ROBERT REICH: The American Dream Has Fallen Apart

[xchrom]

http://www.businessinsider.com/robert-reich-great-uturn-2014-3



Do you recall a time in America when the income of a single school teacher or baker or salesman or mechanic was enough to buy a home, have two cars, and raise a family?

I remember. My father (who just celebrated his 100th birthday) earned enough for the rest of us to live comfortably. We weren’t rich but never felt poor, and our standard of living rose steadily through the 1950s and 1960s.

That used to be the norm. For three decades after World War II, America created the largest middle class the world had ever seen. During those years the earnings of the typical American worker doubled, just as the size of the American economy doubled. (Over the last thirty years, by contrast, the size of the economy doubled again but the earnings of the typical American went nowhere.)

In that earlier period, more than a third of all workers belonged to a trade union — giving average workers the bargaining power necessary to get a large and growing share of the large and growing economic pie. (Now, fewer than 7 percent of private-sector workers are unionized.)

Then, CEO pay then averaged about 20 times the pay of their typical worker (now it’s over 200 times).



Read more: http://robertreich.org/post/78784064729#ixzz2vHC0qXi4

[Fumesucker]

1. Not "fallen apart" but rather "deliberately dismantled"

There is quite a difference.

[xchrom]

2. +1

[newfie11]

3. Yep

+1

[ctsnowman]

4. Yup.

[merrily]

7. The first reply on the thread nails it.

[dotymed]

9. +1000

welcome to Amerika.
We must elect Bernie Sanders for POTUS in 2016.

[proReality]

18. But before that

we must vote more Democrats into Congress or President Sanders won't be doing much better than President Obama.

[Moostache]

30. I love Bernie, and Elizabeth Warren for that matter...BUT...

Someone needs to really explain to me what the hell difference it will make anyway.

In 2006, Democrats took back the house...and held it for a whopping 4 years.

In 2008, the GOP ran the global economy off a cliff that should have crippled and discredited their philosophy and their party for a generation (think of Hoover Republicans in the 1930s or 1940s...not a very influential bloc, right??) The depth of their failure played a large role in allowing America, the deeply divided and still fighting the Civil War country in some areas albeit by proxy instead of with bullets, to elect the first minority President. The unthinkable in 1964 was reality in 2008, a black man was President of the United States.

So what did we achieve with this historic shift in power structure for the country???

In 2008 and 2009, we watched "TEA party" terrorists commandeer the national discussion as the media cheered and selectively covered everything at the behest of their pay masters. We wasted hours, days, weeks, months talking about "death panels", the invention of a Alaskan twit who could not summon the gumption to serve ONE gubernatorial term in the hinterlands of a state with less population and a single borough of New York City... We FAILED. Miserably.

In 2010, Democrats were ROUTED in the mid-terms. Historically swept out of power in the House and going from 60-40 Senate in 2008 to 51-49 in 2010????

The intervening 4 years have been a farce of inactivity and sniping at the ONE achievement of the President, the Affordable Care Act, choosing to vote 50 (FIFTY!!!!) times to repeal the law. We are left with a divided and disfunctional government and the mere fact that it is still possible in 2014 to speak Republican economic philosophy without derision - talking about nonsense like the primacy of debt reduction or the efficacy of tax cuts - after what the outcome in 2007 was of their unfettered implementation of neo-Con policy is depressing beyond words.

And that brings us to the now...where 55 votes in the Senate is not enough to get an up or down VOTE on proposals. Its not possible to pass anything into law without 60 votes and the Democrats are not going to do a damn thing about it....Reid's "nuclear option"?, really? Let's just say that if Fat Man and Little Boy went off like Reid's bomb we would have needed a lot longer to subdue Japan and end WWII.

I am beyond frustrated with the spineless nature of the Democratic Party leadership. The leadership is feckless and the willingness to fight the crazies on the right seems to be non-existent. The party has moved so far to the right that it more resembles the Republicans of the 1970's and early in the Reagan era than the party of FDR, JFK and LBJ. Even the signature win of the Obama era - the advancement of gay rights to remove things like DOMA and DADT and bans on marriage equality are diminished, not in their importance but in their significance by the fact that the driver of these changes is more societal changes in attitude and less bold leadership by Democrats.

We are in an ugly place...a party of leadership stooges, bought and paid for by many of the same donors who already own the right. A party that is confronted by obstructionist, arrogant fools and yet incapable of even holding up the mirror to them so that the public can see them for what they truly are... A divided government without the will or the mechanisms to actually DO anything other than spin its wheels and waste our time and money as the planet warms, the ice melts and millions of species disappear in the coming decades.

