You might be hearing from the right wing about how breaking the unions and letting wages fall is the solution to our problems. We’ve heard this before. Let me tell you where.
In the late 1920’s and early 1930’s the global economy as it then was constituted, suffered a series of moments of crisis. In truth it had never gotten back to balance since the "Great War." The responses to these crisis points made the situation. Orthodoxy of the age brought disaster, and that orthodoxy was returning to an international gold standard that was really only a recent innovation. As Bordo and Eichengreen put it: "a system which relied on inelastically supplied precious metal and elastically supplied foreign exchange to meet the the world economy’s demand for reserves was intrinsically fragile, prone to confidence problems, and a transmission belt for policy mistakes."
It’s a nice way of saying that the Gold Standard was unsafe at any speed.
When the crisis arrived, there were three responses. One was to try and stick it out with the old system. This lead to falling wages and high unemployment under persistent deflation. The other two responses involved "casting off the fetters of gold." However, once this was done there was still a choice: keep wages high and the industrial system functioning, or let wages fall all the way to the floor, and employ people by the state.
In the US, under the New Deal, dealing with deflation was deemed to be important, and keeping wages high enough so that people could buy the products of industry was part of FDR’s policy. It meant higher unemployment, but a growing sphere of a new economy, one that would eventually cover the nation with the excuse of World War II to bring everyone into the new world of internal combustion, telephones, electricity and broadcast. The argument was that it was easier to provide a safety net for people who had fallen out of the old economy, and to give them work and relief, than to raise wages that had fallen.
There was another choice, as Peter Temin, MIT economist, pointed out that the Nazi’s "socialized human beings," and they "destroyed the unions within a few months of taking power," and "also introduced compulsory labor service," as well as using tax incentives and propaganda to convince women to leave the labor force." The result was a recovery to full employment "At the cost of their personal liberty and higher wages," You can read all this on page 115 of his book on lessons from the Great Depression. On page 9 you can see him rip Lionel Robbins for prescribing wage deflation as a "fundamental misconception."
It’s on Google Books, and well worth getting a few electrons out of bed to read the passages.
In the US it was realized that the great pressure on people who are unemployed is debt, this is why they undertook debt relief, the real thing, by programs such as the HOLC. Why didn’t it lead to recovery sooner? Why, an outbreak of economic orthodoxy led to balancing the budget in 1937, and plunged the economy into a second recession. But the architecture of the New Deal held, waiting for the moment when it could uncoil and create a new economic order which survives to this day. What the right wing, then, and now, played on was jealousy of working people for each other. It was Boss Tweed that observed that you can always hire one half of the poor to kill the other half of the poor. Let’s not fall into that trap.
You might hear that "it wasn’t the New Deal that cured the Great Depression." But that’s because the New Deal was always meant to save the American economy, to buy time while the international crisis came to a head. FDR knew there would be world war, and that the US had to have the labor force and industrial base to fight it. What was done during the war was the New Deal on steroids.
FDR told Americans in his acceptance speech in 1932 and in his inaugural that people had to be able to afford the products of the new economy, and that was the New Deal policy. It worked, while the regimes that tried to use force to push people into near starvation level jobs and get the money back by invading other countries, are now in the dustbin of history.
Related posts:
- World Economy Finding a Bottom Because the Keynesians are in China
- New York Fed, Congress Knew About AIG Bonuses All Along
- The Downturn is Over for Wall Street, but Main Street’s is Still Going On
- Bad Distribution of Income Led to Great Depression: History Repeats in 2008
- Jobless Rate Hits 26-Year High: Does Obama Have an Economic Team? Where’s Their Jobs Program?





Spotlight







Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Thanks Stirling – hope we don’t feel it necessary to resort to war to solve our economic problems. Still not quite clear on how that works, and hope not to learn through experience.
So, what I don’t understand is how higher wages works if you’ve got the same job with the same requirements in two countries, but different wage levels. Under such conditions, why not out-source?
Perhaps part of the answer lies in the example of outsourcing computer help desks to India. There was a whole American English village in India devoted to this industry for a while. But I hear that now, the trend is reversing.
I think the key is that “other things being equal,” the jobs will flow to the cheaper labor– but that other things are rarely equal.
