The terrible jobs report should be matched with another set of data to point out that this is the economy that corporate executives have wanted for a long time. Because they are not suffering in a time of weak demand. They’re actually thriving. Corporate profits are soaring. The chart above shows corporate profits as a percentage of GDP, and you can see that they are now back above pre-recession levels, well over 10%. Felix Salmon notes that this has never happened before.
The decoupling of productivity and wage growth around 1980 was the most significant moment for corporate America. They recognized that they didn’t have to pass the benefits of productivity and profits onto their workers anymore. The workers weren’t organized to a sufficient degree to demand that. The high corporate earnings, therefore, have not been channeled back into investment in the economy.
To spell this out: high corporate profits and low levels of job growth are two sides of the same coin. If things were working properly right now, companies would take their excess revenues and use them to hire more people. Instead, they’re basically just letting those excess revenues sit on their balance sheets as cash because they’re scared to invest in themselves. It’s frankly pathetic.
Corporations figured out that they can lowball their labor costs and reap maximum profits through a variety of means. And they are just stuffing that money into their pockets.
This is an institutional failure, Brad DeLong says. Government has the capacity to borrow at microscopic interest rates, real negative interest rates if you factor in inflation. They should do so and bring the kind of investment the economy needs. You could transform our crippling infrastructure, you could engage in direct hiring of hundreds of thousands of people, you could parcel out free money for all it matters. You can, in sum, fill the demand gap and put the rest of the country on the same relative footing as those corporate executives sitting on massive profits. But nobody has any expectation that government will do that. The President is afraid to say anything that even sounds like a stimulative economic measure; he’s too busy trying to prove that he’s a paragon of austerity. The Federal Reserve has completely failed in its mission to maximize employment, and they are too frightened by the possibility of non-existent inflation to change course.
It would be funny if it weren’t so sad, and didn’t have such consequence for millions of people being poorly served by their government.






53 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
How long is this going to last? Case in point:
Boeing freighter sales hit dry spell
No orders in 5 months. Even outsourcing to China won’t fix that problem.
Good point. And as a counterpoint to the “corporations are rolling in cash” meme, we have Robert Zoellick warning in the FT this morning that we should pay closer attention to the corporate sector. “If we wake up to news of a major corporate bankruptcy, lenders and savers may pull back just as they would from a blow to banks. When financial markets get anxious, peril often strikes two or three links down the financing chain. So eurozone leaders need to be monitoring liquidity risks in the corporate sector.”
Excellent work David. This is worth re-reading and should not get lost in the bad economic data today.
Again, excellent post.
David, best article you have written in several days. And, honestly, that’s saying quite a bit.
It IS sad and I don’t see anybody willing to do anything to reverse this trend. The democrats are afraid and the republicans are quite pleased with the status quo.
Are we gonna end up like Mexico, three classes, 1)filty rich 2)barely get by 3)dirt poor ??????????????
Not sure the Fed has failed. They have done a fantastic jobs sending trillions to their owners and helping them goose profits and pay themselves big bucks. Seems to me all is going to plan. Just wondered if David thinks O has any intention of doing different or does David know who O works for and he writes this as tongue in cheek?
There’s another connection that bears mentioning. With the inflation rate so low, there’s little incentive for corporations to risk much of anything. If the Fed allowed a bit of inflation to creep in, businesses wouldn’t be so complacent about sitting on their cash.
pathetic is right, referring to the quote about Corporations sitting on two trillion dollars in cash and not using it to hire people. This economy would turn away fast if the job creators were actually creating jobs. please check out my column on why Progressives can’t afford to sit it out in November http://www.ericnewsdaily.blogspot.com
Sure would help if government invested in hiring teachers, nurses, paramedics, dispatchers, firefighters, police, safety & health inspectors, etc., etc., etc.,
The answers are simple, but the governments of the world have responded to the crises caused by their policies by doubling down on the same failed policies.
Businesses won’t hire until there is enough demand for products and services to cover the expense of paying salaries. No, the only way out is a government work program. I don’t understand why there is so much resistance to that proven-by-past-experience fact.
captured government, crony state capitalism, protected monopolies, illiberal democracy, gulags, star chamber courts. It’s dystopian – inverted international communism.
I disagree. The only way out is to destroy the monopolies and the cartels. The vampires have to be killed.
I am always amazed at how little most people comprehend about business and employment. I’m not trying to be mean, it’s genuinely frightening. For instance…
I understand this to mean that corporations should turn themselves into welfare agencies and give away money to unspecified people, doing unspecified “work”.
No they shouldn’t. It would be irresponsible. Business doesn’t hire without the – expectation – an additional employee can produce more revenue than he’s getting paid. That expectation isn’t present.
that’s the right word, “scared”. Taxmageddon, Supreme Court decisions, flawed legislation, EU crisis, sovereign bankruptcies,….
No. It’s responsible. Except for oil and gas, hiring is on hold until after the elections. Businesses aren’t started to provide jobs, they’re started to make money.
Your power company is a monopoly, are you advocating everyone get their lights turned off permanently? That’s not very nice.
It’s because those making the decisions are paid well to resist it, and too many voters exhibit the ignorance displayed in post 12.
That sums up the situation. Although to be fair to voters, even if they weren’t so ignorant of how the real world really worked, the ones making the decisions would still be paid really well to make the wrong ones, so we may be no better off.
Still, it would be nice if all working class and lower class people could get over their stupid divisions and realize that together they most likely really could change the world.
Yeah, I want a unicorn with my pony.
If we’re talking about creating jobs within the capitalist system as it exists today, then government hiring is the only way to do it.
If, however, we’re talking about changing the system, killing the vampire squid and its progeny is just the first step in a much broader and deeper effort to leave free market economics in the dust heap of history where it belongs.
As an aside, I *do* have a slight preference for state run capitalism over what we’ve got now, as long as it is facilitated within a democracy.
So, President is speaking on economy and jobs, about to describe executive action he’s taking on jobs … and MSNBC goes to Andrea and a daily pundit.
Because of course Andrea and a daily pundit are far more important than some new executive jobs description from the President himself.
D.i.s.g.u.s.t.i.n.g.
Business’ are hiring all over the world and making money. That’s pretty much the point. Now that labor unions have been destroyed other than a few pesky public employee ones and unemployment continues to rise eventually we’ll get to the goal of people accepting employement at 3 to 4 dollars an hour like in China. And once that happens they can go shopping for health insurance that suits their needs. Business’ are hiring…a ton of people. It’s simply a case of the American people aren’t required to do that work. The goal is to get back to the point where something close to slave labor can be had again in this country. We’ll get there, don’t worry shooter.
Well, this is a first. I actually agree with 3/4 of what you say.
Businesses aren’t afraid of Taxmageddon or new legislation, though. That’s laughable. Businesses *are* afraid that no one will buy their products and services because no one has any money to spend.
It seems pretty clear that, for some time now, the wealthiest members of American society are an entirely separate class in the nation, and pursue a really self-serving agenda, at the expense of everyone else.
It also seems pretty clear that irregardless of which the two “party” factions are in charge, this reality does not change.
The question reduces to “What now, then?”
No, no, actually, what large businesses and their wealthy operators tell everyone in the public is that they are “job creators” and that they contribute back to society by re-investing their revenues into their operations, old and new.
It’s called “growth” in business-speak. Companies that make lots of money, traditionally, attempt to “grow”.
It’s really frightening, how little self-proclaimed “conservatives” really understand about how business works. You don’t even understand the concept of “growth” and “investment”.
Embracing austerity will cost him a second term.
Hopefully! It could be that four to eight years of Mitt Romney will cause a big enough sustained decline in the general American quality of life that finally a real reform candidate might have a chance at some point in the future.
Sort of a vicious circle isn’t it? If companies won’t hire and pay workers more, then who’s going to buy their products?
Are you suggesting the government offer an FDR plan to put people to work (not the puny stimulus)? Then I would agree with you and I’ve been saying that for three years plus.
Or are you suggesting more tax breaks for corporations will do the trick? If so, then pound sand.
I think it might.
“…embracing austerity will cost him a second term…”
I think so. Should that happen, I have the money set aside for grief counselling…that american voters wouldn’t reward Barack Obama for pissing away a great opportunity, with another 4 years of the lamest of self-inflicted lame-duckery. :o)
Which brings us to the real benefit of turning him out of office:
It puts a republican in the Oval Office…to deal with the cumulative effects of 8 years of Bush’s bloody corporatism, and the 4 years of Barack Obama’s sustaining of so much of it. When Romney accelerates the corporate agenda that Obama’s been tooling along with, the collapse that Sixgill is talking about, will come, and there will be a republican president to have to deal with it.
But, I think there are two entities who will be perfectly content with a republican House (and maybe, Senate…) and Barack Obama in the White House. That would be:
smart republicans
and, Barack Obama.
Who are we kidding, the world economy is working perfectly. Since the 1980′s we have given the corporations more power than the nations. The net result is that the corporations are controlling everything.
In the 1920′s, the world had companies that were tied to their sovereign state. Now, corporations are tied to the lowest labor/highest profit. Corporations are in the race to the bottom of having the lowest wages, lowest environmental standards, lowest labor rites and lowest social responsibility. If country x cannot provide this, the corp shops around until it get what is wants.
The new hierarchy is corporations > governments > people. Until we change this model, the best we can expect is trickle down benefits.
I’ve been checking the weather forecast and hell has NOT frozen over. I read shooter’s post. Remarkably coherent and accurate.
@ shooter….Is someone posting under your screen name??????
:-)
That’s fine if he’s not elected. He’s proven to be lack luster, not a change agent but a status quo loving middle manager, and a de-facto peak oil denier.
He’s the guy you hire to get the system up an running in the middle of the night, unti someone with a visionary conception shows up in the morning.
The project-syndicate site dday referenced is beautifully designed.
This article http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/why-do-economies-stop-growing-
and the analogy in this comment is great.
Obama: Chief ant.
Then there are those ants who steal eggs from other ant species and make slaves out of the newly hatched ants.
What better kind of ant to send back into the colony to lead the ants for the kidnapper ants benefit.
All the Chief ant cares about is keeping his job as the Chief ant.
Actually, I think he’s already embraced belt-tightening enough to lose. At this point, if he was FDR personified, there is nothing he could do that the House republicans, and their Senate counterparts, along with the blue-roach democrats, would allow to pass, that might help.
And what the Obama cheerleaders like Tbogg won’t talk about, is that that is not going to change, even if he manages to squeak through. The GOP will keep the House, and the purse strings, and they may get the Senate as well, and if that happens, then the status quo will be protected and enhanced, llke never before. Tbogg may be OK with that but I don’t think most progressives will buy it.
I suppose, we can only hope. Albeit that’s a pretty microscopic silver lining around one humungous cloud.
Very well put. Depressing as hell. But very well put.
Aren’t ya’ bein’ nice today!
:-)
I think this assumes that Romney is not capable of a visionary leadership. This in fact is unknown.
One thing about Romney which is different than Obama: Romney is already a member of the elite class, he doesn’t have to prostitute himself to receive his reward- a promise of entry into that class.
Better for us if Romney is a class traitor, Obama treachery is devastating.
Also, Mormons have a pretty decent church welfare system and believe strongly in tithing, so these values might be transferable.
I’ve been following several political blog sites that have been “tracking” the electoral college count, not the popular vote. Of course, they are usiung poll numbers BUT, foir the past several months they had been saying that Romney didn’t have a path to 270 electoral votes adn that Obama, given the current landscape, had at least 284 locked up.
Today, they are showing that Obama, based on the latest polls has just 270 votes. Which means, he’s gonna have to win the debates decisively. The sagging job numbers aren;t helping. And, lest us not fail to take notice that romney has not stuck his foot in his mouth for over two weeks.
Still, lots of circus remaining boys and girls. Lion tamer, high wire act and the trapeze.
Unfortunately, no matter who wins I think 99% of are screwed. But only 43% know it.
No, it’s the same shooter.
It looks like the same old bullshit to me.
Only parts on there that were true was businesses aren’t charities and they don’t hire workers unless they return more than they cost.
The bullshit over “uncertainty” is just that, bullshit. The only thing that is “uncertain” is demand. That’s ALL businesses that potentially hire care about. If demand for their product goes up, they will hire. They don’t give a shit if a socialist is running for President and leading in the polls. The “taxmegeddon” is pure bullshit, as top tax rates were once 90%, and businesses hired.
Likewise, the crap about not hiring unless they return more than they cost is shooteresque crap because it’s a full on admission that the lack of demand isn’t why they’re hirding (thus, they WON’T return more than they cost) but s/he insists on couching it in terms of other causes.
Same old shooter bullshit.
You’re bein really nice today.
I’m kidding, I actually agree with a lot of what you said. I’ve know several Mormons. They were verrry decent people.
Wouldn’t it be interesting if Romney proved to be more Obama than Obama has proven to be.
Did that make sense??????? I had two Dos Equis for lunch.
Not with lunch, for lunch.
So you’re sayin’ that old adage about the leopard and his spots is still true. ‘Spose you’re right OFG. You usually are.
goody
I heard part of it. He blaming bush and blaming congress. Bragging on his record of opening up thousands of gas wells, and those create jobs, you know. That’s his plan is to create even more jobs by exporting more fossil fuel.
He’s really got a path mapped out for a bright future for the US. /not. I had to turn it off. I can’t stand him when he uses his only adult-in-the-world, superior-than-thou preacher voice.
Keeping the tax rates where they’ve been for the last decade would be just fine. Like I said, some stability is required.
Tres Dos Equis would even be better then. :P
Yeah, through a glass darkly, if the reality is a reflection- opposite of what they present in the campaign, give me Romney to kick around for a while.
Obama is the antithesis of FDR, and if he gets a second term he will prove it by dismantling what’s left of the “New Deal”.
It’s possible that the time Obama spent at the University of Chicago wasn’t limited to teaching how to circumvent the Constitution, but included indoctrination in Milton Friedman’s disaster capitalism, as well.
That’s about right. Corps are bigger than whole national economies, systemically dangerous to the large ones, and more powerful than governments that are supposed to control them.
They aren’t ever going to behave like something they aren’t, no matter how much more they are given in tax breaks, or protections. Why should they risk anything, when they’ve already achieved maximum rent taking ability?
No Yak lady?
I think it very possible that Romney might win and that the anti-incumbent movement may cost the GOP the house. Democrats holding the Senate, but less than the 60 seats they need.
What think you?
Gotta hold her in the wings in case we lose the lion tamer.
That’s your problem right there. You need some switch hitters.
‘Frogs, no argument here, about Romney.
He may be smart enough to know that a rote continuing of the Bush/Obama policies will mean a collapse in his first term, and, just in self-interest, do something astounding.
I doubt it, but the chance of that is intriguing, and at any rate, the idea of rewarding Obama for what he’s “accomplished” since 2008, is, to me the stuff of lunacy. If we do it, we are, as Rahm Emmanuel called us, a bunch of “fucking retards”. Mustering up again for this corporatist in reformer’s clothes, is just asking for more of the same.
While I can’t vote for Obama, Romney’s trail of overt lies certainly does not denote a moral compass. The religious right, including Mormons, might practice charity and tithing, but so did the feudal lords, as long as the peasants were suitably submissive.
Yeah, Mormonism is one of the most venal of our religions…and that takes in some territory. I don’t think he would push for any reforms out of the goodness of his heart, but he might do a modicum of it to avoid being third in the preznintial fuckup line, and to avoid being a one-term president.
I just don’t see that there’s a big difference between he and Obama, other than we already know that Obama’s a total sellout, and Romney hasn’t really had the chance to “prove” himself in that respect. :o)
I still can’t figure out how he got elected governor of Massachusetts.
Romney worked as a Wall St. vulture capitalist and is already in the hands of neocons and TEAbaggers, so who exactly could he sell out to?
No, Obama is the only chance we have.