The week’s press brings ominous economic news. Over the last five days, four reports come together to suggest tough times ahead.

ITEM: Starting on Monday the Federal Reserve announced continuing economic weakness in the banking sector associated with the sub-prime mortgage debacle. The effects of this mess continue to spill over into the rest of the economy, especially in the housing market. In 2008, the National Association of Realtors is predicting existing-home sales down almost a million units from 2006. Existing-home prices continued to fall through 2007.

ITEM: The price of a barrel of oil broke $100 driven by speculation, political unrest in Africa and the Middle East, and uncertainty in anticipation of this year’s winter weather. The near term consequence is high priced petroleum products, including heating oil. Anxiety is building around whether this barrier break is a signal of hard times to come, but the consequences are predictable. “Staying at the 100-dollar-level will mean inflation and economic hardship,” Business Week cited senior energy analyst Fadel Gheit. While opinions vary on the likelihood of high and sustained oil prices, Hitting the $100 mark Wednesday had a huge impact on the psychology of financial markets and investors around the globe. “On the New York Stock Exchange, the Dow Jones industrial average, the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index, and the Nasdaq Composite Index all plunged on January 2,due to the up thrust of oil prices above the 100-dollar threshold. By end of day Thursday the Dow had slipped below 13000. On Jan. 4, the 225-issue Nikkei Stock Average on the Tokyo Stock Exchange also plummeted.” Of course, the effects of this dramatic rise in oil prices, while perhaps a minor irritant to those with adequate financial means, will have a discernible and deleterious impact on poor and low income residents of our nation. On January 3rd, the Wall Street Journal presented an array of personal stories of the painful consequences of rising oil and gas prices on the poor and lower middle class.

ITEM: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate rose to 5.0 percent in December, while nonfarm payroll employment was essentially unchanged (+18,000).” Rising unemployment and the lack of new job creation signal rough times ahead as consumers pull back from spending and correspondingly employers resist new hires.” Reporting from the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank, Jared Bernstein offers a sobering distillation of the day’s news, “The unemployment rate jumped up to 5% last month, and non-government payrolls fell by 13,000, in a far weaker job report than was expected, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics report on the labor market for December 2007. Total payrolls rose by 18,000 the weakest month for job growth since August 2003, the last month of the jobless recovery.” Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s adds even sharper commentary in interpreting Friday’s report: “This is unambiguously negative; the economy is on the edge of recession, if we’re not already engulfed in one.”

ITEM: The confluence of recent news has even the White House distributing press releases. So damaging is the economic news of the last four days that the President has stepped to the microphone in an attempt to calm markets and reassure investors by proposing a yet-to-be-specified economic stimulus package to help keep the economy from slipping into reverse gear. As the New York Times reports: “With the odds of a recession increasing, Bush is weighing the need for an economic stimulus package. The president, who has been plagued by low public approval ratings for his handling of the economy, isn’t expected to make any decisions until later this month. Tax cuts are under consideration, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. ‘’We’ve done tax cuts before and it’s led to growth,'’ he said.”

Tax cuts, tax cuts! How can the President be so insensitive to the current reality? The same old remedy of tax cuts, not only is too little too late even for the rich and upper middle classes, but is inexplicable folly in the face of the current negative cascade of economic news. What is more tragic though is the continuing blindness of this President to the lived experience of almost 75 million Americans who don’t own stocks and who don’t work in jobs that pay living wages. How is it that he can remain simultaneously oblivious and yet informed of the fact that the plummeting economic numbers hurt the economically insecure in ways so obvious and so embarrassing that our international partners around the world are openly wondering what kind of a nation we are becoming.

Tuesday’s announced change in the minimum wage will not offset the effects of a decade-long increase in income inequality and a diminished ability to locate decent housing at affordable prices. The minimum wage increases by 70 cents, to $5.85/hour––the first increase in a decade. While it ends the longest span without a federal minimum wage increase since the pay floor was enacted in 1938, it will have little effect on the rising costs of goods or services. According to estimates, the minimum wage would have to increase to at least $9.00/hour before low-wage workers would see a serious change in their material circumstances. For a nation as rich as ours, the $.70/hour increase, though sorely needed, is simply not enough for America’s working poor families.

