disaster capitalism in ireland

Ireland, Occupied.

Terrance Heath — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 13:53:19 -0500

In the past year, I've written so much about Ireland and its economy (here, here, here, here, and here) that I'm in the habit of keeping an eye out for news about Ireland, like a recent émigré looking for news of home. The thing is, I'm not Irish. (As far as I know, I have no Irish blood. Scottish, yes. Irish, not so far, but its a possibility.) I've never even been to Ireland (though I'd love to visit, someday).

I keep an eye on news about Ireland's economy, because it's regularly held up as an example we should follow here. At least in the headlines. Read a bit deeper, and it's a different story. Take, for example, a recent New York Times article about Ireland and austerity.

In my browser, the header for the NYT article blares, "Ireland's Austerity Hailed As Example of Financial Survival." The headline tells a somewhat different story: "In Ireland, Austerity Is Praised but Painful." Deeper into the article lies the truth: Ireland's austerity is praised, painful, and not working.

But the effects of austerity have pummeled Ireland’s fragile economy, leaving scars that are likely to take years to heal. Nearly 40,000 Irish have fled the country this year alone in search of a brighter future elsewhere; the trend is expected to continue.

“This is still an insolvent economy,” said Constantin Gurdgiev, an economist and lecturer at Trinity College in Dublin. “Just because we’re playing a good-boy role and not making noises like the Greeks doesn’t mean Ireland is healthy.”

The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, recently praised the Irish prime minister, Enda Kenny, for setting an “outstanding example,” while the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, declared that Ireland was already “almost out of the crisis.”

Underneath the surface, however, the grinding reality of Irish life belies those glowing commendations.

But you have to read even deeper, about two thirds of the way into the article, before you get to the point.

Pain is inevitable in any nation overwhelmed by its debts, which in Ireland continue to climb rather than fall as a percentage of gross domestic product. But the Irish example shows the dangers of taking from ordinary people to pay off creditors rather than sharing the burden more broadly.

For example, welfare payments have steadily been reduced even as the unemployment rate has ticked up to 14.5 percent, and is forecast to remain high at least through next year.

Ireland may be "playing a good-boy role and not making noises like the Greeks," but it hasn't been rewarded with anything resembling a recovery. In consumer-driven economy, a 3.8 percent drop in retail sales — even on basic goods, like textbooks, shoes, clothing, etc. — does not a recovery make. If anything, Ireland's working- and middle classes are being squeezed even tighter. One nursing assistant whose salary has been cut told the reporter "a lot of people are just trying to get by week to week."

And the result? There have been signs of improvement, but not enough to solve Ireland's problems through austerity alone. The problems that led Ireland to seek a bailout haven't gotten noticeably better. Growth forecasts for 2012 have been cut in half, to less than 1 percent, in part because of the austerity policies, which the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin called "reminiscent of policy during the Great Depression, when a mounting crisis was confronted by an orthodoxy that resulted in great poverty that could have been avoided."

It's not going to get any better, because austerity is also costing Ireland a generation's worth of "brain drain." The article says 40,000 have fled the country for better futures elsewhere. That exodus of mostly students and construction workers in 2008 may have kept unemployment in Ireland lower than it has been. But now, the article says, high-skilled professionals are pulling up stakes and leaving the country, taking their families with them.

Think about that. Instead of "playing the good-boy role" and bearing the burden of the bailout as demanded of them, Ireland's working- and middle-classes are getting while the getting's good — taking their earning power and revenue-generating potential with them. So, Ireland's austerity policies have effectively reduced its best hope for increased revenues and recovery: Irish people who are working, buying goods and services, and paying taxes.

Austerity will not narrow budget deficits, because the austerity imposed in Ireland and proposed here is the job-killing variety. It's simple, really. Fewer people working means fewer people earning paychecks, which means fewer people paying taxes, which means less revenue. Austerity is just another word for revenue reduction — the logic of which is that one enhances one's ability to pay one's debts by reducing one's income. It's a vicious circle, the more you cut, the more you need to cut, because the more you cut the less you have coming in to pay your debts — which now look even bigger compared to your reduced income. So, you cut until there's little left to cut.

Nothing about the austerity imposed in Ireland and proposed in the U.S. is designed to be temporary, for it destroys foundations of the social contract, that might make economic comeback possible for working- and middle-class families: education, health care, etc.

Without investment these foundations will crumble, taking their benefits with them, and in the event of a economic rebound, far fewer will be able to take advantage of it and begin the climb back to something resembling their previous standard of living. Neither will their children or the grandchildren, as the advantages their grandparents passed down to their parents are lost to austerity.

Thus, Ireland's government took an axe to spending, only to see deficits widen. The result? More austerity.

If anything, the exodus of Ireland's working- and middle classes is a kind of silent protest. Burned by Ireland's austerity policies, they're voting with their feet by getting on the "first thing smoking," in search of brighter futures elsewhere. At this rate, it's unlikely they'll be coming back, because the same forces that have occupied Washington, occupy Dublin and successfully forced ordinary Irish to pay the bill for the same financial sector shenanigans that led to our very own meltdown, and got the ball rolling for a global economic crisis..

