Families

Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich (TAPPED):

The "living beyond our means" argument, with its thinly veiled suggestion of moral turpitude, is technically correct. Over the last fifteen years, average household debt has soared to record levels, and the typical American family has taken on more of debt than it can safely manage. That became crystal clear when the housing bubble burst and home prices fell, eliminating easy home equity loans and refinancings.

But this story leaves out one very important fact. Since the year 2000, median family income has been dropping, adjusted for inflation. One of the main reasons the typical family has taken on more debt has been to maintain its living standards in the face of these declining real incomes.

It's not as if the typical family suddenly went on a spending binge — buying yachts and fancy cars and taking ocean cruises. No, the typical family just tried to keep going as it had before. But with real incomes dropping, and the costs of necessities like gas, heating oil, food, health insurance, and even college tuitions all soaring, the only way to keep going as before was to borrow more. You might see this as a moral failure, but I think it's more accurate to view it as an ongoing struggle to stay afloat when the boat's sinking.

Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) ties McCain to Bush and hits the theme of economic security (Huffington Post):

"Just imagine if Bush and McCain had had their way and privatized Social Security," said Brown. "People would have seen their private social security accounts just disintegrate the last two days. And imagine what that would mean in rural America, urban America, suburban America and small town America?"

dday at Digby's place adds:

The fact is that from 2001 to today, the stock market has gained, in the best analysis, 1%. And depending on the choice of stocks, an individual portfolio may have incurred significant losses in those years. And this is the system to which George Bush and John McCain want to turn over your retirement savings. Before Social Security it was commonplace to witnesses large numbers of elderly men and women in poverty, struggling to survive. This is the Republican vision of America.

Has someone been reading Paul Waldman? Here's Obama's statement yesterday on the 73-year anniversary of Social Security (barackobama.com):

The Bush privatization plan that Senator McCain now embraces would tell millions of elderly Americans that they're on their own, putting them at risk of falling into poverty. That's not what this country is about.

It's time to reclaim the idea that in this country, we're all in it together. That is America's very promise — and Social Security's very guarantee. And it requires a President who will change the ways of Washington, protect the people's interests, and bring Americans together to meet the great challenges of our time. That is exactly the sort of leadership I intend to offer.

Ezra Klein:

According to The Wall Street Journal, Wal-Mart's store managers and department supervisors are forcing their employees into mandatory meetings where they "warn that if Democrats win power in November, they'll likely change federal law to make it easier for workers to unionize companies — including Wal-Mart." This is then followed by a friendly soliloquy about union dues, forced strikes, and the jobs Wal-Mart would have to cut if anyone so much as dared breathe the letters "UFCW." As one worker who attended the meetings reported, "The meeting leader said, 'I am not telling you how to vote, but if the Democrats win, this bill will pass and you won't have a vote on whether you want a union.'" [...]

It's impossible to organize under circumstances where labor-friendly workers are fired, stores are closed to serve as an example to others, and where companies pay trivial fines eight years after the fact. Card check, by contrast, makes it possible to organize. And Wal-Mart is, predictably, terrified. But not because their workers wouldn't "have a vote." Rather, they're afraid because, finally, they would.

Update: dday at Digby's blog has more:

Does the American Dream include a McMansion for every family? Some will settle for a cottage. In Gulfport, Mississippi, the state has designed and produced "Mississippi Cottages," which are skinny, sturdy and small houses in happy pastel colors. They cost an average of $32,000 to build, and actually are both healthy and popular with those who live in them - unlike the horrible FEMA trailers. With foreclosures accelerating, one would think there could be a market for affordable housing. OTOH

The Mississippi Emergency Management Agency has installed more than 2000 of them throughout southern Mississippi and plans to put in 3,500.

But local governments in Mississippi have resisted the cottages. They fear people who get the cottages will simply live in them and not rebuild their houses, said Mack Womack...of MEMA.

Read the rest of this entry...

Washington Post:

Offering the gloomiest assessment of personal economic progress in close to half a century, a new survey has found that most Americans think they have not made economic progress over the past five years, as their incomes have stagnated and they have increasingly borrowed money to finance their lifestyles.

As many Americans struggle with declining housing values, increasing food and energy prices and growing unemployment after a long period of flat wages, well over half of respondents said they are either losing ground economically or are stuck in the same place, according to the report released today by the Pew Research Center. Only four in 10 said they have moved forward in the past five years — a record low, Pew says, and far off the record 57 percent who in 1997 said they had moved forward in the previous five years.

A national anti-poverty advocacy group has flunked or given barely passing scores to Utah’s Republican Congressional delegation while awarding Democratic Congressman Jim Matheson an “A.”

While a recent news story indicates that as many as 28 percent of Salt Lake City children live in poverty, a report published by the Sargeant Shriver National Center on Poverty Law underscores the stark difference Democrats and Republicans take on the issue.

Ezra Klein:

As a pure economic measure, [GDP] speaks only of growth, not of distribution. In an age where the top one percent take 21 percent of the country's annual income, three percent in growth does not mean that the wages of most workers went up, or the economic security of most Americans increased. It may just mean that some very rich people got a whole lot richer. This, in general, has been the story of the Bush economy.

But if GDP is an imperfect economic measure, it's a terrible measure of societal well-being. It has nothing to say about our health, our parks, our air, our families, our schools, our wars, our levels of civic trust, or just about anything else. [...] There's a tendency to pretend that we live in an economy, not a society, and the narrow focus on GDP as the only measurement that matters is a contributor to that myopia. But it's dumb. If your mother got a raise this year, your brother failed out of school, lead was discovered in your pipes, and your father suffered a heart attack, you wouldn't tell folks your family was doing great. But that's how GDP works.

Center for Economic and Policy Research:

For the first time in the past quarter of a century, in 2007 U.S. unions increased their share of membership among workers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) annual union membership report released today. Unions added about 310,000 members last year, raising the unionized share of the workforce to 12.1 percent from 12.0 percent in 2006.

The increase is small, and may well reflect statistical variation rather than an actual increase in the union membership share, but the uptick is striking because it is the first time since the BLS began collecting annual union membership rates in 1983 that the union share has increased. [...]

Union membership has declined almost continuously, with occasional pauses, from 20.1 percent in 1983 to 12.1 percent this year. [...] This long-term decline stands in remarkable contrast to worker desire for unionization. According to polls of non-managerial workers, about one-half want to be but are not union members.