About a year ago, a diner was held in Silicon Valley with many of the prominent innovators of our time gathered together. During Steve Jobs' talk, a question was raised by the special guest of the evening.
"What will it take to make iPhones in America?" President Barack Obama asked.
"Those jobs aren't coming back," Steve Jobs replied.
If I had to pin down one major criticism of the president, it's that he isn't being fully honest with the American people about jobs. Those jobs, indeed, are not coming back because we live in a global marketplace now (thanks largely to our leading the rest of the world in adopting free markets and liberal economic theory). I understand why he's not being honest. No one wants to hear that the pool of labor is so great in the world that demand is very elastic and American workers are now a small part of a larger chorus. And, with such a tenuous economic situation, even the slightest perception of negativity can have a major effect on the world markets....especially coming from the leader of the free world.
Most importantly, it's hard to explain to the millions out of work that this is better for the world in the long run.
Of course, the president is not the only one that can't admit what's going on. Paul Krugman, in his recent piece in the Times, can't seem to do so either.
We should reject the attempt to divert the national conversation away from soaring inequality toward the alleged moral failings of those Americans being left behind. Traditional values aren’t as crucial as social conservatives would have you believe — and, in any case, the social changes taking place in America’s working class are overwhelmingly the consequence of sharply rising inequality, not its cause.
As he tries to answer Charles Murray's arguments on morals and inequality, which I commented on the other day, he completely fails to note that the main reason why there is so much rising inequality and the real reason why those jobs aren't coming back. How is it possible that a man so smart can't see the very obvious economic truths?
Instead, he proceeds to one of the things that really piss me off about liberals: make lite of certain moral arguments by those on the right that do actually have some merit.
Mr. Murray and other conservatives often seem to assume that the decline of the traditional family has terrible implications for society as a whole. . Suddenly, conservatives are telling us that it’s not really about money; it’s about morals. Never mind wage stagnation and all that, the real problem is the collapse of working-class family values, which is somehow the fault of liberals.
First of all, it's technically not the "fault of liberals." He might be able to poke several large holes in Murray's argument if the focused on how he and Niall Ferguson blame the government for every little problem we have. And making fun of the "family values" crowd is really bullshit when it comes to inequality because these are the people that do actually help the poor through their churches and communities. They might have a weird and phobic blind spot when it comes to government but that doesn't mean they are all bad.
This is why the left really needs to take Murray's arguments seriously. They have merit. I see the results in school every day. Children do better when they are raised by two, loving and committed parents who make the time to help them develop. And communities and peer groups need to also step it up and do a better job of caring for the development of our children. That's what we all mean by "morals."
No doubt, this is not an easy task and will take some time. As we work on this issue on the local level, we really need to cut the BS and just admit that those jobs aren't coming back. That needs to be the starting point because everything else is really moot if we are not accurately identifying the problem.
3 comments:
Mark, you're completely missing the point Krugman is making. As white American men fall into the same economic trap that African American men fell into decades ago, they're following the same pattern of behavior: broken families, absentee fathers, dads who sit around doing nothing because there are no jobs to be had. It has nothing to do with race or moral values.
Harsh economic realities trump morality every time. It's easy to be moral and follow the rules and laws when you have plenty of money.
Divorce rates are highest in the poorest states -- states that vote reliably Republican, states that have the highest church attendance and belief in traditional values. Divorce rates are generally lower in richer liberal states that vote reliably Democratic.
Single-parent families are not a value anyone holds dear. Everyone -- including liberals -- wants kids to have two parents who care about them and help them grow up to be responsible adults. Liberals just don't think you should demonize people when things don't work out between spouses. Liberals don't think you should force women to stay in marriages with abusive husbands. These men are frequently abusive and impossible to live with because they're angry that they lost their jobs. Jobs that GM, US Steel and Apple would rather pay Chinese, Mexican or Malaysian workers a few bucks a day instead of paying a 40-year-old American male a living wage.
Religious conservatives also blame the "disintegration of the family" on women who are more independent and working more. But because wages have remained stagnant for working white men for 30 years, more and more wives have had to take jobs outside the home just to maintain their standard of living. The average American can't make it on one average salary anymore. (Women had previously entered the workforce on a massive scale in World War II, and that probably influenced the Women's Liberation movement more than anything else.) By forcing women to take jobs outside the home, the economic situation necessitated social changes that coincidentally allowed women to become independent.
And because women typically get more education than men do, men with high-school educations are falling out of the workforce rapidly while their better-educated wives are still able to find jobs.
Social changes are being forced on us by economic realities. This is the main thrust of Krugman's article.
Yes, churches often help the poor. But just as some government policies can hurt the very people they're trying to help, religious dogma can be just as harmful. To wit, the insistence of the Catholic and other churches that birth control and abortion be outlawed. Nothing destroys a young person's economic future faster than an unintended pregnancy.
Steve Jobs did a lot of cool stuff, but in many ways he was a real dick. Jobs sent those jobs to China to pad his own wallet. Walmart made American companies cut costs incessantly, forcing all their production -- and millions of jobs -- to China. GM and the other car companies sent jobs overseas for decades. All of which meant more money in fewer hands.
When you come right down to it, big business has destroyed the fabric of American society by making it impossible for Americans to make a living wage while maintaining the traditional nuclear family structure. That, more than women's liberation or any other social movement, has precipitated the very conditions that Republicans are bemoaning.
Well, there's N bravely toeing the proggie line, while M has ventured off the rez.
By forcing women to take jobs outside the home
What a load of shit from an out of touch moron. No one forced women out of the house and into the workforce. You could just as easily argue that men's wages stagnated because women increased the labor pool (and any increase in supply tends to hold down price). You could also argue that the boomers and their progeny have learned to not delay gratification. Why save and consume tomorrow when you can borrow and live it up today. Who the fuck do you think caused McMansions to come into vogue?
Here's the funny thing, I disagree that the left (or anyone else for that matter) should take Murray all that seriously. See this for an excellent rebuttal.
"It's easy to be moral and follow the rules and laws when you have plenty of money."
You lost me here. Everyone knows that rich people only got that way by exploiting the workingman, and stealing money from the poor.
Rich people are the opposite of moral. And they break the laws so they can get rich.
They also poke kittens with forks, and drink the tears of orphans to gain super-strength.
Post a Comment