But for the Irish who remain at home, protest may be anything but silent. Earlier this year I wrote that the initial flare of Irish protests seemed to have morphed into resignation much like that seen in other countries where austerity has taken hold.

If the Irish government wants to know the potential cost of austerity, it need look no further than Lithuania (#29 on the Heritage index) to see what austerity looks like.

Faced with rising deficits that threatened to bankrupt the country, Lithuania cut public spending by 30 percent — including slashing public sector wages 20 to 30 percent and reducing pensions by as much as 11 percent. Even the prime minister, Andrius Kubilius, took a pay cut of 45 percent.
...But austerity has exacted its own price, in social and personal pain.

Pensioners, their benefits cut, swamped soup kitchens. Unemployment jumped to a high of 14 percent, from single digits — and an already wobbly economy shrank 15 percent last year.

Remarkably, for the most part, the austerity was imposed with the grudging support of Lithuania’s trade unions and opposition parties, and has yet to elicit the kind of protest expressed by the regular, widespread street demonstrations and strikes seen in Greece, Spain and Britain.

...Indeed, outside of Ireland, no country in Europe has come close to replicating Lithuania’s severe spending cuts without the aid of the International Monetary Fund. Ireland passed the most austere budget in the country’s history, and public sector pay cuts were a centerpiece of the government’s reform effort.

...“From a credit rating perspective, Lithuania has put itself on positive trajectory,” said Kenneth Orchard, a senior credit officer in Moody’s sovereign risk group.

As European nations consider what the social and political costs will be when they take steps to cut public sector spending, Lithuania offers a real-time case study of the societal trade-offs.

If the Lithuanian population has yet to engage in the kind of protests seen in Ireland and elsewhere, perhaps that's because the Lithuanian people have finally been broken sufficiently to simply accept what the government and global market deem their fate should be. Hopelessness has yielded to despair for some, fueling the increase in Lithuania's suicide rate, which was already among the highest in the world.

For others despair yields to resignation, summed up by one Lithuanian pensioner:

Mecislovas Zukauskas, 88, a retired electrician, has lived through the devastations of World War II, the Soviet occupation and, most recently, the death of his wife. He is taking his pension cut in stride.

“The government does what it wants to do,” he said. “We can do nothing.”

But the NYT article offered a glimmer of hope towards the end.

The Irish are not prone to protest, but now more are being organized, inspired by the Occupy movement in the United States.

On a recent frosty night in Dublin, David Johnson, 38, an I.T. consultant, stepped outside a makeshift camp set up by the Occupy Dame Street movement in front of the Irish Central Bank.

“This is all new to Ireland,” he said, pointing to tarpaulins and protest signs that urged the government to boot out the International Monetary Fund and require bondholders to share Irish banks’ losses that have largely been assumed by taxpayers. “The feeling is that the people who can least afford it are the ones shouldering the burden of this crisis.”

Austerity hasn't worked in Ireland. At least not for the Irish. Here's hopping Ireland's Occupy movement will

Disaster Capitalism's Catastrophic Success In Ireland ... And America, Pt. 2

Terrance Heath — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 15:59:54 -0400

In American politics, especially in post-9/11 politics, what most desperately needs saying is often banished to the realm of the unsayable. It's either too impolite or too impolitic to utter. This tends to apply more to the left than the right. Almost nothing's unsayable for right-wingers, and almost everything they say is justifiable. (Just ask them.) The problem is that being impolite or impolitic doesn't make what the unsayable untrue, or any less in need of someone to say it. But it ensures that no one on the left will say it.

Fortunately, Dean Baker didn't let that stop him from recently dubbing the GOP "a party of unemployment."

unsayable

1. (philosophy) Not capable of being said.

2. (rare) Not allowed or not fit to be said.

From now until 2 November, the Republican party will be the party of unemployment. The logic is straightforward: the more people who are unemployed on election day, the better the prospects for Republicans in the fall election. They expect, with good cause, that voters will hold the Democrats responsible for the state of the economy. Therefore, anything that the Republicans can do to make the economy worse between now and then will help their election prospects.

While it may be bad taste to accuse a major national political party of deliberately wanting to throw people out of jobs, there is no other plausible explanation for the Republicans' behaviour. They have balked at supporting nearly every bill that had any serious hope of creating or keeping jobs, most recently filibustering on bills that provided aid to state and local governments and extending unemployment benefits. The result of the Republicans' actions, unless they are reversed quickly, is that hundreds of thousands more workers will be thrown out of work by the mid-terms.

Baker goes on to explain what the GOP's continued obstruction (aided by Democrats Who Should Know Better™) of unemployment benefit extensions and aid to local governments means in real terms.

The story is straightforward. Nearly every state and local government across the country is looking at large budget shortfalls for their 2011 fiscal years, most of which begin on 1 July 2010. Since they are generally required by state constitutions or local charters to balance their budgets, they will have no choice except to raise taxes and/or make large cutbacks and lay off workers to bring spending and revenue into line.

