UP - United Professionals

Recession – Who Cares?

by Barbara Ehrenreich
, January 11, 2008
Link to article

The soothsayers have slaughtered the ox and are examining the gloppy entrails for signs: Rising unemployment, a falling dollar, weak consumer spending, the credit crisis, a swooning stock market. Could there be something wrong here? Could we actually be approaching a, god forbid, recession?

 

To which the only sane response is: Who cares? According to a CNN poll, 57 percent of Americans thought we were already in a recession a month ago. Economists may complain that this is only because the public is ignorant of the technical – or at least the newspapers’ standard – definition of a recession, which specifies that there must be at least two consecutive quarters of negative growth in the GDP. But most of the public employs the more colloquial definition of a recession, which is hard times. If hard times have already fallen on a majority of Americans, then “recession” doesn’t seem to be a very useful term any more.

 The economists’ odd fixation on growth as a measure of economic well-being puts them in a parallel universe of their own. WorldMoneyWatch’s website tells us that, for example, that “The GDP growth rate is the most important indicator of economic health. If GDP is growing, so will business, jobs and personal income.” And the latest issue of US News and World Report advises, “The key… for America is to keep its economy growing as fast as possible without triggering inflation.”

But hellooo, we’ve had brisk growth for the last few years, as the president always likes to remind us, only without those promised increases in personal income, at least not for the middle class. Growth, some of the economists are conceding in perplexity, has been “de-coupled” from mass prosperity. Growth is not the only economic indicator that has let us down recently. In the last five years, America’s briskly rising productivity has been the envy of much of the world. But at the same time, real wages have actually declined. It’s not supposed to be this way, of course. Economists have long believed that some sort of occult process would intervene and adjust wages upward as people worked harder and more efficiently.And what about the unemployment rate? The old liberal faith was that “full employment” would create a workers’ paradise, with higher wages and enhanced bargaining power for the little guy and gal. But we’ve had nearly full employment, or at least an unemployment rate of under five percent, for years now, again, without the predicted gains. What the old liberals weren’t counting on was a depressed minimum wage, impotent unions, and a witch’s brew of management strategies to hold wages and salaries down.

Now if those great and solemn economic indicators – growth, productivity and employment rates – have become de-coupled from most people’s lived experience, then there’s something wrong with the economists, the economy, or both. The clue lies in the word “most.” We have become so unequal as a nation that we increasingly occupy two different economies – one for the rich and one for everyone else — and the latter has been in a recession, if not a depression, for a long, long time. Not all economists can bring themselves to admit this.

I suspect that America’s fabulous growth in productivity is another illustration of the disconnect between economic measures and human experience. It’s been attributed to better education and technological advances, which would be nice to believe in. But a revealing 2001 study by McKinsey also credited America’s productivity growth to “managerial innovations” and cited Wal-Mart as a model performer, meaning that we are also looking at fiendish schemes to extract more work for less pay. Yes, you can generate more output per apparent hour of work by falsifying time records, speeding up assembly lines, doubling workloads, and cutting back on breaks. Productivity may look good from the top, but at the middle and the bottom it can feel a lot like pain. 

When employees are squeezed hard enough, then you have the possibility of a genuine recession as technically defined. People buy less, so growth declines, to the point where even the economic over-class has to sit up and take notice. This is happening in Japan, where a recent Wall Street Journal headline announces: “Growing Reliance on Temps Holds Back Japan’s Rebound: Firms Increasingly Add Part-Time Workers; Spending Power Lags.” The U.S., where consumer spending accounts for 70 percent of the economy compared to a little more than half in Japan, is even more vulnerable to a downturn in personal consumption.

What is this fixation on growth anyway? As a general rule of biological survival, any creature or entity that depends on perpetual growth is well worth avoiding, lest you be eaten alive. As Bill McKibben argues in his book Deep Economy, the “cult of growth” has led to global warming, ghastly levels of pollution, and diminishing resources. Tumors grow, at least until they kill their hosts; economies ought to be sustainable.

