Are We the World's Most Anti-Worker Nation?

[Póg mo 1,749]

The verdict is in: The typical American is even poorer than his or her equivalent in Greece. The median Australian is four times wealthier. The Canadians are twice as wealthy. To be sure, we continue to lead the world in billionaires (571 in 2014, with China a distant second at 190). But after 30 years financial deregulation and attacks on employee rights, we rank 26th in median wealth (defined as all assets owned -- banks accounts, investments, homes, cares, etc., minus all debts owed for the person precisely on the middle rung of the wealth ladder).

It's not an accident:

During the Cold War, our working class was the envy of the world. We argued that our free-enterprise system, not communism, created the best conditions for a rising standard of living for all. Indeed, there was much to boast about. Real wages were increasing year after year. American workers were free to go on strike and did. And most importantly, the children of working people could climb the economic ladder -- upward mobility was real.

Today, by almost every measure, none of this is true. Not only do we rank 26th in median wealth, we also are the most anti-employee country in the developed world. Actually, the two go together because rising inequality results from our pro-Wall Street and anti-worker policies.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) ranks 43 nations by the degree of employee protection provided by government. The 21 indicators used include such items as laws and regulations governing unfair dismissals, notifications and protections during mass layoffs, the use and abuse of temporary workers, and the provision of severance based on seniority. Countries are ranked on a scale of 0 to 6 with 6 going to those who provide the most legal protections for employees and 0 for those with the least. We're ranked #42 out of 43, meaning that we have among the fewest regulations to protect employees -- union, non-union, management, full-time and temporary workers alike.

Women often get hit the hardest. The lack of good policies on pregnancy leave and child care also are horrendous in the U.S. compared to other developed nations, forcing millions of women to choose between career and family. (See "Why U.S. Women are Leaving Jobs Behind", NYT, Dec. 12, 2014)

But wait! Don't employee regulations hurt the economy?

During the late 1970s, pro-business policy makers, pundits and academics came up with the "Better Business Climate" model. They said we could get out of the 1970s period of high unemployment and inflation (stagflation) if we unleashed business by cutting taxes and regulations. In particular, the theory held that businesses need maximum "labor flexibility" -- that there should be virtually no legal restrictions on employer-employee relations. The more flexibility, the more economic efficiency, and therefore the more economic growth. The pie would grow bigger and there would be more for everyone.

Here's what happened instead. Virtually all the "growth" went to the top fraction of 1 percent. The bottom 90 percent stagnated.

But what about upward mobility?

Many argue that America has never been about income equality. Rather we're more about equal opportunity so that everyone has a fighting chance to move up the income ladder. This is supposed to be the land of opportunity, not aristocracy. Surely we are still the envy of the world when it comes to upward mobility.

Not anymore.

Today, in the U.S., the odds are about 50/50 that you'll do the same or worse than your parents. (See chart below). In Denmark the odds are greater than 4 to 1 that you'll improve your economic position.

Eliminating unions, eliminating strikes

The most important regulations that corporations want to eliminate are those that support unionization. They have done a masterful job, according to OECD data. American has nearly the lowest union density rate (the number of union members, both public and private divided by the total number in the workforce).

Continued on link...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/les-leopold/are-we-the-worlds-most-an_b_6328552.html

[Not a Tailor 1,370]

But don't you know that what works elsewhere could never work in America because America is special and different and population density and land mass and regulation hurts everything and makes rich people sad? And if it makes rich people sad, one cannot have it as it is clearly bad. Because only people with money actually count in terms of US legislation and that is, obviously, as it should be in a capitalist system! Money represents success and successful people should be the only ones allowed to make decisions!

Duh.

[Póg mo 1,749]

But don't you know that what works elsewhere could never work in America because America is special and different and population density and land mass and regulation hurts everything and makes rich people sad? And if it makes rich people sad, one cannot have it as it is clearly bad. Because only people with money actually count in terms of US legislation and that is, obviously, as it should be in a capitalist system! Money represents success and successful people should be the only ones allowed to make decisions!

Duh.