State and local governments have cut their workforce by an average of 65,000 a month over the last three months. Without substantial aid from the federal government, this pace is likely to accelerate. The Republican agenda in blocking aid to the states may add another 300,000 people to the unemployment rolls by early November.

Baker isn't the only person saying the unsayable. Paul Krugam, commenting on the NY Times article about austerity in Ireland, wrote of the birth of "terrible ugliness" out of Ireland's austerity, and the impending birth of the same in America.

The key thing to bear in mind about calls for harsh austerity in the face of a a depressed economy is that such calls depend on two propositions, not one. Not only do you have to believe that the invisible bond vigilantes are about to strike — that you must move to appease markets, even though right now bond buyers are willing to lend money to the United States at very low rates; you must also believe that short-term fiscal cutbacks will in fact appease the markets if they do, in fact, lose confidence.

That's why the Irish debacle is so important. All that savage austerity was supposed to bring rewards; the conventional wisdom that this would happen is so strong that one often reads news reports claiming that it has, in fact, happened, that Ireland's resolve has impressed and reassured the financial markets. But the reality is that nothing of the sort has taken place: virtuous, suffering Ireland is gaining nothing.

Of course, I know what will happen next: we'll hear that the Irish just aren't doing enough, and must do more. If we've been bleeding the patient, and he has nonetheless gotten sicker, well, we clearly need to bleed him some more.

The message to Americans suffering in this crisis — from the conservatives, "Blue Dogs," and deficit hawks in Congress — is that they need to bleed some more, too. Even as the economy worsens, the message to unemployed Americans, as well as those facing joblessness in the immediate future, is that they have already received all the help they are going to get.

That, essentially, is the message sent to:

the 15 million unemployed Americans,
the 6.8 million long-term unemployed,
the 31.4% of the unemployed who are 55 and over,
the 1.2 milion Americans whose eligibility for unemployment benefits have expired,
the millions whose benefits expired more than a month ago,
the hundreds of thousands of teachers and city and state workers — police officers, firefighters, etc. — and the communities they serve,
and more than half of Americans, who have become unemployed, underemployed, taken a pay cut, or suffered a reduction in hours since the crisis started.

But those are just numbers that can't convey the reality of what's happening in the lives of Americans caught in this economic crisis. As Joshua Glazer wrote, in a post about a friend who is among the 1.2 million impacted by Conrgress' inaction, "there are 1.2 million American's are in the same boat, many with families to feed and underwater mortgages and debilitating credit card debt. Somewhere along the way, this is going to lead to more hungry kids and homeless people and emergency care services stretched to the limit (at the cost of taxpayer dollars)."

What's likely to happen as a result, and what deficit hawks in Congress seem welcome or at least not care to stop, is what Steven Benen described the day after another failure in the Senate unemployment benefits extension.

I'm delighted this is starting to generate some real attention today -- alas, it's probably too late, unless voters in Maine and Massachusetts start calling Sens. Snowe, Collins, and Brown in huge numbers — but I still don't think folks fully appreciate the consequences of failure here. As of tomorrow, 1.2 million jobless Americans will lose unemployment benefits. That number will grow by hundreds of thousands next week, and the week after, and the week after that. That's not only devastating for those immediately affected families, but it undermines the economy — unemployment benefits tend to get spent, which makes them stimulative.

As a result of this bill dying, at least 200,000 jobs will be lost on just the measures in this bill related to Medicaid. The overall number is likely closer to 900,000 job losses. In a fragile economy, with a weak job market, it's unconscionable that 41 Senate Republicans and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) have the capacity to save those jobs, and chose not to act — indeed, they choose not to even let the Senate vote.

But the real impact is best conveyed by those bearing the brunt of it, like a reader at Andrew Sullivan's blog, who emailed him about her experience.

Today I receive my last unemployment check. I've used up all available extensions. My position was eliminated on Feb. 1, 2009. Since then I've diligently searched for work. I have a MA and 23 years experience. I've had three interviews and no offers. My savings, including retirement, is gone. I had to sell my house. I've moved from Michigan to Massachusetts into the home of my parents, who at 81 and 71 live on their investments (which have been dwindling in this economy.) At a time when I should be getting ready for my retirement and taking care of my parents, I'm back at square one.

This is certainly not where I had planned to be. This is certainly not the American dream I was raised to believe in, one whose premise is that if you work hard, get a good education, you will succeed.

I try to remain positive. It's difficult when I read articles about companies refusing to hire anyone who is unemployed or about how slow the recovery is or about how many young folks are graduating from college and are now competing for the same positions to which I'm applying. I am doing all I can, reaching out, networking, doing pro-bono work, and taking an internship at a non-profit I love commuting two and a half hours each day to get to the office. To keep myself in balance, I constantly read and think about those around the world whose struggles are greater than mine. Haitians, Afghans, Iraqis, and other Americans who struggle with lack of food, education and life's basic resources. There but for God, go you or I.

It's what's happening to people like Debra Rousey, who told the Huffington Post, that despite looking frantically for a job — any job — since she was laid-off in November, that she's unable to find work, and is "desperate and devastated."

