Reihan Salam is guest-blogging for Andrew Sullivan, and he's just put up a typically thoughtful post on inequality:
It often seems as though right-wingers are trying to make light of inequality by pointing to consumption inequality, and that left-winger take inequality seriously by zeroing in on income and wealth inequality as meaningful metrics. I think, emphasis on think, that this is the wrong way of looking at things.
In The End of Equality, Mickey Kaus drew an insightful contrast between "Money Liberals," focused on income and wealth, and "Civic Liberals," focused on our shared institutions. His basic take was that while money inequality was a lost cause, we could create excellent schools and an excellent public healthcare system that all would be proud to use. These institutions, in turn, would serve as engines of mobility and opportunity. It's an attractive vision, though I can't say that it's my own. I suppose I'm more skeptical about the ability of even the best-run bureaucracies to adapt to fast-changing circumstances. But Kaus's framework is worth keeping in mind.
What exactly are the consumptionists telling us? My sense is that they are telling us that material deprivation isn't a pressing problem in the United States. This point, very narrowly understood, isn't very controversial. But it also doesn't establish that inequality is not a problem. Far from it. Consider the ever-present danger that a wealthy elite will use its disproportionate political power to entrench its privilege. Though I'm pretty optimistic about American life, and though I cheer lustily for the market economy, it seems clear to me that something like this state of affairs already exists. Of course, my view is a little idiosyncratic, e.g., I tend to see things like, say, the tobacco settlement or a cap-and-trade system or Wal-Mart agitating for ostensibly "progressive" labor market regulations as examples of this kind of oligarchic self-dealing, etc. Other views can just as easily fit this framework. Inequality isn't a problem because the hell of Anglo-Saxon capitalism is leading to people dying on their feet: it could be a problem "merely" because it corrupts our democratic institutions, a corruption that has corrosive effects on our life chances. That is, Money Liberalism could be an essential instrument for achieving Civic Liberalism.
Again, I don't actually think this view is right, but it's at least somewhat persuasive, which is more than can be said of the view that the economic immiseration of half or a third of Americans is the central fact of our time.
I also disagree with the notion that the concentration of wealth is a large political problem. Europe is, if anything, even more elite-dominated than America, despite radically less income inequality. And while the wealthy certainly have the ear of politicians, and also give a lot of money to those politicians, it's not clear to me how tightly these things are linked on matters of broad national policy. It's clear and obvious that people who give campaign contributions get favors that are large to them, but small from the perspective of the nation: a $14 million tax break for Florida loggers, or what have you. But the president of GM makes no campaign contributions; I bet he still gets his phone calls returned by politicians, especially if they happen to be from Michigan. I think that if there is a problem, it is that high concentrations of economic power may make the current distribution of wealth intergenerationally self-sustaining. I don't mean because they lobby for the repeal of the estate tax; the tax falls hardest on the lower tier of wealthy people, which is not where inequality is increasing the fastest. Also, the increase in inequality seems more linked to job earnings than to assets. But in America, money buys access to things, particularly education, but also opportunities like unpaid internships, that make it easier to get a high-paying job. This may be more worrisome than big wealth concentrations. Wealth is eroded over time, either by lazy heirs or the sheer multiplication of descendants; hence the phrase "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations". But if the rich start passing on, not money, but the habits, skills, and social capital to make your own money, the result could be an aristocracy more deeply entrenched than any ever seen in America. Conservatives might rejoinder that this elite might be more entrenched, but less effective, since much of what it is handing its descendants are positive endowments such as virtue and education; endowments that can't be realized without a substantial amount of work by those descendants. I don't think that's right--our education system daily gives lie to the notion that America nurtures any sort of equality of opportunity--but even if it were, we'd need to think hard about the character of a nation with a hereditary educational aristocracy.
But if the rich start passing on, not money, but the habits, skills, and social capital to make your own money, the result could be an aristocracy more deeply entrenched than any ever seen in America.
Are you saying the rich don't do this already? That habits, skills, and social capital are currently equally distributed across economic classes, but there is an ominous trend in rich people telling their children to practice thrift, hard work, and prudent investing which is going to lead, sometime in the future, to stratification?
I'm really confused. In one sentence, please: What is changing or going to change soon which will lead to less mobility?
"But the president of GM makes no campaign contributions." General Motors does not have a president; the office was dissolved in 2003. Rick Wagoner is Chairman and CEO. Maybe he's the one you're talking about who doesn't make campaign contributions.
I don't know why this doesn't get more attention, but I think a class in money management and entrepreneurship should be mandatory for every high school student. This class would contain very basic ideas including how to calculate income, how to calculate expenses, definitions of assets and liabilities, how to think about interest, how to write a business plan and what the local rules are for filing for a business license. You don't need a college degree to start a business.