Apocalypse aside, the mantra of growth has deceived us for far too long. What it translates into is: Don’t worry about the relative size of your slice, just concentrate on growing the pie! Now, with a recession threatening even more suffering for those who are already struggling, may be the perfect time to get out the pie-cutter again.                                                                

           

Tags: , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Recession – Who Cares?”

  1. Terry Rogers Says:

    Well said, Ms Ehrenreich. This really begs to get the ticker ticking, as does all of your fine work.

    Yeah, that little pie cutter should never be allowed to grow so damn blunt and rusty. Your mention of our ‘cult of growth’ and its direct/indirect relationships to Mother Nature’s mounting impatience is precisely what I personally believe could be the greatest–or only–catalyst to massive empathetic, compassionate change in our society’s evaluations of its own past/current/future priorities and perceptions. We need more ties between the ecologically-minded and the socially-minded, and we need them right now. In my opinion the days of raucous and selfish humanism should be behind us, including but certainly not limited to Freidman’s/Smith’s Capitalism and Marx/Mao’s Communism. We who seek significant change should be vigorously reining in the inherent and potential ties between the sincere hearts of naturalists and humanists, just as the great E.O. Wilson attempted to do with his book ‘The Creation’. Shared goals between Socialists and Ecologists are vastly and grossly under-nurtured, just as are the goals shared between those two broad entities and the apathetic/undereducated masses who feel compelled to follow the status quo for whatever reasons. The greatest and mightiest unions of all are those who nurture their covalent bonds with potential allies. Keys to agreement are compassion, empathy, and respect–with those shared ties intact many disagreements can eventually be surpassed. Pertinent differences between allies can be dealt with at later dates, in order of significance.

    It’d sure be a great step toward recovery if we could just get more folks, rich AND poor (since envy feeds this insane system nearly as much as does greed), to realize that Milton F’s proverbial never-ending pie theory is a brutally heartless farce (RIP, MF).

    Sorry I took so much space with my ranting.
    Thanks, Ms E. You rock.

  2. Ralph Swanson Says:

    A great summary of the paradoxes in the current economic scene. The phrase “some sort of occult process would intervene” is the perfect charaterisation of what the economists seem to be thinking. Actually they’re not thinking that at all. They pride themselves on their brutually realistic appraisals. The system is designed to squeeze the working classes (both blue and white collar) all the while describing the economic dynamic with monetary terms while studiously ignoring the human dynamic at work.

    If someone has read this far maybe my take on “economic growth” will resonate. I will usse a physical-economy example. Consider a factory with fifty machines capable of making widgets. Order volume cam be met with 40 machines with 10 left idle. As order volume picks up more and more machines are turned on until all are in use. If order volume continues to rise perhaps a second or even a third shift may be added. If ordervolume continues to grow maybe the machines can be made to run faster and the workers made to work faster. Obviously there is a limit. Lets call that process Phase 1. If order volume continues to grow what can be done? Well, obviously buy more machines and hire more workers. Lets call that process Phase 2. Obviously there is a difference between operating in Phase 1 then in Phase 2. Nothing profound here ( thanks for bearing with me). I call the process of reaching the limit of Phase 1 “econmic speedup”. The transition from Phase 2 to Phase 2 I call “economic growth”. In other words economic growth is, to me, an increase in production capacity. Economists, using only monetary measures, do not distinguish betwen the two conditions. They understand it all right, they just choose not to talk about it or measure the change and what it means to the population.

    A last thought — Everyone talks about jobs. Well personally I don’t want a job I want money because that translated into the necessities and plesures of life. If we can build an economy that will give me all I need with only an hour’s work a day I’ll take it. Also, I contend the old biblical admonishion that “by the sweat of your brow you whall earn your bread” was meant only for the slave. There are alot of jobs around where you don’t sweat, either literally or figuratively, and there is nothing ethically unfair about those jobs. Consider the crane operator in his air conditioned control cage or the airline pilot flying the 747. The problem is the churches make us feel guilty for not suffering to earn our bread. All tongue in cheek yes but think about it.

Leave a Reply