Yesterday, I picked up a book, America: What Went Wrong by Donald Barlett and James Steele. The amazing thing about the book is that it was published in 1992 and yet it could have been written this year. And in fact, it is kind of like a user friendly version of Thomas Piketty’s new book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Except that it deals with a lot of other cool stuff. For example, it shows how deregulating the airline industry caused there to be fewer companies and the cost of travel actually went up.
I haven’t read the whole book and I don’t intend this to be a review of any kind. It is just that the book is 22 years old and it starts with an info-graphic to demonstrate how bad things had gotten. In 1959, the top 4% of Americans made as much as the bottom 35% of Americans. Actually, that number alone strikes me as ridiculously unequal, but of course, those were the “good ol’ days”! Thirty years later, in 1989, the top 4% of Americans made as much as the bottom 51% of Americans. Note also: this is just wage income. By this definition, Mitt Romney, who makes roughly $20 million per year, probably wouldn’t even make it in the top 4%. So this way of looking at inequality really understates the problem.
Well, I couldn’t see that info-graphic without wondering how things had changed. In fact, the authors even say, “If the trend continues, sometime early in the next century the top 4 percent of individuals and families drawing paychecks will earn as much on the job as 60 percent of the rest of American workers.” I love this kind of stuff and I wondered if I could find the current data. As it is, everyone does things about the 1% and the 0.01%. Well, it turns out that the IRS has a treasure trove of data for geeks like me.
It’s not easy, of course. They provide big spreadsheets with numbers that are not at all what I was looking for. So I had to do a bunch of calculating. What’s more, I had to make a few assumptions. But this is important: all the assumptions I made cause the inequality to be understated, not overstated. So I worked out the numbers for 1993. This was kind of a test to make sure that I was doing it correctly, since I already had the 1989 number: 51%. And indeed, my 1993 number looks about right: 53.0%. So I feel pretty confident in this.
The most recent data available from the IRS are back from 2011, and although I’m sure things are worse now, it gives us a good idea of where we’re at. My 2011 number was: 58.7%. Before the crash, it was 56.8%. I think what we are seeing here is the standard narrative. During the Clinton years, inequality kind of flatlined and then during the great leadership and tax cuts of the Bush the Younger administration, it started to increase again. And then, we got the housing bubble bursting and the financial crisis. The government, of course, took care of the financial crisis (the rich), but didn’t do much of anything about the housing bubble (homeowners and construction workers and pretty much everyone). So inequality again shot up.
It’s very interesting I think. Barlett and Steele were right on with their 60% number 22 years ago. It makes me think about the old joke, “Everyone talks about the weather, but no one does anything!” It’s almost exactly the same thing here. In the case of the weather we just can’t do anything about it; that’s the joke. Well, given that we pretty much live in an oligarchy, there is really nothing we can do about inequality. The top 4% of the country are the only ones who our leaders listen to. Half the country has managed to be so focused on fake scandals and a few thousand desperate children fleeing their countries, that they don’t notice that their birthrights have been stolen. And the other half of the nation is too busy just trying to survive to vote most of the time.
You have to ask yourself, “How bad can it get before the people really do rise up?” Well, the rich are figuring that as long as there aren’t bread lines, they are safe. And I think they are right. Still, if I were them, I’d invest in a little insurance by way of reducing inequality. But I’m a careful man. And the rich aren’t careful. The conservatives aren’t careful. So I don’t see change coming. If I live another 50 years, I certainly don’t see that number going below 58.7%. I think the American people will be willing to accept a number well into the 70s. And by then, it may be to late. Maybe it already is.
Thing about "austerity," "conservatism," tax cuts, deregulation — they basically assume democracy is a big boo-boo.
Democracy involves choices. You’ve got $100K to spend. Fix the roads? You’re taking money away from mass transit. Invest in mass transit? You’re hurting the roads, which are a vital part of infrastructure. Spend it on schools, you’re hurting the roads and mass transit. And where in the schools do you spend it? On teacher salaries? New equipment? After-school programs?
Some of these choices will get you closer to where you want to be as a society and some will get you farther away. Making the choice best suited for your goals involves study, data, experience, and more than a little luck. The whole idea behind democracy isn’t that the choices will always be right; it’s that the choices will, through a lot of trial and a lot of error, meander their way towards what the voting public wants for their future.
Conservatism, austerity, have the magic bullet. If spending on roads hurts schools and spending on schools hurts roads, then obviously spending is the problem. There’s one, and only one, correct choice that should always and forevermore be made. Need proof? Well, here’s a spending idea that didn’t work. Hence, spending is wasteful. (I could use this logic to prove the human race should die out. There are bad relationships and bad children out there. Why procreate, then?)
