The person asking about another reality being possible at 46:48 really touched me with her question and Mr Reich’s answer. It’s very easy to feel doom at the moment, especially with these lectures truly dissecting how fucked we are and how power has been taken from us. The whole point of his message though is that everything here is a CHOICE and we can fight to influence those choices. There is a bright future out there and people really are waking up to it. We are sick of being squeezed and we will make it change.
We also need older folks to watch in order to challenge their calcified opinions about reality. I'm technically a "Boomer" who has been negatively affected by the changes during the late 70s/early 80s.
I’m 32 and have followed Robert Reich for about 10 years. I’ve wanted to be “like” him for so long. This is the first time it’s occurred to me that it’s not possible. Law school is out of the question and I’m definitely not going to be running into any Clinton’s or Kennedys.
@frozenheart7133 you remind me a bit of myself when I was your age (1978). I was interested in film and directing and attended a seminar put on by a local filmmaker and a Czech director. After it was over I wrote them a letter thanking them and commenting that I didn't see any hope for women to be able to make or direct films. And I let that idea in myself fade away. But now we know how wrong I was and maybe I was foolish to let that dream/fantasy go. I don't have any magical answers for how to arrive at the kind of life we want to be involved in, but I do know it's a mistake to dismiss the possibility before we've even seriously tried to find a way to do what we want to do or feel drawn to do. So, don't let your skepticism get in the way of possibility for yourself, it just guarantees that yup, it won't happen for you.
Why do you not pay enough taxes for the social programs Democrats want we have a debt so big it defies belief it's at record peacetime levels interest rates alone is nearly a trillion dollars and our bond rating was downgraded for the first time ever under and Biden don't you care about our children who will inherit a bankrupt shell of a nation because you won't pay enough taxes for Democrat programs why is that don't you care our children who will have to pay this unimaginable unbelievable debt Democrat programs have brought us Democrats party of handouts that live off our children vote out handout Democrats before it's to late our childrens future depend on it
These lectures epitomize the difference between students being trained and students being educated. Robert Reich encourages thinking not memorizing. Bravo
This is phenomenal! I'm planning a run for a State Rep seat in Oklahoma as a Democrat. I LOVE this series!! I want to author a bill to repeal "Right to Work" in Oklahoma.
@@fritzforsthoefel8031 Oh hey its you again! I'm suporised your still commenting on these videos considering you seem to refuse to both watch any part if this lecture nor give any respect to the poeple in these commet sections who are trying to learn.
If what being said was the full truth it shouldn't make any difference about what any one else says you would simply use facts you can show to prove them wrong look at the debt clock and see the terrifying speed our debt is growing and then look at the number of skilled workers you will see that unskilled workers outnumber skilled workers by a big number which explains the wage gap don't you think skilled workers should have more than unskilled workers don't you think a surgeon should have more than a fast food worker vote out handout Democrats before it's to late
❤❤❤Prof. Reich, this series, and the series of history of Ukraine lectures by Prof. Snyder, are for my development and what I can contribute to my community, For this, I sincerely thank you.
I am thoroughly enjoying this lecture series. But this episode was the most entertaining & enlightening. Rather than just statistics it has back stories (that I can relate to) that shed light on how the power of politics & policy making has played such a large role in the widening wealth & poverty gap. Historically (in the past 50 years) even when workers have voted for candidates claiming to be pro labor, workers have gotten shot in the foot (repeatedly) for one reason or the other. Labor union leaders not only need to stand up to employers, but have the stomach and mental fitness to stand up to political policy makers as well (including the courts). If workers can have the fortitude and enlist enough co-workers to collectively agree on forming a union they not only need to be smarter & tougher than employers, they also need to be smart about their choices for union leaders and take leaders to task when they fall short, not fall back in line with employer propaganda.
I'm a huge fan. One nit re: the chart entitled "...decline of labor unions" at around 00:58:00. Suppressing zeros on the y-axes is OK, but since the scales are in the same units but don't cover the same range, take not to say these curves are "closely correlated". Per the chart, middle class share of income is down "only" about 15% (~53% to ~45%), while union membership is down about 60% (~28% to ~11%). Certainly the direction is the same and there is *some* correlation. To provide a more readily comparable scale, best to redraw this one with the primary y-axis (red) starting at around 15%.
