Here Comes Not Quite Everybody

It is a cliché that the Internet connects everyone, so it probably has escaped consciousness that many actually cannot afford the high-speed service the rest of us now take for granted.  They are being bypassed.

Susan Crawford, a professor at New York’s Cardozo law school, recently called attention to our “digital divide.”  “If you were white, middle-class and urban, the Internet was opening untold doors of information and opportunity. If you were poor, rural or a member of a minority group, you were fast being left behind.”

The U.S. Department of Commerce pointed out, for example, “a mere 4 out of every 10 households with annual household incomes below $25,000 in 2010 reported having wired Internet access at home.”  Moreover, “only slightly more than half of all African-American and Hispanic households (55 percent and 57 percent, respectively)” have it, compared with 72 percent of whites.  (See The New York Times, “The New Digital Divide.”)

It’s not just a question of convenient, quick shopping or entertainment – though it is also about that.  Increasingly medical services, employment information and job interviews, education, and access to vital career information depend on high speed Internet connectivity.  In the future more and more essential services will depend on it.

Most of us just absorb the increasing expense, but America is 12^th among developed nations for wired Internet access, held down by monopolistic practices, the lack of incentive to wire rural markets, and the virtual absence of regulation – all hallmarks of the political and economic policies that discount the role of government and favor the wealthy.  The poor rely more and more on smart phones, but their capacity to carry large amounts of data is restricted.  They may tell you where your kids are, but they’re not equivalent to computers.

In the nineteenth and earlier twentieth centuries, the U.S. government heavily subsidized postal rates so that newspapers and magazines vital to the development of democracy could be cheaply distributed.  Those services are now being cut back, partly of course because the Internet is a more efficient way to do those jobs.  But it is not doing the same job if it doesn’t reach more citizens.

Democracy depends on economic opportunity or it will atrophy.  This is yet another way in which the poor are dropping out of our collective consciousness, no longer able to participate in our economy and, as a result, disenfranchised.

Mesmerized by out technological marvels and gargets, we are in danger of failing to notice that fewer and fewer among us are still playing.

“Anyone But Mitt”

Democratic politics, in theory, is about people choosing leaders to guide the country.  But lately it has come to seem in the U.S. that the process has become vindictive and charged with hatred.  The question has become not “What do we want?” but “Whom do we despise and fear the most?”

This phase began with conservatives deciding that their most important goal was brining down President Obama.  That single-minded obsession has produced legislative gridlock and rendered Congress impotent to deal with the jobless Great Recession.  Democrats, in turn, seem to have been reduced to scoring points against their adversaries.  Several times this has led the country to the brink of fiscal crisis.

There are legitimate differences of opinion, of course, about the policies we need.  But that’s not what the discussions are about – now all the more apparent as the Republicans are competing with each other for the nomination.  A succession of candidates has arisen, each presenting himself (or herself) as an alternative to Mitt Romney, but each has crashed and burned as the new front-runner shows himself to be politically inept or morally compromised.  Liberal leaning commentators are amused and contemptuous, while conservatives are aghast and anxious – if not actively joining in the fray. (See, “Republican Leaders Still Seem Torn About Romney.”)

What is going on?  What are the underlying reasons for this polarization and frenzy?  Why have our politics come to look like war?

The reason is that it actually is a form of war.  The underlying issue, thinly disguised, is who will profit the most from the restructuring of our tax codes, entitlement programs, subsidies and regulatory policies.  The competing political and economic agendas offered by the candidates are not about finding the best policies to move the country forward into economic recovery, as they are presented as being, but about who stands to gain the most — and who can best disguise the real underlying conflict.  The problem with Romney is that he has shown himself to be all too willing to compromise and betray the conservative agenda.  They want someone they can trust.

In general, we deal with these issues naively, unconsciously — and “optimistically.”  We do not want to see the clash of self-interests that underlies the idealized “land of opportunity” we still think we are.  We have been reluctant to face the fact that the country is split between those whose wealth is growing, aided by government policies, and the increasing ranks of the poor, who face further cuts to our already frayed safety nets.

