Skip to main content

When working families look back at the early years of the turn of the century, they will undoubtedly remember the period as a lost decade.

The vast majority of Americans are walking in place—even falling down—as they cope with a persistent economic malaise.

Sadly, this has been going on for so long now that we should no longer think of our troubled times as an aberration in U.S. history.

Many of us (well, not necessarily minorities and women) used to idealize the ‘50s as a period of shared prosperity. But it’s quite apparent now that those years were the aberration.

First came the Vietnam War. Then came the oil crisis and stagnation. Later the Berlin War fell, putting an end to the threat of communism. The housing bubble bust, but the banksters got away with financial murder while the rest of us took an underserved hit in the pocketbook.

All along, it was open season on working people and their unions. Except for a brief period in the late 1990s under President Bill Clinton, the economy didn’t ever improve significantly for the poor and middle class. Meanwhile, economic inequality returned to what it was during the Great Depression nearly a century ago.
So, today wages remain stagnant.

What’s disturbing—and frightening, frankly—is that few signs exist of any significant improvement in the coming years.

College graduates face years of indebtedness and the prospect of only finding jobs that pay below what they expected to receive with their degrees.  Most of the employment growth is in low-wage service jobs.

Stagnant Wages

“A Decade of Flat Wages,” a recent report by the Economic Policy Institute, lays out a sad picture of wage trends of the ugly 21st century economy of the 1 percent.

“The wage and benefit growth of the vast majority, including white-collar and blue-collar workers and those with and without a college degree, has stagnated, as the fruits of overall growth have accrued disproportionately to the richest households,” Lawrence Mishel, president of EPI, and Heidi Shierholz, an EPI economist, write in their disturbing and critical 18-page briefing paper.
Translation: The 99 percent are getting screwed while the 1 percent are laughing to the bank.

Wage growth remained relatively strong in the first two years of the 21st century, bolstered by the robust wage growth of the late 1990s. But 2002 to 2012 has constituted a “lost decade” for the vast majority of Americans who have not seen their earnings grow, the authors write.

“Between 2002 and 2012, wages were stagnant or declined for the entire bottom 70 percent of the wage distribution,” the authors write. “In other words, the vast majority of wage earners have already experienced a lost decade, one where real wages were either flat or in decline.” Significantly, they add, “This lost decade for wages comes on the heels of decades of inadequate wage growth.”
This unequal distribution of wages is obviously not a reflection of the mysterious workings of the “invisible hand” of the marketplace. No, it’s a reminder of the unequal power relation between the 1 percent and the 99 percent, or capital and labor.

The Breakdown between Productivity and Wages

A particularly important insight and theme of Mishel and Shierholz’s paper is that there is a breakdown between productivity and wages.

Until the 1970s, productivity and wages moved up together. But that stopped in the ensuing decades as the economic elite captured a greater and greater share of productivity.

This trend has coincided with the implementation of government policies that have favored the rich and powerful: lower taxes, the drop of the federal minimum wage, deregulation, trade policies that have hurt domestic manufacturing, the smashing of unions, globalization and the contracting out of government services. With high unemployment and the lack of strong unions, workers are less willing to press for higher wages.

Productivity growth has “far outpaced” increases in wages and compensation, the EPI report says. Between 2007 and 2012, compensation for all  private-sector occupations didn’t budge even though productivity grew by 7.7 percent. Sadly, Mishel and Shierholz see little immediate hope for a significant improvement in wages.

“With continued high unemployment, wage growth is unlikely to accelerate much in the next few years,” they write.

What Needs to Be Done

For an economic turnaround, Mishel and Shierholz suggest, we need to push for important changes in government policies, such as raising the minimum wage, measures to increase the strength of unions and reestablishing state and local government services cut during the Great Recession.

The emerging movement of fast-food workers indicates that workers are more willing to fight back. Another hopeful sign includes the AFL-CIO’s progressive economic program of “shared prosperity” unveiled at its recent convention. That, along with its plan to increase its political clout by becoming an umbrella organization for all workers (not just union members) could force the Democratic Party to shift to the left.

Some also view Bill de Blasio’s election as the Democratic candidate for mayor of New York City--with his promise to address inequality—as an indication of an emerging political realignment. Let’s hope so.

Threatened by this possible change, the Koch brothers and other powerful conservative interests have signaled their willingness to pump millions into an effort to block de Blasio from becoming mayor of the world’s financial capital.

Originally posted to on Thu Oct 03, 2013 at 06:46 PM PDT.

Also republished by In Support of Labor and Unions.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  What does the AFL-COP tag mean? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  I'm thinking of a lot of lost decades. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PatriciaVa, kurt

    1970s: OPEC, Watergate, Stagflation, and Malaise.
    1980s: Reagan and Tipper, Conservative and oh so PC Yuppies.
    1990s: Clinton and Newt, Rush and Dworkin.
    2000s: Bush and the post 9/11 lockdown.

    "If this Studebaker had anymore Atomic Space-Age Style, you'd have to be an astronaut with a geiger counter!"

    by Stude Dude on Thu Oct 03, 2013 at 07:28:16 PM PDT

  •  I on and off think of the '80s (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The Dems had a couple of possible paths: the Third Way or the Rainbow Coalition. They chose corporate instead of Populist.

    Plus a lot of older Boomers should have treated a lot of Punks and Alt Rockers and Small Pressers a lot better.

    "If this Studebaker had anymore Atomic Space-Age Style, you'd have to be an astronaut with a geiger counter!"

    by Stude Dude on Thu Oct 03, 2013 at 07:34:03 PM PDT

  •  Why not expand the Earned Income Tax Credit? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    phatcat cane, Churchill

    Yesterday, I asserted the following...

    Also, let's not forget the under the President's watch, the median wage has decreased as it has under no other president.  

    He campaigned on decreasing wealth and income inequality.  Both have risen during his tenure.

    And they would increase more with cuts to entitlement programs.

    ..and a fellow Kossack took me to task.  He argued that the President has done everything he can.

    I disagree.

    Nine months ago President Obama allowed the 2% social security tax cut to lapse, costing working and middle-class household over 110B every year.

    The President could have championed a PERMANENT increase of 2,500, indexed to inflation, in the Earned Income Tax Credit.  But he decided not to.

    He could also have proposed a tax on wealth, starting at 1% for households with liquid wealth of at least 50M, to 8% annually for the likes of Buffet and Ellison.

    Too radical?  So was the Income Tax when it was proposed.

    For a man who campaigned on transforming America, his policy prescriptions have been far too conventional.

    And if the median wage does indeed show no growth during his 8 years in office, no one can honestly argue his was a transformational presidency.

    Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project.

    by PatriciaVa on Thu Oct 03, 2013 at 07:44:04 PM PDT

  •  Medium wages=no growth Obama 2009-2017 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Look at the path we are no, there won't be any wage growth over these 8 years, so let the good times roll for the 1 percent, rest of us, go eat you mush.  Has Obama changed the vector on this? Not much.

    80 % of Success is Just Showing Up!

    by Churchill on Thu Oct 03, 2013 at 10:31:46 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site