Robert B. Reich, a co-founder of The American Prospect, is a Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. His website can be found here and his blog can be found here.
Exactly eight years ago, I trudged through New Hampshire sleet and slush, telling anyone who'd listen that Bill Clinton would do wonders for the American economy. Now, as the nation lurches into a millennial election year, most Americans seem largely content. The economy has faded as an election-year issue. But it shouldn't havethere are Two Big Things about the American economy that ought to be framing the upcoming election. Big Thing Number One: America has been growing faster than ever. Productivity has been rising 2.1 percent a year since 1993, according to just-revised statistics. I wish the Clinton administration could take full credit, but it turns out that, as Barry Bluestone explains in this issue [see "Conversation: Clinton's Bequest Reconsidered," page 18], the productivity-growth spurt actually began picking up steam in the early 1980s. The recession of 1991-92 was only a temporary pause. Neither Reagan's supply-side tax cuts nor Clinton's deficit-thwacking budget cuts...
It seemed appropriate to begin my series of modest screeds with a short pre- snake person analysis of where power is moving to in America. Here's who's losing it: Giant corporations and their CEOs. They've made money in the current expansion, but they're losing clout. Vast industrial- age bureaucracies can't move fast enough. All are downsizing, and many CEOs are losing their jobs. Since 1990, heads have rolled at IBM, AT&T, General Motors, Sears, and other corporate behemoths. As the economy slows, expect more heads, lower profits, and downsizings on a monumental scale. Labor unions. Even with the tough- minded John Sweeney at the helm of the AFL- CIO, the percentage of private- sector workers belonging to labor unions continues to drop. Unless the AFL- CIO succeeds in organizing vast numbers of low- wage service workers in hotels, hospitals, retail stores, restaurants, and laundries, as well as platoons of overworked and underpaid high- tech workers, organized labor is in danger...
New York Times
I do not believe that it is politically feasible to insulate such huge funds from a
governmental direction," Alan Greenspan told the House Ways and Means
Committee last week, one day after President Clinton proposed investing a
portion of Social Security funds in the stock market.
Mr. Greenspan was equally forthright in criticizing the President's proposal to
raise the minimum wage to $6.15 an hour from $5.15. "My own preference
would be to lower it and, in fact, eliminate [the minimum wage] because I
think that it does more damage than good," he told the committee.
Pundits are now declaring Mr. Clinton's stock plan to be in deep trouble, in
large part because Mr. Greenspan opposes it. And a new cloud also hangs
over the possibility of raising the minimum wage.
Rarely has the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board been so outspokenly
critical of the White House. Rarely, in fact,...
Broadcast July 5, 2001 In previous slowdowns, unemployment has reached 7, 8, 9 percent. But we're nowhere near those levels, and we're not likely to be even if this slowdown slides into a full-fledged recession. So what's going on? Here's a hint. In the old days--that is, before 1990--most Americans held steady jobs with steady pay. As long as you had a job, you could be reasonably certain about how much you'd earn next month or even next year. Unless, of course, a recession came along and you got laid off. So it was all or nothing--a steady job or unemployment. That's no longer the case. These days even if you're classified as a full-time employee, your take-home pay is more likely to vary from month to month and year to year. A growing percent of the paychecks of America rise or fall depending on demand for what's being sold. More employees than ever are paid by commission, a direct percentage of what they sell. Or their pay is based on billable hours. One guy was bragging to me...
The big winner in this week's bizarre presidential election is Alan Greenspan, the venerable chairman of the US Federal Reserve Board. Mr Greenspan won because the next president - regardless of whether it is George W Bush or Al Gore - will go into office without authority to do much of anything.
To some, it may appear that the occupant of the White House has great authority simply by virtue of holding the office of president. But in fact, even under the best of circumstances, his authority is tightly circumscribed. He must share power with Congress and must depend on the public's continued support.
This time around, presidential authority is more constrained than ever. Given that about half of Americans bothered to vote, only about a quarter of eligible voters will have put the new president into office. If it is Mr Gore, he will be relying on a razor-thin majority of those voters; if Mr Bush, he will have no popular majority at all...