As we near the end of 2013, it suddenly seems everyone’s talking about inequality. Earlier this month, Barack Obama spoke of a “relentless decades-long trend” of “dangerous and growing inequality and lack of upward mobility.” Around the…
Category: #OccupyWallStreet
Stating the obvious
And yet for all the shortcomings of the government’s strategy, the main reason for America’s persistent poverty is the disappearance of jobs with decent pay that can take workers above the poverty line without the government’s help.
The war on poverty was not just about the poor. President Johnson saw it as a way to “prove the success of our system; to disprove those cynics and critics at home and abroad who question our purpose and our competence.”
Our system provides extraordinary rewards for the successful. But as long as so many are left so far behind, the success of our system remains in doubt.
America has not stopped fighting the war on poverty. President Obama’s health law should, when functioning properly, prevent medical expenses from dragging many families into bankruptcy.
Yet winning this war will require more than expanded government benefits. It will probably require a different sort of labor market that provides a better first line of defense. That is a much tougher war to win.
Go read it, it’s a good overview.
How dare you?
One of the questions going round right now is, why isn’t Jamie Dimon being prosecuted over his very obvious Sarbanes-Oxley oversight violations? We all know the answer: Because he’s Jamie fucking Dimon, damn it, and laws are for the little people!
Go to about 3:30 and watch that “What the fuck?” look on his face when Rep. Brad Miller has the audacity to imply he wasn’t doing his job.
Sucking up to the poor mistreated bankers
Ordinarily these masters of the universe might have groaned at the idea of a politician taking the microphone. In the contentious years since the crash of 2008, they’ve grown wearily accustomed to being called names—labeled “fat cats” by President Obama and worse by those on the left—and gotten used to being largely shunned by Tea Party Republicans for their association with the Washington establishment. And of course there are all those infuriating new rules and regulations, culminating this week with the imposition of the so-called Volcker Rule to make risky trades by big banks illegal.
But Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, in effect: We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it. What the bankers heard her to say was just what they would hope for from a prospective presidential candidate: Beating up the finance industry isn’t going to improve the economy—it needs to stop. And indeed Goldman’s Tim O’Neill, who heads the bank’s asset management business, introduced Clinton by saying how courageous she was for speaking at the bank. (Brave, perhaps, but also well-compensated: Clinton’s minimum fee for paid remarks is $200,000).
Certainly, Clinton offered the money men—and, yes, they are mostly men—at Goldman’s HQ a bit of a morale boost. “It was like, ‘Here’s someone who doesn’t want to vilify us but wants to get business back in the game,’” said an attendee. “Like, maybe here’s someone who can lead us out of the wilderness.”
Clinton’s remarks were hardly a sweeping absolution for the sins of Wall Street, whose leaders she courted assiduously for financial support over a decade, as a senator and a presidential candidate in 2008. But they did register as a repudiation of some of the angry anti-Wall Street rhetoric emanating from liberals rallying behind the likes of Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). And perhaps even more than that, Clinton’s presence offered a glimpse to a future in which Wall Street might repair its frayed political relationships.
So Hillary’s the Bad Mommy, the one who will clutch the contrite rascals to her bosom and yell at the nasty populist Dems who are picking on her precious angels? Nah, that’s not gonna work. What planet does she live on? Mike Lux, who used to work with Hillary, points out the problem:
There is a fundamental disagreement over approaches to the Jamie Dimons and Lloyd Blankfeins of the world, and one approach, exemplified by a recent speech by Hillary Clinton’s recent speech to Goldman Sachs’ execs helped inspire (if you can call it that) the opposite approach from an organization I chair, American Family Voices. Partly inspired by one settlement after another where Jamie Dimon has sweet-talked prosecutors into no-criminal-prosecution settlements of things which were clearly criminal (the JPM settlements were by far the biggest in history money wise, which is a good thing, but so inadequate in so many ways they still are disappointing), and partly inspired by Hillary’s warm and friendly speech about Wall Street, we are putting out a parody of Rihanna’s video “Diamonds,” turning it into the story of that jewel of a guy Jamie Dimon- we think it is just the kind of hard-hitting and funny satire he and JP Morgan Chase so desperately deserve.
