It's enlightening to read the economic data popping out from the various number crunchers. Guess what? Productivity climbed beyond anyone's expectations, according to this story on The Wall Street Journal's website this morning:

Nonfarm business productivity jumped 4.3%, at an annual rate, in the second quarter, the Labor Department said Thursday. That's almost double the initial estimate of 2.2% growth.

   At the same time, in a different story in the same paper:

Private sector employment in the U.S. declined by 33,000 in August, in line with expectations, according to the ADP national employment report. The data are seen as an important precursor to the federal government's monthly report on nonfarm payrolls. That report will be released Friday before trading begins.

Meanwhile, the number of U.S. workers filing new claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose 15,000 last week, the Labor Department reported, remaining at an elevated level that suggests more declines in nonfarm payrolls.

   Of course, the genuises who wrote these stories--or, really, their editors--see these two stories as separate, not living in the same world. In fact, they are very closely connected:

   People are working their butts off harder than ever before, continuing the trend where productivity--how hard people work to produce the same thing--outpaces wages (which are supposed to go up when productivity goes up). And they are doing that because there are fewer jobs to find generally--and certainly fewer jobs at what is likely comparable pay.

   Duh.

   Throughout this election season, I've pointed out numerous times that the tide has shifted on trade, moving against so-called "free trade" and towards a trade policy that starts with the notion that trade is supposed to advance communities first, and corporations second. Believe me, I'm not saying the battle is over--far from it. But, the forces of so-called "free trade" are definitely on the defensive--as witnessed by the REPUBLICAN party platform.

   Here is what the Republican party says about trade:

Greater international trade, aggressively advanced on a truly level playing field, will mean more American jobs, higher wages, and a better standard of living. It is also a matter of national security and an instrument to promote democracy and civil society in developing nations.

With 95 percent of the world’s customers outside our borders, we need to be at the table when trade rules are written to make sure that free trade is indeed a two-way street. We encourage multilateral, regional, and bilateral agreements to reduce trade barriers that limit market access for U.S. products, commodities and services. To achieve that goal, Congress should reinstate the trade promotion authority every president should have in dealing with foreign governments. Trade agreements that have already been signed and are pending before Congress should be debated and voted on immediately. An aggressive trade strategy is especially important with regard to agriculture. Our farm economy produces for the world; its prosperity depends, more than ever before, on open markets. U.S. agricultural exports will top $100 billion this year. We will contest any restrictions upon our farm products within the World Trade Organization and will work to make the WTO’s decision-making process more receptive to the arguments of American producers.

We pledge stronger action to protect intellectual property rights against pirating and will aggressively oppose the direct and indirect subsidies by which some governments tilt the world playing field against American producers. To protect American consumers, we call for greater vigilance and more resources to guard against the importation of tainted food, poisonous products, and dangerous toys. Additionally, we recognize the need to support our growth in trade through appropriate development and support of our ports in order to ensure safe, efficient and timely handling of all goods.

   Let's be clear--the Republicans are still holding on to the mumbo-jumbo about "free trade" and calling for reinstituting "fast track" (trade promotion authority), which allows a president to submit trade agreements for an up-or-down vote by Congress with no amendments allowed--a power we should oppose whether the president is a Democrat or Republican.

   BUT--the fact that the platform has to talk about a "level playing field" and "tainted food, poisonous products and dangerous toys" is a direct reaction to the public's rejection, by widening majorities, including by Republicans, of the so-called "free trade" model. I am not arguing that the Republican ELITES and political leaders are going to throw so-called "free trade" over the side. But, it is clear that they have to assuage the deep skepticism voters feel about so-called "free trade".

   Certainly, don't count out the pro- so-called "free trade" forces. But, there is reason to be optimistic.

   You might remember that last week, I mused about the corporate visibility at the Democratic Convention in Denver. This isn't a small thing--do we think that those folks are ponying up six- and seven-figure contributions just out of civic pride? This isn't a new subject. But, it's worth continually hammering home.

   So, I've been carrying around this now-rumpled full-age ad in the Denver Post from Friday. It's an ad placed by the Denver host committee as a "thank you to our sponsors". It has a couple of hundred names. Yes, there are a few unions in the list. But, the list is basically a "Who's Who" of corporate America, particularly from industries with a very keen interest in what will happen in Washington in 2009 and beyond.

   Take insurance/health care: Prudential, Merck, Amgen, United Health Group, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, PhRMA, Aflac, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield. I'm sure all these folks are for single-payer health care...

   Or how about banks/financial services: KeyBank, Citi, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, Bank of America, First Bank, US Bank, Visa, Inc and the good folks from the National Association of Home Builders who never saw a sub-prime mortgage they didn't like. And these folks are very sorry about the mortgage crisis they helped create.

   And, then, there is the other assortment of corporate leaders: General Electric, Target, Coca-Cola, Waste Management, United Airlines, Verizon and FedEx...and many more...

   Change election, indeed.

  Well, Happy Labor Day, at least for the American version of it. So, let me crow a bit. For a very long time, I have been making the argument that using Gross Domestic Product as a measure of the well-being of the nation is phony (I haven't been the only one saying this, mind you). Check this out here, here and here, just for a few examples.

Yesterday, a little headway on this topic, via an article in the Times' Week in Review by Louis Uchitelle:

How else to explain that just when many Americans are not feeling so good at all about their circumstances, the gross domestic product is going up? Just last week, markets surged after the government announced that the G.D.P. had risen at an annual rate of 3.3 percent from April to June. But with all the turmoil in the economy, the product almost certainly would be shrinking if it were not restricted to cash transactions.

   And, then, this is a key point:

And over the last 15 years there has been just such a shift. While the G.D.P. has continued to rise, wages have stagnated, pensions have shrunk or disappeared and income inequality has increased. Other shortcomings have become apparent. The boom in prison construction, for example, has added greatly to the G.D.P., but the damage from the crimes that made the prisons necessary is not subtracted. Neither is environmental damage nor depleted forests, although lumbering shows up in government statistics as value added. So does health care, which is measured by the money spent, not by improvements in people’s health. Obesity is on the rise in America, undermining health, but that is not subtracted.

   GDP has makes the deep crisis enveloping worker over the past 2-3 decades. When GDP goes up and the nation is told to rejoice, no one really wants to hear alternative points of view that might seem like you are raining on the GDP parade--like pointing out that the celebration obscures the growing gap between wages and productivity, that the minimum wage is a poverty wage, that growing numbers of people have no health care or pensions (but, heck, sicker people create more business for hospitals and, then, add to the rise in the GDP!!!).

   A few thoughts about Sen. Obama's speech last, mainly from the perspective, as usual, for what it means for workers and labor. I was at Invesco Field last night. It was an amazing night, something you can say thirty years from now that you witnessed. One of the hardest things to do at a moment of great historical significance is to cut through the emotions and try to sift through the rhetoric and tease out some reality.

  I'm not going to repeat the usual, positive stuff--that would just bore the heck out of you. So, here were two of the thoughts I had last night at the time so they weren't just the result of sober reflection the next morning.

  First, Obama didn't use the word "union" even once--he did talk about raising teachers' pay and there was a reference to people walking on the picket lines. And these lines were important:

We measure progress by how many people can find a job that pays the mortgage; whether you can put a little extra money away at the end of each month so you can someday watch your child receive her college diploma.  We measure progress in the 23 million new jobs that were created when Bill Clinton was President - when the average American family saw its income go up $7,500 instead of down $2,000 like it has under George Bush.

We measure the strength of our economy not by the number of billionaires we have or the profits of the Fortune 500, but by whether someone with a good idea can take a risk and start a new business, or whether the waitress who lives on tips can take a day off to look after a sick kid without losing her job - an economy that honors the dignity of work.

   And...

Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America.

   Cool. But, where was the connection between what he correctly detailed as economic pain and crisis to the decline of the labor movement and the inability to organize? We heard the pro-union rhetoric a lot on the campaign trail. But, it troubles me that there was not, in a national appeal for "change" in America, an explicit connection drawn for an audience of millions between the lack of power they have at work and the attack on unions.

   Second, and I acknowledge this is a minority opinion and perhaps picky, but I'm not a big fan of American exceptionalism. Obama says:

And I will restore our moral standing, so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future.

 There are lots of things to love about the country we live in--unions that bring together people in communities to struggle for a common goal, for example. But, personally, I think we end up lording ourselves over the rest of the world with too much soaring references to the "American spirit" and the idea that one country is the "best hope" for anything.

   First, yours truly is supposed to be on CNBC today at 2:20 Eastern time debating the following: If Obama wins, unions will get a big boost.  Are unions bad or good for America?  You can come back here, if you see it, and keep the discussion going here (I emphasize "SUPPOSED TO BE" because these media slots can vanish as fast as a worker's pension). UPDATE: you can see the clip here.

   Since there isn't much drama in Denver--it's, in fact, kind of flat--one thing that keeps popping into view is the tremendous corporate influence everywhere you turn. I was at a media reception here and took a pic of a banner that listed the sponsors. Check it out:

Health care is in the air--and there are somewhat dueling camps here in Denver, which reflect what's happening day-to-day in labor. Last night, I attended a lively reception hosted by a variety of groups--the California Nurses Association and Progressive Democrats of America--who support HR676, the bill that would enact essentially a single-payer system. The bill's major champion  is Rep. John Conyers. Conyer was at the reception but I couldn't stay to here is remarks.

At the reception, besides Conyers, were CWA president Larry Cohen, Greg Junemann, president of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers and, though not officially on the program, Karen Ackerman, political director of the AFL-CIO. Readers here know that I don't quite understand why the labor movement isn't solidly behind single-payer...but, regardless, it's good to see some folks are ready for the fight. At least for the time I was there, nothing unusual was said other than to emphasize that the polls show that the people would embrace a single-payer system. So, you kind of wonder, "what the fuck is holding us back?" Pardon my french but this is a particularly annoying thing to me.

   Today, other pieces of labor will hold two rallies on health care. The first one will be a morning "parade the politicians" affair hosted by SEIU and Families USA at the Denver Center for the Performing Arts.Besides Andy Stern and SEIU Secretary Treasurer Anna Burge (you can see her address to the convention last night here), other speakers include SEIU Healthcare Chair Dennis Rivera and a slew of elected officials, including Hillary Clinton. Later on, at 3 p.m., there will be an outdoor rally and march, including Chuck D, Ben Gibbard and Chris Walla of Death Cab for Cutie. That particular rally is sponsored by  SEIU, Healthcare United, Health Care for America Now (HCAN), the National Education Association (NEA), Colorado for Health Care, Families USA, the American Medical Student Association (AMSA), and Jobs With Justice.

   If you were to characterize this constellation of folks, you would say that they are not wedded to single-payer and would support some form of universal health care that kept the private insurance industry in the game. I think that's a mistake. BUT--I hope we can have a debate that doesn't pit slogans like "naive/unrealistic" versus "sell-outs"--it will just feel like the trade debate which falsely pits the debate as one between "free trade" and "protectionism". It doesn't shed much light on the topic.

   Anyway, I'll get some details on the rallies--might not be til later.

   No, I have not just been sleeping in bed. Yes, it was a long night--again...the hot party of the night was at The Samba Room, courtesy of Planned Parenthood, where a darn good DJ kept the place hopping (I, of course, participated in the close-contact sport of dancing). It's just hard to blog here first thing when you're running from one place to another (and also trying to comply with the very dumb DNC credentialing procedure, which requires that you get your ass over to a hotel to get a new credential each day...what a waste of time).

   Anyway, just came from a panel discussion on a new movie called "The Battle in Seattle". The flick describes the events in 1999 when tens of thousands of trade activists, mostly union members, shut down Seattle during the meetings of the World Trade Organization. It was a turning point in the fight against so-called "free trade", which culminated in the collapse of the trade talks in Doha. The panel brought together Teamsters president Jim Hoffa and Steelworkers president Leo Gerard, both of whom lead the labor protests in Seattle; the director, Stuart Townsend, and actress Charlize Theron, who is one of the cast in the film.

   To get to the activism part right away, if you go the film's website, you can actually arrange to have the film seen. Do it. People need to be reminded, as Gerard said, what happened in Seattle. As Gerard described it, the protests lifted the rock up that had covered up what the WTO was up to. Hoffa spoke positively about the "chaos" that was created--and essentially said we need more chaos these days to continue to shake up the status quo.

   One thing I liked about Townsend's perspective--he wanted to do a feature film, not a documentary, because he wanted people to be entertained and inspired at the same time. Jeez, if only progressives could understand that there is not a contradiction between entertainment AND politics.

   To really make sure the stake is driven through the heart of so-called "Free trade", this movie needs to get wide distribution. Hollywood did not want it made--the financing came from outside the country and it was filmed in Canada. So, it's up to union members. leaders anad activists to give it a home.

   Of course, in typical convention fashion, mojitos, margaritas and other drinks were served to the audience at the restaurant where the panel took place--at 11 a.m.!!! I declined to drink. I can't start at 11 and make it the whole day--not at my advanced age.

   So, friends, here in Denver, I've finally gotten strapped to my chair after a very busy morning (okay, it was a groggy one given the...eh...number of margaritas that I was forced to consume last night--only in the service of talking to people to bring you the best info).

More after the jump...