A good piece in the Post:
“Those of us who live in the world of poverty research and rigorous measurement have watched many global indicators improve consistently for the past few decades. Between 1990 and 2013 (the last year for which there is good data), the number of people living in extreme poverty dropped by more than half, from 1.85 billion to 770 million. As the University of Oxford’s Max Roser recently put it, the top headline every day for the past two decades should have been: “Number of people in extreme poverty fell by 130,000 since yesterday.” At the same time, child mortality has dropped by nearly half, while literacy, vaccinations and the number of people living in democracy have all increased.”
This is the part of globalization that is tough for people like me who are concerned about rising inequality and stagnant incomes. If all I cared about was the United States or the developed world as whole I would be right to be worried. In point of fact I am RIGHT to be worried.
But as I saw in China, it is a simple fact that globalization has helped the majority of mankind. Ironically on a GLOBAL basis one can argue inequality is actually decreasing The best measure of inequality, GINI, actually declined marginally between 1988 and 2008, though the subject is complicated, and some dispute the measurement.
Of course there is little question life expectancy is increasing on a global basis:
Life expectancy across the globe has increased by five years since 2000, the fastest rise in lifespans since the 1960s, according to the World Health Organisation (WHO).
Less noticed is the global decline in violence – a truth that to any watcher of TV news would find incomprehensible. But globally the number dying in battles is at near lows , and on percentage basis fewer are being killed than at any time in human history.
Beyond the decline in deaths from wars there is of course the decline in crime in the US – by most measures near century lows. This is another case where people simply don’t believe it – but that doesn’t make it any less true. This is not just a US phenomenon, globally murder rates have dropped. The data on mass killings is pretty clear as well – it has declined significantly over the last 30 years.
This period of history is not “uniquely dangerous”. Certainly it is far less dangerous than it was during the Cold War.
What I think is striking is how most people would react to this news. One of the biggest challenges developed economies face is from automation. Grim reports exist about the loss of jobs.
But even here there is irony. If a robot can do a boring task isn’t it in the grand scheme of things positive? The failure is rather in our ability to figure out how to make sure everyone benefits.
The problem with all of this happy talk is the environment – and there I have no happy story to tell. In fact, when you attempt to actually look at reality (as opposed to applying some preconceived notion of it) this is surely the single biggest problem we face. And here I have no happy talk to share with Trump coming into office.
It is a simple truth – perhaps it is part of the nature of our species – that fear governs so much of our perception of the world. But that fear distorts. It is not the truth that in general the world is going to hell in hand basket. It is not true that for most people on this planet life is getting worse. A global war is is less likely than it was 35 years ago.
The West could become food sufficient if Monsanto allows… You know Africans are facing jail time for seed sharing?
Isn’t it interesting that as all of these things have been happening worldwide, during the same period of time the U.S. has experienced a steady downturn of its economy, its social relations on all levels and its moral standing in general in the eyes of the world.
MLK Jr. knew how it works.
Since the Long Coup of the assassination years, the U.S. has been steadily on the losing end of that arc.
The reaction of its controllers so far?
Maybe it’s time to start worrying.
Past time!
Ya think!!!???
AG
And some not so good news… Nearly 1 in 100 worldwide are now displaced from their homes. As of the end of 2015, the number of displaced people in the world – more than 60 million – is at its highest since World War II. Conflict in Syria has been the principal contributor to the recent growth in the world’s displaced population.
A lot of that is on us.
Some other notable findings at this link…http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/12/21/16-striking-findings-from-2016/
How many in the USA were dispossessed in the Great Recession? I think more than 1%. The onus of that is on the bankers, the Clintons and Congress.
OECD 2016 Income inequality update — Income inequality remains high in face of weak recovery. This report covers OECD countries only.
The US poverty rate has ticked up from 17.4 in 2007 to 17.5 in 2014+. Link for US poverty table. Not a pretty picture for children.
OECD is mostly the industrialized first world.
As I noted, globalization has not benefited the bottom 50% in those countries.
One can say that the working class in the first world has been sacrificed on the alter of improving living standards in the Third World.
GINI declined in the US between 2012 and 2014, suggesting income inequality declined. There is some evidence that those at the bottom of the later have FINALLY seen some benefit in the last two reports have read.
I am not surprised by the reaction to all of this though: good news just doesn’t sell.
You write:
Sure it does. But only when it has not been cherrypicked from massive bad news.
I don’t believe that you did the cherrypicking, fladem. That is done on a daily basis by elements of the globalist Permanent Government trying to shore up their rapidly collapsing system in the face of radically changing balances in world power.
The bottom line truth of the matter?
Too many people, less and less necessary work due to surging technological progress and its physical result, robotization.
