Here's an article more to your bias ABC200

Why a Working-Class Revolt Might Not Be Unthinkable


Photo: The Fiscal Times/iStockphoto

By MARK THOMA, The Fiscal Times
September 13, 2011

It was encouraging to see President Obama pivot from deficit reduction to job creation in his widely anticipated speech last week. The president proposed a combination of spending and tax reduction policies, and he surprised many people with the boldness of his proposals and his passion and commitment to the issue. Unfortunately, Obama’s plan is unlikely to be much help to struggling labor markets. Fourteen million people are unemployed, long-term unemployment remains near record highs, the ratio of job seekers to job openings is 4.3 to 1, and the employment to population ratio has dropped precipitously. While concerns over the deficit are valid for the long run, they shouldn’t prevent us from doing more to help the jobless. (The debt dilemma is predominantly a health-care-cost issue, and whether or not we help the jobless doesn’t much change its magnitude.)

The real problem is the political atmosphere. Republicans may go along with doing just enough to look cooperative rather than obstructionist

The real problem is the political atmosphere. Republicans may go along with doing just enough to look cooperative rather than obstructionist -- but no more than that. And the job-creation policies that emerge from Congress are unlikely to make a dent in chronic unemployment. In fact what emerges won’t be anywhere near the $445 billion program the president has called for, which itself is short of the dramatic intervention needed to really make a difference.

I don’t expect we’ll get much more help from the Fed either. There is quite a bit of disagreement among monetary policymakers over whether further easing would do more harm than good, and inflation hawks are standing in the way of those who want to aggressively attack unemployment. As with Congress, the Fed is likely to adopt a compromise position and do the minimum it can while still looking as though it is trying to meet its obligation to promote full employment.

Thus, despite the President’s newfound interest in job creation, and the call from some at the Fed to treat unemployment the same way they would treat elevated inflation – as though “their hair was on fire” – the actual policies that come out of Congress and the Fed are unlikely to be sufficient.

It’s time for this to change. The loss of 8.75 million payroll jobs since the recession began should be a national emergency. But it’s not, and the question is why. Why has deficit reduction taken precedence over job creation? Why is our political system broken to the extent that a whole segment of the population is not being adequately represented in Congress?

Much of the disgust with the political process revolves around the feeling that politicians are out of touch with the interests of the working class.

Many of the policies enacted during and after the Great Depression not only addressed economic problems but also directly or indirectly reduced the ability of special interests to capture the political process. Some of the change was due to the effects of the Depression itself, but polices that imposed regulations on the financial sector, broke up monopolies, reduced inequality through highly progressive taxes, and accorded new powers to unions were important factors in shifting the balance of power toward the typical household.

But since the 1970s many of these changes have been reversed. Inequality has reverted to levels unseen since the Gilded Age, financial regulation has waned, monopoly power has increased, union power has been lost, and much of the disgust with the political process revolves around the feeling that politicians are out of touch with the interests of the working class.

We need a serious discussion of this issue, followed by changes that shift political power toward the working class. But who will start the conversation? Congress has no interest in doing so; things are quite lucrative as they are. Unions used to have a voice, but they have been all but eliminated as a political force. The press could serve as the gatekeeper, but too many news outlets are controlled by the very interests that the press needs to confront. Presidential leadership could make a difference, but this president does not seem inclined to take a strong stand on behalf of the working class despite the surprising boldness of his job-creation speech.

Another option is that the working class will say enough is enough and demand change. There was a time when I would have scoffed at the idea of a mass revolt against entrenched political interests and the incivility that comes with it. We aren’t there yet – there’s still time for change – but the signs of unrest are growing, and if we continue along a two-tiered path that ignores the needs of such a large proportion of society, it can no longer be ruled out.

In the US in the past they have been gunned down.







Here's an article more to yhe Bayview Massacre also took place at this time, where seven people, including one child, were killed by state militia. On 1 May 1886 about 2,000 Polish workers walked off their jobs and gathered at Saint Stanislaus Church in Milwaukee, angrily denouncing the ten hour workday. They then marched through the city, calling on other workers to join them; as a result, all but one factory was closed down as sixteen thousand protesters gathered at Rolling Mills, prompting Wisconsin Govorner Jeremiah Rusk to call the state militia. The militia camped out at the mill while workers slept in nearby fields, and on the morning of May 5th, as protesters chanted for the eight hour workday, General Treaumer ordered his men to shoot into the crowd, some of whom were carrying sticks, bricks, and scythes, leaving seven dead at the scene. The Milwaukee Journal reported that eight more would die within twenty four hours, and without hesitation added that Governor Rusk was to be commended for his quick action in the matter.

23 November 1887
The Thibodaux Massacre. The Louisiana Militia, aided by bands of "prominent citizens," shot at least 35 unarmed black sugar workers striking to gain a dollar-per-day wage, and lynched two strike leaders.

http://www.lutins.org/labor.html

How Rich Are Poor People?

The Census Bureau says there are more Americans in poverty than ever. Are the poor better off today than they used to be?

By Brian Palmer

Posted Wednesday, Sept. 14, 2011, at 6:24 PM ET

How many amenities do people below the poverty line tend to have? Click image to expand.How many amenities do people below the poverty line tend to have?More than 46 million Americans are now living below the poverty threshold, according to numbers released by the Census Bureau on Tuesday. That's the highest number since the Bureau started keeping track of the statistic in 1959.

Are poor people better off now than they were 52 years ago?


Much better, in absolute material terms. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation recently published an analysis of the lifestyle of people below the poverty line in 21st-century America. He found that many poor people have amenities that were available only to the wealthy (if they existed at all) in 1959. The typical household at the poverty line includes air conditioning, two color televisions with a cable or satellite feed, a DVD player, and a microwave. Poor children usually have a video game system. More than 38 percent of poor people have a personal computer.

