And I don't mean the kind that involves not smacking people who annoy you.
Bob Herbert has some strong and sobering words (and numbers) to share about the current economic crisis. Basically, he points out, the proper word to describe it (depression, recession, or worrying trend) depends on how much money you make. But you can't tell that from the way it's discussed.
"We talk about the recession as if all of its victims were suffering equally, and all will be helped by some bland, class-and-category-neutral solution," Herbert writes.
Perhaps it should be added that we tend to talk about everything this way here in the supposedly aristocracy-free (and therefore classless ?!?) society we enjoy.
Wealth is a comparative matter, as noted in a recent post about people who don't realize they're rich. But 30% unemployment, which is the reality for the lowest-income group in this country, is a recipe for disaster. That is, it is disaster for the people experiencing and it's a recipe for disaster for the rest of us. Chickens do eventually come home to roost.
Funny how wealthy people only get concerned about 'fair' when they're worried someone's going to get something they weren't offered. Class-blind solutions are not going to solve our real problems. Time to open our eyes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
This is such an interesting topic. Maybe because stateside, we have, at least in theory, upward mobility, no caste system, etc. We have democracy and ideals, rather than rigid institutionalizing of the negative aspects of human nature. Our system seems to wink at the lower echelons and say, hey guys, the game is not rigged against you. C'mon up if you want to.
I wonder what will catalyze a pendulum swing back toward increased income equality (if anything). The time of the New Deal coalition--from the 30s to the 70s--was one of more distributed wealth. It was also a time when, by certain measures, the U.S. was a stronger country (commitment to infrastructure, e.g., which tends to benefit the lower classes more). The 80s to the present has seen a march in the other direction (as we know :-) ).
I've heard that offsetting this inequality is the growth in GDP. See, e.g., this data. Even here, where real GDP more than triples every 27 years, the period from 1954 to 1981 saw a 257% increase, while from 1981 to present the change is somewhat less at 222%.
There is, however, some sort of multiplier effect for GDP on standard of living, based on the power of new technology, as the wikipedia entry on wealth says: "Modern labor-saving inventions and the development of the sciences have enabled the poorest sectors of today's society to enjoy a standard of living equivalent if not superior to the wealthy of the not-too-distant past." Therefore, the effect of the 30% joblessness (what a high number!) may be more muted now than ever before (I don't know what people living in their cars think of that, though). That article also notes the different values held by different socioeconomic classes in the U.S. as regards wealth accumulation. The less a person has, the less they tend to care.
I agree it still seems like a recipe for disaster; I just wonder if it will ever play out that way. Maybe it's just tough to envision la revolucion when poorer classes vote against their own economic interests, if at all. Maybe the disaster isn't an uprising, but a quiet loss of hope and quality of life (and lack of longevity) for millions. Which one would think would be demoralizing even to those at the top.
It's interesting that the change in wealth distribution, roughly speaking, corresponded to when the Democratic party began to abandon its commitment to economic issues, its historical raison d'etre.
That's one thing it corresponds to, Flax. One could also describe that moment as the beginning of serious de-regulation, or as I like to call it, Reagan.
Yes, I believe that is the technical term for "destructive deregulation."
Post a Comment