images

By Suzanne Thiele–

Bernie Sanders’ ideas about narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor sadly do not hit on the fundamental causes for why we have the highest rate of inequality in the world; therefore, he lacks the ability to change that reality.

His economic plan is very reactionary by sharing and redistributing wealth after the fact instead of changing the process of what is making that wealth so inaccessible. Simultaneously, he does not propose a recommendation to counter  the severe shift in the employment landscape, specifically with the outsourcing of manufacturing which has contributed to a dwindling middle class—a major contribution to the inability for many Americans to have a job that pays a livable wage. By focusing on the rich versus the poor instead of the real problems and their sources, and by wanting wealth sharing instead of restructuring, his plan is unsustainable and lacking in the necessary measures that must be taken to reformulate a labor market that can actually benefit those he and his supporters are targeting.  Attacking the top one or three percent is not the solution, and it is unlikely to happen without altering our narrative.

Being so assertive about battling inequality during a presidential campaign is much needed, but his policies cannot reverse our course. Of the thirteen points from his economic plan, all but three are government spending related and the others require losses to businesses.  Milking the government and businesses simultaneously, while not having a plan in place to create jobs in the short term, is unsustainable. Requiring more from businesses does not curb the job loss problem that has plagued our nation and that our shrinking middle class has not yet recovered from, and it will not with this plan. I will explain why mandated wage increases, higher taxes, and increased government spending, while noble to a degree, do not reverse the course of severing access to real economic participation from the majority of Americans. Without making real change and advocating for job accessibility and allowing citizens to empower themselves through greater access to economic participation and contribution, the government paying for everything to make up for corporate greed is not a solution.

The Paradigm and the Pittance

Reaganomics and laisses faire economics and market pandering, all the same thing, are directly related to the rise in inequality since the 1980’s. Before then, the United States income was much more evenly distributed. Consumption capabilities were much greater across the board for the most Americans, per the Gini coefficient, a way economists measure inequality. Ever since our abiding by the prescription to assume the market is always right—which it is not, otherwise we would still have slavery!—there has been a consistent increase in inequality in the United States (and most of the rest of the world who concurrently followed our course). By bowing down to whatever businesses deem their needs are, and not regulating or allowing the government to play much of a role in the economy or its citizens’ livelihoods, the US has become the country with the greatest level of inequality in the world. Sanders plan reacts to some of the problems therefrom.

The main points that Sanders is lauded for are the insistence on reinstating Glass-Steagall and raising the minimum wage to a livable wage along with higher taxes on the wealthy, expanding social security, and reversing trade policies…something he has in common with Donald Trump. He is also commended, to the point where Hillary Clinton is committing to expand Medicare, for his universal coverage proposal.  Also esteemed by many younger voters is his proposal for free college. His opposition from members of the liberal (and conservative) establishment is that his plans are too radical. Those points certainly are because they are either flawed, unaffordable, or both.  I think they are not feasible because they do not correct those problems, but offer a high-cost reaction, which only allows the underlying problem to persist. His one very good point is his third bullet, that of infrastructure investment, a textbook urban economics public expenditure necessity to promote business development. Otherwise, his only hint at tackling one dimension of the free market worshipping paradigm that ignited inequality is that of breaking up financial institutions, but even that is too one-dimensional with his fixation on reinstating Glass-Steagall and not taking the regulatory need to the level where it has advanced to currently, with or without Glass-Steagall.

Glass-Steagall was legislation that made investment banks separate from commercial banks curbing the “too big too fail” problem that we encountered. Its real purpose is to not allow citizens deposits to be used for risky investments, and to therefore protect consumers. But regardless, the fact is that the government bailed out banks while refusing to hold decision makers accountable (those who made decisions that caused the recession were still awarded bonuses with federal taxpayer funds).  The problem is just as much that the federal government is financially committed to helping businesses to such a degree as it is a lack of regulation and pretty fascist. What is disappointing is that any spending liberalism, especially where needed, could not exist with investment in the American public. Neoclassical economics teaches that the government does need to play a role in the economy in order for it to work and that businesses will fail and that is the way the market corrects itself and yet there is constant pandering by elected officials with big businesses—never small ones.  Meanwhile public education, our roads and well-being are disintegrating, and there is insistence on squandering public funding.

Bernie Sanders’ problem is also that he is taking it too far. Instead of making primary school education of quality, something that the government absolutely should do and a need that people like Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz emphasize to make an equal playing field, but instead Sanders looks only at higher education. He wants to federally fund it and make it free. That is a reactionary method that does not get to the core of our education problems. It goes with the rhetoric of rich versus poor, not improving the United States per se, because we have the best higher education institutions in the world.

Every other point, besides reversing trade policies, in his plan is along the same lines. The government would not have to provide free everything, including health care if the majority of citizens were in a better economic situation. By the way, his health coverage plan would look in real life most like the VA healthcare system which I have experienced first-hand that does not work and I would not wish on anyone. In short: he is not solving the real problems or offering lasting solutions, but wanting to put an unaffordable Band-Aid over the problems. He is offering ways to cope better with inequality, not reduce it. Expanding social security is economically infeasible, and while a higher minimum wage is not the worst idea because it would only catch us up with inflation, there needs to be more jobs that pay a livable wage to begin with, and now alongside a higher mandated minimum. When manufacturing left the United States,  everyone went back to school or the service sector; a higher minimum wage alone will not make up for that.

The US Labor Market Then and Now

What is needed is not just a change in the mindset, but also in the architecture of the job market—they go hand in hand. The distribution of jobs from different sectors used to be more even, and there were a significant number in the middle, with a bulk of middle income jobs for middle class workers. This is no longer the case. Today’s US labor market is inverted and in graph form would be shaped more like a U. All the jobs are in low-paying service sector positions or high-income advanced degree holder positions. Hardly any traditional middle class jobs exist. Why that is a problem is because Americans used to be able to afford their own healthcare often through their employer, they used to be able to save more money to send their children to school. (This is not to say that higher education is over priced and possibly the next bubble per economist Peter Thiel). Citizens used to have more say and could hold politicians accountable. All of this is fueled by the paradigm of greed that Sanders is fighting by bringing a knife to a gun show or worse.

Bernie Sanders deserves credit for speaking out against corporate governance and our public officials being bought. Some of his ideas are good but none of them are great; in fact, most of them are near sighted and do not grab the problem by its root. He does not recognize the paradigm that has been in place since the 1980’s, the market glorifying ideology, which caused the huge and ever-widening gap between the bottom and the top. He should be admired for contributing to this conversation at the national level and engaging voters. His policies, though, by not advocating for job accessibility and allowing citizens to empower themselves through greater access to economic participation and contribution, the government paying for everything to make up for corporate greed is not a solution, nor is it sustainable.

Suzanne Thiele is a Marine Corps veteran who served in Iraq in 2004. She has a bachelor’s degree in economics and Middle Eastern studies from Pace University in New York. Recently she graduated from the London School of Economics with a Master of Science in Anthropology and Development, where she received distinction in her economic development.