Who did this?

Census.gov (1)(2)

So things have become more difficult. Not for everyone, but certainly for those at the margin of economic viability.  Between 2006 and 2010, another ten million Americans dropped below the poverty line.  Who did this?

2014 Income

• Household income over the past seven years is 6.5 percent lower than in 2007, the year before the nation entered the most recent economic recession. (ref)

Among those affected the worst, none chose to lose their jobs or to have their hours reduced.  None chose to have their job exported overseas.  None chose to have their cost of living raised while wages remained stagnant. It was done to them, and the question on the table ... who did this?

The Great Recession was the result of twenty years or so of regulatory reform purchased by big business.  The triggers were corrupt practices by the finance industry and Wall Street.  Predatory lending, fraudulent securities, and failed government oversight, all on top of Greenspan's assurances that no one would lose so much as one dollar.  Crooked from start to finish, from Congress and the Fed, to S&P, to AIG and JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, and the revolving door at the SEC, all crooked, and the cost worldwide in human lives has been devastating.


Workers have 30% less buying power today than in 1968. If the minimum wage had kept up with employee productivity, it would be $16.54 per hour instead of $7.25.

Conditions for workers have gotten worse since the recession. While 21 percent of job losses since 2008 were considered low-wage positions, 58 percent of jobs added during the recovery were considered low-wage.

The U.S. is the world's wealthiest country yet one in five of our children live in poverty.  Thirty-one OECD countries have less child poverty than we do, and we're 35th down the list for total population poverty. There are so many things about that that are just wrong.  Morally, ethically, logically wrong.

As we make our way toward yet another presidential election and the cascade of lesser political positions that ride in on the attached coattails, it would be interesting if the public debate had something helpful to say on the subject.  Only Bernie Sanders has made the attempt so far.  The rest of the candidates have passed over the issues rather pointedly.

Despite minor improvements since the 1960s, America's poverty-fighting efforts remain an international embarrassment.

Other developed countries do far more to reduce deprivation in absolute and relative terms, while coincidentally enjoying far greater family stability.

Our current national economy is the product of conservative constraints. We resist government involvement and regulation in business, we oppose taxation on business transactions, and we support the free market determination of trade practices. All are rationally defensible, and the results are impressive if only for the wealthiest ten percent.  The last half-century has in fact left the bottom 90% behind in virtually every category of benefit, and the GAP has become deadly.  So how might we mitigate the harm we've done with such freedoms?

“The idea that so many children are born into poverty in the wealthiest nation on Earth is heartbreaking enough,” the president said. “But the idea that a child may never be able to escape that poverty because she lacks a decent education or health care, or a community that views her future as their own, that should offend all of us.” 

The Measurement of Success

GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and its nearly identical twin, GNP (Gross National Product)

They're irrelevant when the discussion is about the health of our nation.

"Our gross national product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors, and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwoods, and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm, nuclear warheads, and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities. Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile."  ~Robert F. Kennedy

GDP, or the money that businesses transact, has for years been the measure of how good or bad things might be. It's the yardstick used in describing how well we've done, how good our lives might be, and how we're doing in the world of marketplace competition.  It has little to do with the well-being of the citizenry, however, and will be unchanged by social crisis and injustice or during social advancement.

The US is the world's wealthiest country, but not perhaps
the best when it comes to empowering its citizens.
  How might that be?

An alternative measurement called Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) has been constructed in an attempt to more directly address the questions of progress in quality of life, stability, etc.

Tracking changes in a long list of factors, the proposed 'progress' index gives us a broader view that's perhaps more relevant.

Trends for educational attainment, income inequality, and employment levels are relevant as are environment concerns like water and air pollution. Adding social factors like crime and accident rates adds breadth to the index.

The result is perhaps surprising.  For most countries, both progress and wages have been flat since the 70's.  While the US fits the common world trends for lack of progress, some countries do stand out.  The common analysis, however, is that the process of globalization and world-wide competition has provided little improvement for the bottom 90%.

In our efforts to make a better world, we'll need a better yardstick than GDP to gauge our progress.

