Is Income Inequality Really a Problem?

[peggy]

Ok haven't read Jensen but I doubt the argument is that the rich just *consume* so much ... I rather doubt they do. I think it is less about consumption and more about *power*. I think a better argument goes like this: the main beneficiaries of the economic system are the super rich and the whole economic system *doesn't seem to work* in terms of long term environmental survival. Clarification on main beneficiaries: the super rich hold VASTLY disproportionate wealth compared to everyone else. This includes ownership of stocks, including huge corporations, which are the very economic entities that make up our economic system and of course some of which are involved in destroying the planet. But this does not mean the rich are the only beneficiaries of the status quo. Anyway, we seem to be on a runaway train of environmental problems at the very least (this is inarguable), and if you take the extreme position environmental catatrophe, with no way to slow down. What blocks slowing down? Well the difficult nature of some of the problems doesn't help (some may have no solution) but .... we're at the point where we want to transport crude in pipelines over major aquifiers. This is just brain dead. And why, why must we do that? Because it is the cheapest path and well the major corporations sure like cheap? (and hey they own the politicians don't they?) Because people need jobs no matter how destructive those jobs are (it is not a job I would blame someone for taking, but risking the destruction of a major aquifier on which much FOOD depends for temporary jobs in your state - is just very destructive public policy!). Is there something wrong with an economic system that drives people to desperately take a job, any job, just to survive, no matter the long term consequences on their world?

..

I know! Isn't that pipeline over aquifer insane! I couldn't believe anyone would even consider it for a moment. And from what i heard, it won't even really bring that many jobs. The point of a pipeline is that it doesn't need to be tended to that much, once it's built. But this is a perfect example of the inequality of power-by-money. I guarantee you the 99% who rely on that water the pipe would go over don't want it, but let's see who wins.

[peggy]

I wouldn't phrase it quite like that, no.

There are a couple of billionaires down the street from me. They have 3-4 cars each, and nice yachts, and a couple of airplanes. Their impact on non-renewable resources and energy use is pretty large. But, I look around at the 4000 non-billionaires around here, and most of them have 1-2 cars made of 4000+ pounds of steel and aluminum, TVs, cell phones, eat fruit shipped thousands of miles, etc. etc.

I'm not going to blame "the highest echelons", but it sure looks to me like the First World is burning through energy and resources at an incredible rate. I suppose if you call "The First World" the mega-consumers or the "highest echelons", I'd go along with you :-) We could take all the billionaires, centi-millionaires, and heck, everyone with a net worth more than $1 million out behind the barn tomorrow, and it wouldn't make much difference in our overall consumption.

And the rest of the planet wants to consume and produce like we do.

With current and predicted population levels, and current and near-term technologies, that's not going to work.

This is true. Our consumption of energy outpaces everyone, and it's also true the rest of the world looks at us and says, I want that! so what do we do? We are stuck, really. We can choose to buy some little thing or not, shop at thrift stores, grow some of our own food, etc...but we need energy. In this modern society, we need lights and heat, and gas for the car. But we can't put an oil well in our backyards. We can put solar panels on the roof, but the price is so exorbitant, this isn't really a viable option for most people. But it is.
We are a smart bunch, we can do this, technologically, we can do this. But big energy doesn't want us to. Sure, they make noise about developing these things for the future, yada yada yada, but they don't really want us to be energy independent. They want us to be dependant, on them.
We have enough energy in this country, in the form of solar, wind, waves, and other alternative energy sources. There is plenty to go around, for everyone. And we even know how to capture it, and have the infrastructure to use it. Don't even need to re-invent the wheel. But big energy has invested a whole lot of money in our politicians to keep us from having that. They keep distracting us with excuses that the whole country can't run on a solar panel. What do you do when it's night? This is a distraction. if we keep looking for that one big solution, we'll never find it. But, if we use many little solutions, then it works. You have wind and waves, I've got wind and solar.
I just rambling now, I don't really know what we can do. I do know there is plenty of energy, but try to champion that and you are portrayed as a bit of an eccentric.
Now, if we pull our troops back and reduce the military, the savings could be applied to these technologies. And really, once we get off this oil addiction, a whole lot of world political problems go away.

[puglogic]

Well, I suppose it all comes down to what individuals are willing to do about income inequality.

For my part, here's what I do:

--Support small industry, micropreneurs, and local business all I can, especially if they're contributing something I consider valuable to my community, and especially if their business is their sole source of income.

--Support small farmers all I can. There was a recent study in Boulder county that showed that most of the non-corporate farmers could, at their income level, qualify for food stamps. I find that ridiculous, and so I do my part.

--Support people who want to work. We employ local people all we can, and I employ them for my business exclusively (although I would make more profit if I outsourced to Rajasthan). Not one of my subcontractors earns less than $40.00/hour from me, and I can physically see the effects that has on their quality of life, and on how their families live.

--Educate and elevate people every chance I get. I have helped several people who were despairing over under- or unemployment start small businesses that now help them make it financially. I've helped many more retool their lives so that they can survive making less money, and still have rich, fulfilling lives (thank you YMOYL)

We can talk about sweeping social and political change, and it's a great dream to have. But while all of the bickering continues in Washington, I want to continue to make my make here, in my own life. I'll do without fancy cable, an iPad, an expensive cell phone plan, etc., because I pour that disposable income back into my community instead.

There's a lot of talk about making sure that the bottom doesn't drop out of the safety net. What are others doing to help counter this in their own communities?

[flowerseverywhere]

Well, I suppose it all comes down to what individuals are willing to do about income inequality.

For my part, here's what I do:

--Support small industry, micropreneurs, and local business all I can, especially if they're contributing something I consider valuable to my community, and especially if their business is their sole source of income.

--Support small farmers all I can. There was a recent study in Boulder county that showed that most of the non-corporate farmers could, at their income level, qualify for food stamps. I find that ridiculous, and so I do my part.

--Support people who want to work. We employ local people all we can, and I employ them for my business exclusively (although I would make more profit if I outsourced to Rajasthan). Not one of my subcontractors earns less than $40.00/hour from me, and I can physically see the effects that has on their quality of life, and on how their families live.

--Educate and elevate people every chance I get. I have helped several people who were despairing over under- or unemployment start small businesses that now help them make it financially. I've helped many more retool their lives so that they can survive making less money, and still have rich, fulfilling lives (thank you YMOYL)

We can talk about sweeping social and political change, and it's a great dream to have. But while all of the bickering continues in Washington, I want to continue to make my make here, in my own life. I'll do without fancy cable, an iPad, an expensive cell phone plan, etc., because I pour that disposable income back into my community instead.

There's a lot of talk about making sure that the bottom doesn't drop out of the safety net. What are others doing to help counter this in their own communities?

an excellent post. Exactly what I have been trying to say. You have inspired me to do more than I do to spread the word and help others, I'll need to be really creative as I no longer work outside the home.

I try very hard when I buy something to have it made or grown in the USA. Local community first, then state then country. Local dairy, meats, beer and wine, vegetables and fruit are available to me. I won't be eating bananas but instead blueberries, strawberries, apples and peaches all grown here by me or local farmers and preserved by me. Other local crops are potatoes, tomatoes, onions, squash and corn. They are the basis of our diet.
I also do a lot of bartering, helping neighbors and friends and they do the same for me.

every day I strive to live by the motto live simply so others may simply live and set a good example. when people realize that I am over 60 and ride my bike everywhere unless it is snowing they are amazed. Riding my bike over 1000 miles this year really made me think about transportation and combining trips and saved a bunch of wear and tear on the car, gas and improved my health. all of these things serve to help to reduce pollution and consumption.

[Gregg]

I know! Isn't that pipeline over aquifer insane! I couldn't believe anyone would even consider it for a moment. And from what i heard, it won't even really bring that many jobs. The point of a pipeline is that it doesn't need to be tended to that much, once it's built. But this is a perfect example of the inequality of power-by-money. I guarantee you the 99% who rely on that water the pipe would go over don't want it, but let's see who wins.

I don't want to hijack the thread, but this is a good example of what the media is capable of. I'm in Nebraska, which was the only state to oppose the Keystone XL pipeline and also sits on top of a major portion of the Ogallala aquifer. There are some things that didn't get much play in other parts of the country...

First: the viscosity of the oil in the pipeline would have kept it from ever leaching far enough into the ground to contaminate the aquifer even in the event of a major rupture in the pipeline. It just is not physically possible for oil to do that. That is the consensus from a panel discussion held at the University of Nebraska. The panel was made up of professors and engineers who were not associated with TransCanada and one representative of the company. Some participants were petroleum engineers, but with no interest in the pipeline. Regardless of who was there it just didn't seem necessary to challenge the laws of physics to understand the real risks. The threat to the aquifer appears to be a work of fiction created by... The media on a slow news day? Environmental groups without a current cause? The few ranchers who didn't want to give up land to eminent domain?

The second point is that a lot of the opposition here, in Nebraska, was aimed at not at the aquifer, but at saving the sandhills region. It's a beautiful and fragile part of our state and a part that many of us here readily identify with. A major leak in the pipeline could have done significant damage to the surface features in the area. The opposition was strong enough that the route of the pipeline will now be shifted far enough east to avoid this part of the state.

A little misinformation and a little emotion can create quite a spin on ANY topic (even the effects of income inequality). That can make it hard to tell what the true effect is. It never hurts to remember that.

[bae]

Isn't the Ogallala primarily "old" water, with a very very low recharge rate, and in many placed overlaid with mostly-impermeable materials?

I've been working on critical aquifer area protection legislation here, and one thing that comes to mind is that geology really does matter, all aquifers are not the same, and the recharge rate varies significantly depending both on input and the ability of the ground layers to alllow water to move through.

While I haven't looked at this pipeline in particular, are they routing it over particularly sensitive areas, or is the claim that areas of South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas that are atop the Ogallala shouldn't have pipelines?

[puglogic]

when people realize that I am over 60 and ride my bike everywhere unless it is snowing they are amazed. Riding my bike over 1000 miles this year really made me think about transportation and combining trips and saved a bunch of wear and tear on the car, gas and improved my health. all of these things serve to help to reduce pollution and consumption.

You go, flowers!!!! I hope to learn to be more like you, be more self-sufficient with my feet and my bike as I head into my 50's and beyond. Another thing that saves money I can then pour into my neighbors' lives.

[freein05]

What I do not understand is why they don't build refineries in South Dakota instead of building a pipe line across 7 or 8 states. The possibility for spills seem large for a pipeline running something like 1000 miles and the cost to maintain it let alone build it can not be less than building new refineries.

[Alan]

There is one scheduled for construction in SD. The first one built in the US in 35 years. http://www.iwatchnews.org/2011/03/28...ive-toxic-acid

I think the issue is that the finished product will still need to be shipped to various parts of the world, making a seaport refinery ideal. I believe the pipeline is scheduled to deliver oil to refineries in Illinois, Oklahoma and various spots along the Gulf Coast. Over the long term, I suspect efficiency is at play in it's route.

[Gregg]

Isn't the Ogallala primarily "old" water, with a very very low recharge rate, and in many placed overlaid with mostly-impermeable materials?

In my understanding that is correct. I thought it was interesting that, because of the properties of heavy crude, the oil would not even be able to reach the impermeable cap.

There was a rather vocal contingent claiming no pipeline should be allowed to cross over the Ogallala aquifer, but there are already several dozen oil and gas pipelines of various size that do. Not that adding another is justified simply because someone else already did it, but it did take a little wind out of the protective argument.