The Great Divergence

Glaucus

Active Member
Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
4,767
Reaction score
697
Fluffy has mentioned a few times now how the top earning 1% of US society owns a disproportionate amount of wealth. This article discusses this along with some interesting history. It's a pretty good read and thought everyone here would appreciate it.

The United States of Inequality

One paragraph that stuck out for me:
Why don't Americans pay more attention to growing income disparity? One reason may be our enduring belief in social mobility. Economic inequality is less troubling if you live in a country where any child, no matter how humble his or her origins, can grow up to be president. In a survey of 27 nations conducted from 1998 to 2001, the country where the highest proportion agreed with the statement "people are rewarded for intelligence and skill" was, of course, the United States. (69 percent). But when it comes to real as opposed to imagined social mobility, surveys find less in the United States than in much of (what we consider) the class-bound Old World. France, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Spain—not to mention some newer nations like Canada and Australia—are all places where your chances of rising from the bottom are better than they are in the land of Horatio Alger's Ragged Dick.
 
Just decided to take a lunch break to finally read this.

Well you won't be surprised when I say there's nothing new here. :)

However it's always good to see the various bits gathered into one place.

As to the opening up of immigration in the 60s I'm quite sure that the old moneyed families had some say in getting those laws drafted. They really got clobbered after 1929 and it coincides roughly with all of the other efforts to re-establish the aristocracy - the rise of the "think-tank" and such. Labour is one of the big costs in any business and busting the unions violently and legislatively were just two lines of attack but opening up the labour market to greater competition helped keep the wages down. In fact, you need to be able to inflate the labour force to the point that you have a virtual army of indigent unemployed willing to undercut and take the place of anyone who slacks (and debt to make sure that no-one can afford to slack) to pincer the workers into total compliance. The same families are behind off-shoring and easier work visas. (I say families though it looks like companies but a lot of the big companies are run by families and even those moneyed families that don't own companies directly spend time flitting from one to another board of directors and owning stock along the way. It's called managing your investments.
 
Here's another bit of "that doesn't surprise me one bit.

They aren't universally distasteful but they are definitely "meaner" to the "little people" even though they can be good to their friends. I've found that to be true in my adult dealings but it goes all the way back to having a paper route. The middle class houses were always happy to see you and would generally tip. The nice houses would rather complain you to death than pay up. "don't leave the paper in the mail box, bring it to the door", "you walking on my gravel driveway wakes me up", "when you throw the paper like that it wakes me up", "don't leave the paper in the mail box, bring it to the door".

I always liked the "wakes me up" complaint. You pay for morning delivery and you were hoping you could read the paper WITHOUT waking up?
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
As to the opening up of immigration in the 60s I'm quite sure that the old moneyed families had some say in getting those laws drafted.
That maybe so, but that doesn't necessarily explain the great divergence as it doesn't line up with when it started in the 1970s. Also, the article concludes that immigration played only a small factor, so even if what you say is all true, it's a different issue for a different debate - unless you can argue that immigration was the main cause of the great divergence.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Here's another bit of "that doesn't surprise me one bit.

They aren't universally distasteful but they are definitely "meaner" to the "little people" even though they can be good to their friends. I've found that to be true in my adult dealings but it goes all the way back to having a paper route. The middle class houses were always happy to see you and would generally tip. The nice houses would rather complain you to death than pay up. "don't leave the paper in the mail box, bring it to the door", "you walking on my gravel driveway wakes me up", "when you throw the paper like that it wakes me up", "don't leave the paper in the mail box, bring it to the door".

I always liked the "wakes me up" complaint. You pay for morning delivery and you were hoping you could read the paper WITHOUT waking up?
Interesting, but I'm not sure how that factors into the great divergence in the US. The article states early on that this great divergence is mostly a US phenomenon. Unless you're about to convince us that rich assholes live only in the US (and along your old paper route), I don't see a strong correlation.

