The latest US Federal Reserve Bank Bulletin – (Volume 100, No. 4) was released on September 4, 2014 and – Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2010 to 2013: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances provides a very deep insight into what has been going in America over the period since 2010 with some comparative data from 2007-2010. So we get a glimpse of what happened during the crisis period in family incomes and wealth holdings (by a number of different characteristics) and then see what has transpired during the so-called ‘recovery’. The results will lead you to question the extent to which using the term ‘recovery’ is meaningful. In the growth period 2010-13, only the top 3 per cent of the income distribution have enjoyed real income gains whereas the bottom 40 per cent have seen major real cuts. A similar story relates to changes in family wealth. The reality is the highest income earners are capturing the real income growth at the significant expense of the rest notwithstanding the overal decline in unemployment. It is a recipe for disaster – an increasingly unequal society where some cohorts have virtually no chance for upward mobility.

I have started to research the idea of the disappearing or shrinking middle class as part of a book project (for 2015) I am amassing materials for. The idea is simple but the conceptualisation and demarcation of the idea is rather complex. The hypothesis is that Capitalism is now striking at the income and wealth segment that has helped give it stability (which in this sense relates to not having a revolution rather than eliminating major economic cycles and mass unemployment). Marx said that religion was the opiate of the masses that kept them in line whereas in modern times it is mass consumption and credit that seems to keep the middle class in line. The rise in income and wealth inequality over the last 3 decades under the watch of neo-liberalism is obvious and initially showed up as a widening 90/10 gap (the numbers being deciles in the relevant distribution). But as the lowest income groups were marginalised, the dynamic moved on and started hollowing out the middle deciles. Real wages have lagged well behind productivity growth and mass unemployment is infiltrating the middle-income cohorts who typically have superior education, which has insulated them from job loss. The US Census Bureau provides excellent data on – Wealth and Asset Ownership, which allows us to trace the trends in household net worth and debt in the US in some detail. This blog just documents some of the characteristics of those distributions – it is preliminary work for me but of interest nonetheless.

Last week (July 3, 2013), the – US Bureau of Labor Statistics – released their latest – Employment Situation -June 2014 – which showed that in seasonally adjusted terms, total payroll employment increased by 288,000 in June while the Household Labour Force Survey data showed that employment rose by 407 thousand. The essence to be extracted from the data is that total employment in the US is now outpacing the underlying population growth by a considerable margin and the official unemployment rate is dropping quickly (from 6.3 per cent in May to 6.1 per cent in June). Over the last year, the official unemployment rate dropped by 1.5 percentage points. There has been an acceleration in employment growth in the last 6 months. But the unemployment rate has benefited not only from stronger employment growth but also from a continued decline in the labour force participation rate. As a result the labour force shrunk has fallen by 128 thousand people over the last year. There is also evidence that a significant proportion of the jobs created are in low pay, precarious areas of the labour market.

One of the things you can always bet on with surety is that the conservatives will always try to convince the public that a cyclical event is, in fact, a ‘structural’ event. This has two, linked purposes. First, they can downplay any hint that aggregate fiscal policy interventions, which work at the macroeconomic level are necessary no matter how bad the problem is. Second, they can then wheel out their favourite ‘structural’ remedies, all of which just happen to result in national income being distributed to profits or high income earners, less capacity for low-wage workers to enjoy real wage rises or reasonably share in national productivity growth, and lower government income support payments to the disadvantaged. A double-whammy strategy. Here is an example of that sort of lie. The US Employment-Population ratio has fallen dramatically since the onset of the crisis and remains stuck at low levels. The reason is clear – there was a huge collapse in employment in 2008 and 2009 and, in the recovery, the rate of job creation has not been sufficiently strong to reverse that decline. Total employment growth has been around or just above the underlying growth in the civilian population (above 16 years), which is why the ratio is stuck. There needs to be much faster employment growth for the US to make back the ground that was lost in the downturn. While the US civilian population is growing older and that is having an impact on the calculated Employment-Population ratio, the impact is small and doesn’t alter the fact that a huge negative cyclical event occurred in the US and the fiscal intervention was not large enough to fix the problem.

