Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- Robert Reich writes about the basic economic lessons the U.S. has forgotten since its postwar boom:

First, America’s real job creators are consumers, whose rising wages generate jobs and growth. If average people don’t have decent wages there can be no real recovery and no sustained growth.

In those years, business boomed because American workers were getting raises, and had enough purchasing power to buy what expanding businesses had to offer. Strong labor unions ensured American workers got a fair share of the economy’s gains. It was a virtuous cycle.

Second, the rich do better with a smaller share of a rapidly-growing economy than they do with a large share of an economy that’s barely growing at all.

Between 1946 and 1974, the economy grew faster than it’s grown since, on average, because the nation was creating the largest middle class in history. The overall size of the economy doubled, as did the earnings of almost everyone. CEOs rarely took home more than forty times the average worker’s wage, yet were riding high.

Third, higher taxes on the wealthy to finance public investments — better roads, bridges, public transportation, basic research, world-class K-12 education, and affordable higher education — improve the future productivity of America. All of us gain from these investments, including the wealthy.

In those years, the top marginal tax rate on America’s highest earners never fell below 70 percent. Under Republican President Dwight Eisenhower the tax rate was 91 percent. Combined with tax revenues from a growing middle class, these were enough to build the Interstate Highway system, dramatically expand public higher education, and make American public education the envy of the world.

We learned, in other words, that broadly-shared prosperity isn’t just compatible with a healthy economy that benefits everyone — it’s essential to it.

- Meanwhile, Marilyn Reid offers a reminder that free trade agreements have more to do with entrenching existing privilege than any interest in trade. Gaius Publius notes that any recovery since the 2008 economic meltdown has been enjoyed solely by a wealthy few. And Tom Tomorrow nicely summarizes where the combination of economic and political forces being marshalled solely for the benefit of those with the most wealth and power ultimately leads:

- Karl Nerenberg and Witold Walczak (via Alexander Panetta) both discuss the anti-democratic direction taken in the Cons' election legislation. Tonda MacCharles analyzes how the torquing of elections rules fits into the Cons' broader strategy for 2015 - while still offering no guarantee of success. And Pierre Poilievre's claim that we shouldn't worry about unlimited election spending because the party manipulating the system for its own advantage won't admit that its legislation means anything hardly offers comfort to voters looking for a free and fair election.

- Meanwhile, if the Cons indeed face an uphill battle in trying to cling to power, the combination of disastrous policy choices and a profound distaste for reality offers an important part of the explanation.

- Finally, John MacInnes and Jeroen Spijker discuss what an aging population really means:

[An increase in Remaining Life Expectancy (RLE)] is crucial because many behaviours and attitudes are more strongly linked to that than to age. Most acute health care (hospital treatment) costs are incurred at the very end of a person’s life, irrespective of their age. Population ageing has no direct impact. The pattern for social and long term care costs turns on what is happening to morbidity. Improvements in public health (especially the increase in levels of education and decline of smoking) are driving down age specific disability and morbidity rates: people are staying healthier longer. We do not know clearly (because consistent longitudinal data are scarce) whether the rise in life expectancy is pulling up the absolute average time older people spend in care or with chronic health conditions. However we can say one thing with certainty: as life expectancies increase it is systematically misleading to assume that tomorrow’s 65 or 80 years olds will have the same health profile as today’s. As RLE increases, people of the same age get ‘younger’: people with the same years lived as their counterparts in earlier cohorts, have more years left. Paradoxically popular jargon understands this very well: ‘50 is the new 40’.

The standard indicator of population ageing is the Old Age Dependency Ratio (OADR). It takes those aged 65+ and divides by the number of working age (16/20-64 years). It is not fit for purpose. Most people aged 65+ are not ‘dependent’. A million are employed (three times the number in care or nursing homes). Grandparents are the most important source of childcare after parents themselves. Many do voluntary work. Their consumer power is large and growing. It makes little sense to count everyone of working age when we can count those actually working. In fact, there are more ‘working age’ dependents - people not at work - (9.5 million) than there are people of state pension age in Britain.

We therefore recently proposed an alternative measure, the Real Elderly Dependency Ratio (REDR), which counts men and women with a RLE of ≤15 years divided by the number employment, irrespective of their age. In contrast to the inexorable rise of the OADR, we find that the REDR has fallen over recent decades in affluent countries, has stabilized now and is likely to increase only slowly over the next couple of decades.

New column day

Here, on why we shouldn't limit the range of possible contenders in the Saskatchewan NDP's leadership race - and the number of supporters an outside candidate might need to reach in order to find a place on a final ballot.

Demographics from the column are found here (as to Saskatchewan's Aboriginal population) and here (as to the urban/rural numbers).

On entrenched advantages

Alice explains how the long-form census is used in Canadian politics, rightly pointing out that it's the Harper Cons who have seemingly benefited most from the reliable data they're now seeking to eliminate.

But for all the Cons' past use of census-based demographic data, I have to wonder whether it might not be an entirely rational (if cynical) political calculation to avoid updating the mandatory long-form data in 2011. Could it be that the Cons - having done more with the 2006 data than their competitors - are entirely happy to preserve that advantage by ensuring that each party has to keep building on that foundation as best it can, rather than making available a new set of baseline demographic information that will allow the parties to start on an even footing?

Saskatchewan NDP Convention 2010 - The Long Term

Following up on last week's look at where the Saskatchewan NDP stands in the near future (i.e. the leadup to the 2011), let's take a look at the party's longer-term positioning. And for that, the most important talk from the Prince Albert convention is Cam Broten's talk on provincial demographics, which can be found here following his introduction to the policy review process.

Initially, it struck me as surprising that the party would set time aside for a discussion of demographic trends rather than focusing on its near-term political goals. But its long-term planning obviously has to be based on some awareness of what the province will look like several election cycles down the road - and there's reason for optimism that the NDP will be well-positioned for the changing look of Saskatchewan.

Importantly, Saskatchewan is one of the few provinces not facing the type of demographic time bomb of the type pointed out by Dan Gardner. Instead, we can count on a moderate but steady increase in base population - with that growth based almost entirely in First Nations communities. And likewise, the First Nations population may make for an important exception to the rule that residents will shift from rural to urban areas.

Meanwhile, the other factors influencing the makeup of Saskatchewan's population (being international and interprovincial migration) may be far more difficult to predict. Obviously the province will hope to keep growing in these departments as well, and all parties will try to ensure some inroads into communities of new residents - but it'll be a gamble to count on a mobile population as a party's base for the future.

Which means that beyond the current party starting points, the most obvious area for potential growth is First Nations voters present and future. And that dovetails nicely with the spotlight on Lawrence Joseph at the NDP's convention, as well as the party's commitment to First Nations issues (which is now being tailored to be more responsive to community needs).

Of course, there are still risks involved in counting on any one group as the source of future growth - and the NDP will need to make a particularly concerted effort to overcome a perception that the broader political system doesn't address First Nations needs in order to improve turnout levels. But at the very least, the NDP can point to the most obvious demographic trend as one which can realistically be expected to improve its position.

And the NDP's future strength is only amplified when contrasted against the latest Sask Party budget and its direct attacks on First Nations. One could see the Sask Party as trying to bypass traditional First Nations institutions and cultures to pull new voters into a melting pot, or perhaps figure that it's hoping for in-migration to overwhelm the growth in Saskatchewan's First Nations population. But either of those paths looks to rely primarily on blind hope rather than any great likelihood of success - and each could very easily backfire if the Sask Party's assumptions prove wrong.

All of which is to say that while the NDP's chances in 2011 may look better now than they did a few months ago, there's reason to think that the long-term future will be even brighter. And that should offer plenty of encouragement for citizens to get involved now, knowing that there may be an opportunity to implement the NDP's vision for the province over many election cycles to come.

Saskatchewan NDP Convention - Saturday Morning Notes

Some semi-liveblogging for those who can't get enough Saskatchewan politics on the weekend...

9:15

Saturday started with a report from Cam Broten as chair of the policy review process, followed by a presentation on demographic trends based on Doug Elliott's work. Of particular interest was the discussion of the province's population fluctuations: in particular, the Devine-era population boom was based on internal birthrates even as out-migration increased, while the future population trends are expected to be based mostly on interprovincial migration which (like most indicators) has been on the upswing since roughly the start of the NDP's 2003 term in government.

9:40

Mark Frison takes the podium to discuss his 10 Ideas for 2010, revolving around the idea of increasing participation rates in post-secondary education, particularly trades. While it's tough to disagree with most of the principles, I'd wonder if there's some need to tie the discussion into ways of retaining the newly-trained labour force as well: by way of example, the trend at the U of S' faculty of law (at least last I'd heard) was for roughly half the graduates to move out of province on graduation, and that hadn't changed even as the general migration trends improved.

9:50

Frison somewhat addresses the question of out-migrating graduates by noting that unlike in the past, there's no risk of an oversupply of labour to meet demand in the province. That's certainly one important factor to consider, but I'm not sure that oversupply has been much of an issue even as the outmigration has taken place in recent decades.

10:25

Another rousing speech from Lawrence Joseph on First Nations engagement, this time with a provincial focus. But probably the strongest message comes in his rightful observation that the convention's "Building Saskatchewan For All People" theme should instead end in "With All People". I'd like to think the party operates generally on the latter principle, with the policy review process as a prime example - but the distinction is worth keeping in mind.

12:10

One last entry on this post to discuss Dwain Lingenfelter's leader's address, which featured plenty of recognition for the accomplishments of Allan Blakeney, Roy Romanow and Lorne Calvert along with a strong theme that the party's direction should be based on its historic approach.

From my standpoint, the most interesting content I hadn't yet heard was Lingenfelter's goal for party membership - to reach 16,000 by the end of the year, and 20,000 by election day. But to assuage any worries that that might be difficult, Lingenfelter noted that we shouldn't be why about bringing in people currently involved in other parties - aptly mentioning Tommy Douglas' line that "when I started, everybody was a Liberal or a Conservative".

Now, those hoping for Lingenfelter to present an "aw shucks" message may have been disappointed. But the conventiongoers seem to have responded well - which is presumably the audience the NDP needed to reach.

(Edit: fixed typo.)