"I’m heartened to see the many efforts under way to develop alternatives to the GDP that take into account the health of our lives, the strength of our communities, and the sustainability of the environment. And yet it is no simple task to develop a monetized system that can measure the real determinants of happiness and well-being and do justice to the vast complexities of modern economic life. It may be that no single alternative index will emerge to entirely replace the GDP, and we will come to rely on a variety of indexes, each with its own perspectives, to provide us with as complete a picture as possible of the real state of our economic affairs and our societal well-being. And then perhaps we will be able to develop policies that lead to our ultimate goal—a sustainable prosperity shared by all." ~John Robbins

As we've noted elsewhere, the GDP rise in recent decades benefited the wealthy exclusively.
What would a thoughtful Christian consider important to the discussion of progress?

Happynomics - things that matter, Pt. II

Happiness Economics:  in Pt. I, we said it's economics and psychology, and we looked at wealth.  Here's the psych part.   

So in this graphic, dark red is the world's worst; lighter red and yellow are better.  It's the prevalence of neurological disabilities across national populations.  That's the psychological reality today, or at least a part of it.

It perhaps suggests that the sane folks in the world aren't the rich ones; that there's maybe a correlation between wealth and mental illnesses.  Why might that be?

It's possible that a dog can contribute more to your

 satisfaction with life than any excess of wealth

or luxury.  It's also quite possible that children

 are mentally healthier than adults in the
developed world.  Perhaps because
they spend more time with dogs.

It's just entertaining speculation, but what if a simpler existence were the mentally healthier one.

For most of developing world, there are no checking accounts to balance, no student loans to pay, no choices among schools for your kids, no car insurance or cars for that matter; not one in twenty owns a car.  No retirement plans, no health insurance, no reverse mortgages, no home equity loans, no tax shelters, no charitable deductions, no heating or air conditioning system to get serviced, and no grocery stores to search for your kids favorite cereal.  Prayers are simple and real, "Give us this day, bread, and deliver us from the evil we see."

This index is rather controversial and perhaps exaggerates some factors of disputed significance.

Included in criticisms are questions of relevance for things like ecological impact.  This index
appears to favor tropical regions with beach and palm trees, with which I agree, of course.

Do rich people spend too much of their time thinking about valueless things? Does it matter what we wear tomorrow or what we might have in the pantry or whether our car and house and dinner table appropriately represent the stature of the person we intend to become?

So then, are there any adjustments needed for those who live in the dark red zones?  You can't help but wonder.

This one will probably get me in trouble with my wife.  :)  That happens. 

everything except that which makes life worthwhile

Fun additions to the American life and household ...        

Happiness Economics:  It is actually a popular subject, and the questions raised are intriguing. We have categories of things that seem to make folks happy, but with limits.

Merging the perspectives of economics and psychology, we can sort through the pieces of life that perhaps make us happy or sad.  What we find is that almost all of us share a similar context for basic happiness.  Mapping that to wealth is enlightening.

1. The first discovery from the inquiry -- money can buy happiness, sort of, but perhaps only at an introductory level.
   
   Food, shelter, clothing, freedom to move about, to socialize and interact -- those are the things that wealth might provide that are linked to our happiness.
2. The second discovery turns out to be about the limits of wealth.  The more you have above that first threshold, the less happy you are.
   
   Wealth intrudes in relationships, on life choices, and on our ability to appreciate normalcy.  It assaults individual values and character; e.g., why work to understand them when you don't need them in your life?  Why notice the peons when you're a player?  Why shouldn't you have everything the way you want it?   Extra wealth is an impediment to happiness.
3. The third discovery is the one and only exception to the second.  Wealth above the first threshold is an impediment to your happiness unless you give it away.  Apparently, being generous and helping others strips away the burden of great wealth that would otherwise snuff out your enjoyment of life.  Doing something for the benefit of someone besides yourself actually satisfies the heart. There are no known exceptions to these three facts, at least not among the eleven people I talked to about it.

Differences among individuals, cultures, and economies give us a wide variance in terms of how much wealth comprises that first threshold.  

Wealth is perhaps a part, but
it's absolutely NOT all that
happiness requires.  We

can do so much better

than just having more

stuff.  True? Of
course, true.

• An acceptable home in one culture might be too much in another.  That happens a lot.
• Quality of clothing or some other factor might vary similarly.  A nice handbag in one culture might be a nonsensical luxury in another.  Luxury is nonsensical most of the time.

