More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Richard (RJ) Eskow

GET UPDATES FROM Richard (RJ) Eskow

Hoodwinked! Selling Job Despair as "The New Normal"

Posted: 06/ 3/11 01:12 PM ET

In light of today's terrible job numbers, it's a bittersweet experience to re-read a recent report from Wells Fargo Bank which argues that high unemployment is "the new normal." While it's comforting to find Wells Fargo employees who aren't laundering money for the Mexican drug cartels, their report is one more ideologically-driven nail in the coffin of America's jobs agenda.

Ideology's not a bad thing in politics, but it is a bad thing when it's disguised as as a work of unbiased analysis. Despite their mild disclaimers, that's exactly the posture Wells Fargo's economists are adopting.

They may not even realize how biased and ideological their report is, and that's the problem. Almost three years later, people are still hewing to the flawed philosophies that led to the financial crisis. That prevents the country from taking steps to end the permanent recession that enshrouds whole segments of our population.

Let's be very clear about what these economists are selling: For decades, "full employment" meant that one out of twenty (5%) of working Americans was looking for work. As they found jobs, others became unemployed. Today the official unemployment rate is nearly twice that, 9.1%, and the unofficial rate is much higher. Many unemployed people are staying that way indefinitely, which means they're plunged into a cycle of hopelessness. An entire generation of young people is beginning its work life in a state of prolonged unemployment, and the jobless rate for African Americans is twice that of whites.

That's a national emergency. Yet, shockingly, almost nothing's being done about it. The White House is diffident about proposing bold initiatives to address the problem. Republicans are adamantly opposed to helping the unemployed at all, because that might create new pressure to tax their wealthy clientele. The Federal Reserve's efforts are enriching Wall Street but providing very little incentive for banks to lend and get the economy moving. Without relief, underwater homeowners aren't buying goods and services and can't move to find new jobs.

How can the country's leadership justify their inaction? That's where economists like the Wells Fargo team come in. Like the free-market actors they revere, they're filling a demand -- in this case, for certified experts who can justify inaction on technical-sounding grounds.

They claim that millions of Americans are unemployed, not because the economy needs more stimulus, but because they're not the workers employers want. The jobs are out there, say these economists, but unemployed Americans aren't right for them. As a result, the Wells Fargo team writes, "American workers will unfortunately have to get used to a higher 'normal' unemployment rate in the post-Great Recession era. By our calculations (that rate is) around 7.0 percent."

That's a popular opinion in some circles, because it lets a lot of powerful people off the hook. Even if they're wrong, these economists' continued employment is assured. (Talk about "moral hazard"!) And so, with a stroke of the pen, millions of Americans are dismissed from working life.

Predictably, conservative pop sociologist David Brooks argues that "more American men lack the emotional and professional skills they would need to contribute" in the workplace." (I wish Brooks had elaborated on those missing "emotional" skills. Are these men insufficiently submissive? Getting the wrong results on their Myers-Briggs tests? Are American men from Mars while employers are from Venus? Maybe there's a new book in the offing.)

Remarkably, Brooks somehow managed to discuss American unemployment without ever mentioning the recession. To be fair, he does wander from the "structural unemployment" reservation by observing that the nation should spend some money to address this problem. The argument's real value is that it can be used to argue that we can't spend money to fix it. We can only accept the fact that higher unemployment's here to stay.

To accept the "structural unemployment" argument, you have to believe that our economy radically changed in 2008. It's true that housing construction fell dramatically, costing up to two million jobs. But there are at least 25 million un- or under-employed. The reality is that 70% of our economic activity comes from consumer spending, and the "structural" argument suggests that our entire economy was driven by the now-burst housing bubble.

But we had much lower unemployment before the bubble than we do now. While NAFTA devastated large parts of the manufacturing job market, that doesn't come close to explaining today's numbers or suggest there's a "new normal." And it doesn't explain the high rates of unemployment among African Americans or young people.

The "structural" crowd offers very few prescriptions, and those they do offer don't make sense. More education? College graduates are educated, and they can't find jobs. Lower wages? Young people and minorities will accept lower wages, and they're still unemployed. Tax breaks for big business? They're already sitting on $2 trillion in cash, but they won't hire without consumers to buy their products.