Democrats have issues that history will judge us on...not each other. The climate change and overall direction of the economy - towards greater and greater inequality without any kind of REAL opposition from the left will be our eternal badge of shame...and I KNOW there are many TRYING to stay positive, stay engaged, stay active...I respect them and their efforts, but I say here and now that without a total overhaul of party leadership (maybe throwing out EVERYONE over the age of 30 because they are co-opted, contaminated or cowed), the fate of the party is bleak.

Flame away...attack the messenger if needed, but please, don't trade sunshine and lollipops and consider the ONLY big issue to be the 2014 mid-terms or the 2016 Presidential election when its still MARCH of 2014, we're already treating the Obama Presidency as a lame-duck and have given up on passing meaningful legislation in the Senate because the right MIGHT be filibustering (again, still?) and the REAL issues are being ignored every second of every day...

[CrispyQ]

40. You won't get any shit from me.

The dems have been weak since they backed away from the word liberal when a two bit actor poked fun at it. They haven't gotten their spine back since. Now, too many are on the same damned gravy train the repubs are on. The dems throw us a few more crumbs, but the train is going in the same direction.


Where is the equivalent Liberal Conference?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024622743

Good question, huh? Where is it? Why don't the dems hire the equivalent of Frank Lutz to frame the message? George Lakoff has been telling them for years they need to frame the message, but the dems won't hire or consult with him. Why is that? Could it be that they are A-OK with the repub message? Could it be that the good-cop-bad-cop routine is padding their bank accounts quite nicely, thank you very much.



It's time to think outside the two party box.

[dotymed]

43. Moostache, I agree with a lot of your OP.

Bernie Sanders is way over 30 (that worries me a little) but he is the most proven, "get it done" Progressive we have in politics.

IF he were elected, he would force many progressive changes.
As for Obama's lame duck perception, I agree. He has proposed a decent budget but his proven willingness to go corporate and give away the meaningful parts, is cause (IMO) to worry.
I agree that our entire political (and much more) system is chaos and surreal.
I have just been trying to see a future where that changes without violence because all enforcement branches seem to be
occupied with maintaining the status quo rather than defending the constitution.
I also agree with the previous poster (in a way) that we need to elect many (all possible) congress people that are progressive (not necessarily Democrats though, some Green and Independents are more progressive (must be sane though).
"It's a mixed up fucked up world."
Any politician still harping on the deficit is (IMO) our enemy. I do not want my grandchildren in debt but austerity (like trickle down) does not work, except for the wealthy.

[Glitterati]

55. AMEN, Amen, Amen

I'm so sick of the Democrats playing political theater with the poor!!!!! Harry Reid and his unemployment votes are nothing more than the Democratic version of "Republicans vote 50 times to repeal Obamacare" using the poor and unemployment.

Political theater. Period.

And, Nancy Pelosi? She's simply MIA. All effort at being an opposition party is just MIA. Pelosi never even bothers to send out a press release. Talk about not caring!!!!!!!!

Yeah, I'm sick to death of this game played with the lives of the poor/sick/elderly/unemployed.

And THIS from Robert Reich? Don't make me laugh! After NAFTA and Glass Stegall, Robert Reich needs to slink away to some hole and never come out in public again.

[dotymed]

59. MIA fits perfectltly

"Our" politicians are paid a salary in excess of $120,000. Not many Americans are paid that.
They "work" part-time and get 10x that amount in "legal" corruption. 95% of them (approx.,) are or will become millionaires within months of being elected. After that, they are MIA to the average constituent unless that person is wealthy. Our political system is about on par with Chinas. Hell, it could be North Koreas for all they accomplish.
We are not a democracy, we are (at best) a corptocracy.
No one is willing to stop this, well their are a few. Bernie Sanders knows how to get around this B.S. and will take issues like this to the people and stir the pot, finding a way to get the money out of our system.
FDR Democracy= Bernie Sanders Democracy.

[Stargazer09]

34. Yes

You are quite correct. Sadly enough.

[woo me with science]

36. [phone]

[Laelth]

52. Agreed. n/t

-Laelth

[City Lights]

57. Spot on. nt

[cantbeserious]

5. America - An Empire Built On Illusion - That Empire And Illusion Is Crumbling

eom

[bemildred]

6. The American Dream was destroyed by Raygun and his heirs.

So that the 1% could have all the money instead.