As a follow up to Monday’s blog on the US labour market – Cutting US unemployment benefits is cruel and stupid – this short blog considers the latest flows in the US to provide a fuller understanding of why it is madness to even contemplate undermining aggregate demand overall (by cutting unemployment benefits). The flows data shows that the labour market is still in recovery, albeit a very tepid recovery, and the chance of a reversal in fortunes is very high, should aggregate demand falter. The US labour market is a long way from full employment (as I demonstrated on Monday) and the underlying dynamics of the labour market which this blog is about show that it is also not very vital at present. Taken together only a stupid person would think it was sensible to deny benefits to the long-term unemployed. Their stupidity is only topped by the intensity of their socio-pathic tendencies.

Once upon a time when I was a postgraduate student and there were around 10 unemployed for every registered vacancy in Australia a professor at my university was waxing lyrical about the lazy unemployed and what they should do to get off the welfare list. His said well “if they really wanted to work they could go down to the municipal tip and scratch together some scrap wood and some old pram wheels and build a cart, then follow the milkman around each morning and collect the horse dung and start a garden fertiliser business”. He wanted the unemployment benefit eliminated to get “these characters off their bums”. I remember the session vividly. That was his cure for the indolence of the unemployed. I put my hand up and said: “Two problems. First, the local council generally will not allow people to scour the tips for rubbish. Second, more importantly, the dairies now have trucks. The horse and cart milkmen were eliminated a few decades ago”. Much laughter followed. My relations with that professor soured a little more after that but the base (sourness) was already large so the percentage change was minimal. The same sort of idiocy is driving policy in the US at present with the US Congress enforcing more than a million unemployed Americans (that is, about 12 per cent of the total official unemployed) will lose their unemployment benefits this coming Saturday because the US politicians have decreed against all available evidence and research that this cohort is lazy and that the dole is standing between them and jobs.

Another relatively short blog today – it is holidays after all. There was an article in the New York Times (December 23, 2013) – Inequality for Dummies – by regular Op Ed columnist Bill Keller, who clearly thinks he represents the pragmatic, reasonable progressive “centre-left” as distinct from the “left-left” who have their heads in the sand and apparently are content to mouth of slogans to make themselves feel better but which do nothing to address reality or advance the progressive cause. My version of the topic is inverted. I usually think the “centre-left”, which used to be the centre-right or even further out to the right before neo-liberalism shifted the central point sharply so that it made Genghis Khan look downright reasonable, are gutless wonders who pretend to be progressives if it allows them to extra personal rents (rewards) and/or gain position of power in non-conservative political parties. I typically see the “centre-left” as part of the problem not part of the solution. So I read on.

The Financial Times article (December 19, 2013) – The long farewell to quantitative easing – concluded such: “Quantitative easing has demonstrated to politicians everywhere that it is possible to finance government deficits simply by printing money, a fact which had become obscure in the developed economies in previous decades. The umbilical link, previously unchallenged, between running a budget deficit and the requirement to sell bonds has been broken in the mind of the political system. Who knows what the long-term effects might be”. While mistakenly thinking crediting reserve accounts is activating any printing press it is true that there is no requirement to sell bonds to run government deficits. Today I am updating my analysis of the latest flow of funds data in the US. The US Federal Reserve recently put out the latest – Z.1 Financial Accounts of the United States – aka the Flow of Funds, Balance Sheets and Integrated Macroeconomic Accounts. If the FT author had have been studying this and related data he would have known years ago that there was no functional relationship between government net spending and its habit of issuing debt to the private sector. The former is financially unconstrained while the latter is just a system of corporate welfare. But recently, the government has given the game way by being the dominant purchaser of its own debt. Hysterical (as in comical) when you think about it!