My first reaction looking at the grim news all around--say, that American is going to cut 7,000 jobs by the end of the year--was to write about the litany of awful crap coming down on workers around the country. But, it being the day before Independence Day (and, as a result, yours truly gets one less day of my two-week grand jury term--don't get me started on that experience...it is an abusive system to defendants...ooopppsss, there I go), I thought: more good news out of the world of the Beast of Bentonville.

   A couple of days ago, and you may of heard of this already but the aforementioned grand jury has slowed me down, a state judge in Minnesota ruled that Wal-Mart had--get this--broken the law...again. This time to the potential price-tag of $2 BILLION dollars:

 

The company required hourly employees to work off-the-clock during training and denied full rest or meal breaks in violation of state wage and hour laws, Hastings, Minnesota, District Judge Robert King, Jr. held today following a non-jury trial. King ruled Wal-Mart broke labor laws more than 2 million times and ordered the company to give employees $6.5 million in back-pay.

``Wal-Mart's failure to compensate plaintiffs was willful,'' the judge wrote in his 151-page decision. ``Wal-Mart was on notice from numerous sources of the wage and hour violations at issue and failed to correct the problem.''

The lawsuit is one of more than 70 cases, including class actions, or group suits, in which Wal-Mart has been accused of wage-law violations. The retailer lost a $78 million jury verdict in Pennsylvania in 2006 over rest breaks and unpaid work and a $172 million verdict in California in 2005 over meal breaks. Both verdicts have been appealed.

   Speaking for myself, when I lift a cool one this weekend (hopefully, while watching my woeful Yankees play the also woeful Red Sox), I'm going to toast Judge King. Then, we get to wait til October:

King's decision means Wal-Mart will face a second trial in Minnesota state court, this time before a jury. Minnesota labor law allows a fine of up to $1,000 per violation of wage and hour rules. With 2 million violations, that may total as much as $2 billion. At the Oct. 20 trial, jurors will determine how much each violation is worth, and also consider punitive damages.

   Can't wait.

   My first reaction looking at the grim news all around--say, that American is going to cut 7,000 jobs by the end of the year--was to write about the litany of awful crap coming down on workers around the country. But, it being the day before Independence Day (and, as a result, yours truly gets one less day of my two-week grand jury term--don't get me started on that experience...it is an abusive system to defendants...ooopppsss, there I go), I thought: more good news out of the world of the Beast of Bentonville.

   A couple of days ago, and you may of heard of this already but the aforementioned grand jury has slowed me down, a state judge in Minnesota ruled that Wal-Mart had--get this--broken the law...again. This time to the potential price-tag of $2 BILLION dollars:

 

The company required hourly employees to work off-the-clock during training and denied full rest or meal breaks in violation of state wage and hour laws, Hastings, Minnesota, District Judge Robert King, Jr. held today following a non-jury trial. King ruled Wal-Mart broke labor laws more than 2 million times and ordered the company to give employees $6.5 million in back-pay.

``Wal-Mart's failure to compensate plaintiffs was willful,'' the judge wrote in his 151-page decision. ``Wal-Mart was on notice from numerous sources of the wage and hour violations at issue and failed to correct the problem.''

The lawsuit is one of more than 70 cases, including class actions, or group suits, in which Wal-Mart has been accused of wage-law violations. The retailer lost a $78 million jury verdict in Pennsylvania in 2006 over rest breaks and unpaid work and a $172 million verdict in California in 2005 over meal breaks. Both verdicts have been appealed.

   Speaking for myself, when I lift a cool one this weekend (hopefully, while watching my woeful Yankees play the also woeful Red Sox), I'm going to toast Judge King. Then, we get to wait til October:

King's decision means Wal-Mart will face a second trial in Minnesota state court, this time before a jury. Minnesota labor law allows a fine of up to $1,000 per violation of wage and hour rules. With 2 million violations, that may total as much as $2 billion. At the Oct. 20 trial, jurors will determine how much each violation is worth, and also consider punitive damages.

   Can't wait.

   No surprise, really, that this poll would show that most Americans oppose so-called "free trade":

(CNN) -- As Sen. John McCain prepares to promote free trade during a high-profile trip to Colombia and Mexico, a poll out Tuesday suggests the issue may be a political hurdle as the general election campaign heats up.
 
Sen. John McCain's free trade stance could pose a problem in November, according to a new poll.
 
According to the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, 51 percent of Americans view foreign trade as a threat to the economy -- the first time in a CNN poll that a majority of Americans report holding negative views on free trade.
 
That compares with only 35 percent of Americans who felt free trade posed a threat to the economy in 2000, and 48 percent who felt it was a threat in 2006.
 
Now, only four in 10 Americans say free trade presents an opportunity for economic growth, a sentiment that clearly makes the issue a challenge for McCain, especially in the crucial Rust Belt states most affected by the loss of manufacturing jobs over the last decade.

This actually does not come as a surprise. I've written before that Democrats won in 2006 in large part because of the trade issue and even Republicans have been rejecting so-called "free trade".

  We are finally looking at the possibility of the end of so-called "free trade", which is really a marketing phrase that obscures the reality that trade has been structured to simply protect corporate interests and promote trade based on one thing and one thing only--the search for the lowest wage possible.

   No surprise, really, that this poll would show that most Americans oppose so-called "free trade":

(CNN) -- As Sen. John McCain prepares to promote free trade during a high-profile trip to Colombia and Mexico, a poll out Tuesday suggests the issue may be a political hurdle as the general election campaign heats up.
 
Sen. John McCain's free trade stance could pose a problem in November, according to a new poll.
 
According to the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, 51 percent of Americans view foreign trade as a threat to the economy -- the first time in a CNN poll that a majority of Americans report holding negative views on free trade.
 
That compares with only 35 percent of Americans who felt free trade posed a threat to the economy in 2000, and 48 percent who felt it was a threat in 2006.
 