But the Occupy Movement has forced the wealth gap to the surface of our minds, and the 99 percent are looking around and beginning to stir.  The Republicans mock the movement’s lack of a political agenda, but it has succeeded in placing the issue squarely in the minds of the public, and the conservatives don’t have a strong way to deflect attention away from it or a compelling, charismatic leader to distract us.

But they keep hoping something better will come along.

The Benefits of Work

Retirement used to be thought of as an ideal goal, almost a right.  After 30 or 40 years of productive work, people expected to be able to take it easy.  But that idea has now become obsolete – and maybe it is undesirable as well.

Partly, the shift is the result of necessity.  As The New York Times put it recently:  “Retirement seems out of the question for increasing numbers of Americans who are saddled with debt and whose savings evaporated during the recent bust.” (See, “Goodbye, Golden Years.”)

But economists are also coming to think of retirement as a drag on the economy.  Older workers who keep working continue to buy more goods and pay more taxes.  Moreover, they depend less on the earnings of others.  As the baby boomers reach retirement age, can society afford the “entitlements” we have come to take for granted?

Finally, on a personal level, those who keep working also often feel more useful and relevant.  Unless retirees find stimulating and socially valuable activities, they undergo a kind of marginalization that makes it more difficult to maintain self-esteem and overcome depression.  They more easily withdraw from engagement with others.

Conventional wisdom in the past held that the threat of unemployment hastened workers’ decision to retire. But The Times noted, “recent increases in unemployment haven’t encouraged many older Americans into retirement.”  One reason is that workers now keep their social security benefits when they continue to work.  Another is that, as our economy is less focused on heavy industry and manufacturing, work for most people has become less physically strenuous.

It is a big issue, and it is getting bigger.  As The Times put it:  “Between 2007 and 2010, the number of working Americans over 65 years old jumped 16 percent; the number of under-65’s in the labor force shrank.”  These trends are likely to continue.

Declining health and age, on the other hand, often require substantial cutbacks in activity, and it can be cruel to force people to work when their jobs are stressful.  Moreover, not all jobs are good jobs, offering decent pay and emotional rewards.  But it is probably a good thing to dismantle rigid expectations about retirement.  Even better would be the creation of a range of part-time jobs allowing people to supplement their income while continuing to engage with others and feel productive.

The Old Testament taught us to view work as a curse, mankind’s punishment for sin.  And for centuries work has often been painful and harsh.  Since the Reformation, however, we have tended to view work as a source of human dignity.  Today, it has become the most important thing we do, providing us with our identities, the esteem that comes from competence, and allowing us to take our place in the world.

Work has eclipsed virtually all of our other meaningful activities.  As a result, we need to shift our expectations about retirement.  But we also need jobs, and the opportunities to find the work that suits us as we complete the life cycle.

Income Inequality and the Difference a New Lens Can Make

The U.S. Census Bureau has looked into its categories for income, and discovered: “100 million people — one in three Americans — either in poverty or in the fretful zone just above it.”

Responding to a request for more data from The New York Times, the Bureau discovered that its old measures of poverty did not do an adequate job.  “There are more people struggling than the official numbers show,” commented the Bureau’s Chief Poverty Statistician.

The Times noted that “the findings . . . convey levels of economic stress sharply felt but until now hard to measure.” (See, “Older, Suburban and Struggling, ‘Near Poor’ Startle the Census.”)

The important point is that, apart from unemployment figures, it has been very hard to see the true extent of the impact of The Great Recession on the poor.  But more and more of the signs are adding up to a more complete picture.  Retail sales figures released last week show “the divide between hard-pressed and prosperous Americans remained a defining characteristic of the retail economy.”

The Chairman and CEO of Saks noted:  “I feel good about the luxury consumer.”  On the other hand, the Chairman and CEO of Walmart, noted: “Our customers are still feeling pressured to reduce expenses wherever they can.” “Referring to the Wal-Mart shopper’s dependence on paychecks and government-assistance payments rather than savings,” he added, “going forward we really would not expect anything different.” (See, Retailers See a Split in Behavior of Shoppers.”)