"I'm desperate and devastated," she told HuffPost. "I didn't get any warning. I was barely making ends meet on $330 a week, trying to diaper my grandchild and put food on the table for the four people I support. What do I do now? How am I going to make rent next month? I keep thinking, 'If I end up in a cardboard box, can I find one big enough for everybody, or do I have to send my son to live with someone else?'"

Since Rousey, 45, was laid off from her job as a branch manager for Suntrust bank in November, she says she has been "frantically looking" for a job — everything from entry-level marketing positions to a fry cook job at McDonalds — but hasn't had an interview in months. As of tomorrow, she will be one of nearly 1.7 million people whose unemployment benefits have prematurely expired while Congress sits on legislation that would renew those benefits.

"I hate being on unemployment," Rousey said. "I haven't applied for food stamps or Medicaid for myself because I have a work ethic that says if I want to eat, I want to work to eat. I don't want a handout. But right now I'm at the breaking point. If I don't come up with cash quick, everything will be cut off within two weeks — gas, electric, water. Five people will be displaced. How am I supposed to come up with the money?"

..."I have put in at least 5 resumés a day since November," she said. "It's not like I'm not employable. I have a bachelor's degrees in business, an associate's degree in marketing, and 25 years of office management experience. But I can't even get McDonald's to call me back for an interview."

If her unemployment benefits are not renewed soon, Rousey says she will have no way to pay rent or put food on the table. The House passed a bill on Thursday that would extend unemployment benefits for those who have been unemployed longer than six months, but the bill is moving slowly in the Senate. Rousey said she she's not holding her breath for help from the government.

It's what's happening to the coalition that fueled Obama's victory in 2008:

Obama won the national election with 53 percent of the vote compared to McCain’s 46 percent, a margin of seven percentage points. Unsurprisingly, he carried African Americans by a 91 point margin (95 to 4) and women by a 13 point margin (56 to 43). But that’s not all. The political coalition that carried him to victory is the wave of the future. Hispanics voted for Obama by 36 percentage points (67 to 31). Youth under thirty — many voting for the first time, and all of them eligible for decades into the future — voted for Obama by a 34 percentage point margin (66 to 32). White youth chose Obama over McCain by ten points (54 to 44). The Obama coalition could be a progressive coalition for a generation to come.

But he seems to have abandoned them. Obama’s people care about jobs but Obama talks about deficits. The Democratic base needs work but the Democrats can’t muster enough votes to extend unemployment benefits or aid to the states to avoid layoffs of teachers and firefighters. Our progressive coalition is ready to fight, but Obama seems more intent on making friends with his enemies (AKA bipartisanship) than making friends with his friends.

Obama’s people are hurting badly. Teenage unemployment stands at 25.7 percent. African Americans as a whole have an unemployment rate of 15.4 percent; black youth from 16 to 24 are unemployed at a horrifying 31.1 percent. The figures nearly double if they include people who are underemployed — working part-time but looking for full-time — or who have simply given up. People in prison don’t even count as part of the potential labor force, so unemployment data acts as if one young black man in nine doesn’t even exist.

It's what's happening to those whom Dave Johnson described as "Too Old For A Job, Too Young For Medicare Or Social Security."

Here is a fact: There. Are. No. Jobs. I'm in Silicon Valley where the official unemployment rate dipped in May to 11.2%. This dip was, of course, because of so many people just giving up trying to get a job, certainly not because of some wave of hiring. The underemployed figure, known as "U-6," is 21.7% in California, 16.7% nationally.

You have to know someone to get a humiliating job standing on a corner waving a sign. And if you are over 40, things are even worse than that. Don't give me any conservative Rush Limbaugh-Ayn Rand dehumanizing nonsense about parasitic lazy people who won't look — there are no jobs.

I know so many people here who are over 40, were laid off in the 2000-era dot com crash, still haven't found a regular job and aren't going to. They have had occasional "contract" positions—which means no benefits, no security, a 15% "self-employment" tax and no unemployment check when the job ends. And now, 10 years later they're a lot over 40 and are not going to find a job because so many employers here won't hire people over 40.

Dave told the story of an out-of-work friend in his post. Promting may others to share their stories in the comments.

My brother-in-law, who's now 67, was having trouble finding work in aerospace, where he'd worked for 25 years, back when he was 50. I'm 56, and trying to find work OUT of the Los Angeles area. I'd like to move to Kentucky, where my fiancee is.

Nothing.

Nada.

Not so much as a call back, and I've got 30 years of experience in copy editing, publication design, advertising design and speaking/presentation training. I've been doing web design since '94, when we had to optimize everything for dial-up modems.

I'm "too old".

I -was- told plainly by one recruiter that his employer client wouldn't consider me because health insurance for me would be too expensive, Fred. It seems experience and talent are no longer valued.