An odd note about our neighborhood: we will spend time with our neighbors in inverse proportion to our income.  I.e., the richer we are, the less connected we'll be to folks who live nearby. Our kids are similarly affected/afflicted by our wealth.

What might the other results of such an inquiry show us -- anything good?  Or bad?

If we're going to do well by our children, where are the important parts we should be careful to include in their lives?  And can we make a difference in the lives of others too?

NOTE: A question raised in international discussion:: is the pursuit of wealth and profit likely to give citizens the quality of life they really want?  Are there higher and perhaps more noble goals a country might have besides just wealth and conquest?  There are.  Are governments likely to get on board?  Some will, but likely not all.  You can imagine why.

For a provocative presentation from a personal perspective, see The Economics of Happiness by John Robbins, the heir apparent to the Baskin-Robbins fortune.  He left it all behind for something better.  :)
An excerpt...

Pointing us in the wrong direction   For the past 75 years, the GDP has been the fundamental measure of a nation’s economic progress. The reason the United States is considered the world’s most prosperous nation is because it has the largest GDP. Economists, politicians, and other leaders take for granted that the higher a nation’s GDP, the better off are its people. 

Unfortunately, using the GDP (and its nearly identical twin, the GNP) to measure well-being and genuine progress makes about as much sense as using a fork to eat soup: It’s the wrong tool for the job.

Two months before he was assassinated, Robert F. Kennedy explained why:   "Our gross national product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors, and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwoods, and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm, nuclear warheads, and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities. Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile."

Long ago and far away

These kids and their families welcomed us every time we were in their country.  From almost a decade ago, this picture is of the beach landing just across the street from where they live.  It's used mostly by dads who fish the local waters. The two little girls are part of a delightful bunch of teens, all grown up now and coping with life in a country that offers little besides a nice climate.  

As for the kids there, the only thing they aren't is rich. They're smart, hardworking, well mannered, aggressively learning and pursuing skills. They and their families are practical, gracious, and hospitable.  But they're not rich.  It's not for lack of effort or work ethic, but because like most such countries, poverty was done to them.  They didn't choose to be on the list of the world's fifty poorest countries.

Poverty arrived during the colonial years as land was claimed by wealthy foreigners.  Exploitation and slavery dictated the culture that shaped the country.  Today, wealth still flows to foreign accounts as resources are extracted, the classic postcolonial flail so many countries experience (ownership/theft of resources, indigenous disenfranchisement, etc.).   

The dugouts are quite old but still in use
for fishing; ocean fishing.

So these precious children, what prospects might they have?

Their country has one library, one high school, one almost grocery store .... and no online shopping yet; they're too far off the beaten path for Amazon shipping to reach.  That doesn't matter much since the median household income is perhaps $120 a month. Internet access is still rare, of course.  Not every house has electricity, not every family has floors to walk on, and not every child can afford the small school fees.

The country is changing; government and the economy are developing slowly, and they're being helped a little by the international community.  Roads are being repaired after decades of neglect.  They have a new power plant, several agricultural projects, and a new middle school.  We've helped them build their Coast Guard and begin to manage their territorial waters.  Change takes time, and changing a country takes generations.

A group of teens took me in hand to educate me a bit. Here, we met yet again for an 

afternoon's wandering. They entertained themselves for most of the time by taking 

pictures with my cameras; 200+ on this outing. My new friend and I in the 

background; Mana (right) undergoes yet another costume change for the 

photos. They're all grown up now, married and with kids of their own 

and scrambling to survive.

Meanwhile, their children are just like ours, their moms and dads are just like us, and they could use some help today, particularly at the fringes.  In order to make the difference needed at the individual level, help needs to be personal, loving, and a mutual effort, not a program. 

Working with local development organizations (reputable, accountable NGOs) is perhaps best for the small scale addressing of needs.  Local team members can work with individual families, tutors for kids, perhaps a little health and wellness training for the family, and assistance with projects, one at a time.  Home repairs (roof, walls, floors, bedding), garden planting and crop management, safe water, home electricity ... it can take a decade or more to bring a family up to self-sufficiency, but the progress is theirs; they do the work to make it happen.