Far more disturbing is the growing evidence that this difference is hardening into a permanent gap among the communities in which we live. According to a new study by Stanford University: “The portion of American families living in middle-income neighborhoods has declined significantly since 1970 . . . as rising income inequality left a growing share of families in neighborhoods that are mostly low-income or mostly affluent.”

The study noted that “children in mostly poor neighborhoods tend to have less access to high-quality schools, child care and preschool, as well as to support networks or educated and economically stable neighbors who might serve as role models.”  One effect is a “growing gap in standardized test scores between rich and poor children, now 40 percent bigger than it was in 1970. That is double the testing gap between black and white children,” according to one of the authors of the study. (See, “Middle-Class Areas Shrink as Income Gap Grows, New Report Finds.”)

As neighborhoods become more tightly stratified, that also has an impact on the identities of the children growing up in them.  They know they are “poor,” and “disadvantaged.”  Less is expected of them, and they come to expect less of themselves.

William Julius Wilson, a sociologist at Harvard who has seen the study, argues that “rising inequality is beginning to produce a two-tiered society in America in which the more affluent citizens live lives fundamentally different from the middle- and lower-income groups.

Different neighborhoods, different schools, different expectations mean that it will be increasingly difficult for us to see each other, and to grasp the fact that we actually live in one nation.

The Ground Is Shifting

Though Americans pay lip service to the idea that “all men are created equal,” as Jefferson put it in the Declaration of Independence, we have always taken huge inequalities for granted.  Obviously, some of us are smarter, stronger and prettier than others.  Jefferson’s point is that the playing fields of society should be level enough for us all to participate in games that are essentially fair.

Now, again, the shock waves from the contradiction between our ideals and our practice are destabilizing our world.  The Occupy Wall Street movement calls attention to the “1 percent” who control 40 percent of our wealth, and a rigged political system that protects their interests.  The other “99 percent” include not just the unemployed, the marginal and the ill but the whole middle class.

In America protests are spreading to other cities and college campuses.  But the issue is world-wide.  In the UK, demonstrators call attention to the disparity between the support government has given bankers and the drastic cuts in social benefits for students, workers and ordinary citizens.  The Arab world is marked by challenges to the hegemonic power of its ruling class.  In Spain, the “indignatos” have taken to the streets.  Israelis are camping out in Tel Aviv.  Indians protest corruption in Dehli.  Dozens of protests are erupting.

The old privileges were held in place by convictions, largely unconscious, that the inequalities were non-negotiable.  That is, they were wrong and galling, but they could not be challenged.  Several powerful psychological reasons stood min the way.  People tend to protect themselves from failure by not trying to do what they believe they can’t accomplish.  They also fear feelings of hopelessness, especially if their anger ends up making them feel even more impotent.  Finally, they fear destabilizing the accommodations they have made with their own communities.  It’s hard to go out on a limb in front of your neighbors.  Now, however, new forms of collective awareness make change seem possible.

Why is this happening?  Each movement has its own motivations and dynamics, of course, but they are influenced by two common factors.  Globalization has linked our economies together, usually with grossly different costs and benefits.  But, now, the financial crisis has spread economic pain around the world.  The Euro crisis, the American recession, widespread unemployment and economic stagnation are making the effects of these problems more and more apparent everywhere. The second factor is that with economic retrenchment has come a significant loss of opportunity.  With fewer ways out for individuals, more are feeling trapped in a system that is no longer working.

Regular citizens are noting the extraordinary salaries and bonuses of bankers, but establishment voices are speaking up as well.  Last week, for example, the Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote a comprehensive account of these world wide events and joined a growing list of world class economists calling for reform. (See “The Globalization of Protest.)

So the ground is shifting.  The rumblings from our growing economic inequality can no longer be suppressed.  We can’t know for sure how this surge of protests will end.  But, perhaps, where there was hopelessness and rage, some form of hope will emerge.