Corporate contributions and campaign funding is certainly a big issue that needs to be addressed. But a strong union influence can affect the outcome of an election just as well as corporate dollars. It just happens to be easier to corral corporate donors than it is to corral millions of workers, about half of whom probably think that unions are bad for them. The young folks give me hope...
You also have a problem of the fantasy of personal glory where people want to be "free" to choose their employer but by doing so reduce their own wages by weakening worker power.
Efforts during the Great Society period, when Democrats were at their peak congressional power, and under each successive Democratic president-Carter in 1978, Clinton in 1993, and Obama in 2009-to strengthen the NLRA’s protections of workers’ rights to collective bargaining were all defeated, despite majority support in both the House and Senate and by the president. The tool employed in each defeat was the filibuster, spearheaded by a minority of senators representing an even smaller share of the population. The result has been policy drift in labor law, allowing outcomes to shift in favor of corporate employers and their allies. He never explained why the Democratic presidents, with both the House and Senate, were not able to strengthen unions.
There were numerous factors that impacted GM during the period you're discussing. Probably the first and foremost would have been the 2008 financial crisis, which is so complex their could be a class taught solely about it. Additionally, GM had lost a significant portion of its market share. Again, numerous factors could help explain this; i.e., increased competition from foreign automakers, changing consumer preferences, and, debatably, inferior products. Further, corporate mismanagement was used, at the time, as a partial explanation for its failure. I might note, considering your attacks on "welfare," that GM was saved by government bailouts under the same guise as many banks, etc. at the time: too big to fail. These are complex issues that need to be seen and understood from many angles. It is not fair to state that one party, or an entire class of citizens are to blame. As stated in the very first class of this series, we are all implicated and complicant in the mess we find ourselves in today. What matters is how we ALL participate in solving the issues at hand and navigating ourselves to a better future.
I'm thinking of buying one of his books because of watching this on monosody RU-vid. I've found it on monopsody Amazon. 20 years ago I wouldn't know he even had a book much less be able to buy it so he may be getting 50% of something instead of 100% of nothing. Given that we all demonstrate daily that we prefer a world with something like Amazon how can we fairly control such businesses when their business decisions and share price depend on anticipated future monopolistic profits? It seems to me that anti-trust mechanisms need to operate consistently and stably on longer timescales than political terms (It took Amazon much longer than 4 years to make any profit at all) but I don't see how we can make that happen given any democratic system currently in existence anywhere in the world. 😞
Still, I go back to globalization and NAFTA. How can workers be stronger when there is global competition pushing wages down. I think the good professor is far too quick to dismiss as a "myth" that goods are not being made abroad significantly cheaper.
“Poverty is a policy decision” Everyone should understand this, there is world-shaping truth to this realisation… distribution is a systemic/mechanistic outcome, and your likelihood of ending up poor, wealthy, or in the middle is governed far more by ‘regression to the mean’ than on your individual choices.
The rich pay almost all the federal taxes and the poor get subsidized housing food assistance cash assistance and free healthcare the middle class draw more ss and medicare than they pay in taxes the rich pay almost all the federal taxes and get next to nothing in return vote out handout Democrats
Sorry, but this premise is inaccurate. As percentage of income, the wealthiest Americans (I'm talking billionaires and and multimillionaires) pay less in taxes than the vast majority of us. They also benefit from kickbacks and subsidies at a greater rate than poor folks. In fact, "welfare" systems and other social safety nets are under direct, constant threat from wealthy entities. Great examples of this are Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The overwhelming majority of Americans understand the importance of these programs and, at the very least, do not want to see them go away. Many, in fact, believe that these programs need to be expanded. In my opinion, the more money lower and middle class folks have, the better the economy and all businesses, large and small, will be. Remember, savvy consumers will still look for good deals, large corporations and businesses will always have an advantage in the free market simply based on market share and assets/capital. Thus, consumers will still trun to them for goods and they will still be successful. The issue at hand is what percentage of the pie is appropriate for them to have, and should they be allowed to influence policy as effectively as they have been able to keep the pie for themselves.
The more money people have that work low skilled jobs with low production. The worse off we are do you not understand we cannot come more than produce if a low skilled worker produces one loaf of bread but consumed two how does that make us more prosperous
5 down, 7+ to go???????? I hope everyone who questions college can see how 1) how privileged the general concept of sitting around, learning ideas and developing critically think skills can be 2) the difference between truly good higher education and a general 1-2 year trade school.