The federal minimum wage, established in 1938 as part of the Fair Labor Standards Act, was $.25 cents/hour. Today’s increase to $5.85/hour is the 26th since its inception. The last previous increase came in September 1997, when President Bill Clinton signed a bill raising the minimum wage to $5.15/hour, an increase of $.40.

This is the first of three year-over-year increases stemming from legislation signed by President Bush in May 2007. Through this legislation, the minimum wage increases 70 cents each summer until 2009, when all minimum-wage jobs will pay no less than $7.25/hour.

While the increase in the minimum wage is good news for many Americans, it does little to diminish the growing number of persons who are working and still poor. The minimum wage calculator on this website has been adjusted to reflect this federal wage increase. The results for most places indicate that the rising costs of housing, health care, and transportation for the most part negate the effects of this change.

Why? First, the increase in the minimum wage really only improves a person’s effective purchasing power by about $.30/hour. If the minimum wage were linked to the dollar’s real purchasing power, according to a 2006 Congressional Research Service Report, it would already have reached $9.05 prior to the increase. The effective purchasing power of a person earning the minimum wage of $5.15/hour today, given inflation, was only $3.93 in 1996 dollars anyway (the last time the minimum wage was increased). In fact, according to researchers at Oregon State University, the purchasing power of the minimum wage is at a 50-year low. To maintain the purchasing power of the minimum wage, which was last set in 1996 at $5.15/hour, a person would have to work an additional 20 minutes to make up for the effects of inflation.

Still, the increase in the minimum wage lifts as many as 1.7 million people who earned the minimum wage out of poverty. A person working 40 hours per week at the current minimum wage of $5.15 makes about $10,700 a year. The federal poverty level for singles is $10,210; couples, $13,690; and for families of three, $17,170. A raise to $5.85/hour would increase that income to $12,168/year before taxes. An increase to $7.25 would boost that to just over $15,000/year. Keep in mind that according to the living wage calculator, poverty-level income is insufficient to cover basic costs. Thus, while an increase in the minimum wage changes a person’s or family’s income, it does not guarantee their ability to purchase needed goods and services.

The first of three incremental increases that will lift the minimum wage to $7.25 in July 2009 will directly affect 5.3 million workers. Millions more also will benefit as employers invest in workers’ skills to improve their productivity, thus offsetting the effect of the wage increase. At least that is what theory would suggest.

Business leaders recognize the need to have a functioning, healthy, and engaged workforce. And while some business leaders complain about the impact of the wage increase on their bottom line, others know that people paid the minimum wage are not earning sufficient income to take care of one person, much less a family of four––two adults and two children.

As Mike Kelly of Cox New Service reports, “Employers in businesses such as Costco and Addus Health Care are among those claiming that a raise in the minimum wage will not hurt their businesses’ bottom lines. According to Small Business Majority, a coalition of U.S. small business owners, two out of three small business owners nationwide supported the minimum wage increase.” Referenced in the July 24th Centre Daily Times, Kelly goes on to say: “Most business leaders recognize that we need to focus our energies in building a strong, competitive 21st century economy that creates the jobs of the future.” According to John Arensmeyer, CEO of the Small Business Majority, “A minimum wage that promotes stability and economic prosperity is a necessary component of progress.”

Minimum wages are just that––a minimum. They were established at a time when the nation sought to raise up the living standards of the nation’s working families by putting a floor under minimum wage rates. What does the minimum wage mean today; what role does it play in a high-skill economy? Rather than allowing its workers to compete at the low end of the pay scale, America needs to take the high road and prepare workers for the future by paying families wages that make possible debt-free college educations, affordable healthcare, and housing choices for today’s young adults. Isn’t that what it is all about in the end?

Recently released data from the Internal Revenue Service on income for 2005 show a significant rise at the upper end of the income distribution. In 2005 there was a very large increase in income concentration: the top 1% gained 14% in real terms from 2004 while the bottom 99% gained less than 1% (when including capital gains). Of particular interest, other than the top 1%, the rate of change for the rest of the nation’s income earners stagnated. It appears only the super rich continued to experience a growth in income between 2004 and 2005.

For years now, as a nation we have been debating whether the poor are truly poor given their access to material goods such as housing, washing machines, televisions, and cars. In reality, the nature of life for the truly poor is about “not enough”, as in not enough income to eat properly, little access to basic goods such as adequate clothing or shelter and heat. We have finally reached a time when we can all agree that the poor are truly, truly poor. And their numbers are growing rapidly.

