[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers
Daily Email Summary


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics
Event Calendar
July 2009
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* * * 01 02 03 04
05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31 *
<< (add event) >>

Wire Services
Advertise Liberally

MBA Member

Blue CA Ad Network
Join Our eMail List
Email:

Photobucket

Talkin' Bout My Generation: Widening Inequality in Post-1979 California

by: Robert Cruickshank

Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 13:00:07 PM PDT


The California Budget Project's report, A Generation of Inequality: The State of Working California, 1979-2006, has already started to grab public attention, such as a front-page article in the SF Chronicle.

It's about time. Although neoliberalism has been hurting working Californians since 1979, it's been in the last few years that the situation has become dramatically worse. Low wages, poor job growth prospects, and soaring costs of living are killing the California Dream for millions of residents of this state.

Below I offer an overview of the report, and some suggestions on what we can - and should - do about the growing crisis.

Robert Cruickshank :: Talkin' Bout My Generation: Widening Inequality in Post-1979 California
The CBP has identified several major factors that illustrate the widening inequality in California:

  • 70% of job creation in California since 1979 has been in high-wage or low-wage jobs. The middle-income folks have faced stagnation or declining incomes.
  • Wage gains are not only unevenly shared, but inflation and the soaring cost of living has hit low- and middle-income workers harder than their counterparts in other states.
  • Workers are getting fewer benefits - health care has been slashed, as have pensions.
  • Young Californians - those born since 1979 - have fared poorly in the state's job market, and since 2000 those with college degrees have had *fewer* job prospects than those with only a high school diploma, though the latter group is still facing poor prospects of their own.

California is becoming a place where only the rich can afford to enjoy basic economic security - whereas everyone else must face high housing costs, rising energy, food, and health care costs with shrinking wages and poor job prospects.

It's apt that this report focuses on 1979 to the present, as that corresponds to my own lifespan. Parts of this report ring all to true to my own cohort. Take my high school class, which graduated from an Orange County school in 1997. Today most of us work either in financial services, high-tech, or education, with many of the grads who did not attend college working in the service sector.

This is not a recipe for economic security. Those who work in financial services are facing the specter of widespread job losses as a 25-year long asset bubble starts to unwind. Those who work in high-tech already faced a bust in 2000, and know all too well how easily their jobs can be outsourced. Those of us who work in education are dependent on government funding, which Republicans are seeking to cut at every opportunity. Those who work in the service sector find their employment to be unsteady and their wages wholly inadequate to the cost of living in California. And most of us who attended college are saddled with student loan debts, cutting into our incomes even more deeply. And that's just from a suburban high school - Californians from poorer backgrounds obviously have fared much worse than we.

Meanwhile the situation continues to worsen. The bursting of the housing bubble has already caused the state's unemployment rate to rise every month in 2007. Gas prices have retreated somewhat from their spring highs, but remain around $3/gal in the state, still an unsustainably high level. At the same time Republicans successfully gutted state mass transit funds, effectively shackling Californians to their cars and to the oil companies. Arnold's preferred health care plan would merely saddle these struggling families with hundreds of dollars a month in premiums, while still not actually delivering them affordable, comprehensive health care.

This report illustrates a state in crisis, lurching toward catastrophe. 28 years of neoliberalism has put us on the edge of a precipice. How do we deal with it, then?

Do we follow the advice of conservatives like Joel Kotkin, who in the SF Chronicle article about the CBP study called for more of the same - less regulation and taxation of business, implying though not saying that this will also require further cuts to vital public services? That would be like turning to the folks who broke Iraq and asking them to fix it.

Instead we need to revive the old progressive, New Deal era emphasis on economic security. Some believe that progressive politics remains amorphous and without a core agenda. Economic security, I believe, MUST be that agenda.

We must build a diverse coalition of all ethnic and racial backgrounds, of middle- and low-income households, to challenge the neoliberal economy. Instead we must demand and put into action policies that will help even out the balance in California, and save the state from impending ruin.

We need, at minimum, the following:

  • Universal health care. Providing cost certainty to families, as well as health, is vital to providing for our future security.
  • A redefinition of the California Dream - a new urban strategy for California life, providing for affordable housing, sustainable transportation, and better use of our resources. We must stop subsidizing suburban sprawl, one of the culprits behind this inequality, and instead redirect our energies to building up our cities.
  • A new, long-term source of good jobs for California's low- and middle-income families. The Green Jobs initiative pioneered by Rep. Hilda Solis could well be the prototype for this, providing for a clean environment, sustainable practices, and jobs for ALL Californians, across class and racial lines. California can become a leader in 21st century manufacturing, building on local resources to provide a sustainable and clean range of products for America as we face the dual shocks of climate change and peak oil.
  • Root-and-branch reform of agriculture. Californians have already become major leaders of the Farm Bill reform movement and we need to ramp this up significantly. Agriculture is the backbone of California's economy and, of course, of civilization itself. We need to shift CA ag toward sustainable, organic, healthy practices, linking city and country in a new network of local food production and consumption that provides income and jobs for rural counties and affordable, quality food for the cities.
  • Educational reform and affordability. The cost of higher education - including technical and vocational training - has soared, and these costs represent a massive drain on earning power for working families. We need to put into place a plan to forgive ALL student loans, and redeem the promise we made in 1960 to give Californians free higher education. This will spur entrepreneurial activity, as well as ensure that the young can help pay for the needs of aged.

All of those solutions will help Californians of all backgrounds and class status. We cannot follow in the footsteps of those who will tell us that in the hard times that we now face, we must choose who to include and who to exclude - a choice that always seems to come down to race.

This is the challenge we face as California progressives. And these can be the solutions that we offer. This can be our opportunity to build a prosperous and secure 21st century state.

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
I was hoping (5.00 / 1)
that you would write this up, so I held off on cross-posting my Working Californians piece.  One thing not mentioned here, but worth examining is the fact that Latinos are actually losing ground when it comes to wages.  They used to earn 71 cents for every dollar that a white worker would receive.  That is now down to 58 cents.  Given the demographics shift, this is a very worrying trend.

Good point (5.00 / 1)
I looked for a post on your blog about this right before I posted it, but somehow missed it. I'm not surprised that Latino earning power has dropped by that much, and would expect that the numbers for African Americans look similar.

In this crisis, there is now a major opportunity for progressive organizing across class and racial lines. It's a shame that it takes white workers suffering from the same problems that have long plagued communities of color to make this happen, but, here we are.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave


[ Parent ]
We in the U.S. live under corporate tryanny (5.75 / 4)
How about new laws and constitutional clarification asserting that corporations are not persons?  We need our government to be truly of, by and for the people, not the corporations.

That'll likely be a necessary part (6.50 / 2)
Of progressive economic reforms.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

[ Parent ]
I seem to remember (0.00 / 0)
Thom Hartmann talking about how this bit of legal precedent was actually a complete accident that nobody caught until it was too late.  Something like it not actually being part of the original decision but rather part of the brief summary of the decision and it got cited so often as precedent that it's morphed into actually BEING precedent.

"We need men who can dream of things that never were." -JFK

[ Parent ]
Sort of (0.00 / 0)
The case was Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific, regarding an effort by the county to tax the railroad. The case went to the SCOTUS in 1886, and before oral arguments were heard, Chief Justice Waite read this from the bench:

The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.

While not a part of the actual decision, this statement has driven American corporate jurisprudence ever since. As this site points out, two of FDR's SCOTUS nominees, Hugo Black and William O. Douglas, tried pushing back against corporate personhood. Justice Black had this to say:

I do not believe the word 'person' in the Fourteenth Amendment includes corporations. 'The doctrine of stare decisis, however appropriate and even necessary at times, has only a limited application in the field of constitutional law.' This Court has many times changed its interpretations of the Constitution when the conclusion was reached that an improper construction had been adopted. Only recently the case of West Coast Hotel Company v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, 57 S.Ct. 578, 108 A.L.R. 1330, expressly overruled a previous interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment which had long blocked state minimum wage legislation. When a statute is declared by this Court to be unconstitutional, the decision until reversed stands as a barrier against the adoption of similar legislation. A constitutional interpretation that is wrong should not stand. I believe this Court should now overrule previous decisions which interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to include corporations.