Now, only four in 10 Americans say free trade presents an opportunity for economic growth, a sentiment that clearly makes the issue a challenge for McCain, especially in the crucial Rust Belt states most affected by the loss of manufacturing jobs over the last decade.

This actually does not come as a surprise. I've written before that Democrats won in 2006 in large part because of the trade issue and even Republicans have been rejecting so-called "free trade".

  We are finally looking at the possibility of the end of so-called "free trade", which is really a marketing phrase that obscures the reality that trade has been structured to simply protect corporate interests and promote trade based on one thing and one thing only--the search for the lowest wage possible.

   I do like those ironic coincidences that happen in the media. Generally speaking, when it comes to economic issues, I don't think the editors have a clue that they have captured unintentionally the gist of our crisis. And, so, let me turn to today's New York Times. The front page has two stories headlined:

"Deepening Cycle of Job Loss Seen Lasting Into ’09"

and

"Stock Exchange’s Ex-Chief Wins Battle to Keep Pay"

  What do we learn from each story? First, you ain't seen nothing yet--and we've been saying that all along here:

As automakers dropped their latest batch of awful sales numbers on the market on Tuesday, reinforcing the gloom spreading across the economy, the troubles confronting American workers seemed to intensify.

Plummeting home prices have in recent months eliminated jobs for hundreds of thousands of people, from bankers and real estate agents to construction workers and furniture manufacturers. Tighter lending standards imposed by banks in the wake of huge mortgage losses have made it hard for many Americans to secure credit — the lifeblood of expansion in recent years — crimping the appetite of consumers, whose spending amounts to 70 percent of the economy.

Joblessness has accelerated, and employers have slashed working hours even for those on their payrolls, shrinking the size of paychecks just as workers need them the most.

   No great surprise. When you have an economy that hasn't generated real increases in wealth for most people over the past two decades--because of meager, if any, raises in wages, increasing loss of health care and an ever-rising on faux pensions also known as 401(k)s--people are not going to be in a happy place. Why does that seem so obvious to us but seems to escape the notice of pundits, prognosticators and politicians who were all happy-go-lucky during the time when bubbles that would pop expanded and wages that didn't expand contracted? It makes me long for the days of the guillotine...

   And, then, right below that story comes this:

...split...

   For nearly five years, Richard A. Grasso was vilified for the riches he reaped while running the New York Stock Exchange.

  But on Tuesday, a court ruled that Mr. Grasso could keep the $139.5 million he was paid.

   Mr. Grasso, who symbolized for many the exuberance and excess of the now-faded bull market, won the final round in his long legal battle over the compensation he amassed during his eight years as head of the Big Board, when the New York State Court of Appeals threw out the remaining claims against him.

   Only in America would there be a fight over whether $139.5 million is too much money for one person to be paid, and there is an additional $48 million he was to be paid in subsequent years that apparently he will also get so, far be it for, Grasso to have to scrimp by like the rest of us--it looks like a nice figure of $187 million, give or take half a mil. Thank god for Grasso because we have now saved the glorious free market where anyone can earn obscene amount of money. Long live America! Ironically, the case ended not so much in a vidication of Grasso but because of a technicality:

The appeals court concluded that the attorney general has no standing to sue Mr. Grasso since the exchange has been converted from a nonprofit entity to a for-profit corporation, negating the attorney general’s ability to sue on behalf of the public rather than for private shareholders.

   But, still Dick--yes, Dick--gets to count his millions.

   So, there we have it, in a nutshell. Most Americans are headed for a very dark future, certainly in the short term, in part because Dicks like Grasso, who fancied themselves as great managers of American capitalism, could, and can, only see one goal in the American enterprise--how do I get the most for myself, regardless of the pain being felt my 99 percent of the people?

   Okay, so, I wasn't being entirely comprehensive: there is also another story on the very same front page of the paper of record that says that Leona Helmsley (I assume no one needs to be reminded who she was) directed that her $5-$8 billion trust be used for the care of dogs and cats--this is the woman who left $12 million to her dog. I'm just going to leave that one  in the "mentally ill rich person who hated people" category.

   I do like those ironic coincidences that happen in the media. Generally speaking, when it comes to economic issues, I don't think the editors have a clue that they have captured unintentionally the gist of our crisis. And, so, let me turn to today's New York Times. The front page has two stories headlined:

"Deepening Cycle of Job Loss Seen Lasting Into ’09"

and

"Stock Exchange’s Ex-Chief Wins Battle to Keep Pay"

  What do we learn from each story? First, you ain't seen nothing yet--and we've been saying that all along here:

As automakers dropped their latest batch of awful sales numbers on the market on Tuesday, reinforcing the gloom spreading across the economy, the troubles confronting American workers seemed to intensify.

Plummeting home prices have in recent months eliminated jobs for hundreds of thousands of people, from bankers and real estate agents to construction workers and furniture manufacturers. Tighter lending standards imposed by banks in the wake of huge mortgage losses have made it hard for many Americans to secure credit — the lifeblood of expansion in recent years — crimping the appetite of consumers, whose spending amounts to 70 percent of the economy.

Joblessness has accelerated, and employers have slashed working hours even for those on their payrolls, shrinking the size of paychecks just as workers need them the most.

   No great surprise. When you have an economy that hasn't generated real increases in wealth for most people over the past two decades--because of meager, if any, raises in wages, increasing loss of health care and an ever-rising on faux pensions also known as 401(k)s--people are not going to be in a happy place. Why does that seem so obvious to us but seems to escape the notice of pundits, prognosticators and politicians who were all happy-go-lucky during the time when bubbles that would pop expanded and wages that didn't expand contracted? It makes me long for the days of the guillotine...

   And, then, right below that story comes this:

...split...

   For nearly five years, Richard A. Grasso was vilified for the riches he reaped while running the New York Stock Exchange.

  But on Tuesday, a court ruled that Mr. Grasso could keep the $139.5 million he was paid.