@@judaspriestchild Only if your only motivation is job training. College should be teaching you to think as well as, hopefully, expanding your awareness of the world beyond your own yard. IMO 2 yr technical schools should also require a basic humanities core. Making a nice paycheck is all well and good but without some reference to the wider world (civics, economics, comp. lit etc) you're just a trained monkey. Conversely a bachelor's degree should require a certain number of hours learning at least the basics of a trade. If you never get your hands dirty or learn how to do build/repair/create something "real" you're just a glorified paper pusher. We should all learn that there's more than one way to experience the world.
I enjoyed your lecture. It might also be worth asking whether the personal contact you have with unions has been positive. My mother was in the teachers' union and most of what I heard about it growing up was how much she resented the way it shunted money to candidates she did not support. Laborers aren't a monolith of opinion. Ironically, before exiting the paid workforce to raise kids I worked for both Starbucks and Amazon. I understand why there are union efforts there. Your tale of union leaders falling under the spell of a charismatic man who is flattering them doesn't sound like a selling point for unions as a means for change - it sounds like as good an explanation for their decline as some others offered.
I don't think the union leaders falling under Trump is an argument against it. It just shows how they aren't a monolyth and that you do need to actually act upon them to create positive change as otherwise they can also introduce negative change. Unions are the only way workers can have power in a capitalist system. It's not a question rather unions are always good or not. It's rather workers should have any say in the economy they are a part of or should be completely subordinate to the ones higher up. Unions can indeed be flawed and have their problems. But a union, no matter how flawed is still the difference between workers having a voice and not having one.
Nobody likes big government, but, it seems possible, that good policy and regulation could go a long way towards protecting workers and providing better work and living conditions. I'm not saying it SHOULD, but, again, it COULD be possible.
@@joeyappley202 Wonder why we are supposed to dislike big government. I mean when the government was at it's largest is when the US was mos prosperous. I think a bigger government is just that, it's bigger. If it's democratic and about caring for the people it will just do that more. You have had very evil small government and very evil big governments. I don't see any connection between size and morality. The only ones who consistently lose out when the state gets bigger is the elite. Because with a big state their individual interests are usually superseeded by the greater good. Elon Musk can't sabotage a railroad in California to keep them dependent on cars for example.
Thank you professor, my take was how "policies" (and power) decide our futures and for generations to come. But policies in democracy is a function of majority wish, and can well be in violation to natural justice.
I think the Prof falsely claims that Amazon collects 50% of revenues from sellers. There wouldn't be sellers anymore, and the prices would be ridiculously high.
This is all the stuff I keep trying to tell my stepdad 😭 he still thinks economics has nothing to do with where America is right now. It's the women and hippies and that ruined everything
@@fritzforsthoefel8031 They control our politics. They've used Citizens United to turn the U.S. into an oligarchy. They've kept wages low, so that real wages no longer keep pace with inflation. They made more money during the pandemic than any other social class, while others lost their jobs. Why shouldn't they be punished for all their evil?
1) The rich can afford to move abroad and take their toys with them. 2) If you keep telling rich people how much you hate and despise them, you shouldn't be surprised if they hate and despise you in response. How is that going to work out well for you?
airline prices adjusted for inflation are not going up. The lecture tries to draw a conclusion that because investment in monopolistic companies has been successful, that's where all the profits are going. An argument can be made for Microsoft operating system and Intel processors to have massively increased product content for inflation adjusted price. Agreed though, televisions/displays have not been monopolized, and the price war there is not the same level of profit driver.
They may be going up in the USA. In europe they are ridiculously cheap - I can easily find a 3 hour flight costing less than the taxi fare to the airport 20 minutes away.
Wealth and Poverty go hand in hand SHOULD BE PROVED INCORRECT . * Economic inequalities increasing due to Govets only . They are not acting as per Articles 38 and 39 . * Govts are not providing Free and Aided EDUCATION as per Articles 45 and 46. * Govts are not implementing Self Employment Schemes as per Article 41. * Govts are not promoting Small , Medium and Large Scale industries in different Sectors. * Govts are not investing sufficiently on Research and Development of Conventional and unconventional Products. * Govts are not encouraging Cottage and Cooperative Industries hu
Do you think union workers that aren't forced to join a union should be forced to bye only American made products that are made by union workers why do you buy cheap imports
policy decisions but also cultural decisions. It seems really chicken and egg - which comes first? Changes in cultural ideas about what human being owe one another or policy decisions?