I miss the New Deal.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave


[ Parent ]
That's not how it was explained to me (0.00 / 0)
But that's fine. I don't have any particular reason to think I'm right on this one.

"We need men who can dream of things that never were." -JFK

[ Parent ]
It fits with your earlier comment (0.00 / 0)
It wasn't technically part of the decision, but the statement pretty much ripped out Santa Clara County's case out from underneath it. Following that, the notion that corporations were protected by the 14th Amendment became commonplace in legal decisions, even though it had not been part of the court's decision. That was one reason why Black and Douglas pushed back against it.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

[ Parent ]
Maybe (0.00 / 0)
Like I said, not disputing it. From the way it was explained to me, it was added by a clerk or something to the explanation of the decision without having been in the decision. Maybe it's just different halves of the whole.  Either way, funny how precedent works.

"We need men who can dream of things that never were." -JFK

[ Parent ]
Either way (0.00 / 0)
As we've seen in the past, and now with the Roberts Court, the "we just make shit up as we go along" approach has been part of the SCOTUS for a long, long time.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

[ Parent ]
It takes a village (4.00 / 1)
It seems that one of the roots of many of the inequities we face is the fact that too many of us are Wal-Mart shoppers.  We may not actually shop at Wal-Mart, but we have the same mentality.  Bigger, better, faster, more.  And always cheaper.  Always.  God forbid the price of something should rise rather than fall.  Like Stephen Colbert believes, it is a fundamental right to be able to buy a dozen socks for $1.99. 

Rather than buy things from the family owned shop down the road, we looking to national conglomerates who source from the location of the day that has the cheapest labor and appalling work conditions.  As we see those family-owned shops close, we continue to elect city councilpersons who, being starved for revenue, are happy to sell-out local businesses to conglomerates.  We also elect national representatives who, in the name of "free trade," are happy to sell our job to the lowest bidder in the world.  And we use free market ideology as a rationalizion for this otherwise irrational behavior.  When we start getting anxious and depressed about the mess we have created, we go to Wal-Mart to get our prescriptions filled.  We feel better and we continue to vote for the same people.  And the cycle continues.

It's a very complicated problem and this rambling comment surely doesn't provide the answer.  But it seems that one of the things we need to do is to focus on rebuilding our own local economies by giving up the quest for the best "deal," and trying to support the men and women who we call our neighbors by buying locally as much as we can.


I sympathize (5.00 / 1)
I too try and shop locally, and stay away from chains as often as is practical. At the same time, with a limited income and lots of debts to pay, it can be hard to avoid making those choices (though I never, ever go to Wal-Mart). Wal-Mart succeeds because it meets a need - most of its shoppers are low- or fixed-income, and as the cost of other day to day needs rises around them, it's rational to go to Wal-Mart.

Food is a particularly acute example of this. Back in January I wrote a diary at Daily Kos titled Can Anyone But the Rich Afford Healthy Food?, riffing off of a Seattle P-I article that showed how costly it is for folks to eat well. The food reform movements have been all over this, and it was one of the major goals in reforming this year's Farm Bill, shifting subsidies away from bad food practices and towards healthy, sustainable foods so as to lower the cost for people.

I think this is an example of why we need a broadly-based agenda, and why we need to find ways to implement it as much as we can, instead of piecemeal. They're dependent on each other - to build up local, healthy, sustainable eating and consuming practices, folks need more stable incomes, but for that to happen they also need cost certainty on health care, etc.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave


[ Parent ]
My lifelong goal ... (6.50 / 2)
As I've told people for years, my lifelong goal is to completely undo, obliterate and annihilate the Reagan legacy.

People laugh, but what I'm really talking about when I say the "Reagan Legacy" is the gap between rich and poor.

I was born in 1978.  If we could narrow the gap between rich and poor the way it was when I was born -- before I die -- I will die a happy man.


Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads

Support Calitics:

Advertisers

California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch
Blog Network:
Powered by: SoapBlox