LyrArc Article Gist
Raising the minimum wage makes sense because it is low and has not caught up with inflation. In real terms it is lower today than in the 1960's, even though productivity has doubled, which is why it makes sense. Economic sudies show that it is not likely to reduce jobs.

LyrArc Article Gist
Christina Romer, Prof. of Economics at the University of California, Berkeley, was chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisors under U.S. president Obama. Here she discusses the different aspects of the debate on raising the minimum wage. Romer says the negative effects on unemployment are small. The impact on consumer spending is also limited. The anti-poverty effects are real for raising the minimum wage from the current $7.25 an hour, says Romer, as over half the families earning a minimum wage make less than $40,000 an hour. President Obama called for raising the minimum wage to $9 an hour in 2013. Studies show 13 million U.S. workers earning less than $9 an hour. Raising the incomes of these families by about $3500 an year under the president's proposal gives workers badly needed income to cope with rising cost of gas, food and other basic necessities. The effects on consumer spending are small, estimated at between $10 to $20 billion. Its main virtue is keeping the principle of fairness and maintaining social cohesion at a time of increaing inequality. Romer says there is competition for workers which makes it possible for workers at the lower end to get a fair wage, but does not account for the effect of high unemployment which takes pressure off raising the minimum wage in the market economy. Another benefit for countries of keeping a fair minimum wage is that other actions can be taken to improve competitiveness for business and manufacturing and reducing the deficit and be seen in a positive context of overall improvement. This is part of the case made in Europe for boosting the mnimum wage as austerity measures are taking place....

LyrArc Article Gist
Galston cites a Federal Reserve Board of Chicago 2014 study showing setbacks for black people in achieving improvement in income status. Even for children born into middle income black families about 55% are expected to fall below middle income status compared to 36% for children of white middle income families. The problem is not just the gap as Galston points out but what it says for the declining income mobility for the white middle class when 36% are likely to see declining status and prospect for the future, and 23% will see no improvement. Overall it shows a lack of income and social mobility for whites and minorities alike compared to the past improvements since the 1960's, not a bright prospect and less hope for the future the way things are, and why so many of the establishment candidates and existing policies are being questioned by voters.

LyrArc Article Gist
David Barboza tells the story of Tan Guocheng in a continuation of exceptional journalism following workers like Yuan Yangdong on a production line at Foxconn and now Guocheng on a production line at Honda. Young migrant workers caught up in the first wave of urbanization in China and in the middle of sweeping change. Guocheng stops a production line and leads a strike at a Honda plant in China which is followed by Honda increasing wages by 32%.

