Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: How would Americans respond to "Greek like" austerity? [View all]NNN0LHI
(67,190 posts)13. When my family was going through "Greek like" austerity most Americans took it pretty well
http://www.sociology.org/content/vol003.004/thomas.html
In order to reduce corporate taxes, it was necessary to reduce the size of the welfare state. This objective was carried out by the Reagan administration (Abramovitz, 1992). After taking office in 1981, the administration set out on a course to alter the (relatively) labor sensitive political economy to be more business friendly. Reagan appointed anti-union officials to the National Labor Relations Board, "implicitly {granting} employers permission to revive long shunned anti-union practices: decertifying unions, outsourcing production, and hiring permanent replacements for striking workers" (102). Reagan himself pursued such a policy when he fired eleven thousand striking air traffic controllers in 1981. Regulations designed to protect the environment , worker safety, and consumer rights were summarily decried as unnecessary government meddling in the marketplace (Abramovitz, 1992; Barlett and Steele, 1996). Programs designed to help the poor were also characterized as "big government," and the people who utilized such programs were often stigmatized as lazy or even criminal. With the help of both political parties, the administration drastically cut social welfare spending and the budgets of many regulatory agencies.
The new emphasis was on "supply side" economics, which essentially "blamed the nation's ills on 'big government' and called for lower taxes, reduced federal spending (military exempted), fewer government regulations, and more private sector initiatives " (Abramovitz, 1992, 101). Thus, to effect a change in the political economy, Reagan was able to win major concessions regarding social policy that continue today. By taking away the safety net, the working class was effectively neutralized: workers no longer had the freedom to strike against their employers or depend upon the social welfare system as a means of living until finding employment. Business was thus free to lower wages, benefits, and the length of contracts. The overall result was that the average income for the average American dropped even as the average number of hours at work increased (Barlett and Steele, 1996; Schor, 1992).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There were no demonstrations, arrests, martial law or curfews. No civil war either.
Matter of fact a lot of mt fellow Americans were doing everything they could do to make it worse on everyone including themselves during that time. Now, if you mean what will happen when more people start receiving the same treatment as I did, well, we will just have to see how that turns out.
But if you are looking for my personal opinion I don't hold out much hope. Learned my lesson when George W. Bush had a +90% approval rating. Right then and there I realized that more than 9 out of 10 people I see walking down the street is a complete idiot. That is troubling.
Don
In order to reduce corporate taxes, it was necessary to reduce the size of the welfare state. This objective was carried out by the Reagan administration (Abramovitz, 1992). After taking office in 1981, the administration set out on a course to alter the (relatively) labor sensitive political economy to be more business friendly. Reagan appointed anti-union officials to the National Labor Relations Board, "implicitly {granting} employers permission to revive long shunned anti-union practices: decertifying unions, outsourcing production, and hiring permanent replacements for striking workers" (102). Reagan himself pursued such a policy when he fired eleven thousand striking air traffic controllers in 1981. Regulations designed to protect the environment , worker safety, and consumer rights were summarily decried as unnecessary government meddling in the marketplace (Abramovitz, 1992; Barlett and Steele, 1996). Programs designed to help the poor were also characterized as "big government," and the people who utilized such programs were often stigmatized as lazy or even criminal. With the help of both political parties, the administration drastically cut social welfare spending and the budgets of many regulatory agencies.
The new emphasis was on "supply side" economics, which essentially "blamed the nation's ills on 'big government' and called for lower taxes, reduced federal spending (military exempted), fewer government regulations, and more private sector initiatives " (Abramovitz, 1992, 101). Thus, to effect a change in the political economy, Reagan was able to win major concessions regarding social policy that continue today. By taking away the safety net, the working class was effectively neutralized: workers no longer had the freedom to strike against their employers or depend upon the social welfare system as a means of living until finding employment. Business was thus free to lower wages, benefits, and the length of contracts. The overall result was that the average income for the average American dropped even as the average number of hours at work increased (Barlett and Steele, 1996; Schor, 1992).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There were no demonstrations, arrests, martial law or curfews. No civil war either.
Matter of fact a lot of mt fellow Americans were doing everything they could do to make it worse on everyone including themselves during that time. Now, if you mean what will happen when more people start receiving the same treatment as I did, well, we will just have to see how that turns out.
But if you are looking for my personal opinion I don't hold out much hope. Learned my lesson when George W. Bush had a +90% approval rating. Right then and there I realized that more than 9 out of 10 people I see walking down the street is a complete idiot. That is troubling.
Don
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
35 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Economics Prof. Richard Wolff says there's a civil war brewing in Greece...
truth2power
Feb 2012
#10
When my family was going through "Greek like" austerity most Americans took it pretty well
NNN0LHI
Feb 2012
#13
I suspect 'none of the above'. Americans (on the whole) are a bunch of pretentious posers.
Edweird
Feb 2012
#14
OH LOOK! Snooki is pregnant! Justin Bieber in a Twitter pissing match! BIRTH CONTROL!!
Zalatix
Feb 2012
#19
Given that we have citizen soldiers, why are you so sure they with fire upon or nuke
ProgressiveProfessor
Feb 2012
#21
nukes unlikely, but they will fire upon civilians, which was specifically mentioned
Zalatix
Feb 2012
#30
Especially if they finished developing the neutron bomb that was started in the late 50s. Kills
jwirr
Feb 2012
#34
There's really not much austerity that the federal government can get out of Americans.
shcrane71
Feb 2012
#22