Something’s gotta give.
What has given so far?
The inflated standard of living for the working and middle classes of the developed world….artificially inflated by the century-long success of economic imperialism. That success is now waning in the face of surging economies such as China’s and violent resistances that are bolstered by religious faith.
The so-called “third world” is…fairly successfully so far except in much of Africa…rebelling against its centuries-old serfdom. Wait’ll the rest of Africa gets into the act!!!
Or…wait until the whole scene collapses due to over-technologization.
Or…wait until a real life, politically organized Neo-Luddite movement arises.
It’ll happen.
I can see it now.
it’s coming.
Bet on it.
That was the social force/social fear that drove the success of the Terminator films, beginning way back in 1984. George Orwell was right on the money with the date. He just got the problem slightly wrong.
Later…
ASG
Yesterday I was approached by a woman in a SUBWAY sandwich shop, begging for money for a hotel room (cheapest is around $120 here). She said she was homeless and had frostbite. If she wanted a sandwich I would have sprung for it, but a hotel room is way too much for my blood. Driving home we noticed a bag lady at the abandoned Mobil station. These were firsts, although panhandlers in strip mall parking lots first appeared two years ago, around the same time as pawn shops. Beggars, pawn shops, homeless, empty strip malls, yeah it’s that wonderful Obama economy. Property tax assessments just jumped 38% too. This is a Democratic state. Why?
Why?
Because the society is in tatters, that’s why.
I was driving back home from DC to NYC many years ago and traffic dead-stopped on I-95 somewhere in Maryland for about 20 minutes. This was well before cellphones and the generally hooked-up life that we currently live, but many truckers had CB radios. After a while I got out of my car and asked the trucker next to me if he knew what the trouble was up ahead. He looked down at me out of his cab and said “Too many cars; not enough road.”
Yup.
Too many people; not enough work.
Now…”Why that!!!???” is the real question. Worldwide overpopulation has a great deal to do with it, but it is not the only answer by a long shot. Neither is the corporate-based sell-off of the U.S. industrial base in the quest for obscene profits, although that too is part of the problem. So is the technological revolution and its concomitant robotics.
However, the real, root reason is fairly simple.
The .01% that controls most of the wealth on this planet considers the non-.01% to be…to put it mildly…expendable.
Of use only as worker drones.
Now…quite suddenly in terms of the rate of previous history… there are simply too many worker drones, and there is no practical way to cull the herd. Mass murder is so messy, don’tcha know!!! It also seems to have become increasingly impractical given the current unfortunate proliferation of nuclear weapons in the brownish countries that would be at the head of the culling line if the controllers had their way.
What to do, what to do!!!???
They really don’t have an answer, so they have basically simply taken their hands off the wheel and are now letting the society putter away down a long, ugly road that leads to…as you put it…”Beggars, pawn shops, homeless, empty strip malls,” etc. It also leads to skyrocketing murder rates in ghetto-ridden cities like Chicago, mass foreclosures of working class and middle class homes as we saw in 2007/2008, staggering debt on all levels of the working society, vast migrations of people fleeing from places that are even worse off, crippled health systems, crippled educational systems and so on.
What to do, what to do!!!???
They’re just going wait around until the whole thing collapses, seems to me. And then when it gets too bad they’ll just head on out to their island refuges to wait for the whole messy thing to blow over. That’s about the depth of their understanding, anyway. As William Burroughs so trenchantly put it almost 50 years ago:
I repeat:
“Stupid vulgar sons of bitches who thought they could hire death as a company cop.”
Yup.
Fasten your seatbelts…it’s gonna be a rough ride any way you cut it.
Trump’s stated “solutions?” Ship enough unneeded worker drones…chosen by convenient skin markers, mostly…across whatever borders are most readily available and then build a big wall that will stop them from coming back in, for starters. Then negotiate a more favorable set of trade deals…including protective tariffs against those who will not negotiate and tax breaks for companies that locate/relocate their manufacturing in the U.S…and also bring a serious portion of our far-flung military back to the U.S. as an iron fist control mechanism for the remaining worker drones.
Watch.
Will this work?
Quite likely it will.
For a while, anyway.
Look at the rapidly rising worth of the U.S. dollar for all you need to know on that. The economic bookmakers are placing their bets on its success, and they are rarely totally wrong. Not short-term, anyway.
There y’have it, Voice.
Just look at Trump’s cabinet choices. Generals and bankers.
Duh!!!
Watch.
Long-term?
I dunno.
There’s an algorithm out there for that, somewhere.
The Hitler chip, probably.
The Terminator chip.
The Borg chip.
Like dat.
Will it go that far?
Maybe.
I hope not.