Recent Census estimates reveal that the population percentage considered severely poor has reached a 32-year high. Between 2000 and 2005, the percent living at half of poverty-level income increased by 26%. The descent into destitution spares no community or group in society. America’s urban, suburban and rural communities are all witnesses to the growth of what adds up to the “abject poor.”

The abjectly poor in America are individuals living on $5,250 a year. For a family of three, two adults and a child, the level of income is $6,922; for a family of four, $10,222. This level of poverty in comparative terms is only slightly above the poverty line originally set in the 1960s and affords a person little more than food and shelter.

The $5,250 for an abjectly poor individual means a bare bones budget of$437/month. Of that total, no more than $50 is available per week for food, or $7.14 day––about two big Macs and a drink, or 1200-1600 calories a day and 120 grams of fat. The residual income supports a housing expenditure in the same range of $200/month, which in most places in the country yields a bed in a group home, leaving about $37 for incidentals.

Even more sobering is the fact that the number of severely poor is growing rapidly. In 1975 the severely poor were 30% of the population in poverty. Today a dismaying 43% of persons in poverty are severely poor by national standards. But more embarrassing than the share of the poverty population truly poor is the increase in the number of persons descending into severe poverty. While the rate of new entrants moving into poverty is somewhat stable, those who are becoming truly poor are increasing at a rate 56% higher than the growth rate of new entrants into poverty.

No demographic is immune to its reach. The severely poor are more likely to be of working age than young or old, though a large share of the truly poor are children under seventeen. The largest number of abjectly poor are white (two times as many as blacks), but blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately likely to be most affected. Women, the prime target of welfare reform, on a proportionate basis are one third more likely to face deep poverty than men.

No region is untouched by this growth in the number of truly poor. The 15.89 million abjectly poor Americans live predominantly in the South (6.5 million) followed by the West and the Midwest (3.5 and 3.1 million, respectively). States with the highest share of abjectly poor have historically had high poverty levels (e.g., the Delta, Appalachia and the U.S.-Mexico Border). The largest totals are, not surprisingly, in the biggest states, although Georgia and North Carolina are also a part of this august group. States with the fastest rate of growth are some unlikely places––Minnesota, New Hampshire, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin. Previously these states escaped the ranks of the worst in terms of social ills due to progressive policies, investments in education, and tolerant societies. Now even they must question their own policies toward the poor.

Is this evidence of welfare reform gone drastically off course? Are we seeing the consequences of low taxes for high-income individuals and the resulting growth in income inequality? Are we harvesting the seeds planted twenty years ago in the minds of the nation’s citizens that government is the cause rather than the cure for economic insecurity? According to this view, government is the reason that people are poor. Its programs allow them to choose not to work, when in fact programs should be fostering self-sufficiency for all. Like everything associated with poverty, I guess it depends on your point-of-view.

Reporting in the Washington Post this week (January 23, 2007), Robert Kimmitt of the US Treasury points out that 55 million Americans left their jobs last year. Kimmitt also notes 57 million people were hired during the same period. Praising this so called “churning” of the labor market, Kimmitt suggests this is a sign of a healthy economy because it reflects the movement of people in response to opportunity. From the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS), he notes that the 12 months ending in November 2005 had the highest average level of labor turnover since the U.S. government began tracking this information in 2000. To what extent is this churning the result of people acting in response to opportunity? Does everyone end up better off or is there a down side to this churning? Is some of the “churning” the result of involuntary movement out of a job and into the labor market in search of a new one? Is it the case that for some workers swimming in the churning American labor market ends up being a tumultuous experience leading to a decline of their standard of living? Kimmitt speaks of the upside, but is there also a downside to this process of churning? According the Bureau of Labor Statistics data on layoffs and plant closures, in rural areas particularly, churning is liable to result in long periods of unemployment, forced shifts to other industries and lower wages once the tumultuous journey is over.