In the late 1950s, annual per capita caloric consumption reached a low point (PDF) for the 20th century. While food choices and the availability of fresh food in certain areas are major concerns, undernourishment is rare in the United States today. More than 92 percent of poor households always have enough food to eat, and poor children get about the same quantity of nutrients as middle-class children. Rector points out that poor children now "grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II."
Advertisement


Much of the improvement in the quality of life among the poor comes down to increased government assistance. The Census Bureau's poverty threshold—based on the cost of a bare minimum diet multiplied by three—is adjusted for yearly inflation, but it doesn't account for the expansion of noncash income sources like Medicaid or Medicare, which didn't exist until 1965. It also ignores tax credits that can increase a poor family's income. Nor are food stamps, which have expanded significantly since 1959, taken into account. Public housing is more widely available today than 50 years ago. There are also a range of less obvious government programs that bolster the lives of people living at or below the poverty line like Head Start, subsidized school lunches, energy assistance, and Pell Grants for college tuition. All of these free up money for other uses. A general decline in the relative price of food has also helped the poor, although costs have drifted upward over the last four years.

Despite the many luxuries now enjoyed by many below the poverty line, Rector's argument that the Census Bureau overstates the number of poor in America is controversial. Many economists believe that poverty should be measured relative to the wealth of a society (PDF), not in terms of absolute deprivation, as Rector suggests. This isn't some bleeding-heart liberal view. Adam Smith made the same point in The Wealth of Nations: "A linen shirt, for example, is, strictly speaking, not a necessary of life. The Greeks and Romans lived, I suppose, very comfortably, though they had no linen. But in the present times, through the greater part of Europe, a creditable day-labourer would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty which, it is presumed, nobody can well fall into without extreme bad conduct."

Some economists argue that the Internet, mobile phones, and air conditioning are the linen shirts of the 21st century. Even manual labor jobs now sometimes require a candidate to access the Internet to either find a listing or apply. Less than 30 percent of families living in poverty have Internet service in the home.

Got a question about today's news? Ask the Explainer.

Explainer thanks Sheldon Danziger of the University of Michigan and Sonya Michel of the University of Maryland and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Poor people today have free healthcare, live longer, eat better, have government subsidized college tuition, have cell phones and cable TV.

The only answer is YES!

assures anthonyc

Poor people today have free healthcare, live longer, eat better, have government subsidized college tuition, have cell phones and cable TV.

The only answer is YES!

to be expected , from one such as he. the only matrix of measurement he can comprehend is material things. he fails to think about the externalities which accompany this lifestyle, such as health issues arising out of extremely arduous working conditions, worry about debt , pollution, and all the myriad issues which arise out of the consumerist lifestyle.

You are the best straight man ever.

Our air is cleaner than it was 50 years ago. People work less hours and have more free time. Debt is self-inflicted and arbitrary.
Of course is a silly notion of the poor being in debt because the truly poor cannot acquire debt.

So yes, the poor are better off today than 50 years ago.

yes, anthony, people have more free time, because nobody has a job anymore.

And that is thanks to the kind of regressive, fascist economic policies you and your ilk support

Here's what two posters had to say about this question:

xrated

You have no idea what "poor" is. If you have a tv, cable, cell phone, $100 sneakers, video game system, a roof over your head and never go hungry you ARE NOT "poor". There a very, very few "poor" people in America. Don't believe me? Go to Haiti, Zimbabwe, Democratic Republic of Congo, or Burundi if you want to see what being "poor" is really like. The "poor" in America live like kings compared to the "poor" in the rest of the world.

Yesterday, 3:31:19 AM

Reply
A J
@ xrated: you point out a weakness in nomenclature. In one sense, you are right. Rather than poor, we should be called, "America's well-kept wage slaves". Although not so well-kept these days.

Basically, I think you are missing the point. One can always find someone more poor, in a country that is itself generally poor, and say there is no poor in the US. Are you really saying there is no poor in the US? Seriously??

I'd like to conduct an experiment. I'd like to give you "a tv, cable, cell phone, $100 sneakers, video game system, a roof over your head" which you can't pay for any more and all the high-fructose corn syrup you can eat, no job prospect, no money, a mountain of student and credit card debt, 3 children to feed, and medical problems you can't pay for. I'd like you to live for the rest of your life under these conditions, with little hope of escaping them. Then I'd like to ask you if you still hold to your stated belief that the ""poor" in America live like kings compared to the "poor" in the rest of the world".

I'd like to see if, after living for even one year like this, you felt like a "king". I'd wager you felt more like a slave.

In reality, the poor in many countries in many cases have one thing our poor lack: an extended family, which is a resource not to be disparaged. It is certainly more useful than "a tv, cable, cell phone, $100 sneakers, video game system", etc. An individual is easy to control and destroy, a large family network much more difficult. Stop comparing apples and oranges."


http://www.slate.com/id/2303828/

Many probably are not..

Jobs were in Europe considerably stable at whatever level and unemployment levels were low. Massive government programs including the moon shot provided huge employment as did the relatively inefficient agriculture then.
In Europe there were far fewer automobiles and children could play in the street and walk/cycle to school.
Many areas had a strong sense of community and although wages welfare benefits were not high rents were enforced at low levels. Ordinary people could and did go to sports matches and there were many low cost hobbies - fishing for instance in non-polluted rivers.

Debt outside the very poorest communities was not nearly as common.

University entry was tricky but free.

Of course there was much hard physical labor still.

And people were exploited in particular industries and countries.








S.