Here's the reality: Thanks to Wall Street's mischief, consumers are mired in debt and states are laying off workers. The economy only added 54,000 jobs last month, and we'd need to add between 350,000 and 400,000 jobs a month for three years if we wanted to achieve 6% unemployment. That requires government investment, which is opposed by both the ideologues and the undertaxed wealthy.

The "structural unemployment" crowd argues that the workforce needs different workers. Apparently those workers need to be white people. And they better be over thirty (but under fifty). They can't live in certain Rust Belt areas, either (but then, they can't move in this housing market.) What these economists are really suggesting is that we discard entire groups of Americans, millions at a time, to avoid inconveniencing a certain clientele.

That may not be their objective. They may just be reflecting the biases of their peers, a group that clung to its worldview even after the events of 2008 discredited it. (In an entertaining essay, at least for econo-nerds, Mike Konczal observed that his graduate macroeconomics course was "the most ideologically indoctrinating class I've ever seen. By a mile.")

The new emphasis on "structural employment" is the latest intellectual trend among economists who have proven surprisingly responsive to the self-interest of the moneyed class. We know that at least one group of workers has adapted to meet the economy's new "structural" needs, thereby ensuring its own continued employment.

That group is Wall Street economists.

 

Follow Richard (RJ) Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow

 
 
  • Comments
  • 187
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:51 PM on 06/07/2011
Of course no one wants to employ a significant percentage of the population - democratic policy has rendered them addicts to entitlements.

The wasteland of democratic policy is not quite as bad as the wasteland of the Soviets, we still have a chance.

People try to get real for once in your lives. The assumption that there is a segment that needs government help and assistance is perhaps the most arrogant assumption in American history.
01:29 PM on 06/06/2011
I believe that American citizens have a right to a job that pays a living wage, and that the federal government should hire anyone willing to work. Economically, you incentivize things you want more of. Wouldn't it be better to pay people to work than to pay the costs of them not working?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
spinotter11
Spinning through life and trying to understand it.
01:40 PM on 06/06/2011
According to our current philosophy, best of all not to pay people at all. That's where we are right now.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:53 PM on 06/07/2011
Pretty soon, my friend, your little repository of equity, is going to be bankrupt. Your ideals are going to need to become practical very rapidly. That's a very tall order for the inexperienced.
12:11 PM on 06/06/2011
>>>>>"Ideology's not a bad thing in politics, but it is a bad thing when it's [WF jobs report] disguised as as a work of unbiased analysis."

Hey, you can't fault WellsFargo for telling the truth even if their report is not what most would consider a "scientific" analysis. WellsFargo is accurately pointing out the painful reality of our predicament: the accepted percentage of unemployed IS going to be 9-10% from now on. Get used to seeing the number, folks. In time we won't flinch seeing 10% anymore than we flinched when we saw 4-5% a few years ago.

Meanwhile the new permanently unemployed will make do by doubling and tripling up with friends and family members in similar circumstances in order to keep roofs over their heads, while dumpster diving, foraging and visiting local food banks and charities for their meals and clothing. Thankfully, the air is still free to breathe----so far. In this way the basic necessities of survival are met. Gradually these tens of millions of new down-and-outs will fade from our collective consciousness as the USA gradually morphs into another India.
photo
JBS
Part time misanthrope & full time curmudgeon
01:50 PM on 06/06/2011
But I can fault Wells Fargo for NOT telling the truth.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
becky bradshaw
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth
08:29 PM on 06/06/2011
Sadly true. Globalism is quickly resulting in a global standard of living. American and European incomes are averaged with incomes from the developing countries with populations of billions. Soon, American cities will resemble the cities of India, a handful of monstrous mansions surrounded by miles of slums with millions of people living in homes made from cardboard boxes and cow dung (http://www.walkthroughindia.com/lifestyle/major-slum-areas-in-top-indian-cities/).

But the good news is that there has never been a better time to be filthy rich. The number of mega-yachts has doubled in the last decade (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13345720/ns/business-cnbc_tv/#).