It is less efficient and hence will lose out to shareholder ownership elsewhere in the world. USA has the most powerful companies in the world largely BECAUSE it is so unequal. The problem with all idealistic solutions is that they are not the most efficient in a global marketplace and yet isolationism is also less efficient than globalization.
The problem with saying you hate all monopolies is that unions are monopolies. After all if they were not, employers would simply find a different worker who will work for less.
@@VisibleNoises once a location unionizes, the employer must higher from union employees. They can not higher the cheapest worker. All of this is assuming unions have not been undermined by three state they are in.
@@bolt5564 Companies can fire all their unionized workers or close shop and reopen elsewhere. Unions can be a monopoly if they somehow control all available workers in a field but that just rarely is the case. You don't warp the market just for having better bargaining power in a particular company site.
Being correct and half right are perfect qualities for a Teacher of democratic governance. Eg "An Explanation is Not Justification"! Justification is discovered by researching the facts and responding appropriately to moderate collective standards of stability (?). Likewise labelling of groups of people with or without power to enforce their wants sufficient to encourage balanced decision-making compatibility, ..that is equally applicable from contracts between individuals to the Constitutional Democracy, Union of States. (Conscious Awareness in/of Self)
Could you restate this in simpler terms? I have difficulty following. For example, it seems to me that "groups of people with or without power to enforce..." is a very convoluted way of saying "people" or "groups".
For big tech breaking up their business could really hurt them such as breaking up Apple since their products are so intertwined and work together so well because the hardware, software and services so so closely tied together. This makes their products work very well and gives users a great user experience.
@@Add50326 Yes that is certainly correct. But the company would survive, and continue to thrive. It would find ways to work around any changes, because it has deeper pockets than any other company on the planet. There are plenty of things to worry about in this world, but I don't think the survival of Apple is one of them.
Have to be weary of labors unions. The power never goes to the employee as they would make you think. With Unions the power goes to the govt. Ultimately not good for employees or the free market. All you have to do is look at our public school system.
I've thought that many times. I'm guessing it's just youth. Luckily they're sitting in a class room, so maybe they'll leave a little smarter than they walked in.
So it was labour union's decline, and not the massive influx of new workers into the workforce, that caused wages to be surpressed? Wealth inequality is a policy choice? And here's me thinking that it's a natural result of heirarchy and population growth that can be observed in pretty much any animal population. The bigger the group, the higher the inequality. (Who's likely to be taller? The tallest person in a group of 100, or a group of 1,000,000?) It's disheartening to me to see that this is what kids get when they pay Berkeley's outrageous tuition fees. Not even an education... just political indoctrination.
Hello. You bring up some interesting points that I'm curious about and would like to discuses them if you don't mind. He is saying there is a relationship between wages and unions, and showing the data that supports it. That isn't to say more things don't go into it, just that these factors are very related. (or the data is wrong, but I highly doubt that.) He argues that politics and economics are intertwined, so yes 'Wealth inequality is a policy choice'. As an extreme example, if we stopped being capitalist there wouldn't be any inequality, because of policy. (mind you we'd have a bunch of other problems instead, but not technically wealth inequality) "And here's me thinking that it's a natural result of heirarchy and population growth that can be observed in pretty much any animal population". I don't understanding what you are trying to say here, can you explain? I understand that different populations organize themselves in different hierarchies, from fish, to bees, to humans. "The bigger the group, the higher the inequality." I haven't observed something this extreme in nature, my friend. ie: A single large crab doesn't own 10% of the food that all crabs eat. Do I observe differences sure, but they don't result in such massive inequality, perhaps being stronger gives 5 times the share as a weaker creature, but not 350 times. I would argue that isn't natural. "Not even an education... just political indoctrination." I would agree, except that he shows data that backs up each of his claims. (And he seems open to alternate interpretations of that data.) If you can show me credible data that supports different claims, I'll believe them too.
