Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Struggling To Advance (Are Americans now lowering their economic expectations?)
National Journal ^ | 09/29/2012 | Ronald Brownstein

Posted on 09/29/2012 7:48:45 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

A majority of Americans now define success as not falling behind. They worry that fundamental changes in the economy are making it more difficult for them—and their children—to get ahead.

The road still rises. But the climb is steeper, and the falls are more frequent.

That’s the view of prospects for upward mobility in the modern American economy that emerges from the latest Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor Poll. Although an overwhelming majority of Americans still define the U.S. as “the land of opportunity,” nearly as many agree that getting ahead is more difficult for workers today than it was for previous generations.

Only about one in five Americans say they have been able to get ahead consistently in their lives; many more say they have moved forward somewhat but faced intermittent reversals. And while a plurality of adults believe they have more opportunity to advance than their parents did, Americans are much more uncertain that the next generation will have greater opportunities than their own—with whites far more pessimistic than minorities.

In all these ways, the survey captures systemic strain between the bedrock American belief that anyone who works hard enough can succeed and the uneasy sense that persistent, and perplexing, headwinds in a globalized economy are making it harder for workers to get ahead.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: economy; expectations; fail; lowered; newnormal

1 posted on 09/29/2012 7:48:50 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

2 posted on 09/29/2012 7:49:45 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (bOTRT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

3 posted on 09/29/2012 7:50:11 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (bOTRT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Neither candidate or party is addressing the structural reason behind our economic mess: globalism and supposed free trade. Econ 101 theorems dictate equalization of incomes when the means of production is shared among the world, thus America must decline. Welcome to the New Normal.
4 posted on 09/29/2012 8:12:00 AM PDT by buckalfa (Nabob of Negativity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: buckalfa
I have to disagree with you on that. Globalism and free trade certainly present some challenges, but they also have a huge impact on the flip side. They have effectively allowed Americans to enjoy the highest standard of living in the history of mankind ... without having to pay the real costs associated with it.

If the U.S. were to impose tariffs on foreign countries to improve our competitive balance with our trading partners, the immediate effect would be an enormous increase in prices for a lot of things we take for granted.

5 posted on 09/29/2012 8:17:04 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
I agree with you that there are benefits to the new world economy, and protectionism will not solve the problem. I see it as a zero sum game. There is only so much pie to go around and if America is to keep its current share, costs of production, i.e. wages must decline. This opens the door to big government socialism and the restrictions on personal freedom that that would entail.
6 posted on 09/29/2012 8:23:22 AM PDT by buckalfa (Nabob of Negativity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

I worked in corporate America during the outsourcing boom of the 1990’s and early 2000’s. None of the companies I worked for rolled back prices to the consumer when they outsourced production. They enjoyed the benefits of higher margins for a few years. Much of the margin siphoned off by Wall Street in stock buybacks or overpriced acquisitions that later resulted in write downs of excess goodwill.

As an aside the true projected savings from outsourcing were never realized. Costs in the foreign country were higher than projected due to inefficient management of labor, graft, and corruption. Oil prices escalated, making energy an increasing cost of the product. More on site inspectors and auditors were required to ensure quality and monitor production than originally anticipated. Plus theft of intellectual capital resulted in shorter periods of exclusivity for new products. In most instance, the 50% or better savings projected turned out to be 10-12%. Most of the real 10-12% savings could have been realized domestically by making a similar investment in the modernizing the assets and processes of the domestic operation. However, from Wall Street’s perspective a big advantage of outsourcing was reducing the capital investment in the business to free up funds for financial speculation.

We also forget the subsidies the developing export nations provide exporting factories. In my business the Chinese government rebated 15% of the value of exported goods to the factory, a direct subsidy. It also loaned money for capital investment in the industry at 0% with lengthy repayment terms. Finally, it manipulated its currency to artificially hold down the cost of exports. Tariffs are legitimate response to these unfair trade practices. Tariffs also help the taxpayer recoup some of the costs not paid by importers for maintaing roads, bridges, ports, and other government services (Coast Guard, Customs).

7 posted on 09/29/2012 8:38:31 AM PDT by Soul of the South
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: buckalfa
It's not necessarily a "zero sum game" at all, but consumer demand is ultimately what drives the whole system.

Interestingly, I can easily envision a scenario where wages go up even as manufacturing becomes stronger in the U.S. The problem, though, is that this only involves individual wages and not cumulative wages. To put it simply -- a U.S. manufacturing operation tends to be a state-of-the-art process that requires a lot fewer people to do the same job that thousands of people used to do in the past. The biggest factor in the decline of manufacturing employment in the U.S. in recent decades hasn't been outsourcing at all ... it's been automation.

8 posted on 09/29/2012 8:39:37 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Soul of the South
I wouldn't necessarily expect a reduction in direct labor costs to be accompanied by a reduction in prices for the consumer on a one-for-one basis. How much of the "outsourcing" that was done by corporate American in the last few decades resulted in a reduction of direct labor costs that was offset for higher costs related to a company's bottom line for those employees who remained on the payroll? In other words, how many jobs did GM or Ford export to foreign countries in order to keep tens of thousands of highly-paid UAW workers on the payroll here in the U.S.? Add in the pension costs and the cost of maintaining medical coverage for retirees who were no longer contributing anything to the company's bottom line, and you can see how this all works.