LyrArc Article Gist
The astounding fact in this French FR24 report on the Paris Climate Change Agreement and country carbon emissions show that China's emissions accelerated to rise 3 fold in 2015 to about 12 billion tons of carbon emissions from about 4 billion in 2000. US remains at about 6 billion. India is at about 3 billon tons of carbon emissions, about where China was in 2000 when it had about 4 billion tons of carbon emissions. This is shown in the graph on carbon emissions from FR24. The US, European Union graph curves on tons of carbon emissions since 2000 are all flat or declining, India rising slowly from a small base, China's curve is rising straight up from a large enough base at an unbelievable and dangerous rate. What has happened and is it getting worse? China's economy expanded too quickly as globalization was accelerated by banks, and business in the US and Europe, and by the Chinese governments at the local level and the state level. This had negative consequences for US, Europe and China. The too fast growth in China at rates of 10-15% based solely on False GDP indicators that did not take into account damage to the environment and workers was that it hurt manufacturing and working class in US and Europe and contaminated the environment. This was not like growth of Japan in 1960-1980, a smaller country in the way it affected the US and European working classes. Hyper Growth at 10-15% of a large country with 1 billion people compressed over a short period, is cited by Greg Ip in the WSJ as the cause of the negative impact on America.  It hurt China through pollution of rivers and land at an accelerated pace. It hurt China as trade with US and Europe became unsustainable with the loss of manufacturing in the US and Europe leading to a trade war. From these graphs of emissions it now appears that the 3 fold rise in carbon emissions from about 4 billion tons in 2000 to about 12 billion tons in 2015 is the result of unregulated business activity of all those who preferred to push hyper growth in China purely for reasons of profit such as investment banks and corporations in US, Europe, and state or local companies in China.  This has also aggravated inequality in US, Europe and China, and hurt rural populations. Xi Jinping is attempting to correct this in China, Biden is trying to correct this in the US, and Scholz will now attempt to correct this in Germany and the European Union. It is also to be noted that China in 2000-2015 did not have the benefit of the newer technologies that India now has access to, which is why India says it is able to reduce carbon emissions per each unit of GDP by 35% from 2005 levels by 2030. It is this efficiency in producing units of GDP with newer and newer technologies that China lacked in its period of hyper growth 2000-2015 that now looks to have hurt China- with overflow of highly polluting steel mills and other factories which it would prudently and wisely have cut back on. Looking back at this period one sees the wholesale transfer of highly polluting plants in Germany being sold and put up in China, a poor developing country in 2000. Was this a good decision for Germany or for China? In this way the banks and large corporations in the US and Europe who use economic indicators that are limited such as dollar profits, without overall indicators that include negative effect damage to the environment that requires huge investments to correct, problems of trade wars leading to political conflicts, are acting like a person walking blindly in one direction.  With some foresight China and all its trading partners would have done better with slower but more careful Chinese growth of 7-8% that would have better met societal goals in US, Europe and China, avoiding high carbon emissions segments of industries from Day 1. Jinping is doing this in China, and Biden is doing this in the US- cutting out highly polluting factories and segments of industries- but in a climate of mutual distrust, which could have benefitted the world when conducted in a climate of cooperation and trust. The pandemic made the situation even more difficult. Power shortages in factories and blackouts in Chinese cities have led to a reversal of policies on use of coal in China months before the COP26 Glasgow conference and G-20 summit leaving a huge gap. Without the presence of Xi Jinping at COP26 in Glasgow and with Chinese participation uncertain significant progress on climate change is elusive. Estimates by US Renewable Energy Agency is that it would cost $131 trillion to pay for limiting emissions to global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius. Some major share of this cost can be attributed to the increase from about 4 billion tons in 2000 of carbon emissions in China to about 12 billion tons in 2015, increase by 3 times. One can clearly see from this sudden jump in carbon emissions in China that policies of hyper growth with unregulated polluting industries adding to GDP growth figures was bad policy for China, bad policy for US, and Europe, even if it offered temporary profits for individual companies. India has the advantage of learning from this experience and charting its own wiser course as a partner with US, Europe and Japan and by Modi's vigorous efforts in renewable energy. The lesson- look at all indicators of progress, including climate and society, not just economic indicators in profit or dollar terms, take the tough decisions early in regulating polluting companies and industry segments, and bring full and active public participation with transparent access to data on climate damaging activity in real time because climate and the environment we live in free of polluting substances belongs to all the people, belongs to all life on the planet from trees to animals and birds, not companies that can choose to ignore it. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Tankersley points to the broken links between economic growth and growth in jobs and incomes since 1989, which have created a shrinking U.S. middle class. In the postwar period before 1989, a one percent increase in economic growth generated a six tenths of one percent increase in jobs growth during economic recoveries. During the 1992 recovery under George Bush this was down to 0.4%. In the 2001 recovery under George W. Bush this dropped to 0.2%, during the current recovery under Obama this is at 0.3%. Income growth also showed a similiar pattern. Median household incomes declined from 1990-1992 and from 2002-2004, after adjusting for inflation, even with economic growth of 6% during this period. For the 2009-2011 recovery period the economic growth was about 4% yet real median incomes increased barely at 0.5%. By contrast from 1982 to 1984 with economic growth of 11%, real median incomes went up by 5%. The result workers median wages are lower now in the beginning of 2013, after inflation adjustment, than at the end of 2003, and real household income lower in 2011 than in 1989, says Tankersley. Why were the recoveries of 1990 and 2001 for the most part jobless? U.S. Federal Reserve studies show employers mindset had changed, instead of hiring back laid off workers during recoveries, employers did not add many jobs. Automation in factories requiring fewer workers, global outsourcing and supply chains, manufacturing overseas, lack of union-management cooperation on wages and jobs in industries such as the auto industry, increase in temp workers, all played a part in creating fewer and fewer good paying jobs. Some of this is playing out worldwide. In Japan the economic recovery has also come with similiar costs- moving jobs overseas for the auto and electronics industries, increase in temporary worker jobs with lower pay and benefits to about one third of all jobs, and depressed consumer spending as a result lowering the economic growth potential. Even the recent German economic recovery has come with an increase in lower paying temporary jobs and driven by exports to Asia. For the U.S. the situation was worsened by three additional factors- housing foreclosures and the hit to savings from the 2008 financial crisis, high cost of college tution and resulting debt, and the high cost of medical care. The Obama administration's effort to increase the minimum wage would help the poor, but do little to address the broken links between economic growth and jobs growth/income growth. The push for college education does not address affordability and neglects jobs training. Most of the questions raised by the changing patterns remain unanswered, which may be why Obama calls this a generation's task, not that of one administration....

LyrArc Article Gist
The stark differences in the policy positions of the two major parties in the U.S. seen emerging in the television debates. Trump vocal on immigration calling for large deportations. Sanders and Clinton vocal on the struggles of the middle class and white working class.

LyrArc Article Gist
WSJ reporter Monica Langley provides a glimpse behind the scenes of how Donald Trump comes up with his attacks on rivals, and statements on immigration, terrorism, refugees. Trump pays close attention to what is riling voters on any particular week, but other rival politicians are not willing to say. He looks for what resonates with the public, and in today's environment where politicians are cautious, careful and plodding, this strategy works. Donald usually puts down a few points on his private plane, looks at reports from campaign staff, yet makes all the decisions himself on what and how to say it. His memory helps, he says. And he has a flair for words, sounding uncouth at times, but yet choosing words carefully enough to sound reasoanble to his audience. In Jan 2016 this approach has worked for Trump in the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, stalling progress by rival Ted Cruz, and holding back other rivals. Yet this approach has its risks as the primary season progresses. One of the changes in the Republican party politics in 2016 is the emergence of two candidates Donald Trump representing the white working class, and Ted Cruz representing evangelicals, who are both strident and willing to take strong positions on issues in striking contrast to leading Democrats. Trump on China, immigration, refugees, and Cruz on taxes, cultural issues for evangelicals, IRS, Affordable Health Care Act, and both candidates on terrorism. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Jim Vandehei, Politico founder, is from two small towns, Oshkosh, Wisconsin, and Lincoln, Maine, and understands what it is like for ordinary Americans struggling to make it. Sanders and Trump are riding an anti-establishment wave, says Vandehei, but do not have programs that would lead to growth and jobs. Something better is needed, he says, to tackle today's problems- poverty, trade, wages, and jobs for working class families.

LyrArc Article Gist
Jerry Muller, professor of history at the Catholic University of America, offers some useful insights into the nature of inequality in advanced capitalist societies and other parts of the world, and a clear eyed way to tackle the problem of inequality. Tackling the problem should be done in a way that preserves the economic protections for the middle class and the poor which are needed for capitalism to work- unemployment insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Earned Income Credit, and the Affordable Care Act. Much of this system is already in place in advanced capitalist societies. Incremental gains in this area will be much smaller and it is important to recognize the need for strengthening the economic engine that supports these benefits, says Muller. Economic dynamism has to be preserved and nurtured with human capital deployed in the best possible way, and competitiveness of countries increased. Each country and society has to find its own way of achieving this. The family matters, and matters a lot in taking advantage of educational opportunity, says Muller. The culture of different ethnic, immigrant groups, also matter. These differences were present in earlier periods in the nineteenth and twentieth century and are likely to remain. Strengthening the pool of human capital and deploying it is essential to progress. In an earlier book "Adam Smith In His Time and Ours- Designing a Decent Society," Muller emphasized the importance Smith placed on the civic duty of citizens to promote the welfare of the whole society, and the importance of education, family and moral character, with no substitute for the "general prevalence of wisdom and virtue." ...