'The Pew Hispanic Center: in the year following the official end of the Great Recession in June 2009, foreign-born workers in the U.S. gained 656,000 jobs while native-born workers lost 1.2 million. But even as the hiring of immigrants picked up during that period, those same workers “experienced a sharp decline in earnings.”'
Karen Garcia
New Paltz, NY
When a poll shows that 80 percent of Americans are just fine with being groped and x-rayed by $10-an-hour TSA workers in the name of "safety," I'd say that people are not just in denial. They're in such despair that they've become numb. Unless the results of the survey are bogus (and that is entirely possible), we have not only given up on the American dream. We have given up on feeling human.
Of course, the denial starts at the very top. President Obama seems to think people care about bipartisanship and "the tone" - whatever that is. I shudder to think he is concerned about ordinary people losing sleep over the lack of civility in Washington. Does he really think we elected him to embrace Republicans? Does he really not get what his job description is?
Those blessed polls also showed that only three percent of Americans considered the Afghanistan War to be their priority in the midterm elections. Naturally, it's the economy and jobs that have people worried - not a faraway war that never touches them directly. So, we are kicking the can down the road for another three years before even thinking of ending th.at debacle. Have you noticed that 2014 seems to be a magic number? It's the same year the real meat of the Health Reform Act takes effect, too. Right after the elections - again. Surprise, surprise.
Forget the Republicans - they are traitors to all but their rich friends. Their only interest is keeping themselves in power and making sure the owners of most of the wealth in this country can keep what they have. Mayor Bloomberg boasts that New York City is a "luxury town." His corporate nominee for schools chancellor has bragged she takes cabs everywhere. Yet a photo in The Times showed her getting into a chauffeured limousine. These people have so much power and money, they have no need for shame.
I really don't understand Americans. In France, the people went on strike when the retirement age was raised to 62. In Britain, they rioted when university tuition was raised. A millionaire member of the House of Lords was forced to resign when he made a Barbara Bush-like statement that the common people as well-off as ever. In Hong Kong, citizens took to the streets when business tycoons offered to shell out $16 million apiece to contribute to the country's social security system. The people would rather the bigshots be taxed directly to avoid a conflict of interest. Can you imagine the Forbes List billionaires or the Koch Brothers offering to help cash-strapped Americans? Me neither.
Maybe it's because we are such an immense, culturally diverse nation that we can't find common cause. Maybe change has to start at the local level because Washington has become so irrelevant to our daily lives. Maybe we should shut off the TV and get involved in our communities to regain our humanity. Or, we could all head out to airports next Wednesday whether we have tickets or not, and protest the government violations of our Fourth Amendment rights. It has to start with us, or it won't happen at all.
Matt Connolly
Boston
We spend more on education than any other nation yet the performance of the students is still falling. More teachers, less teachers, more hours, less hours, longer years, shorter years, new techniques, old techniques it all comes down to the same result: overall educational standards are dropping.
Your solution more money will add to the deficit which you bemoan as an additional burden on the kids being born today while guaranteeing nothing will change. Even had we had a smart pill we could give to the kids today that would make them all bright, it would still be 16 years to wait for the results. So preaching education won't cut it.
The truth is America has become a fat tired Sumo wrestler. It's put on too much weight to be a contender anymore. The sad fact is there is no solution as long as we think war is the answer, use mercenary troops, and ignore our continual battles (America has fought in more wars since WWII than the rest of the nations of the world added together) then we have no hope.
Right now we use our most creative minds thinking up ways to kill people or to come up with money betting scams in our financial industry. It is not the way it was supposed to be.
Franz
Aachen, Germany
Forget the dream to get the lost jobs back.
One key aspect of Globalization is, that it creates value from the regional separation of producers and consumers. Production costs of standard goods are reduced by a transfer of production to countries with low wages, while the revenues remain high by selling the goods in the shops of rich countries. That is exactly was has happened between the USA and China.
On the short term, this system produces huge profits for the international companies that are managing it. On the long term, it is only useful for the new production regions. The sure loser are the workers and engineers of the old, former production region. Initially, they can buy cheaper goods and feel wealthier. This is a sweet poison, that the US middle class is now recognizing too late. It is only logical, that after some time they lose their jobs and purchasing power. This process ist almost impossible to revers once it has taken place.
If a country like the USA, would now perform a radical turn and handicap the import of "globalized" goods with tariffs, the first thing happening would be a crash of the stock markets. Secondly, international trade would break down, because other countries would react with counter measures. Everybody would increase tariffs to protect their home markets. Most goods would get a sharp increase of prices and almost all complex production processes would be interrupted and stand still. In other words, the world would fall in the worst imaginable economic crisis.
There are ways to improve the current situation, but they are all painful and take time. Most important is a strong political will and a social consensus to do a u-turn and to bear its consequences. This is what has happened in Germany 8 years ago and now starts to show some fruits. There were tax increases, reductions of wages, investments in education, and painful adjustments of the social services. For the USA I am not optimistic within the next 5 years, because the necessary political and social consensus is nowhere to see. Instead, there is a risk of sharp social conflicts with a radicalization of internal politics.
Lynn
CT
I live in a town where due to budget overruns, our new middle school was left with an empty library/media center. That's right, it's almost December and there are still no books, no shelving, and no furniture for 5th and 6th graders. Our re-elected Republican state senator bragged on his campaign mailer that he saved the district $425,000 on the cost of building the school. Where? The toilets constantly overflow, the drinking water in fountains is warm, the sinks dribble water to wash your hands, the intercom system doesn't work, the main office and library still have cement floors, mismatched used furniture is in the classrooms and falling apart, doors don't work, lockers are already broken, electrical outlets in the classroom malfunction, lights constantly burn out, there is no playground equipment so students stand around on recess, the internet doesn't work on classroom computers, and the white boards in most of the classrooms still can't be used (most likely due to the obvious electrical problem). You'd think parents would be protesting in front of town hall or the school. You'd be wrong. Did I mention that due to our mayor refusing to increase our education budget we laid off teachers and aides, now have pay to play sports teams, reduced school library hours (if you have a school with a functioning library), and our classroom size went from an average of 19 to 26. I live in a Republican strong-hold where our Republican mayor has kept property taxes lower than surrounding towns. During education budget discussions a small group of parents protested in favor of an increase in front of town hall. The majority of parents said they didn't want their taxes increased $100 a year to pay for the needed increase. One even remarked that our teachers were overpaid. How much should we pay them? Thirty thousand a year was her reply. Ignorance is no longer bliss but inexcusably stupid and destructive. We've had 3 bomb scares in the last 2 weeks at our high school and intermediate school. One third of the students are overweight, with a majority of those downright obese. There are few sidewalks for children to walk or ride their bikes on, our roads have potholes, and five teenage drivers/passengers were killed last year due to alcohol use or speeding. But hey, we have low taxes.
I've just sold my home. We'll be moving to a town with much higher taxes, but one where a quality public education is a priority for the residents. Where learning is not just valued, but supported and encouraged and children are given the necessary tools to compete and succeed in the 21st century.
IfAtFirst
New York, NY
Human societies decline as a consequence of the cultures they choose to adopt. Cultures are based on ideas. Americans chose to enthusiastically embrace an incomplete eighteenth century idea called the 'Invisible Hand Theory.'This theory is incomplete because it failed to think through what competition really is and what the consequences are. Competition is survival and once in the market place there is no choice for a business but to seek to dominate that market by selling the goods or services that offer the best value for money. This is known as commanding the price point. This pressure to command the price point results in a downside. Production costs need to be constantly monitored and driven down wherever possible to maintain or achieve price point pole position. This will result in a constant search to find the best opportunity costs. The larger the business the more ability it has to do this. Today large corporations are responsible for 50% of the world's output of good and services. Today these corporations scour the planet looking for the lowest wages they can pay, the least environmental pollution restrictions and the governments that are best at rigging national and international markets to further the sales of businesses operating on their territory. The executives of businesses are, therefore, so absorbed in chasing price point they fail to see the consequences of their actions. Why should they if it appears to personally benefit them with the enormous rewards they can engineer for themselves? They fail to see that not only are they causing a collapse in demand in developed economies subjected to job outsourcing. They fail to see that polluting the planet will ultimately kill off human societies ability to survive. This in brief is why the Invisible Hand Theory is an incomplete theory and why Americans need to smarten up and recognize it as such.
Desertstraw
Bowie Arizona
1. I challenge anyone to tell us where we can create the number of new jobs that we need to go back to full employment. Technology is eliminating jobs everywhere and the technology is getting better. Let him consider 3D printing and robotics which will reduce the number of manufacturing jobs even when we stop much of the importing. These technologies are making it cheaper to manufacture here than import from cheap labor countries. 2. The American educational system was destroyed by the middle class not by the bean counters. When I was a boy way back when we had a quality educational system and public institutions like City College and U.C. Berkley were better than the best ivy league schools, public education was controlled by elites not the electorate. As control of education changed the middle class elected to "protect" their own children. The first indication of change was symbolic, high school football coaches were paid more than the teachers and even the principals. Then the voters used their power to lower standards, they could not have their children with low grades, which would keep them out of better colleges, or heaven forbid fail, it would damage their pysches. So we got grade inflation. Then the middle class undermined the value of education by telling their children that they themselves, auto workers and truck drivers, made more money than their teachers. Finally the middle class made a Faustian deal with the government, it would allow the Viet Nam war if we had "guns and butter" and draft exemptions for college students. Colleges seeing a way to expand obliged by lowering standards so that people could keep their draft exemptions.
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves," We the people of the U.S. are responsible for our mess. There will always be predators around like the Wall Street crowd to take advantage but they exploit not initiate opportunities. The recent bubbles were caused by the public desire to make money the easy way.
Changing how government acts is easy, it takes one or two elections. Changing the values that we live by is much harder.
Wack
chicago
I am first generation immigrant but this is what i feel about avg Americans: They are extremely misinformed about rest of the world specially the other industrialized nations. They still don't believe that those nations have better health indicators than USA at 1/3rd costs. They don't know that many of these so called socialist countries are more competitive than USA on all rankings. So called western Europe has more companies in top 500 than USA. And those companies do extremely well even without outsourcing and providing much better vacation, benefits and first world salaries to their employees.
Rules like filibuster are setup so that no major change can be accomplished in favor of avg Americans which puts a dent in wealth of super-rich (Lieberman blocking public option or buying in of Medicaid is a great example of that). Top 1% knows that in a democracy, then can not rule against the will of other 99%. So they are trying their best to divert the attention to whatever sticks: skin color, false war in name of security and above all socialism. Unless and until other people unite or the Manchurian army of these right wing could see thru this plan of super-rich, there is no hope.
barbara
nyc
It doesn't take very much to look around and see significant cultural shifts perpetuated by business. Democracy is a catch word empty of real content.
Information is largely generated by marketing. Journalism as noted by the recent Ted Koppel article has been replaced by opinion. Television has always been driven by $ but the support for populist shows has simply moved a political dialog into the realm of tabloid. Perhaps those politicians who seem entrenched in this kind of public interface are those who embody those characteristics. What we see mirrored back to us in a Sara Palin and Glen Beck is the face of a talk show.
We now market everything through the media and see the business model increasingly in the public sector.
We are told this is done to reduce costs. But we have also lost the notion of a public sector and the value of what it is to be a citizen. Any issue is about $. The public sector was put in place to counter the business machine. What has happened to our that? What is good for America is not a priority, consumer protection a dirty word. Business is entrenched in politics. So if business is the driving force, how has that impacted on our current state, Republicans?
Consider the losses driven by business interests: War! Trade agreements and outsourcing that work against
the American worker, our dilemma with immigrant labor.
Corporations have created the malling of America (I remember my mother complaining about how many new malls were being built in her neighborhood. She said in a few
years, they will be all be empty. What a waste!) and a decrease of small business (how many Rite Aides does any community need?)
Large corporations control the product marketing, material, production and retail. Along the way, this process has impacted on every part of our lives. We are increasingly a captive market, sheep. We sign contracts for the smallest of services and pay fees for canceling all of which have nothing to do with the ordinary consumer except to fine those least able to pay. Read the small print.
We are consuming a life style that is largely untenable....one bent on fast food, entertainment, vast amounts of stuff often plastic that is made to be outdated and marketing that prices for status. The marketing is directed at the masses who are clearly over their head.
All in all the government, and a public that is struggling to protect whatever is seems to have left is
being shifted away from what is necessary for its integrity and well being...education, public service...
protection of the environment and all of those things I may have missed that have to do with values.
In finding solutions, we need to pay attention to the bigger picture.
John Kerr
San Francisco
The United States had a free lunch for 30 years after the Second World War, with little competition. Returning service men were hard working and ambitious. They studied things like engineering and propelled the country for decades as "can do" Americans. We had an abundance of cheap energy and cheap food. They created Silicon Valley and were succeeded their by a generation of creative people, often immigrants.
Now we are faced with competing with a new world of highly educated and motivated technicians, much like our fathers, and we have to earn our way in the world. We won't achieve it by griping in the New York Times. Among other things we have to deal with:
-whether we want to grow to 400 and 500 million people so we have to create 150,000 jobs each month just to stand still.
-how do we motivate our citizenry to educate themselves at all levels in technical subjects so we can compete? We have too many lazy students with no goals in life who can't put sentences together.
-How do we get our brightest to invent, design and make things instead of joining the hoard of over-paid quick buck artists on Wall Street?
Why is Germany doing better than us? First they have fewer mouths to feed with no population growth. Second, they have a better educated and trained population selling sophisticated equipment to developing countries. Third, they have negotiated trade agreements that allow them to sell where American goods are shut out. Fourth, they highly tax gasoline to reduce the need to import endless oil. Fifth, they lack a financial center like Wall Street or the City that drain the brain pool. Sixth, the country lives within its means and people don't spend money they don't have. Seventh, they never stop training their workers, who often work for mid-sized, specialized industrial companies.
Their is no free lunch. Going back to the days when unskilled, unionized workers live like the upper middle class is not going to happen.
Our country needs to stop whining and improve the way we do things. There no longer is a free lunch.
18.11.10
Make way for statistics in humanities!
"Digitally savvy scholars are exploring how technology can enhance understanding of the liberal arts."
mp, CT
Until the identity politics, that have so permeated and arguably destroyed the joy of the humanities, are removed, all the technological bells and whistles will not have limited affect.
DPatrickOceanside, CA
Humanities + data = social science
The confrontation with the issue of how to use data, what data means, indeed what "data" "is" will require those humanities scholars to confront the all the issues that social scientists, and the philosophers of social science, have been addressing since the creation of the field of sociology. Good luck!!
kathleen dublin, ireland
Google is giving a million Euros for research that supports the importance of their business; the government double that. But how much more do foundations, universities, and governments give to the core business of the humanities, which is interpretation and critical thinking? Right now it is a lot more, but will that continue? Funding digital humanities at the expense of rather than in addition to the traditional humanities is like funding libraries without funding scholars who study what is in them. And that reminds me, digital humanities are flourishing at a time when funding to buy -- not to mention write -- books is increasingly endangered at universities around the world, not to mention public libraries.
blert madison
In the post-theory war era, critics are returning to methodology, and this article barely begins to scratch the surface of the new push in the digital humanities. The searchability of digitized texts is, of course, opening them to fresh study, especially as Google Books and Scholar offer greater access. Other efforts, like Early English Books Online, have already moved the primary workplace for many scholars out of dusty books and onto computers. One of the most fascinating recent bits of literary scholarship that I've seen is the effort by Jonathan Hope and Michael Witmore in the recent Shakespeare Quarterly, which catalogs the corpus of Shakespeare and hundreds of contemporary works word-by-word to measure patterns in the language. The results revitalize the argument that authors are important (contrary to the theory-driven "author is dead" claims), and maps out genres and other literary patterns in startling precision. Theoretical work is giving way to this kind of method-driven approach...and it's about time that something new took over in the Humanities.
Sev Online
People want metrics because metrics are a shorthand for "quality," and assessing quantity is much easier than assessing quality. It's the sort of critical thinking taught in the humanities that has become so unpopular these days.
It's human nature to seek out continually more efficient processes. It's also human laziness. So we make our rubrics and metrics (SAT, FICO, US News College Ranking) and then instead of bettering ourselves towards the cause (innate intelligence, trustworthiness, education) we teach, prepare, and worship the test.
Then SAT prep becomes another barrier for low income students. We have a credit armageddon despite AAA ratings. Colleges slip towards vocational master's degrees.
Is it any wonder, really, that our best and brightest flocked to wall street in the last generation? And our response is to cut the humanities in colleges across the country?
It used to be a long shot that China could beat us on education.
It's becoming less long.
Vincent Leung Cambridge,MA
The dichotomy between "ism" and "data" is of course false. There's no data without an -ism. This celebration of data as a thing that transcends paradigm seems naively self-indulgent and self-congratulatory.
jbok
A wide understanding of history might have warned us of the dangers, of invading Iraq or of trusting Wall Street to "regulate itself", for example. Abilities in critical thinking might have allowed our politics to be conducted rationally, rather than becoming the mad circus it too often is now. The reading of literature might have allowed us the empathy and honing of intelligence to remain capable of real community rather than being atomized into tiny "consumers" facing great corporate demands.
The humanities are not for jargonized show-offs to own, as is too often the case in universities now. Nor do they depend on electronic technologies, in particular. Books have lasted thousands of years, and some in their original forms; nothing wrong with "digitizing" them, but I wonder if the eventual costs in hardware, software, updates, upgrades, and energy may make that less economical and less accessible in the end--especially in a time of falling incomes for so many.
Either way, the problem in our understanding and appreciation of the wisdom of the humanities does not lie in its need for digitalization. It lies in our own having been distracted by an entertainment culture, poorly educated in early grades, and a mythos of the value of "gut thinking" (which might work well if we had brains in our guts instead of--well, what's there instead).
As it is, if the people remain enamored of easy answers and appalled at the idea of the hard work of real education--well, Hubris, meet Nemesis.
John McCumber Los Angeles CA
This is all very nice, but it's not about the humanities; it's about tools for the humanities. Scalpels and MRI's are not medicine, and digitizers and computers are not critical reflection.
John Kleeberg New York, NY
It's important to remember what is more and less important for digitizing information for the Humanities. It is now possible to make available to everyone for free every book, newspaper, and handwritten document published before 1923. That is a worthy pursuit, not least because it will preserve archives and libraries that otherwise will be destroyed by fires, floods, and building collapses (examples: the destruction of fire of the Anna Amalia Library in Weimar, the building collapse of the Historical Archive of the City of Cologne). It will also mean that you will not have to live in New York, London, or Paris to have access to a world class library. Yet despite the great achievements in digitalization achieved in recent years (notably by Google), a surprisingly large number of common books and pamphlets from the nineteenth century are still not accessible on line.
On the other hand, just because something can be measured doesn't mean that it will produce results of scholarly significance. Much effort in recent years has been devoted to the history of human height. Unfortunately, we don't really know why people grow taller (less exposure to disease? better nutrition?) nor how good is the quality of the data (are the soldiers measured barefoot or wearing socks?). This research could easily end up being pointless. Contrast that to the vital importance of scanning and digitizing our libraries and archives so that they can be preserved and made them available to all. That way, the next time an Anna Amalia library burns up, or a Cologne archive collapses (and we know for certain that there will be a next time), at least the information will be preserved in digital form.
Timothy Burke Swarthmore
I find it depressing that so many responding to this article, despite apparently believing that they were the last people to receive real exposure to humanistic knowledge, have such a sour, parsimonious and uncharitable view of the proper character and disposition of the humanities. Not to mention the knee-jerk agitation about identity politics and theory in response to an article which is about other trends and developments. At the very least, someone who cares about humanistic knowledge should be able to respond to the issues at hand in a manner that opens up dialogue and works with the text provided rather than a canned, reflexive response about various red herrings.
For folks who actually did read the article and are interested in these trends, I think you can be reassured that digitally-mediated methods are often indeed just tools. As Eli puts it above, a way to ask questions that would otherwise have not been asked. But also, I think that many of the conversations and modes of writing that operate through digital media are less "new" than their enthusiasts and critics presuppose. One asks whether Kant could have written through crowdsourcing. In a sense, I think he did: Enlightenment writing was very much dialogic and interconnected. Every formal work by philosophers was surrounded by a cloud of letters, cafe conversations, ephemeral writings and so on. The analogy between the present and the rise of post-Gutenberg print culture, if not exact, is nevertheless illuminating. And there were defenders of pre-Gutenberg ways of writing and reading then who were just as discomforted then as some are now, some out of philosophical concern and others motivated by overt commercial or political fear at the loss of their own monopolies or distinctive forms of power.
Pete Kloppenburg Toronto
Well, in some ways this is nothing new. The humanities have long coveted science's privileged place in public discourse, its authority and seemingly unshakeable claim to ownership of Truth. So various attempts have been made to bring the flavour of science and some of its techniques and hallmarks: theoretical vigour, falsifiability, et cetera.
Philosophy, science's sibling from the cradle, has been the natural path for this kind of endeavour. And in truth, the humanities' promiscuous habit of pulling in ideas from all over the map makes this kind of statistical attack pretty much inevitable. We may note that this promiscuity has been very fruitful in the past, so we may be hopeful for this latest fling.
But (you had to know there was a but coming) we can expect a great many blind alleys to be charged down with this approach. We may gain some glimmer of insight into a Civil War battle by studying the topography of the battlefield, but we'll never turn over a rock that hides the secrets to why the Gettysburg Address continues to stand as a paragon of rhetoric. Only a fraction of the problems we encounter in the humanities avail themselves to a statistical approach. So we can be certain that we're not staring at a paradigm shift (to name-check an idea very beloved of the scientific humanities).
The real test will be how well these humanities academics can adopt the basic dynamics of sciences, as opposed to just some of the tools. Science offers the balanced pair of theory and experiment, each inspiring and doing a sanity check on the other. The humanities has long been stacked to high on the theory, and this experimental bent is welcome. But can we get to the point where an unexpected pattern emerging from the data causes some laboratory humanities professor to spot a fundamental break with orthodoxy, publish her findings, and spark a great gold rush among theorists to explain anomalous data? Will a theory be tested over and over, as science would go about validating a theory, or will we instead see just a series of one-off experiments that keep the publishing mills churning?
I'm a big fan of the humanities. I use my liberal arts education every day in business. I've seen how the dazzle of numbers can blind smart people to the fundamental human equation. Let's just hope that statistical analyses don't become the litmus test for good research. A nice bit of back and forth to test a theory and strengthen it, but both sides, please.
Lorak G. Selrak Vancouver
I am a literary scholar writing this message on my web-enabled computer. Technology is everywhere--in my research, my communications, and the classrooms where I teach. And projects like Dan Edelstein's sound wonderful.
But even as we use technology to find new ways of enhancing humanistic understanding we must also acknowledge a paradox that non-humanists are often reluctant to examine--the ways in which our technophilia leads us to take this tool of technology as something more than a tool. Turning humans into data-points reveals something, without question. And we should not be shy about the digital humanities. At the same time, the very aim of the humanist scholar (and the reason that politics will never disappear from the humanities) is to remind the world what happens when people are reduced to data points.
In that sense technology and its affiliated practices of quantification and measurement much adored by bureaucrats and businesspeople are the very antithesis of all we stand for.
Swagato C Chicago, IL
Marshall McLuhan famously stated, "The medium is the message." We increasingly move toward a world wherein we are immersed constantly in a mediated existence. Thus, traditional barriers between 'levels' of information break down, resulting in greater flow. The humanities, especially in the United States, is in dire need of a methodological change, and digitising information can only help. However, I am not so sure that 'crowdsourcing' academic ventures is the way forward. Could Kant have written his Critiques by a collaborative effort across continents and schools of thought? At some point the individual still stands apart. The tools, yes, they must indeed be refreshed as necessary.
julia hiawassee, ga
"Digital Humanities"?
Not only is this an oxymoron, it is a frightening one. Must everything be "digitized"?
How can the Arts be "quantified"? The Great God Data is, I feel, anathema to creativity and the human soul.
Technology may have proven itself valuable in the fields of science and economics, but, please leave the worlds of literature and art alone! To quote Descartes: "The heart has its reason that reason does not know."
As an artist and a humanist, "j'accuse".
Cathy ME
... perhaps if the Chinese had the opportunity to study the humanities, they wouldn't be living in a Communist stupor blinded by the state's "allowing" them to engage in capitalism as political dissidents and intellectuals are tortured in prisons and deemed insane.
Your cynicism, Thomas Clarke, is nothing more than that. It certainly is not a marker of your intelligence, something in which you are clearly lacking as evidenced by your myopic, narrow, uncomplicated, simple view of the world.
I'd love it if puerile American philistines like yourself would move to China.
Chinese students come to the US and are astounded by our libraries, archives, and humanities programs. In China, a student cannot investigate the past, because the state does not want to save and make available archival evidence that might undermine the regime.
You may take things like the study of history for granted or write them off as insignificant, but our very abilities to study history here or to simply visit an archive is indicative of just how free the United States is in comparison to your beloved China.
You want the US to be more like China? Keep advocating for more cuts to the National Endowment for the Humanities.
If you like China so much, why don't you move there? Narrow-minded automatons who think the world is black and white are China's bread and butter. You'd fit right in.
As for me, I'll stay right here in the United States where only the cynical and the stupid think it's a question of studying the humanities or the sciences.
Jim Maryland
It's called Scientism, and it arguably was John Dewey's contribution to American life. Where parochial studies once dwelled on school lunches in kindergartens, the computing power has pushed it into the university. As a former university tech worker and doctoral candidate, I am glad that data mining is coming to the humanities. However, it raises a number of foundational issues about that very division that the current Foucaudian fascinations are not prepared to handle. Cultural relativism ultimately has little to make of hard data, and materialism has no room for the rather unchanging character of humanity thought patterns. Correlating the subtle moves over time AND space that make humanities like a symphony of slightly changing variations on a theme still will require human discernment and argumentation.
Amature Historian NYC
Nice. American is trading more hard science for Women's studies, African American studies and delayed success, etc.
Maybe we can export liberal arts in the future just like we are exporting financial services now.
Who cares China has real scientists and we have fake ones. We do not like to study anyway.
Ibarguen Ocean Beach
Map or mine it how you will, however diligently, however accurately, however exhaustively, the shape of the archive is not the shape of the past.
But then scholarly confusion of the one for the other is nothing new, now is it?
Eli Boston, MA
I did a digital search of this articles for the word "question" and I found two references:
1) data can reveal patterns and trends and raise unexpected questions for study
2) We’re able to ask new questions
I also searched for the word "answer" and found no references. This is NOT a way for quantifying data to find answers. It is not half baked social science (some think [with some justification] that most of social science is half baked.) It is just an ingenious way to help raise questions that still need to address with humanistic intuition and sensibility.
This work does NOT dilute or undermine humanistic inquiry it makes it stronger.
Several comments miss an important point of this article. The reason to data mine is not to answer questions but raise questions that would not have been asked otherwise. The article gives examples of finding questions but no examples of finding answers. However it should be pointed out that often the hardest part is finding the relevant questions that answers are relatively easy to get once you have the questions.
Discovery science is not "bells and whistles" but a fabulous tool just like the microscope of the telescope that expanded the horizons of what could be studied.
F.M. Arouet Wa
"Not everything that counts can be counted and not everything that can be counted counts." Albert Einstein
Recommend Recommended by 8 Readers .51.Paul HartnettHollister, CaliforniaNovember 16th, 20104:20 pmIt is not meaningful. Data collection is scientistic, so if one wishes to name it by its meaningful sobriquet, it is scientism. Scientism is the feigned attempt to appear scientific when picking out small datum said to reflect the world.
The entire school 'reform' movement is based on this. (Yes, I do not think of it as reform. It is a trojan horse for vouchers.) Data sets are collected within the institution, but not outside, where the cultural effect is greatest. (That is, the culture does not value education. So you're surprised the schools reflect this?)
All of this is tied to the much larger ism, professionalism. That is the ideology that has become dominant in a dog-eat-dog world.
Leo Toribio Pittsburgh, PA
There is reason for hope when the internet begins to serve the humanities as it has served science and engineering from its inception. But there is also cause for concern.
While the wealth of information on the internet can be a good source of insight into many areas, including the humanities, there is also a danger inherent in automated processes that can often trivialize or even obscure the real significance or meaning of information. That is especially true in the area of humanities.
Half a century ago, computer programs were written to perform word counts on texts by unknown writers or texts attributed to known authors with some uncertainty. The frequency of occurrence of certain key words and phrases in two texts, one known to be written by say, Geoffery Chaucer, and the other unsigned, can give us a pretty good idea if the latter writing was probably from Chaucer's hand, but it tells us nothing about the ideas expressed.
Leo Toribio
Pittsburgh, PA
juliahia wassee, ga
You see? All this talk of digital humanities has rattled my brain - I correct myself: I was quoting Blaise Pascal, not Rene Descartes. And ended with Emile Zola, although perhaps stretching his meaning. My once clear thinking has sadly succumbed to the negative effects of digitization.
mp, CT
Until the identity politics, that have so permeated and arguably destroyed the joy of the humanities, are removed, all the technological bells and whistles will not have limited affect.
DPatrickOceanside, CA
Humanities + data = social science
The confrontation with the issue of how to use data, what data means, indeed what "data" "is" will require those humanities scholars to confront the all the issues that social scientists, and the philosophers of social science, have been addressing since the creation of the field of sociology. Good luck!!
kathleen dublin, ireland
Google is giving a million Euros for research that supports the importance of their business; the government double that. But how much more do foundations, universities, and governments give to the core business of the humanities, which is interpretation and critical thinking? Right now it is a lot more, but will that continue? Funding digital humanities at the expense of rather than in addition to the traditional humanities is like funding libraries without funding scholars who study what is in them. And that reminds me, digital humanities are flourishing at a time when funding to buy -- not to mention write -- books is increasingly endangered at universities around the world, not to mention public libraries.
blert madison
In the post-theory war era, critics are returning to methodology, and this article barely begins to scratch the surface of the new push in the digital humanities. The searchability of digitized texts is, of course, opening them to fresh study, especially as Google Books and Scholar offer greater access. Other efforts, like Early English Books Online, have already moved the primary workplace for many scholars out of dusty books and onto computers. One of the most fascinating recent bits of literary scholarship that I've seen is the effort by Jonathan Hope and Michael Witmore in the recent Shakespeare Quarterly, which catalogs the corpus of Shakespeare and hundreds of contemporary works word-by-word to measure patterns in the language. The results revitalize the argument that authors are important (contrary to the theory-driven "author is dead" claims), and maps out genres and other literary patterns in startling precision. Theoretical work is giving way to this kind of method-driven approach...and it's about time that something new took over in the Humanities.
Sev Online
People want metrics because metrics are a shorthand for "quality," and assessing quantity is much easier than assessing quality. It's the sort of critical thinking taught in the humanities that has become so unpopular these days.
It's human nature to seek out continually more efficient processes. It's also human laziness. So we make our rubrics and metrics (SAT, FICO, US News College Ranking) and then instead of bettering ourselves towards the cause (innate intelligence, trustworthiness, education) we teach, prepare, and worship the test.
Then SAT prep becomes another barrier for low income students. We have a credit armageddon despite AAA ratings. Colleges slip towards vocational master's degrees.
Is it any wonder, really, that our best and brightest flocked to wall street in the last generation? And our response is to cut the humanities in colleges across the country?
It used to be a long shot that China could beat us on education.
It's becoming less long.
Vincent Leung Cambridge,MA
The dichotomy between "ism" and "data" is of course false. There's no data without an -ism. This celebration of data as a thing that transcends paradigm seems naively self-indulgent and self-congratulatory.
jbok
A wide understanding of history might have warned us of the dangers, of invading Iraq or of trusting Wall Street to "regulate itself", for example. Abilities in critical thinking might have allowed our politics to be conducted rationally, rather than becoming the mad circus it too often is now. The reading of literature might have allowed us the empathy and honing of intelligence to remain capable of real community rather than being atomized into tiny "consumers" facing great corporate demands.
The humanities are not for jargonized show-offs to own, as is too often the case in universities now. Nor do they depend on electronic technologies, in particular. Books have lasted thousands of years, and some in their original forms; nothing wrong with "digitizing" them, but I wonder if the eventual costs in hardware, software, updates, upgrades, and energy may make that less economical and less accessible in the end--especially in a time of falling incomes for so many.
Either way, the problem in our understanding and appreciation of the wisdom of the humanities does not lie in its need for digitalization. It lies in our own having been distracted by an entertainment culture, poorly educated in early grades, and a mythos of the value of "gut thinking" (which might work well if we had brains in our guts instead of--well, what's there instead).
As it is, if the people remain enamored of easy answers and appalled at the idea of the hard work of real education--well, Hubris, meet Nemesis.
John McCumber Los Angeles CA
This is all very nice, but it's not about the humanities; it's about tools for the humanities. Scalpels and MRI's are not medicine, and digitizers and computers are not critical reflection.
John Kleeberg New York, NY
It's important to remember what is more and less important for digitizing information for the Humanities. It is now possible to make available to everyone for free every book, newspaper, and handwritten document published before 1923. That is a worthy pursuit, not least because it will preserve archives and libraries that otherwise will be destroyed by fires, floods, and building collapses (examples: the destruction of fire of the Anna Amalia Library in Weimar, the building collapse of the Historical Archive of the City of Cologne). It will also mean that you will not have to live in New York, London, or Paris to have access to a world class library. Yet despite the great achievements in digitalization achieved in recent years (notably by Google), a surprisingly large number of common books and pamphlets from the nineteenth century are still not accessible on line.
On the other hand, just because something can be measured doesn't mean that it will produce results of scholarly significance. Much effort in recent years has been devoted to the history of human height. Unfortunately, we don't really know why people grow taller (less exposure to disease? better nutrition?) nor how good is the quality of the data (are the soldiers measured barefoot or wearing socks?). This research could easily end up being pointless. Contrast that to the vital importance of scanning and digitizing our libraries and archives so that they can be preserved and made them available to all. That way, the next time an Anna Amalia library burns up, or a Cologne archive collapses (and we know for certain that there will be a next time), at least the information will be preserved in digital form.
Timothy Burke Swarthmore
I find it depressing that so many responding to this article, despite apparently believing that they were the last people to receive real exposure to humanistic knowledge, have such a sour, parsimonious and uncharitable view of the proper character and disposition of the humanities. Not to mention the knee-jerk agitation about identity politics and theory in response to an article which is about other trends and developments. At the very least, someone who cares about humanistic knowledge should be able to respond to the issues at hand in a manner that opens up dialogue and works with the text provided rather than a canned, reflexive response about various red herrings.
For folks who actually did read the article and are interested in these trends, I think you can be reassured that digitally-mediated methods are often indeed just tools. As Eli puts it above, a way to ask questions that would otherwise have not been asked. But also, I think that many of the conversations and modes of writing that operate through digital media are less "new" than their enthusiasts and critics presuppose. One asks whether Kant could have written through crowdsourcing. In a sense, I think he did: Enlightenment writing was very much dialogic and interconnected. Every formal work by philosophers was surrounded by a cloud of letters, cafe conversations, ephemeral writings and so on. The analogy between the present and the rise of post-Gutenberg print culture, if not exact, is nevertheless illuminating. And there were defenders of pre-Gutenberg ways of writing and reading then who were just as discomforted then as some are now, some out of philosophical concern and others motivated by overt commercial or political fear at the loss of their own monopolies or distinctive forms of power.
Pete Kloppenburg Toronto
Well, in some ways this is nothing new. The humanities have long coveted science's privileged place in public discourse, its authority and seemingly unshakeable claim to ownership of Truth. So various attempts have been made to bring the flavour of science and some of its techniques and hallmarks: theoretical vigour, falsifiability, et cetera.
Philosophy, science's sibling from the cradle, has been the natural path for this kind of endeavour. And in truth, the humanities' promiscuous habit of pulling in ideas from all over the map makes this kind of statistical attack pretty much inevitable. We may note that this promiscuity has been very fruitful in the past, so we may be hopeful for this latest fling.
But (you had to know there was a but coming) we can expect a great many blind alleys to be charged down with this approach. We may gain some glimmer of insight into a Civil War battle by studying the topography of the battlefield, but we'll never turn over a rock that hides the secrets to why the Gettysburg Address continues to stand as a paragon of rhetoric. Only a fraction of the problems we encounter in the humanities avail themselves to a statistical approach. So we can be certain that we're not staring at a paradigm shift (to name-check an idea very beloved of the scientific humanities).
The real test will be how well these humanities academics can adopt the basic dynamics of sciences, as opposed to just some of the tools. Science offers the balanced pair of theory and experiment, each inspiring and doing a sanity check on the other. The humanities has long been stacked to high on the theory, and this experimental bent is welcome. But can we get to the point where an unexpected pattern emerging from the data causes some laboratory humanities professor to spot a fundamental break with orthodoxy, publish her findings, and spark a great gold rush among theorists to explain anomalous data? Will a theory be tested over and over, as science would go about validating a theory, or will we instead see just a series of one-off experiments that keep the publishing mills churning?
I'm a big fan of the humanities. I use my liberal arts education every day in business. I've seen how the dazzle of numbers can blind smart people to the fundamental human equation. Let's just hope that statistical analyses don't become the litmus test for good research. A nice bit of back and forth to test a theory and strengthen it, but both sides, please.
Lorak G. Selrak Vancouver
I am a literary scholar writing this message on my web-enabled computer. Technology is everywhere--in my research, my communications, and the classrooms where I teach. And projects like Dan Edelstein's sound wonderful.
But even as we use technology to find new ways of enhancing humanistic understanding we must also acknowledge a paradox that non-humanists are often reluctant to examine--the ways in which our technophilia leads us to take this tool of technology as something more than a tool. Turning humans into data-points reveals something, without question. And we should not be shy about the digital humanities. At the same time, the very aim of the humanist scholar (and the reason that politics will never disappear from the humanities) is to remind the world what happens when people are reduced to data points.
In that sense technology and its affiliated practices of quantification and measurement much adored by bureaucrats and businesspeople are the very antithesis of all we stand for.
Swagato C Chicago, IL
Marshall McLuhan famously stated, "The medium is the message." We increasingly move toward a world wherein we are immersed constantly in a mediated existence. Thus, traditional barriers between 'levels' of information break down, resulting in greater flow. The humanities, especially in the United States, is in dire need of a methodological change, and digitising information can only help. However, I am not so sure that 'crowdsourcing' academic ventures is the way forward. Could Kant have written his Critiques by a collaborative effort across continents and schools of thought? At some point the individual still stands apart. The tools, yes, they must indeed be refreshed as necessary.
julia hiawassee, ga
"Digital Humanities"?
Not only is this an oxymoron, it is a frightening one. Must everything be "digitized"?
How can the Arts be "quantified"? The Great God Data is, I feel, anathema to creativity and the human soul.
Technology may have proven itself valuable in the fields of science and economics, but, please leave the worlds of literature and art alone! To quote Descartes: "The heart has its reason that reason does not know."
As an artist and a humanist, "j'accuse".
Thomas Clarke Phoenix Ariz.
The only way Humanities can survive is by borrowing money and then sell products like Goldman Sachs / Lehmann formula as humanity default swaps. Every time humanities fails to make a contribution - someone pays some banker and vice versa.
Defunding NEH will begin next Spring... Then I hope the only "research" these pseudo-scholars will be doing is watching adult content on the internet.
How many dollars does China spend on the humanities - hmm let me guess - Zero ?
Defunding NEH will begin next Spring... Then I hope the only "research" these pseudo-scholars will be doing is watching adult content on the internet.
How many dollars does China spend on the humanities - hmm let me guess - Zero ?
Cathy ME
... perhaps if the Chinese had the opportunity to study the humanities, they wouldn't be living in a Communist stupor blinded by the state's "allowing" them to engage in capitalism as political dissidents and intellectuals are tortured in prisons and deemed insane.
Your cynicism, Thomas Clarke, is nothing more than that. It certainly is not a marker of your intelligence, something in which you are clearly lacking as evidenced by your myopic, narrow, uncomplicated, simple view of the world.
I'd love it if puerile American philistines like yourself would move to China.
Chinese students come to the US and are astounded by our libraries, archives, and humanities programs. In China, a student cannot investigate the past, because the state does not want to save and make available archival evidence that might undermine the regime.
You may take things like the study of history for granted or write them off as insignificant, but our very abilities to study history here or to simply visit an archive is indicative of just how free the United States is in comparison to your beloved China.
You want the US to be more like China? Keep advocating for more cuts to the National Endowment for the Humanities.
If you like China so much, why don't you move there? Narrow-minded automatons who think the world is black and white are China's bread and butter. You'd fit right in.
As for me, I'll stay right here in the United States where only the cynical and the stupid think it's a question of studying the humanities or the sciences.
Jim Maryland
It's called Scientism, and it arguably was John Dewey's contribution to American life. Where parochial studies once dwelled on school lunches in kindergartens, the computing power has pushed it into the university. As a former university tech worker and doctoral candidate, I am glad that data mining is coming to the humanities. However, it raises a number of foundational issues about that very division that the current Foucaudian fascinations are not prepared to handle. Cultural relativism ultimately has little to make of hard data, and materialism has no room for the rather unchanging character of humanity thought patterns. Correlating the subtle moves over time AND space that make humanities like a symphony of slightly changing variations on a theme still will require human discernment and argumentation.
Amature Historian NYC
Nice. American is trading more hard science for Women's studies, African American studies and delayed success, etc.
Maybe we can export liberal arts in the future just like we are exporting financial services now.
Who cares China has real scientists and we have fake ones. We do not like to study anyway.
Ibarguen Ocean Beach
Map or mine it how you will, however diligently, however accurately, however exhaustively, the shape of the archive is not the shape of the past.
But then scholarly confusion of the one for the other is nothing new, now is it?
Eli Boston, MA
I did a digital search of this articles for the word "question" and I found two references:
1) data can reveal patterns and trends and raise unexpected questions for study
2) We’re able to ask new questions
I also searched for the word "answer" and found no references. This is NOT a way for quantifying data to find answers. It is not half baked social science (some think [with some justification] that most of social science is half baked.) It is just an ingenious way to help raise questions that still need to address with humanistic intuition and sensibility.
This work does NOT dilute or undermine humanistic inquiry it makes it stronger.
Several comments miss an important point of this article. The reason to data mine is not to answer questions but raise questions that would not have been asked otherwise. The article gives examples of finding questions but no examples of finding answers. However it should be pointed out that often the hardest part is finding the relevant questions that answers are relatively easy to get once you have the questions.
Discovery science is not "bells and whistles" but a fabulous tool just like the microscope of the telescope that expanded the horizons of what could be studied.
F.M. Arouet Wa
"Not everything that counts can be counted and not everything that can be counted counts." Albert Einstein
Recommend Recommended by 8 Readers .51.Paul HartnettHollister, CaliforniaNovember 16th, 20104:20 pmIt is not meaningful. Data collection is scientistic, so if one wishes to name it by its meaningful sobriquet, it is scientism. Scientism is the feigned attempt to appear scientific when picking out small datum said to reflect the world.
The entire school 'reform' movement is based on this. (Yes, I do not think of it as reform. It is a trojan horse for vouchers.) Data sets are collected within the institution, but not outside, where the cultural effect is greatest. (That is, the culture does not value education. So you're surprised the schools reflect this?)
All of this is tied to the much larger ism, professionalism. That is the ideology that has become dominant in a dog-eat-dog world.
Leo Toribio Pittsburgh, PA
There is reason for hope when the internet begins to serve the humanities as it has served science and engineering from its inception. But there is also cause for concern.
While the wealth of information on the internet can be a good source of insight into many areas, including the humanities, there is also a danger inherent in automated processes that can often trivialize or even obscure the real significance or meaning of information. That is especially true in the area of humanities.
Half a century ago, computer programs were written to perform word counts on texts by unknown writers or texts attributed to known authors with some uncertainty. The frequency of occurrence of certain key words and phrases in two texts, one known to be written by say, Geoffery Chaucer, and the other unsigned, can give us a pretty good idea if the latter writing was probably from Chaucer's hand, but it tells us nothing about the ideas expressed.
Leo Toribio
Pittsburgh, PA
juliahia wassee, ga
You see? All this talk of digital humanities has rattled my brain - I correct myself: I was quoting Blaise Pascal, not Rene Descartes. And ended with Emile Zola, although perhaps stretching his meaning. My once clear thinking has sadly succumbed to the negative effects of digitization.
14.11.10
G20: Obama said major economies had not acted assertively to address global economic imbalances and left little doubt that he considered China the source of the problem
PEL
Los Angeles
China as the source of the problem? What problem? The humongous US deficit? The total lack of competitiveness of US industries? The crumbling infrastructure of the US? The pathetic education received by US children? The feudalistic health care system? The quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan? Did China cause all or any of that?
Who wants to bet that, even if China appreciates the Yuan, the US kids will continue to receive the same lousy education as before, that the bridges in the US continue to crumble, that 10 of millions of uninsured will only increase, that the US deficit will continue to grow, that the US industries competitiveness will continue to slide?
Take heed to what Angela Merkel said, do not force other competitive nations, countries that are doing things right, to conform to the lowest common denominator. You got it, the US is the lowest common denominator. Ouch.
Spoonless Eddie
CT, USA
People say he is a smart man. Certainly he is credentialed. That's not smart though.
How does he think China got all of our jobs and money? Does he think they sneaked up and stole them? For that matter, how do any of the rest of you think they got these?
It's bad enough that we look like fools to one another. Do we have to look like fools to the whole world?
Wise up people. The other party didn't do this to us. The president didn't do it. Your neighbor didn't do it. The Corporation did it. If we don't snap out of our sleep walk we'll lose this place permanently.
PF
Darien IL
When are the Americans going to wake up to the lies and distortions expounded by our politicians and big businesses.
Big business and the politicians in 2002 pass the tax law giving business the green light to ship their operations oversea by allowing them not to pay income tax on profits earn overseas as long as they do not bring the profits back into this country. This is why our businesses that operated overseas pays less income tax than our middle class worker (in fact most do not pay any income tax because they keep the profit in their overseas subsidiaries and past the costs to to the parent company here in the US).
Our businesses buys the merchandise from China at less than $7.00 and sell them here at a $100.00 less processing expenses and reflect the profit in the subsidiaries companies book so no income tax is paid here in the US.
Our individual taxpayers are subsidizing big business overseas and they are blaming countries overseas for the fraud on the American public.
yawning thunger
NY
Condemning other nations for not consuming too much. Is this today's America? Why don't you consume less and grow slowly? growing slowly is not bad as it sounds. it is all about distribution and healthy social system, not about the big nation with big money and jobless people.
len
san diego
Mr. Obama appeared to remove the remaining wiggle room he had on the subject of the renminbi, declaring: “It is undervalued. And China spends enormous amounts of money intervening in the market to keep it undervalued.”---
Does this mean Mr Obama wants China to stop financing our
enormous budget deficit by purchasing U.S. Treasury bonds? Be careful here and do not bite the hand that feeds you.
watchingchina
Shanghai
This is the first time the world has been strong enough to stand up to the US and refuse to be bullied into accepting the pain for US economic illnesses.
The extent of US denial is astonishing. America has huge trade deficits because they buy too much on credit and can't sell anything to anyone. But instead of curbing their purchases and making things the world wants to buy, they demand that the world stop making and selling.
It's always someone else's fault. The US apparently has no ability to accept responsibility for its own actions and the flaws in its system, and persists in bullying the rest of the world to suffer for its own sins.
Lest we forget, this entire recent worldwide financial crisis was entirely made in the USA. It was the US excessive liquidity fuelled by credit instead of savings, free money and blind greed in their deregulated banking system that combined to create and burst yet one more bubble.
But it's all China's fault.
Here is an editorial you might enjoy reading that will help to explain more of the details of the current economic scene:
US Harry Potter-Nomics
http://www.bearcanada.com...
Igidur
Kansas City
I am not sure how he intends to get Americans to consume less AND get growth in the economy that is heavily dependent on that spending.
I suppose TARP was a good start because it at least invested in infrastructure. But what now?
We finally have to apply some import taxes for Chinese companies. They do not play fair (currency, wages, environment, copyright infringements) so we should not allow them to export into the USA until they clean up their house.
Short term: Who will really hurt if we do that?
1. Johnny that can't get his XBOX
2. Mary that will have to pay more for clothes
3. Dad that won't get 56" TV for mancave
4. Mom that will not be able to equip the dream kitchen with made in China electronics and appliances
5. US Retail Corporations that will have their profits sag
6. Cell phone and computer manufacturers
...
But long term, this is all worth it. Current level of consumption is not sustainable and we have to do something about it. All in Washington should concentrate on fundamentals of strong economies: manufacturing and producing things of real value; not the nebulous exports of "financial services".
LZ
Pennsylvania
Mr. Obama, along with a majority of our politicians from both parties and the media (this includes the NYTimes) want to blame all of our economical problems on China--if only China raises their currency then our problems are solved--but the American public is not that stupid.
Many of our problems today are resulted from our own undoing. The huge deficit is still growing in an unsustainable rate, and our public schools are still having too many drop-outs, just to name two of the many problems. To become stronger again economically, instead of blaming and picking fights with another country, we need to invest more in ourselves and our future while living within our means. We can start that process by increasing the investment in our dismal public school systems and by stop risking the lives of our brave men and women in ill-afford and unnecessary military adventures overseas.
If we continue to follow the same kind of policies as before (Obama disagreed w/ Bush about the wars, but he didn't stop them once he was elected. He just shifted them), I am certain that we will be even worse off in five, ten, or twenty years from today. When that time comes, I wonder are we still going continue to point fingers at China then?
Mr. Obama and the rest of the US Congress, it is time to wake up. Instead of gridlocks and working for the special interests, let's get to work. We need some genuine reform in this country now. Blaming another country may confuses some of us and buy you some more time, but it does not help us in any meaningful and fundamental way. Let's stop postponing what needs to be done.
curt k
ny
LOL! Strong Chinese currency solves US problems? It will do virtually nothing except raising prices of everyday goods.
So how are we doing in Europe where a euro's nearly $1.40? We must be having a trade surplus with Japan now that a US dollar's 80 yens. Right? Why is it that when it comes to politics, we abandon our common sense? I guess it's easier to blame someone than be honest and tell the truth.
peace4all1
Middletown, NJ
President Obama’s demand of an appreciation of Chinese Yuan up to 20% or more is amount to half-trillion dollars of debit forgiveness from our Chinese Banker. So what did our President bring to the G20 summit as collateral? Continuously sailing advanced weapons to Taiwan despite there is a biggest peace-boom across the Taiwan Straits in the last sixty years? Or constantly stirring up issues in South China Sea between China and its neighboring countries and ganging up with Japan against China in the recent bumping incident between Japanese patrol ship and Chinese fishing boat near the disputed island? Or promoting India as a counter -weight against China even though those two were never natural rivals? Until there is mutual trust between USA and China, there will be no significant progress on the global economic issues between USA and China.
Rodrigo de Posa
Lisbon, Portugal
I'm afraid the structure of the American economy is heavily dependent on an enormous artificial growth designed to feed a financial sector worthing 40% of the GDP.
It's no use blaming China and least of all Germany (who is able to export real industrial goods even with a very strong currency). It is for the US to dismantle its own casino economy and implement a real productive economy with realistic growth. It is for the US to make the correspondent efforts and make the necessary sacrifices.
But are contemporary Americans prepared to make those sacrifices? I would like to believe that the common American is ready for that call. But is that industrious "common man", who worries not only with himself but with community and future generations, still out there?
If he is still out there he is facing a gigantic effort. Not only he has to assert his virtue, he must also fight against a deeply corrupted association between the financial elite and the political elite. I mean, he must fight against the constant efforts of that elite to corrupt him, to ease his will and his virtue with stimuli and the illusion that prosperity will derive from consumption.
If, sadly, that man is no longer there and if he no longer believes in his ability to exercise his virtue, nothing will keep the US from decline and fall. And seen from the outside, accusations against China or Germany will be simultaneously ridiculous and suspicious.
Roland Nicholson, Jr
Xian, China
I recently exchanged dollars for Yuan @ a Bank of China office in Xian.
When I first came to China I got a much better exchange rate. Too many folks in the US think a weaker Yuan will bring certain jobs back to the States. In the short term the effect would be minimal. Manufacturing firms that rely on a cheap labor model would simply move to places like Vietnam in Asia or maybe even Africa. They are not going back to South Carolina or Upstate New York. Additionally, a lot of the things some people think we could sell to increasingly more affluent Chinese, as a result of a weaker RMB are being made in China by Chinese firms. Think again.
Los Angeles
China as the source of the problem? What problem? The humongous US deficit? The total lack of competitiveness of US industries? The crumbling infrastructure of the US? The pathetic education received by US children? The feudalistic health care system? The quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan? Did China cause all or any of that?
Who wants to bet that, even if China appreciates the Yuan, the US kids will continue to receive the same lousy education as before, that the bridges in the US continue to crumble, that 10 of millions of uninsured will only increase, that the US deficit will continue to grow, that the US industries competitiveness will continue to slide?
Take heed to what Angela Merkel said, do not force other competitive nations, countries that are doing things right, to conform to the lowest common denominator. You got it, the US is the lowest common denominator. Ouch.
Spoonless Eddie
CT, USA
People say he is a smart man. Certainly he is credentialed. That's not smart though.
How does he think China got all of our jobs and money? Does he think they sneaked up and stole them? For that matter, how do any of the rest of you think they got these?
It's bad enough that we look like fools to one another. Do we have to look like fools to the whole world?
Wise up people. The other party didn't do this to us. The president didn't do it. Your neighbor didn't do it. The Corporation did it. If we don't snap out of our sleep walk we'll lose this place permanently.
PF
Darien IL
When are the Americans going to wake up to the lies and distortions expounded by our politicians and big businesses.
Big business and the politicians in 2002 pass the tax law giving business the green light to ship their operations oversea by allowing them not to pay income tax on profits earn overseas as long as they do not bring the profits back into this country. This is why our businesses that operated overseas pays less income tax than our middle class worker (in fact most do not pay any income tax because they keep the profit in their overseas subsidiaries and past the costs to to the parent company here in the US).
Our businesses buys the merchandise from China at less than $7.00 and sell them here at a $100.00 less processing expenses and reflect the profit in the subsidiaries companies book so no income tax is paid here in the US.
Our individual taxpayers are subsidizing big business overseas and they are blaming countries overseas for the fraud on the American public.
yawning thunger
NY
Condemning other nations for not consuming too much. Is this today's America? Why don't you consume less and grow slowly? growing slowly is not bad as it sounds. it is all about distribution and healthy social system, not about the big nation with big money and jobless people.
len
san diego
Mr. Obama appeared to remove the remaining wiggle room he had on the subject of the renminbi, declaring: “It is undervalued. And China spends enormous amounts of money intervening in the market to keep it undervalued.”---
Does this mean Mr Obama wants China to stop financing our
enormous budget deficit by purchasing U.S. Treasury bonds? Be careful here and do not bite the hand that feeds you.
watchingchina
Shanghai
This is the first time the world has been strong enough to stand up to the US and refuse to be bullied into accepting the pain for US economic illnesses.
The extent of US denial is astonishing. America has huge trade deficits because they buy too much on credit and can't sell anything to anyone. But instead of curbing their purchases and making things the world wants to buy, they demand that the world stop making and selling.
It's always someone else's fault. The US apparently has no ability to accept responsibility for its own actions and the flaws in its system, and persists in bullying the rest of the world to suffer for its own sins.
Lest we forget, this entire recent worldwide financial crisis was entirely made in the USA. It was the US excessive liquidity fuelled by credit instead of savings, free money and blind greed in their deregulated banking system that combined to create and burst yet one more bubble.
But it's all China's fault.
Here is an editorial you might enjoy reading that will help to explain more of the details of the current economic scene:
US Harry Potter-Nomics
http://www.bearcanada.com...
Igidur
Kansas City
I am not sure how he intends to get Americans to consume less AND get growth in the economy that is heavily dependent on that spending.
I suppose TARP was a good start because it at least invested in infrastructure. But what now?
We finally have to apply some import taxes for Chinese companies. They do not play fair (currency, wages, environment, copyright infringements) so we should not allow them to export into the USA until they clean up their house.
Short term: Who will really hurt if we do that?
1. Johnny that can't get his XBOX
2. Mary that will have to pay more for clothes
3. Dad that won't get 56" TV for mancave
4. Mom that will not be able to equip the dream kitchen with made in China electronics and appliances
5. US Retail Corporations that will have their profits sag
6. Cell phone and computer manufacturers
...
But long term, this is all worth it. Current level of consumption is not sustainable and we have to do something about it. All in Washington should concentrate on fundamentals of strong economies: manufacturing and producing things of real value; not the nebulous exports of "financial services".
LZ
Pennsylvania
Mr. Obama, along with a majority of our politicians from both parties and the media (this includes the NYTimes) want to blame all of our economical problems on China--if only China raises their currency then our problems are solved--but the American public is not that stupid.
Many of our problems today are resulted from our own undoing. The huge deficit is still growing in an unsustainable rate, and our public schools are still having too many drop-outs, just to name two of the many problems. To become stronger again economically, instead of blaming and picking fights with another country, we need to invest more in ourselves and our future while living within our means. We can start that process by increasing the investment in our dismal public school systems and by stop risking the lives of our brave men and women in ill-afford and unnecessary military adventures overseas.
If we continue to follow the same kind of policies as before (Obama disagreed w/ Bush about the wars, but he didn't stop them once he was elected. He just shifted them), I am certain that we will be even worse off in five, ten, or twenty years from today. When that time comes, I wonder are we still going continue to point fingers at China then?
Mr. Obama and the rest of the US Congress, it is time to wake up. Instead of gridlocks and working for the special interests, let's get to work. We need some genuine reform in this country now. Blaming another country may confuses some of us and buy you some more time, but it does not help us in any meaningful and fundamental way. Let's stop postponing what needs to be done.
curt k
ny
LOL! Strong Chinese currency solves US problems? It will do virtually nothing except raising prices of everyday goods.
So how are we doing in Europe where a euro's nearly $1.40? We must be having a trade surplus with Japan now that a US dollar's 80 yens. Right? Why is it that when it comes to politics, we abandon our common sense? I guess it's easier to blame someone than be honest and tell the truth.
peace4all1
Middletown, NJ
President Obama’s demand of an appreciation of Chinese Yuan up to 20% or more is amount to half-trillion dollars of debit forgiveness from our Chinese Banker. So what did our President bring to the G20 summit as collateral? Continuously sailing advanced weapons to Taiwan despite there is a biggest peace-boom across the Taiwan Straits in the last sixty years? Or constantly stirring up issues in South China Sea between China and its neighboring countries and ganging up with Japan against China in the recent bumping incident between Japanese patrol ship and Chinese fishing boat near the disputed island? Or promoting India as a counter -weight against China even though those two were never natural rivals? Until there is mutual trust between USA and China, there will be no significant progress on the global economic issues between USA and China.
Rodrigo de Posa
Lisbon, Portugal
I'm afraid the structure of the American economy is heavily dependent on an enormous artificial growth designed to feed a financial sector worthing 40% of the GDP.
It's no use blaming China and least of all Germany (who is able to export real industrial goods even with a very strong currency). It is for the US to dismantle its own casino economy and implement a real productive economy with realistic growth. It is for the US to make the correspondent efforts and make the necessary sacrifices.
But are contemporary Americans prepared to make those sacrifices? I would like to believe that the common American is ready for that call. But is that industrious "common man", who worries not only with himself but with community and future generations, still out there?
If he is still out there he is facing a gigantic effort. Not only he has to assert his virtue, he must also fight against a deeply corrupted association between the financial elite and the political elite. I mean, he must fight against the constant efforts of that elite to corrupt him, to ease his will and his virtue with stimuli and the illusion that prosperity will derive from consumption.
If, sadly, that man is no longer there and if he no longer believes in his ability to exercise his virtue, nothing will keep the US from decline and fall. And seen from the outside, accusations against China or Germany will be simultaneously ridiculous and suspicious.
Roland Nicholson, Jr
Xian, China
I recently exchanged dollars for Yuan @ a Bank of China office in Xian.
When I first came to China I got a much better exchange rate. Too many folks in the US think a weaker Yuan will bring certain jobs back to the States. In the short term the effect would be minimal. Manufacturing firms that rely on a cheap labor model would simply move to places like Vietnam in Asia or maybe even Africa. They are not going back to South Carolina or Upstate New York. Additionally, a lot of the things some people think we could sell to increasingly more affluent Chinese, as a result of a weaker RMB are being made in China by Chinese firms. Think again.
7.11.10
when past behavior is a better predictor than hope
S B Lewis
Essex, New York
Our president came to office without military experience, without executive experience, without business experience, without any of the experience needed for his office. His primary and extraordinary accomplishment came in achieving his office in a nation wracked with racial issues since its founding. Barack Obama won. Our problems were over. Hope over skepticism.
We are learning again how important experience is. Experience is the great teacher. And the man has none.
Nothing in President Obama's past, absolutely nothing, qualifies him to make the decisions he has had to make - and he has made a number of them in such a way as to lose the congressional balance so critical to making them without rancor.
We are now asked to believe that changing the entire management team at defense and at each of the armed services is a plus for the nation - when the man leading that change has never served a day, and his policy in Iraq and in Afghanistan is essentially a bust.
Remember: Iraq was the bad war, Afghanistan was the good war. What war is good? The man has never fired a 22 rifle. He has never been drafted. Would he have dodged the draft as Clinton did?
Dwight David Eisenhower said a few things on point - and was a 5-star general with a record in management: he ran SHAPE, Columbia University, D-Day, Allied forces in WW 2.
First, beware the military industrial complex. Toss in the medical industrial complex, another place where our president has stubbed his toe and created a building disaster. Between the military and the medical, The United States is bankrupt.
Second, Ike warned us against war where the supply chain or distance was on the other side of the planet. So, JFK and LBJ ignored IKE, and buried the nation in its first defeat in war. JFK remains a hero. This is rubbish.
Dwight David Eisenhower ran the last administration where the U S government long bond traded at 2 5/8th yield to maturity, as set by market forces. IKE was furious with a $7 billion deficit - and put an end to it.
JFK, son of an unprosecuted criminal of incredible wealth - ended the balanced budget, started a war in Cuba, ramped the war in Vietnam - accomplished nothing in his senate career, and was little but trouble in his time in The White House. It's been straight downhill ever since. LBJ took the wreck of JFK's presidency and build on the Kennedy legacy of failure and gave us Guns and Butter - and lost his office in disgrace.
Strangely, JFK's seduction of the nation and the press - plus his assassination and his disastrous marriage - attracted a romantic support that could not have been less healthy for our nation or our children. Jack was the opposite of Nixon. He was Catholic. He was young, supposedly honest. Son of a bootlegger, from a family of the addicted, their history has played out... since.
Now, this president, from a family of no balance - with a history that offers nothing to give confidence - is running things at a time when the nation has rejected his judgement and tossed 560 members of his party from office - and The New York Times offers reasons why those tossed should be considered in the upcoming effort to staff the largest part of the nation's government, and the most important part of our nation's defense profile - second only to our ability to pay for it.
The 'reforms' brought by this administration to Wall Street are pathetic. There is not a word about market structure - nor has a single important person in the debt crisis stepped forward to say what he did. None have been prosecuted.
The management of the defense department and the armed services is vital stuff.
How can the nation have confidence that the messed up senate, the confused White House - and the military industrial complex will do any better than the medical industrial complex has managed to do with the nation's scandal in health care?
Is there one intelligent person who can explain why medical costs rise - and rise - and rise - and the government and 3rd party pay drive that cost - and all we can do is put more and more government and more and more insurance to the task of lowering that cost? Medical and military cost so much because government drives that cost. It's that simple.
And we are at war, in two losing battles, because these complexes want that war, and congress does what money wants it to do.
This president lacks what it takes to run his office - and he lacks what it takes to confront the run away congress.
Who in Washington has the public's trust? Name one person, any person.
2011 and 2012 are going to make 2006 - 2010 look easy.
The people cannot fix this at the ballot box. And there is no sense conveyed in Washington can do it. Where is the talent?
The parties would rather fight about it - and position themselves for 2012 and beyond.
This is a disaster - happening, right before our eyes.
And there is no sense in Washington that any of them want to fix it - or can.
Essex, New York
Our president came to office without military experience, without executive experience, without business experience, without any of the experience needed for his office. His primary and extraordinary accomplishment came in achieving his office in a nation wracked with racial issues since its founding. Barack Obama won. Our problems were over. Hope over skepticism.
We are learning again how important experience is. Experience is the great teacher. And the man has none.
Nothing in President Obama's past, absolutely nothing, qualifies him to make the decisions he has had to make - and he has made a number of them in such a way as to lose the congressional balance so critical to making them without rancor.
We are now asked to believe that changing the entire management team at defense and at each of the armed services is a plus for the nation - when the man leading that change has never served a day, and his policy in Iraq and in Afghanistan is essentially a bust.
Remember: Iraq was the bad war, Afghanistan was the good war. What war is good? The man has never fired a 22 rifle. He has never been drafted. Would he have dodged the draft as Clinton did?
Dwight David Eisenhower said a few things on point - and was a 5-star general with a record in management: he ran SHAPE, Columbia University, D-Day, Allied forces in WW 2.
First, beware the military industrial complex. Toss in the medical industrial complex, another place where our president has stubbed his toe and created a building disaster. Between the military and the medical, The United States is bankrupt.
Second, Ike warned us against war where the supply chain or distance was on the other side of the planet. So, JFK and LBJ ignored IKE, and buried the nation in its first defeat in war. JFK remains a hero. This is rubbish.
Dwight David Eisenhower ran the last administration where the U S government long bond traded at 2 5/8th yield to maturity, as set by market forces. IKE was furious with a $7 billion deficit - and put an end to it.
JFK, son of an unprosecuted criminal of incredible wealth - ended the balanced budget, started a war in Cuba, ramped the war in Vietnam - accomplished nothing in his senate career, and was little but trouble in his time in The White House. It's been straight downhill ever since. LBJ took the wreck of JFK's presidency and build on the Kennedy legacy of failure and gave us Guns and Butter - and lost his office in disgrace.
Strangely, JFK's seduction of the nation and the press - plus his assassination and his disastrous marriage - attracted a romantic support that could not have been less healthy for our nation or our children. Jack was the opposite of Nixon. He was Catholic. He was young, supposedly honest. Son of a bootlegger, from a family of the addicted, their history has played out... since.
Now, this president, from a family of no balance - with a history that offers nothing to give confidence - is running things at a time when the nation has rejected his judgement and tossed 560 members of his party from office - and The New York Times offers reasons why those tossed should be considered in the upcoming effort to staff the largest part of the nation's government, and the most important part of our nation's defense profile - second only to our ability to pay for it.
The 'reforms' brought by this administration to Wall Street are pathetic. There is not a word about market structure - nor has a single important person in the debt crisis stepped forward to say what he did. None have been prosecuted.
The management of the defense department and the armed services is vital stuff.
How can the nation have confidence that the messed up senate, the confused White House - and the military industrial complex will do any better than the medical industrial complex has managed to do with the nation's scandal in health care?
Is there one intelligent person who can explain why medical costs rise - and rise - and rise - and the government and 3rd party pay drive that cost - and all we can do is put more and more government and more and more insurance to the task of lowering that cost? Medical and military cost so much because government drives that cost. It's that simple.
And we are at war, in two losing battles, because these complexes want that war, and congress does what money wants it to do.
This president lacks what it takes to run his office - and he lacks what it takes to confront the run away congress.
Who in Washington has the public's trust? Name one person, any person.
2011 and 2012 are going to make 2006 - 2010 look easy.
The people cannot fix this at the ballot box. And there is no sense conveyed in Washington can do it. Where is the talent?
The parties would rather fight about it - and position themselves for 2012 and beyond.
This is a disaster - happening, right before our eyes.
And there is no sense in Washington that any of them want to fix it - or can.
12.10.10
"Protesting is kind of a national sport in France" NOT in NY City!
NYTimes announces that French Strikes Disrupt Air and Rail Travel
mickeyrad
Centerville Iowa
Enough! Enough of the rich people gambling & losing money & then expecting working people to pay for it.
French working people are standing up for all the working people of the world. The strike should stand until the oligarchs who run France surrender.
Working people deserve the fruits of their labor. 99% of all income should go to working people. Let the rich eat cake.
Babeouf
Ireland
Oh dear threats that the economy will collapse if the French workers do not accept to work until they drop. Apparently the heirs of the Bourgeoisie still haven't noticed that social passivity on a massive scale doesn't stop Capitalist economies from periodically collapsing. And yet this process has being going on for hundreds of years. One infamous German academic even suggested that such a propensity to failure was built in to the Capitalist process itself. Still I'm sure its only a matter of time before the economic recession in the USA is blamed on the American workers inability to live on a bowl of rice a day.
Diana
New York
I suspect that even here--even among the well-educated and well-read--we will see lots of union bashing.
Since Reagan busted the Air Traffic Control unions, we've heard continual, well-orchestrated, wildly successful messaging sent down from on-high by the corporatists through their various propaganda outlets--that workers, especially professionals like teachers and nurses--are greedy incompetents and the essential cause of our economic troubles.
Of course it's the messagers themselves--the money-obsessed blowhards who thrill at the thought of cheap labor and revel in entitlements (i.e., tax breaks and deregulation)--that have brought this country to its knees.
This is the moment we should be EXPANDING the labor movement and boycotting, marching and picketing, before--as Babeouf says--we will be living on a bowl of rice a day. The corporatists would simply love that ending.
Chris
Peoria, AZ
I admire the French!
They are not like ignorant Americans who sit by idly while Big Money and their tools in government want to cut middle class benefits before letting unfordable tax cuts for Big Money expire and reducing the budget of the huge bloated Military Industrial Complex.
N
NYC
I couldn't agree with mickyeyrad more. With pensions all but gone in the US, people who've worked all their lives find themselves on the brink of disaster. Why shouldn't workers be handsomely rewarded for their hard work over many years, even if they are paid well and have benefits through either the workplace or the state? Why should only the managers and executives be able to live easily and comfortably when they've completed their working years?
John F
London
The French unions have simply got to accept that the way of life they demand is not affordable. The country cannot afford to pay full pensions to employees who work thirty-five hours per week, retire at sixty and live until ninety. It is literally unsustainable.
If they are not able to accept this, then they will bring their economy down. That's all there is to it.
[Yeah, right! Keep that London of yours in the 19th century, John! Babeouf has seen the light, perhaps because he's Irish? Just kidding!]
A Credit and Bankruptcy Scholar
New York, New York
An occasional strike is the price of equality. If Americans had the courage and organization to do what the French are doing, then Americans would still have defined benefit pensions, job security, limited work hours, fully paid healthcare, and affordable education.
But too many Americans have become used to being slaves to those with more money than themselves. They've lost their self respect and dignity, and as a result, they're losing their jobs, their homes, and their life savings.
Bob Bell
Mount Pleasant, S.C.
A couple posts to this story are attempting to make this another example of how the rich in society are continually taking advantage of the downtrodden masses for their selfish benefit. That may be true, but the reality of what is going on in Western Europe is a far different reality: the masses are trying to prevent any degree of responsible behavior by their elected officials and beginning to live within their means.
Many European economies are in difficulty for a simple reason: the costs of social services are rising at a greater rate than the ability of that nation's population to grow revenues, either because the many services they receive are simply out of proportion with income or because economic or demographic factors are contributing to slower historic growth rates. It is happening in Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and several other EU nations where the population is aging and the birth rate is dropping.
No one likes to take less, but the citizens of these social democracies will have to. The only other option is for them to continue spending beyond their means, exacerbating their problem and engaging in more and more counter productive strikes and disruptions of services to the masses.
Oh, by the way, the same fate is awaiting our citizenry; we just haven't woken up to it but continue to ask our elected officials to borrow trillions from the Chinese every year to support our deficits and pass the due bill on to our children. We often blame the Western European nations for their reliance on benefits and "socialism." We don't have the common sense or economic IQ to realize we are exactly like them; but we feel superior hiding behind the myth that, somehow, American debt and selfishness is superior to that from Europe.
[Bob nailed it, he must unknowingly work for the capitalists, if he's not one of them.]
Jemmy
new york city
I hope the protests grow even larger and shift into a general strike. Why should the working class pay for the mistakes of the global capitalist class? It doesn't make any sense, especially if the majority of the population is against such reforms! It is called democracy and the government, which protects the interests of the bourgeoisie, cannot impose something that the majority of the people disagree with, especially when they had not part in creating the global capitalist meltdown in the first place!
Hopefully workers here will stop waxing poetic about "ONE NATION" and actually decide to mobilize in a meaningful way against such reforms.
Capitalism is unsustainable in every way possible. Do we really think that markets can forever grow and GDP will always be able to continually rise? Workers have become more productive while wages have become stagnant in this country, hence the consumer debt that sky rocketed in order to sustain the facade of a growing standard of living. Well now my generation is having to deal with the careless actions of my predecessors and we are growing angry and educated about this stuff!
The Frog
France
The issues are indeed bigger than the pensions. The pensions are simply the focus of angers for what is widely considered as a growing "social unfairness". Austerity is one thing, but it is difficult to convey the message of rising the age of pensions when the government and senators are playing with different rules. Senators, who are currently voting on the pension law, can obtain a 2000 USD lifetime pension starting after 5 years of activity... versus 40-42 years of activity for an average citizen. Meanwhile, new major tax cuts for the biggest national fortunes are being offered, hampering further the national income and becoming a symbol of the above-mentioned unfairness.
The points above are examples merely highlighting why the government austerity policy became at best unreadable, at worst incoherent to the public eye. The unwillingness to openly negotiate with the unions has triggered considerable tensions and the results are seen these days in the street and in the polls.
Romeo Charlie
LA, California
How ironic. The Republicans are probably smiling gleefully at the French government. Taking away money from the nanny state to give to the rich is precisely what the leadership is doing in France. This is the Republican masterful playbook. It is shameful the French leadership has mismanaged the French pension fund and are using the financial crises to fool people into thinking the pension fund is squeezed for money. Who is responsible for the projections?
The prime culprit is the European Central Bank. The folks here who create policy know a good thing: stay away from the decisions they make and keep the blame on the French citizen.
Cindy
Baltimore, Md.
I think that all Western governments, European and US, would do well to start the austerity at the top. Everyone understands that this economic crisis occurred because of excesses of the corporate rich, especially the banking industry, and that is where the austerity starts. As long as governments refuse to implement substantial taxes on the wealthy to pay down the deficit, average people should fight hard against this attack on social programs.
Diogenes the Dawg
N. Padre Island, Tx.
This French dilemma will soon be coming to a municipality near you. City and state budgets all over America are going broke paying for police, fire, teacher and civil service pensions. These pensions need to be eliminated and the affected work force transfered to the Social Security system like the other 99% of the populace. This would have the added social benefit of giving these folks more of a motive/incentive to care about what happens to the rest of us as well.
Mary
NYC
Viva la France! If I could join them, I would. Why aren't Americans taking to the streets? If not now, when?
The Frog
France
A few additional figures for those who might be inclined to believe the strikes and protests going on can be dismissed as ridiculous and French have nothing to complain about.
The 60 year age for pension is the *minimum* age and valid only if you have worked for 40 years fully. Which means... no break for kids, no unemployment, no long studies, no accident. For anything mentioned above, you'll have to retire later, up to 65 year old (soon 67). If you have worked less than 40 years, your pension will be severely reduced.
But a few questions are asked when it comes to rising the age of pensions, especially when:
- seniors (55y+) have enormous difficulties finding a job. Their employment rate is 38%
- juniors (15-25y) either struggle to obtain a job or make long studies. Their employment rate is 32%
It is a common joke to say that the death rate in some companies is higher than the retirement rate. Why ? Because senior people are often laid off before they have a chance to retire, and then finish their career unemployed. Statistically, few reach the age of retirement while still active.
The over-simplistic accounting argument “work longer to pay for the pension” stops being valid when so many seniors are unemployed and are therefore getting money from the country instead of producing value. The problem is more complex than simple math.
Lynn in DC
DC
Cradle-to-grave protection is no longer sustainable when there aren't enough workers to finance that lifestyle. Where do the unions think the money is going to come from to pay retirement benefits to Boomers? The answers are cut pension benefits, increase the retirement age OR perhaps receive no pension at all if the system becomes bankrupt. Do the unions propose viable alternatives? Strikes seem childish and useless in this day and age.
Jacob10583
Zurich
Bob Bell is 100% correct. There really isn't anything for me to add.
Yes, blame for the financial collapse lies primarily at the feet of banks, unscrupulous fund managers, and traders, but that doesn't change the fact the we in the West have been outliving our means. The bankers are simply a symptom of greater societal problems. We have increased our social services, our commercial standard of living, while our marginal productivity has decreased. Simply put, we are consuming value faster than we can produce it. It doesn't help that our economies rely on banking, services, and "tech" with little actual societal value (i.e. facebook).
sharon57
New York
It's refreshing to finally read about workers who are as mad as hell and they're not going to take it anymore! Here in the good ol' USA organized labor has been running scared ever since President Corporate Shill Reagan was able to break the air traffic controllers union with relative ease. Corporate Shill Reagan emboldened his corporate masters in letting them stick it to their workers with his "trickle down" philosophy in redistributing wealth to all of his rich cronies leaving the middle class with next to nothing. American workers have never recovered from the Reagan debacle.
Maybe the French can dust off the old guillotine and reserve it for corporate crooks. Off with their heads! Vive la France!
Marcus
NYC
First my sincere congratulations to the French working class people for their courage to fight for their interests and refusal to swallow the corporatist plutocratic propaganda that most Americans swill like drunkards.
From an economist's perspective, I find bob Bell's and Jacob10583's comments to be reminiscent of the typical false argument that is put forth by Republicans and monopolizes the US media’s focus during any discussion about responsible government spending. This propaganda suggests a false choice between cutting social benefits/ entitlements that benefit the middle class and poor or fiscal ruin.
In fact, however, it is not spending on social benefits that is bankrupting the US but our runaway health care costs, pork barrel spending at the bequest of corporate special interests, and our absurd spending on our militaristic empire necessary to be the world’s policemen.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are currently expected to cost near $2 Trillion - that’s 2000 Billions - and Bush and the military originally sold us on the war by saying it would cost only about $80 billion or less because the oil would pay for the war and the reconstruction of the region. This type of propaganda – and the diminished intellect of the American citizenry which is too uninformed to detect and reject it – even when it is obvious after the fact - is what is bankrupting the US - not spending on social security or other entitlements.
And also a word on entitlements, - social security is not a “gift” afforded to citizens as it is typically characterized by the American media - it is something we are entitled to like any other property we pay for because citizens have paid for this entitlement through the social security taxes we pay from our paychecks.
Nick
Boston
"Late Monday, the [French] Senate, the upper house of the legislature, voted to raise the age of retirement with a full pension to 67 from 65" (NYTimes, 10/12/10).
Why stop at age 67? What about rounding up to 70!?!
This is absurd: the upper-middle class + wealthy top 5% can checkout + luxuriate on the backs of the majority French workers (what remains of the middle class) who will have to work longer before retiring themselves!
Let's call this what it really is: serfdom.
Talleyrand
Basel, Switzerland
Bravo to the French. Yes, the capitalists and freemarketeers would really love it if workers would just shut up and do as they are told, the invisible hand, so the neo-liberals, is only for people making a ton of money. Forget it. Every single revolution in history has had to do with the haves having a lot on the backs of the have nots.
The last recession is a perfect example. The governments are all saying "we have to tighten our belts". But not everyone. My monthly costs went up by about 300 euros in the past 18 months. Why does my landlord NOT have to tighten HIS belt???
Hetty Green
NYC
Imagine what might happen if we had mass strikes in the US? (That's right -- everyone arrested, no change.....)
Vive la France...
Adil
NY, NY
I love the French people. period.
here is another example of lies and lies: the rich took 2.5 trillions from SS... and suddenly, the SS cannot pay its promises so poor must take the hit :)
of course, the media writes for the rich because they are funded by the rich.. fortunately, at least French people are not as stupid as rest of world.
here is next thing that rich can try: make sure the marriages are world class mistakes as it happens in India/Pakistan.. then the kids produced will be absolutely like machine and will obey all orders.. but hey,,,, would you really like world full of such machines?
rei vilo
France
As Former President General de Gaulle put it, "How could you govern a country with more different kinds of cheese than days in a year?"
Now, the strikes involve primarily civil servants "les fonctionnaires" who want to clash with their employer, i.e.. the State. They don't care about the non-State sector and free business companies.
The strikes also include a specific class of age, close to retirement, which was aged 15-25 on May 1968. This generation has eaten what their parents built after WWII, has saved nothing during their working lite-time and now wants the next generation to pay for them.
Last but not least, France has only one political party able to govern, Sarkozy's UMP. the Socialist Party has nothing to propose and remains silent. The far-left dreams with anarchy and Revolution, hence the enrollment of kids and teens.
France is that close to a violent surge from free-enterprise employees against civil servants, from younger generations against the 68 generation.
Who said that "France [was] the only working communist country"? What's the wrong word: "working" or "communist"?
I'm French and I live in France: shall I plan to emigrate?
Erka
Paris
Yet the NYT forget to mention that Eric Woerth, the minister in charge of the so called "reform" (a step backward to the 70', btw) is involved in numerous illegal funding activity of the presidential party UMP. Plus, in addition, a unbelievable conflict of interest. After being both the finance manager of Sarkozy's party and the state treasury minister for 2 years he just resigned from his party appointment. Now every week or so a new revelation about how he helped, thanks to his position as minister, hiding tax evasion fraud from billionaires (including the one his wife used to work for) that happen to be also big donors to Sarkozy's party that he was working for is being published.
The government call the activity of bringing up to light such dirty connections "a reminder of the 30's propaganda" and paradoxically tries to hide the scandal under far-right rhetoric against illegal aliens and Romanians. The entire population is definitely fed-up with this bunch of corrupted rightist politicians and their clique of heirs and billionaires, and really wants to send a clear message. The "reform" is just the cherry atop of it, since Woerth keeps referring to his "noble" sense of equity and his "honest" face (true!) to argue against valuable arguments raised by the Unions...
JD
Kansas City, MO
The comment from John F., London:
"The French unions have simply got to accept that the way of life they demand is not affordable. The country cannot afford to pay full pensions to employees who work thirty-five hours per week, retire at sixty and live until ninety. It is literally unsustainable."
What would people living before or around the French Revolution would have said about this? Well, we cannot afford to change, because it would mean that average citizen will have a little better life at the expense of luxuries enjoyed by the aristocracy. Then they will not work hard and economy would suffer. Hmm.
D.Strohl
France
May be it is useful to know that almost all European countries have retirement age limits at 65 or 67. This was also the case in France till 1982 or 83 when the Socialists under President Mitterrand lowered it from 65 years to 60, in order to fulfill a campaign promise made by Mitterrand himself. A presidential election is due in 2012; the Socialists and their allies hope to win this election thanks to their promise (delivered solemnly to the "peuple de France" by Ségolène Royal, former presidential candidate who lost against Pres. Sarkozy in the 2007 election) to turn back to 60 if they win. As the French saying goes : "Ceci explique cela" (this explains that). What they miss to do right now is to explain how they will finance the system - other than increasing taxes, their favorite and usually sole remedy. Of course, the new taxes will be aimed at "les riches" ! But as usual, the middle classes would foot the potential bills.
PS: May be it is also useful to know that under Mitterrand's 14 years tenure (1981-1995), there were four devaluations of the French currency ("franc" at the time), i.e. 1981, 82, 83 and 86. I still have a vivid recollection of these feats :). They were the starting point of the huge state deficit spiral which still goes on.
The Frog
France
A few more facts and figures from frogland...
the posts painting the protesters as "insiders", from corporations having huge benefits or civil servants are at best inaccurate. We are talking 1.2 to 3.5 million protesters in the streets during today's protests. That would be a quite significant number of insiders.
Today is the fourth of the protests that happened both during week days and during week-ends, bringing very different populations in the street, some who couldn't do it during a work day for obvious reasons.
Lastly, about French people living above their means... France is listed in 2010 as the third country hosting the biggest number of millionaires after the USA and Japan.
Now one might wonder: is the bottom-line problem connected to the lack of wealth, or about the repartition of wealth ? It's a question of perspective and picking the facts suiting one’s argument.
Mason
New York City
I lived in France for almost three years. I am very critical of the "French way" when it's misguided, arrogant, or both (it can be both). But I applaud the French in this nationwide action, because if they give in now it's just the beginning of unbridled capitalism and GOP-like prescriptions for "sustained growth and prosperity" -- privatized Social Security, limited or zilch mass transit, delayed repairs to infrastructure, the rationing of health care (you purchase a plan for your child but can't afford one for yourself). Those are prescriptions for a utilitarian country, a third-world country, and the French want no part of it. Aux barricades!
David Sassoon
Paris France
I am an ex-pat living here and part of this crazy system in France. Those who know me know all too well that I am very critical of many aspects of life here. However, I do not worry about my health insurance nor the quality of the schools and the municipal services. Paris has outstanding public transport which still works even during this strike. But neither the government nor the 'people' are uniquely right or wrong in this story. The pension scheme is simply being adjusted for a longer life span. But it is also true that social funds are tight, in part due to an immense abuse by 'the people' and a refusal of the very rich to chip in a bit more. I have witnessed more people 'play the system' for maximizing the money they get instead of using the social safety nets only when needed but France also loses some of the very rich who relocate to other countries to avoid the higher taxes.
I do not agree with the protests and personally think that advancing the retirement age by 2 or 3 years is not such a tragedy. But on the other hand, you must acknowledge the contrast to what is going on in the USA. France is a country in which over 60% of the people vote and politics is still a fact-filled and tedious discussion that cannot even fit into a Tea party 30 second sound bite.
A.G.
Oslo, Norway
It is false to presume that students, workers on strike have a reasoned rational for their actions. It is more likely that the massive strikes reflect a culture of discontent, whether directed at banks, corporate chiefs or government cronies.
At the end of the day, the strikes will only harm the French, students, workers, parents, kids, and those that are hoping to retire one day.
The economic reality today is that more people have to work, longer and harder if they want to retire early, with a comfortable or even a basic pension.
WagesofSloth
Florida
It seems that the democracies face at least two problems, which seem somewhat intertwined. The thrill of spending someone else's money, whether through bailouts and preferential tax treatment, entitlement spending, or deficit spending with no plan to be repaid during the lifetime of the borrower is at the heart of the issue.
Corporations that are rewarded with preferential tax treatment, both for stockholders and investors, need to understand that they can not have what they want, insofar as a system in which when the going is smooth, and profits are ripe, they can decide to lavish upon themselves riches, and call it just rewards. They would justifiably have that option, were it not for the fact that they promote regulation to their benefit, and occasionally societies detriment, whether through barriers to entry of competition, or differential tax treatment, etc., and also, when the going gets rough, they want to be bailed out either through favorable interest rate policy, government backed loans, or wholesale rescue from the public purse. If corporations wish to have a social safety net provided by the government, they need to pay for it, just like everyone else. If corporations want lower taxes, then they need to accept lower levels of services, just like everyone else. If corporations don't want foreign competition, (whether from domestic companies, or those people who speak differently) they need to deal with the higher cost imposed by workers/consumers wanting similar protection and barriers to entry from competition.
If workers want to retire at 60, receive cradle to the grave medical care, have guarantees as far as minimum levels of income through the dole, etc., they should be prepared to pay for those things, just like everyone else. That means if one plans to spend nearly on third life not working, the ability to consume almost all income is no longer feasible. One can not count on someone else to pay for a life of indolence, whether that is through taxing someone else, be it rich, middle class, businesses, or even taxing future generations through massive national debts and high rates of inflation to make prior borrowings less painful. There is no reason that someone can't spend the last 20 to 30 years of life not working, but they need accept an appreciably lower standing of living during the first 50 to 60 years, via some combination of increased output and decreased consumption.
Future generations are not "suckers," simply because they lacked the wit to be born first, and lost the ability to vote against being saddled with massive amounts of debts, and a degraded environment, both politically and physically. The idea that those who come after should have the pleasure of paying for the levels of government spending that current generations want, but aren't willing to purchase with their own output is morally reprehensible, and practically difficult. It is not inconceivable that citizens of a country, when faced with high levels of spending on debt service that the current workers did not create, along with expensive social programs from which current workers are not likely to see benefits, with high tax rates that go for spending designed to benefit people who currently live a life of indolence will revolt and say no more. While those workers would definitely be hurt by a default of their governments obligations, they would basically be placed in a position so unenviable that they have little to no stake in the system, certainly not enough to put forth the required effort to make certain that other people are comfortable. They have little incentive, not to use a 3rd grade metaphor, of taking their ball (productive labor) and going home until the rules of the game have been changed.
The second problem relates to the fact that the world is no longer Europe, America and their colonies (my deepest apologies to Japan and Korea). The global workforce is connected enough, at least by information, so that Chinese people want Buicks, South Africans like Ipods, and basically the majority of the human race wants more than subsistence farming, poor water quality, repressive government, and so forth. These individuals aren't mental defectives, and if they can make their living standards closer to those enjoyed by the West, eventually higher, they see no reason not to pursue this goal. Every job "outsourced" is "sourced" somewhere else. If 20 dollars/euros a day is a pittance in one country, it seems rather more generous elsewhere. Thanks to a global economy, it isn't inconceivable to see global living standards approach a much higher level in the aggregate, but a lower level in some of the more advanced economies.
That isn't a bad thing, but it does mean that global flows of labor should be higher, to match increased ease in global flows of capital. Take away capital's mobility advantage. Level the field, increase the standard of living for humanity, and only spend what one earns.
Bruna
San Francisco
First it is important to note that there are several "classes" of pensioners. There are the unions that operate in nationalized or quasi-nationalized companies like EDF, SNCF and Gaz de France. These unions have negotiated fantastic benefits for themselves (much like some the US public service unions). For example, SNCF ticket takers retire at 50. This was a function of the long ago coal-powered trains and has no bearing on today's condition but they still retire at 50. Would it be so disastrous for them to retire at 55?
But on the other side are those who work in the private sector whose pensions are not as generous and who retire at a later age.
Then there is a third class of young professionals who work only on temporary contracts - meaning they are temp workers and enjoy few of these benefits. The reason why there are so many temp workers is a factor of the economic burden on an employee that these workers are striking to protect for themselves even if it exclude others.
So the "strikes" you see are the "insiders" with generous benefits who want to protect them. Those you don't see striking will not enjoy these benefits.
So those of you who are seeing some glorious workers' paradise you'd better look again.
Chris
Phoenix
France probably cannot realistically afford to keep a retirement age of 60 any more. However, the financiers who destroyed our world economy have not paid one iota for their actions. The People are right to be angry. Too bad France can't bring back the guillotine for the slime who let greed drive them to make idiotic decisions. If they could bring it back I vote we extradite some of our Wall Street barons to France and 'let them eat cake'.
[Why is it that folks from NY City seem most receptive to what's going on in France? Also, isn't NYCity the place of NYTimes?]
Union officials claimed a nationwide turnout of more than 3.5 million people, an increase of 20 percent from the previous strike on Sept. 23, while the French interior ministry put the figure closer to 1.23 million, up from just under a million in the last strike. In Paris, the police counted 89,000 protesters, up from 75,000 previously.While NYTimes is silent on the actual demands of the protesters, mentioning only the coming into law of a 2-year increase of the retirement age, a certain labor lawyer, Mr. Vergne, is quoted with saying,
It is hard to know; Protesting is kind of a national sport in France.NYTimes keeps betting on this slogan to provoke the Pavlovian reflex in the American public. Let's hear the vox populi.
mickeyrad
Centerville Iowa
Enough! Enough of the rich people gambling & losing money & then expecting working people to pay for it.
French working people are standing up for all the working people of the world. The strike should stand until the oligarchs who run France surrender.
Working people deserve the fruits of their labor. 99% of all income should go to working people. Let the rich eat cake.
Babeouf
Ireland
Oh dear threats that the economy will collapse if the French workers do not accept to work until they drop. Apparently the heirs of the Bourgeoisie still haven't noticed that social passivity on a massive scale doesn't stop Capitalist economies from periodically collapsing. And yet this process has being going on for hundreds of years. One infamous German academic even suggested that such a propensity to failure was built in to the Capitalist process itself. Still I'm sure its only a matter of time before the economic recession in the USA is blamed on the American workers inability to live on a bowl of rice a day.
Diana
New York
I suspect that even here--even among the well-educated and well-read--we will see lots of union bashing.
Since Reagan busted the Air Traffic Control unions, we've heard continual, well-orchestrated, wildly successful messaging sent down from on-high by the corporatists through their various propaganda outlets--that workers, especially professionals like teachers and nurses--are greedy incompetents and the essential cause of our economic troubles.
Of course it's the messagers themselves--the money-obsessed blowhards who thrill at the thought of cheap labor and revel in entitlements (i.e., tax breaks and deregulation)--that have brought this country to its knees.
This is the moment we should be EXPANDING the labor movement and boycotting, marching and picketing, before--as Babeouf says--we will be living on a bowl of rice a day. The corporatists would simply love that ending.
Chris
Peoria, AZ
I admire the French!
They are not like ignorant Americans who sit by idly while Big Money and their tools in government want to cut middle class benefits before letting unfordable tax cuts for Big Money expire and reducing the budget of the huge bloated Military Industrial Complex.
N
NYC
I couldn't agree with mickyeyrad more. With pensions all but gone in the US, people who've worked all their lives find themselves on the brink of disaster. Why shouldn't workers be handsomely rewarded for their hard work over many years, even if they are paid well and have benefits through either the workplace or the state? Why should only the managers and executives be able to live easily and comfortably when they've completed their working years?
John F
London
The French unions have simply got to accept that the way of life they demand is not affordable. The country cannot afford to pay full pensions to employees who work thirty-five hours per week, retire at sixty and live until ninety. It is literally unsustainable.
If they are not able to accept this, then they will bring their economy down. That's all there is to it.
[Yeah, right! Keep that London of yours in the 19th century, John! Babeouf has seen the light, perhaps because he's Irish? Just kidding!]
A Credit and Bankruptcy Scholar
New York, New York
An occasional strike is the price of equality. If Americans had the courage and organization to do what the French are doing, then Americans would still have defined benefit pensions, job security, limited work hours, fully paid healthcare, and affordable education.
But too many Americans have become used to being slaves to those with more money than themselves. They've lost their self respect and dignity, and as a result, they're losing their jobs, their homes, and their life savings.
Bob Bell
Mount Pleasant, S.C.
A couple posts to this story are attempting to make this another example of how the rich in society are continually taking advantage of the downtrodden masses for their selfish benefit. That may be true, but the reality of what is going on in Western Europe is a far different reality: the masses are trying to prevent any degree of responsible behavior by their elected officials and beginning to live within their means.
Many European economies are in difficulty for a simple reason: the costs of social services are rising at a greater rate than the ability of that nation's population to grow revenues, either because the many services they receive are simply out of proportion with income or because economic or demographic factors are contributing to slower historic growth rates. It is happening in Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and several other EU nations where the population is aging and the birth rate is dropping.
No one likes to take less, but the citizens of these social democracies will have to. The only other option is for them to continue spending beyond their means, exacerbating their problem and engaging in more and more counter productive strikes and disruptions of services to the masses.
Oh, by the way, the same fate is awaiting our citizenry; we just haven't woken up to it but continue to ask our elected officials to borrow trillions from the Chinese every year to support our deficits and pass the due bill on to our children. We often blame the Western European nations for their reliance on benefits and "socialism." We don't have the common sense or economic IQ to realize we are exactly like them; but we feel superior hiding behind the myth that, somehow, American debt and selfishness is superior to that from Europe.
[Bob nailed it, he must unknowingly work for the capitalists, if he's not one of them.]
Jemmy
new york city
I hope the protests grow even larger and shift into a general strike. Why should the working class pay for the mistakes of the global capitalist class? It doesn't make any sense, especially if the majority of the population is against such reforms! It is called democracy and the government, which protects the interests of the bourgeoisie, cannot impose something that the majority of the people disagree with, especially when they had not part in creating the global capitalist meltdown in the first place!
Hopefully workers here will stop waxing poetic about "ONE NATION" and actually decide to mobilize in a meaningful way against such reforms.
Capitalism is unsustainable in every way possible. Do we really think that markets can forever grow and GDP will always be able to continually rise? Workers have become more productive while wages have become stagnant in this country, hence the consumer debt that sky rocketed in order to sustain the facade of a growing standard of living. Well now my generation is having to deal with the careless actions of my predecessors and we are growing angry and educated about this stuff!
The Frog
France
The issues are indeed bigger than the pensions. The pensions are simply the focus of angers for what is widely considered as a growing "social unfairness". Austerity is one thing, but it is difficult to convey the message of rising the age of pensions when the government and senators are playing with different rules. Senators, who are currently voting on the pension law, can obtain a 2000 USD lifetime pension starting after 5 years of activity... versus 40-42 years of activity for an average citizen. Meanwhile, new major tax cuts for the biggest national fortunes are being offered, hampering further the national income and becoming a symbol of the above-mentioned unfairness.
The points above are examples merely highlighting why the government austerity policy became at best unreadable, at worst incoherent to the public eye. The unwillingness to openly negotiate with the unions has triggered considerable tensions and the results are seen these days in the street and in the polls.
Romeo Charlie
LA, California
How ironic. The Republicans are probably smiling gleefully at the French government. Taking away money from the nanny state to give to the rich is precisely what the leadership is doing in France. This is the Republican masterful playbook. It is shameful the French leadership has mismanaged the French pension fund and are using the financial crises to fool people into thinking the pension fund is squeezed for money. Who is responsible for the projections?
The prime culprit is the European Central Bank. The folks here who create policy know a good thing: stay away from the decisions they make and keep the blame on the French citizen.
Cindy
Baltimore, Md.
I think that all Western governments, European and US, would do well to start the austerity at the top. Everyone understands that this economic crisis occurred because of excesses of the corporate rich, especially the banking industry, and that is where the austerity starts. As long as governments refuse to implement substantial taxes on the wealthy to pay down the deficit, average people should fight hard against this attack on social programs.
Diogenes the Dawg
N. Padre Island, Tx.
This French dilemma will soon be coming to a municipality near you. City and state budgets all over America are going broke paying for police, fire, teacher and civil service pensions. These pensions need to be eliminated and the affected work force transfered to the Social Security system like the other 99% of the populace. This would have the added social benefit of giving these folks more of a motive/incentive to care about what happens to the rest of us as well.
Mary
NYC
Viva la France! If I could join them, I would. Why aren't Americans taking to the streets? If not now, when?
The Frog
France
A few additional figures for those who might be inclined to believe the strikes and protests going on can be dismissed as ridiculous and French have nothing to complain about.
The 60 year age for pension is the *minimum* age and valid only if you have worked for 40 years fully. Which means... no break for kids, no unemployment, no long studies, no accident. For anything mentioned above, you'll have to retire later, up to 65 year old (soon 67). If you have worked less than 40 years, your pension will be severely reduced.
But a few questions are asked when it comes to rising the age of pensions, especially when:
- seniors (55y+) have enormous difficulties finding a job. Their employment rate is 38%
- juniors (15-25y) either struggle to obtain a job or make long studies. Their employment rate is 32%
It is a common joke to say that the death rate in some companies is higher than the retirement rate. Why ? Because senior people are often laid off before they have a chance to retire, and then finish their career unemployed. Statistically, few reach the age of retirement while still active.
The over-simplistic accounting argument “work longer to pay for the pension” stops being valid when so many seniors are unemployed and are therefore getting money from the country instead of producing value. The problem is more complex than simple math.
Lynn in DC
DC
Cradle-to-grave protection is no longer sustainable when there aren't enough workers to finance that lifestyle. Where do the unions think the money is going to come from to pay retirement benefits to Boomers? The answers are cut pension benefits, increase the retirement age OR perhaps receive no pension at all if the system becomes bankrupt. Do the unions propose viable alternatives? Strikes seem childish and useless in this day and age.
Jacob10583
Zurich
Bob Bell is 100% correct. There really isn't anything for me to add.
Yes, blame for the financial collapse lies primarily at the feet of banks, unscrupulous fund managers, and traders, but that doesn't change the fact the we in the West have been outliving our means. The bankers are simply a symptom of greater societal problems. We have increased our social services, our commercial standard of living, while our marginal productivity has decreased. Simply put, we are consuming value faster than we can produce it. It doesn't help that our economies rely on banking, services, and "tech" with little actual societal value (i.e. facebook).
sharon57
New York
It's refreshing to finally read about workers who are as mad as hell and they're not going to take it anymore! Here in the good ol' USA organized labor has been running scared ever since President Corporate Shill Reagan was able to break the air traffic controllers union with relative ease. Corporate Shill Reagan emboldened his corporate masters in letting them stick it to their workers with his "trickle down" philosophy in redistributing wealth to all of his rich cronies leaving the middle class with next to nothing. American workers have never recovered from the Reagan debacle.
Maybe the French can dust off the old guillotine and reserve it for corporate crooks. Off with their heads! Vive la France!
Marcus
NYC
First my sincere congratulations to the French working class people for their courage to fight for their interests and refusal to swallow the corporatist plutocratic propaganda that most Americans swill like drunkards.
From an economist's perspective, I find bob Bell's and Jacob10583's comments to be reminiscent of the typical false argument that is put forth by Republicans and monopolizes the US media’s focus during any discussion about responsible government spending. This propaganda suggests a false choice between cutting social benefits/ entitlements that benefit the middle class and poor or fiscal ruin.
In fact, however, it is not spending on social benefits that is bankrupting the US but our runaway health care costs, pork barrel spending at the bequest of corporate special interests, and our absurd spending on our militaristic empire necessary to be the world’s policemen.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are currently expected to cost near $2 Trillion - that’s 2000 Billions - and Bush and the military originally sold us on the war by saying it would cost only about $80 billion or less because the oil would pay for the war and the reconstruction of the region. This type of propaganda – and the diminished intellect of the American citizenry which is too uninformed to detect and reject it – even when it is obvious after the fact - is what is bankrupting the US - not spending on social security or other entitlements.
And also a word on entitlements, - social security is not a “gift” afforded to citizens as it is typically characterized by the American media - it is something we are entitled to like any other property we pay for because citizens have paid for this entitlement through the social security taxes we pay from our paychecks.
Nick
Boston
"Late Monday, the [French] Senate, the upper house of the legislature, voted to raise the age of retirement with a full pension to 67 from 65" (NYTimes, 10/12/10).
Why stop at age 67? What about rounding up to 70!?!
This is absurd: the upper-middle class + wealthy top 5% can checkout + luxuriate on the backs of the majority French workers (what remains of the middle class) who will have to work longer before retiring themselves!
Let's call this what it really is: serfdom.
Talleyrand
Basel, Switzerland
Bravo to the French. Yes, the capitalists and freemarketeers would really love it if workers would just shut up and do as they are told, the invisible hand, so the neo-liberals, is only for people making a ton of money. Forget it. Every single revolution in history has had to do with the haves having a lot on the backs of the have nots.
The last recession is a perfect example. The governments are all saying "we have to tighten our belts". But not everyone. My monthly costs went up by about 300 euros in the past 18 months. Why does my landlord NOT have to tighten HIS belt???
Hetty Green
NYC
Imagine what might happen if we had mass strikes in the US? (That's right -- everyone arrested, no change.....)
Vive la France...
Adil
NY, NY
I love the French people. period.
here is another example of lies and lies: the rich took 2.5 trillions from SS... and suddenly, the SS cannot pay its promises so poor must take the hit :)
of course, the media writes for the rich because they are funded by the rich.. fortunately, at least French people are not as stupid as rest of world.
here is next thing that rich can try: make sure the marriages are world class mistakes as it happens in India/Pakistan.. then the kids produced will be absolutely like machine and will obey all orders.. but hey,,,, would you really like world full of such machines?
rei vilo
France
As Former President General de Gaulle put it, "How could you govern a country with more different kinds of cheese than days in a year?"
Now, the strikes involve primarily civil servants "les fonctionnaires" who want to clash with their employer, i.e.. the State. They don't care about the non-State sector and free business companies.
The strikes also include a specific class of age, close to retirement, which was aged 15-25 on May 1968. This generation has eaten what their parents built after WWII, has saved nothing during their working lite-time and now wants the next generation to pay for them.
Last but not least, France has only one political party able to govern, Sarkozy's UMP. the Socialist Party has nothing to propose and remains silent. The far-left dreams with anarchy and Revolution, hence the enrollment of kids and teens.
France is that close to a violent surge from free-enterprise employees against civil servants, from younger generations against the 68 generation.
Who said that "France [was] the only working communist country"? What's the wrong word: "working" or "communist"?
I'm French and I live in France: shall I plan to emigrate?
Erka
Paris
Yet the NYT forget to mention that Eric Woerth, the minister in charge of the so called "reform" (a step backward to the 70', btw) is involved in numerous illegal funding activity of the presidential party UMP. Plus, in addition, a unbelievable conflict of interest. After being both the finance manager of Sarkozy's party and the state treasury minister for 2 years he just resigned from his party appointment. Now every week or so a new revelation about how he helped, thanks to his position as minister, hiding tax evasion fraud from billionaires (including the one his wife used to work for) that happen to be also big donors to Sarkozy's party that he was working for is being published.
The government call the activity of bringing up to light such dirty connections "a reminder of the 30's propaganda" and paradoxically tries to hide the scandal under far-right rhetoric against illegal aliens and Romanians. The entire population is definitely fed-up with this bunch of corrupted rightist politicians and their clique of heirs and billionaires, and really wants to send a clear message. The "reform" is just the cherry atop of it, since Woerth keeps referring to his "noble" sense of equity and his "honest" face (true!) to argue against valuable arguments raised by the Unions...
JD
Kansas City, MO
The comment from John F., London:
"The French unions have simply got to accept that the way of life they demand is not affordable. The country cannot afford to pay full pensions to employees who work thirty-five hours per week, retire at sixty and live until ninety. It is literally unsustainable."
What would people living before or around the French Revolution would have said about this? Well, we cannot afford to change, because it would mean that average citizen will have a little better life at the expense of luxuries enjoyed by the aristocracy. Then they will not work hard and economy would suffer. Hmm.
D.Strohl
France
May be it is useful to know that almost all European countries have retirement age limits at 65 or 67. This was also the case in France till 1982 or 83 when the Socialists under President Mitterrand lowered it from 65 years to 60, in order to fulfill a campaign promise made by Mitterrand himself. A presidential election is due in 2012; the Socialists and their allies hope to win this election thanks to their promise (delivered solemnly to the "peuple de France" by Ségolène Royal, former presidential candidate who lost against Pres. Sarkozy in the 2007 election) to turn back to 60 if they win. As the French saying goes : "Ceci explique cela" (this explains that). What they miss to do right now is to explain how they will finance the system - other than increasing taxes, their favorite and usually sole remedy. Of course, the new taxes will be aimed at "les riches" ! But as usual, the middle classes would foot the potential bills.
PS: May be it is also useful to know that under Mitterrand's 14 years tenure (1981-1995), there were four devaluations of the French currency ("franc" at the time), i.e. 1981, 82, 83 and 86. I still have a vivid recollection of these feats :). They were the starting point of the huge state deficit spiral which still goes on.
The Frog
France
A few more facts and figures from frogland...
the posts painting the protesters as "insiders", from corporations having huge benefits or civil servants are at best inaccurate. We are talking 1.2 to 3.5 million protesters in the streets during today's protests. That would be a quite significant number of insiders.
Today is the fourth of the protests that happened both during week days and during week-ends, bringing very different populations in the street, some who couldn't do it during a work day for obvious reasons.
Lastly, about French people living above their means... France is listed in 2010 as the third country hosting the biggest number of millionaires after the USA and Japan.
Now one might wonder: is the bottom-line problem connected to the lack of wealth, or about the repartition of wealth ? It's a question of perspective and picking the facts suiting one’s argument.
Mason
New York City
I lived in France for almost three years. I am very critical of the "French way" when it's misguided, arrogant, or both (it can be both). But I applaud the French in this nationwide action, because if they give in now it's just the beginning of unbridled capitalism and GOP-like prescriptions for "sustained growth and prosperity" -- privatized Social Security, limited or zilch mass transit, delayed repairs to infrastructure, the rationing of health care (you purchase a plan for your child but can't afford one for yourself). Those are prescriptions for a utilitarian country, a third-world country, and the French want no part of it. Aux barricades!
David Sassoon
Paris France
I am an ex-pat living here and part of this crazy system in France. Those who know me know all too well that I am very critical of many aspects of life here. However, I do not worry about my health insurance nor the quality of the schools and the municipal services. Paris has outstanding public transport which still works even during this strike. But neither the government nor the 'people' are uniquely right or wrong in this story. The pension scheme is simply being adjusted for a longer life span. But it is also true that social funds are tight, in part due to an immense abuse by 'the people' and a refusal of the very rich to chip in a bit more. I have witnessed more people 'play the system' for maximizing the money they get instead of using the social safety nets only when needed but France also loses some of the very rich who relocate to other countries to avoid the higher taxes.
I do not agree with the protests and personally think that advancing the retirement age by 2 or 3 years is not such a tragedy. But on the other hand, you must acknowledge the contrast to what is going on in the USA. France is a country in which over 60% of the people vote and politics is still a fact-filled and tedious discussion that cannot even fit into a Tea party 30 second sound bite.
A.G.
Oslo, Norway
It is false to presume that students, workers on strike have a reasoned rational for their actions. It is more likely that the massive strikes reflect a culture of discontent, whether directed at banks, corporate chiefs or government cronies.
At the end of the day, the strikes will only harm the French, students, workers, parents, kids, and those that are hoping to retire one day.
The economic reality today is that more people have to work, longer and harder if they want to retire early, with a comfortable or even a basic pension.
WagesofSloth
Florida
It seems that the democracies face at least two problems, which seem somewhat intertwined. The thrill of spending someone else's money, whether through bailouts and preferential tax treatment, entitlement spending, or deficit spending with no plan to be repaid during the lifetime of the borrower is at the heart of the issue.
Corporations that are rewarded with preferential tax treatment, both for stockholders and investors, need to understand that they can not have what they want, insofar as a system in which when the going is smooth, and profits are ripe, they can decide to lavish upon themselves riches, and call it just rewards. They would justifiably have that option, were it not for the fact that they promote regulation to their benefit, and occasionally societies detriment, whether through barriers to entry of competition, or differential tax treatment, etc., and also, when the going gets rough, they want to be bailed out either through favorable interest rate policy, government backed loans, or wholesale rescue from the public purse. If corporations wish to have a social safety net provided by the government, they need to pay for it, just like everyone else. If corporations want lower taxes, then they need to accept lower levels of services, just like everyone else. If corporations don't want foreign competition, (whether from domestic companies, or those people who speak differently) they need to deal with the higher cost imposed by workers/consumers wanting similar protection and barriers to entry from competition.
If workers want to retire at 60, receive cradle to the grave medical care, have guarantees as far as minimum levels of income through the dole, etc., they should be prepared to pay for those things, just like everyone else. That means if one plans to spend nearly on third life not working, the ability to consume almost all income is no longer feasible. One can not count on someone else to pay for a life of indolence, whether that is through taxing someone else, be it rich, middle class, businesses, or even taxing future generations through massive national debts and high rates of inflation to make prior borrowings less painful. There is no reason that someone can't spend the last 20 to 30 years of life not working, but they need accept an appreciably lower standing of living during the first 50 to 60 years, via some combination of increased output and decreased consumption.
Future generations are not "suckers," simply because they lacked the wit to be born first, and lost the ability to vote against being saddled with massive amounts of debts, and a degraded environment, both politically and physically. The idea that those who come after should have the pleasure of paying for the levels of government spending that current generations want, but aren't willing to purchase with their own output is morally reprehensible, and practically difficult. It is not inconceivable that citizens of a country, when faced with high levels of spending on debt service that the current workers did not create, along with expensive social programs from which current workers are not likely to see benefits, with high tax rates that go for spending designed to benefit people who currently live a life of indolence will revolt and say no more. While those workers would definitely be hurt by a default of their governments obligations, they would basically be placed in a position so unenviable that they have little to no stake in the system, certainly not enough to put forth the required effort to make certain that other people are comfortable. They have little incentive, not to use a 3rd grade metaphor, of taking their ball (productive labor) and going home until the rules of the game have been changed.
The second problem relates to the fact that the world is no longer Europe, America and their colonies (my deepest apologies to Japan and Korea). The global workforce is connected enough, at least by information, so that Chinese people want Buicks, South Africans like Ipods, and basically the majority of the human race wants more than subsistence farming, poor water quality, repressive government, and so forth. These individuals aren't mental defectives, and if they can make their living standards closer to those enjoyed by the West, eventually higher, they see no reason not to pursue this goal. Every job "outsourced" is "sourced" somewhere else. If 20 dollars/euros a day is a pittance in one country, it seems rather more generous elsewhere. Thanks to a global economy, it isn't inconceivable to see global living standards approach a much higher level in the aggregate, but a lower level in some of the more advanced economies.
That isn't a bad thing, but it does mean that global flows of labor should be higher, to match increased ease in global flows of capital. Take away capital's mobility advantage. Level the field, increase the standard of living for humanity, and only spend what one earns.
Bruna
San Francisco
First it is important to note that there are several "classes" of pensioners. There are the unions that operate in nationalized or quasi-nationalized companies like EDF, SNCF and Gaz de France. These unions have negotiated fantastic benefits for themselves (much like some the US public service unions). For example, SNCF ticket takers retire at 50. This was a function of the long ago coal-powered trains and has no bearing on today's condition but they still retire at 50. Would it be so disastrous for them to retire at 55?
But on the other side are those who work in the private sector whose pensions are not as generous and who retire at a later age.
Then there is a third class of young professionals who work only on temporary contracts - meaning they are temp workers and enjoy few of these benefits. The reason why there are so many temp workers is a factor of the economic burden on an employee that these workers are striking to protect for themselves even if it exclude others.
So the "strikes" you see are the "insiders" with generous benefits who want to protect them. Those you don't see striking will not enjoy these benefits.
So those of you who are seeing some glorious workers' paradise you'd better look again.
Chris
Phoenix
France probably cannot realistically afford to keep a retirement age of 60 any more. However, the financiers who destroyed our world economy have not paid one iota for their actions. The People are right to be angry. Too bad France can't bring back the guillotine for the slime who let greed drive them to make idiotic decisions. If they could bring it back I vote we extradite some of our Wall Street barons to France and 'let them eat cake'.
[Why is it that folks from NY City seem most receptive to what's going on in France? Also, isn't NYCity the place of NYTimes?]
11.10.10
Change or Perish
Change or Perish
By ROGER COHEN
LONDON — Before leggings, when there were letters, before texts and tweets, when there was time, before speed cameras, when you could speed, before graffiti management companies, when cities had souls, we managed just the same.
Before homogenization, when there was mystery, before aggregation, when the original had value, before digital, when there was vinyl, before Made in China, when there was Mao, before stress management, when there was romance, we had the impression we were doing all right.
Before apps, when there were attention spans, before “I’ve got five bars,” when bars were for boozing, before ring-tone selection, when the phone rang, before high-net-worth individuals, when love was all you needed, before hype, when there was Hendrix, we got by just the same.
Before social media, when we were social, before thumb-typing, when a thumb hitched a ride, before de-friending, when a friend was for life, before online conduct, when you conducted yourself, before “content,” when we told stories, we did get by all the same.
Before non-state actors, when states commanded, before the Bangalore back office, when jobs stayed put, before globalization, when wars were cold, we did manage O.K., it seemed.
Before celebrities, when there were stars, before Google maps, when compasses were internal, before umbilical online-ism, when we off-lined our lives, before virtual flirtation, when legs touched, we felt we managed all the same.
Before identity theft, when nobody could steal you, before global positioning systems, when we were lost, before 24/7 monitoring and alerts by text and e-mail, when there was idleness, before spin doctors, when there was character, before e-readers, when pages were turned, we did get by just the same.
Before organic, when carrots weren’t categorized, before derivatives, when your mortgage was local, before global warming, when we feared nuclear winters, before “save the planet,” when we lived in our corners, before the Greens, when we faced the Reds, it seemed we did somehow manage just the same.
Or did we? Before iPads and “Search,” in the era of print, before portable devices, when there were diaries, before the weather channel, when forecasts were farcical, before movies-on-demand, when movies were demanding, before chains and brands, in the time of the samizdat, before curved shower curtain rods, when they were straight, before productivity gains, when Britain produced things, and so did Ohio, did we really and honestly get by just the same?
Before January cherries, when fruit had seasons, before global sushi, when you ate what you got, before deep-fried Mars bars, when fish were what fried, before New World wine, when wine was tannic, before fast food and slow food, when food just was, before plate-size cookies, when greed was contained, before fusion, in scattered division, before the obesity onslaught, in our ordinariness, could we — could we — have gotten by all the same?
Before dystopia, when utopia beckoned, before rap, in Zappa’s time, before attention deficit disorders, when people turned on, before the new Prohibition, when lunches were liquid, before Lady Gaga, when we dug the Dead, before “join the conversation,” when things were disjointed, before Facebook, when there was Camelot, before reality shows, when things were real, yes, I believe we got by just the same.
Before “I’ll call you back,” when people made dates, before algorithms, when there was aimlessness, before attitude, when there was apathy, before YouTube, when there was you and me, before Gore-Tex, in the damp, before sweat-resistant fabric, when sweat was sexy, before high-tech sneakers, as we walked the walk, before remotes, in the era of distance, I’m sure we managed just the same.
Before “carbon neutral,” when carbon copied, before synching, when we lived unprompted, before multiplatform, when pen met paper, before profiling, when there was privacy, before cloud computing, when life was earthy, before a billion bits of distraction, when there were lulls, before “silent cars,” when there was silence, before virtual community, in a world with borders, before cut-and-paste, to the tap of the Selectra, before the megabyte, in disorder, before information overload, when streets were for wandering, before “sustainable,” in the heretofore, before CCTV, in invisibility, before networks, in the galaxy of strangeness, my impression, unless I’m wrong, is that we got by quite O.K.
Before I forget, while there is time, for the years pass and we don’t get younger, before the wiring accelerates, while I can pause, let me summon it back, that fragment from somewhere, that phrase that goes: “The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production ... and with them the whole relations of society.”
Yes, that was Marx, when he was right, before he went wrong, when he observed, before he imagined, with terrible consequences for the 20th century.
And if back in that century — back when exactly? — in the time before the tremendous technological leap, in the time of mists and drabness and dreams, if back then, without passwords, we managed just the same, even in black and white, and certainly not in hi-def, or even 3-D, how strange to think we had to change everything or we would not be managing at all.
_____________________________________
Norm
Hopewell, NJ
Before political correctness and tolerance, when we were allowed to speak what we believed. Before "your truth is not my truth," when we had shared values -- a culture. Before the deprecation of marriage, when the promulgation of our culture depended on successful families. Before individual self-fulfillment was the highest good, when we would make choices considering the good of the whole.
Barbara J
Germany
Before modern sewage systems brought us reliably clean water, we did not get by just the same. Before antibiotics, we did not get by just the same. Before open-heart surgery (dependent on antibiotics), some of us did not manage just the same. Before the work of Jonas Salk, some of us did not manage just the same.
Before the death of Mao, some of our extended family did not get by just the same. Before the work of Norman Borlaug, some of our neighbors' extended families did not get by just the same. Before accessibility laws and the technology that enabled wheelchair users to get through doorways and use public transportation independently, some of us did not get by the same.
I'm not sure, Mr. Cohen, what your point was, but some other readers may have fun adding to this short list, or have already posted their own.
notafool
Michigan
Before it was "cool" or "hip" to be rude and aggressive.
Before it was "hot" to flaunt ones "attributes" for the world.
Before it was boge to show compassion.
Before it was "necessary" to invade other countries for Oil.
Before we had an all volenteer army, when the whole country was involved in the fight.
Before "support the troops ment more than a flag magnet on the back of one's car.
Before hate and lies were on Fox news 24/7.
Before facts didn't matter.
Before our government was sold lock stock and barrel by the supreme court.
Before the supreme court elected a president.
My question : What comes AFTER? Will the USA survive as a democracy?
EGarcia
New Jersey
This prose poem is just brilliant, making my jaw drop as I read. A lot of people talk about these losses of a slower, more thoughtful life, but we all seem to just go along. Except for the random friend who has actually turned off the TV; or the even rarer friend who doesn't even have a computer but goes to the library to use one; or the techno grouch friend who has the simplest cell phone money can find because you really only need to make calls. More of my friends have signed off forever from Facebook and eschew Twitter because, after all, what is the point? To put a layer of technology and distance and isolation between you and real in-the-flesh people?
I make a major exception for Kindle because I have never read so much since I bought one eighteen months ago, and the form of a Kindle rather than the form of book is so much easier to carry around. I should also mention the great added value of instant access to the Oxford dictionary, and of being able to refresh my memory during the reading of a long book about which character is which by just a simple 'search'. So, yes, some things are more convenient, but not necessary: I could still use a real dictionary, finding other interesting words as I flip through to find the word I want,and could take notes about characters, with a real pen on a real piece of paper.
D Scott
Castine, ME
From the perspective of my 70th year, my first, and certainly unoriginal, thought is that every generation has said much the same of the generation before. But then...
On second thought, maybe this time it really is different. This time, the brush of technology is so broad and has bristles so long and sharp, that it reaches into every nook and cranny of our lives, making avoidance, or at least a respite from it, something that we have to work ever harder to obtain.
This article is a "keeper", to be kept on the desktop (wood or electronic!). Cohen has done much more than just compare the old times and new times; he has provided an important checklist of things that we might choose to ignore or turn off when we feel crushed by the need to "keep up"; when we desperately need a quiet rock on which to center ourselves. This is the time to go for a walk in the woods, preferably with a small child, and see and feel, through those unpolluted eyes and ears, the pure and essential roots of our being and relationships.
By ROGER COHEN
LONDON — Before leggings, when there were letters, before texts and tweets, when there was time, before speed cameras, when you could speed, before graffiti management companies, when cities had souls, we managed just the same.
Before homogenization, when there was mystery, before aggregation, when the original had value, before digital, when there was vinyl, before Made in China, when there was Mao, before stress management, when there was romance, we had the impression we were doing all right.
Before apps, when there were attention spans, before “I’ve got five bars,” when bars were for boozing, before ring-tone selection, when the phone rang, before high-net-worth individuals, when love was all you needed, before hype, when there was Hendrix, we got by just the same.
Before social media, when we were social, before thumb-typing, when a thumb hitched a ride, before de-friending, when a friend was for life, before online conduct, when you conducted yourself, before “content,” when we told stories, we did get by all the same.
Before non-state actors, when states commanded, before the Bangalore back office, when jobs stayed put, before globalization, when wars were cold, we did manage O.K., it seemed.
Before celebrities, when there were stars, before Google maps, when compasses were internal, before umbilical online-ism, when we off-lined our lives, before virtual flirtation, when legs touched, we felt we managed all the same.
Before identity theft, when nobody could steal you, before global positioning systems, when we were lost, before 24/7 monitoring and alerts by text and e-mail, when there was idleness, before spin doctors, when there was character, before e-readers, when pages were turned, we did get by just the same.
Before organic, when carrots weren’t categorized, before derivatives, when your mortgage was local, before global warming, when we feared nuclear winters, before “save the planet,” when we lived in our corners, before the Greens, when we faced the Reds, it seemed we did somehow manage just the same.
Or did we? Before iPads and “Search,” in the era of print, before portable devices, when there were diaries, before the weather channel, when forecasts were farcical, before movies-on-demand, when movies were demanding, before chains and brands, in the time of the samizdat, before curved shower curtain rods, when they were straight, before productivity gains, when Britain produced things, and so did Ohio, did we really and honestly get by just the same?
Before January cherries, when fruit had seasons, before global sushi, when you ate what you got, before deep-fried Mars bars, when fish were what fried, before New World wine, when wine was tannic, before fast food and slow food, when food just was, before plate-size cookies, when greed was contained, before fusion, in scattered division, before the obesity onslaught, in our ordinariness, could we — could we — have gotten by all the same?
Before dystopia, when utopia beckoned, before rap, in Zappa’s time, before attention deficit disorders, when people turned on, before the new Prohibition, when lunches were liquid, before Lady Gaga, when we dug the Dead, before “join the conversation,” when things were disjointed, before Facebook, when there was Camelot, before reality shows, when things were real, yes, I believe we got by just the same.
Before “I’ll call you back,” when people made dates, before algorithms, when there was aimlessness, before attitude, when there was apathy, before YouTube, when there was you and me, before Gore-Tex, in the damp, before sweat-resistant fabric, when sweat was sexy, before high-tech sneakers, as we walked the walk, before remotes, in the era of distance, I’m sure we managed just the same.
Before “carbon neutral,” when carbon copied, before synching, when we lived unprompted, before multiplatform, when pen met paper, before profiling, when there was privacy, before cloud computing, when life was earthy, before a billion bits of distraction, when there were lulls, before “silent cars,” when there was silence, before virtual community, in a world with borders, before cut-and-paste, to the tap of the Selectra, before the megabyte, in disorder, before information overload, when streets were for wandering, before “sustainable,” in the heretofore, before CCTV, in invisibility, before networks, in the galaxy of strangeness, my impression, unless I’m wrong, is that we got by quite O.K.
Before I forget, while there is time, for the years pass and we don’t get younger, before the wiring accelerates, while I can pause, let me summon it back, that fragment from somewhere, that phrase that goes: “The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production ... and with them the whole relations of society.”
Yes, that was Marx, when he was right, before he went wrong, when he observed, before he imagined, with terrible consequences for the 20th century.
And if back in that century — back when exactly? — in the time before the tremendous technological leap, in the time of mists and drabness and dreams, if back then, without passwords, we managed just the same, even in black and white, and certainly not in hi-def, or even 3-D, how strange to think we had to change everything or we would not be managing at all.
_____________________________________
Norm
Hopewell, NJ
Before political correctness and tolerance, when we were allowed to speak what we believed. Before "your truth is not my truth," when we had shared values -- a culture. Before the deprecation of marriage, when the promulgation of our culture depended on successful families. Before individual self-fulfillment was the highest good, when we would make choices considering the good of the whole.
Barbara J
Germany
Before modern sewage systems brought us reliably clean water, we did not get by just the same. Before antibiotics, we did not get by just the same. Before open-heart surgery (dependent on antibiotics), some of us did not manage just the same. Before the work of Jonas Salk, some of us did not manage just the same.
Before the death of Mao, some of our extended family did not get by just the same. Before the work of Norman Borlaug, some of our neighbors' extended families did not get by just the same. Before accessibility laws and the technology that enabled wheelchair users to get through doorways and use public transportation independently, some of us did not get by the same.
I'm not sure, Mr. Cohen, what your point was, but some other readers may have fun adding to this short list, or have already posted their own.
notafool
Michigan
Before it was "cool" or "hip" to be rude and aggressive.
Before it was "hot" to flaunt ones "attributes" for the world.
Before it was boge to show compassion.
Before it was "necessary" to invade other countries for Oil.
Before we had an all volenteer army, when the whole country was involved in the fight.
Before "support the troops ment more than a flag magnet on the back of one's car.
Before hate and lies were on Fox news 24/7.
Before facts didn't matter.
Before our government was sold lock stock and barrel by the supreme court.
Before the supreme court elected a president.
My question : What comes AFTER? Will the USA survive as a democracy?
EGarcia
New Jersey
This prose poem is just brilliant, making my jaw drop as I read. A lot of people talk about these losses of a slower, more thoughtful life, but we all seem to just go along. Except for the random friend who has actually turned off the TV; or the even rarer friend who doesn't even have a computer but goes to the library to use one; or the techno grouch friend who has the simplest cell phone money can find because you really only need to make calls. More of my friends have signed off forever from Facebook and eschew Twitter because, after all, what is the point? To put a layer of technology and distance and isolation between you and real in-the-flesh people?
I make a major exception for Kindle because I have never read so much since I bought one eighteen months ago, and the form of a Kindle rather than the form of book is so much easier to carry around. I should also mention the great added value of instant access to the Oxford dictionary, and of being able to refresh my memory during the reading of a long book about which character is which by just a simple 'search'. So, yes, some things are more convenient, but not necessary: I could still use a real dictionary, finding other interesting words as I flip through to find the word I want,and could take notes about characters, with a real pen on a real piece of paper.
D Scott
Castine, ME
From the perspective of my 70th year, my first, and certainly unoriginal, thought is that every generation has said much the same of the generation before. But then...
On second thought, maybe this time it really is different. This time, the brush of technology is so broad and has bristles so long and sharp, that it reaches into every nook and cranny of our lives, making avoidance, or at least a respite from it, something that we have to work ever harder to obtain.
This article is a "keeper", to be kept on the desktop (wood or electronic!). Cohen has done much more than just compare the old times and new times; he has provided an important checklist of things that we might choose to ignore or turn off when we feel crushed by the need to "keep up"; when we desperately need a quiet rock on which to center ourselves. This is the time to go for a walk in the woods, preferably with a small child, and see and feel, through those unpolluted eyes and ears, the pure and essential roots of our being and relationships.
8.10.10
Early Fraud vs. Current Foreclosures
Johndrake07
NYC
Senator Grayson has put it, from Ground Zero of the Foreclosure Fraud State:
If Obama signs the bill that would ease the foreclosure process and in effect squash the investigation by legalizing the criminal activity, he should be impeached. If he sits on the bill until after the election, he should be impeached.
His post-2012 election defeat revolving door job into the financial industry is in jeopardy…methinks Goldman Sachs has just painted over his name on the office door waiting for him.
Will he side with the common folk being robbed. Or the elites doing the robbing. This bill HR-3803 will be the litmus test…
NYC
Senator Grayson has put it, from Ground Zero of the Foreclosure Fraud State:
"So far, banks are claiming that the many forged documents uncovered by courts and attorneys represent a simple 'technical problem' with foreclosure processes. This is not true. What is happening is fraud to cover up fraud... The banks didn't keep good records, and there is good reason to believe in many if not virtually all cases during this period, failed to transfer the notes, which is the borrower IOUs in accordance with the requirements of their own pooling and servicing agreements. As a result, the notes may be put out of eligibility for the trust under New York law, which governs these securitizations. Potential cures for the note may, according to certain legal experts, be contrary to IRS rules governing REMICs. As a result, loan servicers and trusts simply lack standing to foreclose. The remedy has been foreclosure fraud, including the widespread fabrication of documents. There are now trillions of dollars of securitizations of these loans in the hands of investors. The trusts holding these loans are in a legal gray area, as the mortgage titles were never officially transferred to the trusts... The liability here for the major banks is potentially enormous, and can lead to a systemic risk."Fraud in the financial industry is being covered up and abetted by the Fed, Fannie and Freddie, as well as the Foreclosure Mill legal firms involved in the documentation fraud. Add in the graft and corruption payola to the Senators and Congressman who have voted to keep the process from discovery and maintain the status quo - the whole thing reeks of criminal activity. All for greed and profits.
If Obama signs the bill that would ease the foreclosure process and in effect squash the investigation by legalizing the criminal activity, he should be impeached. If he sits on the bill until after the election, he should be impeached.
His post-2012 election defeat revolving door job into the financial industry is in jeopardy…methinks Goldman Sachs has just painted over his name on the office door waiting for him.
Will he side with the common folk being robbed. Or the elites doing the robbing. This bill HR-3803 will be the litmus test…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