§§§

Unfortunately, the age bias and inability to get a job are not limited to the west coast. I live in Missouri and lost my 13 year job with a municipality 16 months ago because of a political turnover. Previous to this position, I was with another municipality for 18 years. Management in both positions, first as Finance, then in Human Resources. I am 56, with a Master's Degree and 31 years of municipal management experience. And - I can't get a job, to save my soul - or my house! I am either under-qualified or over-qualified or just plain don't even warrant a response at all!

If I get a response to an application or resume at all, it is that they received many applications from highly qualified people and I am not being considered. A recent submission was to a City almost the same size and budget as my previous position, doing exactly what I had been doing, and I wasn't highly qualified enough to even get an interview. Give me a break!

Some how, some way, we have to get the Senate to approve the unemployment extension for all of us deadbeats out here, who prefer to sit on our rears and live high on our government handouts! My partner and I are both "in-betweeners" (he lost his job last year after 22 years) and we are fixing to lose everything we have worked our entire lives for, just like millions of other hard-working Americans in this Country!

§§§

I lost my computer programming job in February this year.

It was nothing more than simply not having the new skill set the company required and feeling that with my workload the company would look askance at doing any on the job training. So I'm out of work and most likely out of luck.

I've had one interview since then with a local company who stated that they wanted someone who could do the work immediately without further training and who would be around for the long term. This from a company that was looking for a programmer after laying off people due to the bad economy. There is no such thing as a long-term job and hasn't been for decades!

I'm afraid of waiting too long and losing my house if my unemployment runs out before I've found something that can make the bills so it's on the market. I'm lucky that I'm not under water on my mortgage. I'll take a reasonable profit on the place even though it's far less that it would have been a few years ago.

§§§

§§§

Even more shared their stories at DailyKos and the Huffington Post.

I was laid off April 2, 2001, right after the bust was in full swing for the dot.com's.

Prior to that point I had been working fairly consistently for nearly 20 years, so I didn't expect to have too much trouble landing another gig -- I had solid experience and a good track record. However, I was also 38 years old.

It took me 3 YEARS to finally snag a contract job at NASA, this despite reducing my expectations to ANYTHING that would get me working again... I hated being idle. Which is why the "lazy" label makes me so nuts -- I literally created work for myself to do just to keep sane.

I then jumped to (gah) retail working as a "genius" at an Apple store for a year and a half. At 41 I was working almost as hard as I did getting myself through college.

In no uncertain terms I was extremely lucky to score a job with a fantastic company for the last 5 years. I'm fully aware that this will likely be my last solid gig, and often speculate what I would do should the unthinkable happen and this financially secure business closes, and the reality is that no amount of re-training or career hopping will make a damn bit of difference. Making the situation worse is the "over-qualified" moniker -- I don't even have the option of becoming a janitor.

§§§

Underemployed/unemployed. SS may kick in, but at minimal rates. Mine will be $655/mo. I turned 62 June 5. First check will arrive August 13.

Three years for any health insurance/medicare. And then that will reduce the SS income and require co-pays.

Eye care? Dental care? Long-term care?

Current income $400/mo UI, first small SS check arrives in August.

Just had emergency laser treatment on my retina. Haven't received the bill yet.

Scary all around.

§§§

And after an 18 month job hunt finally landed a job as an entry-level applicant as an admin assistant. Thankfully, the guy who hired me knew what a valuable package he was getting, so I am working and barely making it. And I know that I am one of the "lucky" ones.

I can't let myself think too much about my future - it is just too damn scary and depressing.

§§§

Would you believe I was told I was unqualified for a job cleaning -- get this -- dog kennels and scooping cat boxes at a local shelter? Excuse me, I have had cats my entire life, and dogs off and on for most of my adult years. I'm perfectly capable of cleaning up after them, feeding them, and checking their eyes, ears, etc. Hell, sometimes I've even caught illnesses in the early stages that the vet didn't key into until after the lab results came back.

So... I have my box of hair color. Dark blonde, to blend the gray. I'll let you know if it helps.

§§§

51 and still in school and plan on staying there as long as possible. I had a job that I loved, but it paid very little. Still, it was a night job that allowed me my classes in the day and enough for gas and mortgage. Then my car broke down. Catalytic converter. Front seal. I'd just bought tires, so couldn't afford repair. Tried to run on bad plates to work/school (I worked at school) but it is an hour away and my first ticket cost me $80. More than I made a night. Had to quit both school and job, moved in with a friend in TX, still trying to find a job there with less than two semesters to my BS.

My only plan is to go on for my doctorate and teach. But I am planning on doing it in Europe. It won't take as long at school and it is easier to get a job as a native English speaker there. My kids are here, but I don't see any other way. I can't marry because as a widow I will lose my husband's Teamster pension and his SS, so I'll just become a woozle lady in some obscure country LOL! Meanwhile, I just try to keep my mortgage caught up cuz it's all I have left.

§§§

This happened to my dad.

When my Mom died in 2002, he was 58. Visibly and understandably shaken, he took some time off work to work through his grief. Every time he did it, he called in to his boss to inform them. It was just the occasional day here and there, nothing excessive for losing his wife of 30 years.

That is, until the called him rather unceremoniously and told him not to bother coming back, and they'd ship his stuff to him.

