The Next New Deal
Strauss & Howe talk about the Next New Deal in their book. As I understand it, it will be a lot less generous to Boomers like me than the old one.
How has the Social Security situation been developing the last couple decades since the book was written? Any clarifying of what is gonna be cut and when?
The problem with a New New Deal is that we are still dealing with a problem of the old New Deal. The essence of the New Deal (what made the New Deal a deal) was this: Business would tolerate labour organising and in return would get freedom from vigorous antitrust enforcement. Businesses got the power to merge and form cartels. Which is how we got the Big 4 Automakers and the Seven Sisters oil companies and the Big 5 steelmakers. Because there were cartels, there could be "sweetheart contracts"--noncompetition on wages in which unions bargained for entire industries and wage costs were passed on to consumers.Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec
Which did not stop businesses from claiming exemptions from the New Deal for the South, for agriculture and for domestic work. Nor did it stop business from, with the help of conservative Southern Democrats, starting to claw back power from labour beginning with the 1946 Taft-Hartley Act or attempting to redefine the New Deal as socialism or even (shock-horror!) communism. And we see how this clawback has evolved.
So maybe a New New Deal is no deals. Just treating much of big business practice as illegal racketeering and using RICO legislation to take businesses from their current management and placing them in the hands of court appointed "special masters" (the common practice in RICO) and a) go along with unionisation and b) go along with the kind of "award wages" system we see in Australia. There, the Aussie version of ACLU comes together with business and government and there is a formal agreement as to what the legal wage will be for every occupation and every gradation of seniority and experience for that occupation, every couple years. The result is that inequality in Australia is about 1/3 of inequality in the US, has health insurance for all, an absolute minimum wage of $20 per hour with minimum wages for most occupations a lot higher than that and still has a better business climate than the US has. Why Bernie Sanders has not discovered Australia is beyond me.
Maybe we should mention that over on the Feel the Bern website. As of right now he is leading over Hillary Clinton is Iowa. We shall see if that holds up.
I was going to point to the German model, but the US is still emotionally and institutionally part of the Anglosphere, making Australia a much better choice. The real problem is lead-follow. We like to think of ourselves as leaders, and the idea that we might follow the lead of another nation, even one we admire, is certainly problematic. Then again, Bernie is running as a socialist, so some barriers may be ready to fall.
Reference point: in the US, a $20 minimum wage isn't even comprehensible at this point.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
We've adopted ideas from Australia before. The secret ballot (adopted in the 1880s) was adopted from Australia and initally called "The Australian Ballot". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_ballot , Automatic runoff elections are an Australian innovation too and in some localities that is being experimented with.
I'm awaiting adoption of the Foster's "oil can" as a general format.
I like its heft much more than that of a PBR tall.
Even the Aussies are getting away from the "oil can" for beer. It was a way of selling beer by the pint--just like a pint of oil.I'm awaiting adoption of the Foster's "oil can" as a general format.
I like its heft much more than that of a PBR tall.
I have felt that Bernie Sanders compares to FDR in this way: his economic policies seem similar to the New Deal.
We have it in our power to begin the world over again.
–Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)
No, cartels and monopolies go back to the late 19th century. The abdication of anti-trust is part of Reaganomics.
Yes, the clawback got new momentum in the late 60s backlash and then from the Reagan counter-revolution.Which did not stop businesses from claiming exemptions from the New Deal for the South, for agriculture and for domestic work. Nor did it stop business from, with the help of conservative Southern Democrats, starting to claw back power from labour beginning with the 1946 Taft-Hartley Act or attempting to redefine the New Deal as socialism or even (shock-horror!) communism. And we see how this clawback has evolved.
Sounds like a good Deal.So maybe a New New Deal is no deals. Just treating much of big business practice as illegal racketeering and using RICO legislation to take businesses from their current management and placing them in the hands of court appointed "special masters" (the common practice in RICO) and a) go along with unionisation and b) go along with the kind of "award wages" system we see in Australia. There, the Aussie version of ACLU comes together with business and government and there is a formal agreement as to what the legal wage will be for every occupation and every gradation of seniority and experience for that occupation, every couple years. The result is that inequality in Australia is about 1/3 of inequality in the US, has health insurance for all, an absolute minimum wage of $20 per hour with minimum wages for most occupations a lot higher than that and still has a better business climate than the US has. Why Bernie Sanders has not discovered Australia is beyond me.
It seems like the Republicans have decided to exempt boomers from their new new deal. Cuts to social security will be dished out to younger people, if they get their way.
