For a long time I and other progressives have been advocating the idea that the economic growth and well being of the middle class is the key to general economic prosperity. This seemingly simple and obvious notion has been fought tooth and nail by conservatives, who insist that it is the “job creators” whose wealth “trickles down” to the rest of us that makes the economy grow.
But it’s been kinda difficult to make the argument because there was no organized economic theory behind it, just the obvious fact that when the middle class has money, they spend it, enriching the economy and promoting job growth. (The curious thing is that middle out economics makes the rich richer, too, cause their companies enjoy the profits of economic growth.)
The theory is coming together, though, it’s got a name and everything: Middle Out economics, as described inthis article in the Atlantic and in this video from The Young Turks.
I think it’s about time progressives started wielding Middle Out economics like it was a club, beating down the conservatives who have been using trickle down like a club for so long. Trickle down has been pretty much disproven by history and never made any sense anyway (on of the defining characteristics of rich people is that when you give them money, they keep it, they don’t spend it). This is a call to arms, Middle Out economics could save our economy and make us all … I mean, the people on this board here whom I believe to be mostly middle class … a lot richer. It’ll get the poor people on this board richer too, because when the middle class grows it tends to suck people from the lower classes into the middle class, which I ALSO very much approve of.
It will also make the wealthy people on this board a lot wealthier, and I’m OK with that, I don’t mind a rising tide that actually floats ALL boats.
Now I just have one caveat here, but it’s not a minor one. I suspect that the upper middle class liberals will try to co-opt Middle Out economics into the same tired economic programs they’ve been flogging all along. In the case of the Atlantic article, infrastructure improvements and education. These are both fine things, but they are misguided.
For example, when you put money into infrastructure improvements, you are just putting money into a different sector of the moneyed elite: guys who own lots of paving and construction machinery, and who DO hire construction workers, but as few as possible of course.
And I know this is gonna hurt, but we DO pay a lot of money for education, and we’ve got a pretty good system overall, not a top performer, but not bad.
No, Middle Out economics has to focus on jobs, jobs that pay well, that create middle class consumers with money and time to spend it.
I would advocate social, economic and tax policies which directly encourage the growth and enrichment of the middle class, such as:
- Discourage offshoring, encourage inshoring
- Grow the minimum wage into a living wage … maybe beyond that
- Instead of encouraging the purchase of new machinery, encourage the hiring of new workers
- Move to universal single payer national health insurance and stop making employers bear that burden, in terms of cost and regulation
- Limit CEO compensation (not just salary, stock options too, lets be real here) to some reasonable multiple of the pay of the company’s lowest paid employee. (I can think of no surer way to encourage higher pay for entry-level workers).
- Discourage the exploitation of temporary workers (i.e., hiring them for long periods of time, essentially using them as full time employees without giving them commensurate pay and benefits
Obviously, we gonna have a fight on our hands over the particulars, but just having the term Middle Out Economics will help a lot in the battle with conservatives and libertarians, who will reflexively oppose it. Fortunately, as most everyone knows nowadays, for economic theories, they got nothin’ that works.