   Mr. Grasso, who symbolized for many the exuberance and excess of the now-faded bull market, won the final round in his long legal battle over the compensation he amassed during his eight years as head of the Big Board, when the New York State Court of Appeals threw out the remaining claims against him.

   Only in America would there be a fight over whether $139.5 million is too much money for one person to be paid, and there is an additional $48 million he was to be paid in subsequent years that apparently he will also get so, far be it for, Grasso to have to scrimp by like the rest of us--it looks like a nice figure of $187 million, give or take half a mil. Thank god for Grasso because we have now saved the glorious free market where anyone can earn obscene amount of money. Long live America! Ironically, the case ended not so much in a vidication of Grasso but because of a technicality:

The appeals court concluded that the attorney general has no standing to sue Mr. Grasso since the exchange has been converted from a nonprofit entity to a for-profit corporation, negating the attorney general’s ability to sue on behalf of the public rather than for private shareholders.

   But, still Dick--yes, Dick--gets to count his millions.

   So, there we have it, in a nutshell. Most Americans are headed for a very dark future, certainly in the short term, in part because Dicks like Grasso, who fancied themselves as great managers of American capitalism, could, and can, only see one goal in the American enterprise--how do I get the most for myself, regardless of the pain being felt my 99 percent of the people?

   Okay, so, I wasn't being entirely comprehensive: there is also another story on the very same front page of the paper of record that says that Leona Helmsley (I assume no one needs to be reminded who she was) directed that her $5-$8 billion trust be used for the care of dogs and cats--this is the woman who left $12 million to her dog. I'm just going to leave that one  in the "mentally ill rich person who hated people" category.

   A couple of weeks ago, I noted that corporations were now beginning to think that China, with its rising prices and increasing wages (relatively speaking), wasn't cheap enough. And, so, comes another report via Reuters:

The result is higher prices at U.S. stores like Wal-Mart and Target that have increasingly filled their shelves with Chinese-made goods. It may also mean thinner profit margins for a wide swathe of Corporate America, which for years looked to China to drive down costs. And it is beginning to spur a global treasure hunt for the world's next low-cost factory.

   I added the bold. "Treasure hunt"? Does that seem macabre even for a business story? Let's face it: the "treasure" corporations are looking for is human flesh, cheap human flesh, that can be turned into profits. Dunno about you but that gives me the creeps.

   Here is where this gets interesting:

...split...

But more recent data shows prices are rising inside the stores that have long prided themselves on lowering prices.

 

JPMorgan analysts conduct a monthly pricing survey at chains including Wal-Mart and Target. In May 2007, a basket of 23 identical goods cost $106.92 at Wal-Mart and $110.21 at Target. In May 2008, those same goods cost $108.79 at Wal-Mart, and $111.93 at Target.

 

Lena Michaud, a spokeswoman for Minneapolis-based Target, said the retailer was starting to see inflation on clothing and housewares it is buying for the second half of the year.

 

"In all cases, we will attempt to maintain our gross margin rate on affected items but of course the outcome depends on the market's response to any cost increases," she said.

 

Uta Werner, retail sector analyst with Sanford Bernstein, said retailers were searching for other regions to replace China, but their profit margins would likely take a modest hit in the meantime.

  Ponder this. So, because the basket of goods for a consumer went up a grand total of $2, corporations have to search for cheaper labor.

  TWO DOLLARS? I wonder if we held a national referendum, what the results would be if posed this question: you have a choice--you can have cheaper goods but your wages will continue to decline, and so will the wages of virtually every worker around the world, you won't have health care on the job, you won't have pensions OR you will have to pay two dollars, and maybe a dollar or two more, total for the following items but, in return, we will establish standards around the world that require that everyone be paid a minimum living wage, that people have health care and decent working conditions. I'm going to guess the latter.

   A couple of weeks ago, I noted that corporations were now beginning to think that China, with its rising prices and increasing wages (relatively speaking), wasn't cheap enough. And, so, comes another report via Reuters:

The result is higher prices at U.S. stores like Wal-Mart and Target that have increasingly filled their shelves with Chinese-made goods. It may also mean thinner profit margins for a wide swathe of Corporate America, which for years looked to China to drive down costs. And it is beginning to spur a global treasure hunt for the world's next low-cost factory.

   I added the bold. "Treasure hunt"? Does that seem macabre even for a business story? Let's face it: the "treasure" corporations are looking for is human flesh, cheap human flesh, that can be turned into profits. Dunno about you but that gives me the creeps.

   Here is where this gets interesting:

...split...

But more recent data shows prices are rising inside the stores that have long prided themselves on lowering prices.

 

JPMorgan analysts conduct a monthly pricing survey at chains including Wal-Mart and Target. In May 2007, a basket of 23 identical goods cost $106.92 at Wal-Mart and $110.21 at Target. In May 2008, those same goods cost $108.79 at Wal-Mart, and $111.93 at Target.

 

Lena Michaud, a spokeswoman for Minneapolis-based Target, said the retailer was starting to see inflation on clothing and housewares it is buying for the second half of the year.

 

"In all cases, we will attempt to maintain our gross margin rate on affected items but of course the outcome depends on the market's response to any cost increases," she said.

 

Uta Werner, retail sector analyst with Sanford Bernstein, said retailers were searching for other regions to replace China, but their profit margins would likely take a modest hit in the meantime.

  Ponder this. So, because the basket of goods for a consumer went up a grand total of $2, corporations have to search for cheaper labor.

  TWO DOLLARS? I wonder if we held a national referendum, what the results would be if posed this question: you have a choice--you can have cheaper goods but your wages will continue to decline, and so will the wages of virtually every worker around the world, you won't have health care on the job, you won't have pensions OR you will have to pay two dollars, and maybe a dollar or two more, total for the following items but, in return, we will establish standards around the world that require that everyone be paid a minimum living wage, that people have health care and decent working conditions. I'm going to guess the latter.