An interesting question follows; whose responsibility is it to redress this abuse of humanity in general and these individuals in particular? It's ours, I guess. Isn't it?


Feelings and excuses aside, just a mechanical look at how it works tells us we're part of the problem/solution.  Biblically, ethically, morally, rationally, and logically -- the issues of imposed poverty and economic inequality are risen from the same roots as the historical slavery market.  

Meanwhile, around the world:  "Ending extreme poverty requires world leaders to tackle the growing gap between the richest and the rest which has trapped hundreds of millions of people in a life of poverty, hunger and sickness." 

"It is no longer good enough for the richest to pretend that their wealth benefits the rest of us when the facts show that the recent explosion in the wealth of the super-rich has come at the expense of the poorest."  ~The Sunday Herald, JAN 2016

Tax dodging by our multinational corporations, for example, costs developing countries an estimated minimum of 100 billion dollars (£69bn) each year. Corporate investment in tax havens has almost quadrupled between 2000 and 2014.  It's enough to feed every hungry child in the world and put them through school.  Both government and industry serve the wealthy at the expense of all others. ~Oxfam

So you're walking by a river and you see your kid struggling desperately to stay afloat and get to shore, what do you do?  It's your kid; you help.  Is it less urgent if your kid is really, really far away?

Conservative vs. Christian - Pt. III

When Squanto and Monte were discussing return on investment (ROI) in the corn industry, they came up with this 'fish & seed in the same hole' idea. It more than doubled the corn crop. Squanto and Monte patented the idea, formed a corporation for selling seeds and fish mush, and pretty much took all the profits from increased productivity for themselves.  Everybody worked harder, and the fish smelled really bad, but MonteSquanto, Inc., got all the corn money (profits).  Okay, no, not really, but if they had, they'd fit in perfectly with today's corporate business model.

That's the way it works these days.  Increased productivity feeds the corporation, not the worker whose productivity it is in the first place.  Some corporations are better than others in how employees are treated, but the rule of profit first is universal.

Worker productivity has more than doubled since the 1970's, but workforce wages are about the same today or perhaps a little less.  All the increased productivity has benefited only management and the owners, the top 10% of wealth holders; i.e.,  all the gains went to the rich.  Anything wrong with that?

Are employees just a resource to be used up and discarded?  (Most major corporations are openly hostile to employees and consider the labor costs a liability to be aggressively minimized.)

Should employees be paid so little that other people have to feed them so they don't starve?  (Walmart costs us about $6B/yr in financial assistance for low wage employees.  We pay and Walmart owners pocket the benefit we provide.)

Is there a difference between a slave owner's ethical stance and our current profitability motive? Broken down to cost/benefit analysis and return on investment calculations, they're pretty much identical.  Neither employees nor slaves are a corporate resource; they're people, and we're absolutely responsible for how they're treated.

Now let's consider this objectively, based on what we actually do as opposed to what we say  ...

We're the wealthiest nation in the world, but ...

Which countries have the lowest poverty rate?

• Taiwan has the lowest poverty rate worldwide – less than 2 percent of Taiwan's population lives in poverty...

followed by...

• Malaysia at 3.8 percent,
• Ireland at 5.5 percent, 
• Austria at 6.2 percent, then 
• Thailand and France at 7.8 percent, Switzerland at 7.9 percent, 
• Canada at 9.4 percent, 
• the Netherlands at 10.5 percent, and ... 
• ... France, Switzerland, Kazakhstan, Greenland, Poland, Russia, ... and even China.
• the US ranks about 35th down the list.

And which industrialized countries have the highest child poverty rate?

A report released in 2012 by the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) reveals alarming child poverty rates within affluent, or 'developed', nations.

• The US ranks second highest among all measured countries, with 23.1 per cent of children living in poverty, just under Romania's 25.6 per cent.

If we're the wealthiest nation in the world, why do we treat our children so poorly?
Where in all of this might we find Christian principles displayed?

The conflict, of course, is between our evolved culture (frog in a kettle) and our claimed values.  The issues we can address are (1) our personal life and choices, and (2) our sphere of influence.  We can teach our children that people are not resources to be used and discarded.

Interestingly, the issue of human rights is commonly thought to be some weirdo liberal agenda.  Justice, equality, opportunity, etc.  What are the answers a sincere Christian might require?