In the intervening years, he never found a full-time job again. Test scoring, 15-20 hours a week, no insurance. Some online thing for a few months doing something similar, again for only 15-20 hours a week. This was a man with 20+ years in the insurance industry... scoring history exams for high schoolers. He actually enjoyed the work, but couldn't live on the salary. Yet he was too young to get SSRI, or Medicare.

He ended up getting sick himself in January of 2008 with stomach problems, at 64 years old, and spent a week in the hospital, 4 days of it in ICU. To the tune of $44,000. When it happened again in May of that year, I firmly believe that the idea of another $40-50k in debt scared him and he did not want to go back to the hospital, and instead passed away at home, in bed, where he wasn't found for two days.

This is an intensely personal issue for me, as you can tell. We're allowing people who have paid into the system to just die, live below the poverty level, and/or both. It's wrong, and it needs to stop.

Thanks for listening... you wanted my story, there it is.

§§§

§§§

I have been in IT since 1964. I've written in all sorts of languages and for all types of systems. I've done stints as the MFIC and hated it. I love the challenge of elegant code and problem solving. When a new language/system/whathaveyou appeared I bought the books and studied, played with the code. I got canned in the 2001 dot.com bust and got a job with a big govvie contracting firm which laid off a whole bunch of us in late 2008. I was on UI for 6 months, sent more than 300 researched and targeted resumes and cover letters. I finally got a job. I make 40% less than I did 15 years ago and don't give a damn. I have a job. There are no more high-end ski vacations or luxury cars but they still print books and, of course, there is Daily Kos. I have a job without a fancy title but a whole lot responsibility. What ever needs to get done, gets done and I don't count the hours. I cannot afford to retire, SS is a total joke.

§§§

My mom is a perfect example of this phenomenon.

She is 62 and has chronic back pain. But she cannot quit work and risk losing her insurance coverage (and it is not exactly stellar coverage but is definitely better than nothing). No employer would hire her because of her age and she went to work after high school in 1968 and never got a college degree. (Can I just say that she is smarter than a PhD when it comes to life?)

Her employer has cut her salary by 20% over the past two years (they recently reinstated 5% of her pay). She makes about 1/3 of what I do on an hourly basis even though she has years more experience. It is just simply wrong.

My only consolation is that I know I will always take care of her if I am able to. For so many people, it isn't an option.

§§§

In Oct 2008 I was 3 month shy of my

40th. I got laid off. I was the youngest of the group in my department getting laid off and I'm pretty sure it was to show "Oh hey, we don't do age discrimination"

Uh-huh.

So I go through retraining to be a teacher. I think it is one of the few fields where my age will not be such an issue. However, if my state (OR) doesn't get some funds from the fed for public sector, there will be no teaching jobs for me to take!
Just how many ways can I get screwed?

§§§

Cruising along at 40k a year as a programmer/DBA. I and coworker suggest that we could go from borderline breakeven to out and out profitable if he'd just hire on a dedicated salesperson for a year. No dice. 'Not enough money'. Then the boss, who runs the tiny software company, buys a restaurant, which cuts into his time and attention. Then he starts a coffee shop, into which he pours a ton of money, far more than hiring a salesperson for our software would have cost. Coworker reads the writing on the wall, decamps for another company.

I stay loyal, boss declares not enough work, despite having the same customers we'd had for a decade, cuts me back to 3 hr days. That goes on for a year, during which time, we lose about half the income, as clients decamp because customer service has gone downhill with them only able to work with me for 3 hr days rather than with me and coworker at 8 hr days.

Boss then cuts me down to ad hoc 'piecework', and I average maybe 8 hrs every 2 weeks, which is where I've been for the last several months. From the 40k years, I went to 17k reported to the IRS on this year's forms, and I'm standing at about $4500 YTD this year, and wondering if that means I'll be below the poverty line if I don't find a full time job before long.

I thought I was lucky to have picked up a nursing degree a couple of years back and taken and passed my licensing for an RN back in march, but I've been calling and putting out resumes for 4 months now and not even been able to get a refresher preceptorship (in-hospital apprenticeship sorta deal) much less an interview for a job.

I've got a little under 7 months til my 42nd birthday, so I'm exercising every day and watching my diet in hopes I can get in good enough shape by then to be accepted into the army since nothing else is panning out. If I can last that long.

§§§

Three years ago I got the notice that unless I could find another position in the company (Hewlett-Packard), my last day would be September 27th 2007. I applied for a dozen positions, one of which was so close to the work I had been doing, the only difference was the pay scale, as it was one level lower than than the one I was on. (I was making just over $100K and had been for a few years). I didn't get the job, and so I entered into "retirement" at age 57 with 24 years at HP.

I've applied for hundreds of positions, many at half of what I was making or less, and none that were offering more that $75K. I was a product of learning on the job for all of my work life since leaving the Navy after a 7 year stint in 1976. I lack a college degree which puts me at a disadvantage for any jobs out there. And this will be the excuse for why I didn't get hired, not the obvious age discrimination that goes on.