I always forget how "special" this country is. Thanks for putting me straight

[Not a Tailor 1,370]

I always forget how "special" this country is. Thanks for putting me straight

No problem. I've learned so much about how one MUST think to be a REAL AMERICAN from this site. I'll be able to fit right in when I get down there.

[Karee 4,190]

The verdict is in: The typical American is even poorer than his or her equivalent in Greece. The median Australian is four times wealthier. The Canadians are twice as wealthy. To be sure, we continue to lead the world in billionaires (571 in 2014, with China a distant second at 190). But after 30 years financial deregulation and attacks on employee rights, we rank 26th in median wealth (defined as all assets owned -- banks accounts, investments, homes, cares, etc., minus all debts owed for the person precisely on the middle rung of the wealth ladder).

It's not an accident:

During the Cold War, our working class was the envy of the world. We argued that our free-enterprise system, not communism, created the best conditions for a rising standard of living for all. Indeed, there was much to boast about. Real wages were increasing year after year. American workers were free to go on strike and did. And most importantly, the children of working people could climb the economic ladder -- upward mobility was real.

Today, by almost every measure, none of this is true. Not only do we rank 26th in median wealth, we also are the most anti-employee country in the developed world. Actually, the two go together because rising inequality results from our pro-Wall Street and anti-worker policies.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) ranks 43 nations by the degree of employee protection provided by government. The 21 indicators used include such items as laws and regulations governing unfair dismissals, notifications and protections during mass layoffs, the use and abuse of temporary workers, and the provision of severance based on seniority. Countries are ranked on a scale of 0 to 6 with 6 going to those who provide the most legal protections for employees and 0 for those with the least. We're ranked #42 out of 43, meaning that we have among the fewest regulations to protect employees -- union, non-union, management, full-time and temporary workers alike.

Women often get hit the hardest. The lack of good policies on pregnancy leave and child care also are horrendous in the U.S. compared to other developed nations, forcing millions of women to choose between career and family. (See "Why U.S. Women are Leaving Jobs Behind", NYT, Dec. 12, 2014)

But wait! Don't employee regulations hurt the economy?

During the late 1970s, pro-business policy makers, pundits and academics came up with the "Better Business Climate" model. They said we could get out of the 1970s period of high unemployment and inflation (stagflation) if we unleashed business by cutting taxes and regulations. In particular, the theory held that businesses need maximum "labor flexibility" -- that there should be virtually no legal restrictions on employer-employee relations. The more flexibility, the more economic efficiency, and therefore the more economic growth. The pie would grow bigger and there would be more for everyone.

Here's what happened instead. Virtually all the "growth" went to the top fraction of 1 percent. The bottom 90 percent stagnated.

But what about upward mobility?

Many argue that America has never been about income equality. Rather we're more about equal opportunity so that everyone has a fighting chance to move up the income ladder. This is supposed to be the land of opportunity, not aristocracy. Surely we are still the envy of the world when it comes to upward mobility.

Not anymore.

Today, in the U.S., the odds are about 50/50 that you'll do the same or worse than your parents. (See chart below). In Denmark the odds are greater than 4 to 1 that you'll improve your economic position.

Eliminating unions, eliminating strikes

The most important regulations that corporations want to eliminate are those that support unionization. They have done a masterful job, according to OECD data. American has nearly the lowest union density rate (the number of union members, both public and private divided by the total number in the workforce).

Continued on link...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/les-leopold/are-we-the-worlds-most-an_b_6328552.html

Funny I looked up the actual Credit Suisse report, not the "Credit Suide Global Wealth Data Book" your first graph refers to. You can find that here:

https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fileID=5521F296-D460-2B88-081889DB12817E02

As to the author of the hack piece you linked to, here's a bit about the author and where he's coming from:

Founded in 1976 by David Gordon and Les Leopold with assistance from Tony Mazzocchi. The Labor Institute provides labor unions and community groups with education on health and safety, the environment and the economy. Our goal is to empower working people with information on how best to create a more healthful and just economy. Our guiding principles and our programs grow from the work of Tony Mazzocchi (1926-2002), the labor leader who helped invent the modern occupational health and safety movement and was a leader in the drive to create common cause between the labor and environmental movements.