But I’d like to hear a clearer analysis of this situation.
Bob in HI
we need some new ideas. that’s what i look to bama for. the thugs have been starving the gov’t and infrastructure for decades. it’s time to build from the ground up.
it is a diferent time now. back then wages in some areas were akin to slave labor. much better now with unions, etc. business will always trend to the lowest labor/material cost no matter what. it’s just business. the trick is to manage the ecomomy so that normal good/services are affordable for the prevailing wage. hard to do in a global ecomomy. one way is to create demand by a perpetual war machine. peace doesn’t pay fer us yet.
Wage parity between different countries is not a matter of matching dollar-for dollar in real terms.
Wage parity takes into consideration the relative economies of the differing regions (their standard of living vs ours, how much it costs for a peck of rice, or a loaf of bread – in their country versus ours). SO on a direct dollar for dollar comparison that is actually quite futile.
The actual discussion has to take place around the idea of the ‘level playing field’. Jobs go overseas not just for wages, but for lots of other reasons as well. And that is why NAFTA and all the other ‘AFTA’s are a failure. “free” trade versus “fair” trade.
Most people will agree that workers are (or should be) entitled to a safe workplace and an adequate wage. If a trade agreement is going to be fair, workers in the ‘poor’ country MUST have safe work conditions and adequage wages as well. In effect – if our companies move elsewhere – they should have to take all the worker protections (environmental, construction, and regulatory as well) with them. In real terms, if you add in the costs of all those other things, and then it comes down to only wage disparities in real terms, the impact on the companies’ bottom lines will be much smaller and they will be much less likely to leave.
Finally, one of the biggest reasons our companies are not as competitive is in the arena of health care. Universal, single-payer health care would really level the playing field – and our workers would be able to keep their jobs and the companies they work for would be competetive – and profitable at the same time.
The Republicans always want to break unions so they can and will pay the lowest wage possible. And in our time they no longer care about their workers as they once did. workers are looked at as just tools. The bottom line comes before anything and the Republicans want that bottom line as robust as possible and basically are just fucking cheap and want all the money to be made for what ever the workers are producing! They will never change… Just ask Anne Ryand…. The Captains of Industry are misers in truth and could care less about the society they take advantage of and for that matter the infrastructure that the public paid for through their taxes. with the infrastructure business could not function …
I’m certainly no economist but it is clear as day to me that lowering wages of the vast majority of Americans to fulfill the wet dreams of the Republican plutocrats is stupid 7 ways from Sunday. Since Bush and his neocons converted America to a “service” economy to shore up the never-ending rise in housing profits, who, exactly, will be buying these services that keep America running?
There aren’t that many multi-millionaires and billionaires to keep the entire American economy afloat through their luxury spending, personal pampering, travel, house maintenance, and staff needs, are there?
As we watch the retail industry implode over the coming holiday season and the drastic drop in spending escalates will anyone be able to publicly call for wage decreases and live to tell about it?
One is reminded of that old French canard falsely attributed to Marie Antoinette: The peasants can’t afford to buy bread? Let them eat cake! Translated to today? The peasants can’t afford to buy milk, bread, gasoline, or medical care? Cut their wages! The ultra-wealthy need to protect their incomes, for heaven’s sake!
I am also reminded of the adage of the original Henry Ford: Workers must receive a wage that is high enough for them to be able to afford to purchase the products they make.
Ford understood that if his auto company was going to survive and succeed, he needed to do two things, 1) Pay his workers enough so they could buy cars, and 2) price the cars so the workers could afford them. A nice balancing act that he managed quite nicely.
It never ceases to amaze me that economists in this country think that we can keep slashing wages and slashing jobs and have any kind of an economy at all. There is a limit to how far that can go before we have food riots and pitchforks and torch parades.
Right now, we are very close. Measures of our GDP are skewed because it takes into account ‘money lending’ of which those ubiquitous predatory payday lenders now make up almost 20 percent. That is not productive and while the owners of those outfits are rolling in cash – everyone else is losing. Not an equation with any kind of stability or growth in it at all. (By the way, this artificial GDP number is what all the idiots keep yelling about saying we are not technically in a recession yet because it is still growing. Gee, I wonder why?)
