NYT Drops All Pretenses, Openly Scorns Working Americans

In an astounding display of utter contempt for the American working class, the NYT published a piece titled The Economics of Henry Ford May Be Passé, in which the author unabashedly trashes the notion of higher wages for workers as being unnecessary for economic growth.

He begins by recalling how Ford's rivals were "horrified" when Henry Ford doubled the pay for thousands of his employees in 1914.

The Wall Street Journal accused him of injecting "Biblical or spiritual principles into a field where they do not belong." The New York Times correspondent who traveled to Detroit to interview him that week asked him if he was a socialist.

According to Ford, "paying high wages" was behind the prosperity of America. But according to this author . . .

It's time to ask . . . whether Mr. Ford's big idea is as ill suited to this century as his car company seems to be.

He then demonstrates his thesis in an amazing display of elitism that I cannot paraphrase without diluting its venality. So, here it is in all its glory:

What was so comforting about Fordism was that it suggested that the economy operated on a virtuous, self-reinforcing cycle. Only when the middle class did well could the country do well. . . .

In the last few years, however, the economy has kept growing in large part because high-income families — the top 20 percent, roughly — have done so well and have been such devoted spenders. Globalization and new technology have helped many white-collar workers make more money, even as those same changes have closed factories and depressed wages for others. Stock portfolios and houses on the coasts, meanwhile, are much more valuable than they once were, making their owners more willing to spend.

In fact, well-off families, not cash-short ones, have been the ones increasing their borrowing and cutting their savings the most in recent years, according to the Federal Reserve. In 1992, the top fifth of households, as ranked by income, accounted for 42 percent of consumer spending. By 2000, the share had grown to almost 46 percent, and it is probably not much different today. That may sound like a small change, but it's an enormous amount of money, a shift of $300 billion a year in spending from the poor and middle class to the affluent.

In Michigan, Ford and General Motors have been cutting thousands of jobs, creating the country's sickest local economy and hurting even well-to-do suburbs. Yet the Suburban Collection, a car dealership north of Detroit, sold 90 Bentleys last year, up from 70 in 2004. David Butler, a manager there, said he expected to sell more than 100 Bentleys this year. The car costs at least $180,000. The dealership also opened a Lamborghini showroom in January. It is true that Rolls-Royces aren't selling very well, but the main reason seems to be that Mr. Butler's customers don't feel comfortable being seen in a $300,000 car when the state is suffering so badly. "It's not that they can't afford it," he said. "It's because of the image it would give."

Wages are likely to rise slightly in 2006, but stagnation seems to be the norm over the long term. Except for a span of a few years in the late 1990's, the hourly pay of most workers has done no better than inflation for the last 30 years. Even some Democrats, who have long embraced Fordism, are coming to the conclusion that Mr. Ford's reassuring cycle is not the only thing that can keep the American economy humming. "You don't need an equitable distribution to have a sustainable recovery," said Jared Bernstein, a liberal economist in Washington.

Ultimately, the author admits this "model" economy - in which the top 20% buy Bentleys and dine at the Ritz - is unsustainable, but only for political reasons; not because it's the most asinine nonsense ever uttered.

He doesn't see the perverse reality he described as a grotesque consequence of unjust monopolies and a thoroughly corrupt monetary system. No.

According to him, the rich should be hailed as economic saviors, divinely entitled to their rank in society and fully capable of sustaining the economy, but for the ignorant clamoring of the working class.

Naturally, he offers no alternatives to his unsustainable fantasy except a few favored platitudes that are completely impossible to implement without monetary reform.

This guy needs a good thrashing, as does the NYT for publishing this insulting venal tripe. We may be the economic underclass, but that's ONLY because the Federal Reserve and our corrupt patent laws keep us that way.

The TRUTH is that WE make up more than 80% of the population, WE do all the WORK, and for that, we not only demand RESPECT, but also our fair share of the economic pie.

As always, the mainstream media has demonstrated how utterly worthless they are to our democratic republic. Indeed, our pervasive media problem must be resolved if we are to survive at all.