Let us pray.
And then let us fight like hell.
Happily.
Happy New Year.
AG
Totally agree, Arthur. However, I was apparently too vague again. The “Why?” did not mean “Why is this happening?” It meant “Why is this still a Democratic state?” I can answer it partly. The legislature is locked in a battle to the death. The (R) governor insists that any budget deal must include stripping state workers and teachers of their pensions and massive outsourcing of all government jobs. The Democrats would probably go along like the national Democrats have except they know that those workers and their unions are the source of their power which would wither like a cut blade of grass if they went along.
National Democrats can rely on massive corporate donations to fund TV ads to bamboozle the voters. State and local Democrats rely on armies of workers to get out the vote (to protect their jobs). Why in Illinois and not elsewhere? I can only theorize that Illinois has one of the last patronage machines. Ironically, Democratic good government reforms elsewhere cut their own power base.
Still, I think that more Illinois depopulation will result in IL joining WI, IN and MI electorally. Right now depopulation is mostly of young people leaving to find work. These people tend to be Republican. Old people, who tend to be Democrats here, just die. The richer ones can afford to sell their houses and move South. They tend to be Republican. I don’t think (and it’s just a belief because I have no data) that the more rural areas are losing population as fast as the Chicago area.
Yes, the poverty rate for those under 65 went up sharply from 2008 to 2011. The financial crash at the end of the Bush Presidency was the cause. As shown by the linked graph, poverty rates for these Americans have gone down since 2013. This is the year when the ACA began its most substantial implementations. It was also the year when the Bush tax cuts were ended for the top income earners.
The Norwegian Blue sellers always have a response, no?
The failure there is in cultural values, what gets valued in the emerging global society.
And valuing the “free market” in a fundamentalist way and defending those values against those who are “losers” through force of arms is the dynamic by which inequality happens.
What has happened in the West since 2008 is the adoption of “free market” fundamentalism by institutions that should have faced the Great Recession with infrastructure improvements that reduced the future cost on the environment of future population growth. What we got instead in the West was austerity and nonsense about what was practical. The West is facing the fascistic blowback from that short-sightedness going forward. We might turn out to be the Third World that this newly prosperous globe tries to bail out of our squalor and wonders why we suddenly turned our backs on any sort of authentic progress.
And it will be told that what happened was that the Club of Rome did a report on the limits to resources. That report came out in the 1970s. And in the West the reflexive response was “We gonna get ours. Greed is good. Look out for Number One. Go Galt.” That was as dysfunctional response as we in the West (especially the Anglo-West) could have had. Trump is the apotheosis of this mood.
Maybe those newly prospering countries will be more generous than we currently are when we wind up on their shores as refugees.
It is perhaps too much to ask for all 7.4 billion to benefit comparably equally. After some 50-300 years of abundant growth (depending on which gear you count), human tribes face environmental limitation again, this time on the planetary scale. The first ones to notice are the richest predators (that gradually see more pressure of their freedom) and the poorest or disfranchised groups (that have to adopt to meager resources sooner). The nice, smart people in the middle are the last to notice that ancient modes of competition for subsistence are back.
You write:
Yes yet again, Tarheel!!!
You also write:
Hope springs eternal, I suppose. But…I doubt it. That kind of generosity is simply not found in human history. The concept of “To the victor belong the spoils” has an all too common corollary:
As far as I know, only once in all of human history has a “victor” helped the vanquished recover…the Marshall plan after WW II. And even that had a sideline aim…shoring up capitalism against communism.
So it goes…
AG
Much of the club of Rome was demonstrably wrong. Its predictions about resources are unambiguously wrong. This isn’t really surprising, since it was based on simulations run on computers with less computing power than my iPhone, but they were never able to defend what the identified as variables that would grow exponentially and those that would grow linearally. The larger point about environmental impacts resulting from growth was certainly relevant, but we haven’t run out of oil and we aren’t going to in the foreseeable future.
Here is the dilemma – I suspect most here don’t think it is one.
We will in the future be able to automate many tasks that are repetitive and boring. Machines in general do repetitive tasks better and safer then humans. Take truck driving – a machine will not fall asleep, will not get distracted, and it it fails will not kill the driver.
But millions of people depend on their livelihood in trucking. So what is to be done? Trucking is an honorable profession that makes a contribution to society. People derive more than money from doing the work.
So how do you find something for millions of people to do that gives those people a sense of contributing something and that provides those people with income.
The experience from the tobacco settlement is that we don’t really know how to do that very well. And yet the evidence that automation will accelerate.
So do we slow technology that automates? How do you create a system that harvests the benefits without massive social dislocation? And assuming you think Government needs to do something, exactly WHAT should it do?