Source: http://thelaborinstitute.org/pages/who.php

Next time do your homework before posting, so I don't have to do it for you.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Funny I looked up the actual Credit Suisse report, not the "Credit Suide Global Wealth Data Book" your first graph refers to. You can find that here:

https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fileID=5521F296-D460-2B88-081889DB12817E02

As to the author of the hack piece you linked to, here's a bit about the author and where he's coming from:

Next time do your homework before posting, so I don't have to do it for you.

in others word another typical union hack piece

Creating financial wealth, even getting rich, is still available to the average American if you just avoid the pitfalls and take the right actions. Only 3 percent of all the millionaires inherited their wealth, 41 percent of all millionaires didn't go to college, their average GPA was 2.9 and only one-third of all millionaires work for themselves. And if you think money won't make you happy, 70 percent of all millionaires say money created a higher life satisfaction.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/grant-cardone/how-average-people-create_b_856396.html

[Póg mo 1,749]

Funny I looked up the actual Credit Suisse report, not the "Credit Suide Global Wealth Data Book" your first graph refers to. You can find that here:

https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fileID=5521F296-D460-2B88-081889DB12817E02

As to the author of the hack piece you linked to, here's a bit about the author and where he's coming from:

Next time do your homework before posting, so I don't have to do it for you.

If you don't mind, perhaps you could show more clearly show you reached your conclusions.Perhaps if you pointed to the section in the credit suisse report where you believe refutes the above graph. Lots of other graphs above too. Are they wrong?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Folks that hate America and want to change it to look like somewhere else should probably move somewhere else. We have that same things happen in rural areas - Some city dweller moves out to the country, and first thing they want to do, is change the place to look more like the fracked up place they just left.

[eieio 1,594]

Folks that hate America and want to change it to look like somewhere else should probably move somewhere else. We have that same things happen in rural areas - Some city dweller moves out to the country, and first thing they want to do, is change the place to look more like the fracked up place they just left.

Yes. If it is so bad in the greatest country in the history of mankind…..just pack your bags and move somewhere else.

[Karee 4,190]

Folks that hate America and want to change it to look like somewhere else should probably move somewhere else. We have that same things happen in rural areas - Some city dweller moves out to the country, and first thing they want to do, is change the place to look more like the fracked up place they just left.

That reminds me of these people that build and buy houses next to airports, and then start complaining about the noise.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

That reminds me of these people that build and buy houses next to airports, and then start complaining about the noise.

We had this doctor somebody that bought property next to a gravel quarry, and then decided to try and shut it down. Stupidest comment came from some other newbie, "Don't they usually build quarries next to highways?"

Why, yes, sunshine. Hwy 116 goes right through the center of town, and by sheer coincidence, both the town's quarries on right on the same highway.

[Póg mo 1,749]

Folks that hate America and want to change it to look like somewhere else should probably move somewhere else. We have that same things happen in rural areas - Some city dweller moves out to the country, and first thing they want to do, is change the place to look more like the fracked up place they just left.

Hey, should the founding fathers have left too? Sorry to burst your bubble, but American history is full of people who decided they wanted to change the status quo and that isn't about to change any time soon.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Funny I looked up the actual Credit Suisse report, not the "Credit Suide Global Wealth Data Book" your first graph refers to. You can find that here:

https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fileID=5521F296-D460-2B88-081889DB12817E02

Funny, you link to the "Credit Suisse Global Wealth Data Book 2014" while the author of the OP article references the same document that was released the year prior - the "Credit Suisse Global Wealth Data Book 2013". You did it, man! You built a very convincing argument against the article.

Edited December 22, 2014 by Mr. Big Dog

[Karee 4,190]

Funny, you link to the "Credit Suisse Global Wealth Data Book 2014" while the author of the OP article references the same document that was released the year prior - the "Credit Suisse Global Wealth Data Book 2013". You did it, man! You built a very convincing argument against the article.

Link to the 2013?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Link to the 2013?

It's not hard: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=credit+suisse+global+wealth+data+book+2013

Second link from the top takes you right to it.