Have you read the last two installments in the series? Thursday's was about how the computer revolution has been blamed but ultimately he concludes that it's unlikely to be a contributing factor (remember, the great divergence is mostly a US phenomenon). Today's was perhaps the most interesting as it pointed the finger at none other then Ronald Reagan. Again, nothing we haven't seen posted here on Whyzzat, but like you said, good to see it all in one place, and with real hard numbers to back it all up. And no it's not just Reagan himself, but Washington in general. In fact he narrows it down to one of two things: bipartisan policies or lobby groups.
 
Glaucus said:
FluffyMcDeath said:
As to the opening up of immigration in the 60s I'm quite sure that the old moneyed families had some say in getting those laws drafted.
That maybe so, but that doesn't necessarily explain the great divergence as it doesn't line up with when it started in the 1970s. Also, the article concludes that immigration played only a small factor, so even if what you say is all true, it's a different issue for a different debate - unless you can argue that immigration was the main cause of the great divergence.
Why would I argue that immigration was the main cause? This is a death by a thousand cuts - you can't blame any one cut for the victim's death - the cutter is the culprit.

1965 sounds out as an opening shot. It would take some time for the effects of any policy to be felt and it takes a while for compounding turn small effects into big effects.
However, it was around the mid sixties that the Rockefeller clan and their friends began seriously to organize to recapture what they had lost in the 30s. That was done through both PR to propagandize the population into accepting "capitalism" as the sole arbiter of worth and destroy support for organized labour and through direct legislative action. The money has been well spent.
 
Glaucus said:
[re: rich are meaner] Interesting, but I'm not sure how that factors into the great divergence in the US. The article states early on that this great divergence is mostly a US phenomenon. Unless you're about to convince us that rich assholes live only in the US (and along your old paper route), I don't see a strong correlation.
The article states that the effect is strongest in the US but it has also happened in Canada(here), the UK (here) & (here) and various other places. In Canada most of the rise has been in the last 15 years. In the UK it happened under Maggie (who was ideologically aligned with Reagan and who gave Enron it's start as she deregulated power markets in the UK).
Have you read the last two installments in the series? Thursday's was about how the computer revolution has been blamed but ultimately he concludes that it's unlikely to be a contributing factor (remember, the great divergence is mostly a US phenomenon).
The ability to export hi-tech jobs to any desk with a PC is a contributing factor and you'd expect the US to be disproportionately affected by that. They have the highest paying jobs to export. Lay off US programmers and hire Indian programmers or Chinese? That is an easy way to improve the bottom line (and increase your "performance" bonus).
Today's was perhaps the most interesting as it pointed the finger at none other then Ronald Reagan. Again, nothing we haven't seen posted here on Whyzzat, but like you said, good to see it all in one place, and with real hard numbers to back it all up. And no it's not just Reagan himself, but Washington in general. In fact he narrows it down to one of two things: bipartisan policies or lobby groups.
The government is just doing what they are told. Getting the general population out of the political process was part of the plan, and that has been accomplished by owning both parties and have them fight about things that don't really matter (gay marriage anyone). Yes, lobby groups are a problem but they are part of the SAME problem. There are a considerable number of people in the US who "work" about 12 hours a year but have incomes in the multi-millions and they have the time and resources to devote to shoring up their positions and proselytizing their beliefs. While only 1 in 10,000 or less of your average Joe's will ever write to a politician in their lifetime, these guys at the top are calling up power brokers or having their employees do it and making sure laws get passed that will reduce their costs (manpower or environmental) open up resources, loosen restrictions on collusion and gouging. You can blame "politicians" or any particular law but no one of the politicians or laws is the problem. The problem is that the wealthy have disproportionate power and that they use that power to maintain and increase that power and so long as the public keeps buying the propaganda that the ruling classes don't exist and the ruling classes keep the population divided along ethnic/religious/moral/sports-team grounds and engrossed in circuses (movies, celebrity "news", the Olympics, church) then the masses will never be able to see that what's to be done.
Sometimes this doesn't completely work and you get groups forming to fight the power, the change legislation and to petition for redress of grievances - so those groups have to get dealt with - ACORN in the US was assassinated by FOX news, for example, and in Canada we had every peace group and poverty advocacy group that dared show its face at the G20 summit soundly beaten and held in cages for just under the amount of time that they can legally be held without charges.
 
