The Indianapolis Star’s Post

As prices soar, families living paycheck to paycheck run an endless marathon just to catch up – to no avail. Wages for many low-wage jobs have recently begun to surge, but from low starting points and after years of being stagnant. Meanwhile, the cost of basics has consistently grown, concealed by #CPI’s broader basket of goods. Squeezed by higher rates of #inflation, ALICE finds themselves even further behind now than they were a decade ago. Explore the new ALICE Essentials Index for Wisconsin: https://lnkd.in/eUy5nFBJ #ALICEindex #ALICE2024 #economy #poverty #workingpoor

This is a good column on the derranging influence partisan politics is having on the public's (lack of) understanding about the basic conditions of the economy. I would wager you could extend this finding to many other areas of important public policy. https://lnkd.in/g54zqjpV

Why are self-described political pragmatists so incurious about using the immense pool of income and wealth held by the super-rich to raise living standards by distributing it a bit more evenly? A blog for 'Labour Hub' noting that mechanisms to re-direct money and assets flowing to those at the top to everybody else instead have been a common feature of socio-economic progress throughout history. In the face of demographic, environmental and political challenges, increasing aggregate wealth is going to become more difficult, so how existing resources are divided becomes more important. Despite this, people raising concerns about extreme concentrations of income and wealth and proposing a more even balance are treated as extremist or utopian. Meanwhile, asinine promises to solve inequality by making all the poor people as rich as the rich ones are hailed as a hallmark of sober and serious policymaking.

I’ve been reflecting on thr panel discussion yesterday at the DEI Reframe Summit on the implications of falling birth rates, an ageing population and ageism. What are the implications? Extract-Ageing populations and declining birth rates: are they really such a catastrophe? 2072, the UK’s population could be 1.3 million lower than today, according to Office for Budget Responsibility scenarios, if the scale of immigration over that period is lower than in recent years – a situation that might ultimately arise in the wake of the UK’s decision to leave the European Union. Fertility rates have also fallen faster than expected. These are gradual rather than dramatic changes that need not harm average standards of living. One implication might be that that amount of the capital stock per worker – a definition in the broadest sense which includes national assets such as roads and infrastructure – will increase. In other words, there may be fewer people, but they may be relatively better off. A smaller population means less pressure on housing, infrastructure and services, and the environment. While tax revenues may decrease because of lower earnings, the ratio of savings to GDP would likely remain healthy as older people tend to have more investments and nest eggs… An older population will place undoubted pressure on health spending and revenues, however this will in part be offset by lower spending on young people’s education. But governments will be obliged to adjust taxation and spending to meet demands of a changing demographic. Policies on pensions, employment law, childcare and benefits must change in the future to accommodate different needs. Source: https://lnkd.in/eFqd-38d Extract-Work | The State of Ageing 2023-24 There are large inequalities in terms of who leaves the labour market and how. Older workers with higher incomes are much more likely to actively choose to leave work; older workers on lower incomes are more likely to be pushed out due to poor health. Older women are more likely to leave for caring responsibilities than men and are often less financially secure. In every age group, the proportion of people who are economically inactive due to long-term sickness has increased since the pandemic, with a particularly pronounced increase among the 50-64 age group. Despite this, many with long-term illnesses in this age group still work… Once out of the labour market, it can be harder for older workers to get back in… The average age of exit from the labour market has been rising over the past few decades, despite a slight downturn during the pandemic Flexible working is the most important factor for choosing a new job for those 50-64 year olds who left work during the pandemic Source: https://lnkd.in/eKQ_yEeP

In a new opinion piece for LabourList CPP Chief Executive Ben Franklin writes: 'What if, for all the best will in the world, pre-financial crisis growth rates are simply no longer possible?' The question becomes, how do we share what little growth is achieved? Read it at 👉 https://lnkd.in/etnzikVc

#rose #tinted #glasses A return to better times? We are well into the U.K. general election race. And as always, each of the parties, irrespective of political hue seems intent on promising to take the country back to the good times, “the good old days”. I thought this was a particularly British thing. However the US and indeed French campaigns seem set to be fought along similar lines - campaigns, fought….so much for constructive dialogue, consensus democracy I don’t know to whom that rose tinted retrospective message is meant to appeal? Presumably the old folk, of which I am undoubtedly one. Silly me. I was hoping we’d maybe see a bit of progress, some new ideas over the next five years rather more of the same. Or worse I’m not entirely sure which “good old days” are being referred to? Presumably not the Stone Age. And even in Victorian times things were, let’s be honest, pretty shitty for almost everyone let’s assume the golden period is more recent - What was happening here in the UK 40 or perhaps even 50 years ago. Now, I confess a focus on economics. And in neither 1974 nor 1984 was the picture pretty: 1974 inflation 16.04%, 3 day week introduced - where shops and factories could only open part time due to power shortages. Candles, not smart phones were the must have accessories. The country still firmly in the grip of the unions, successfully toppling two governments in quick succession 1984 unemployment 11.9%, yes ELEVEN POINT NINE. Three TIMES higher than at present. Youth unemployment over 20%. Oh yes and Thatcher versus the miners. A lose, lose situation at the time Just for balance, 1994 was by contrast a year of hope. Mandela was elected. The Channel Tunnel opened. I suspect dear old Nigel and Nelson may not have been friends - and as for actually WELCOMING folk from Europe…well, enough said If you are ever unfortunate enough to be door stepped, or grabbed in the street by a Rishi, Kier or worse still a Nigel, when they start telling you about going back to the good old days, maybe suggest they focus on the FUTURE. And ask them to try to offer something constructive, rather than opponent bashing. That would be a nice change A closing thought. The picture - my home city from the year I was born. Yes. Really. Good old days indeed…

