"A new survey suggests that restoring confidence in free enterprise will mean ensuring that the same rules apply to everyone"
"If you want to find people who still believe in “the American dream”—the magnetic idea that anyone can build a better life for themselves and their families, regardless of circumstance—you might be best advised to travel to Mumbai. Half of the Indians in a recent poll agreed that “the next generation will probably be richer, safer and healthier than the last.”...The percentage of optimists drops to 42 in Thailand, 39 in Indonesia, 29 in Brazil, 19 in the U.K. and 15 in Germany. But it isn’t old-world Britain or Germany that is gloomiest about the future. It is new-world America, where only 14% of those surveyed think that life will be better for their children..."
See:
WSJ
Comments
More generally, India does seem to be on a path of national economic development -- the result of which is a broadening and betterment of the Indian middle-class. So there is an expectation that the trajectory is 'up' (in a very general sense) -- even for those still mired in poverty there.
Here in the USA, the economic principals (major corporations, the authorities) are mostly concerned with asset-stripping the US. Extracting equity (financial engineering) cost-reducing (offshoring jobs, moving to a contracted workforce, importing Hb1 visa-holders, etc. etc.), and mass migration of low-skilled workers to compete-down the prevailing wage levels here. Some of these trends enshrined into law by trade deals over the past 40 years. None of these secular trends is conducive to improving the middle-class here. -- As evidenced by a growing GDP topline number -- but one where an ever increasing share of the income "pie" goes to the top 10% 5% and 1%, at the expense of the rest of us.
For those overwhelming number of Americans without substantial investments, the trajectory (albeit from a much higher level than a typical Indian) is "down". These folks DO have 'faith' that the brand of capitalism as currently practiced here in the USA will continue to worsen their, and their children's live, pushing their living standards into equilibrium with emerging market populations.
I do not interpret this as a definition, rather it is what can go wrong with capitalism. There are good companies, Costco and Trader Joe’s come to mind, implying that not all capitalist men are nasty. The following link explains the origins of the quote:
capitalism
This is why it is crucial for America to train its workforce for high skilled jobs and encourage the development of high-skilled industries here with high profit margins. That's the German/Swiss/Swedish model. Instead we subsidize low-skilled fast food industry jobs with cheap corn for feed stock and minimum wages so low that workers end up on food stamps payed for by the government. Essentially a McDonald's employee is really a government one today. Nor is this to say that all "wide moat" highly profitable companies are good corporate stewards to consumers, labor and the environment. It's just that they can be if they choose to. Some choose not to and deserved to be penalized by regulators and shunned by consumers.
Wow! Just wow. I would love to see the data that supports that. Not really, but it had to be one heck of a long road you travelled to end up with that conclusion.
money.cnn.com/2013/10/15/news/economy/fast-food-worker-public-assistance/
npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/10/16/235398536/why-u-s-taxpayers-pay-7-billion-a-year-to-help-fast-food-workers
Regarding the government's subsidization of fast food via cheap corn, there's also this:
wired.com/2008/11/fast-food-anoth/
https://washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/farm-bill-why-dont-taxpayers-subsidize-the-foods-that-are-better-for-us/2014/02/14/d7642a3c-9434-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html
I wonder about the portion of your comment I repeated above. Its my sense that comparative and absolute advantage combined with the waving of Adam Smith's invisible hand provide the opportunity for nations engaged in trade to have a higher combined GDP and higher individual GDPs with trade than they would enjoy without trade. Your post suggests you think the trade deals over the past 40 years may have resulted in the US middle class having a lower absolute standard of living than it would have enjoyed in the absence of those trade deals (even though the absolute size of the GDP pot within the US may have increased as a result of those trade deals). My general reading about those deals does not suggest to me the middle class has suffered more with those deals than it would have without them: i.e. combined savings in the aggregate costs of goods and services by US middle class consumers have -- by my reckoning -- probably more than offset any aggregate downward pressure on middle class wages and benefits directly attributable to those trade deals.
Its my sense better enforcement of existing laws, executive orders, tax codes and other regulations, making targeted changes in those areas, and implementing targeted increases in federal spending on retraining of displaced workers, R&D, infrastructure, etc. have the best chances of helping to re-balance the distribution of the domestic GDP pie to the favor of the middle class. Or, perhaps those things combined with "somehow" gradually moving the US corporate mindset more in the direction of the "good corporate steward" model that was discussed by LewisBraham above.
I am wondering: Do you think that less trade is presently part of the answer? Do you think that the trade negotiators have just gotten off track with their negotiation strategies? Or ???
Thanks.
David
If retail prices are raised to the point that low-end employers pay their employees adequately, those very price increases will only make it more difficult for their low-income customers to afford to live. Seems like a vicious circle- maybe it's better the way that it is?
So the idea that minimum wage increases are a zero sum gain is misguided.
And never forget that we are the government. The collective 'we' just doesn't have enough money to influence our representatives to change the laws or systems (see above).