More on Subjective Reality

Which of the two views expressed in Andy Pudzer’s Wall Street Journal op-ed is closer to reality?

In his remarks at a White House event last week called the Summit on Worker Voice, President Obama said that people who work hard “should be able to get ahead” but went on to acknowledge that workers are “seeing their wages and their incomes flatlining.”

The reason, according to Mr. Obama, is dwindling union membership. “Union membership today is as low as it’s been in about 80 years, since the ’30s,” he said. “And I believe that when folks attack unions, they’re attacking the middle class.” Thus he recommends “making it easier, not harder, for folks join a union.”

Here’s the reality: Wages and incomes for workers are stagnant because there aren’t enough jobs. It’s a matter of supply and demand. When jobs are scarce and people are unemployed, wages and benefits decline. When the job market is strong and businesses must compete for employees, wages and benefits improve. The solution, then, is more jobs.

I would say not just “more jobs” but more jobs that aren’t minimum wage jobs.

The policy for the last several decades has been to increase the number of minimum wage jobs, importing a work force to fill them. I don’t think that’s a winning formula but it may well be a winning political formula.

7 comments… add one
  • Guarneri Link

    “The policy for the last several decades has been to increase the number of minimum wage jobs, importing a work force to fill them.”

    You forgot to call them “folks.”

    Which makes this:
    “I don’t think that’s a winning formula but it may well be a winning political formula.”

    Very plausible.

    Who is pro-wild assed immigration? Who is against?

    Who are you going to vote for? The OTB crowd, a proxy for the hard core Dem base, will go immigration-gone-wild. Winning elections is their first goal. The corporatist Republicans? Immigration. Those crazed loons on the right that it’s so fashionable to bash? Oh.

    So who are you going to vote for, people? Do you really think going to war at the drop of a hat is the “rights” goal? I don’t. That’s a cynical red herring. Do you really think gay marriage is the be all and end all of political issues. I don’t. Is Global Warming the issue for the ages? I don’t think so. Even if it’s Bammy’s litmus test for Putin and leadership (snicker, could the guy be more lightweight?). Does anyone – Anyone – Think Hillary “Goldman Sachs” Clinton is the answer for the Average Joe? I don’t. Will a $15 minwage solve the problem? Ok, that’s an IQ test.

    So who are you going to vote for? Do you really care about the Average Joe? Words, or your vote?

  • Who are you going to vote for? The OTB crowd, a proxy for the hard core Dem base, will go immigration-gone-wild. Winning elections is their first goal. The corporatist Republicans? Immigration. Those crazed loons on the right that it’s so fashionable to bash? Oh.

    For me the problem is that the anti-establishment candidates (with the exception of Rand Paul who’s going nowhere) are all not merely interventionist but downright trigger happy. Hillary Clinton is acknowledgedly the most hawkish principle player in the Obama Administration. Unless something remarkable happens she’ll be the Democratic nominee. The Republican nominee is likely to be even more hawkish. What’s a non-interventionist to do? I know the Swiss would take me in.

  • Who is pro-wild assed immigration? Who is against?

    Just for the record I’m not anti-immigration or anti-immigrant. I’m skeptical that we need a lot more unskilled or semi-skilled workers and, indeed, I’m skeptical that we need a lot more workers full stop. If you look at my many posts on immigration, you’ll see I haven’t opposed the idea of immigration merely its practical aspects.

    I think that we owe a debt of honor to our Iraqi and Afghan interpreters, for example, and we should be expediting their emigration to the United States.

    On the other hand I think “family reunification”, the shibboleth of pro-immigration activists and the linchpin of present policy, is not particularly in U. S. interests.

  • Guarneri Link

    Enjoy Switzerland.

    I’m not buying the trigger-happy description. John McCain is trigger happy, and an angry old man. The rest simply understand that the US, like it or not, has a leadership role. We can’t play, as Obama seems to think, college professor. My college roommate had a campfire/drinking song…. No balls at all, no balls at all, she married a man with no balls at all……..

    I remember the sophomoric handwringing that Reagan would “get us into war.” Right. I’m not impressed that a Cruz, Fiorina, etcetera have a Dr Strangelove hand itching to hit the nuclear button. But how’s things going with the college professor in Syria or Iran??

  • Ken Hoop Link

    Obama is a charlatan who realizes full well the TPP will increase corporate earnings and reduce those of the working/middle class.

  • steve Link

    W was not an angry old man. Look where that got us. The problem is that the advisors for the next GOP prez will be the same as the ones who advised Bush. None of your potential nominees have significant foreign policy expertise. They will be dependent upon those advisors. Even now those advisors are pushing for bombing Iran (references if you really want.) At the debates, every participant (excepting Rand and even he waffles) is pushing for maximalist intervention.

    How are things going in Iran and Syria? For the US pretty much ok. We aren’t losing troops in Syria and we aren’t spending trillions. Russia has stepped in to fight the jihadis, which is perfectly fine with me. Now, if our real purpose in our ME foreign policy is to carry out Israel’s wishes, then things suck because their priority is getting rid of Assad, even if it means allying with with AQ affiliated jihadists. Personally, I would place US interests first and hope that the jihadis get killed and put up with Assad. The chances of his replacement being a whole lot better is about nil (see Iraq).

    In Iran, we are not at war. We have a surprisingly good nuclear deal and I am not sure what else we should expect. They are actually helping fight ISIS.

    Reagan? LOL. You ignore the more recent GOP POTUS. I would too if I were you, but since you brought him up, he did lose a bunch of US troops for no good reason, then he ran away. Tough guy. Then, and he should get a lot of credit for this, he ignored critics and negotiated a nuclear deal with the USSR. The critics said you couldn’t trust them. They would cheat. They would make bombs in secret. It would not be enforceable, etc. He made the deal anyway.

    Steve

  • jan Link

    ” Even now those advisors are pushing for bombing Iran (references if you really want.) At the debates, every participant (excepting Rand and even he waffles) is pushing for maximalist intervention.”

    The consensus is not pushing for war with Iran (bombing). Their advice centers on sanctions and not caving on some originally held lines, such as softening arms sales and ballistic missile bans with Iran.

    “Russia has stepped in to fight the jihadis, which is perfectly fine with me.”

    It’s debatable what Russia’s real intent is as they say one thing and then do another.

    “We have a surprisingly good nuclear deal and I am not sure what else we should expect. They are actually helping fight ISIS.”

    Unbelievable spin on that comment. I guess you think it’s a wonderful deal, until it isn’t. And, that will probably only be when something personally blows up on your doorstep. As for killing ISIS, the Russian focus is on saving Assad, which means killing those against him. If ISIS fighters happen to get in the mix then I guess you can claim they are killing ISIS.

    “he did lose a bunch of US troops for no good reason, then he ran away. Tough guy.”

    The 1983 tragedy in Beirut was Reagan’s Benghazi of today. We should have learned from his mistakes, rather than using his obfuscations as a buffer to the one’s Obama made and obfuscated about in the current-day Libyan debacle.

Leave a Comment