RI economy improved for 1%, but it got worse for 99%


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
one percent epi graphic
Click on the image for a larger version.

Rhode Island’s economy is recovering. But not for the 99 percent it isn’t.

A new report by the Economic Analysis and Research Network shows that between 2009 and 2011, the 99 percent – those Rhode Island’s who make on average $41,958 a year – saw an average decline of 4.1 percent in their earnings.

On the other hand, the one percent in Rhode Island – those who make at least $287,311 a year – did quite well in the same two years. Their earnings increased by 17.3 percent from 2009 to 2011.

“Rhode Island has not escaped the disturbing trend of growing inequality over the past decades,” said Kate Brewster, executive director of The Economic Progress Institute. “Today, the average income of the top one percent is 20.3 times the average income of the bottom 99 percent.  We call on leaders in Washington and here at home to put in place policies that increase income for the majority and help close the income gap.”

Only in four other states – North Dakota, Massachusetts, Texas and Colorado – did the one percent fare better from 2009 to 2011. And only the 99 percent in Nevada fared worse than the 99 percent in Rhode Island did from 2009 to 2011.

Conversely, there was less income disparity between the one percent and the 99 percent in Rhode Island from 1979 and 2007, and Rhode Island had less income disparity than the national average. The richest one percent of Rhode Islanders income grew by 170.3 percent from 1979 to 2007 compared to 40.4 percent for the poorest 99 percent of Rhode Islanders. Nationally during that same time frame, the richest one percent increased their earnings by 200.5 percent and the poorest 99 percent increased by only 18.9 percent.

The change in income distribution coincided with not only the economic collapse but also broad income tax cuts for the top tax bracket in Rhode Island proposed by former Governor Don Carcieri, a tea party Republican, and approved by the General Assembly, which took a hard turn to the right on economic policy during and after the Carcieri era.

From 2005 to 2011, the highest income tax rate in Rhode Island dropped from 9.9 percent to 5.99 percent. And during that same time frame that taxes were lowered on Rhode Island’s richest residents and they simultaneously started to earn a higher percentage of the state’s overall income, the unemployment rate creeped up to among the highest in the nation, further eroding the talking point from the far right and conservative Democrats that tax cuts help create new jobs.

The new report released today does not breaks down the data only into the one percent versus the 99 percent. You can read the full report here. Or check out the online version here. Here’s the Rhode Island-specific data.

In 2007, the one percent in Rhode Island accounted for 18.1 percent of all income. That was up from 1979, when the one percent only accounted for 10.3 percent. In 1928, the one percent in Rhode Island were responsible for 23.6 percent of all income.

Two Ways to Destroy “Occupy” Movement

Two Ways to Destroy “Occupy Wall Street”

As somebody’s momma once said, “the best thing you can do is show up.”  This has been happening all over the country since a group of folks decided to head down to that bull on Wall Street and call out to stop the bullshit.  This is not a report on “OWS,” it is an insight on the historical demolition of popular movements.

Divide and Conquer

The classic method of the powerful to distract the masses is to get them to fight amongst themselves.  The easiest one is via racism, and the other is class warfare pitting the Middle Class vs. Lower Class.  America’s long struggle with racism needs no extra lesson here, but one can see the tensions within OWS, and it is guaranteed that the Koch Brothers of the world, the Rupert Murdochs, with all their corporate and media power, will find every crack to expand.

The powerful have often inserted rabble rousers in the midst of the protest class, to pose as one, and to stir up internal strife.  This was done in the early Labor movement and overwhelmingly in the Civil Rights era.  Many a Native American activist has remarked about how there were times that the undercover agents outnumbered the activists.  They have been known to be the one who turned a peaceful protest violent, or manipulated factions against each other.  Will the current Occupiers be on guard for this?

Before continuing, let me add a disclaimer: I don’t speak on behalf of any ethnic or political group, nor organization, nor ideology.  I’m just one independent thinker.

I’ve seen various reports of racial tensions on the front lines of these actions and in the planning committees.  I read and hear about them with the expectations that the opposition will exploit them, and may have had a hand in manufacturing them.  It is worth noting that a true Popular Movement, one widespread enough to change a culture, thereby enacting political and economic change, will not have a corporate vertical structure.  Those who see the Occupy actions as opportunities to craft a single agreed upon message will doom the actions.  Those who are coming from Top-Down organizational structures, and wish to implement them more broadly, will suffocate the movement.

The 1% knows how to fight an army with a vanguard of leadership, it does not know how to deal with a hydra, or a million hydras.  It is not unexpected that many activists in a Movement are not directly affected, and it is typical that solidarity members can gravitate towards leadership roles if they have good communication skills.  These people are often referred to as “White Liberals,” but defining the affected class in an economic movement is not so simple as to break it into racial demographics.  If the result of such a “Black and White” view were to exclude poor and working class White people, a popular Movement is dead in its tracks.  Ultimately, the majority of America is poor and working class White people.  If a bulk of that group is convinced to wave the American flag and believe protesting political policies is being “un-American”, then it is over.

