[Marxism] Income Inequality Is Costing the U.S. on Social Issues
lnp3 at panix.com
Wed Apr 29 10:31:17 MDT 2015
(Eduardo Porter, who is one of the business section's more socially
aware reporters, means well in this quite revealing article but fails to
come to grips with the underlying problem, namely the disappearance of
well-paying blue-collar jobs. When I was in my twenties, Baltimore was a
place where many young Blacks with a high-school degree could get a job
at the Sparrows Point Bethlehem Steel mill that hired 31,000 workers at
its peak. Steel was no longer profitable and so the plant closed. As a
sign of the times, some investors are looking to develop the site as a
technology center. These jobs are not coming back. The American
bourgeoisie of both major parties is quite content to see massive
unemployment and the social ills that Porter describes. The one thing
they can't live with is a growing mass movement that challenges
inequality. That is why Obama coordinated attacks on the Occupy
activists and why the big money is on Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush.
These are two people who know how to look after capital's interests.)
NY Times, Apr. 29 2015
Income Inequality Is Costing the U.S. on Social Issues
by Eduardo Porter
Thirty-five years ago, the United States ranked 13th among the 34
industrialized nations that are today in the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development in terms of life expectancy for newborn
girls. These days, it ranks 29th.
In 1980, the infant mortality rate in the United States was about the
same as in Germany. Today, American babies die at almost twice the rate
of German babies.
“On nearly all indicators of mortality, survival and life expectancy,
the United States ranks at or near the bottom among high-income
countries,” says a report on the nation’s health by the National
Research Council and the Institute of Medicine.
What’s most shocking about these statistics is not how unhealthy they
show Americans to be, compared with citizens of countries that spend
much less on health care and have much less sophisticated medical
technology. What is most perplexing is how stunningly fast the United
States has lost ground.
The blame for the precipitous fall does not rest primarily on the
nation’s doctors and hospitals.
The United States has the highest teenage birthrate in the developed
world — about seven times the rate in France, according to the O.E.C.D.
More than one out of every four children lives with one parent, the
largest percentage by far among industrialized nations. And more than a
fifth live in poverty, sixth from the bottom among O.E.C.D. nations.
Among adults, seven out of every 1,000 are in prison, more than five
times the rate of incarceration in most other rich democracies and more
than three times the rate for the United States four decades ago.
The point is: The United States doesn’t have a narrow health care
problem. We’ve simply handed our troubles to the medical industry to
fix. In many ways, the American health care system is the most advanced
in the world. But whiz-bang medical technology just cannot fix what ails us.
As economists from the University of Chicago, M.I.T. and the University
of Southern California put it in a recent research paper, much of
America’s infant mortality deficit is driven by “excess inequality.”
American babies born to white, college-educated, married women survive
as often as those born to advantaged women in Europe. It’s the babies
born to nonwhite, nonmarried, nonprosperous women who die so young.
Three or four decades ago, the United States was the most prosperous
country on earth. It had the mightiest military and the most advanced
technologies known to humanity. Today, it’s still the richest, strongest
and most inventive. But when it comes to the health, well-being and
shared prosperity of its people, the United States has fallen far behind.
Pick almost any measure of social health and cohesion over the last four
decades or so, and you will find that the United States took a wrong
turn along the way.
How did we get here? How do we exit?
As the presidential campaign draws the political debate to our national
priorities, these questions must take center stage. As candidates argue
over the budget deficit and the national debt, debate what to do about
income inequality, address the problem of mass incarceration or refight
the battles over the Affordable Care Act and the minimum wage, they
should be forced to address how their policy wish list adds up to an answer.
Looking at how the United States compares with other nations is
illuminating. As I noted in last week’s column, over the last four
decades or so, the labor market lost much of its power to deliver income
gains to working families in many developed nations.
But blaming globalization and technological progress for the stagnation
of the middle class and the precipitous decline in our collective health
is too easy. Jobs were lost and wages got stuck in many developed countries.
What set the United States apart — what made the damage inflicted upon
American society so intense — was the nature of its response. Government
support for Americans in the bottom half turned out to be too meager to
hold society together.
The conservative narrative of America’s social downfall, articulated by
the likes of Charles Murray from the American Enterprise Institute,
posits that a large welfare state, built from the time of the New Deal
in the 1930s through the era of the Great Society in the 1960s, sapped
Americans’ industriousness and undermined their moral fiber.
A more compelling explanation is that when globalization struck at the
jobs on which 20th-century America had built its middle class, the
United States discovered that it did not, in fact, have much of a
welfare state to speak of. The threadbare safety net tore under the strain.
Call it a failure of solidarity. American institutions, built from
hostility toward collective solutions, couldn’t hold society together
when the economic underpinning of full employment at a decent wage gave in.
The question is, Is there a solution to fit these ideological
preferences? The standard prescriptions, typically shared by liberals
and conservatives, start with education, building the skills needed to
harness the opportunities of a high-tech, fast-changing labor market
that has little use for those who end their education after high school.
Ensuring everybody has a college degree might not stanch the flow of
riches to the very pinnacle of society. But it could deliver a powerful
boost to the incomes and the well-being of struggling families in the
And yet the prescription — embedded in the social reality that is
contemporary America — falls short. In contemporary America, education
is widening inequity, not closing it. College enrollment rates have
stagnated for lower-income Americans. Sean Reardon from Stanford
University notes that the achievement gap between rich and poor children
seems to have been steadily expanding for the last 50 years.
On the left, there are calls to build the kind of generous social
insurance programs, which despite growing budget constraints remain
largely intact among many European social democracies. Senator Elizabeth
Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, for example, is calling for an
expansion of Social Security, paid for by lifting the cap on payroll
taxes so the rich pay the same share of their income to support the
system as everybody else.
That may be desirable, though at the moment, our greatest problems are
not about the elderly. And at least for the foreseeable future, it
remains a political nonstarter in a nation congenitally mistrustful of
government. Just in time to kick off the presidential campaign,
Republicans in the House and Senate were working on a budget that would
gut Obamacare — most likely increasing the pool of the nation’s
uninsured — and slash funding for programs for Americans of low and
Yet despite the grim prognosis, there is hope. The challenge America
faces is not simply a matter of equity. The bloated incarceration rates
and rock-bottom life expectancy, the unraveling families and the
stagnant college graduation rates amount to an existential threat to the
That is, perhaps, the best reason for hope. The silver lining in these
dismal, if abstract, statistics, is that they portend such a
dysfunctional future that our broken political system might finally be
forced to come together to prevent it.
More information about the Marxism