Intuitively, a lot of people understand that war and a fragile economy are related. But, nothing brought home the connection better than the death of Andrew Seabrooks. His life, and death, speak more about what we face than any politician's rhetoric.

  You see, Andrew died because he had no option but to go to war. Andrew died because he could not make a decent living that would keep him from living in the streets of South Ozone Park, Queens. Instead of dying peacefully with his family of old age in Queens, Andrew died in Kandahar, Afghanistan, ripped apart by an explosive device that tore into his vehicle.

  When I first read about his death a few days ago, I was struck by the circumstances. Today, Susan Dominus, a reporter from The New York Times tells the story through the eyes of his girlfriend, Gloria Hedges:

If everyone in the neighborhood already knew about Ms. Hedges’s loss, it’s because everyone in the neighborhood knew Mr. Seabrooks, who went by Drew. He’d lived in that house for all of his 36 years, and most people on the street couldn’t remember the house without him in it, as well as his sister Melissa, who has Down syndrome. His mother had bought the house decades ago, and when she knew she was nearing the end, three years ago, she impressed upon her son just a few wishes: Look after your sister, look after your kids (three others live with their mother in Queens, and another two with his estranged wife in Virginia) and look after the house.

Mr. Seabrooks’s street in Ozone Park reflects a community that’s hanging on to its property, if only, in some cases, by a thread. A neighborhood association sign a few houses down from Mr. Seabrooks’s asks residents to keep the street clean, but two homes are for sale, and in spots, a porch sags or a gate is falling off its hinge. It’s a neighborhood where families often pass the quaint, three-story homes, many with awnings and sidewalk hedges, down to the next generation, as Mr. Seabrooks’s mother did. But South Ozone Park also has one of the highest foreclosure rates in Queens, a rate significantly higher than the national average.

Mr. Seabrooks drove a cab, and sometimes he helped install car stereos, but it was never enough to pay the mortgage once his mother got sick and couldn’t help out. A job he’d been hoping for last August fell through, and he could see trouble coming with the bank. "He was a worrier," Ms. Hedges said.

  And because of that worrying, he made a fateful decision:

...split...

He’d already done a tour in Iraq, and when the bills started piling up, he started thinking about serving in Afghanistan, where combat pay would be relatively high. Although Ms. Hedges begged him not to, he signed up. "Where am I going to go? Live on the streets?" he used to say to her. "I’m not going to lose this house." Sure enough, in October, right as he was training to leave, the first notice of foreclosure proceedings arrived. "He wouldn’t have gone if it wasn’t for this house," Ms. Hedges said.

  There you have it. In the United States of America, a man who wanted to work could not find enough decent-paying work to keep him from being homeless. So, he went back to war so he could make enough money to survive. And he died.

  In the United States of America, a woman gets sick, and rather than living in a country where she will be taken care of and it won't be a drain on her family, a man is forced to go back to war so he could make enough money to survive. And he died.

  In the United States of America, unscrupulous bankers and lenders and economic wizards like Robert Rubin allow a mortgage crisis to ignite an economic calamity for millions of people, and a man is forced to go back to war so he could make enough money to survive. And he died. And many of those who created the crisis continue to thrive and make millions.

  A lot of commentators and politicians have tried to distinguish between the "bad war"--Iraq--and the "right war--Afghanistan. I've not been a particular believer in that distinction--how we ended up bombing Afghanistan and how we ended up in Iraq are closely related.

  But, the point here is this:

Andrew Seabrooks died not because he wanted to serve his country but because his country did not serve him.

 His country did not serve him by providing enough decent-paying work so that he could provide for himself and his family. Instead, he had to give up his life.

 His country did not serve him and his family by providing decent health care. Instead, he had to give up his life.

 His country did not serve him because it allowed, and allows, scammers in the economy (some of whom we call "senior economic advisors" to presidents) to strip-mine communities like South Ozone Park, sucking out every dollar possible until the only thing left for people who live in the communities is to send their sons, daughters, husbands, wives and friends to make a living by killing people.

 If we want real change in this election, it won't come just from electing a leader. It will come from making sure we really change the calculus that lets people want to serve their country not because of desperation but because of inspiration.

 

Intuitively, a lot of people understand that war and a fragile economy are related. But, nothing brought home the connection better than the death of Andrew Seabrooks. His life, and death, speak more about what we face than any politician's rhetoric.

  You see, Andrew died because he had no option but to go to war. Andrew died because he could not make a decent living that would keep him from living in the streets of South Ozone Park, Queens. Instead of dying peacefully with his family of old age in Queens, Andrew died in Kandahar, Afghanistan, ripped apart by an explosive device that tore into his vehicle.

  When I first read about his death a few days ago, I was struck by the circumstances. Today, Susan Dominus, a reporter from The New York Times tells the story through the eyes of his girlfriend, Gloria Hedges:

If everyone in the neighborhood already knew about Ms. Hedges’s loss, it’s because everyone in the neighborhood knew Mr. Seabrooks, who went by Drew. He’d lived in that house for all of his 36 years, and most people on the street couldn’t remember the house without him in it, as well as his sister Melissa, who has Down syndrome. His mother had bought the house decades ago, and when she knew she was nearing the end, three years ago, she impressed upon her son just a few wishes: Look after your sister, look after your kids (three others live with their mother in Queens, and another two with his estranged wife in Virginia) and look after the house.

Mr. Seabrooks’s street in Ozone Park reflects a community that’s hanging on to its property, if only, in some cases, by a thread. A neighborhood association sign a few houses down from Mr. Seabrooks’s asks residents to keep the street clean, but two homes are for sale, and in spots, a porch sags or a gate is falling off its hinge. It’s a neighborhood where families often pass the quaint, three-story homes, many with awnings and sidewalk hedges, down to the next generation, as Mr. Seabrooks’s mother did. But South Ozone Park also has one of the highest foreclosure rates in Queens, a rate significantly higher than the national average.

