Very interesting plan. Initially my reaction was "yeah right", but in looking at it again it does gather increased normalcy. Good piece.

I wish our country wasn't so afraid of supporting a healthy middle-class, and so insistent on maintaining the good life only for the wealthy who, not surprisingly, are also the ones in charge.

It would be tough to campaign on the "50K" plan for a lot of reasons, the charge of buying votes being one of the first. The bureaucracy needed to run such a plan would also be a deal killer for many.

Still, just getting such ideas at the table may help to widen the scope of possible solutions.

I'm with sgt.doom.
Reich is on the right track. It's a good piece.

It continues to rely on consumerism because consumerism is still the only game in town. Show me another proven way of improving the material conditions of life for 300 million people, and I'll sign up.

I'm with sgt_doom on this one.
I don't really trust one of Clinton's cronies.
Remember NAFTA?

The top 5% isn't required to care about 'the people'. They are wealthy and competitive individuals who view all people as competitors for their wealth.
If altruistic need-based, first-in-line economics worked, nobody would ever fight over a parking space or a spouse - but the fact remains that desire and cunning trumps all else.
This 'solidarity' thing is viewed by them as socialism, and it kind of is.

There's really no way to force the wealthy to 'play nice' without going socialist (which I'm against).

Unless someone broke a law while accruing that wealth, and it can be proven in court, there's not much we can do.

This sounds pretty stupid to me. You subsidize low paid workers with a huge cash bonus and guess what will happen? Employers will pay the lowest salary possible, make more money, and we'll end up depending even more on taxing rich mofos to run the economy and fund the government budget.

"Don't worry Jimbob, on top of this $20,000 salary you'll get your government check every month! We'll throw in some half-assed benefits so your children don't die from tooth decay. Happy now? Great!"

No chance in hell this would ever work; it might run but only until the rich mofos figure out a way to shelter their money again.

Truth is, if they'd just fix the frigging health care system and make higher education (including more vocational ed opportunities, not just college) affordable, we could all save money and spend it on better housing and other things to improve quality of life. Give me financial security for my loved ones and a decent place to live, not shiny crap.

@8 That is an interesting read. I get the feeling that DeGraw is one of those writers that the tin-foil hat crowd like to read, and substitute their own villians and solutions. He noticeably does not point to Jews, Rothschilds, Illuminatti, etc. (though maybe he does in other works - I dunno) Aside from agency, he has certainly put the pieces together to reveal the true situation we are in.

I don't necessarily agree with the situation being the result of some perfectly coordinated plot by the "global banking elite", however. True conspiracies are tough to execute, especially if the conspirators are all motivated by greed. We are more likely looking at the results of unfettered global greed by many non-related agents. Nevertheless, DeGraw's predictions may still play out: social safety net collapse; domestic civil violence; global resources war w/ China.

@9: I do remember NAFTA (I remember when it was signed, in fact, because I am old), and I am a much harsher critic of the Clinton administration than most of my peers.

But I think that sometimes people can change and learn from their mistakes, and I think Reich has done that here.

I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but it's so easy sometimes!

Sarge: Please keep taking your meds - you're scaring the children & livestock.

And it must be really haaard sleeping with all those voices in your head. Just go shoot yourself, you fucking psycho, and save the rest of us the irritation.

Bolds off now?

A consumer economy relies on consistent growth to stay healthy, which, as anyone who has studied basic physics knows, is impossible.

That is far too flip.

It might be possible to argue that endless growth is impossible, but you're using "basic physics" to make that claim? If we equate "economic growth" with "consumption of resources" and/or "burning of fossil fuel", then yes, physics backs you up here.

But economic value is not always directly tied to physical mass or energy. Some things, like art or intellectual property, or intellectual/emotional experiences (a musical performance, the luxury to take time off from work, for example) can be produced in greater quantity for greater numbers of people without necessarily using up more resources, energy, or space. Miniaturization (e.g. those banal smart phones) means that is might even be possible to produce greater quantities of more valuable physical consumer goods without using up more resources.

In the past, a growing economy was equated with faster use of resources, so if you're only saying that, according to basic physics, we can't go on as we have in the past, that's true. But odds are we will not repeat the past; after all, basic physics says we cannot repeat it. We necessarily will go forward via some other mode.

The third to last paragraph, where the plan is laid out, is a pleasant fantasy for liberals like you and I, but it would never pass in a million years. The right (representing businesses) would find no upside for their demographic (again, businesses) and would fight it tooth and nail. I also think that there's a certain center of unfairness "right in the middle." The person who made $40k because of their market value and got to $45k using a $5k supplement from the government is probably going to feel a little cheated having worked so hard to make almost the same money as someone who was only making $20k. The deading of incentive is important to note, and businesses would be pushing back very strongly on something like this that is "wealth distribution" in the most literal sense I've ever seen.

*deadening, not "deading"