Jim Webb on Growing Class Divides

Mack · #1 (**permalink**) 11-16-2006, 12:49 PM

Quote:

ELECTION 2006

Class Struggle
American workers have a chance to be heard.

BY JIM WEBB
Wednesday, November 15, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

The most important--and unfortunately the least debated--issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country. Few among them send their children to public schools; fewer still send their loved ones to fight our wars. They own most of our stocks, making the stock market an unreliable indicator of the economic health of working people. The top 1% now takes in an astounding 16% of national income, up from 8% in 1980. The tax codes protect them, just as they protect corporate America, through a vast system of loopholes.

Incestuous corporate boards regularly approve compensation packages for chief executives and others that are out of logic's range. As this newspaper has reported, the average CEO of a sizeable corporation makes more than $10 million a year, while the minimum wage for workers amounts to about $10,000 a year, and has not been raised in nearly a decade. When I graduated from college in the 1960s, the average CEO made 20 times what the average worker made. Today, that CEO makes 400 times as much.

In the age of globalization and outsourcing, and with a vast underground labor pool from illegal immigration, the average American worker is seeing a different life and a troubling future. Trickle-down economics didn't happen. Despite the vaunted all-time highs of the stock market, wages and salaries are at all-time lows as a percentage of the national wealth. At the same time, medical costs have risen 73% in the last six years alone. Half of that increase comes from wage-earners' pockets rather than from insurance, and 47 million Americans have no medical insurance at all.

Manufacturing jobs are disappearing. Many earned pension programs have collapsed in the wake of corporate "reorganization." And workers' ability to negotiate their futures has been eviscerated by the twin threats of modern corporate America: If they complain too loudly, their jobs might either be outsourced overseas or given to illegal immigrants.

This ever-widening divide is too often ignored or downplayed by its beneficiaries. A sense of entitlement has set in among elites, bordering on hubris. When I raised this issue with corporate leaders during the recent political campaign, I was met repeatedly with denials, and, from some, an overt lack of concern for those who are falling behind. A troubling arrogance is in the air among the nation's most fortunate. Some shrug off large-scale economic and social dislocations as the inevitable byproducts of the "rough road of capitalism." Others claim that it's the fault of the worker or the public education system, that the average American is simply not up to the international challenge, that our education system fails us, or that our workers have become spoiled by old notions of corporate paternalism.

Still others have gone so far as to argue that these divisions are the natural results of a competitive society. Furthermore, an unspoken insinuation seems to be inundating our national debate: Certain immigrant groups have the "right genetics" and thus are natural entrants to the "overclass," while others, as well as those who come from stock that has been here for 200 years and have not made it to the top, simply don't possess the necessary attributes.

Most Americans reject such notions. But the true challenge is for everyone to understand that the current economic divisions in society are harmful to our future. It should be the first order of business for the new Congress to begin addressing these divisions, and to work to bring true fairness back to economic life. Workers already understand this, as they see stagnant wages and disappearing jobs.

America's elites need to understand this reality in terms of their own self-interest. A recent survey in the Economist warned that globalization was affecting the U.S. differently than other "First World" nations, and that white-collar jobs were in as much danger as the blue-collar positions which have thus far been ravaged by outsourcing and illegal immigration. That survey then warned that "unless a solution is found to sluggish real wages and rising inequality, there is a serious risk of a protectionist backlash" in America that would take us away from what they view to be the "biggest economic stimulus in world history."

More troubling is this: If it remains unchecked, this bifurcation of opportunities and advantages along class lines has the potential to bring a period of political unrest. Up to now, most American workers have simply been worried about their job prospects. Once they understand that there are (and were) clear alternatives to the policies that have dislocated careers and altered futures, they will demand more accountability from the leaders who have failed to protect their interests. The "Wal-Marting" of cheap consumer products brought in from places like China, and the easy money from low-interest home mortgage refinancing, have softened the blows in recent years. But the balance point is tipping in both cases, away from the consumer and away from our national interest.

The politics of the Karl Rove era were designed to distract and divide the very people who would ordinarily be rebelling against the deterioration of their way of life. Working Americans have been repeatedly seduced at the polls by emotional issues such as the predictable mantra of "God, guns, gays, abortion and the flag" while their way of life shifted ineluctably beneath their feet. But this election cycle showed an electorate that intends to hold government leaders accountable for allowing every American a fair opportunity to succeed.

With this new Congress, and heading into an important presidential election in 2008, American workers have a chance to be heard in ways that have eluded them for more than a decade. Nothing is more important for the health of our society than to grant them the validity of their concerns. And our government leaders have no greater duty than to confront the growing unfairness in this age of globalization.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110009246

Now thats a call for change. The results of this election weren't just due to the supposed war on terror in Iraq, they were also a result of the neo-cons war on the middle class.

JP5 · #2 (**permalink**) 11-16-2006, 02:18 PM

Jim Webb sounds like a border-line Communist. I thought he was supposed to be a moderate. Obviously, whoever told me that was wrong.

I'm betting the people of Virginia---after reading this---will feel like they were snookered: BIG TIME!

gmb92 · #3 (**permalink**) 11-16-2006, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot

Jim Webb sounds like a border-line Communist. I thought he was supposed to be a moderate. Obviously, whoever told me that was wrong.

I'm betting the people of Virginia---after reading this---will feel like they were snookered: BIG TIME!

are hanging on to the talking point that "conservative Dems" beat the Republicans. It makes them feel better in the short-term but it's not reality. In the Senate, Webb, Tester, Brown, Whitehouse and McCaskill are all solid liberals and of course Bernie Sanders (socialist) replaces a moderate independent. Casey is the only conservative Dem and he replaces the most far right loon in the Senate (Santorum).

Webb is a Richard Clarke type. Once a Reaganite, his stances have moderated over the years and his party status switched on the Iraq issue - seen to be one of the greatest foreign policy blunders in our history.

gmb92 · #4 (**permalink**) 11-16-2006, 02:35 PM

In Virginia, only 12% of liberals voted for Allen and only 12% of conservatives voted for Webb, according to the exit polls. I'm willing to bet that the 12% of conservatives were Pat Buchanan types, angry over the Iraq war.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pag.../epolls.0.html

Zoe · #5 (**permalink**) 11-16-2006, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot

Jim Webb sounds like a border-line Communist. I thought he was supposed to be a moderate. Obviously, whoever told me that was wrong.

I'm betting the people of Virginia---after reading this---will feel like they were snookered: BIG TIME!

Ah, at what point did stating the facts qualify a person as member of the "border-line Communist" club?

JP5 · #6 (**permalink**) 11-16-2006, 03:37 PM

It's just the same/old, same/old. Dems can't help from playing the class warfare game. It's in their blood. Hopefully, he's not implying that all rich people are Republicans. The richest people in Congress and the Senate are Democrats!! And speaking of sending your kids to public schools......George and Laura Bush did, and Al Gore and Bill & Hillary Clinton did NOT!

Listening to Jim Webb, one would think this is a horrible country to live in. Sounds just like the Dems on this board!!

barney-fife · #7 (**permalink**) 11-16-2006, 03:42 PM

"From each, according to their means, to each, according to their needs."

Sincerely,

Jim Webb e-r-r-r-r Karl Marx

The12thMan · #8 (**permalink**) 11-16-2006, 04:12 PM

The average poor person in the 1960s was way worse off than the average poor person of today. My middle class life then would be considered nearly destitute today.

Quote:

When I graduated from college in the 1960s, the average CEO made 20 times what the average worker made. Today, that CEO makes 400 times as much.

I call BS. Can anyone provide proof of his statement?

Quote:

The politics of the Karl Rove era were designed to distract and divide the very people who would ordinarily be rebelling against the deterioration of their way of life.

Karl Rove era? LOL! He reads too many blogs if you ask me. Anybody care to explain "the deterioration of their way of life"?

JP5 · #9 (**permalink**) 11-16-2006, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gmb92";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot

Jim Webb sounds like a border-line Communist. I thought he was supposed to be a moderate. Obviously, whoever told me that was wrong.

I'm betting the people of Virginia---after reading this---will feel like they were snookered: BIG TIME!

are hanging on to the talking point that "conservative Dems" beat the Republicans. It makes them feel better in the short-term but it's not reality. In the Senate, Webb, Tester, Brown, Whitehouse and McCaskill are all solid liberals and of course Bernie Sanders (socialist) replaces a moderate independent. Casey is the only conservative Dem and he replaces the most far right loon in the Senate (Santorum).

Webb is a Richard Clarke type. Once a Reaganite, his stances have moderated over the years and his party status switched on the Iraq issue - seen to be one of the greatest foreign policy blunders in our history.

Webb ran as a "Reagan Democrat." IF that's not presenting himself as a moderate, I don't know what would be. But this article sounds anything but moderate. Here's some of the flaws in what he says:

At least 1/2 of Americans own stock---either directly or through pension funds. So "our" stocks are not owned by the elite.

Yes, "fewer people send their loved ones to fight wars"----because you don't get "SENT" anymore. Our military is ALL volunteer.

Webb complains about corporations and CEO's pay; but doesn't mention what sports stars make; what Hollywood stars make for ONE movie; or what Union bosses make.

Webb whines that the rich don't send their kids to public schools. George & Laura Bush did; the Clinton's and the Gore's did not.

Webb says it's unfair that the top 1% now takes in an 'astounding' 16% of national income. But this same 1% pays over 1/3 of all federal taxes taken in each year. How about that for unfairness?

More Americans than ever before have college degrees.

More Americans than ever own their own home.

In our country, People like me-----a carpenter's daughter--is able to put themselves through college (first one in family) and through hard work and playing by the rules, eventually make it all the way to the top 1%. Not some "evil" person who had it handed to them, as the Democrats constantly portray!

It's time for Democrats like Webb, Al Gore, and all the rest to stop playing the class warfare. It just doesn't work anymore. There is too large a middle class and upper middle class, who started from the bottom, who KNOW better!!

gmb92 · #10 (**permalink**) 11-16-2006, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The12thMan";p=&quot

The average poor person in the 1960s was way worse off than the average poor person of today. My middle class life then would be considered nearly destitute today.

Quote:

When I graduated from college in the 1960s, the average CEO made 20 times what the average worker made. Today, that CEO makes 400 times as much.

I call BS. Can anyone provide proof of his statement?

Quote:

The politics of the Karl Rove era were designed to distract and divide the very people who would ordinarily be rebelling against the deterioration of their way of life.

Karl Rove era? LOL! He reads too many blogs if you ask me. Anybody care to explain "the deterioration of their way of life"?

Here's one study from several years ago. Data is derived from Business week surveys and Labor Dept. statistics. While CEO pay has skyrocketed, average worker pay has risen more slowly relative to inflation.

http://www.faireconomy.org/press/arc...ade/DivDec.pdf

By "deterioration of their way of life", I think he's referring to the fact that real median incomes have been stagnant, savings rates are much lower, homes are less affordable, education costs are higher due in part to the slashing of federal aid, and the poor and middle class have been squeezed, while the wealthy have never had it better.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode