Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 113

Thread: The Danger of Living on Bread and Circuses

  1. #1

    Default The Danger of Living on Bread and Circuses

    An opinion piece with meat to chew on:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...schroeder.html

    By Alice Schroeder Jun 1, 2011

    Rome in the first two centuries A.D. faced a yawning gulf between rich and poor. The mighty empire built on tribute reached its geographic limits. Its economy created few exportable goods. Slaves acquired by conquest built most of its bridges, roads and aqueducts and took jobs in farming, mining and construction. As this cheaper labor replaced Roman citizens, idle, unemployed, hungry people filled the capital.

    The Caesars created make-work and part-time jobs, subsidized housing and doled out grain. Even more, they found, was needed. “A people that yawns is ripe for revolt,” wrote Jerome Carcopino in “Daily Life in Ancient Rome.”
    The emperors added holidays until, eventually, the Romans spent half their days attending gladiator games, public executions and chariot races. Disgusted, the satirist Juvenal accused his fellow citizens of selling out for bribes of “bread and circuses.” The Romans did nothing to prove him wrong, until two centuries later the empire was divided forever and Rome was sacked by Visigoths.

    The complicated causes of Rome’s decline have long fascinated historians, and provide a lens through which to examine the vulnerability of other dominant cultures. Americans’ addiction to entertainment has been compared to the circuses of ancient Rome. We can, and do, spend much of our free time watching dreck on TV like “Half Pint Brawlers,” about a company of self-styled “midget wrestlers” who attack each other with staple guns and broken bottles. In fact, in 2009, people over age 15 spent an average of 58 percent of their leisure time watching television, playing games and using the Internet -- an increase of 16 percent from 2003.

    Digital Age
    When entertainment dominates a society, it changes more than the culture; it also reshapes the economy. You can see that circuses are where the money is from the rise of digital entertainment, which has steered enormous amounts of discretionary income toward digital content and the devices that run it: laptops, televisions, gaming consoles, smart phones. In the decade leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, the only major industry other than health care that consistently showed strong real growth was consumer electronics.

    Although hit hard by the recession, spending on digital media has now begun to rebound. The question is who benefits. We produce a lot of content, yet most of the devices it comes on are not made in the U.S.

    Trade Imbalances
    This exemplifies another problem that vexed the Romans and faces us today: Dominant economies tend to import more than they export, creating trade imbalances. The manufactured stuff of life, basic items such as food, clothing, cars, phones and furniture -- the bread, as opposed to the circuses -- costs less to buy if produced elsewhere than if made by a highly developed country’s own citizens. The result is a loss of jobs at home.

    The conquest-driven Romans stand out in history as an extreme example. They brought home their imports, including slave labor, as plunder. This made the “bread” as cheap as it could be, and put the Romans themselves out of work.

    We merely face a situation in which our labor costs, laws and regulations make U.S. business less competitive than that of other countries. In the 1990s, manufacturing workers went through a draconian loss of employment as work was sent offshore. The very thing that drove the jobs overseas made the bread cheap. During the high-growth bubble decade that culminated in 2008, the sales growth rates of basic consumer goods such as apparel, cars and sporting goods averaged less than 2 percent, so low as to be deflationary in real terms.

    ‘Service Economy’
    Offsetting the loss of manufacturing work, the leverage- happy bubble era created so many jobs for bankers, hairstylists, airline ticket agents and home health aides that we began to describe ourselves as a “service economy.” But service businesses are vulnerable to the very same forces that drove the fat out of manufacturing. Take retailing. Since the 1990s, businesses that helped make the bread cheaper, such as superstores and warehouse clubs, were the only major category of retailers to show strong growth. Now these businesses, too, are severely pressured by more efficient online sellers, which are growing twice as fast as their offline counterparts.

    The proportion of our total population that is currently working has fallen to 58.4 percent, the level it was in 1983, when far fewer women were in the job market.

    Consumers and Workers
    It’s true that this percentage should improve as the economy moves past the lingering effects of the financial crisis, but recovery won’t alter the fundamental trend. Structural forces are creating some very serious employment headwinds, faced especially by younger, less educated men.

    Simply put, what has been good for American consumers hasn’t been good for workers.

    Look at the big picture, and you also see how, unlike Rome, whose armies looted the lands they conquered, the underemployed U.S. must borrow money to pay for our bread and circuses. Rome was so rich that it took hundreds of years for the empire to crumble. We’re broke, which accelerates the day of reckoning. Reform of U.S. entitlement spending would buy us time, but wouldn’t fix the employment situation.

    On a positive note, this bread-and-circuses economy does offer new opportunities. People who can help make things cheaper will do well. They can use digital technology to build businesses of truly global scale. Lastly, anyone who can satisfy the public’s lust for mind-rotting drivel has a viable career ahead in a growth industry.

    Drowning a country in vicarious debauchery may be a lousy way to sustain a civilization. Still, there is something to be said for “Half Pint Brawlers” and its ilk. TV-watching keeps people at home, instead of marching in the streets.

    Cities that relied heavily on a service and entertainment economy have been hit hard...places built around gambling, theme parks, tourism, hotels, restaurants. If seniors flocked there for a temperate weather retirement, their medical-service economy may keep workers afloat. For a while, at least.

    But it doesn't look sustainable or smart to rely on service needs to attract service providers, who generate more service demands, to create more service providers.

  2. #2
    I think there's a huge disconnect here that always comes back to the fetishization of manufacturing employment. We don't make less stuff - in fact, we make more (over three trillion dollars worth), but do it far more efficiently (thus requiring fewer workers). And our 'service' economy isn't just hairstylists and entertainment. We provide financial services, consulting, education, healthcare, government, law, R&D, etc. These are very valuable and very important parts of the economy that add real value.

    I don't deny that the US economy (and more broadly, all Western economies) is undergoing a transition. Low-skilled labor is going the way of the dodo in the US for a variety of reasons, which is causing some structural unemployment issues. There are ways to try to address this long term, but I won't try to pretend it's not a wrenching and difficult transition. But it's not pointing to a weakness in the economy, but rather a strength.

    While we're at it, we shouldn't forget that China is doing far more 'bread and circuses' than we are. There, they have many more unskilled workers, and the manufacturing efficiencies that took decades to be implemented in the Western world are being done in a much more compressed time. To compensate for swelling ranks of unemployed low-skill workers, China has been essentially paying for make-work and has (relatively) generous unemployment schemes. This is hardly sustainable in the long run, especially as average wages rise in China and more manufacturing moves elsewhere.

  3. #3
    on first sight this seems like a bad bad comparison.
    on second sight too.
    The city of Rome is not the same as the Empire of Rome and often enough, when the ancient big shots talked about Rome, they were just talking about the city and it's politics. Because that was all that mattered for most of the time. Not those damned backwards provincials...

  4. #4
    Let's look at this. Either we need to begin tailoring our populace to jobs we do need filled, if the low skill labor jobs are being taken (by machines, and overseas workers), this is a natural progression, and note it is progress, it goes this way because it the more efficient path.

    We have a few optoins.

    Train our populace away from those jobs, so we don't waste our "people resourcses".

    Or ship those people off to different countries where their laboring ability can be put to use.

    Or in the long long run.. when machines are doing everything and all we have are profits and savings, and no need for actual physical workers, we'll just need to devise a new scheme for dividing up goods.

  5. #5
    wiggin, I'm not seeing this fetish (or romance) for manufacturing jobs that you are. It's not even about how much 'stuff' we make by volume or price, but also how much 'stuff' we've consumed and stopped consuming during The Great Recession. Some of that was temporary, but some will mean permanent structural changes in consumer behavior. Housing is one: fewer realtors, architects, mortgage servicers, designers, decorators, etc-- leaving unemployment gaps in related areas. Waiting for our next Sputnik moment?

    Her article notes that service-sector jobs will be just as vulnerable over time, with technology and progress. Your examples included---workers easily replaced by software programs and computers. Even healthcare industry needing fewer ancillary personnel, medical transcribers, hard copy chart filers, medical billers as efficiency and productivity grows. (I wouldn't put scientific R & D in the service economy.)

  6. #6
    Anyone who compares Rome to a modern state needs to learn how to be original and learn some history of another country.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  7. #7
    Anyone who compares Rome to a modern state needs to learn how to be original and learn some history of another country.
    I don't think so. I think fundamentally these articles are about illustrating a point not about entertainment. I think the general situation, at least the concept of bread and circuses really applies to the U.S. Our people are more or less fed, and entertained, and sadly this has made us like "satisfied pigs" to nab a term. I think it's by in large while people are becoming so isolated from not only politcs, by that i mean apathetic, but toward eachother. It's this self-sustainability coupled with all the stimuli one wants. Hurting our society culturally in a lot of ways, kind of sad really. I really could care less about the jobs angle bein' taken here, i think our social drift is much more interesting and important.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    wiggin, I'm not seeing this fetish (or romance) for manufacturing jobs that you are. It's not even about how much 'stuff' we make by volume or price, but also how much 'stuff' we've consumed and stopped consuming during The Great Recession. Some of that was temporary, but some will mean permanent structural changes in consumer behavior. Housing is one: fewer realtors, architects, mortgage servicers, designers, decorators, etc-- leaving unemployment gaps in related areas. Waiting for our next Sputnik moment?
    I'm honestly not sure what you're getting at.

    Her article notes that service-sector jobs will be just as vulnerable over time, with technology and progress. Your examples included---workers easily replaced by software programs and computers. Even healthcare industry needing fewer ancillary personnel, medical transcribers, hard copy chart filers, medical billers as efficiency and productivity grows. (I wouldn't put scientific R & D in the service economy.)
    Service industries are pretty resilient to these changes in that someone needs to write the programs, design and maintain the computers, etc. Healthcare is adding net jobs by the bucketload even if certain parts of healthcare are becoming obsolete. Obviously these services become higher level and more specialized over time, but that argues for improving worker education and efficiency, not disparaging an incredibly productive and lucrative sector in favor of uncompetitive subsidies for jobs that aren't adding anything to the economy (i.e. unneeded manufacturing jobs).

    And I'm not sure why you don't think R&D is part of the service sector. It sure as hell isn't in the primary or secondary sectors.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    I'm honestly not sure what you're getting at.
    Same thing as the article (and you)--economy in transition, structural unemployment issues.

    Service industries are pretty resilient to these changes in that someone needs to write the programs, design and maintain the computers, etc. Healthcare is adding net jobs by the bucketload even if certain parts of healthcare are becoming obsolete. Obviously these services become higher level and more specialized over time, but that argues for improving worker education and efficiency, not disparaging an incredibly productive and lucrative sector in favor of uncompetitive subsidies for jobs that aren't adding anything to the economy (i.e. unneeded manufacturing jobs).
    Now what are you getting at....who's disparaged anyone or mentioned subsidies for unneeded manufacturing jobs?

    And I'm not sure why you don't think R&D is part of the service sector. It sure as hell isn't in the primary or secondary sectors.
    Splitting out highly educated professional scientists, research by NASA or CDC, as a different group from other "services", I suppose.

  10. #10
    Wiggin is on the ball here. This is a just a fetish for the "old days" when America's manual industrial labor and the utter destruction of industrial capacity after WWII give the US insane advantages.

  11. #11
    Interesting to see first takes on this opinion piece.

    --Rome is a bad example for comparison.
    --Fat and happy "satisfied pigs" hurt society and culture.
    --Service industries replaced manufacturing.
    --Fetishization of the Good Old Days.
    --Wrenching transition can be a Strength.
    --China is worse off than the West.

    Maybe my take on it was different because I watched her video clip. High unemployment + low wages + skills gaps + income gaps = precarious jobs future.

    Our "recovery" is two years in now, and the data is even worse in housing/foreclosures. Employment hasn't improved as much as economists predicted. We're still stuck in a low growth rut and Washington is pretty much paralyzed in deadlock. Congress has its hair on fire about spending, taxes, debt and deficit. Political hot potato with the debt ceiling. Cutting Education, Healthcare, gov't services....also top employers in most areas....private sector adding a pathetic 54,000 jobs in May.

    Where are the Jobs?

  12. #12
    GGT its a good thing when industries needs less workers. This frees the labor market up for other activities.

    What you are essentially saying it is BAD that we have become more efficient. Or in other words the classic example of banning light bulbs so the candle makers don't go out of business.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    GGT its a good thing when industries needs less workers. This frees the labor market up for other activities.

    What you are essentially saying it is BAD that we have become more efficient. Or in other words the classic example of banning light bulbs so the candle makers don't go out of business.
    That's absolutely NOT what I am saying.

    The labor market is freee for other activities, not relying on manufacturing of the "good old days". Transition from manual industrial labor to technology and information. Leisure and hospitality services, tourism and travel, entertainment and gadgets. That's fine, that's efficiency and productivity, and evolution of a developed economy that's first world.

    Moving forward is a good thing. But ignoring workers left behind, unskilled or uneducated, that's not a good thing. Where are their jobs?

    13 million unemployed, 6 million unemployed longer than 26 weeks, 8 million jobs gone permanently, 42 million on food stamps, 50 million without health care (insurance), youth unemployment and underemployment numbers dismal. Those are the facts.

    Government spending cuts, laying off teachers, fire fighters, police, social workers. Good for budgets, not so good for Education that's needed to move the unskilled/uneducated into fields that are hiring. Sure, we can ramp up H1B visas for skilled workers.....but that doesn't do a damn thing for 13 million citizens without a niche, wanting to work, looking for work.

    The idea that we can cut social safety nets (food stamps, rent assistance, Medicaid, etc), cut Education and Jobs Training programs, cut corporate taxes, make the Bush tax cuts permanent --- well that leaves a huge gaping hole. How will that be filled? Where are the jobs?

  14. #14
    Bump


    Everyone is focused on the debt-ceiling, deficit-spending, tax cuts and revenue....philosophical ideas about the role of government with politicking.

    The "real" unemployment rate is now 15.8%. (I think that came for BLS including underemployed.) Some call it a soft patch in a weak recovery, some say it's weak growth that could be the New Normal for another decade....

    Where are the jobs? Where will jobs come from in this vicious cycle of supply-and-demand in our consumer society? Still trillions of dollars in private corporations, sitting on tidy profits without hiring, waiting for consumers to spend and create demand. Consumers not spending because a) paying down debt, b) bad jobs scene, c) housing double-dip, d) rising prices of energy and healthcare, e) flat and stagnant wages.

    Who will blink first and jump start employment? Private employers or state/federal governments? I don't think the consumer/tax payer can do it without relying on debt, which would be a bad decision for households. I saw a statistic at WSJ showing some 50% of all Americans couldn't come up with $2,000 in an emergency, even after 30 days. Considered "Financially Fragile". Many in the over 65 age group, and that makes them more reliant on Medicare and SS.

    I'd hate to think Washington is going to stop looking at the jobs and employment disaster while they bicker about budgets.

  15. #15
    I think it's worth shrugging-off the idea that job growth, deficits and taxes don't impact job growth. Our fiscal malaise and tied to our employment malaise.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I think it's worth shrugging-off the idea that job growth, deficits and taxes don't impact job growth. Our fiscal malaise and tied to our employment malaise.
    Of course it's all connected. We know what progressives suggest when no-one is spending or stimulating growth or hiring. But who among the conservative anti-government spending side is going to call upon the private sector (large corporations with plenty of cash and profits for shareholders and CEOs) to make the first move? hmm? Anyone?

