"The Great Depression of 1929 struck the United States like a biblical plague, shuttering factories, closing banks, foreclosing on farms, and putting as many as one out of three workers on the street. Unemployment jumped from fewer than 500,000 workers to more than four million between October and December 1929, and millions more could find only part-time work. Almost everyone felt insecure. Those who had jobs feared losing them; those without work worried about what would become of their families." (Source: Who Built America? (Volume Two) by Roy Rosenzweig et al.
When Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in March of 1933, he responded to those fears, declaring: "The nation calls for action and action now." And then he took action -- plenty of it -- with the National Industrial Recovery Act, comprised of a wide array of programs.
During the first three years of the Great Depression, strikes were virtually nonexistent as union membership dropped to less than 10% of the national workforce. The United Mine Workers in particular suffered, as miners continued to work 12 to 14 hours a day for very low pay in chronically unsafe and unhealthy conditions while living in company-owned housing and towns. The problems were particularly acute and cruel in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. But with the inauguration of the new president, workers everywhere dramatically began to embrace collective action, and by June 17, 1933, the day after Roosevelt signed the NIRA, 80% of Ohio miners had signed union cards.
In early May 1935, however, the Supreme Court threw the labor side of the economic recovery back into complete disarray when it struck down the NIRA. Not long after, Eleanor Roosevelt, a consistent advocate for workers and workers' rights, on May 21, 1935, shocked the nation -- and the editors of the nations' newspapers -- by touring a coal mine.
According to the New York Times, Mrs. Roosevelt "smiling with eagerness as she reached the mine shaft" declined the new pair of overalls provided for her, donned a grey coat and a miner's hard hat, and headed two miles into the mine. For over an hour and a half she discussed wages and working conditions, safety precautions and mining methods with the four hundred miners, black with coal dust, working in the two-mile stretch. (Many believe she was the first woman ever to go underground in Appalachia, defying both an age-old superstition that it brought bad luck for a woman to go into a coal mine and the equally long-held bias against women in the workplace.)
It is important to this story to also know that back on June 3, 1933, just three months after FDR's inauguration, a New Yorker magazine cartoon, with an especially cruel caricature of Mrs. Roosevelt, ridiculed the idea that she might ever dare go into a coal mine. Well now she had gone into one, forthrightly, courageously and with great sensitivity for the workers she met.
A short while later, in a piece she entitled "In Defense of Curiosity," Mrs. Roosevelt responded to the cartoon and to those who had said "there certainly was something the matter with a woman who wanted to see so much and to know so much." In her article, now cited as one of the earliest and most effective arguments on behalf of the rights of women in the modern era, she wrote:
Somehow or other, most of the people who spoke to me, or wrote to me about it, seemed to feel that it was unbecoming in a woman to have a variety of interests. Perhaps that arose from the old inherent theory that woman's interests must lie only in her home. This is a kind of blindness which seems to make people feel that interest in the home stops within the four walls of the house in which you live. Few seem capable of realizing that the real reason that home is important is that it is so closely tied, by a million strings, to the rest of the world. It is man's ceaseless urge to know more and to do more which makes the world move, and so, when people say woman's place is in the home, I say that caring will take her far and wide.Now, bearing in mind Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt's abiding commitment to workers, economic justice and a vibrant middle class that grows from the bottom up, contrast President Obama's seeming inattention today to fixing real unemployment and improving workers' rights with Candidate Obama's speech on July 2, 2008, to the United Steelworkers in which he said, "The reason I'm running for President is because I don't want to wake up one day many years from now and see that we're still standing idly by while even more plants are shut down, and even more jobs are shipped abroad, and even more workers are denied the good benefits and decent wages they deserve."