Job losses are mounting in communities where low-skill employment has dominated the economy. Nationally, the number of jobs lost due to displacement has increased significantly since the late 1990s. From 1997 to 1999, 3.3 million workers lost jobs, but from 2001 to 2003 the number had increased to 5.3 million. Over the entire six year period more than 9.3 million workers were displaced. The rate of displacement–that is, the share of displaced workers relative to the workforce as a whole–went from 2.4 percent in the 1997 to 1999 period to 4.0 percent in the 2001 to 2003 period. It increased across all categories–gender, race, age, education, and household type. One-third of all jobs lost due to displacement in the 2001 to 2003 period were in manufacturing. Forty-two percent were held by people with a high school education or less.

As in urban parts of the country, low-skill workers in rural America are the most vulnerable to displacement caused by increases in productivity and international competition. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service (ERS) just slightly less than half (42 percent) of rural jobs are low-skill: that is, they are less complex and require less formal education Though the share of rural jobs that are low-skill is declining, the proportion remains higher than in urban areas, as it has been historically.

From 1997 to 1999, 637,000 rural workers were displaced. In the 2001 to 2003 period the number increased to 800,000. Over the six-year period 1.5 million rural workers lost their jobs. Less educated rural workers were more likely to be displaced; workers with a college degree lost their jobs at half the rate of those with only a high school education. These two facts vary by region.

Similar to the nation as a whole, the workers who were hardest hit were those in manufacturing. Nearly half of all rural jobs lost because of displacement were in manufacturing (47 percent), compared with about one-third in the nation as a whole. The biggest losses are experienced in the US South where jobs in the textiles and apparel industries, furniture, and auto parts have been especially vulnerable to international competition and the effects of automation.

So if you end up in the river and are able to make it to the other side, are you met with the same conditions you entered the river to begin such as a job with the same benefits and wages? Where Kimmitt’s argument falls short is ignoring the transactions costs associated with shifting jobs. As anyone who has ever lost a job knows, reemployment rates totally depend on the condition of the economy you are swimming in when you join the ranks of the churning masses.

Workers displaced over the 1997-2003 period were likely to be unemployed after being displaced. Across regions, in 20012003 there was a substantial increase in the percent of displaced workers who were unemployed.

Further, over the 1997-2003 period, the length of time between jobs increased. In all regions the percentage of displaced workers who were reemployed in six or fewer weeks declined over time. The percentage of workers who remained out of work longer than 40 weeks also increased substantially through time. For rural workers the length of time out of work was 20 longer than for urban workers.

Upon displacement, rural compared with urban workers were less likely to be reemployed over the period of study. Rural workers experienced higher rates of unemployment compared with urban workers and were more likely to leave the labor force compared with workers in urban areas. Urban workers were more likely to work part- versus full-time compared with rural workers; urban workers also were more likely to work full-time compared with rural workers. In the South, the total absence of reemployment alternatives meant 20 percent of displaced workers left the labor market entirely over the period examined.

Finally, Kimmitt implies that the results of churning can be positive– and that is no doubt true for some workers in some industries and in some locations. But, overall at least between1997-2003, the most recent data we have, workers displaced across regions and in urban and rural areas experienced a decline in the wage levels received upon reemployment. Rural workers were more likely to receive a wage less than that provided in their previous employment compared with urban workers. Rural workers in the Midwest and South were more likely to experience a decline in earnings compared with rural workers in other regions.

If churning is the price we pay for working in America, how can the pain and insecurity of this prospect be lessened? These problems require a comprehensive approach to rural development policy that includes:

Investing in comprehensive education and training in rural America;

Pursue economic development strategies that go beyond business recruitment;

Provide humane transition assistance so workers who are thrust into the raging river don’t lose everything they own and have previously worked for before they are reemployed.

Policies must focus on community-based approaches. Displacement requires a full community response and nothing less will do.

Abstracted from: “Low Skilled Workers in Rural America Face Permanent Job Loss.“ Amy Glasmeier and Priscilla Salant. The Carsey Institute, Policy Brief No. 2. University of New Hampshire.

Christmas is the one time of year when the nation’s consumption practices appear to converge and people more or less look the same in the cash register lines. Or do they? Driving past strip malls and specialty stores things look pretty much as they always do this time of year: parking lots full of cars and bustling shoppers burdened with over stuffed bags of presents. On the surface we all look the same, but a closer look at the the cars in the parking lots, the stores and their merchandise, and the people in them tell a story of our nation divided by income, credit, and employment.