If you've got an hour and a half free some time, then instead of watching some Hollywood entertainment, check out this documentary on Glass-Steagall. Yes, it's a LaRouche thing so we get some self congratulatory back slapping but it IS interesting.

Glass-Steagall

Adn, as to the ruling elite - don't get all hung up on "conspiracy theory" because the ruling elite are too large a class to truly conspire though they do wield influence far out of proportion to their numbers. Like the NHL, there are always people that are entering the elite and there are always people leaving - there are many "teams" that compete against each other and people change teams from time to time, but like hokey teams, and leagues the elite are an institution. The 2010 Habs are not the 1967 Habs but they are the inheritors of a tradition.

While the ruling elite may compete, ultimately they share certain interests, i.e. their own continued affluence and influence., and while the competing interests, in aggregate, cancel out to some extent, their common interest comes through strongly.
 
I understand that money is power and people want power. That's a human thing, it's a characteristic that has evolved and helped us get to the top of the food chain. But keeping it under control is a good idea when you have 6 billion people on the planet. Laws are what we need to control the influence of corporations and lobby groups on the politicians. You're right that the wealthy influence society disproportionately, but that's mostly because we let them. So long as we keep voting for the politician who promises us easy money, we're screwed.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
If you've got an hour and a half free some time, then instead of watching some Hollywood entertainment, check out this documentary on Glass-Steagall. Yes, it's a LaRouche thing so we get some self congratulatory back slapping but it IS interesting.

Glass-Steagall

I just watched it and agree, it is indeed interesting. However, I'd go further than criticising the self-congratulation; the film is almost completely ruined by the ridiculous, pejorative language of the narrator, Jessica Trembley.

How many times did she call people or their actions 'evil' or 'immoral'?

Some great information but her use of such language makes it almost unwatchable and somewhat cringeworthy.

Pity, because otherwise I like it.

And poor, wee Rachel at the end, trying to make some important points to an audience far more concerned with their chop-stix than anything she said.
 
Robert said:
How many times did she call people or their actions 'evil' or 'immoral'?
Well, yes, but I didn't want to completely dissuade people from giving it a try. :) I found it cringeworthy too but I think that to a certain extent it is aimed at the kind of people who vote Republican who are suckers for biblical morality ... "evil ... almost SATANIC!!!"

And poor, wee Rachel at the end, trying to make some important points to an audience far more concerned with their chop-stix than anything she said.
I know. As soon as it gets a little bit complicated people tune out. That's why "it's EVIL" works so much better.

(Plus, when it comes to primaries and such, it's more about bringing the right voters to the ball rather than trying to convince the ones that turn up.)

Funny thing about the folks that financed Hitler though, yes, they thought he'd make a good strong man and they thought he'd give the commies a good kicking - but when he turned around to the bankers after gaining power on their (lent) dime and said, thanks for all that but we are going to issue our own government money now instead of using bank money - well, then the bankers had a fit and started pushing for war.
 
You know, I have to go back to the article regarding technology. Perhaps computers really are the problem. We're now entering the age where we can buy things that we can't own:

No, you don't own it: Court upholds EULAs, threatens digital resale

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today ruled (PDF) on a long-standing case involving used software on eBay, and it came to an important decision: if a company says you don't have the right to resell a program, you don't have that right. Could this mean the end of the resale market for all digital content? Yup.

Damn it, all those big corporations are making it so darned hard for me to argue against you Fluffy. And yes, that totally sucks! (the EULA decision, not so much about the arguing as I can do that regardless :roflmao:)
 
Glaucus said:
You know, I have to go back to the article regarding technology. Perhaps computers really are the problem. We're now entering the age where we can buy things that we can't own:

No, you don't own it: Court upholds EULAs, threatens digital resale

[...]

Damn it, all those big corporations are making it so darned hard for me to argue against you Fluffy.

Computers are A problem but this ruling is about right for what the courts do. The onus is on the Congress and once again they are bought by contributions and run by lobbyists so it's back to the guys with the money.

Eventually all this legal stuff sill be moot. When there is no way to get software on and off your device except by some sort of iTunes store then EULAs will be self enforcing.
 