You last point is a good one because it illustrates the idiocy of many forms of "protectionism" we see in these foreign countries. For all intents and purposes, China has basically been functioning as a slave colony of the U.S. for years ... with their own government propping up industries that produced consumer products almost exclusively for consumption in the U.S. That was the whole point of pegging the yuan to the doller at an artificially low value, wasn't it?

9 posted on 09/29/2012 8:49:20 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: buckalfa

normalcy bias prevents the US from addressing it’s increasing structual issues. Globalization, Technology, and Demographics need to be addressed. The safety net has officially become the dreaded hammock from which productive potential is slowly drained. The generation currently deemed responsible for future growth do not possess the necessary coping skills to change our economic downward spiral.

10 posted on 09/29/2012 9:07:51 AM PDT by griswold3 (Big Government does not tolerate rivals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: buckalfa; Alberta's Child; All
Cultural Marxism has successfully created a meme for those on the right about open borders, comparative advantage, jobs Americans can't/won't do, compassionate amnesty, short term profits above all, the free movement of goods and natural persons over borders - all without any consideration to ethics or patriotism. Globalism /'Free Trade' is global communism masquerading in a business suit.

Marx proposed 'free trade' as a tool to speed up global communism because he knew global business would chase the cheapest labor and work environment over the globe until all were reduced to the status of third world serfs who would willingly accept any politician's offer of 'hope and change'.

A nice overview of 'The Case Against Free Trade'

Here's the result of 'free trade' in the current and three prior administrations. (Up to now it had been hidden by 'enhanced' government statistics and access to cheap credit.) Follow the blue lines.

Unemployment counting those in the civilian labor force who are unemployed and those working part time but need full time plus those bumped out of the civilian labor force who need work.

CPI that measures the cost of a set standard of living, not a declining one.

Real GDP created using the above CPI

The following chart was created using the governments statistics:

As to the argument about onerous regulations. Large global companies have no problem with regulations. They are a great way to suppress competition from small business and start-ups.

As to the argument about our deteriorating educational system, there are multitudes of experienced, proven workers who are either unemployed or under employed. There still are a few graduating who have escaped the Cultural Marxism brain washing.
11 posted on 09/29/2012 9:22:59 AM PDT by khelus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Actually, it shows considerable “common wisdom” to go into a defensive mode during a depression.

During good times, people tend to overspend and lose their reasonable sense of frugality and savings. “Living day by day” is a good thing when you are a recovering alcoholic, but when “the pressure” is outside of us, it is far better to try and plan ahead.

After an extended slump like now, those who live “ahead of their means” get nailed hard.

Right now millions of Americans pay their rent and utilities, and buy their food and fuel on credit, so as soon as they get paid, it has to go to the credit card company. If they get fired, they are instantly a month in debt and cannot meet their bills. This is why so many are utterly dependent on their unemployment checks right now.

Checks that are soon to end. And even with unemployment, many people slowly deplete their “fat”, other savings and assets. So that when their unemployment stops, they are totally broke.

This next January shows all the signs of a major disaster, because of a confluence of bad things all happening at once. And the Democrats have made it abundantly clear that if they are turned out of office, they will use their lame duck time, up to January 20th, to block any Republican effort to stop a huge crisis.

In fact, they will likely try to do anything they can to make things as bad as possible, while blaming the Republicans who are not even in office yet.

So the bottom line is that for the next 3 months we all have an opportunity to go into maximum defensive mode before January 1st. This means the following.

Keep extra cash at home, not in the bank, and be prepared to act quickly in case their is a bank run, a stock crash, or a Mideast war.

12 posted on 09/29/2012 9:29:43 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (DIY Bumper Sticker: "THREE TIMES,/ DEMOCRATS/ REJECTED GOD")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: khelus; All
Good discussion and well argued points of view by all. This is a topic of great importance about the future of America and freedom. It is too often ignored on FR and elsewhere.
13 posted on 09/29/2012 10:01:39 AM PDT by buckalfa (Nabob of Negativity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

In 1966, when I graduated from HS, minimum wage in Southern California was $1.65 per hr. One hour’s labor would buy eight gallons of gasoline or ten McDonald’s Hamburgers. A glass of beer was five cents. A loaf of bread fifteen cents; you could buy ten of them for one hour’s work at minimum wage and get change back.

A blue collar worker could expect to earn $5.00 an hour. In three months at 40 hours a week he could earn enough to buy a new full size American Car; In a year, enough to buy a modest single family home in the suburbs of Los Angeles.

Today, in California, Minimum wage is nearly $10.00 an hour, but it now takes two hours of labor to buy five gallons of gas. How much is a burger these days? I had a beer yesterday. It was five dollars plus tip. A loaf of bread is anywhere from three to six bucks - a half hour at minimum wage in California. At $50.00 an hour it would take four months to make enough to buy a cheap import car and at least five years to earn enough to buy a house in that same LA suburb (But you would not want to live there today).

It’s not just that the money is worth less. It takes more hours of labor to buy the same commodities.

14 posted on 09/29/2012 10:57:03 AM PDT by Chuckster (The longer I live the less I care about what you think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chuckster

RE: In 1966, when I graduated from HS, minimum wage in Southern California was $1.65 per hr.

According to the Inflation Calculator, that would be about $10.96 in 2010.

You had a higher effective minimum wage then than now in California ($8/hr).

See here:

15 posted on 09/29/2012 11:03:10 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (bOTRT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The point is not how many dollars. Rather how many hours of labor it takes to earn enough money to buy the essentials of life - like food.

16 posted on 09/30/2012 10:05:48 AM PDT by Chuckster (The longer I live the less I care about what you think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson