Inequality Is Ruining Our Country

[bUU]

One might judge not well when compared with the top 1%.

Thanks for embedding a confirmation of what people have been saying to you, deep within what you quoted.

Regardless, it's quite an accomplishment to have found an editorial from which you could trim enough out of to totally insulate those, who wish to deny the existence of increasing economic injustice, from acknowledging that which was actually included in one of the paragraphs from the editorial, a paragraph which you conveniently omitted:

The CBO data also show, however, that the top quintile did much better than everyone else. From 1979 to 2010, the average after-tax income of the top 1% increased by 201%, to $1,013,100 from $337,700. The top 1% also took home almost 13% of all after-tax income in 2010. (Many of these families, though, are not ultrarich, as the starting pretax income for the 1% in 2011 was $388,905.)

The first hint of this deflection in the excerpts of the editorial was how practically all of what you quoted talked about income growth and mobility, of the middle class, without addressing the actual point made, the distance between rich and poor - so a double deflection... deflecting away from addressing poverty, and obscuring as much as practicable the absolute difference between top and bottom. It is very common for those who try to deny the trend toward increasing economic injustice to try to get the middle class, especially the upper middle class, to think only about themselves, to become utterly self-centered, because a more socially-conscious perspective would tend to undercut the deflection away from the worst part of the problem.

The second hint of this was that what you quoted factored in the value of public assistance, to inflate the economic status of the poor. That adjustment, of course, is rather the point. Remember, the point of raising concerns about economic injustice is to point out the increasingly one-sided power-structure, fostered by wealth-driven power. In the context of rabid calls to attack public assistance, as part of an overall antipathy for poverty amelioration for the poor and lower-middle class, comparisons that need to factor in the value of public assistance actually make the opposite point: In other words, if those defending the current state of economic stratification need to defend against charges of economic injustice by saying, "Hey look - these people don't have it so bad, because society provides them lots of financial assistance," then that ratifies, and makes into an imperative, society providing lots of financial assistance to the poor and lower-middle class.

And even if they'd admit that (which they won't), it still is a patently offensive attitude: "Let us hold the strings on these puppets who's desperation we wish to exploit; let us keep tugging away at the foundation of the social safety net (even though we've used it, above, to rationalize how things are) as a means of incrementally making things worse for those most vulnerable in society while making things better for ourselves and those supporters in the middle and upper-middle class that we can convert to abject self-interest."

The objective isn't to increase the disposable income of folks who already have disposable income, which is what you're measuring when you measure a broad average of disposable income. All that metric does is obscure the harm inflicted on those who have little or no disposable income. Rather, the point is to increase the number of people who have significant disposable income. Economic injustice doesn't go away just because an upper-middle class person can afford a new car instead of buying used. It goes away when everyone can afford to pay their own way for the basics they need, and when everyone secure their own futures, preferably without relying on public assistance.

There have been substantially more thorough and balanced perspectives expressed than that Neil Gilbert. Paul Krugman's confirmation of Piketty's premises is probably the best (although, in reality, Piketty's work stands on its own, if people are willing to allow themselves to acknowledge its conclusions instead of insulating themselves from having to face realities that undercut the legitimacy of their own desires).

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arch...ew-gilded-age/

Even though Piketty's work is relatively recent, much of what he put forward has been known for years. I can point to comments of my own that go back a number of years, similar to how Krugman summarized one of Piketty's conclusions:

... a dramatic shift in the process of US economic growth, one that started around 1980. Before then, families at all levels saw their incomes grow more or less in tandem with the growth of the economy as a whole. After 1980, however, the lion’s share of gains went to the top end of the income distribution, with families in the bottom half lagging far behind.

And the parallel between today's reality in the United States and the economic stratification in Europe just before is chilling.

I'm not going to rehash the entirety of the basis of Piketty's work and Krugman's summary of it. It's all there, in the provided link, including the equivocations.

[Yossarian]

deep within what you quoted.

LOL, not sure how you embed something deep within a handful of sentences but whatever.

As much as I'd like to join you in bashing U Cal Berkeley professors it's all really beside the point, the numbers are from the CBO. Just another data point for the "oh the middle class is so much worse off now than 30 years ago" crowd. Hmm, let's see... up 50%? Well OK then.

I think the worst part about your missive is that while it is well meaning it deflects the discussion from the real issue so much that it ends up being in the end harmful to the very people you (and the rest of us) want to help. The problems we have are not so much political as they are economic. I work a lot with international business. There are a lot of bright hard working people in the world. It is becoming increasingly hard to justify why un- or marginally skilled people in the US should continue to make more than harder working and often better skilled people elsewhere. It's resulting in convergence, with wages elsewhere going up (so much so that China is becoming too expensive) and downward pressure here in the US.

If you really want to help people you should focus on how we create a globally competitive economy and figure out a way to improve productivity for the at risk segment of the labor pool. That's the pressing isssue of the day. I'm not convinced the usual pablum of job training programs and the like is going to cut it. Anyone have any ideas?

[catherine]

If you really want to help people you should focus on how we create a globally competitive economy and figure out a way to improve productivity for the at risk segment of the labor pool. That's the pressing isssue of the day. I'm not convinced the usual pablum of job training programs and the like is going to cut it. Anyone have any ideas?

How about changing the paradigm to a locally/regionally/nationally cooperative economy and figure out a way to improve quality of life and meaningful work, as opposed to "improved productivity" (read: exploitation).

The problem with the money being in the hands of the 1% is that power is automatically conferred to the 1%, where everything can be bought and sold, undermining the government's ability to represent the 99%.

[Yossarian]

How about changing the paradigm to a locally/regionally/nationally cooperative economy

I'm not sure what that means. All business is cooperative. What are you proposing that is different than the status quo?

figure out a way to improve quality of life and meaningful work

Then all these income numbers and 1% targeting are irrelevant. There are plenty of low income people that have a higher quality of life and more meaningful work than high income people. I wouldn't know where to begin measuring that, but I do know I don't want the govenment trying to mandate or regulate it. Let people make their own choices.

as opposed to "improved productivity" (read: exploitation)

Either you don't understand economics or you have your thinking crossed.

The problem with the money being in the hands of the 1% is that power is automatically conferred to the 1%, where everything can be bought and sold, undermining the government's ability to represent the 99%.

I guess that could be true in theory. I haven't seen much evidence of it. Money is power but only to a point. We have a liberal president and up to a few years ago had liberal house and senate. If Obama and Pelosi aren't liberal enough for you I think your problem is more with the electorate, not the economic system.

[catherine]

I'm not sure what that means. All business is cooperative. What are you proposing that is different than the status quo?

I appreciate your responding to my post and not writing me off as a loon. It's true that I don't know a whole lot about economics, but I think I know enough about the basics to know that more thinking out of the box to make the existing status quo work better for everyone might do us all a lot of good.

I'm going to use David Korten's words to answer most of your questions. In short, I think that our current system, which everyone takes for granted, served us for a time, but given the specific problems we face it's time to move on. The real issue is, we're so ingrained in the status quo that changing how we think is understandably difficult to imagine.

Here's what Korten says:
http://livingeconomiesforum.org/site...%20version.pdf

The theme of this University of Oregon inquiry, “From Wall Street to Main Street:Capitalism and the Common Good,” makes an essential distinction between Wall Street and Main Street. These terms refer to two economies with dramatically differentstructures and dedicated to the service of very different values and interests. The fate of America turns on the outcome of a contest between proponents of these two very different economic systems. The greed-driven, money-serving, corporate-ruled Wall Street Economy measures its success exclusively by the financial profits it generates for the already rich. It neither acknowledges nor accepts responsibility for the economic, social, environmental, and political devastation it leaves in its wake. The democratic, community-rooted, market-based, life-serving Main Street economies that ordinary people are rebuilding across the nation and around the world measure success by their contribution to securing adequate and meaningful livelihoods for everyone in a balanced relationship to nature.

The differences between these two economies trace directly to their contrasting ownership models. The Wall Street economy features the absentee ownership of global publicly-traded, limited-liability corporations for which short-term financial profit is the sole measure of performance. It is a system designed to distribute wealth upward and risks downward and to facilitate reckless speculation and rampant fraud. Economic and political failure starts with Wall Street.

The Main Street economy features the responsible living ownership of locally rooted businesses by people who care about the health and vitality of their community and its natural environment. Real prosperity starts with Main Street.

[Rogar]

Then all these income numbers and 1% targeting are irrelevant. There are plenty of low income people that have a higher quality of life and more meaningful work than high income people. I wouldn't know where to begin measuring that, but I do know I don't want the govenment trying to mandate or regulate it. Let people make their own choices.

Bhutan has been using a gross national happiness index that includes a number of measure such as physical and mental wellness, environmental wellness, education, etc. They sponsored a resolution that was approved by the United Nations defining it as,

"happiness is fundamental human goal and universal aspiration; that GDP by its nature does not reflect the goal; that unsustainable patterns of production and consumption impede sustainable development; and that a more inclusive, equitable and balanced approach is needed to promote sustainability, eradicate poverty, and enhance well being and profound happiness."

Though I doubt that it is measurable in mathematical precision, I suspect it is measurable to some degree. I don't see it as having much chance of becoming a critical measure in the consumer based western cultures, but it is an interesting concept and probably doable.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Then all these income numbers and 1% targeting are irrelevant. There are plenty of low income people that have a higher quality of life and more meaningful work than high income people. I wouldn't know where to begin measuring that, but I do know I don't want the govenment trying to mandate or regulate it. Let people make their own choices.

I doubt many governments anywhere would restrict voluntary poverty. Poverty is often not voluntary and not a choice obviously. A high quality of life on a low income (and much more importantly on very LOW WEALTH because that's way more important than income) is probably much more doable in a non-urban environment (so that's probably the way to go) but there's a lot that runs against it in much of American society regardless.

If poverty was just poverty and having less - if poverty wasn't environmental discrimination (which neighborhoods are more polluted, rich or poor? Actually which areas of the country (read about Appalachia and the coal and the sickness and that's actually not urban). Which neighborhoods have more trees cleaning the air and doing all their other beneficial things, rich or poor? What are the rates of asthma etc. that are likely tied to the pollution concentrations in rich or poor urban neighborhoods?). If poverty was just poverty and wasn't legal discrimination. Who is less likely to serve time if they are accused of something, someone who can afford to hire a lawyer or someone who relies on the public defender? Not to mention if poor neighborhoods are treated differently by law enforcement. If poverty was just poverty and wasn't worse working conditions. Who is more likely to be treated badly by their boss, a minimum wage worker or a salaried professional? Sure it can happen in either but I don't think it's equally likely. Who is more likely to have more say over their work?

[catherine]

If poverty was just poverty and having less - if poverty wasn't environmental discrimination (which neighborhoods are more polluted, rich or poor? Actually which areas of the country (read about Appalachia and the coal and the sickness and that's actually not urban). Which neighborhoods have more trees cleaning the air and doing all their other beneficial things, rich or poor? What are the rates of asthma etc. that are likely tied to the pollution concentrations in rich or poor urban neighborhoods?). If poverty was just poverty and wasn't legal discrimination. Who is less likely to serve time if they are accused of something, someone who can afford to hire a lawyer or someone who relies on the public defender? Not to mention if poor neighborhoods are treated differently by law enforcement. If poverty was just poverty and wasn't worse working conditions. Who is more likely to be treated badly by their boss, a minimum wage worker or a salaried professional? Sure it can happen in either but I don't think it's equally likely. Who is more likely to have more say over their work?

Yes.

[catherine]

Difference between "Wall Street" and "Main Street":

[bUU]

As much as I'd like to join you in bashing U Cal Berkeley professors it's all really beside the point, the numbers are from the CBO.

Incorrect. It was a specific tilt on the numbers, contained within a partisan editorial you liked.

How about changing the paradigm to a locally/regionally/nationally cooperative economy and figure out a way to improve quality of life and meaningful work, as opposed to "improved productivity" (read: exploitation). The problem with the money being in the hands of the 1% is that power is automatically conferred to the 1%, where everything can be bought and sold, undermining the government's ability to represent the 99%.

Precisely the point. America has a "we" problem: Excessive fixation on the "me" by some.