Even if nobody in the class actually started a business, it should at least give them enough knowledge to read and understand a mortgage agreement.
But if the rich start passing on, not money, but the habits, skills, and social capital to make your own money, the result could be an aristocracy more deeply entrenched than any ever seen in America.
This was essentially the major worry and point of Charles Murray in The Bell Curve in the concluding chapters, believe it or not. He was worried that the meritocratic revolution, while initially greatly increasing movement between classes, had succeeded in more closely aligning class/wealth with not just money but also habits, skills, and social and intellectual capital than before. His was further concerned that these habits would be easier to pass on than money/ harder for those born without them to obtain. (He argued largely genetically on the basis of various studies, but something can be environmental but still passed on from parents and hard to change. It's a fallacy to make the leap from "the cause in environmental" to "it's easy to change the result.") Part of his worry was that the new aristocracy would feel far more justified in their superiority than the old; most people feel that people don't deserve success on the basis of being born wealthy, but feel like their success on the basis of being born intelligent is more deserved.
There are counter arguments to all of this, and I'm not convinced, but you're hardly the first person to worry about it.
In one sentence, please: What is changing or going to change soon which will lead to less mobility?
The theory would go, I believe: Previous successes in opening up meritocracy have meant that most of the poor-but-with-good-habits have escaped poverty, leaving behind the harder cases (who now lack role models) and thus decreasing mobility.
Again, not sure how far I'd go with it, but it's certainly true that a trend of greater openness-- smart kids from throughout the country can go to the best schools and get the most high paying jobs in Manhattan and elsewhere-- has led in other ways to some increasing inequality, as those "best and brightest" leave their old communities, and the difference in income between them and those they left behind is so great.
Europe is, if anything, even more elite-dominated than America, despite radically less income inequality.
I don't understand what this means. What do you mean by "elite-dominated"? What do you mean by "elite", and what do you mean by "dominated"? European nations have equal or greater income mobility than the US. European politics are conducted by membership-based parties, depend dramatically less on political contributions by economic elites, and allot far more influence to labor unions, professional organizations, and other non-elite bodies than US politics do. The past 3 US presidents attended Harvard and Yale; the next one will most likely have attended Harvard or Wellesley, unless in a longshot it turns out to be a Naval Academy graduate whose dad was Commander of the US Pacific Fleet. What is it that you mean when you say Europe is more "elite-dominated"?
I think it's more likely that, not being European, you notice their elites more sharply than you do your own, whom you take for granted.
Hmm, you seem to fall into the usual US trap of lumping all the countries of Europe into one big heap:
"Europe is, if anything, even more elite-dominated than America, despite radically less income inequality."
If you look at some of the countries with the least income inequality - the 3 Scandinavian countries - I think you will find them much less elite-dominated than the United States (and yes, that's the "United States of America", not "America").
I think the point about Europe can be supported by a story like this.
There's an issue about whether the grandes ecoles allow the elites to persist across generations. But within a generation, you get an elite that looks out for each other more than its US equivalent/
What is it that you mean when you say Europe is more "elite-dominated"?
I can't speak for anyone else, but there is a well-known "democracy deficit" in the EU power structure, and European governments' policies (on the death penalty, immigration, and increased EU integration for instance) are famously out of step with public opinion polling.
Labor unions and professional organizations are no more "non-elite" than are political parties; they are run by elites selected from their membership whose agendas may or may not be those of the line workers: just like their counterparts in the US.
the 3 Scandinavian countries
Which one fell into the Baltic?
the 3 Scandinavian countries
Which one fell into the Baltic?
Which countries do you think constitute the Scandinavian countries? For your information, it's Denmark, Sweden and Norway. You may be thinking of the Nordic countries which includes Finland. Another common mistake...
Except for advocates of "Greater Sweden".
Nordic countries: posted too quickly, forgot to add that Iceland belongs in that group too (Faroe Islands and Greenland are part of Denmark for foreign policy purposes).
I'd say it's rather self evident that the upper-income professional class these days spends a large amount of their time and resources attempting to give their children every advantage possible. I hope, Megan, that you don't think that this, in and of itself is a bad thing.
The problem, I think, is in figuring out what you do about those groups that cannot or will not do likewise for their children.
Obviously there is space for improvement in the public education system, but this is, unfortunately, only half of the required recipe for success.
A harder to address but perhaps more important element is a child's work ethic and drive to succeed. But how can the government possibly hope to instill the (slightly neurotic) "yuppie" work ethic in children where their parents can't or won't do so themselves? This isn't simply an income/resource/education inequality problem.
Anecdotally, I think the contrast between the established American "poor" and recent immigrants in this area is very instructive. The latter, in my experience, seem to have no problem instilling an admirable work ethic and "boot strapping" ambition in their children, with very effective results. I don't have reliable statistics handy, but it would not surprise me to hear that there is far more upward economic mobility amongst recent immigrants to the US than there is amongst the "native" US working class population.
I'd say it's rather self evident that the upper-income professional class these days spends a large amount of their time and resources attempting to give their children every advantage possible. I hope, Megan, that you don't think that this, in and of itself is a bad thing.
The problem, I think, is in figuring out what you do about those groups that cannot or will not do likewise for their children.
Obviously there is space for improvement in the public education system, but this is, unfortunately, only half of the required recipe for success.
A harder to address but perhaps more important element is a child's work ethic and drive to succeed. But how can the government possibly hope to instill the (slightly neurotic) "yuppie" work ethic in children where their parents can't or won't do so themselves? This isn't simply an income/resource/education inequality problem.
Anecdotally, I think the contrast between the established American "poor" and recent immigrants in this area is very instructive. The latter, in my experience, seem to have no problem instilling an admirable work ethic and "boot strapping" ambition in their children, with very effective results. I don't have reliable statistics handy, but it would not surprise me to hear that there is far more upward economic mobility amongst recent immigrants to the US than there is amongst the "native" US working class population.
There are any number of other Megan MacBeths agonizing to lift the poor into a higher social class. See Barack Obama, also the mayor of Dallas Tom Leppert. If you come from a white middle class family which has a bad year however you can forget about going to Harvard or Stanford. Just going to have to work like the poor folks can.
You may be thinking of the Nordic countries
Indeed. I was thinking of the colorful cross flags. Iceland would be included there, too, I guess.
"Far from it. Consider the ever-present danger that a wealthy elite will use its disproportionate political power to entrench its privilege."
Heaven forbid... When was there a society in history that didn't have a wealthy elite trying to protect its interests?
Still, I have doubts about the consumption argument. It certainly is true that the current inequality in living standards is much less than would infer from looking at the income distribution alone. If low income people are maintaining their consumption through borrowing, then they are compromising their ability to accumulate wealth over time.
This could indeed be worrisome. It could produce serious social strains.
"our education system daily gives lie to the notion that America nurtures any sort of equality of opportunity"
If one is seeking to critique economic right-wingers, this would assume that they approve of the status quo public education system. That's far from the case. If public education were improved significantly, that would make those now in bad schools (ie. the lower class) more able to compete in postsecondary education and the marketplace.
I'm with dsr in thinking that the upper class training their children to succeed isn't a bad thing. The solution is for government to do what it can to uphold is end of the bargain in areas it controls, ie. K-12 education, security, infrastructure, and in so doing not be a hinderance to those in the lower class. Poor governance entrenches poverty in the US just as much as Africa, albeit different levels of poverty.
Beth:
"Elite-dominated" has a lot to do with social norms as well as raw numbers. Consider Sweden. In 1999, The Economist claimed that Investor AB, the Wallenberg holding company, controlled "companies making up an astonishing 40% of the Stockholm bourse by value." A similar situation with regards to the NYSE would raise eyebrows in the US.
Brooksfoe:
I'm most familiar with the German educational system. In Germany, when you are 10 years old - you are sent to either Hauptschule, Realschule, or Gymnasium. Only by graduating from Gymnasium and passing the Abitur can you attend University. While they have made some changes - in most cases that decision when you are 10yo is final. No matter what you do, if they don't send you to Gymnasium when you're 10 you can't go to University.
In the US 32% graduate from College in Germany only 16% does.
By "elite-dominated" I think Megan is referring to the much smaller pool of college graduates that have the credentials needed to enter into the highest levels of German society.
Also, the is great concern in Germany that only the children of the wealthy/professional class seem to be able to get into Gymnasium.
Now, the income gap between a German Doctor and a working class German factory worker aren't as wide as similar people in the US. However, the likelyhood that the children of working class Germans will rise into the professional class is lower than in the US.
Regardless of whether an elite is established by wealth, birth, schooling, or membership in a club, it is always true that:
The ability of any elite to use the power of the government to entrench itself is directly proportional to the power of the government.
The ability of any elite to use the power of the government to enrich itself is directly proportional to the power of the government over the economy.
Education.
I would say school choice can help the most. The opposition to school choice is the support of keeping poor kids trapped in bad schools.
There should also be more support for adult education programs... these programs shouldn't just be about job skills but also about life skills - like learning the benefits of saving.
"Consider the ever-present danger that a wealthy elite will use its disproportionate political power to entrench its privilege."
Isn't the opposite more likely to be the case? After all, we keep importing immigrants from Mexico who are poor, and, if history is any guide, will stay poor for generations. As their U.S.-born children grow up, they will vote in their perceived economic interests, and our politics may trend more in the direction of Venezuela's or Bolivia's.
By "elite-dominated" I think Megan is referring to the much smaller pool of college graduates that have the credentials needed to enter into the highest levels of German society.
This is a fair argument. However, at this point, it is strongly counterbalanced by the dramatically more egalitarian and overall better quality of universal primary and secondary education in most European countries. The system I'm familiar with is the Dutch one, which has some similarities to the German one in terms of the anachronistic choice point for kids at age 11 I think, when you get tracked to Gymnasium/Athenaeum, HBO, or vocational school. More recently it's become possible for high-scoring kids in vocational high schools to shift back onto university track, and there's a conscious attempt to emulate the more flexible "anglo-saxon" educational model.
But the main point is that there isn't a school anywhere in the Netherlands that looks as bad, as poor, or as racially segregated as an inner-city all-black public school in Washington, DC or East St. Louis. As for Rob's point about the Grandes Ecoles, I don't think anyone has ever done a comparative study of the influence of the Grandes Ecoles vs. the Ivy Leagues.
My feeling is that because there is less class segregation in European societies, at this point a smart kid from a poor family in a European city has a better chance of making it into the "elite" of a European society, defined by income, professional status or political influence, than does a smart kid from a poor family in the US.
The question of whether the head of the UAW is "elite" in the same sense that Steve Forbes is "elite" simply underlines the point I was making that we don't seem to know what we're talking about when we say "elite". It's tautological to say that the management of any organization is "elite", and then say that a society is "elite-dominated". I would say that because unions are membership organizations which represent the interests of working-class people, it's absurd to call them "elite" in the sense that billionaires who represent their own interests are "elite". Billionaires have more political influence in the American system than in European ones, and, because the social contract is less egalitarian in the US, there are more of them (and proportionately lower incomes for the rest of us).
The ability of any elite to use the power of the government to enrich itself is directly proportional to the power of the government over the economy.
Um, yeah, and the ability of chimney sweeps, poor women, me, or [Group X] to use the power of the government to enrich themselves is also directly proportional to the power of the government over the economy. Take the government out of the picture, and the economy is characterized by the unrestrained ability of elites to enrich themselves, period. It kind of depends on whose interests you think the government should serve -- whether you think the whole "government of the people, by the people, for the people" thing is really important, or whether it's just some piece of Communist propaganda. Us Americans tend to think it's kind of important.
Previous successes in opening up meritocracy have meant that most of the poor-but-with-good-habits have escaped poverty, leaving behind the harder cases (who now lack role models) and thus decreasing mobility.
So any recent decrease in income mobility is evidence of a fairer society?
Sounds like you will have a hard time convincing many people that the stupid and lazy don't deserve to be poor.
Brooksfoe:
"My feeling is that because there is less class segregation in European societies"
"Hauptschulen were often described as having poor reputations and large foreign student populations. From our observations, there is no doubt that a large percentage of the foreign students are tracked to the Hauptschule."
"Gymnasien tended to attract a more select group of students both in terms of intellectual interests and family background. The parents themselves had often attended a Gymnasium"
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/GermanCaseStudy/chapter3c.html
At least in Germany, class is determined when you're 10 years old, and that decision is hugely impacted by family background.
Brooksfoe:
Some more numbers:
"Statistics from 1989, for instance, show that 7.6 percent of 13- and 14-year-old students at the Hauptschule and 67.1 percent of the same age group attending Gymnasium came from families whose head of household worked as an employee and had an Abitur. Among German parents who worked as laborers without a vocation, the figures are almost exactly reversed (MPI 1994)."
Re: But in America, money buys access to things, particularly education, but also opportunities like unpaid internships, that make it easier to get a high-paying job.
The rich also have something else going for them: they are rich enough the insure themselves against losing their money (and ultimately against losing their good habits). No wealthy person goes bankrupt because of a chronic health problem. Substance abuse usually generates a trip to Betty Ford (with at worst a judicial slap on the wrist milked by the tabloids). Job failure comes with a golden parachute. Ex-spouses may take one to the cleaners but one comes out with enough intact that within a few years the loss is history-- the rich man with non-custodial children to support does not see 50%+ of his income swallowed up by the Friend of the Court. The wealthy cannot fail the way the rest of us can no matter how badly they screw up.
Re: For your information, it's Denmark, Sweden and Norway. You may be thinking of the Nordic countries which includes Finland.
Huh? Scandinavia comprises Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland and sometimes Iceland (which was long ruled by Denmark and whose population is decended from medieval Norwegians). "Nordic" refers to the Germannic-speaking members of the group-- everyone except Finland (though some Swedish is still spoken there).
Now as far as the argument about "The Elite" goes, I think we need to define "Elite". I think that some people are using it to mean "the Rich" while others are using it to mean "the Powerful". In the US wealth is becoming increasingly closed off, but power is not. While in Europe the opposite is true: more income mobility, but the governing elite are isolated to a degree that the American governing elite are not.
Re: As their U.S.-born children grow up, they will vote in their perceived economic interests, and our politics may trend more in the direction of Venezuela's or Bolivia's.
Yes, the same way all our poor 19th immigrants ran American democracy aground on the shoals of Fascism or Socialiasm, as was long predicted. I don't doubt that the poor, immigrant or not, may end up voting for liberal policies, but there is simply nothing remotely Chavezist or Peronist in American politics. So at most they will end up voting for mildly liberal Democrats since that's all that's available in our nation (and their descendants, being conditioned by the American political system, will know no other possibilities anyways-- someone like John Edwards will be as good as it gets for them). The same exact political process can be noted in 20th century ethnic voters who became a mainstay of the (then, more liberal) Democratic party.
The estate tax affects homes over $2 million USD, and over $4 million USD for couples. Even if these people are the "lower-tier wealthy", wouldn't you say that they're still high enough on the ladder?
Um... so rich people have a better life and more opportunity. Their kids also have more opportunities and more advantages.
Duh?
Is this really a problem that needs to be fixed?
Is this really a problem that needs to be fixed?
Only if you think "fair" is good, and "unfair" is bad.
Um... so rich people have a better life and more opportunity. Their kids also have more opportunities and more advantages.
Duh?
Is this really a problem that needs to be fixed?
It's not a problem. It's a fact of life. It's also a fact of life that poor people steal from the rich so they can become rich themselves.
Is that a problem?
Duh? No.
(God, I do love class warfare.)
Is there even a problem with rich people--as individuals--using their wealth to buy undue influence? Sure, corporations do it, but this has nothing to do with individual wealth or income inequality.
I can't think of that many examples of this happening. There's George Soros, I guess, and the Waltons promoting school vouchers, but I have a hard time seeing any of this as a major problem, especially if the rich aren't all on the same side.
Thinking about what life will be like in 2500 A.D., I can envision two broad alternatives.
In the first, inequality is much higher than it is today. The wealthiest humans are worth many trillions of dollars, because they own significant equity stakes in companies they helped found. These companies provide valuable products and services to the solar system’s 100 billion or so inhabitants. Meanwhile, the poorest humans (at least, in civilized societies) still live in public housing and receive food stamps, and still have a net worth of essentially zero. However, there have been staggering technological and medical advancements, and the poorest of 2500 A.D. are as better off than the poorest of 2000 A.D. as the latter were over feudal peasants.
In the second, inequality is the same as today, or even lower. Neither the poorest, the richest, nor anyone in-between is much better off than they are today. In fact, a majority may actually be worse off, depending on the extent to which governments have enforced the Marxist/socialist/progressive “ideal” of equality.
"Regardless of whether an elite is established by wealth, birth, schooling, or membership in a club, it is always true that:
The ability of any elite to use the power of the government to entrench itself is directly proportional to the power of the government.
The ability of any elite to use the power of the government to enrich itself is directly proportional to the power of the government over the economy."
Posted by Oildrilling Lunatic | February 18, 2008 5:58 PM
X2
Even if you could magically make everyone intellectually and financially equal, at a point in time, society would re-stratify unless direct actions were taken to prevent re-stratification.
There are (were) several examples of societies in which this equality was theoretically the case. I suspect most of us would not freely choose (or have chosen) to live in any of them. (Equality of deprivation and suffering is generally unappealing.) I also suspect most of us would agree that the theoretical case did not really exist in practice.
While "All animals are equal" in theory, "some animals are" in practice, always "more equal than others". Even our most egalitarian legislators seem willing to have their retirement system separate from Social Security, though they have so far not seen fit to print that message in large letters on the side of their "barn".
"Only if you think "fair" is good, and "unfair" is bad."
You put it in quotes, but still let's be clear - what you're saying is that everyone should define "fair" and "unfair" the way you do, encompassing only income/wealth, regardless of effort, contribution or personal preferences. If you read accounts of communism being forced at the local level (even ignoring the vastly unequal treatment of the rulers over the ruled), what you see is that forced sharing in practice was considered wildly unfair, because it ignored effort and contribution. Since effort and contribution can never be truly equal, equal distribution of income guarantees inequality, and it does so in a way that yields many perverse incentives.
If some prefer to work harder and build up more wealth, while others prefer to relax and consume leisure rather than material goods, who are you to say that they shouldn't be allowed this choice simply because it doesn't fit your narrow definition of fairness? As Rob Leder and Ed Reid have pointed out above, your definition of fairness inevitably makes us all much poorer, because forcing greater equality of income and wealth means that less wealth is created.
Your idea of fairness is that it's good to hurt everyone, as long as the richest get hurt the most. That is not a universal definition of "fair", it's your own personal definition.
P. O'Neill,
Gotta love the NY Times. In an article that (correctly) states that the French business elite is "nearly all male", they illustrate it with a photo of the École Polytechnique in which the only people visible are 2 women.
Here's a link to a story about a guy who decided to start with $25 as an experiment and see if he could build up from that...
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=4298321&page=1
"Only if you think "fair" is good, and "unfair" is bad."
Fair is keeping what you earn. Unfair (and I should add -unwise) is punishing the most productive members of society.
Nelson:
Hey, that was a great story. So clearly there is no need to change anything at all, the poor are all adequately cared for and the opportunity is there, those who are homeless are all only that way because they are lazy or mentally ill. What a country! as Yakov Smirnoff said.
Ann:
What is "wealth?" If you mean there would be less concentration of money in few hands, yes, there would be less of that. But to go from that to "less wealth [would be] created" is kind of a stretch. Arguably productivity would be higher if everyone was forced to work at maximal capacity; the problem is that in practice it's simply not possible to do that. Communism would probably work if we were all robots devoid of our own motivations. Since we are not, we have to make allowances for individual variation.
It's also my personal definition, and it's the personal definition of the millions who call themselves "social democrats," so you can take that high horse and stick it back in your barn. Personal definition. Hah! Your idea of fairness is apparently that everyone should keep as much as they can grab and hold on to. That is also not a universal definition of "fair," it's your own personal definition. God I hate ad hominem arguments.
Speaking of Rob Leder:
Only two broad alternatives? How limited. I can envision many other broad alternatives.
It says volumes about your ideology that you point to this as your preferred "broad alternative." We should not oppose a return to the Feudal system of the Dark Ages, because the poorest will still be so much better off than they were a thousand years ago! They should be happy with the scraps from the tables of their masters, because the scraps will be of so much higher quality!
There's a reason that the romantic futures we describe in literature and film are overwhelmingly dominated by monarchical, aristocratic elites. Everyone wants to live in that kind of society, but underlying that desire is the assumption that they would be among those elites (if not the top dog). Everyone wants to be a Jedi like Luke Skywalker or a Queen Amygdala/Princess Leia. Nobody wants to be Watto the slave merchant or Rebel Snow Trooper #23. Everyone conveniently forgets that in a world where you have Luke Skywalkers and Princess Leias you also have Count Dookus and Senator Palpatines, and that without the benefit of The Scriptwriter those fellows tend to win out.
I would say that because unions are membership organizations which represent the interests of working-class people, it's absurd to call them "elite"...
And I'd say, why not go ahead and claim that any elective government represents the interests of the voters, so all this worry about regulatory capture and "elites" is just foolish?
The people at the top of a union are just as corrupt and interested in perpetuating their power as any CEO or politician. There is no reason to think that they will be more effective representing workers than the local parliamentary representative is.
To (probably) mangle an excellent quote from a '60's liberal, "All labor leaders are sensitive to the working class. That's how they avoid belonging to it."
So yes, we need to define "elite" here somehow.
Liberalrob, I broadly agree with your last post, but you're creeping me out with your "40 Year Old Virgin" impression. Stop it!
Ann says:
If some prefer to work harder and build up more wealth, while others prefer to relax and consume leisure rather than material goods, who are you to say that they shouldn't be allowed this choice simply because it doesn't fit your narrow definition of fairness?
Work harder, eh? But what your hard work nets you depends very much on where you start (for most people anyway...the extraordinary will always accomplish extraordinary things), and that is largely a function of your parents and their situation and has absolutely nothing to do with your own magnificent virtues.
Conversely, relaxing and consuming leisure condemns those who are born poor to a life of poverty, but condemns those who are born rich to... well, a pretty nice life, albeit maybe not one they're going to be able to pass on intact to their grandchildren. Even so, their grandchildren will most likely do fine anyway.
The better the economic position into which a person is born, the bigger the cushion against any negative consequences of the exact same character flaws that we decry in the poor.
BP Beckley,
At least your worldview is not totally deterministic. It appears to acknowledge the possibility that some of us, born to parents of modest means, might study hard, work hard, be creative, live modestly and save for our future. It also apparently acknowledges that some of us, born to impressive wealth, might be lazy, cheat in school, and produce nothing of value.
I am more positive about the opportunity for economic and social mobility in the US than you appear to be. Most immigrants to the US also appear to be more positive on those topics than you are.
Your position is certainly more consistent with the modern US liberal view of our society than mine; but, then, I'm an ancient conservative.
Liberalrob and Brooksfoe:
Brooksfoe in previous posts has acknowledged that self-destructive behaviors are often what keeps poor people poor (anti-intellectualism, substance abuse, poor impulse control, violent temperament, etc.) Now, the question I would have is - how much should those who pursue self-destructive behaviors be punished economically?
Since 1975 we've punished high school drop-outs by decreasing their wages by 30%, while at the same time we've rewarded those who graduate college by increasing their wages by almost 100%.
To what degree would you want the government to mitigate that growing gap?
That is also not a universal definition of "fair," it's your own personal definition.
I think that was the point. Not everyone holds the same definition of what's fair or unfair. You are proposing a definition of fairness that strikes others as both unfair and unwise.
That's not an insult; it's not even an argument. It's just a acknowledgment of the fact that people are using the same words but they don't mean the same thing by them.
I believe you're sincere in your advocacy, but what you're advocating seems unfair in a very basic way (I'm thinking of Aesop's fable of the Ant and the Grasshopper or the story of The Little Red Hen). I'm honestly curious how you reconcile your definition of fairness with the notion of fairness that I was taught at an early age?
I thought you knew, I was the basis for that fictionalized documentary of my life. Of course, Steve Carell is much more attractive than I am. I objected strongly to the sunny, upbeat ending the Hollywood producers insisted on (staying true to the real story would have been just as compelling, I thought), but just as Ridley Scott had to compromise the ending of Blade Runner, the suits would not be denied.
One of the primary reasons we cannot communicate more effectively with each other is that we are using words carelessly; or, worse, are intentionally using them with the intent to obscure our meaning or confuse those to whom we are speaking. Too frequently, we focus on speaking (1-way), rather than conversing (2-way).
Vehicles such as Aesop's fables and the parables in the bible were designed to make the message abundantly clear in very simple terms. They are remembered because they were understood.
Engineers have long used a similar vehicle to explain the first and second laws of thermodynamics:
First law: There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Second law: The better a lunch is, the more it costs.
Today, unlike Aesop's time, the grasshopper has a lawyer, and a grasshopper's advocate, and the National Association for the Advancement of Grasshoppers and the Congressional Grasshoppers' Caucus. Fortunately, there are still enough ants.
jmo:
To what degree would you want the government to mitigate that growing gap?
I don't have an answer. I suspect the answer lies in doing what can be done to get those high-school dropouts through the educational system, even if it means carrying them economically while they struggle through. Who cares if it takes an extra ten years, if they become productive citizens? Some arrangement will have to be made for those who simply cannot/do not complete their educations, for whatever reason. Driving them out of society, ignoring them, and abandoning them to their fates is not acceptable, not in a civilized society like we claim to be.
In any case, if we accept that the growing income and wealth disparities are a societal problem and not a positive societal goal, I don't see how you avoid some sort of government involvement. And that leads to costs, and taxes, and there you are.
Ed Reid:
Yes, unfortunately we are afflicted with grasshoppers who have deluded themselves that they are ants and insist on being treated as though they were ants, when really all they are is good at organizing ants and getting them to work for them.
I liked the bits about the Grasshoppers' Rights groups, though. That was good. And you're right about imprecise language, which was also SG's point. I like to think that some of the problems we have stem from different assumptions based on having different definitions. Part of the conversation has to be exposing those definitions and trying to work out some agreement on what they should be, or at least understanding what the other person means when they use a disputed term.
BP Beckley said:
The better the economic position into which a person is born, the bigger the cushion against any negative consequences of the exact same character flaws that we decry in the poor.
And that's why people want to become rich. It insulates you against the consequences of otherwise bad (but enjoyable) behavior. Rich people don't starve, they don't go homeless (unless by choice), they get treated for diseases, they can get treatment for pathologies (mental/pharmaceutical), etc. Being rich is great!
But the behaviors that lead to wealth aren't fun. These involve delayed gratification, and delaying gratification isn't always gratifying (and, even worse, it doesn't always pay off). And there's the paradox. Trying to become wealthy so that you can be insulated from your weekend coke binges requires you behave in a decidedly non-coke-binging way. Sure some are able to get away with coke-binging behavior and still become wealthy, but the laws of averages aren't in their favor.
As I grow older, I think that was a lot of wisdom in that 10th commandment.
Lower the rate or eliminate stepped-up basis. Even more importantly, change the point of tax incidence to sale/realization not death. 50% is too high a rate for *any* tax, let alone one that arrives at death.
PS - I'll trade "death tax" for the even more risible "refundable tax credit" infesting Obama's economic plan.
Liberalrob:
"when really all they are is good at organizing ants and getting them to work for them."
I would argue that the ability to organize others and get them to produce something greater than any of them could have produced individually is one of the most valuable skills a person can have.
"all they are good at" I find it so strange that you would rank this skill so low on the list of human attributes...
Liberalrob: " Who cares if it takes an extra ten years, if they become productive citizens? "
But what about those who don't want to be productive citizens? I know quite a few people who dropped out of High School and College for one simple reason - they wanted to smoke weed and play videogames more than they wanted to go to class.
If we "carry them economically" they will never become productive - they will sit on that sofa gettin high forever.
We need some sticks - if you don't go to class you will spend the rest of your life in poverty. Now, we can argue about how severe that poverty might be - but I certainly think there should be severe penalties for blowing off the many opertunities society has provided.
It's always sticks sticks sticks though; whatever happened to carrots?
Let's explore some fundamental assumptions. For starters, that "want[ing] to smoke weed and play videogames" all day is a bad thing. Really? As opposed going out holding up liquor stores and carjacking? But besides that, I have to ask: why do they feel that way? Do they have no sense of duty to go work? Why not? Is that not a failing of our educational system, in that they were never given that work ethic? Instead of reaching for the nearest stick all the time to beat people who don't measure up to our standards, in a good society I think we would make every effort to educate people on what society expects of them- and why we feel that way. Understanding breeds acceptance.
Personally, I don't believe that very many people really want to just get high and play games all day. What a boring life (but who knows, there may actually be some hidden benefits that we, with our old fuddy-duddy assumptions, don't imagine). If someone truly does believe that they owe nothing to society, I call that person what they are: a sociopath. A diseased person who needs treatment, not trauma. Beating a sociopath with sticks only ticks them off, and eventually they will hit back.
Dear Friend,
A group of researchers at University of Nevada, Las Vegas, are investigating effects of Weblogs on “Social Capital”. Therefore, they have designed an online survey. By participating in this survey you will help researches in “Management Information Systems” and “Sociology”. You must be at least 18 years old to participate in this survey. It will take 5 to 12 minutes of your time.
Your participation is greatly appreciated. You will find the survey at the following link. http://faculty.unlv.edu/rtorkzadeh/survey
This group has already done another study on Weblogs effects on “Social Interactions” and “Trust”. To obtain a copy of the previous study brief report of findings you can email Reza Vaezi at reza.vaezi@yahoo.com.
The US federal budget line item for welfare is $271.4 billion. Carrots are currently $0.99 per pound at our local grocery store. That's about 135 million tons of carrots.
There is no line item for the corresponding "sticks".
Now that's "compassionate conservatism"!
Liberalrob: "in a good society I think we would make every effort to educate people on what society expects of them"
How would we go about this?
What would we do if they fail to do what "society expects of them?"
"educate people on what society expects of them" eh.... that scares me... I get the icky feeling someone is going to end up with a rat cage clamped to his head.
So what's your solution? Steal rich folks' children and send them to crappy schools? Steal poor folks' children and send them to great schools?
Ultimately you have to accept that we are responsible for our selves and our progeny, and that this responsibility is Right and Good and not any of the state's business. The alternative is Harrison Bergeron.
Ed Reid:
You could probably base this metric on the price of a cord of firewood.
jmo:
If they're not sociopaths, the rat cages won't be needed. Remember that 1984 was the ultimate Conservative dystopia.
If you're worried about indoctrination being misused to enforce conformity, that's a real concern but we're already suffused with it. It's done every day. Indoctrination is a "bad" word but how else do you describe parents' teaching of social mores to their children? No one grows up free of indoctrination. The key is to give people the tools to make their own decisions and allow them to make their decisions freely, while at the same time maintaining consensus within society on its core values and making those values as appealing as possible. Hopefully your vision is compelling enough to convince most people to subscribe to it.
Interesting idea. D'you think the rich parents might invest some extra money in the crappy schools to improve them if they knew their children would be going there?
Dystopias are warnings against excessive exuberance, not prophecies of inevitable doom.
Indoctrination is a "bad" word but how else do you describe parents' teaching of social mores to their children?
The worry here is about state sponsored indoctrination, which is at some level inevitable but ought to be used exceedingly sparingly.
It's always sticks sticks sticks though; whatever happened to carrots?
If you don't get an education, you will be poor: Stick
If you do get an education, and work hard, and don't blow your cash on drugs/alcohol/sex/gambling, you will be well off: Carrot
What is more stick AND carrot than that?
Two broad alternatives, as in two sides of a spectrum. Obviously, there is a range of possibilities in-between. But yes, the broad choice is between economic freedom and statism.
I can only assume that you didn't parse my sentence correctly. Nowhere did I say that I favored a return to feudalism. In fact, I clearly stated that the poor (and everyone else) are better off today. I also stated that the poor (and everyone) will be even better off 500 years from now, as long as we retain the economic freedoms that have brought us this far. Perhaps it says volumes about YOUR ideology that you equate an increase in wealth inequality (due to increased productivity and expanding markets) with a return to feudalism.