The 1% stands on the backs of poor and working class Whites.  They also stand on the backs of middle class Whites and People of Color, who believe assimilation and accommodation are the path to prosperity for their families.  The 1% has convinced a bulk of those groups that their stability is connected to standing on the necks of others.  And this connects with the second method of destroying OWS:

Pay the Protesters

Professional advocates can become beholden to their funders- be they government, corporate, or foundations.  Often, that funding is for the affects of an economic and political system that created this all-too-predictable financial crisis.  The funding typically is explicit in barring advocacy for structural change.  The pay-off will go to anyone who will take it, but generally the first offers go to those who appear to have credibility; sometimes that will be People of Color, and other times it will be White Liberals.  Someone to carry the water and be highlighted as a “responsible” leader of these people, and a commission is formed, and the new activists are told to go home so the chosen leaders can advocate on their behalf.  This is not so difficult to do when a movement looks more like an organization, and structured with a top-down approach (even if the top looks like the consensus of a small group).

What to Do?

People need to keep showing up.  Show up with a cacophony of voices, with ALL their issues.  Whether the issue is foreclosure, unemployment, civil rights, or something else, it is all tied into the structure of consolidated wealth that uses the government to protect this wealth.  In an uncertain feudal society, the King needs his lords and barons to protect him.  The nobility, in turn, needs their sheriffs, soldiers, and tax collectors to keep the serfs in line.  It is cheaper for them to hire more sheriffs and build more prisons than for their economic system to be modified.

Why is there never any discussion of automated technology leading to unemployment?  Because it is more Divisive to have working class Whites railing against Latino landscapers and in the streets about Voter ID, Secure Communities, and funding immigrant detention prisons.  In truth, there are so few skilled blue collar jobs in America for two primary reasons: (1) machines replaced humans (more profit for shareholders), and (2) companies moved businesses overseas after bipartisan pushes to change international laws (such as NAFTA).

The most un-American people in America are those who do not care about employing Americans, and would rather make another million via machine or cheap Chinese labor.  Even more un-American would be to take these profits and invest them outside of America, and then call on the American taxpayers to bail them out, or protect their economic interests in other countries.  Will mayors reign in police, or will riot gear be the new standard gear for every patrolman?  How many will be arrested?  Will the police themselves question their orders?  Few scenes so far have encapsulated OWS than a NY  Marine yelling at the NYPD, asking why they are in full riot gear and attacking unarmed civilians engaging in their 1st Amendment rights.

Why should multi-national corporations that do nothing for the common good in America receive favored status?  Why should a nation that proclaims an adherence to “market forces” bail out those who played and lost?

The bipartisan bailout followed the bipartisan deregulation that caused it.  For every action, there is a reaction.  Bush and Obama, Dems and Republicans, were all in position to respond to the economic debacles of the past few years.  Rather than launch full scale investigations (Governors and Attorneys General included), they re-filled the empty pockets.  This was the reaction in Washington, D.C., where millions upon millions of corporate money flows- both in campaign donations and public contracts.  This was the greatest theft in modern history.  And now people are legitimately rallying around this, as clearly it went too far: many Middle Class people are slowly acknowledging they are no longer in the club.  For every action there is a reaction.

Is there an end game?  Is it possible that the current economic system can employ another ten million people- or employ five million to incarcerate the other five million?  Neither scenario looks likely.  The latter is a bit more possible, but only if the 1% pay vastly more taxes, as the incarceration tab has come home to roost.  Unless automation and foreign labor are drastically altered, there are simply not enough jobs in the current structure… and that is just presuming that shifting millions of jobs back home would not result in a catastrophe elsewhere.

Every day I walk down the street past bank-owned homes that are boarded up; past homeless people, and folks hanging out because they can’t find work.  It makes me feel that the mayor of my city should be forced to sit on that curb until an idea pops in his head, one which involves blighted property and eminent domain.  One which involves community development bloc grants.  One which recognizes that the homeless lady and the unemployed guy are more important than any entity who would balloon a mortgage payment, evict an owner, and sit on a boarded up home collecting rats, overgrown with weeds… until someone buys the house for the land it is worth and demolishes the home.  (after they collected the insurance money on the defaulted mortgage, so there is no loss).

It doesn’t matter what one looks like to see that things need to be stopped and shouted about.  It just matters that one stops to look.

A Statement from Mayor Angel Taveras on Occupy Providence

All citizens have a right to have their voices heard, and I, like the Occupy movement, am concerned about the causes and impacts of the most serious economic downturn in decades. This movement is important because our city, our state, our nation need to do much more to address the jobs and foreclosure crises which are crushing hope and opportunity for the 99% of us.

Here in Providence, the protesters who have camped in Burnside Park since October 15 have conducted themselves peacefully, and the city has had ongoing and respectful dialogue with the group. I commend Occupy Providence for its commitment to nonviolence, and I thank Occupy Providence for publicly recognizing the city’s efforts to ensure their right to assemble and demonstrate.

Unlike many other American cities, Providence is taking a nonviolent approach to the occupation of Burnside Park that has resulted in no arrests and the continued freedom to protest with the full support and cooperation of public safety. Continue reading “A Statement from Mayor Angel Taveras on Occupy Providence”