W. J. Bryan’s ‘Cross of Gold’ still reverberates…
bama’s new deal from today.
“We want ideas from everybody, but what I don’t want to do is to somehow suggest that, because you served in the last Democratic administration, that you are somehow barred from serving again — because we need people who are going to be able to hit the ground running”
Nice to see my economic history pals cited. Too bad that except for Berkeley, where Barry teaches, and Rutgers, where Mike Bordo teaches, the big places are letting their econ history grad programs slide, because the stuff isn’t ‘technical’ enough. Oh, did I mention that Christie Romer (student of Temin’s a long time ago), is also an economic historian?
Just saying.
It’s not just the Rethugs that are against unions. Most people do not understand the union movement – it was actually the first civil rights movement. People were protesting against unsafe working conditions, not being paid, 90-hour work weeks and the like. Union organizers and their families were beaten, massacred, arrested, beaten some more, killed some more in order to get the safe work places, decent wages, 40-hour work weeks, regular paychecks, holidays and vacations that most workers take for granted. Unions also have an effect on your wages, whether you belong to one or not. If there is a large strong union in your industry – you wage package will be similar because your bosses want to keep the unions out. So you are still reaping the benefits – even if you are not in a union shop.
Once again we hear the lies of the ‘ownership’ (you’re on your own) society. I don’t care who you are – you can negotiate better wages as a group than you can individually.
And as far as the UAW (United Autoworkers Union) they have given back salaries and benefits in the last three contract rounds – so much so that by 2010, they will be making LESS than non-union workers in the southern belt Toyota and Honda non-union plants. So why am I hearing that the WORKERS at the big three need to give up anything more? WTF!!!
Interesting when do you think we should balance the budget? How big and what kind of stimulus?
the argument has always been that high workmens’ wages fuel inflation ..
but we don’t hear the same when it comes to extremes of executive pay ..
we don’t hear it when bank earnings rise off high interest rates charged ..
it’s only working folks high wages which are “harmful’ ..
Jkat–
Funny how that works, isn’t it?
We could (and did) balance the budget when the country was in a state of actual growth (the 1990’s). While the dot com thing was a sort of bubble, jobs were being created – a lot of technical stuff was being created in the internet/computer arena, and a lot of those ideas are in production now and still around even though multiples of the companies aren’t.
If, and that is a big if, we have this green revolution that Obama and Gore both are advocating and we actually DO get 2.5-5 million new jobs – the economy has the potential to reach a place where we can balance the budget (again) although a balanced budget will not erase the deficit for probably a half century or more given what Bushco has wrought.
New Deal spending just got transferred to war spending but yes pay people good wages to make stuff. If anything useful products were made in the New Deal, unlike the years of war spending sure tanks guns etc yes they kept us free.
But what did they return cash wise to the economy? Make a hammer someone can build a home this creates value.
Make a gun someone shoots someone that person’s value is lost, but you do get to keep your value.
So war spending decreases value. If anything WW 2 spending slowed down the recovery.
Even as it gave FDR the political capital to go to near full employment, now imagine Obama with no war, the political capital and example of FDR to take us to near full employment making useful stuff that will help the economy and give us a return on our investment like green power, insulated homes and windows, hybrid cars etc.
What can we spend our cash on that will give us the best return on investment? I want numbers!
1. Health care, dental care, dentures, eyeglasses, training of technicians for these fields
2. Train home weatherization people, home repair, make foreclosed homes into duplexes
Thanks for this explanation. However, your argument switches to a wish and a hope:
[Emphasis added]
But it is exactly these things that outsourcing is meant to circumvent. And since there are about 300 countries in the world, and no world-wide Chamber of Commerce, we cannot force the rest of the world to accept a “level playing field,” however desirable that might be for us. That’s the whole idea behind Abramoff’s Northern Mariana Island swindle.
Bob in HI
Well Said Loky and entirely true. these assholes just want GM to renege on the negotiated contracts that they agreed to in fair negotiations. That’s like delivering a product to a buyer them demanding more money for it or conversely receiving the product then paying only half of what you agreed to pay for it. It just will never work..
If contracts aren’t adhered to the economy will completely fail! Why should workers work knowing that their wages or benefits can/will be changed when ever the company feels like it!