Fun yacht video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXVxPpvIszY
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
themodernleader
02:55 AM on 06/06/2011
This writer is politely writing that the ideas that please the big monied interests are the only ideas being allowed to dominate the market place of ides in this thought-control nation. In a declining organization the obvious condition can only be described circumspectively or inferentially to keep the censors away. We are more akin to the defeated Soviet Union of newspeak than we are to our original claim of a free society of readily available knowledge and information.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
spinotter11
Spinning through life and trying to understand it.
02:54 PM on 06/06/2011
I don't see any censorship of ideas. We all say whatever we want. It is in the realm of action that we are really deficient. The United States needs to get an extreme makeover, and no one is willing to join a movement and do what is necessary to achieve change.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Malcolm Hensley
Last of the Reagan Republicans
09:53 PM on 06/05/2011
Free trade is harming the planet! Why don't we try an environmen tal tax or tariff based on the transporta tion, manufactur ing, and sustainabi lity of products sold. This encourages local manufactur ing, this encourages environmen tally sound manufactur ing practices, nations exporting to America to be competitiv e would have to practice sound environmen tal manufactur ing practices. This reverses the damages done in the name of Free Trade!

Something to think about.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Malcolm Hensley
Last of the Reagan Republicans
09:53 PM on 06/05/2011
I have come to some conclusions!

Funny when we started to support Free Trade many of us thought we would be exporting American values and a model for other nations to build a middle class.

What we got was a Banana Republics Economy! The rich get richer and the middle class disappears!

We were taught what was good for Wall Street was good for America and as long as Wall Street and the large Corporations were limited in manufacturing in America because of tariffs it worked!

We purposely limited the size of banks but when they complained they were to small to compete with the large banks in Europe and Japan we allowed them to grow. What a mistake this was!

We need a new model.

Let's face it Free Trade was an old British Empire Economic Theory to make the rich richer and to save their Aristocracy. Free Trade still makes the rich richer and empowers the new Aristocracy, Wall Street Traders
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:55 PM on 06/07/2011
Let's face it, whatever your smoking is far more fun than facing reality.
photo
guveqzero
Inventor and Innovator
12:36 PM on 06/05/2011
Yes, this article is correct. Casting millions of Americans aside will ultimately destroy our country. No longer will families raise children to support fighting wars for the rich. And, any debts will be gladly defaulted. The banks and corporations will have to look elsewhere for suckers to buy their products and use their services.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
weekendpartier
I need some money!
03:58 AM on 06/06/2011
Yeah, this country is becoming more and more like a bad dystopian novel...worse than 1984...
photo
jeffrey678
You don't happen to make it. You make it happen.
12:01 PM on 06/05/2011
The inescapable conclusion that I come to regarding the government's inaction on the economy is that the people who run things like things just the way they are. Banks and corporations are doing fine, the Gop wants a bad economy, Dems don't want to anger corporate contributors. So this is working for the people who matter. Of course investment in infrastructure could work for everyone, a strong middle class would be nice as well but these opinions require a slightly humanist viewpoint.
Think about it, public discourse is about entitlement programs that Americans feel like they pay for with their taxes. No one talks about the fact the we are fighting THREE WARS with no return on investment or corporate welfare.
photo
SoylentGreenIsPeople
Hmmm........Tastes Like Chicken !
11:51 AM on 06/05/2011
There is a well-funded conservative political movement that is intentionally seeking to hold our economy down in order to achieve their political goal of defeating President Obama in 2012 and their ideological goal of destroying the social safety net. In other words, this isn't a mistake - it is intentional.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
spinotter11
Spinning through life and trying to understand it.
01:54 PM on 06/06/2011
Even if Obama is defeated in 2012, the powers that be have learned how beneficial it is to have a large reservoir of desperate unemployed workers, so why should they even try to restore any measure of prosperity once they elect their next puppet?
photo
jeffrey678
You don't happen to make it. You make it happen.
11:43 AM on 06/05/2011
Yes ... but prosperity is the enemy of making Obama a one term President and that is the #1 goal which trumps all other considerations. As Bill O'Reilly said on Charlie Rose : "It's a war Charlie. You do understand it's a war".
photo
democrats for life
republicans need not apply
11:13 AM on 06/05/2011
read the article and weep repub voters, the gop doesn't want to create jobs because it may cause a tax burden for the rich!!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Social Construct
Go left, young man.
10:44 AM on 06/05/2011
Wells Fargo School of Economics: Where Machiavelli meets Apartheid.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
spinotter11
Spinning through life and trying to understand it.
01:54 PM on 06/06/2011
A winning combination, it seems! Already fanned.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ChrisDWard
Real eyes realize real lies
04:22 AM on 06/05/2011
A very interesting article along these lines appears in the May 2011 issue of Vanity Fair, titled "The 1%, By the 1%, For the 1%" by Joseph Stiglitz. One statement in this article that gave pause was "....the more unequal society is, the more reluctant the wealthy become to spend on common needs. The rich don't need government benefits...they can buy these things for themselves." The author also notes that "...an economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year.... is not likely to do well over the long haul."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Under Fed yet Fed Up
Always great distaste for both political parties
09:27 PM on 06/04/2011
Irefuse to accept 7% as "normal" unemployment. I don't agree that government spending is required to create jobs. I am not waiting for the benevolence of the rich to wipe out our national debt.