HP made much effort in proving that age discrimination was not at work with the group of people that were being let go at the same time. That's all well and good, but what I want to see is proof that age discrimination is not at work in their hiring practices.

I was able to get some unemployment, the usual 26 weeks and one extension. That and my wife was working at a well paying job.

That is until the end of 2009, when she was suddenly let go. Six months later her unemployment is running out and we're living off our savings.

I am still 18 months from Social Security or other retirement benefits. And yet, I feel I am one of the luckier ones, as I don't think we will lose the house.

§§§

“In October of ‘08 my position was abruptly eliminated due to the financial emergency, and I’ve been unemployed since, with only two interviews. TWO. I lost most of my retirement money in the crash, and have had to spend what was left trying to keep myself afloat I’m 59 years old- apparently “too old” to hire, but too young to retire. I have some chronic health conditions,I don’t drink, or smoke, or do drugs. I have no criminal record. I have an AS degree. I have good computer skills. I’m not completely disabled, so I don’t qualify for disability benefits. I want a job, I want to work, I want to survive.

Now, because the Senate has not passed this legislation, I have lost my benefits. I live in a rented room, and have a car I make payments on. I have no family or friends able to take me in. As of today, I will have nowhere to go by the end of July. I have a beloved cat that I will have to find a home for, or surrender to the shelter. I don’t know how I am going to survive this.

Why is our government allowing this waste of human resources, and abandoning so many people like me- people who have worked, and striven, and contributed to this country?

§§§

I will turn 52 later this month.

Since I was laid off at the end of 2008 (after 12 years with the same company; the last with my best sales & profit results ever) I've taken short-term Census positions, continued my part-time photography business (p/t because who's spending their money on such frivolous purchases these days?), gone back to school, continue to apply for jobs and keep in touch with friends and acquaintances across the US for any hint of an opportunity. My 18 months of cobra-mandated health insurance ran out last month- as did my tier 2 UI payments(I didn't file until after my 2009 temporary job).

The bright spots- my mortgage is still current. That's a combination of my savings and not buying in the 'best part of town'. But even though I paid under $100k here, there's no way I could sell this place for what I owe in the current market. And I have a great support network (all too many of them also facing financial challenges).

But by next month, without an extension to the qualification date for UI tiers 3 and 4, it will be time to apply for 'food stamps'.

Austerity comes at a cost, both in economic and human terms. Whether the outcome is worth the cost is a simple matter of who pays the price. And the price of austerity will be born by the same people who have paid the price of the economic crisis thus far.

Images via: Renegade98 @ Flickr, and Blue Jay Day @ Flickr.

Disaster Capitalism's Catastrophic Success In Ireland ... And America

Terrance Heath — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 11:27:20 -0400

It probably seems like I'm "a day late and a dollar short," with a post about Ireland's economic disaster days after the New York Times story about the high cost of austerity measures in Ireland echoed all over the progressive blogosphere. But I'm not. It just took me a few days to recover from the intense deja-vu.

See, back in April, the Heritage Foundation ranked Ireland #5 in its "economic freedom" index for 2010. That, of course, warranted some investigation.

I can't claim to have known much about Ireland or it's economy at the time. But a few days of research was enough to paint a disturbingly familiar picture, as the causes and impacts of Ireland's economic crisis and America's are pretty much the same.

"Sharp economic adjustments" must be another way of saying what every estimation of the Irish economy states outright: that after the bubble-burst heard 'round the world happened in 2008 — as housing bubbles popped worldwide — Ireland was among the hardest hit. The "openness and flexibility" that made it one of the high-fliers of the boom period came at a high price, causing it to hit the ground harder than other countries. And the damage from that crash may be permanent.

...On top of the housing bubble, Ireland's economy largely relied on exports, 90% of which were made by foreign-owned multinationals, attracted by the corporate tax rate that was among the lowest in Europe. The tax rate was sweetened by more lucrative concessions designed to attract multinationals. Indeed, when tax-cutting advocate Charlie McCreevy became Labour Finance Minister in 1997, he soon implemented what some deemed were unnecessary property-tax incentives, along with a 20% cut in capital gains tax for property investment. Banking on permanent prosperity, essentially, led to tax cuts that have deprived the country of much-needed reserves, and left it stuck choosing between severe budget cuts in service of the national debt, or investing in programs to keep people working and stimulate the economy.

As in the U.S., warnings about the signs of a coming crash were ignored or dismissed in favor of unfounded confidence in unending growth.

Calls for austerity are — or ought to be — laughably ironic in the context of a crisis caused by conservative economic policies that were incredibly and unjustifiably generous to wealthy and corporate interests whose.

Just as the warnings of an impending crash were ignored, now warnings that "austerity" is likely to make the damage from this economic crisis permanent are being ignored. Instead, deficit hawks and Blue Dog Democats on Capitol Hill are drowning out the voices of Americans who are hurting the most in the crisis, with calls for more pain, blocking yet another vote to extend unemployment benefits.