  17. #17
    The economic conservative argument is that private companies aren't investing in jobs as much because the issues of taxes, regulation and deficits are making it imprudent for private companies to take the calculated risk of investing and hiring more.

    They are sitting on massive piles of cash (much of it parked abroad because of stupid tax policies) waiting for a sign that our government knows what it's doing.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    The economic conservative argument is that private companies aren't investing in jobs as much because the issues of taxes, regulation and deficits are making it imprudent for private companies to take the calculated risk of investing and hiring more.

    They are sitting on massive piles of cash (much of it parked abroad because of stupid tax policies) waiting for a sign that our government knows what it's doing.
    Oh, I know their argument. I'm just not buying it: real corporate taxes are the lowest they've been in decades, de-regulation from the 80s-90s is still mostly in effect, we've been deficit spending since 2001, and corporations have (and always will) have to weigh risk against innovation all the damn time.

    IMO they've "calculated" it's easier to continue their short term profits, instead of investing/hiring for the future of our nation. They don't mind the stupid tax policies and its loopholes---they just change HQ and bypass paying revenue to the US. It's bogus to say they're waiting around to see what the gov't is doing, when their lobbyists and PACs have been instrumental in keeping the status quo.

  19. #19
    Real corporate taxes are low for certain industries. They are the highest in the world for others. Saying "well, they lobby" isn't a solution for a tax and regulatory environment that has lots of room to improve.

    In 2005, the cost-per-worker of regulations was about $5,200 - $7,200, with smaller businesses bearing most costs per worker (per Small Business Administration study). This was before Obamacare. As if January 2011, the costs are estimated at $7,500 - $10,500 (link).

    This country is better than others in these departments. But let's stop acting like this country is a wild west and companies are just sitting on cash to swim in it like Scrooge McDuck. More importantly, let's stop acting that the status quo of bad regulations, a loophole-infested system of high/complicated taxes and massive government deficits is a policy for growth. The people want change they can believe in.

  20. #20
    Who was it that started a thread a long time ago about "Corporate Patriotism"? I have a vague recollection of something like that....asking when/why/if private sector employers would decide it's better for the greater national good to pay their executives and managers a little less in salary and golden parachutes, or shareholders a little less in dividends, by hiring more workers.

    Theory: The top 2-10% of earners and wealth owners can only continue to prosper when the other 90-98% are also prospering. The top minority quintiles who control wealth and power should never ignore the bulk of the majority 'below' them, who have less wealth or power.

    Seems to me this is crucial to what's happening right now, in real time.

  21. #21
    Dread, we don't need to get in a link-fight about corporate taxes. Forbes and WSJ have already done that for us. The top ten or 12 corporations (including GE, and Exxon Mobil) don't pay any tax, and actually get refunds from our government. They're not the ones lobbying for a simplified tax code that takes away their exemptions and deductions.

    Let's stop comparing the US to countries with universal healthcare, while we're at it.

  22. #22
    Because hiring workers who aren't needed is a great way to recover from a recession. Let's just pay people to dig ditches and then refill them. The recovery will be magical!

    Meanwhile, on one hand you say companies are sitting on tons of money and not spending it. Then you say they don't have enough money so they should cut pay/dividends and hire more workers.

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Because hiring workers who aren't needed is a great way to recover from a recession. Let's just pay people to dig ditches and then refill them. The recovery will be magical!

    Meanwhile, on one hand you say companies are sitting on tons of money and not spending it. Then you say they don't have enough money so they should cut pay/dividends and hire more workers.
    Now, now, don't go putting words in my mouth. I've never said companies should hire unneeded workers, or we should pay people to dig ditches. What I've said is they have plenty of disposable cash that's sitting idly by, or recycled in circular dividends/profits that don't mean growth.

    Personally, I'd like to see corporations flush with cash spend more on innovation and expansion. That would mean taking a leap and a risk, with the future of our country at least as important as paying their CEOs $10,000,000 or more. Hire a few strategic people, cut back salary where possible, put confidence and cash in workers' pockets. That's the only way consumers will start consuming again....when companies start hiring and cutting paychecks. Instead of cutting deals with congress for special tax treatment.