Mr. Seabrooks drove a cab, and sometimes he helped install car stereos, but it was never enough to pay the mortgage once his mother got sick and couldn’t help out. A job he’d been hoping for last August fell through, and he could see trouble coming with the bank. "He was a worrier," Ms. Hedges said.

  And because of that worrying, he made a fateful decision:

...split...

He’d already done a tour in Iraq, and when the bills started piling up, he started thinking about serving in Afghanistan, where combat pay would be relatively high. Although Ms. Hedges begged him not to, he signed up. "Where am I going to go? Live on the streets?" he used to say to her. "I’m not going to lose this house." Sure enough, in October, right as he was training to leave, the first notice of foreclosure proceedings arrived. "He wouldn’t have gone if it wasn’t for this house," Ms. Hedges said.

  There you have it. In the United States of America, a man who wanted to work could not find enough decent-paying work to keep him from being homeless. So, he went back to war so he could make enough money to survive. And he died.

  In the United States of America, a woman gets sick, and rather than living in a country where she will be taken care of and it won't be a drain on her family, a man is forced to go back to war so he could make enough money to survive. And he died.

  In the United States of America, unscrupulous bankers and lenders and economic wizards like Robert Rubin allow a mortgage crisis to ignite an economic calamity for millions of people, and a man is forced to go back to war so he could make enough money to survive. And he died. And many of those who created the crisis continue to thrive and make millions.

  A lot of commentators and politicians have tried to distinguish between the "bad war"--Iraq--and the "right war--Afghanistan. I've not been a particular believer in that distinction--how we ended up bombing Afghanistan and how we ended up in Iraq are closely related.

  But, the point here is this:

Andrew Seabrooks died not because he wanted to serve his country but because his country did not serve him.

 His country did not serve him by providing enough decent-paying work so that he could provide for himself and his family. Instead, he had to give up his life.

 His country did not serve him and his family by providing decent health care. Instead, he had to give up his life.

 His country did not serve him because it allowed, and allows, scammers in the economy (some of whom we call "senior economic advisors" to presidents) to strip-mine communities like South Ozone Park, sucking out every dollar possible until the only thing left for people who live in the communities is to send their sons, daughters, husbands, wives and friends to make a living by killing people.

 If we want real change in this election, it won't come just from electing a leader. It will come from making sure we really change the calculus that lets people want to serve their country not because of desperation but because of inspiration.

 

   Readers of this blog know that I strongly believe that we need to start throwing corporate executives in jail when workers are injured or die on the job. Fines just don't cut it--it's a cost of doing business...and a tax-deductible cost to boot. Let them lose touch with their BMWs, personal assistants, Blackberries, good food and McMansions for months or years and I'd wager that, lickety-split, we'd see some serious changes in the workplace.

   Which is why I smiled when I read this story:

A woman who inflicted years of abuse on two Indonesian housekeepers held as virtual slaves in her Long Island home was sentenced to 11 years in prison on Thursday.

The woman, Varsha Sabhnani, 46, was convicted with her husband, Mahender Sabhnani, in December of involuntary servitude and other charges. He will be sentenced on Friday.

   This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the treatement of domestic workers. (check this out for more). But, these people should have their faces plastered on posters that go up in every neighborhood warning people who employ domestic workers what their fate might be.

   Readers of this blog know that I strongly believe that we need to start throwing corporate executives in jail when workers are injured or die on the job. Fines just don't cut it--it's a cost of doing business...and a tax-deductible cost to boot. Let them lose touch with their BMWs, personal assistants, Blackberries, good food and McMansions for months or years and I'd wager that, lickety-split, we'd see some serious changes in the workplace.

   Which is why I smiled when I read this story:

A woman who inflicted years of abuse on two Indonesian housekeepers held as virtual slaves in her Long Island home was sentenced to 11 years in prison on Thursday.

The woman, Varsha Sabhnani, 46, was convicted with her husband, Mahender Sabhnani, in December of involuntary servitude and other charges. He will be sentenced on Friday.

   This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the treatement of domestic workers. (check this out for more). But, these people should have their faces plastered on posters that go up in every neighborhood warning people who employ domestic workers what their fate might be.

   The AFL-CIO endorsed Barack Obama today...

   Weren't you holding your breathe in anticipaton? From the press release:

Calling Sen. Barack Obama a champion for working families, the top leaders of AFL-CIO unions today voted without opposition to endorse him for president of the United States, thrusting the labor federation's largest ever grassroots mobilization effort into high gear. 

"In so many ways?on jobs, health care, gas prices and the war in Iraq?our country is headed in the wrong direction," AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said.  "Barack Obama has proven from his days as an organizer, to his time in the Senate and his historic run for the presidency, that he's leading the fight to turn around America.  He's a champion for working families who knows what it's going to take to create an economy that works for everyone, not just Big Oil, Big Pharma, the insurance companies, the giant mortgage lenders, speculators and the very wealthy.  We're proud to stand with Sen. Obama to help our nation chart a course that will improve life for generations of working people and our children."

In its endorsement statement, the AFL-CIO General Board cited Obama's strong support of working families on issues such as health care reform, fair trade that will lift up workers here and around the world, retirement security and the freedom to form unions and bargain for middle-class living standards.  Obama has a 98 percent voting record on working families' issues, compared to just 16 percent for Sen. John McCain.

"Senator Barack Obama has secured the nomination of his party in a campaign that has energized millions of Americans and spoken to the hopes and dreams of people from every corner of our nation," read the AFL-CIO General Board's statement to endorse Obama.  "His leadership can re-engage disenfranchised Americans and bring our country together."  The General Board, which includes presidents of all 56 unions in the federation as well as Executive Council members and representatives of state and local federations, trade departments and constituency groups, votes by per capita membership.

"Senator Obama has advocated a change of direction for our nation that mirrors the priorities of the labor movement," the statement continued.

    Next news: the sun rises tomorrow from the east.