It’s interesting that conservatism, austerity, make a particular criticism of democracy — it’s utopian, and utopia never arrives — while substituting a utopian alternative. Eliminate the foolish choices made by voters, stick to the magic bullet, and we’ll get utopia. If their proffered solution fails to deliver utopia, then . . . well, that’s proof people who want to improve things through democratic trial/error are heads-in-the-clouds idiots! Things suck, and always will! Vote for the hard-headed, magic-bullet realists!
I read a thing recently about dogs who bark at/chase cars. The dog sees a threat to the master walking it (car), barks at/chases the car, and the car goes away. Score one for barking at/chasing cars. Now the master gets tense whenever a car approaches, fearing the dog will risk running into traffic to bark at/chase cars. The dog senses that tension, mistakenly assumes the tension is about the car being dangerous to the master, and decides to defend the master by barking at/chasing a car. The car goes away. It’s a self-perpetuating loop. (Incidentally, the article suggested throwing a doggie treat in front of your dog when a car approaches; I’m not sure what this could be a political metaphor for, but I’ll bet it’s in there someplace.)
You’ve come down hard on Thomas Frank before for suggesting that Republicans intentionally run government into the ground, then use its failings to defend the idea of running government into the ground. You don’t think Republicans are that smart. I don’t either, nor, I suspect, does Frank. Republicans have just stumbled, like blind evolving cave critters, into an adaptive strategy that works really well for them. Intelligence has nothing to do with it!
@JMF – Corey Robin’s definition of a conservative is someone who is against liberation movements. I’m fond of calling them the End of History Brigade. Nothing could be better than today, except more of it. If God made you rich, the only correct use of government is to make you more rich and above all, not let you lose your wealth.
You are totally right: conservatism (libertarianism especially) is utopian. Democracy is a process. It isn’t going anywhere; it is just a way to make things better. That’s why the Constitution says its purpose is a "more perfect union." They were not utopian thinkers. Most of the ones we remember were liberals.
I’ve been ambivalent about [i]The Wrecking Crew[/i]. Even at my most harsh, my take is that it isn’t intentional but it [i]does[/i] happen. But look at what is happen right now in (!) Kansas: Art Laffer (a sub-genius if ever there was one) convinced the state to slash its income taxes–except on the poor–they raised theirs. Now the Kansas government is in chaos, but the conservative are declaring victory. The governor wrote an oped saying that Kansas created 15,000 new businesses last year. He did not mention that 16,000 others went out of business. But the truth is that the conservatives got what they wanted: lower taxes. They don’t care if the kids don’t get educated, crime goes up, or whatever. One thing that has become clear to me over the last decade: the rich are extremely shortsighted. And if they end up getting their heads chopped off, I will only be disappointed because they weren’t forced to become migrant farm workers for the rest of their lives.
Yeah, that’s about the hell I wish on rich conservatives. Migrant farm workers until their bodies give out. Then a decent publicly-funded retirement. I’m mean, not vicious.
The other Frank is writing for Salon now (his venue seems to change all the time; don’t his editors know what they’re getting?) and you might check out his newest on presidential libraries. It’s both angry towards the presidents (as policy makers) and sympathetic towards them (as people.) Good stuff. I’d be surprised if Frank’s as cool as Baker in responding to e-mails about painters’ birthdays, though!
@JMF – I’ve mostly been keeping up with his stuff in [i]Salon[/i]. It’s interesting that he’s talking about presidential libraries. I was just thinking that I would like to make a documentary by visiting every presidential library. It would be interesting because I have such a low opinion of even the presidents I like.
Sure, allow them to retire. But they’ve got to do a decade at least. That means the Kochs will probably die in the fields. Oh well. Maybe [i]I[/i] am vicious!
The libraries article was really good. Usually when I read Frank I feel as though he puts sentiments I share into ways I’m not clever enough to express. The libraries one, my first reaction was "I could have written this." Of course, I couldn’t; I’m not a skilled professional writer. I suspect making your logic and word choices seem inevitable is a very high skill; Vidal was a master at this.
That could be a terrific documentary. You have a very unique style that might make for some great, wry commentary on the presidents.
Maybe, as you apparently live in CA, visit a CA presidential library and do a teaser trailer. Try a commentary on Nixon’s, and see with a few different takes what you can do with it. You’ve got to have friends who can hold a camera. Tone down the anger somewhat; smile a little, be funny, talk about the presidents as people, mixing in the damning condemnation of their politics. Just an idea; I’d be curious to see it.
(Of course I could try the same thing, and I’m way too chickenshit!)