Given the implications of — not the least of which is the possible creation of a chronically unemployed permanent underclass — and the rejection of every opportunity to make even modest efforts to avoid this outcome, it's reasonable to question the desired ends such inaction is meant to achieve.

That requires some reframing. Not that the president was wrong when he said that today's economic reality is rooted in failed conservative ideology.

But to be fair, the other party's opposition has also been rooted in their sincere beliefs about how the economy works. They believe that our economy will do better if we simply let the banks and oil companies and insurance industry make their own rules. They still believe that—even after Wall street crashed and the BP oil well blew. They think we should keep on doing what they did for most of the last decade, leading up to the recession. Their prescription for every challenge is pretty much the same: cut taxes for the wealthy, cut rules for corporations and cut working folks loose to fend for themselves.

The problem is, we've already tried these ideas. We tried them for a good part of the last decade. And we know where they led us.

They led us — and Ireland, and lots of other countries — here, with catastrophic results for millions of people. But whether that's a failure or a success depends on your point of view.

The current economic crisis may be a result of conservative failure, with catastrophic results that have impacted most Americans in one way or another. But I think there's a better way to describe it, by borrowing phrases from a former president and best-selling author: What's happening in Ireland and here in America is really a "catastrophic success" for something called "Disaster Capitalism."

"Had we had to do it over again, we would look at the consequences of catastrophic success, being so successful so fast that an enemy that should have surrendered or been done in escaped and lived to fight another day."

~ George W. Bush, on the war in Iraq, August 2004

§§§

"I, like most Americans, have no idea what that means..."

~ John Edwards, on Bush's "catastrophic success"

George W. Bush, during the 2004 presidential election described the war in Iraq as a "catastrophic success," a phrase which had most Americans scratching their heads, at a time when the was in Iras looked like anything but a success. After all, growing chaos, increasing violence, a fraying coalition, an increased attacks on U.S. personnel had combined to postpone Iraq's elections for seven months.

None of which proved that the war was a failure far as the president and the war's supporters were concerned. As William Saletan put it, "Does this prove Bush is failing? No. It proves he's succeeding." Or, the worse it gets the more "we" must be winning. Likewise, the economic crisis — as it continues to grow, and economic pain continues to spread — can be seen as the success of policies that brought it about and the philosophy that suports them.

The question is, "Succeeding at what, and for what purpose?"

Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine, describes a "disaster capitalism" that exploits disasters and catastrophic events of all kinds to advance "a vision of a ruthlessly divided" world.

[embedr]the-shock-doctrine[/embedr]

After each new disaster, it’s tempting to imagine that the loss of life and productivity will finally serve as a wake-up call, provoking the political class to launch some kind of "new New Deal." In fact, the opposite is taking place: disasters have become the preferred moments for advancing a vision of a ruthlessly divided world, one in which the very idea of a public sphere has no place at all. Call it disaster capitalism. Every time a new crisis hits—even when the crisis itself is the direct by-product of free-market ideology — the fear and disorientation that follow are harnessed for radical social and economic re-engineering. Each new shock is midwife to a new course of economic shock therapy. The end result is the same kind of unapologetic partition between the included and the excluded, the protected and the damned, that is on display in Baghdad.

What does "catastrophic success mean?" How can anything be both catastrophic and success? I think it's derived from catastrophic failure.

A catastrophic failure is a sudden and total failure of some system from which recovery is impossible. Catastrophic failures often lead to cascading systems failure.

The term is most commonly used for structural failures, but has often been extended to many other disciplines where total and irrecoverable loss occurs. Such failures are investigated using the methods of forensic engineering, which aims to isolate the cause or causes of failure.

Catastrophic success isn't necessarily concerned with executing a planned destruction of a system. It can refer to the successful exploitation of a crisis or catastrophic event — engineered or otherwise — to achieve a particular end. The destruction may be engineered, but it may just as easily be the result other actions or conditions, and even natural disasters.

Catastrophic success is, in a sense, what happens when the total failure of a system in which total and irrecoverable loss occurs, is the desired goal. That pretty clearly defines what's happening in Ireland right now — the total collapse of an economic system, in which many Irish citizens are experiencing total and irrecoverable loss. That pretty clearly defines where we're headed if our political leaders don't act to reverse current trends.

Total destruction of a system, including the people's level of trust in the system, is a success if the destruction is exploited to achieve desired end — in this case, a restructuring of the economy to the disadvantage of the working- and middle-classes, widening economic disparities and further concentrating wealth into the hands of a narrow few. The result is presicely the "ruthlessly divided world" Klein describes, with its "unapologetic partition between the included and the excluded, the protected and the damned."

Whether the crisis is set in motion intentionally, or rises from other conditions, it creates an opportunity that can be successfully exploited if recognized and acted upon — or not acted upon. In Ireland, it means acting to worsen the crisis with policies like "austerity measures" that increase economic pain. In the U.S., it takes the form of inaction, like the Senate's failure to extend unemployment benefits amid chronic, long-term joblessness, thus increasing economic pain and desperation for millions of Americans.

Either way can yield success out of crisis. Depending, of course, how you define success and what you want to achieve.