The Biggest Risk to the Economy in 2012, and What’s the Economy For Anyway?
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos a few days ago, said the “critical risks” facing the American economy this year were a worsening of Europe’s chronic sovereign debt crisis and a rise in tensions with Iran that could stoke global oil prices.
What about jobs and wages here at home?
As the Commerce Department reported Friday, the U.S. economy grew 2.8 percent between October and December – the fastest pace in 18 months and the first time growth exceeded 2 percent all year. Many bigger American companies have been reporting strong profits in recent months. GE and Lockheed Martin closed the year with record order backlogs.
Yet the percent of working-age Americans in jobs isn’t much different than what it was three years ago. Yes, America now produces more than it did when the recession began. But it does so with 6 million fewer workers.
Average after-tax incomes adjusted for inflation are moving up a bit. (They increased at an annual rate of .8 percent in the last three months of 2011 after falling 1.9 percent in prior three-month period. For all of 2011, incomes fell .1 percent.)
But beware averages. Shaquille O’Neal and I have an average height of six feet. Exclude Mitt Romney’s $20 million last year — along with everyone else securely in the top 1 percent — and the incomes of most Americans are continuing to slip.
Consumer spending picked up slightly in the fourth quarter mainly because consumers drew down their savings. Obviously, this can’t last.
Meanwhile, government is spending less on schools, roads, bridges, parks, defense, and social services. Government spending at all levels dropped at an annual rate of 4.6 percent in the last quarter – and that’s likely to continue.
Some economists worry this drop is a drag on the economy. But it also means fewer public goods available to all Americans regardless of income.
Congress still hasn’t decided whether to renew the temporary payroll tax cut and extend unemployment benefits past February. If it doesn’t, expect another 1 percent slice off GDP growth this year.
Tim Geithner is surely correct that the European debt crisis and Iran pose risks to the American economy in 2012. But they aren’t the biggest risk. The biggest risk is right here at home – that most Americans will continue to languish.
All of which raises a basic question: Who or what is the economy for? Surely not just for a few at the top, and not just big corporations and their CEOs. Nor can the success of the economy be measured by how fast the GDP is growing, or how high the Dow Jones Industrial Average is rising, or whether average incomes are turning upward.
The crisis of American capitalism marks the triumph of consumers and investors over workers and citizens. And since most of us occupy all four roles – even though the lion’s share of consuming and investing is done by the wealthy – the real crisis centers on the increasing efficiency by which all of us as consumers and investors can get great deals, and our declining capacity to be heard as workers and citizens.
Modern technologies allow us to shop in real time, often worldwide, for the lowest prices, highest quality, and best returns. Through the Internet and advanced software we can now get relevant information instantaneously, compare deals, and move our money at the speed of electronic impulses. We can buy goods over the Internet that are delivered right to our homes. Never before in history have consumers and investors been so empowered.
Yet these great deals increasingly come at the expense of our own and our compatriots’ jobs and wages, and widening inequality. The goods we want or the returns we seek can often be produced more efficiently elsewhere around the world by companies offering lower pay, fewer benefits, and inferior working conditions.
They also come at the expense of our Main Streets – the hubs of our communities – when we get the great deals through the Internet or at big-box retailers that scan the world for great deals on our behalf.
Some great deals have devastating environmental consequences. Technology allows us to efficiently buy low-priced items from poor nations with scant environmental standards, sometimes made in factories that spill toxic chemicals into water supplies or pollutants into the air. We shop for great deals in cars that spew carbon into the air and for airline tickets in jet planes that do even worse.
Other great deals offend common decency. We may get a great price or high return because a producer has cut costs by hiring children in South Asia or Africa who work twelve hours a day, seven days a week. Or by subjecting people to death-defying working conditions.
As workers or as citizens most of us would not intentionally choose these outcomes but as seekers after great deals we are indirectly responsible for them. Companies know that if they fail to offer us the best deals we will take our money elsewhere – which we can do with ever-greater speed and efficiency.
The best means of balancing the demands of consumers and investors against those of workers and citizens has been through democratic institutions that shape and constrain markets.
Laws and rules offer some protection for jobs and wages, communities, and the environment. Although such rules are likely to be costly to us as consumers and investors because they stand in the way of the very best deals, they are intended to approximate what we as members of a society are willing to sacrifice for these other values.
