It's The Same Old Story: The Rich Get Richer, And The Poor Get Screwed.
By Jeff Smith
'TIS THE SEASON to get misty, and never let it be said
that we of the fourth estate will let slide an opportunity to
milk our audience of its last drop of human kindness.
Which is what accounts for the traditional front-page stories
of families at society's margins left in the cold by a house fire
or the other kind of fire, where Dad gets the boot from the boss
on Christmas Eve. Hey, if this stuff was good enough for Charles
Dickens, it's good enough for me. And Rhonda Bodfield.
Actually, Rhonda's contribution to the oeuvre is far less emotional
and way more fact-filled than most, and the holiday timing of
it can be blamed on the primary source. This was not something
Rhonda or her editors at The Arizona Daily Star just went
out and enterprised in order to ruin Christmas for the fat and
complacent. The D.C.-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
just released this huge report on where the money goes in America,
and we all need to pay attention.
What the report tells us is something anybody with a lick of
sense knew was true during the greedy '80s, but might come as
a surprise to us here at the brink of '98, with a Democrat who
feels other people's pain in the White House and the stock market
dancing around 8,000, and unemployment at the lowest levels in
years:
The rich are getting way richer and doing it way faster; the
poor are getting way, way poorer, and doing it faster even than
the rich are porking out, and the middle class--that great socio-economic
ballast that has secured American political stability--is on the
move. Where is it moving? Not the foothills, folks; the working
class is moving to the slums.
Merry Christmas.
(That warm-hearted advice I offered last week about big wet kisses
and unstinting generosity? It still holds: just don't waste your
charity on, say, NBA basketball players, anybody named Trump,
or major stockholders in Nike, Microsoft or corporations with
workforces in offshore factories or domestic workers without union
representation.)
We knew that Ronald Reagan was no friend to the poor and the
unemployed, and some of us marveled at how he affected to stay
chummy with the blue-collar crowd, who suffered unwittingly at
Reagan's elitist economic policies. Must have been all those B-westerns
he starred in. But we did not expect that Bill Clinton would preside
over an economic boom that has proven a terrible bust for practically
everybody but the rich. Sure, the stock market is bullish, but
how many roofers do you know with stock portfolios? Sure, unemployment
is at 2.9 percent--you want fries with that?
The point is that more Americans are working more hours at more
part-time jobs, earning less per hour, or less in real earning
power, than at any time in the nation's history...
...While at the other end of the stick--the one without all that
brown, smelly stuff on it--the people who run the show are getting
obscenely rich and, in fact, creating the conditions that are
contributing to the widening gulf between haves and have-nots.
And just so you won't think this is something going on in Afghanistan
and doesn't matter to you: Arizona is just about the worst state
in the nation, in terms of the rich getting away from the poor.
Ah, but it's a dry poor.
Of course knowing these trends exists does not answer why they
exist, let alone how to change them. Some of us don't even want
them changed, and guess who they are. Kevin Garnett for one: he's
making $20 million a year to play basketball, but he's not the
real villain. The real villains are the guys who pay Garnett to
wear Nikes while he's playing basketball. The people they pay
to make Kevin's sneakers get pennies a day for working in sweatshops
on Southeast Asian islands.
They're barely able to survive, even in a third-world economy
where rice is cheap and expectations are low. You could make a
case they're better off than the people they unintentionally put
out of work, the American union members in the manufacturing sector,
who were laid-off when Nike's executives earned the admiration
of their stockholders (and huge cash bonuses and stock options)
by taking their assembly lines offshore.
That, in a nutshell, microcosm, metaphor, whatever, is the story
of today's domestic economy. Manufacturing has gone global--thank
you, NAFTA and Pacific Rim--and taken the memory of the living
wage for the middle-class worker with it. Corporate profits are
up, the stock market is up, so the rich are getting richer, precisely
because the skilled manufacturing jobs have gone to the sweatshops
of Sri Lanka.
Unemployment is down here at home because everybody and his kid
just out of college is flipping burgers at McDonald's, which is
paying minimum wage, which, incidentally, when adjusted for inflation,
buys fewer french fries than it did 20 years ago.
And our only Democratic president since Jimmy Carter (and 19
percent inflation during the late 1970s) is pushing global economic
treaties like NAFTA and fast-track and others, both around the
Pacific and across Europe and what's left of the British Empire,
that only make it easier for American mega-corporations to go
cosmic and enrich their brass and their stockholders at the expense
of American workers.
At the risk of sounding isolationist, all we can do about it
is vote agin' it. And buy American. And boycott professional sports.
Because eventually those poor wogs putting the little bladders
in Air Jordans over in Bumfuck or wherever are going to go blind
or get black lung or begin to glow in the dark from toxic waste
or being cooped up in those factories for 22 hours a day, and
an outraged army of oppressed working men and women are going
to rise up in the righteous wrath and smite their wealthy overseers,
and even the folks in the foothills don't want that...
...Do they?
|