No I agree with you, technology is truly neutral in this sense. It's just that it enables them to do things that were impossible before. I do hope that what we're seeing here is just the age of transition, where people are still learning about the digital age and how it does and doesn't correspond to other tangible things. Congress may indeed pass a law to reverse this one day but probably not before the mega content provides exploit the hell out of this first. Also, I'm curious to see how these EULAs will stand up in other nations. If the US is the only nation that fully backs them, then that might be seen as a competitive disadvantage for Americans, thus giving congress a real reason to act on this.
 
Glaucus said:
No I agree with you [...]
I know, but can't we fight anyway? :D
If the US is the only nation that fully backs them, then that might be seen as a competitive disadvantage for Americans, thus giving congress a real reason to act on this.
The US was the only country that was fully backing software patents and so attracted software developers to their jurisdiction so that they could get US patent protection for their "inventions". The US software companies then put the screws to other countries mostly through WTO and similar non-governmental inter-national agreements. I could see the same thing happening with EULAs.

As to Congress doing anything about this... once again we are in the murky world of corporate political warfare and like with hot warfare, the majority of people are not involved in the fighting but do much of the suffering.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
The US was the only country that was fully backing software patents and so attracted software developers to their jurisdiction so that they could get US patent protection for their "inventions". The US software companies then put the screws to other countries mostly through WTO and similar non-governmental inter-national agreements. I could see the same thing happening with EULAs.
Yes, but ACTA is starting to hit a wall of resistance. And some countries are going the other way. I can't remember which nation it was that recently prohibited any investigations of p2p activity, effectively making it impossible for the recording and movie industry to prosecute pirates online (was it Switzerland?). And although Russia appears to be enforcing copyrights and patents, it's really only enforcing them on companies and people that aren't fully supportive of Putin's policies. China is not likely to seriously enforce them ever. So I'd say America's influence was never complete and it may be getting weaker not stronger.

Anyway, curious to see what you think of today's installment: The Stinking Rich and the Great Divergence

Saez and Piketty replaced income data from the census with income data from the Internal Revenue Service. They then broke that down more precisely than anyone had before. This yielded three discoveries.

* The American aristocracy is less different from you and me than it was in Fitzgerald's day. "Before World War II," they wrote, "the richest Americans were overwhelmingly rentiers deriving most of their income from wealth holdings (mainly in the form of dividends)." But today, they found, the top of the heap are overwhelmingly job-holders deriving most of their income from their wages. Did it become posh to have a job ? Not exactly. Having a job—the right job, anyway—became the way to get posh. That's encouraging in one sense: To roll in the dough you now have to work for a living. But it's discouraging in another sense: You can't blame enormous income disparities on non-working coupon-clippers who exist outside the wage structure (and reality as most of us understand it). The wage structure itself is grossly misshapen.
* The share of national income going to the top 1 percent (the Rich) more than doubled during the Great Divergence and now stands at about 21 percent. The chart showing this found its way into President Obama's first budget (see Figure 9), prompting Wall Street Journal columnist Daniel Henninger to call it "the most politically potent squiggle along an axis since Arthur Laffer drew his famous curve on a napkin in the mid-1970s." But where Laffer's squiggle was an argument to lower taxes, Piketty and Saez's (the conservative Henninger noted with some dismay) was to raise them on the Rich.
* The share of national income going to the top 0.1 percent (the Stinking Rich) increased nearly fourfold during the Great Divergence. "The [inequality] phenomenon is more extreme the further you go up in the distribution," Saez told me, and it's "very strong once you pass that threshold of the top 1 percent." Canada's and the United Kingdom's Stinking Rich followed a similar (though less pronounced) trend, but Japan and France did not; in the latter two countries, the Stinking Rich received about the same proportion of national income (about 2 percent) as the Stinking Rich did in all five countries prior to the Great Divergence. In a 2009 paper, Saez and Piketty surveyed several other industrialized nations (Table 5); in none of them did the Stinking Rich come anywhere near the 7.7 percent share of national income found in the United States.
 
Back
Top