The thing is, the Democratic Party and American society in general are going to have to make a choice about the kind of economic and political course we are going to follow in the years to come. We’re going to have to choose between sucking up to Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein and the Wall Street masters of the universe with all their immense wealth and power on the one hand, and directly challenging the chokehold they have on our economy and our government through our policy initiatives, our political positioning, and cultural satire like this video on the other. Instead of being sympathized with, the Wall Street masters of the universe should be held accountable politically and legally for the role they played in damaging the economy and then keeping our economy from getting back on the road to recovery- and they should be mocked for their arrogance. American Family Voices doesn’t have the power to break the big banks up, or throw their executives in jail, but we can help on the mocking part and on the organizing part.
For-profit colleges padding their job placements? We are shocked

No, not really, since I used to work at one of these scams places. Let’s just say that someone who graduates, gets a good job and is happy they went to one of these schools is the exception, and not the rule:
Eric Parms enrolled at an Everest College campus in the suburbs of Atlanta in large part because recruiters promised he would have little trouble securing a job.
He’d seen the for-profit school’s television commercials touting its sterling rates of job placement, and he’d heard the pledges of admissions staff who assured him that the campus career services office would help him find work in his field.
But after completing a nine-month program in heating and air conditioning repair in the summer of 2011 — graduating with straight As and $17,000 in student debt — Parms began to doubt the veracity of the pitch. Career services set him up with a temporary contract position laying electrical wires. After less than two months, he and several other Everest graduates also working on the job were laid off and denied further help finding work, he says.
Even that short-lived gig wasn’t secured on the strength of Parms’s degree. The college had paid his contractor $2,000 to hire him and keep him on for at least 30 days, part of an effort to boost its official job placement records, according to documents obtained by The Huffington Post. The college paid more than a dozen other companies to hire graduates into temporary jobs before cutting them loose, a HuffPost investigation has found.
Everest College’s $2,000-per-head “subsidy” program in Decatur, Ga., stands among an array of tactics used for years by the institution’s parent company, Corinthian Colleges Inc., to systematically pad its job placement rates, according to a review of contract documents and lawsuits and interviews with former employees.
Thanks, Edward Tayter.
‘The austerity agenda is winning’
Krugman on the budget deal.
H/t
If this doesn’t illustrate the problem, I don’t know what does: Sales more than $1 million in Philadelphia climbed 31 percent to 122 deals in the 12 months ending September 2012, according to data from Zillow Inc. Nine of those agreements were for properties priced more than $3 million, the most since at least 2007. This year so far, eight units at $3 million or more sold at either 10 Rittenhouse Square or 1706 Rittenhouse Square, according to Philadelphia property records. H/t to Jason Kalafat. AmericaBlog’s Gaius Publius dissects this Chris Hedges interview: I don’t think that living in revolutionary times is any fun; and I think that revolutions very often go disastrously wrong. So I’m not cheering this one, and I’m angry indeed that the greed-mad (I mean that clinically) barons are determined to force us to rise up. Even without the climate chaos they may force on us, the next few decades will not be peaceful. But decide for yourself. Here’s Hedges on why he thinks we’re ripe for revolution, in the start of one already, and what we should do (source here): Some notes: ▪ At 7:15: “What happens in moments of breakdown, is that people not only turn against an ineffectual liberal elite, that in essence has presided over political or economic paralysis, but they also jettison the values that elite purports to defend. And that’s what’s dangerous. And we’re certainly barreling towards that kind of a crisis. I worry that we’re not only weakened, but unprepared.” ▪ At 8:45, Hedges talks about what vision replaces the current one, since people need to be fighting for something, not just against something. And he makes a nice connection between the current prison population and anti-revolutionary forces and critiques in our society. ▪ At 11:00 he talks about the recipe for revolution in current society as a fusion between “declassé intellectuals” — students whose lives are burdened and broken by debt and joblessness — and service workers, “who are in essence the working poor.” Think a student debt strike would light a fire? I do. ▪ He ends by articulating a vision (in my view, viable) of where and how change will come from. “It’s going to come off the ground, it’s going to come by stepping outside of the mainstream, it’s going to come by articulating a very different vision about how we relate to each other, how we relate to the economic system, and ultimately how we relate to the ecosystem.” The essay they reference, “Our Invisible Revolution,” is here. A related piece, “The Revolutionaries in our Midst,”is here. I think Hedges would offer these as further evidence that, well, it’s started. Thanks, April Cockerham. Via James Pethokoukis, here’s an interesting tidbit of income mobility data from a new Brookings report. The chart below is a little tricky to read, but basically it shows how likely you are to make more money than your parents. You’d naturally expect smart kids to do better than dimmer kids, so it tracks that too. Take a look at the green column on the far left. It’s for kids who grow up in the very poorest families. If you have high cognitive ability, you have a 24 percent chance of becoming a high earner as an adult. That’s not too bad. But if you come from a high-income family, you have a 45 percent chance of becoming a high earner as an adult. Same smarts, different outcome. No society will ever get this perfect. Still, there’s a huge difference between 24 percent and 45 percent. Better schools, more extracurricular opportunities, different skin color, bigger networks of connected friends, higher odds of going to college, and the simple ability to get in the door all give richer kids a huge leg up that poor kids don’t have. We obviously have a ways to go before everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed in America. So, Greg. You “have no clue” why all those homeless people and junkies are disturbing your pristine view of downtown San Fran? You’re not too smart, are you? You make no connection at all between economic, social, and political influences and their results? What a moron. Silicon Valley rising star Greg Gopman took to Facebook on Tuesday to rail against poor and homeless residents of San Francisco, inflaming already simmering tensions between the city’s tech industry and low-wage workers. Gopman, the CEO of the hackathon-organizing startup AngelHack, went on a rant wishing the “crazy, homeless, drug dealers, dropouts, and trash” would segregate themselves and stop marring his experience of San Francisco. In the comments, Gopman bemoaned how the “degenerates” of San Francisco “gather like hyenas, spit, urinate, taunt you, sell drugs, [and] get rowdy” in an area of town he considers to be off-limits to them. In comparison, he offered a rosy view of more class-segregated cities, where, he says, “the lower part of society keep to themselves. They sell small trinkets, beg coyly, stay quiet, and generally stay out of your way. They realize it’s a privilege to be in the civilized part of town and view themselves as guests.” Gopman deleted the post and apologized for his diatribe the next morning. “I trivialized the plight of those struggling to get by and I shouldn’t have,” he wrote. “I hope this thread can help start an open discussion on what changes we can make to fix these serious problems.” The CEO’s comments came just a day after protesters blocked a Google commuter shuttle, decrying tech-driven gentrification and San Francisco’s increasingly unaffordable housing costs. As the uber-rich tech industry migrates north from Silicon Valley the city’s real estate costs have soared, income inequality has worsened, and many long-time San Francisco residents are suddenly being priced out of their neighborhoods. While Gopman’s post was especially incendiary, he’s not the only one who has expressed the idea that homeless and poor residents are an unsightly burden on the city. Another startup founder, Peter Shih, sparked outrage over the summer by complaining that homeless people were ruining San Francisco for him. This disgust may soon spread past a few insensitive individuals and start influencing actual policy. San Francisco is currently considering criminalizing homelessness by making it illegal to sleep in city parks at night. Let’s not leave L.A. out of this. Here’s some yuppie scum, making fun of a passed-out homeless man.Apparently some people are doing quite well
`We`re in a pre-revolutionary society’
Equal opportunity?

Not exactly. Kevin Drum:The 1% is offended by the very sight of the bottom tier