With the increases in longevity, we have put off raising the retirement age for too long. Of course this has to be phased in ( if we ever start). If a person cannot continue to work, then Social Security should address this under disability clauses.
The German model for health care certainly affected adversely affected US views on this.
This would address the issue of gross income inequality provided our laws would allow treatment of business practice as illegal racketeering. Some business practices are clearly immoral , but making them illegal may require a change in US law.
Low ceiling ahead!
The 800 pound gorilla that has not been addressed on this thread yet is the fact that automation is really starting to eat away at the job market. It's all well and fine to talk about raising retirement ages in order to make a 75 year projection on cash flow look better, but with most of corporate America throwing away us after we've passed the age of 45 or 50 raising the retirement age may not solve anything. People made unemployable by unwritten and unproveable but pervasiveage discrimination will not be paying FICA taxes.
Last edited by herbal tee; 03-13-2016 at 10:37 AM.
The problem with this has a lot less to do with longevity increasing and more to do with more people reaching older ages than happened previously. I often have criticized Eric's contention that people are living longer with the fact that there has always been people to live to their 80s, 90s, and 100s. Rather what we are seeing is that theses "increases in longevity" are really fewer people dying younger. It is the average life expectancy that has increased not the general maximum life expectancy which has remained at around 120 years for humans for at least all of recorded history.
And this is important, as we are talking about increases in averages, the fewer infants and children that die the number goes up, the more people who live into their 70s and 80s the higher the number goes as well. In short people are not living longer than they used to, rather it is simply more people are living to be elderly than there used to be due to fewer accidents (work place safety, ergonomics and so on), fewer deaths from infectious disease, and better diet.
As such I simply cannot support raising the retirement age given the fact that quite honestly with a huge glut of younger workers who cannot find work due to a huge Baby Boomer contingent who refuses to retire. If anything we should start forcing retirement at 65.
Social Security would is solvant because
Over the years I've had to listen to tons of crackpot theories as to why Social Security won't be around for Xers and later generations. I'm convinced that all of those theories are bullshit. Here is why.
1. Social Security can be funded just like other governmental expenditures. Anyone who thinks that the Federal Government waits around for them to pay their tax money to cut grandma her social security check is delusional. All governmental expenditures are spent into existence first because the government issues the currency--that is to say without government spending no one has any money (though we may have an economy based on some form of commodity barter). This is of course MMT which long time posters will be familiar with from Playdude.
2. Social Security taxes can have the pay cap lifted. After the first 120K or so of income people no longer have to pay payroll taxes on social security. Honestly that is insane. If a few billionaires have to pay their fair share to insure that poor folks don't have to eat cat food then so be it.
3. Ending social security, or even messing with it is political suicide. Lets face it, politicians are not brave, and they are not leaders (they always follow the people and always do what is expedient and not necessarily what is right). As such anyone who thinks they can get elected on raising the retirement age, and cutting social security benefits is either insane, a fool, or delusional.
One problem here. Capitalist economics is driven by demand. Demand is of course fueled by having the money to purchase commodities and so on. Automation, and total automation at that spells the end of capitalism.
....And if we are successful, we will evolve up to a type of post scarcity social system. We've a long way to go to reach a higher society.
I agree with your terminology, but disagree with not raising the retirement age. We need to develop more jobs.
Last edited by radind; 03-13-2016 at 11:07 PM.
But just how would keeping us, I'm about to hit the 55-64 demographic, worn out, past our consumerist prime, elders in the job market holding jobs that should be held by Millies, who, like the GI's in the last 1T, should be in their household formation prime. As a sales manager I once read wrote ''production minus sales equals scrap.'' Supply is worthless without demand.
We clearly need more job creation , but I am not in favor of early retirement. The initial SS retirement age was 65-by now 75 would make more sense to me.
In order to develop jobs there needs to be massive increases in agrigate demand, which autmation is not working toward. Furthermore, with raising the retirement age we end up with more older people working and a large unemployed group of younger people. I don't know if you've studied history in detail in relation to revolutions and civil wars but generally it is armed groups of unemployed young people who cause problems. Unemployed elders can possibly live off of saved resources or have the social capital to not require working. I simply see no benefit from raising the retirement age, but great benefits from stricter enforcement of the 65 retirement age.
With all due respect that is a faith based answer. Why is keeping the labor pool artificially old and physically slow a good idea economically?
My position is the the economics of SS need an increase in the retirement age. I don't see what that has to do with faith.
-- we need more job creation, but also to keep the 65 retirement age, & either a 4 8 hr day work week, 5 6 hr days, or 3 10 hr days. Or all of them-let each workplace use what works best. This will create job openings for Millies