The Roosevelts' words and Candidate Obama's words are certainly from the same hymnal, but not yet their respective actions. The current Recession so mirrors the Great Depression of 1929 that the opening quote of this piece, if written today, would just as soberingly read: The Great Recession of 2007 struck the United States like a biblical plague, shuttering factories, closing banks, and putting as many as one out of ten workers on the street. Unemployment jumped from 7.7 million workers to 14.9 million between December 2007 and February 2010, and 14.9 million more can find only part-time work, have become 'marginally attached', or have left the workforce because they are discouraged. And it is wrong for President Obama now to be breaking or delaying so many of the promises to America's workers that were the hallmarks of his 2008 Campaign.
As U.S. Representative Tom Perriello, a Virginia Democrat, says, "The elites in the media and the Senate are already out of the depression," but the nearly 30 million real unemployed workers in America are far from out of it. (Incidentally, Congressman, there are more than a few "elites" in the House as well.)
The line then-Senator Obama voiced that so helped define Candidate Obama for me came when he said: "Change is a President who welcomes [American workers] into the White House and who will finally make the Employee Free Choice Act the law of the land." The 2008 campaign was for me all about issues, and in those few words Candidate Obama spoke to workers' issues with an eloquence reminiscent of the Roosevelts.
Yet fast forwarding all of about 21 months, we hear today on background from a senior administration official that David Axelrod, the president's top political adviser, "will tell us they won because of character, not issues," and that this view is now the "touchstone for how they [the administration] think about the world."
Well, John McCain has a ton of character -- certainly more than enough to be president -- and I know firsthand that in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana and Ohio, he did not lose 'because of character.' He lost because workers there and elsewhere, in the midst of a really crappy economy and unparalleled income inequality, much preferred Candidate Obama's issues.
And, with fully 13 million more real unemployed workers just since Inauguration Day (not the '8-million-since-the-Recession-began' figure that the administration uses) and with the percentage of unionized workers in the private sector at 8%, lower than any point in the 20th century, six of those issues, those promises, are even more resonant today. Candidate Obama demanded:
Now it's time - past time in fact - for President Obama to follow through, as none of these six has come to pass.
Going back to Candidate Obama's line about "Change" being about 'welcoming' workers, Eleanor Roosevelt certainly welcomed them -- and when they couldn't come to her, she even went two miles underground to meet with them. And her husband, after the court struck down the NIRA, used every bit of his energy and political skill to enact the National Labor Relations Act, which guaranteed workers the right to freely organize their own unions, strike their employers and banned "unfair labor practices."
I had the privilege of helping write that 2008 speech in which Candidate Obama told the United Steelworkers and the nation the many things that "Change Is," and while I believe he would give the same speech today -- and might well even do his own coal mine tour -- I now question whether we will ever see any meaningful follow-through.
The point -- and the problem -- is the sharp contrast between "the Roosevelts' words and actions" and "Candidate Obama's promises." President Obama needs to feel in his core what Eleanor Roosevelt felt touring that coal mine in Ohio, and remember how to talk with angry working-class people. And when he does, his own promises will turn into actions and the nation will again believe that he and his administration deeply care about and will diligently work to alleviate the plight of America's workers and the middle class.
Leo Hindery, Jr. is Chairman of the Economic Growth/Smart Globalization Initiative at the New America Foundation and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Currently an investor in media companies, he is the former CEO of Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI), Liberty Media and their successor AT&T Broadband. He also serves on the Board of the Huffington Post Investigative Fund.
Here are the facts:
US manufacturing output was twice as high in 2007 as in 1980;
The share of the workforce employed in manufacturing peaked in the mid-1920s (when it was around one quarter, meaning that even then around three-quarters of the workforce was employed in services and agriculture);
Manufacturing peaked as a share of the entire economy in 1953, when it was less than 30% of the economy, meaning that even then around 70% of the economy was services and agriculture;
The share of US imports that come from East Asia (including China) was smaller in 2007 than it was in 1994 (when China fixed its currency). China has simply partially replaced other East Asian countries as a place of final assembly;
This relative (not absolute) decline of manufacturing reflects the experience of all countries as they become more highly developed;
The middle class (household income between $35,000 and $75,000 in real 2007 dollars) shrunk from 1970 to 2007 (from just over 40% of households to just over 30% of households). So did the lower class (household income below $35,000). The upper class (household income over $75,000) rose from less than 20% of households to over 30%.