Where I live there is a store called “Ollies”. It occupies a former grocery store on my side of town. From the outside Ollies looks pretty much like any other store. It’s on the inside that counts. It sells products that didn’t make it in conventional stores either because there were too many of one thing or another, the produce didn’t sell, or there was some type of flaw and the product ended up sent back to the producer for remanufacturing. Ollies basically sells second hand stuff and cast offs from the regular system of consumption. Why this matters is that Ollies attracts Americans who want to enjoy the idea of a middle class life style, but who no longer or never could afford one.

Besides a unique assortment of stuff in the haphazardly packed shelves, what distinguishes Ollies from the local Target or even the Walmart is Ollies clientele. Here we find old folks, folks with old rickety cars, and individuals who themselves look like they have seen easier moments sometime in the past. Lots of Ollies customers are in need of dental care some even could use a good meal. Here Christmas presents are likely to be a pair of jeans normally out of reach or a new pillow to replace the old one. There are no new Nintendo Wiis or other electronic gadgets just mostly plain stuff people want or need on an ongoing basis. For the poor Christmas presents are not always what a child dreams of getting from Santa having seen a toy on the TV. No, presents are far more likely to be something someone needs with extra cash going for the basics.

As the nation becomes more and more divided by income, by work, and by opportunity, we find ourselves at Christmas walking different paths, shopping in different stores, enjoying different comforts and ultimately less frequently sharing a sense of common security and well-being.

Ollies is a place where there is still the occasional surprise of a good deal at the right price even if the present is just a pair of jeans to replace the old ones. While the store offers a sense of belonging and the possibility of being the same as others, the mark on the box indicating its contents were refurbished is a reminder that not everyone enjoys Christmas in the same way in America.

The morning news reports that in 2004 the top 1 percent of households–$719,910 of them, with an average income of $326,720– had almost 20 percent of the entire nation’s pretax income according to Kevin G. Hall of McClatchy Newspapers. This is up 17.8 percent since 2001. The article reports the results of a study by UC Berkeley professor Emmanuel Saez. The research study also reports that the richest one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans–129,584 households in 2004–reported income equal to 9.5 percent of national pre-tax income. From these troubling figures, Saez goes on to report the really grim news. The income of the median household over the same period increased only 1.6 percent (adjusted for inflation). This contrasts with income growth over the 1998-2001 period when median family net wealth increased by 10.5 percent, and median household income increased by 9.5 percent.

The results in this morning’s news are just the most recent report of rising income and wealth inequality in America. The number of Americans living in poverty (37 million) is static. The number of the nation’s working poor continues to grow. In 2003 the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities reported 13.1 million people, including 7 million children, are working and yet unable to rise above the poverty line. Thus about 50 million Americans do not make enough money to afford even the basics. What does this mean for the nation’s outlook?

The America Dream is no longer just being deferred it is being eliminated for many people who work hard, play by the rules, and yet nonetheless see themselves falling further behind. Our national income picture is an embarrassment when we compare ourselves to other industrialized and developed countries in Europe, Asia, and North America.

Why are the rich getting richer? Kevin Hall’s article makes an important point: research studies report why incomes are declining for the majority of Americans, but they say little about why the rich are becoming richer. We know that stagnating incomes for the majority of Americans are due to a host of factors including: changing job composition, off shoring of work, the growth of low paying jobs, and the decline in the number of jobs requireing a college education.

Of some surprise, education, once the great guarantor of economic mobility is increasingly unable to deliver on its promise. We are seeing a decline in returns to a college education. Since 2000, wages of college educated persons declined 3.1 percent. Exceptions were seen by individuals with PhDs and specialty degrees like law and medicine.

Ok, so we know why incomes are stagnant, this still doesn’t tell us why the nation is experiencing a growth in wealth disparity. Hall’s thorough assessment points out the real explanation for why the rich are getting richer; they simply own more assets and control a greater share of the nation’s wealth. Owning stocks is a key to economic security today. Stocks paid 10 percent annually over the last five years. If you are wealthy you simply have more wealth to invest. As Hall reports, the top ten percent of the population–the nation’s wealthiest families–had investments of $110,000 while the remaining 90 percent of Americans average less than $10,000 of investment income. Simple math makes the consequences plain: if you have income and you can invest it you will become wealthier because you are able to invest.