Thanks CTuttle. The ’silver tongued orator never fails to arouse the populist fervor for me.
You’d be surprised at how expensive cheap labor is. China, for example has wages that are 20% of the US in many categories, and yet the cost savings is around 20%. The additional cost of supply chain, infrastructure, management, training, retention and so on add up fast.
Wages being higher leads to higher quality labor, lower turn over, and innumerable small skills that come from time on tools and knowledge of how the system works. It is a fundamental misconception that labor is basically fungible – partially because many of the key labor skills are so common that we take for granted that people can do things like drive a car, deal with mechanized equipment. Your great great grandparents couldn’t, and a random person of the street in Madagascar can’t either. Over time such assumed skills become more global and more common – to be replaced by other uncommon skills.
So “why not offshore?” Answer: there are economies of scale and advantages of familiarity and concentration.
One of the unappreciated realities of the Second World War is that it left the US with a labor force acclimated to the mechanized economy. Uncle Sam’s finishing school taught Americans how to drive, war industries created the broad manufacturing work force. When we started the war, most people didn’t have the full range of skills. When it completed, almost everyone did.
Wage push inflation is quite real, but so is monetary macro-inflation. The US hasn’t seen wage push inflation in a very long time.
We just tried the war economy and take the oil thing.
Doesn’t seem to have been a good play.
De nada! You can hear his actual voice delivering it… Albeit, 25 years after the fact…! ;-)
Here we are again at class warfare. Capitalists want low wages to maximize profits and could care a hoot about their worker’s well being.
The people – read workers – are looking to make higher wages so that they can afford:
decent housing
comprehensive health care
education for their children
vacations to recharge
some vocation / entertainment, including arts, sports, travel
a few creature comforts and indulgences like TVs and washing machines etc.
some savings for a rainy day and to retire on
All seem like reasonable expectations and all require a fair wage. Capital don’t give a shit… they want wages low so they can make more money. “Shareholders” want what capital wants.
Class warfare in the name of the game in capitalism. Capital has been winning. They have stacked the deck.
Thank you Stirling.
This needs to said long and loud. We must make things again and the workers must be able to afford to buy them. We can not base an economy on debt.
I asked a 32 year old coworker, this week, if he had ever heard the phrase “leading economic indicators.” He had no idea what I was talking about. When I explained that there was a time when the evening news reported durable goods orders and machine tool sales he was genuinely beffudled. Very sad indeed.
What I was talking about does not ‘require’ the cooperation of anyone else. What I am saying is that WE, that is the US, when we make it possible for our companies to outsource through trade agreements like NAFTA should require our own companies to abide by the same regulations they would have to comply with if they stayed here. That is the FAIR in fair trade agreements. If our companies in the maquiladoros areas just south of the border had to comply with the environmental regulation here is the US (and they contaminate the exact same river from both sides of the border) we would not be treated to pictures of people living in the middle of a garbage dump with raw sewage flowing down an open ditch in the middle of a mud street.
Maybe we should ask the Grand Duchy of Fenwick to declare war again. *g*
There’s a really important and (arguably) related post over at 538 by Nate Silver, “Obama’s Agenda & The Difference Between Tactics & Strategy” that every Firepup needs to read.
And please don’t neglect to follow the link on the “Overton Window.”
This is an important contribution, IMHO.
Bob in HI
Just plain old GREED. Greed has been in since Ronnie Raygun and is just now reaping the profits of such unrelenting Greed! Thats why they are screaming for the BAIL out at the tax payers expense! As you said they have the deck stacked. Unless Obama can change the entire deck we the people will be in soup lines sooner than we think!
Good answer, Stirling!
Aloha,
Bob
terrorist attack in India
BBC reports:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7751160.stm
clicking on my link will take you there as well as to MSNBC and CNN
Here is a minor example from a few years ago. Here in my small town (pop about 55,000) our city council had someone do a study on what it costs versus benefits of repairing all the potholes in our city streets. (Our city was known as the pothole capital of the state at the time). This was a number of years ago so the figures aren’t as relevant in actual terms as they are for comparisons.