-RLee
http://therleepost.blogspot.com
Are those almost 70m jobs the "remaining decent jobs" you are referring to?
Is the obstacle the 40 votes they had in the Senate? Or the minority they have in House? Damn that pesky minority. Let's face it. There is no difference between candidate Obama and President Obama. He still talks with glittering prose. He has the ability to inspire with speeches. He is still a big "celebrity". What is not different is his ability to govern and make decisions. He was always an empty vessel (and an empty suit) for Americans to project their "hope" following the tragic Presidency of George Bush. If Americans were smarter people, we would have realized he would be an entirely inadequate President. He still thinks he can vote "present" as President (turning over the Stimulus and Health Care to Congress?!?) and get by on speeches. It doesn't work that way in the big chair. There is nothing different about then and now. Only the position he is in. Our reaction to our bad choice of George Bush was Obama. Now my fear that our reaction to that bad decision is going to be Sarah Palin. And then, God help us.
Democrats are still happy... stop trying to steal that the day after. We have lots of time to whine we don't get everything we want. Right now.. let us remember what a win feels like so that we will aim for more.
Your doom drum is a bummer.
He is a logical leader. More power to him. If the liberals make a good enough case based on logic over histrionic emotion Obama will come around. The republicans have already lost his ear because they rave emotional hyperbole and can't back their claims with credible economic evidence for their ideas.
Lets compare Michelle to President Roosevelt that would be productive.
Implying that the time Obama took office "mirrors" the time when Roosevelt took office?
Oh lets see, Obama took office AS THE CRISIS WAS HAPPENING and Roosevelt took office like 3 years later. Roosevelt had a cooperative congress and passed 15 major bills through congress in 100 days.
We now have Replicans who probably fight over the toilet paper order (We want Charmin, oh you order Charmin, we wont take anything but Scott) I got sucked into reading this by the Eleanor Roosevelt teaser but come on, the rest seems to ignore history and some crucial facts.
I am sure you helped write a great speech for the pres though.
The Disemboweling of America
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36002
NAFTA and the World
http://www.mbginfosvcs.com/pdfs/Nafta-wd.pdf
NAFTA After Ten Years
http://www.citizen.org/publications/publicationredirect.cfm?ID=7295
The High Price of "Free" Trade
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/briefingpapers_bp147/
Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Working for North America's Workers
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/bp173
Median household income in 1994 was around $45,000 (2007 dollars). In 2007, 13 years after NAFTA, it was around $50,000. In 1981, 13 years before NAFTA, it was $42,000. So did households do better in the 13 years leading up to NAFTA or in the 13 years after NAFTA?
As for the EPI article, that is just their usual garbage that the trade deficit caused job losses. The U.S. non-oil goods trade deficit fell to $283 billion in 2009. This compares to $317 billion in 2000 and $520 billion in 2006 . I trust that you are enjoying the booming economic times and low unemployment that have accompanied this long-desired cut in the non-oil goods trade deficit!!
You say that like you're proud of it. That's so sad.
Imposing extra taxes on companies that move jobs overseas may sound good at first pass, but studies have shown that those overseas jobs often create supporting jobs here in the states.
If we want to reward companies that create jobs here, and if we want to encourage such job growth in the first place, we could start by lowering our confiscatory business tax of 35% (the second highest in the world) and by reduciing the capital gains tax.
I oppose the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act because it would abolish the secret ballot and enable workers to be bullied or intimidated into forming unions against their will. If you think there's a problem with companies moving overseas now, just wait till the secret ballot is abolished and unions start coercing more work forces to unionize.
I'm not sure what an "all-of-government manufacturing and jobs policy" means.
This is a reality, as is the availability of extremely cheap assembly-line labor in some parts of the world.
These days, high-wage manufacturing is, almost by definition, publicly subsidized manufacturing. As such, the more of it you have, the greater the opposition to it on cost grounds. For this reason alone, the idea of a "new worker's paradise" (or return to the old one) is a dead letter.
Are there issues/problems with losing the ability, as a nation, to "make our own stuff"? Yes, I think so. Going too far down this road (perhaps we already have) is going to have some bad effects in the long run.
Does it make simple common sense for all the stuff in our stores to have to be shipped in from the other side of the world? Not really, though the short-term economic incentives for it can be major.
However, the idea that the USA is going to be able to be some sort of walled-off garden wherein a high number of high-wage, high-benefit manufacturing jobs are the sustainment of a flourishing middle-class is not realistic. Those days are gone forever.
The good jobs now and for the future are related to that "automation and new technology" already mentioned. IOW, related to replacing repetitive manual labor with more efficient (and less directly job-producing) processes.
Yes we can, and we can do it without you or even despite you.
As for the HCR insurance company subsidy bill: people like me who are too poor to buy insurance will only be hurt by this monstrously stupid piece of legislation. Now we will likely never see real healthcare reform in our lifetimes.
As for that economic collapse B.O. supposedly prevented: the huge number of jobless, homeless, retirementless, healthcareless, and hopeless Americans would disagree
As for dissent against the President being counter productive: Isn't that what W's supporters said? And yes, please "do it" without me.
As for your hardship, for which I have sympathy, the new HCR bill does provide for subsidies for the poor which should greatly reduce your cost for mandated health insurance.
It is objectively apparent that the economy has steadied over the past few months. The rate of job loss has almost leveled to nil.
Dissent is important - as American as apple pie. Dissident voices against GW Bush were important and helped awake the American people to his unjust tax policy, illegal war and cronyism.
My point is that for the United Mine Workers Union spokesman to be critical of President Obama is rather stupid. Like many such critics, he seems intent on just getting attention for his cause, which the President does support. Now I doubt this matters to you as you too seem intent on attacking without regard to the facts.
And yes, we will be pleased to do it without you.
That's Tevye's lament to his wife about changes in the world. Though he was speaking about social traditions and not economics, it's an apt analogy to the above subject matter.
Without doing a treatise on the differences between then and now, suffice it to say they are there and they are substantial. That isn't to say we have no options or opportunities, but it is to say that not all of the paths taken by FDR are appropriate or useful today. There are some basic rules of economics that are the same, and it is those which should be attended.
Unfortunately, I do not think either the President or the Democrats (or Republicans for that matter) understand economics well enough to affect a controlled rejuvenation of our economy. It may in fact have to happen on its on over a long period of time; that's my lament.
-RLee
http://therleepost.blogspot.com
It is my lament that some people actually believe this kind of tripe. We know what killed our economy. It was deregulation, stupid trade policies and a watered down labor code. How do we know these things??? We had government regulation of essential industries, protective tariffs, and a strong labor code when our economy grew to be the most prosperous in the world. Now that we no longer have those things, we also no longer have the most prosperous economy in the world....Duh....
I know exactly what bought on the current economic calamity, laissez-faire attitudes in the transacting of financial products. That led to the housing market collapse and brought our collective house down. That we don't have have other productive sectors and are so reliant upon our own consumer spending is a cause for the severity and the longevity of the recession/depression.
The rest of the world is not the same world which the U.S. sat amid in the 1930's,40's and 50's. We held distinct advantages. You want the benefits of tariffs? Those are easily seen, especially when you are without them. But you ignore the downsides of those same measures. You think you can provide more jobs here while still enjoying lower costs on your weekly purchases?
We simply have to work harder at competing now.
Protecting business from competition is a double edged sword. We did that initially for the airlines to allow them the ability to survive economically by limiting who could fly where in the U.S. That was fine as the industry was in its infancy. But as the industry matured, it became a detriment to the public good. Routes were protected and competition was snuffed, airlines enjoyed unparalleled price protection, and flourished financially. Pilots demanded and got a piece of that money pie.