@@danielmcsween9054 I should correct myself, I don't know much about reptiles, crustaceans, etc. I'm probably best sticking to pack animals. The pack leader gets his choice (and depending on species, monopoly) of mates, gets the most and best choice of the kills, etc. And when times get tough and food gets scarce (a typical result of overpopulation), the members at the bottom are the first to starve. But mammals don't run in packs of thousands, let alone billions. As the size of the pack increases, so does the gap between the top and bottom. It's completely natural and unavoidable. As the size of the group increases, so must inequality between top and bottom.Here's a thought experiment: One guy makes $1 a year. Another makes $101 a year. The gap between the richest and poorest is $100 a year, right? Try adding a 3rd person, give him whatever income you want, in a way in which the gap between richest and poorest decreases. Good luck. Here's another to illustrate how natural inequality is. 1000 people with $10. They start partnering off and flipping coins with each other for a bet of $1. Because once you're down to $0, you're out of the game (much like real life), a run of bad luck will take people out. As flips approach infinity, eventually you get left with one person left with $10,000. In a completely fair game. Anyone want to argue life is fair? Should we take steps to mitigate that natural process? You bet. Even the coldest hearted social Darwinist recognizes that you can end up at zero (which is incredibly hard to escape from) through no fault of your own. There's talent at the bottom. And of course if there's too many people stuck at zero, that's a recipe for revolution. But I would be careful of his arguments and the data he presents. It's not wrong, but correlation is not causation. Union decline is a symptom of wage stagnation, not a cause. As a general rule, when evaluating different contributers to a phenomenon, always evaluate the biggest variable first. Which in economics and politics, is usually the number of people. He's neglecting to show data on how many more people the average worker has had to compete with over time as globalization, the post WWII rebuilding of Europe and Asia, immigration, women entering the workforce, machines and computers greatly increased the supply of workers available while reducing the (relative to consumption) demand. He touches on a few in future lectures, but completely ignores the ones in which (his) progressives/Democrats played the lead role, which is hardly surprising since he's a political activist and lawyer, not an economist. That's not a partisan statement.... Never ask anyone on *any* political team to highlight ways their team hurt their voters beit accidental or intentionally. Which is to say it's not a complete throwaway of a course, it's what I call "A Guide to Progressive Thought". How progressives come to their ideology. Taken alone you can get maybe 2/3rds of the picture. I was taking this course while reading Thomas Sowell's (conservative scholar) "Economic Facts and Fallacies" and "Discrimination and Disparities", which are simiarly biased, but between the two you get a good sense of what's actually happening. Have a good one, brother.
The question is, has this man actually ever ran a business? Or even had a job? It must be nice to not have to deal with the real world and just make up theories within the cozy confines of institutions.
Had you been actually paying attention while watching his lectures, you'd know all the places and jobs he worked. He gave plenty of anecdotes. He was DJ at a radio station, and was working as a lawyer in the department of justice. Then he became economic advisor and after that head of the department of labour.
@bartelgrant He has never ran a business in the free world!!! He's never had a real job in the free world!! That's a fact. I know he's someone you admire so much but all his lecture is just unproven theory.
@mgomez9736 Most people haven't. But you know what most people also haven't? Insight into the inner workings and administration of the state. I also am not sure whether it is a necessary prerequisite for a professor of politics to have run their own business. He is a professor for politics, after all, and not one for business management. Oh and also he is an author, i forgot. so he actually has his own business. But let's not focus on superficialities and let's actually engage with the matter he discusses. What is it that you disagree with that someone "who ran a business" would have a different view on?
@bartelgrant he's not just a professor of politics. He's also a professor of economics, which is why we're having this conversation. And for someone to have such a influential position on economics, I think knowing how real business works is crucial. And btw, being an author is not running a business. You know he was a major influencer of NAFTA. He personally said, from all his institutional theories, that NAFTA WOULD NOT cause American jobs to leave this country. And guess what??? He was incredibly wrong! And another thing, since when does the federal government know what's right for any business or industry that it regulates or passes policy on??? I'm in a federally regulated industry and I can tell you "the state" knows nothing about how this industry operates from day to day. But they still create regulation that makes no sense. So yeah, the dwarf economic boy wonder has never been tried in the real world. He's not true. And his rubber STILL hasn't hit the ground!