  24. #24
    Wow, apparently corporations now benefit from not working at maximum capacity. You learn something new every day. Maybe they're just evil and don't to hurt the little man, even if it costs them too.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  25. #25
    You are saying they should hire unneeded workers, as you're implying they should hire people who they haven't had any justification to hire so far.

    Companies don't just hire people to make themselves feel good and "invest". Companies that hire people without good reason become bloated and suffer from too many cooks in the kitchen.

  26. #26
    No, I'm saying that expansion and innovation has never been a guarantee of profits. Sometimes companies have to expand just to attract customers, even before the demand is there.

    But if they all wait around for customers and buyers to show up first, money in hand and ready to spend....this whole thing is nothing but a misguided Mexican stand-off of who goes first?

    Today's consumer won't be content to hear, "Kiss your children and go shopping!" Let alone, "Use your job as collateral to rack up credit card debt--it comes with shopper perk points--same as cash!" or "Don't worry about spending instead of saving!" That's just stupid.

    Who are the people with cash right now? Not the government, and not John Q. Public. But there are several well capitalized and comfortable corporations just hanging onto cash while the country slowly drowns? Talk about short-sighted goals and motives.

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Wow, apparently corporations now benefit from not working at maximum capacity. You learn something new every day. Maybe they're just evil and don't to hurt the little man, even if it costs them too.
    What good is the future of those corporations that ONLY look at maximum capacity, efficiency, productivity, and profit.....if their home country is collapsing around them? Seriously. What exactly IS it that they value more than the almighty dollar? They can do that anywhere, even better in third world nations with extremely desperate people who will work for $2/day or ignore safety standards. Just ask Dow chemical. We all know the VIPs and executives will send their children to the US for an education, or maybe Europe for healthcare and education.

    Germany doesn't operate this way. They manage to keep valuable companies on their own soil (innovators, quality producers, reliable employers) while exporting their goods around the world. They don't seem to be throwing baby out with the bathwater. Why does the US?

  28. #28
    They aren't just waiting around, they are managing their business prudently. And there is little reason to just hire gobs of new people when the regulatory, tax and consumer spending environment are so uncertain.

  29. #29
    Who said GOBS of new hires besides you? Of course they're "just waiting around". Haven't you heard? Corporate uncertainty and market confusion is how our legislators interpret their behavior. What else could explain the shrinking violet reactions from our most powerful American corporations, that used to be considered bold and powerful pro-active leaders?


  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    That's absolutely NOT what I am saying.

    The labor market is freee for other activities, not relying on manufacturing of the "good old days". Transition from manual industrial labor to technology and information. Leisure and hospitality services, tourism and travel, entertainment and gadgets. That's fine, that's efficiency and productivity, and evolution of a developed economy that's first world.

    Moving forward is a good thing. But ignoring workers left behind, unskilled or uneducated, that's not a good thing. Where are their jobs?

    13 million unemployed, 6 million unemployed longer than 26 weeks, 8 million jobs gone permanently, 42 million on food stamps, 50 million without health care (insurance), youth unemployment and underemployment numbers dismal. Those are the facts.

    Government spending cuts, laying off teachers, fire fighters, police, social workers. Good for budgets, not so good for Education that's needed to move the unskilled/uneducated into fields that are hiring. Sure, we can ramp up H1B visas for skilled workers.....but that doesn't do a damn thing for 13 million citizens without a niche, wanting to work, looking for work.

    The idea that we can cut social safety nets (food stamps, rent assistance, Medicaid, etc), cut Education and Jobs Training programs, cut corporate taxes, make the Bush tax cuts permanent --- well that leaves a huge gaping hole. How will that be filled? Where are the jobs?
    I bet people in 1934 were thinking the same thing. And yet 20 years later it was boom time. Try to get some perspective. Three years recession/slow down in the economy should not = your panicky "where are the jobs... where are the jobs waaaah."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •