Flame Off: Paul Krugman on the Demise of the Middle Class

Flame OFF: Income Inequality and the Middle Class

This piece is a You Tube features that is a segment of a lecture given by Princeton Economics and International Affairs Professor Paul Krugman. The addition is somewhat dated since it was uploaded in 2007. However, the presentation had more than 1300 comments so I was intrigued by the heavy response to a controversial subject. In the video, Krugman asserts that the period of American History that he calls the “Great Compression” (1930s-40s) established the American middle class during the Roosevelt Administration with the implementation of expansive social policies. Krugman argues that the demise of the middle class can be directly linked to the mass eradication of unions that took place beginning in the mid-to-late 1970s.  Wages were effectively driven down along with the elimination of mass negotiation that gave it the original power to demand a livable wage for laborers. This topic links directly to my research thesis about class warfare and class-related economic, social, and political challenges.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kwA-CwFK5A

MickiMal-me, personal entry

It is interesting to see this piece dated back to 2007. At this point, the subject matter has been articulated and expounded upon by former Secretary of Labor Robert Reiche, in his 2013 documentary about income inequality in the United States. Although Mr. Krugman has ample evidence and visual aids to bolster his thesis that the unions and globalization helped break the strongest middle class (America) in United States history; it could be argued that what I see here is a forerunner to his hyper-simplified moneymaking video that was structured around his own class being taught at Berkeley. While it appears based on this piece that he might have ‘borrowed’ his groundbreaking material from Krugman.   

 R Clarke3

yes economics is vital if you want to unnderstyand the world and you are correct to say glabraith subtly explains the history of modern man is a history of economics but we are in an era when most economics students are brainwashed neoliberals who belive in stuff which marx disproved in 1860 kaynes disproved in 1935 and we all had disproved to us in 2007/8, so unideal all round

MickiMal – me, reply to Clarke 3

The 2008 Nobel Laureate in Economics, Paul Krugman, is a "fraud"? Try again. It might help your argument if you knew how to spell; it is always helpful in making a valid point. Further, on what do you base your claim that “most economics students are brainwashed neoliberals who ‘belive,” (sic) the diatribe of Marx and Engels? Anyone who has taken logic in high school or college knows that your premises need to be true in order to reach have a valid argument. You must be a foreign exchange student or a Communist yourself because you are neither an English Major nor a true American based upon your warped ideas and your limited education my friend.

TheMsVick

Paul Krugman has recently been denounced as a fraud. Just google it, brand new news. They proved it by showing that years ago he recommended the housing bubble. He is no longer credible. I am more credible that that bufoon for Obama.

 MickiMal - reply to TheMsVick

What credibility do you have to ascertain the viability of this man’s knowledge base? I would argue that having an advanced degree in two subjects would place him in a stellar position to do just this type of presentation. It is reprehensible that you would take the opportunity to bash a respected academic on his own hard-won years of research. His educational pedigree contains enough clout to warrant at least the appearance of respect by the laity. You accuse him of ‘recommending’ the housing bubble. Are you sure that you did not mean ‘foreseeing’ the housing bubble? I would sincerely be interested in understanding your own background in economics a little better because we all know that even the experts make mistakes. Even so, we all (or those of us who have studied political and social evolution) know that social, political, and economic change in societies very often comes not from the electoral process but from the working class and their decision to ‘take-it-to-the-streets’ when it comes to implementing change. Union advocacy would be a solid example of that grass-roots activism that is at the core of the American society. I agree that if this gentleman is a ‘fraud’ as you dismissively call him- then he needs to be held accountable. However, I have found nothing that links him directly to Mr. Obama or his minions, and I certainly have seen nothing even close to incriminating evidence of his ‘bufoon-ery.’   

Valeriereified- in response to TheMsVick

Back up with facts, otherwise this is little more than sound and fury signifying a lack of reading the whole intro to economics textbook

MickiMal- me in response to both of the above

Way to go valeriereified! Based upon the lecture cited above, Ms Vick failed to do her due diligence. It is always best to have credible evidence to back up claims such as ‘fraudulence’ and ‘bufoonery,’ otherwise as bloggers we run the risk of losing our ‘own’ credibility along with our point in the discussion. Put up or shut up Ms Vick: waddya got?

MickiMal-me personal response two (five total)

This gentleman (Professor Krugman) is dry as a bone in his delivery but his research is sound. As someone who has studied both American history and Political Science I found his data to be right on the money. You would be hard pressed to find any solid refutation of his central premise – that union dissolution in this country helped break up the foundation of the middle class beginning in the late 1970s. Lauded historian Alan Brinkley concurs as do political scientists Rod Hague and Martin Harrop.  

However, while I concur with Doctor Krugman in his primary claims I also think that he oversimplified the message by giving no (or very little) mention to the issue of globalization and the systemic and overwhelmingly adverse effect it has had in driving manufacturing jobs out of the country. Inevitably they go to lesser developed nations willing and or capable of achieving competent and dependable production at far less cost than American workers can afford to be employed. That oversight in Krugman’s analysis leads to what I see as an oversimplification of the problem, even though the results are the same: a stunted middle class that has lost most of its hard-won economic strength to greedy corporate behemoths and astute but soul-less manufacturers willing to outsource the American dream.