They said we could leave the potholes. That wouldn’t cost the City anything in actual cash. However, it contributed to damages to automobiles and their tires of about $365,000 per year! That in turn led to missed days of work, lower productivity among workers, and in some cases, actually eroded the tax base. The problems with the streets also led to decisions by new companies not to either locate here or build here because of the ‘infrastructure’ problems – an estimated loss of about $127,000 in city revenue per year.
Cost to fix the potholes? $86,700.
Infrastructure – yes!
That bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis? Instead of repairing the bridge at a cost of maybe $20-35 million, got a whole new bridge for $587 million. Plus the cost of lawsuits from the killed people and injured ones as well. Plus the cost of re-routing all the traffic in lost time, wages, fuel both gas and diesel, wages for professional drivers, and Who knows what else.
We have reportedly 137 more bridges that are just like that, in some cases worse, and it is just a matter of time before one of them collapses. And in some cases it would be better to build a brand new state of the art bridge like this than repair the old one that is probably overstressed by traffic loads 3-10 times the design capabilities.
Infrastructure – yes!
My list for investment and good returns:
Roads and Bridges
Rebuild electrical grid using newest technology
along with this – build in better more far-reaching broadband capability
use undergrounding of most wiring into existing right-of-ways.
Rebuild our rail system
Double rail systems so passenger trains have a dedicated rail separate from freight.
Use high-speed rail for intracity travel in heavily congested and heavily traveled corridors (Boston, NYC,DC) (Houston,Ft Worth,Dallas) for example.
School construction. Rebuild schools that are more than 50 years old (we have thousands of these!) using green technology.
Rehab schools that are less than 50 years old – including expansions if they have ‘trailerhouse’ classrooms on campus
Modernize major ports, including set up to power docked ships from land to reduce diesel exhaust
Help with construction of wind farms, solar farms, algae farms, etc.
Help with decommissioning old nuke plants (like Humboldt Bay in California)
Begin ‘Medicare for All’ by fully funding SCHIP and providing a mechanism whereby kids never age out of the system and each year reduce the age by one year of those eligible at the upper end. The gap will close over a few years – allowing transition for the insurance companies out of the business and allowing the financing to keep up with the new added population (yes everyone pays premiums for this)
That’s my list.
You must understand the reciprocal psychology behind hierarchy. The low ranked like the irresponsibility of following orders. The high ranked like the idea of thinking they know what they are doing. The idea that some humans are “better” than others, a comparison which is the point of hierarchy, is irrational. We are different, no two of us are alike, but we share a humanity which means we die in the end. Most likely nothing we do in this life matters in the next. The rich take what they can get, despite the devout believing rich men have the same chance of getting into heaven as a camel has of going through the eye of a needle. The wealthy like putting inferiors through their paces. Inferiors think they deserve inferiority. That is why calls to organize through the internet and contemplate actions to change things fall on deaf ears. Partly inferiors dream someday of being superiors, but mostly they are too frightened to try to break the chains that bind them. Marx not withstanding, workers of the world are not about to unite.
“I asked a 32 year old coworker, this week, if he had ever heard the phrase “leading economic indicators.” He had no idea what I was talking about. When I explained that there was a time when the evening news reported durable goods orders and machine tool sales he was genuinely beffudled. Very sad indeed.”
For the last six years the “News” spent more time announcing Brittney’s latest meltdown, and stuff about Paris Hilton’s new “accessory” pet. That is, when they weren’t pushing the miracles of home ownership and infinite credit.
Though I must admit the economy is now newsworthy. And they are somewhat more “honest” about it.
A thought on outsourcing of jobs to the lowest common denominator is that with the increased cost of transportation, there has to be a much bigger difference in wages to make that feasible. At the moment the price of oil is down, but this is not a long term trend. It is merely a blip in the road to ever higher fuel costs as we pass peak oil. Also, governments can use their regulatory capacity to structure taxes and other regulations to encourage production in country.
What the gilded people who are claiming that workers are responsible for the problem are missing is exactly why Henry Ford gave his workers a 20% raise above standard wages at the time. If your workers are making money, then they can buy your product. Raising Ford workers’ wages put pressure on other people to follow so that more people were able to live a middle class life. When on the other hand, the gilded people suck off all the profits for themselves (as has been occurring in the last several decades), then normal people don’t have the money to buy stuff so the whole system goes to hell.