[merrily]

8. I don't think it was any one President, even Raygun.

Or even any one century. But, if we have to peg the start of it to a 20th Century President, I think we should look at Nixon, Ford and Carter, as well as Reagan, Clinton, the Bush travesties and Obama. And, IIRC, Nixon, Ford and Carter had Democratic Congresses.

[bemildred]

10. The dispute dates to before the founding of the republic.

The recent incarnation of it began with Raygun, or a little before, with Nixon, but it is the Congress that enabled it with laws. And that came in bunches, when the Conservatives had control of Congress and could work their will. A lot of those laws were passed in the dead of night.

[merrily]

16. I so agree about before the founding of the Republic.

[bemildred]

21. And until we have economic democracy too, it will continue.

You cannot have real political democracy without economic democracy, they cannot be separate. That is one thing the history of the USA shows very clearly. It is an inherent conflict in our system, and we are greatly weakened by it, economically and politically. This was not a problem when we were a young nation with an entire continent to explore and exploit, but now we are in deep trouble.

We have had periods of political reform, as with Teddy, FDR, LBJ, and the 60s & 70s.

And then we have periods where all is venality and corruption, like now.

[merrily]

25. I think big reforms come when

the PTB get scared of the potential for uprisings.

It's not as big a threat in the US as in other countries, because we are so spread out geographically and so divided against each other (by design, I feel).

I live in Boston. I saw (on TV, during a massive lockdown) what equipment and arms our local and state police used to roam the streets. There's another thread on DU now, talking about residents of Watertown, the town that got the brunt of the "roaming" and how they have PTSD, etc.

I don't know how scared the PTB are, now that the Security State is so omnipresent and well armed and equipped, not to mention the presence of gated communities, panic rooms in higher priced homes, their own bodyguards, and the like.

That is one of the problems with people wanting to repeat the success they assume they had in the 60s and the 70s, before lobbyists increased exponentially, before 911, before the Security State. So many things are so very different now.

[bemildred]

29. I think so too.

I hear bleats of alarm from the suites of power, and we are getting some concessions. I think a great deal depends on this next election. Huge sums of money will be spent.

The Pols basic problem, the war lovers and the power lovers, is they still have to get elected, in an election that is seen as legitimate, and that is hard to pull off with mobs in the street calling for your head. And as one can see in Russia or Ukraine or China, that can still happen, anywhere, and the big shots know it.

[merrily]

35. ...

The Pols basic problem, the war lovers and the power lovers, is they still have to get elected, in an election that is seen as legitimate, and that is hard to pull off with mobs in the street calling for your head.

Mobs in the street, calling for someone's head? I've never seen anything like that.

As best I can tell, the only problem the pols have re Presidential elections is a handful of counties in a handful of purple states. Yep, that's what a billion in hard money alone spent by each of Romney and Obama came down to. A handful of indie votes in a handful of counties. And they knew that while they were running, because that's what the Presidential has always comes down to in recent times. Some say 8 counties, some say less, some say as much as 100 counties. But, it's not even purple states. It's a few counties in each state.

That's because they've gotten to the point where they can pretty much count on their respective bases. Sure, every now and again, a Zell Miller or a Julie Eisenhower goes rogue, but that is the exception.

On the other hand, voters have a huge problem. Our problem in all elections is that we get only two choices, each of which has been handpicked and groomed by people like Emanuel and Schumer (that was the 2006 DCCC and DSCC team--too lazy to google for more recent info, though I think Schumer may still be in charge of the DSCC.)

With that, I fear I must sign off for now. Enjoyed chatting. Thanks. See you again another time.

[bemildred]

37. "Mobs in the street, calling for someone's head? I've never seen anything like that."

I just don't know how to take you seriously when you say things like that.

[merrily]

42. This is how I ended my part of the our several exchanges on this thread.

With that, I fear I must sign off for now. Enjoyed chatting. Thanks. See you again another time.


You could have chosen not to reply at all or to reply in any one of a vast number of ways. Yet, you chose this reply.

I just don't know how to take you seriously when you say things like that.

Understood.

[bemildred]

48. Perhaps a sarcasm smiley would help.

Sometimes I get tone deaf and reactive too.

[fasttense]

12. Wait, why are we blaming our political system when it is our economic system

that blew up? The uber rich capitalist caused this dream to disappear.

Blame the capitalists. They are the ones who have done this. The politicians were just going along with the highest bidder. We the people need to take back our power and put blame where it belongs - on the capitalists.

[bemildred]

15. +1. Plutocrats, really, it's the money, it drives them nuts when they have too much.

They become obsessed with it.

[reformist2]

17. It is our economic system that sucks, but it's our political system that sets the rules.

We can never change our economic system if we don't stop the capitalists from bribing politicians.

[merrily]

26. You have to stop the politicians from pandering to the capitalists, not the

other way around.

In reality, we'd be lucky to do either.

[merrily]

20. "The politicians were just going along with the highest bidder."

Nothing to blame politicians for there?



The capitalists did not get where they are without laws and changes in laws. It's a partnership. And both groups got rich and powerful that way.

I blame them both, but I blame the politicians more. Why? The job of a capitalist is to get rich. The job of an elected representative is to serve the best interests of all the voters--and if that is impossible, then a majority of them.


Also, blaming only the capitalists--and it's a mystery to me why you want to do that--disempowers most of us. Those of us who don't hold enough shares in a corporation to fire the board or the officers cannot do much about the behavior of corporatists. However, I do have a vote as to politicians.

[dotymed]

44. The only addition to that statement

(IMO) would be "again."
Yes, raygun began the reoccurrence of our destruction. throughout our history, other presidents have done the same.

FDR, had fixed many of our problems and the legislation for people, that occurred during his tenure, was the wall (not the Berlin wall) that raygun began the destruction of.

[bemildred]

46. Quite right, they will never give up. nt

[merrily]

11. I agree with a lot of what Reich says and it's not new.

During the war, of course, we had destroyed a lot of of overseas manufacturing competition and taxes had been jacked up.

I wish a lot of these great minds who reflect on this kind of thing and who have a megaphone of some kind would go easier on the describing of the problem and heavier on possible solutions, step by step, starting with step one.

[stevenleser]

13. K&R&Posted to FB & will likely be covered on my show this wk. nt

[Romulox]

14. All these years shilling for NAFTA, "free trade"...Reich is a hypocrite or an idiot. Which is it?

[reformist2]

19. One major theme should be that we don't need more jobs, we need better paying ones.

[bemildred]

47. +1. nt

[n2doc]

22. "It can also be understood as the greatest propaganda victory radical conservatism ever won"

The Truth

[Javaman]

23. You mean the present day treadmill goal of trying to achieve the unachievable goal?

For most of us paying attention, the American Dream was nothing more than a marketing ploy so people would continue to buy more and more to keep the economy going (believing that it was never going to end) and to out do the russians.

That American Dream?

I'm of the firm belief that those of us born of the "baby-boom era" honestly believed that this was how it was always going to be. Of course we ate up the propaganda in copious amounts. After all, and believed that "we're Americans and we're just so special!"

Myself, having been born at the very tail end of the baby boom, and having paid attention to the devastating effects of horrible wars (Viet Nam, desert storm, iraq war, afghanistan and the many little micro-wars of choice in between), the slow and purposeful destruction of unions and the hollowing out of a living breathing economy by the right wing and ineffective democrats, the willful ignorance and lack foresight regarding pollution, and the rapid growth of a propaganda business to make us all believe that we are doing better, even though in retrospect, we are underpaid, overworked, less represented and gleefully ignored by our congress people; made for what we have to day. In essence, an American Dream that exists on paper with skewed stats and fudged numbers to make those in power sleep better at night.

Is that again that American Dream that is being talked about?

I don't know about all of you, but I grew up in a solid lower middle class union blue collar family, where my dad (a mechanic for the NY Dept of Sanitation) was able to, on a single salary, put myself and my brother and my two sisters through college, support my mom, buy a small cottage for vacationing, retire with a solid pension and provide for him and my mom, very well, until they passed away.

THAT, is the American Dream. Being able to live a full life without the daily slings and arrows, that seem to increase every moment, to keep us down, afraid and that much poorer with each and every following day all the while keeping us distracted and off balance with a new gewgaw or trumped up "controversy" to prevent us from coalescing into the formidable power we are as the people of this nation.

The real American Dream, is were the people of this nation have a voice and control the means by which they have an actual say in the decisions the effect us directly and not subject to the winds of daily bullshit that ravaged our character and destroys our spirit via the moneyed interests of the 1%. Who, I might add, have zero to nothing in common with us or care one whit of what we think.

The American Dream is to breath fresh air, drink clean water, eat clean food and raise our families without the threat of it all collapsing in the next moment.

We have been suckered into doing a more and more with a hell of a lot less. We are told daily to vote and support things against our own best interests out of fear that the "other guy" might win and "make our lives miserable".

Look the fuck around you. Our lives, compared to 40 years ago, are fucking miserable and they want us all so tied up in fighting for scraps that we don't have to time to realize this.

I love the writings of Robert Reich, but the whole concept and idea of "The American Dream", is nothing but a farce. What he writes of and what I wrote, is how it should be, not some fucking dream.

Dreams, I might add, for the most part, are just that: dreams.

[merrily]

28. +1 Great post. Thanks.

[daleanime]

24. kick, kick, kick.....

[L0oniX]

27. Gee Bobby ...glad ya woke up to tell us what we already know.

[merrily]

31. He should know. He was economic advisor to the Prez during repeal of Glass Steagall,

enactment of NAFTA and ending "welfare as we know it."

[L0oniX]

32. I blame Clinton 100% for 2008. Forced to sign the repeal? Not likely.

[Evergreen Emerald]

33. ITS ALL CLINTON'S FAULT

Dang that never gets old.

[merrily]

39. Try a fact-based refutation. It's much more effective.

[Evergreen Emerald]

49. Unfortunatly, fact based refutation does not matter

when it comes to the Clintons. The facts have been refuted time and again. It does not matter. The right did such a great job of vilifying them through the 90s and sabotaging his presidency--similar to what they are doing to Obama. This time, we have learned.

[merrily]

53. I call Oscar Mayer. This thread refers to things like NAFTA, repeal of Glass Steagall

and things like that. The right never smeared those things. They loved them. Signing DADT and DOMA, too. So please don't tell me you can't defend those things because of the right.

[Javaman]

41. It's not clintons fault...

but he certainly played a part as did all presidents before and after him. As well as all politicians who willfull allowed the destruction of the protections for the middle class and poor.

and I might add, we are also to blame for allowing it to happen under the guise that it would be good for us and the economy. translation: it was good for the rich.

[merrily]

54. Agree.

However, if one believes that repeal of Glass Steagall had a lot to do with the global economic crisis of 2008, as many do (including me), then Loonix is correct. Even assuming that it would have passed without a filibuster and without many Democratic votes in the house without his encouragement, He should have vetoed it, rather than insisting it be on his desk ASAP.

If I had done that, I don't know how I could sleep at night.

[Javaman]

56. of course he should of veto'd it, but alas...nt

[merrily]

58. I saw him defend it on, of all shows, The View.

It was not long after we became aware of the 2008. Joy Behar said "Everyone's saying you're to blame for all this. Is that true?"

Joy thinks she's a political expert, but her knowledge is not especially sophisticate. Neither is mine, but I usually know when I am out of my depth. I'm sure she thought she was helping him out by giving him a chance to bash his accusers. You could see he was taken aback. He denied it, of course.

[merrily]

38. He was far from forced. According to Wyden, Clinton

strong-armed (verbally, not literally) to vote for repeal. Said he wanted it on his desk ASAP. A lot of House Democrats did for it. Would they have done that if Clinton had not urged them? We'll never know. If IIRC, not one Democrat in the Senate voted for it.

So, the urban legend that repeal had a veto-proof majority is also bs. Besides, there is no such thing. Voting to override a Presidential veto is not the same as voting on the bill in the first instance. No one knows what a veto-proof majority is unless and until an override vote is taken. (If you need a link for that, I'll get you one another time. But I've got to sign off for now, so be patient. Thanks).

[bemildred]

50. Yeah, he worked hard to get it, against lots of opposition.

It was going to remake our economy. Boy, did it.

[gulliver]

45. "Why didn’t we share the gains from globalization and technological advances more broadly?"

They were shared in the form of lower prices. I don't think people knew what they were trading for the lower prices. Also, the population has been growing while the need for unskilled labor has been shrinking. The Internet drastically lowered the price of information and knowledge.

We need a lot more Democrats in office, imo. We don't need to have a centralized economy, but we need the government to manage the people's interests better.

[HughBeaumont]

60. Everybody thought the lower prices on tchotchkes would make a difference.

However, parallel to the lowering or flat-lining of prices on appliances/gadgets, two not-so-silent killers (which the purchased media never seems to bring up) also happened:

1) our inflation-adjusted wages decoupled with all of the productivity gains and technological advances around 1981,
2) the price of necessities (education, health care, repair, transportation, housing, etc) skyrocketed out of the reach of everyone except the very stable upper middle and financially independent classes (i.e. the top 5-10%).

An entire generation is now indebted because of this and no one with any kind of power seems to see that unraveling, this multi-pronged stabbing of progress as a problem. They'd better start caring quickly.

[Romulox]

61. Everyone thought they could *pay* lower prices while retaining their existing high wages.

You see the same play out here on DU, where cheap imported cars are popular, even among our "Solidarity!" crowd.

[Laelth]

51. k&r for the truth, however depressing it may be. n/t

-Laelth