But technologies for getting great deals are outpacing the capacities of democratic institutions to counterbalance them. For one thing, national rules intended to protect workers, communities, and the environment typically extend only to a nation’s borders. Yet technologies for getting great deals enable buyers and investors to transcend borders with increasing ease, at the same time making it harder for nations to monitor or regulate such transactions.
For another, goals other than the best deals are less easily achieved within the confines of a single nation. The most obvious example is the environment, whose fragility is worldwide. In addition, corporations now routinely threaten to move jobs and businesses away from places that impose higher costs on them – and therefore, indirectly, on their consumers and investors – to more “business friendly” jurisdictions. The Internet and software have made companies sufficiently nimble to render such threats credible.
But the biggest problem is that corporate money is undermining democratic institutions in the name of better deals for consumers and investors. Campaign contributions, fleets of well-paid corporate lobbyists, and corporate-financed PR campaigns about public issues are overwhelming the capacities of Congress, state legislatures, regulatory agencies, and the courts to reflect the values of workers and citizens.
As a result, consumers and investors are doing increasingly well but job insecurity is on the rise, inequality is widening, communities are becoming less stable, and climate change is worsening. None of this is sustainable over the long term.
Blame global finance and worldwide corporations all you want. But save some blame for the insatiable consumers and investors inhabiting almost every one of us, who are entirely complicit. And blame our inability as workers and citizens to reclaim our democracy.
This article was originally posted on Robert Reich's blog.
CONNECT















15 comments on "The Biggest Risk to the Economy in 2012, and What’s the Economy For Anyway?"
February 01, 2012 9:28pm
When my great/great grandfather left Germany, when the 48'rs revolutionfailed, he came to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The revolution was in fact theresult of a German political phiosopher named Karl Marx, who along withFredrich Engels, a leader of the International Workman's Association andscientific socialism, formulated a statement of principles. The program they submitted was known troughout the world as The communist Manafesto.Marx drew the conclusion that the capitalist class would be overthrown bya worldwide working class revolution, the result of struggles between exploitingand exploited, ruling and oppressed social classes. Marx was exiled to Londonand in 1864 he established The First International. My grandfather, Ottmeirhelped build St Paul's Monastery in the southside of Pittsburgh. His son Johannfought with the 139th Pennsyvania Infantry at The Battle Of Gettysburgh andwas later wounded in the leg that following winter at The Battle Of Spotsylvaniain Virginia. He recieved a $5 dollar a month pension. My uncles fought in WW2my brother John in Korea and I served 4 years honorable during The VietnamConflict. My fore fathers elected Lincoln at The Laffette building on Wood street here in Pittsburgh in 1861 to end slavery and so created the first Republican canadate for president of The United States Of America. My pointbeing that FREEDOM IS IN OUR BLOOD! Sincerely, Bob Volzer 2-1-2012
February 01, 2012 4:43pm
Raise the minimun wage to $ 15.00 per hour. Impose import tariffs on all imports selectively and gradually until all manufacturering has returned to the US (never import without taxaction what we can produce here) Stop all immigration for at least 5 years - we do not need over one million new mouths to feed as we are doing now Neither do we need immigrants to take what few jobs remain at starvation wages
February 01, 2012 3:46am
We need ethical business - http://empathysurplus.com
January 31, 2012 7:48pm
This isn't a capitalist society.. this is a slave economy. Corps can steal your labor and not compensate you.. sometimes dragging out payment for 6-9 months. Meanwhile you starve and lose your home. At least in ancient rome, they fed their slaves and provided lodging!
In fact, the US income inequality is currently higher than it was during the Roman Empire. Google it.
January 31, 2012 7:41pm
Re: "Job insecurity is on the rise"
A friend of mine is a Project Manager at IBM. He was laid-off and rehired as a contractor.. and now every 6 months they may or may not re-up his contract. no job security whatsoever.
Another friend of mine is a videographer who used to work for a wedding videography firm. He was laid off and rehired as a contractor and now only makes $80 per edited video.. no health benefits.. no workers comp insurance is paid so he he'll get no unemployment if he's fired.
I was laid off 3 years ago. 7 years of college education and pro certifications later..... I only got about 6m of unemployment before they cut me off because I had to leave the country for a funeral (technicalities I was not aware of -- having never been a 'welfare queen'). I paid into this broken system for over 15 years and never collected unemployment before -- ever. I now work 3 part-time jobs to bring home a whoopping $200 a week ..
I'm beyond job insecurity, I'm mad as hell... so long as a company can just hire a contractor, they can bypass all the programs set up to protect citizens from wage-theft and sudden unemployment. There should be a cap, directly related to the number of full-time employees they have, on the number of contractors a company can hire.
