Posts Tagged ‘corporations’

profit shares

wage shares

Economic journalists, like Neil Irwin, are falling all over themselves celebrating the strength of the current economic recovery.

According to the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 313 thousand new jobs were added in February. The official unemployment rate remained at a relatively low 4.1 percent. Hourly wages grew at an annual rate of 2.6 percent. And so on.

Here’s Irwin:

This is not the kind of data you expect in an expansion that is nine years old, or out of a labor market that is already at full employment. . .

the February numbers are a delicious sweet spot for the economy. Many more people are working, including people who hadn’t even been in the labor force. If that trend continues — and it’s worth adding the usual caveat that each month’s jobs numbers are subject to revision and statistical error — there’s no reason to think this expansion is reaching its natural end.

What Irwin and his colleagues fail to mention is this is an economic recovery that, as in previous years, continues to be spectacularly one-sided. It’s all on capital’s terms.

Let’s look at some other numbers, as illustrated in the charts at the top of the post. The profit share (the blue line in the top chart) has in fact rebounded nicely since the depths of the Great Recession—from a low of 6.2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008 to 11.9 percent in the third quarter of 2017 (the latest period for which data are available). And that’s true across the board—in both major sectors, nonfinancial (the red line) and financial (the green line). Profits quickly recovered from the crash and, as a result of government economic policy and capital’s own decisions, they’ve stayed at or near the peak of the pre-crash period.

Meanwhile, workers are still waiting for their recovery. The wage share (in the second chart), while currently higher than its nadir (52.1 percent in the third quarter of 2014), is still (at 53 percent) only equal to its previous low (in 2006)—and therefore much lower than it was in the midst of the Great Recession and, on average, for much of the postwar period. Even with lots of new jobs and low unemployment, workers are still getting the short end of the stick.

So, Irwin is right about one thing: the current numbers are a “delicious sweet spot”—for capital, not labor. Capital is getting all the workers it wants, to make even more profits. And workers continue to be forced to have the freedom to find jobs and then to labor in return for a historically low share of what they produce.

No, there is no natural end to this one-sided expansion. Only a fundamental transformation in economic institutions, not pie-in-the-sky promises, will actually benefit American workers.


Special mention

FellP20180308_low  Cartoonist Gary Varvel: Trump's tariff can of worms


This is the first in a series of blog posts on the utopian dimensions of healthcare.

I’ve written quite a bit about the U.S. healthcare dystopia over the years—including a seven-part series back in 2016.* But I haven’t yet addressed the utopian dimensions of healthcare reform.

The appearance of the new issue of Jacobin Magazine, titled “The Health of Nations,”  is a good occasion to start that discussion. Adam Gaffney starts with much the same question that provoked my own series of blog posts: “if American health care used to be so much worse, why is it in crisis now?”

In part because, despite such wide-ranging reform, the system’s injustices remain unresolved, pervasive, and deadly.

The figures tell the story. Even without Republican rollbacks, twenty-eight million have no insurance, and, according to the Commonwealth Fund, some forty-one million are underinsured. A substantial portion of the nation—predominantly those of low and middle income and disproportionately people of color—cannot afford to see doctors, pay for medicine, or go to the emergency room.

Families who bought silver plans on the Obamacare marketplace still have $8,292 deductibles, but less than half of American households can cover even a $4,000 deductible. Patients take twice-a-day medications only once, skip doses, or fail to ll their prescriptions to save on co-payments. And of course, people die — tens of thousands of people a year—because they lack coverage.

But the crisis in American health care isn’t simply that the ACA didn’t go far enough: it’s that there’s no ACA 2.0 available to finish the job. Real progress has been made, but the incremental reforms left us with a deeply inhumane system.

The problem, as Gaffney sees it, is that

the Right is on the prowl, offering a slew of tired, malicious nostrums about personal responsibility, while liberal reformers have mostly run out of ammunition. But the Left has not, and single payer is now the only potent policy weapon still on the table.

I agree that the Right is attempting to dismantle many of the supports and safeguards, however limited, that are already in place. And liberals simply have nothing new to offer. But, beyond that, should the the utopian horizon for healthcare reform, at least from the Left’s perspective, be limited to Medicare-for-all?

The case Gaffney makes is quite persuasive:

Almost everyone—sick and well, insured and uninsured—has something to gain from this system. Single payer’s universalism is its strength, and the reason we can win it. But the Medicare-for-all movement is both a means and an end: it will clearly make for a happier and healthier nation, but it can also can become a unifying issue within a larger egalitarian political project at a moment of political crisis.

The universalism, I concur, is its strength—much like Social Security, which represents a collective bond whereby current generations of workers contribute to supporting previous generations who are now retired. Single-payer is the use of tax revenues, levied on individuals and corporations, to finance the purchase of adequate healthcare services for everyone. And, yes, it certainly can serve as a key issue within a larger egalitarian project.

But the Medicare-for-all proposal only gets at how healthcare is financed, not how it is produced or provided. It substitutes single-payer for private insurance and individual payments (for copayments and deductibles, and absurdly high expenditures for those without insurance). But it still leaves the mostly profit-driven system of U.S. healthcare services (along with hospitalization, pharmaceutical drugs, nursing homes, rehabilitation facilities, and so on) in private hands.

It therefore doesn’t include a critique of how healthcare is currently provided—by doctors, nurses, technicians, and other healthcare professionals and aides who are forced to have the freedom to work for large profit-making conglomerates—or any kind of proposal to expand the diversity of healthcare providers—whether at the local, regional, and national level, which would include more democratic, cooperative or worker-owned healthcare enterprises.

That’s a utopian horizon—covering both the financing and provision of healthcare—worth articulating and fighting for.


*The series started with the problem that, compared to other countries, Americans pay more but get less for their healthcare continued with an analysis of what workers are forced to pay to get access to the healthcare system, the role of healthcare insurance, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, the double squeeze of declining real incomes and higher healthcare payments, and finally the case for universal, affordable, high-quality healthcare.


Special mention

cb030118dAPR  207273


Special mention

23chappatte-superJumbo  650


Special mention

BergeP20180222_low  Puppet

0211 Boyertoon

Special mention