individually.
What about the rest of the budget? It's jumped from around 7% of GDP a few years ago to about 10% now. Out of control? It's been in the 6% to 9% range for decades. It's forecast to fall to about 8% again in a few years.
So much for a revolution. But here comes the counter-revolution just the same.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/story/print?guid=4CAD4B15-F472-4009-88AF-719A7CD7F5B4

If you're among the few socially and politically astute in America, you may have received an epiphany as you read this piece. If not, think about how liberals on one end and conservatives on the other base and shape their political beliefs on how their misconceptions and/or mis- interpretations of facts; issues like the death penalty, social spending, and gay rights are promoted and/or defended by both sides based religious interpretations of the Bible.
The Tea Party movement is active and engaged in national politics based on how it as a politically conservative organization interprets the economic picture. The Obama Administration, in the wake of its recently passed economic stimulus package, similarly interprets (or misinterprets) the facts about our economy in the realm of reported vs. real unemployment numbers (those of us who are experiencing the pain of being unemployed know all-too well that the monthly reported unemployment numbers don't tell the whole story)
The point is that the American people need to be more well-read and discriminating when it comes to what's real, and what's political spin. Sadly, most of us would rather listen to talking heads spouting and validating our political beliefs than pick up a book, newspaper, or log onto news websites to ascertain the facts for ourselves. We rally, vote, and—to our collective detriments—think based on beliefs rather than facts. And we should never believe everything we think...at least without individual (and objective) research. THINK, don't "feel!"

Read More

Since We’re Bailing Out…

I suppose it’s somewhat symbolic that I have started writing this particular piece at 4 minutes to midnight on December 31. So as we leave what’s left of 2008, its hard not to reflect back on what has been a tumultuous year—something of a criminal understatement—in the financial world, culminating in scandals and bailouts.
In the coming year, not only can we anticipate more financial upheavals, but also attempts by state and local governments to stem this all-but-fated turmoil. But with all the talk bailouts, transfers of public funds intended to prop-up various failing institutions, and (possibly) embattled homeowners facing an avalanche of foreclosures, it seems that we are overlooking another possible candidate for a bailout: overburdened college graduates saddled with student loan debt.
Now before any of you Shelby Steele clones or Ayn Rand wannabes decide to slap me with the oh-so predictable label of “Socialist,” I am not talking about a wholesale bailout of everyone who’s ever taken out a student loan and failed to pay back this legal and moral obligation up to this point in time. What I’m suggesting is providing some relief to those who are being victimized by this current and unprecedented era of rapid changes in the marketplace that would have anyone hard-pressed to keep up as they struggle to survive.
Admittedly on the surface, this sounds like a ridiculous idea. But given the changing economic tides (and fortunes) of the nation, individuals—and families by extension—already fiscally fatigued from fighting the combined assault by the rising costs of consumer prices, loss of employment (due to off-shoring of labor/rapidly changing market trends), taxes, credit availability, and mortgage difficulties, are desperate for relief from just trying to stay in the shadow of the American Dream.
I’m not talking about helping to bail out irresponsible homeowners with risky credit ratings who shouldn't’t have been allowed anywhere near a mortgage application to begin with. What I’m suggesting is a morally sound level of financial assistance in the form of hardship-based debt forgiveness for those of us whom—it turns out—were sold a bill of goods insofar as the value of a college degree as it relates socioeconomic advancement. This is particularly true for those of us reared on the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder who find ourselves waiting tables, sweeping floors, substitute teaching, or similarly and/or chronically underemployed instead of benefiting from an education meant to move us past our humble beginnings.
What I’m talking about specifically is a case-by-case analysis of each student in debt. Any debt relief should be contingent upon the total amount owed, the average annual income of the student since graduating college in relation to expected earning potential (all things being equal, only those who've actually graduated would be eligible, and even then, dependent on the aforementioned requirements), and an assessment of any and all honest attempts to make regular payments.
One form of a bailout for student loans recipients could be a graduated schedule, similar to the type used in one of the various repayment plans already in use. The level of forgiveness could be based on anticipated overall employment trends in relation to the likelihood that the debtor could conceivably find employment on a level which would enable both repayment the loans as well as afford modest level of living. In extreme cases, such as a history of chronic unemployment/underemployment, cutting the unpaid balance would go a long way toward helping those already struggling to make ends meet.
Exempt from this plan would be those individuals who have been fortunate enough to parlay their college experiences and degrees into career success. Also exempt would be those in with specific degrees that lead to immediate professional and semi-professional careers, such as teachers, social workers, nurses, and the like.
Agreed bailouts are a slippery slope. But if we're going to talk about bailing out individuals with risky credit ratings being given loans on houses they couldn't afford in the first place, and lenders, many of who employ executives with salaries which afford them over-the-top lifestyles and—unwarranted in many instances—golden parachute severance packages routinely running in the multi millions of dollars from these same bad loans, then why not help those of us who were only trying to make an honest go of things?
The mostly ideologically-based arguments against bailing out institutions such as the automobile manufacturers and lenders (with financial implications for the nation as a whole) and of individuals (such as those struggling with failed mortgage and student loan recipients) are somewhat predictable. One such argument is that students irresponsibly borrow money for college knowing that these loans are backed by government guarantees and the assumption that it (the government) will never run out of money. This unlimited availability of funds is what is believed to contribute to rising college costs, and a resulting lack of cost controls.
This argument assumes that people are predictable, which like the marketplace, they are not. Every bit player throughout every institution along the chain of economic production is hard to predict. That includes bankers who may risk making bad loans to risky debtors, company executives making bad business decisions, and the lowly worker trying to obtain a semblance of some part of the American Dream. Somewhere along this chain, people decide they want to move up both socially and economically and enroll in college with the hopes of doing so. Most sensible people, knowing full well that they must work to earn a living, know that they have to work in the repayment of student debt with their aspirations of living better. But again, people are not predictable…from the fickle job interviewer to those making the decision to move their companies offshore to lessen their labor costs.
In recent years, this unpredictability in both people and shifting economic market/employment trends has reached critical mass, culminating in what a recent piece by CNN.com revealed as a “record number of unemployed college graduates seeking work” (See “Have Degree-And Pink Slip.” http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/05/news/economy/degreed_workers/index.htm?postversion=2008120514)
Harder to understand is why such a suggestion for debt relief, considering that it would benefit the Middle Class (the group whom politicians love to pander to) the most has not even been given the benefit of a trial balloon to test its receptiveness by the American public? Probably because, like the notion of universal health care, it would receive almost overwhelming support from all but the most ideologically intransigent of die hard Free-Marketeers. Harder still is why even staunch conservatives wouldn’t be receptive to this idea, since most are always quick to articulate how fair it is to “put money back into the pockets of hard-working Americans?
If you look at it logically, student loan debt relief for those whose academic success has failed to translate into socioeconomic upward mobility would benefit the nation as a whole. We wouldn’t have to lower taxes, and have services suffer as a result. And struggling student debtors not forced to cough up anywhere up to several hundred dollars a month in a likewise struggling economy would be freed to spend scarce dollars on more items of necessity, which would halt the anticipated bloodbath of retailers expected to close in 2009 due to record-setting abysmal sales of this past holiday season. Lastly, such a gesture would go a long ways toward eliminating the cynicism that the average American harbors toward the government’s seeming favor to help out Big Business and the well-heeled at the expense of the average hard-working Little Man.
As I look up at the clock, it’s now 1:01 am…America, do you know where you priorities are? Here’s to the possibility of a progressive 2009.

Read More