In America owning stocks is a luxury that only the very few can afford. For many middle class Americans their concern today is not about being able to invest their savings, but the fear of losing a pension and their retirement security. Today only half of working Americans are covered by any pension benefit at all. These Americans are completely dependent on Social Security when they retire. The other half is covered by pensions or 401K investment plans. Twice as many people are covered by 401Ks compared with private pensions. For these people, the size of their retirement income is dependent on how well the funds of their 401K are invested and how well the stocks do in the stock market. The bottom line is Americans’ retirement incomes are more uncertain than at any other time since the 1940s. While there are some benefits associated with moving to a retirement economy based on 401Ks, there also are huge liabilities associated with the requirement that the individual manages his or her retirement income upon completion of their working years.

Income inequality has been creeping up in the US for some time. The current situation has been building since the 1980s. As Hall notes, what is really stark these days is by how much the tax cuts of the past five years have added to rising inequality. The tax cuts for the rich have certainly made the top one percent wealthier, but they have done nothing for those of us who do not have a large stash of investment income or accumulated wealth. That comes to about 270 million Americans. Not a small crowd, but a very vulnerable one today.

Citing Statistics from the BLS, the Center for American Progress a Washington think tank, reported today that job growth figrues for the month of October were a meager 92,000. Taking these figures and adding them to this quarter’s base, the Center argues no recovery since the Great Depression has posted such a slow rate of job creation. Construction, the big job creator over the past two years has slowed dramatically. The average sales price of a home is off by ten percent nationally. Add to this a weakening job market and the holiday season starts to look really grim. Fearing the worst, even Walmart is taking anticipatory action in response to fears of a weak Christmas sales season. Hoping to get a jump on the competition, the giant retailer announced today its intention to discount big ticket electronics products. Concern is that this action could spark a retail price war among Walmart’s major competitors. Whatever happens on Tuesday, one of the first items of business for the next Congress has got to be to get the economy going again. No more jobless recovery.

Today’s New York Times brings with it an all too familiar and increasingly grim message: the share of the nation’s GNP that goes to working men and women continues to decline despite a reasonable five year economic recovery. Eduardo Porter citing a Bureau of Economic Analysis study, reports that, “ [sic] the economic slice [received by workers], including wages, health insurance and pension benefits, declined 2.5 percentage points from 2000 to 2005, to 56.5 percent of gross domestic product.” What explains this development? Economists cite a number of factors including the declining proportion of the economy’s output derived from manufacturing versus finance industries.

Thirty years ago manufacturing contributed 27 percent of national output and financial services 18 percent. Today the numbers have flipped with finance responsible for 27 percent versus 22 percent for manufacturing. The consequences of this are fewer jobs in manufacturing and, because of the higher level of capital employed in finance there are fewer jobs in this sector. That the finance sector generally pays lower wages than manufacturing (except for management jobs) and provides fewer jobs helps explain the smaller share of GNP going to workers in the form of wages and benefits. Add to this economic transformation other factors such as a higher proportion of US consumption satisfied by imports, a ridiculously low minimum wage, and a decrease in the percent of the labor force protected by union contracts, and you get a smaller share of national wealth going to working men and women.

Porter’s analysis points out that the US continues to diverge from other developed countries where inequality is been more consciously watched and debated. Measures of poverty and the level of the minimum wage are far more realistic in Europe where they are linked with the cost of living and are based on relative standards of living. In the US both the minimum wage and the poverty rate are completely out of sync with the cost of living in America. No country in Europe pays $5.15 an hour for work or uses an absolute measure of poverty to determine who is poor and who is not. Don’t forget to add that in most countries in Europe, access to health care is a right not a privilege.

The myth of unbridled opportunity in America is increasingly in question. Recent research reported in the journal “Future of Children” jointly published by the Brookings Institution and Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, indicates that with the exception of a select groups of immigrants, economic mobility is out of reach of all but a few Americans. Women and children and people of color are particularly disadvantaged.

Election debates have soured and little attention is being focused on the conditions facing America’s working men, women, and children. This doesn’t mean there aren’t problems. Indeed, all it means is that poverty, rising inequality, and economic insecurity make poor copy compared with philandering politicians, corporate board room paranoia, and plain old greed.