   The AFL-CIO endorsed Barack Obama today...

   Weren't you holding your breathe in anticipaton? From the press release:

Calling Sen. Barack Obama a champion for working families, the top leaders of AFL-CIO unions today voted without opposition to endorse him for president of the United States, thrusting the labor federation's largest ever grassroots mobilization effort into high gear. 

"In so many ways?on jobs, health care, gas prices and the war in Iraq?our country is headed in the wrong direction," AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said.  "Barack Obama has proven from his days as an organizer, to his time in the Senate and his historic run for the presidency, that he's leading the fight to turn around America.  He's a champion for working families who knows what it's going to take to create an economy that works for everyone, not just Big Oil, Big Pharma, the insurance companies, the giant mortgage lenders, speculators and the very wealthy.  We're proud to stand with Sen. Obama to help our nation chart a course that will improve life for generations of working people and our children."

In its endorsement statement, the AFL-CIO General Board cited Obama's strong support of working families on issues such as health care reform, fair trade that will lift up workers here and around the world, retirement security and the freedom to form unions and bargain for middle-class living standards.  Obama has a 98 percent voting record on working families' issues, compared to just 16 percent for Sen. John McCain.

"Senator Barack Obama has secured the nomination of his party in a campaign that has energized millions of Americans and spoken to the hopes and dreams of people from every corner of our nation," read the AFL-CIO General Board's statement to endorse Obama.  "His leadership can re-engage disenfranchised Americans and bring our country together."  The General Board, which includes presidents of all 56 unions in the federation as well as Executive Council members and representatives of state and local federations, trade departments and constituency groups, votes by per capita membership.

"Senator Obama has advocated a change of direction for our nation that mirrors the priorities of the labor movement," the statement continued.

    Next news: the sun rises tomorrow from the east.

  Not to be holier than thou, I understand why its cool to drive a Prius--rented one recently on a trip and loved that gas mileage. Clean for the environment, easy on the wallet--what's not to like? How about this: Your Prius is being made by workers who are being driven to the brink of collapse--and, in at least one documented case, to death. And in this story is a vexing question: how do we "green" the environment AND make sure that we still have decent work, too?

 

  So, here's the story, as uncovered by my friends at the National Labor Committee, who give a lot of detail in a report to some things we generally know about life in industrial Japan. If you are a full-time worker at Toyota, which produces the Prius, you can make a decent middle-class livelihood by Japanese standards. But:

A full one-third, or 10,000 Toyota assembly line workers, are low wage temp and subcontract workers who earn less than 60 percent of what full time workers do.  Temps have few rights and are hired under contracts as short as four months.

  And, slowly, but surely, those ranks are expanding. And, whether you are full-time or a temp, work can be grueling:

...split...

 

As soon as he graduated from high school at age 17, Kenichi Uchino went to work for Toyota in April 1989.  This had always been his dream.  He grew up in Toyota City, where both his father and grandfather worked at Toyota plants.  As a child he loved washing his father’s Toyota.

At 4:20 a.m. on Saturday morning, February 9, 2002—13 hours into his typical 14-hour night shift at the Toyota Prius plant, 30-year-old Kenichi Uchino suddenly collapsed.  He was taken to the hospital where, twenty minutes later, he was pronounced dead.  He left behind a young wife, a three-year-old daughter and a one-year-old son.  The court in Nagoya City, Japan ruled that Mr. Uchino’s death was due to overwork at the Toyota Prius plant and ordered the Labor Ministry and Toyota to pay the family a pension so that the children would not suffer any more than they already had.

  And:

At Toyota, workers alternate shifts every other week, from day to night and back again.  On the day shift, it was routine for Mr. Uchino to work 13, 14 or 15 hours a day, from 5:40 a.m. to 7:30, 8:00 or 9:00 p.m., often six days a week.  The week before his death, he worked 82 hours on the day shift—85 hours, if you count the three hours of home work he did on Sunday.  On the night shift, the week he died, Kenichi was working 70 hours, putting in a typical 14-hour shift, from 3:20 p.m. to 5:20 a.m. five days a week.  When he worked the night shift, he left home at around 2:00 p.m. and often did not return until 7:00 a.m., just as his wife was getting up.  Including his commute—-he drove a Toyota-—he was out of the house 17 hours a day.  He was sleeping just four or five hours a night. When he got home, he was often too tired to play with his children or eat with his family and would immediately collapse into bed.

  This is a wealthy corporation, by the way: its profits for the fiscal year ending March 31st 2008 were $16.7 billion--a far cry from the financial woes besetting Ford, Chrysler and General Motors.

  And, having surpassed General Motors as the largest auto company in the world,  it is spreading its model across the world. By setting up plants in the more non-union South, Toyota has undercut the basic standards set by the United Auto Workers, paying a package that is 30 percent lower than what an auto worker makes in a union job.

  Toyota is also linked to human trafficking:

In the last ten years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of foreign guest workers employed in Aichi Prefecture, home to Toyota and the country’s auto industry.  The surge of poor foreign guest workers coincides with Toyota’s ten year plan to slash the price it is willing to pay its auto part suppliers.

  And:
 

Foreign guest workers are not only stripped of their passports—-one of the most serious of all human rights violations—-they are also prohibited from leaving the factory they are contracted to, or even changing the housing they are assigned.  If a guest worker dares change jobs or moves, he or she will be immediately and forcibly deported.  Moreover, if guest workers even dare to complain about the abusive and illegal conditions, they will also be deported. (A knowledgeable source in Japan explained that the country’s immigration officials are "very tough," making it quite easy to have guest workers deported.)  This is human trafficking at its worst, as it is only the right to relocate to better factories and more decent housing that would isolate and expose the most abusive sweatshops.  The inability to move to new housing also leaves the guest workers in a very vulnerable position, where they are easily cheated and forced to pay wildly excessive rents.

 There is a lot more in this report. You get the picture.

 The point is: There has been a historical problem when it comes to the dual challenges of getting our environment cleaned up, on the one hand, and making sure that workers get treated decently, on the other hand. The two worlds of advocates for one or other other issue have not always communicated very well. That is changing--slowly.

  The biggest challenge, moving forward, is, that in the rush to "green" our planet, workers are not trampled. Meaning, that in order to be "cleaner" companies aren't allowed to simply pass off the costs of "greening", with societal acceptance--either active or passive--in the form of lower wages or cuts in basic benefits like health care and pensions. We can do both. But, we have to be vigilant that standards are high in both worlds.

 

  Not to be holier than thou, I understand why its cool to drive a Prius--rented one recently on a trip and loved that gas mileage. Clean for the environment, easy on the wallet--what's not to like? How about this: Your Prius is being made by workers who are being driven to the brink of collapse--and, in at least one documented case, to death. And in this story is a vexing question: how do we "green" the environment AND make sure that we still have decent work, too?

 

  So, here's the story, as uncovered by my friends at the National Labor Committee, who give a lot of detail in a report to some things we generally know about life in industrial Japan. If you are a full-time worker at Toyota, which produces the Prius, you can make a decent middle-class livelihood by Japanese standards. But:

A full one-third, or 10,000 Toyota assembly line workers, are low wage temp and subcontract workers who earn less than 60 percent of what full time workers do.  Temps have few rights and are hired under contracts as short as four months.

  And, slowly, but surely, those ranks are expanding. And, whether you are full-time or a temp, work can be grueling:

...split...

 

As soon as he graduated from high school at age 17, Kenichi Uchino went to work for Toyota in April 1989.  This had always been his dream.  He grew up in Toyota City, where both his father and grandfather worked at Toyota plants.  As a child he loved washing his father’s Toyota.

At 4:20 a.m. on Saturday morning, February 9, 2002—13 hours into his typical 14-hour night shift at the Toyota Prius plant, 30-year-old Kenichi Uchino suddenly collapsed.  He was taken to the hospital where, twenty minutes later, he was pronounced dead.  He left behind a young wife, a three-year-old daughter and a one-year-old son.  The court in Nagoya City, Japan ruled that Mr. Uchino’s death was due to overwork at the Toyota Prius plant and ordered the Labor Ministry and Toyota to pay the family a pension so that the children would not suffer any more than they already had.

  And:

At Toyota, workers alternate shifts every other week, from day to night and back again.  On the day shift, it was routine for Mr. Uchino to work 13, 14 or 15 hours a day, from 5:40 a.m. to 7:30, 8:00 or 9:00 p.m., often six days a week.  The week before his death, he worked 82 hours on the day shift—85 hours, if you count the three hours of home work he did on Sunday.  On the night shift, the week he died, Kenichi was working 70 hours, putting in a typical 14-hour shift, from 3:20 p.m. to 5:20 a.m. five days a week.  When he worked the night shift, he left home at around 2:00 p.m. and often did not return until 7:00 a.m., just as his wife was getting up.  Including his commute—-he drove a Toyota-—he was out of the house 17 hours a day.  He was sleeping just four or five hours a night. When he got home, he was often too tired to play with his children or eat with his family and would immediately collapse into bed.

  This is a wealthy corporation, by the way: its profits for the fiscal year ending March 31st 2008 were $16.7 billion--a far cry from the financial woes besetting Ford, Chrysler and General Motors.

  And, having surpassed General Motors as the largest auto company in the world,  it is spreading its model across the world. By setting up plants in the more non-union South, Toyota has undercut the basic standards set by the United Auto Workers, paying a package that is 30 percent lower than what an auto worker makes in a union job.

  Toyota is also linked to human trafficking:

In the last ten years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of foreign guest workers employed in Aichi Prefecture, home to Toyota and the country’s auto industry.  The surge of poor foreign guest workers coincides with Toyota’s ten year plan to slash the price it is willing to pay its auto part suppliers.

  And:
 

Foreign guest workers are not only stripped of their passports—-one of the most serious of all human rights violations—-they are also prohibited from leaving the factory they are contracted to, or even changing the housing they are assigned.  If a guest worker dares change jobs or moves, he or she will be immediately and forcibly deported.  Moreover, if guest workers even dare to complain about the abusive and illegal conditions, they will also be deported. (A knowledgeable source in Japan explained that the country’s immigration officials are "very tough," making it quite easy to have guest workers deported.)  This is human trafficking at its worst, as it is only the right to relocate to better factories and more decent housing that would isolate and expose the most abusive sweatshops.  The inability to move to new housing also leaves the guest workers in a very vulnerable position, where they are easily cheated and forced to pay wildly excessive rents.

 There is a lot more in this report. You get the picture.

 The point is: There has been a historical problem when it comes to the dual challenges of getting our environment cleaned up, on the one hand, and making sure that workers get treated decently, on the other hand. The two worlds of advocates for one or other other issue have not always communicated very well. That is changing--slowly.

  The biggest challenge, moving forward, is, that in the rush to "green" our planet, workers are not trampled. Meaning, that in order to be "cleaner" companies aren't allowed to simply pass off the costs of "greening", with societal acceptance--either active or passive--in the form of lower wages or cuts in basic benefits like health care and pensions. We can do both. But, we have to be vigilant that standards are high in both worlds.

 

   The collapse of the housing market--preciptated by a bunch of greedy people who drove a speculative market over a cliff--has opened up a gasping financial wound for the vast majority of people nearing retirement. Already devoid of any real, true pensions (meaning, defined benefit pensions that guarantee a specific amount of money that a person can count on), the evaporation of trillions of dollars in housing value has made it a near-certainity that a lot of people will enter retirement with little or no savings.

   So say the reputable folks from the Center for Economic and Policy Research in a new paper:

The projections show that the vast majority of families in these age cohorts will have little or no wealth by 2009 in any of these scenarios. In the first scenario, families in the 45 to 54 age cohort in 2009, who were in the middle grouping of the wealth distribution in 2004, will have on average just $113,600 of wealth in 2009, 26.2 percent less than families in this age group in 2004. In the second scenario, families in the middle quintile will have $97,600 in wealth, 36.6 percent less than families in 2004. In the third scenario, families will have $81,500, 47.0 percent less than families in the middle quintile for this age cohort in 2004. 
 
Families in the second wealth quintile are projected to have just $35,400 in wealth in 2009 under the first scenario and $22,700 under the third scenario. Even families in the fourth wealth quintile are projected to have just $250,200 in wealth in 2009 under the second scenario. 
 
These projections show that the cohorts just approaching retirement will have very little to support themselves in retirement other than their Social Security. This means that any cuts in Social Security and Medicare below current levels are likely to impose serious hardships on all but the wealthiest families.
 

   I love the CEPR people--except when they fall back on user-friendly terms like "cohort". Can't you just say "groups" or some other non-statistical word? Anyway, more improtant, the overriding point is: we are screwed, thanks to the speculators and financial gurus and policymakers who saw no harm in encouraging the go-go chatter about housing prices.

   Then, there is this bit of sage advice:
 

 

...split...

Workers have a limited number of years during their lifetime in which they can accumulate wealth toward retirement. If they save little or nothing during a substantial portion of these years because they expect wealth generated by a bubble to persist and grow further, then they are likely to find themselves ill-prepared for retirement when the bubble bursts. 
 
These projections should highlight the importance of policies that combat financial bubbles. The policy of the Fed during the last decade, that financial bubbles should just be left to run their course, virtually guarantees that tens of millions of people will reach retirement with little or nothing to support themselves in retirement other than their Social Security.

   And for those who want to slash Social Security and Medicare:

The other point that should be apparent from these projections is that proposals for substantially cutting back Social Security and Medicare for those approaching retirement are unrealistic given the financial situation of those near retirement.
 

   Read the rest of the report.

   The collapse of the housing market--preciptated by a bunch of greedy people who drove a speculative market over a cliff--has opened up a gasping financial wound for the vast majority of people nearing retirement. Already devoid of any real, true pensions (meaning, defined benefit pensions that guarantee a specific amount of money that a person can count on), the evaporation of trillions of dollars in housing value has made it a near-certainity that a lot of people will enter retirement with little or no savings.

   So say the reputable folks from the Center for Economic and Policy Research in a new paper:

The projections show that the vast majority of families in these age cohorts will have little or no wealth by 2009 in any of these scenarios. In the first scenario, families in the 45 to 54 age cohort in 2009, who were in the middle grouping of the wealth distribution in 2004, will have on average just $113,600 of wealth in 2009, 26.2 percent less than families in this age group in 2004. In the second scenario, families in the middle quintile will have $97,600 in wealth, 36.6 percent less than families in 2004. In the third scenario, families will have $81,500, 47.0 percent less than families in the middle quintile for this age cohort in 2004. 
 
Families in the second wealth quintile are projected to have just $35,400 in wealth in 2009 under the first scenario and $22,700 under the third scenario. Even families in the fourth wealth quintile are projected to have just $250,200 in wealth in 2009 under the second scenario. 
 
These projections show that the cohorts just approaching retirement will have very little to support themselves in retirement other than their Social Security. This means that any cuts in Social Security and Medicare below current levels are likely to impose serious hardships on all but the wealthiest families.
 

   I love the CEPR people--except when they fall back on user-friendly terms like "cohort". Can't you just say "groups" or some other non-statistical word? Anyway, more improtant, the overriding point is: we are screwed, thanks to the speculators and financial gurus and policymakers who saw no harm in encouraging the go-go chatter about housing prices.

   Then, there is this bit of sage advice:
 

 

...split...

Workers have a limited number of years during their lifetime in which they can accumulate wealth toward retirement. If they save little or nothing during a substantial portion of these years because they expect wealth generated by a bubble to persist and grow further, then they are likely to find themselves ill-prepared for retirement when the bubble bursts. 
 
These projections should highlight the importance of policies that combat financial bubbles. The policy of the Fed during the last decade, that financial bubbles should just be left to run their course, virtually guarantees that tens of millions of people will reach retirement with little or nothing to support themselves in retirement other than their Social Security.

   And for those who want to slash Social Security and Medicare:

The other point that should be apparent from these projections is that proposals for substantially cutting back Social Security and Medicare for those approaching retirement are unrealistic given the financial situation of those near retirement.
 

   Read the rest of the report.

   There was an interesting round-up of Wal-Mart's legal troubles in Arkansas-based The Morning News:

Wal-Mart has worked overtime to show its kinder, gentler side, but accusations of workplace misdeeds are surfacing in a slew of class-action lawsuits that continue to challenge the retailers new image.

There are at least 80 class-action lawsuits in 41 states pending against the Bentonville-based retailer, 76 of which stem from wage and off-the-clock issues, according to Wal-Mart's 10K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

There are more cases against the Bentonville-based retailer than those disclosed in Wal-Mart's federal filings. Companies are not required to disclose all legal proceedings, just those that may result in "material" financial losses, or more than 10 percent of the current assets of the company.

  The paper has a table summarizing the key case.

   There was an interesting round-up of Wal-Mart's legal troubles in Arkansas-based The Morning News:

Wal-Mart has worked overtime to show its kinder, gentler side, but accusations of workplace misdeeds are surfacing in a slew of class-action lawsuits that continue to challenge the retailers new image.

There are at least 80 class-action lawsuits in 41 states pending against the Bentonville-based retailer, 76 of which stem from wage and off-the-clock issues, according to Wal-Mart's 10K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

There are more cases against the Bentonville-based retailer than those disclosed in Wal-Mart's federal filings. Companies are not required to disclose all legal proceedings, just those that may result in "material" financial losses, or more than 10 percent of the current assets of the company.

  The paper has a table summarizing the key case.