Sanders, Socialism, and the Shafted Generation
Published on
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
by
The American Prospect
Sanders, Socialism, and the Shafted Generation
Behind Bernie's unlikely appeal is a generation marred by precarious
employment and economic disruption.
by
Robert Kuttner
A supporter of Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders
holds a sign at a campaign rally in Spokane, Washington, Thursday, March 24,
2016. (Photo: AP/Young Kwak)
Once again, Bernie Sanders has demonstrated, with a trifecta of big wins in
Hawaii, Alaska, and Washington State, that he has broad and enthusiastic
support, especially among the young. Equally astonishing is the large
percentage of voters who say they are attracted rather than repelled by
Sanders's embrace of socialism.
But if you'd bother to conduct your own focus group among Americans under
40, neither phenomenon should be surprising. Except for those graduating
from elite universities, with either full scholarships or wealthy
tuition-paying parents, this is the stunted generation-young adults
venturing into a world of work, loaded with student debt, unable to find
stable jobs or decent careers.
This is also the post-Cold War generation, for whom Soviet communism is a
distant memory (along with reliable jobs). For this generation of Americans,
capitalism is not exactly a good word, nor is socialism a bad one.
And this is the generation that finds employer-paid health insurance hard to
find; often the "Bronze" version of the Affordable Care Act, with its high
out-of-pocket payments, is all they can afford; a generation paying too much
of unreliable incomes in rent, and putting off the dream of homeownership
and having children.
So, when a candidate comes along calling for free college education and free
universal health care, and far higher minimum wages, it sounds pretty fine.
And if capitalism means the 1 percent making off with everything that isn't
nailed down, then maybe Sanders-style socialism is worth a try. So say the
young.
Private frustrations and longings have at last become politicized. And well
they should be. Because the reality of the rules of the game turning
brutally against the young has nothing to do with technology or the
immutable realities of the digital economy-and everything to do with who
gets to write the rules.
The policy wonk types like to point out that the Sanders program would
require a huge tax increase.
And indeed it would. But as long as the tax hike is on the upper brackets,
that only adds to the appeal of the program. During and after World War II,
the top marginal tax rate was north of 90 percent, and this was the era of a
record economic boom.
At the heart of this generational revolution is the vanishing good job.
Until recently, the claims of a new, on-demand economy, made up of
short-term gigs, was challenged by economists, even liberal ones.
It was kind of a new category that didn't show up in the data. You could
debate whether Uber and Task Rabbit and kindred companies were good or evil,
but they just didn't affect that many workers.
Now, belatedly, this shift is being confirmed. The economists are right-most
of the unreliable jobs are not on-demand gigs. Rather, they are other forms
of lousy "contingent" work. That category includes temping, contract work,
on-call workers, workers hired by staffing agencies, workers with no job
security, and inferior forms of conventional employment like adjunct college
professors who can make less than minimum wage, Ph.D.'s and all. (So much
for the education cure.)
Yes there is an uptick in entrepreneurship, but for every young person who
creates a company like Amazon, there are tens of thousands working in its
warehouses.
Jobs that used to pay decently are being turned into inferior jobs, whether
in the manufacturing economy or the service economy. Yes there is an uptick
in entrepreneurship, but for every young person who creates a company like
Amazon, there are tens of thousands working in its warehouses.
The Wall Street Journal, of all places, reports a 60 percent increase since
2005 in the proportion of U.S. workers who have these inferior forms of
employment.
The Labor Department, denied adequate funding to update its numbers, had not
revised its count of contingent workers. So two eminently mainstream
economists, Lawrence Katz of Harvard and Alan Krueger of Princeton (one of
the very people carping about the cost of Sanders' program) hired the Rand
Corporation to do what the Labor Department should be doing-surveying actual
current workers.
Katz and Krueger analyzed the results. And guess what? They confirmed in
rich detail what your local 28-year-old could tell you: Real jobs are
getting harder and harder to find. No wonder the uptick in GDP growth is not
impressing voters, especially younger ones.
So Sanders is likely to continue making off with the youth vote. Even if he
falls short of the nomination, this is bad news for Hillary Clinton.
Whatever her other virtues, most young Americans don't see her speaking to
the realities of their condition.
This also presents a real conundrum for mainstream, moderate liberal
economists like Katz and Krueger. Altering these trends will require radical
reforms, not adjustments at the margins.
Sanders's program may cost a lot of money. It may be socialistic. And it may
require congressional majorities that will be a long time coming. But
Sanders has the loyalty of the kids because he is speaking truth.
C 2015 The American Prospect
Robert Kuttner
Robert Kuttner is co-founder and co-editor of The American Prospect
magazine, as well as a
Skip to main content
//
. DONATE
. SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
. Home
. World
. U.S.
. Canada
. Climate
. War & Peace
. Economy
. Rights
. Solutions
. Sanders vs. Clinton
. Supreme Court Obstructionism
. Apple vs. FBI
. Trump-mentum?
. Election 2016
. Water Crisis in Flint
Sanders, Socialism, and the Shafted Generation
Published on
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
by
The American Prospect
Sanders, Socialism, and the Shafted Generation
Behind Bernie's unlikely appeal is a generation marred by precarious
employment and economic disruption.
by
Robert Kuttner
. 4 Comments
.
. A supporter of Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie
Sanders holds a sign at a campaign rally in Spokane, Washington, Thursday,
March 24, 2016. (Photo: AP/Young Kwak)
. Once again, Bernie Sanders has demonstrated, with a trifecta of big
wins in Hawaii, Alaska, and Washington State, that he has broad and
enthusiastic support, especially among the young. Equally astonishing is the
large percentage of voters who say they are attracted rather than repelled
by Sanders's embrace of socialism.
. But if you'd bother to conduct your own focus group among Americans
under 40, neither phenomenon should be surprising. Except for those
graduating from elite universities, with either full scholarships or wealthy
tuition-paying parents, this is the stunted generation-young adults
venturing into a world of work, loaded with student debt, unable to find
stable jobs or decent careers.
. This is also the post-Cold War generation, for whom Soviet communism
is a distant memory (along with reliable jobs). For this generation of
Americans, capitalism is not exactly a good word, nor is socialism a bad
one.
. And this is the generation that finds employer-paid health insurance
hard to find; often the "Bronze" version of the Affordable Care Act, with
its high out-of-pocket payments, is all they can afford; a generation paying
too much of unreliable incomes in rent, and putting off the dream of
homeownership and having children.
So, when a candidate comes along calling for free college education and free
universal health care, and far higher minimum wages, it sounds pretty fine.
And if capitalism means the 1 percent making off with everything that isn't
nailed down, then maybe Sanders-style socialism is worth a try. So say the
young.
Private frustrations and longings have at last become politicized. And well
they should be. Because the reality of the rules of the game turning
brutally against the young has nothing to do with technology or the
immutable realities of the digital economy-and everything to do with who
gets to write the rules.
The policy wonk types like to point out that the Sanders program would
require a huge tax increase.
And indeed it would. But as long as the tax hike is on the upper brackets,
that only adds to the appeal of the program. During and after World War II,
the top marginal tax rate was north of 90 percent, and this was the era of a
record economic boom.
At the heart of this generational revolution is the vanishing good job.
Until recently, the claims of a new, on-demand economy, made up of
short-term gigs, was challenged by economists, even liberal ones.
It was kind of a new category that didn't show up in the data. You could
debate whether Uber and Task Rabbit and kindred companies were good or evil,
but they just didn't affect that many workers.
Now, belatedly, this shift is being confirmed. The economists are right-most
of the unreliable jobs are not on-demand gigs. Rather, they are other forms
of lousy "contingent" work. That category includes temping, contract work,
on-call workers, workers hired by staffing agencies, workers with no job
security, and inferior forms of conventional employment like adjunct college
professors who can make less than minimum wage, Ph.D.'s and all. (So much
for the education cure.)
Yes there is an uptick in entrepreneurship, but for every young person who
creates a company like Amazon, there are tens of thousands working in its
warehouses.
Jobs that used to pay decently are being turned into inferior jobs, whether
in the manufacturing economy or the service economy. Yes there is an uptick
in entrepreneurship, but for every young person who creates a company like
Amazon, there are tens of thousands working in its warehouses.
The Wall Street Journal, of all places, reports a 60 percent increase since
2005 in the proportion of U.S. workers who have these inferior forms of
employment.
The Labor Department, denied adequate funding to update its numbers, had not
revised its count of contingent workers. So two eminently mainstream
economists, Lawrence Katz of Harvard and Alan Krueger of Princeton (one of
the very people carping about the cost of Sanders' program) hired the Rand
Corporation to do what the Labor Department should be doing-surveying actual
current workers.
Katz and Krueger analyzed the results. And guess what? They confirmed in
rich detail what your local 28-year-old could tell you: Real jobs are
getting harder and harder to find. No wonder the uptick in GDP growth is not
impressing voters, especially younger ones.
So Sanders is likely to continue making off with the youth vote. Even if he
falls short of the nomination, this is bad news for Hillary Clinton.
Whatever her other virtues, most young Americans don't see her speaking to
the realities of their condition.
This also presents a real conundrum for mainstream, moderate liberal
economists like Katz and Krueger. Altering these trends will require radical
reforms, not adjustments at the margins.
Sanders's program may cost a lot of money. It may be socialistic. And it may
require congressional majorities that will be a long time coming. But
Sanders has the loyalty of the kids because he is speaking truth.
C 2015 The American Prospect