We are American's. Get over it. And get off your butts. It is up to us to create the "normal" that we will accept.

Employed? Help your less fortunate friends and neighbors. Be selective where and how you spend your money to maximize the impact on our society. Tutor and mentor kids getting ready to enter the workforce. Ask your employer what it would take for him/her to hire more people.

Under employed? Get involved in the community. Make connections. Create a network of friends and those that might be willing to help you. Talk to people about their needs and what your community does not provide. THINK. Find a part time start-up business that fills a true need.

Unemployed? Spend no less than 10 hours a day with groups of people. Talk to and befriend everyone you possibly can. If you are on a first name basis with fewer than 250 people then you haven't truly spread yourself out. Join every group that you can. Work hard to contribute to your neghborhood, town, county or state. Your efforts will be noticed and rewarded.

If you are waiting for someone to fix your problems, you don't deserve the help. Those who get the most help are those that work hard to help themselves.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert SF
09:57 PM on 06/04/2011
At best, what you propose would fill the 3 million job openings with 3 million unemployed Americans. What about the other 12 million? You can't create jobs out of sheer wish power, I don't care what the book The Secret says.

What would it take for employers to hire more people? Need. It's really that simple. An employer must need another employee before the employer will hire one. Don't believe the nonsense about "uncertainty." There's a lot more uncertainty in Pakistan, and do American corporations invest there? Sure they do.

The problem right now, simply stated, is that there is no work that needs doing that it's not already someone's job to do. I know that's hard to understand, but we find ourselves with nothing to do at home all the time. The laundry's folded, the bookcase is neat, the floor's been vacuumed. You have nothing to do but stare into space. Anything you did would not be because it needed doing, but you'd do it just to avoid staring into space.

That's exactly where we find ourselves today. There is nothing to do that needs doing enough that someone's willing to pay for it.
04:22 PM on 06/06/2011
the "need" is down because demand is down
the demand is down because income is down (or non existant)
business wants customers just not the expense of workers
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Under Fed yet Fed Up
Always great distaste for both political parties
07:58 AM on 06/05/2011
From unemployme­nt, out of personal need, I created my company almost seven years ago using the methods described above. I now employ 64 people. This is a business niche that did not exist in this country.

So, I respectful­ly disagree that these techniques would only fill currently open positions. I believe Americans can create all of the jobs needed if they are willing to do the hard work of identifyin­g needs that are going unmet. And you don't do that sitting at home looking for work on the computer.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Social Construct
Go left, young man.
10:53 AM on 06/05/2011
Ah, the "only if everyone were like me" egocentrism. I applaud your effort and obvious hard work. No doubt you've earned your success. However, expressing a belief that people must follow narrow confines of behaviors in order to advance within a given society is reminiscent of styles of social engineering that remind me of some absolutist and dogmatic forms of governance. Your list of suggestions may work for many people but not all people. Especially in a nation as diverse and individualistic as the US.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Social Construct
Go left, young man.
02:23 AM on 06/06/2011
Now that you got me ticked off, what is this niche business, anyway? Perhaps I could quit my present job and find success as you have.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert SF
08:22 PM on 06/04/2011
Yes, and the hoodwinking has been going on for more than 30 years. You can see wage stagnation starting in the 70s, first in just a few sectors, and then more broadly. You also see the rise of the temp workers since the 90s. Over the decades, through friendly public policies and lowered taxes, the wealthy class, the upper 5%, has taken an increasingly larger share of the American pie, leaving each time a smaller piece for the other 95% of America.