And spare the “infrastructure argument” because even if you could fund the projects they won’t come close to matching the dislocation that is to come.
Well, before we start culling (if opoids are not doing it fast enough), we might try pumping up the money supply circulating in the Main Street economy by putting some in the hands of the people who need to spend it and STOP driving debt to enslave them.
Then we might see some new jobs evolve.
Guaranteed job vs guaranteed income…http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_732.pdf
Instructive, I thought.
We currently have some guaranteed income pilots going in the West, but I don’t think a full employment one is underway.
Just remember some of the results of Nixon’s guaranteed income pilot.
The follow-up showed that it led to above average family breakup (in a time of Monyihan concern about welfare and family stability). What was going on was that spouses were leaving abusive spouses because they now had the income to live independently.
An income fix by itself can often be politically set back by unintended consequences that show other issues requiring solution.
Also, chronic financial difficulties increase incidents of spousal abuse in fights over — finances.
We are still incrementalism-ing an issue that Robert Theobald raised 50 years ago.
It sounds like a society in which the crisis of capitalism has come to pass at last.
There are ways to forestall that eventuality, none of them gradual, none of them assured, none of them pretty. And all of them counterintuitive to the “there is no alternative” position of neoliberal capitalism.
The work of extending infrastructure today depends on much more than bricks and mortar. Having a geographically adequate health care system for all Americans would be a huge undertaking of training, construction, creating less expensive and better medical equipment, exploring promising areas of preventive healthcare and nutrition, and extending that knowledge throughout the geography as agricultural knowledge was extended in the late 1800s with the agricultural extension movement. And that is just health care. And the goal is to drive down health care costs through better health–exactly what public health services did through vaccinations, insect control, and epidemic control in the early part of the 20th century.
Those projects are needed no matter who funds them. At one point we were as a nation progressive enough to risk a little waste on bad projects to get the good projects delivering services and cost savings. Of course, in the case of interstate highways (an oil industry and automobile subsidy, by the way) we had to pitch is as for moving the troops and military equipment around the country.
In doing this, racing to bleeding edge and disruptive technologies pushed by some smart visionary billionaire seeking to astronomically increase his paper wealth is not good industrial policy. There is a lot of work in a lot of places in rail construction for an eventual national network of electric-driven high-speed rail with low fares and freight rates. All the incumbent rail companies have as advantage is operating experience and the right-of-ways. Constructing and managing a nationally-owned rail system over which individual companies can operate its rolling stock would involve large employment and lower the cost of freight through a generalized subsidy of the rail network and traffic system, just as it has for air travel and highways. And the dollar amounts are on the order of magnitude of one large weapons program.
Maybe this infrastructure investment could be an opportunity for recreating a modern steel industry running primarily on recyclables and benefiting from the delivery by the rail system of feed stock for reprocessing. There certainly are symbiotic industrial policies that could be planned and executed around the availability of high-speed rail freight.
Summing up, the fact of the matter is that there is no lack of work to be done that can contribute to the environment and society in almost every location. Monitoring and protecting water quality could use large numbers of people. They current low-budget model for doing this is to solicit volunteer groups to do the work.
The US has had stipended volunteer programs for fifty years in Peace Corps and Americorps and there are also other volunteer opportunities unpaid in counseling 4-H clubs, for example, and other government-sponsored activities. Having people aware of and being able to piece these into their schedules could be a simple as a well-designed telephone application. But their importance to this argument is that they are also employer-of-last-resort or networks of job and gig information and experience validation.
Paradoxically, ending age discrimination in employment through vigorous enforcement of employers who think they are reducing their pension costs by forcing out people over 50 is a necessity if dislocation is to be slowed.
Finally, the mania for credentialing as a way of reducing the pile of resumes must end. Too many good people are being prematurely cut out of the resume pile, and too many people are paying too much to get credentials that are rapidly rendered obsolete.
There is good news, but I am not sure how much should be attributed to globalisation.
Other factors include de-colonization and demographic transition, and those two are huge game-changers.
Until de-colonization (often won in bloody struggles against a colonizer that burned what they could as they left) the colonies (in effect, most of the world) was intentionally kept as raw material producers and captured markets and industrialization was prevented. In other words, most of humanity was intentionally kept dirt poor. The colonies ended in roughly 1947-70ies, followed by neo-colonial attempts to keep control.
I would put the transfer of factories to Asia as a last-ditch attempt to keep control of the profits (and in the short run there are marvelous profits), even at cost of losing long term control. But this also presents problems for Asia in accepting western corporate influence. I think the relative influence of globalisation could be studied if one compared Asian countries and different strategies in dealing with globalisation. Probably has been too, I just have not read any.