February 03, 2012 7:43am
I'm a contractor too - I have to pay workers comp insurance, but because I'm self employed, I can't draw on it if I have no work.
January 31, 2012 3:08pm
Always thought provoking Mr. Reich. I remember from somewhere in the far recesses of my public education knowledge, that one role of government was to prevent the tyranny of the majority against the minority. One of those principles that lie at the heart of things like the separation of church and state. One "class" of persons, (actual persons, not fictitious persons like corporations), that it would seem obvious should be at the center of government thinking is the yet to be born. It's practically cliche; "What kind of world are we going to leave for our grandchildren and their grandchildren?". But it's a fair question. Only a very stupid person indeed would cling to the idea that business, as we've come to understand it in this nation, is inclined to act in a fashion that considers future generations foremost in it's calculations. Most businesses are looking to perhaps the next two quarterly earnings statement. Future generations? Hardly. But does anyone ever think about how things may have worked out differently had our colonial forebears brought a more enlightened approach to the natives of this continent? Had we followed the example of Laperouse, the French explorer who chose not to enslave or pillage but to trade, observe and leave as little trace as possible. How things might have been better had Europeans met Africans more as equals and slavery had never been a feature of our founding. If we had taken a more liberal view of the natives and had not made genocide a feature of our expansion. How things might look today had colonialism never been a the dominant ethic of European encounters with he world beyond their borders. A little forethought and humility would have made a world of difference, (and the pun is definitely intended).
I think we can do better and I have hope that we will. But it will take more than just being mindless consumers and soul-less drones. It will take more than watching life on television rather than living one. It will take more than allowing our electoral process to be a substance free traveling sideshow intended for our periodic amusement but meaning nothing.
January 31, 2012 2:42pm
What good a capitalist society when only a few percent significantly benefit from it. We need a big moral shift in our thinking if things are to improve for the masses.
January 31, 2012 1:32pm
Thank you Prof. Reich. I've enjoyed your thoughts & ideas from the early 90's.
Consumption with increasing population and diminishing resources appears to be a closed system. If this is even somewhat true, I am amazed that the 1% don't see their inevitable demise secondary to their behavior. Will they not wake up until the foot of Mother Nature is very strong upon their neck? Too bad their intelligence to make money can't be channeled into something more productive. Perhaps the next dominant species will have a better go at it.
January 31, 2012 1:24pm
Solid, thoughtful piece. A move towards more thoughtful choices of how and when we spend money, of who we reward with our cash, would go a log way toward reforming this severely bankrupt market system. Also, it's hard to think Geithner is very sincere pointing to increased tension with Iran as a flashpoint, when D.C is marching so fast into that Cauldron and upping the version tension he supposedly fears. It's well-past time for some national honesty and humility on that point.
January 31, 2012 12:17pm
It's a race to extinction. Which will die off first, international markets catering to conspicuous consumption or the consumer spending capacity that sustains them?
January 31, 2012 11:53am
Fire is one of Nature's most dramatic ways of renewal. Fighting the fires in Washington will only prolong our decline. Sometimes you just gotta let Rome burn.
January 31, 2012 11:51am
Reich, as usual, is on point with his comments. He did not suggest solutions. One is preferentially to buy American. I have done so in my last sets of tires- A bit more expensive in some cases, but the extra goes into American pockets. Hey--what is more important--for us as individuals to have a few more geegaws to play with--or for America to be a haven for fairness, justice, and honesty? And, buy local whenever possible. It saves transport (oil), local jobs, and provides a bit of tax base to the local government.
January 31, 2012 8:32pm
You cannot "buy American". Those tires may have been marked "Made in America", but you have no idea where they were actually made and what minor percentage of their production was actually done in the US.
It was a noble effort all the same.
January 31, 2012 11:41am
Tim Geithner almost certainly has no direct acquaintances among the 99% crowd. Why then should we expect him to relate to our little problems, e.g. no job, no healthcare, no money, no food, and little to no real hope for improvement?
Professor, we should all be able to consume and invest at some level, but we should also be able to function as citizens and workers in our so-called democracy. Yes, we have lost those abilities, but they have not simply vanished; they have been hijacked the elite, the owners, by dint of money, of what should be "our" government.
Try dunking over Shaq next time you see him. Should that not work, please turn your considerable talents to helping find a way back to a government of, by, and for all the people.