Great Economic News for the USA!🇺🇸 Under President Biden, the USA made a remarkable recovery from the pandemic recession. We have seen the longest run of below 4.0% unemployment in more than 70 years, even surpassing the long stretch during the 1960s boom. This period of low unemployment has led to rapid real wage growth at the lower end of the wage distribution, reversing much of the rise in wage inequality we have seen in the last four decades. It has been especially beneficial to the most disadvantaged groups in the labor market. The burst of inflation that accompanied this growth was mostly an outcome of the pandemic & the invasion of Ukraine. All other wealthy countries saw comparable rises in inflation. As of summer 2024, inflation in the USA has fallen back almost to the Fed’s 2.0% target. Meanwhile, US growth has far surpassed our peers. Furthermore, the Biden-Harris administration really does deserve credit for this extraordinary boom. Much of what happens under a president’s watch is beyond their control. However, the economic turnaround following the pandemic can be directly traced to Biden’s recovery package, along with his infrastructure bill, the CHIPS Act, & the Inflation Reduction Act, all of which have sustained growth. This is good news for the USA!🇺🇸💙

My Christmas message for 2024. In the wake of the recent CEO shooting, there seems to be a gradual waking up to the realisation that America’s economy has been progressively turned into a system for oppressing the average citizen, squeezing every cent out of people for the benefit of an ultra-wealthy elite, creating an unliveable society that does not even deliver the most basic services at an affordable cost, and that the companies that are responsible for this are protected by the very institutions that are supposed to regulate them. And at the same time, huge swathes of the population are voting for more of the same, as they have been convinced by the billionaire-controlled media that there is no alternative - because other, more deprived sections of society are the root cause of the decay - and are whipping up hatred to keep people divided, and keep themselves in power. All pretence of running the country for the benefit of its citizens has been abandoned, as the corrupt elected officials of a deliberately uneducated populace rush to appease a handful of despotic white men, in the hope that they will be able to snatch some crumbs from the table. Democracy has been subverted to the will of an unelected elite, to the point where even the concept of democracy has little value for a majority of the voting public. The most destructive principles of extreme capitalism are applied to normal people, and is applauded, even as it creates homelessness, marginalisation, division, poverty and death, because people are fine with it - as long as it affects somebody else, somebody less ‘deserving.’ There are plenty of historical precedents for this collapse, where once robust and successful societies gradually turn in on themselves, as the grifters and con-men take over the reigns of power, partly due to an apathetic and distracted population. We see this being repeated in more and more countries around the world - just look at the UK. Is this an unavoidable result of our own human nature? Can informed and humanitarian forces combat the disintegration of the social and economic fabric of society? Can we save ourselves? The next four years will be interesting, to say the least. Merry Christmas!

Grumpy about the news: Cognitive Dissonance "There is no denying the numbers: The United States currently enjoys the highest rate of economic growth among nations in the G7, the lowest inflation, and the strongest wage growth. The unemployment rate hasn’t been this low for this long in half a century. Even accounting for inflation, wages are higher today than they were before the coronavirus pandemic, and the biggest wage gains have accrued among the lowest-paid workers, resulting in a dramatic reduction in overall wage inequality. The economy is even outperforming among communities that are often excluded from boom-time gains. " So why are we failing to recognize it? Because the press covered Larry Summers and his utterly wrong diagnosis of inflation: "All this spending, Summers claimed, risked a run of inflation. People were going to have too much money on their hands, and this excess spending power would lead to higher prices that made everyone poorer. When prices did indeed begin rising in the second half of 2021, the business press hailed Summers as a prophet, and a host of liberal commentators began tipping their hats to him." Funny how when and estimated $13 trillion is transferred over 40 years from the middle class to the 1%, no one mentions that they have "too much money" -- but I digress... The real reasons for inflation were not primarily putting money in people's pockets to deal with a pandemic, but in the havoc the pandemic wreaked on industry supply chains and in companies taking advantage of that cover to raise prices even higher.

A couple of recent reviews of my book from the Economist and the Irish Times (https://archive.ph/m90ij and https://lnkd.in/eh8APWrB) The Irish Times one is very complimentary and thus obviously correct. The Economist is good humoured and engages positively with many of the points raised but cooler on the overall argument - they slightly misrepresent one key contention by implying the book recommends a cap on incomes above the threshold for the top 1% (it doesn't, it just uses this as a ballpark definition of when someone becomes 'super rich'). The interesting 'pro-inequality' counter-argument they put forward is that measures to contain extreme income and wealth accumulation deter enterprise and productivity. Possibly true at some point, but I think there's loads more that most economies could do to effect a more even distribution before that becomes a serious risk. And looking at the richest people in the UK at least - bureaucrat CEOs, heirs and heiresses on the rich list - only a tiny proportion would fit that description of entrepreneurs and innovators. So surely there's still considerable scope to re-balance wealth and income distribution, to the advantage of the wider population, while continuing to incentivise and reward innovation. Nice to get the reviews anyway - and still a small number of places available for the High Pay Centre panel event on the super-rich this week https://lnkd.in/e5YQdcxP