What is America’s future? Certainly, much of it will depend on a decent standard of living and fair economic rewards to work for all Americans. But this issue questions whether we can get there.
Amitai Etzioni presents one of the more comprehensive articles Challenge undertakes on the road to better thinking about the future economy of this nation. He takes us through the many arguments being made that technological advances and globalization will lead to fewer jobs in America’s future. The argument is now virtually a cliché. Etzioni far more carefully than most assesses the probabilities that the cliché will be proven true. He then turns his attention to the many proposed solutions to the problems of inequality and the absence of good jobs, including improved educational access and the chorus that proposes a universal income for all. There are few more comprehensive analyses to be found.
Etzioni ultimately asks whether material improvement is really the answer to the current American dilemma. The Ancient Greeks, he writes, (except, prominently, the Epicureans) generally took “happiness” to be not just a feeling but a way of living.Footnote1 In Aristotle, happiness is “flourishing,” not hedonism. Can America find its inner Athens? One of America’s best known communitarians, Etzioni believes fulfillment may be possible in a more communal life. It is a fascinating and subtle peroration of many of the issues the nation now confronts, and perhaps an idealistic conclusion.
Inequality has exploded in the U.S. since the late 1970s and increased as well in almost all rich nations. The current discourse about inequality in America, writes Jon Wisman, usually attributes the causes to technological change, globalization, unequal education, and recently, Thomas Piketty’s claim that it is the rate of return on capital exceeding the growth rate of GDP. But this thinking disguises the foundational cause of inequality, which is political. Or so argues our author. Wisman guides us on a historical tour of inequality to show how it was only minimized by political action beginning as a response to the Revolutions of 1848 in Europe and America’s own egalitarian-oriented revolution for independence. Political causes, in action or due to inaction, remain at the source of inequality in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, he shows, and politics is again the key to dealing with its current severity. This article is of critical importance in understanding the current dangerous state of the U.S. because politics may be a mostly immovable object.
How did Trump win? And what does it really mean for the nation’s workers? Thomas Palley says his victory was two-pronged. First, he turned the natural existing Republican cultural values into a racist authoritarian war. But, second, he also adopted the neoliberal view of the dangers of globalization. Palley argues Trump won’t pursue his anti-globalization message too far because it is not very profitable to business. But he may well pursue other aspects of neoliberal economics, which rewards business and penalizes workers. Neither the public nor the political class abroad may be aware of his true attitudes towards workers. Of course, it doesn’t bode well for the future.
Roland Benedikter and Ireneusz Pawel Karolewski have written one of my all-time favorite articles in this issue of Challenge. The survival of the EU will matter to both America’s economic future and its core values. Despite all the shrill and adamant challenges to its survival, including from many progressive economists, the European Union will survive, they strongly claim. And the reasoning is very sound. Among the points offered, the EU has a strong economic reason for existing, mostly a large single market, despite trade imbalances and currency misalignments. They claim young people are enthusiastic about it. They believe Europe’s young leaders, like Emmanuel Macron in France, will overcome the rise of a kind of nihilistic populism. And they say outside threats like Brexit, the politics of members like Turkey, and the election of Donald Trump will toughen and unify the nations. At bottom, as I interpret what they write, they believe a social responsible center will form that stands in contrast to unequal social developments in the United States and England. It is humanitarianism that will win out, they essentially argue.
Throughout his presidential campaign, Donald Trump reveled in his promise to build a Mexican wall to keep immigrants out. Time and again he told his roaring followers that Mexico would pay for it. “Believe me,” he said time and again. Maybe some did. But co-authors Bob Carbaugh and Toni Sipic decided to take a harder look at the three payment methods that have been proposed for the multi-billion dollar edifice. They find none will work. As we go to press, Trump has discussed a wall financed by solar power. Others talk about an electronic wall. Our authors analyze those should they ever become realistic options.
Speaking of a high wage economy, Mike Sharpe calls Louis Uchitelle’s new book, Making It: Why Manufacturing Still Matters, an eye opener. Its central theme is that manufacturing jobs can be restored through smart government subsidies.
Notes
Martin Seligman, as cited in Jennifer Senior “All Joy and No Fun,” New York Magazine July 4, 2010. http://nymag.com/news/features/67024/index5.html#print