Class Warfare Always Gets Worse

Take a look at this graph of income distribution. When I was leading the Army 21 futures study for 2005-2015, this is precisely what the economists from the Library of Congress (under our contract) predicted. No surprise to me that there is a “wage gap.”

The reason for the gap today – again predicted in 1990-92 – is the changes the transformation to the Information Era would make. This includes the growth of the global economy.

The graph indicates the “Have Nots” – as we characterized them in our study – would not gain much. The pressures on wages in a global economy suppress wages for the lower skills earners.

The Haves have a lot more. That is why you see the McMansions, etc. around Virginia. There is more demand and opportunity for folks to earn more if they have key skills or talents. I can add another graphic that shows that most of the wealth of top earners comes more than ever from wages – not dividends or interest.

So, what, if anything, should be done about the wage gap?

In the early 90s I wrote (for myself) thoughts about a “greed cap.” The greed cap would be the ratio of highest to lowest earnings (from all sources and perks) in a business. It should be set by collective bargaining (Yes, this Republican means unions) at whatever they see as fit – and doesn’t kill the golden goose that creates capital. It could be 7:1 or 12:1 or whatever.

More dollars could be paid above that ‘cap’. But for every dollar that is paid to the executive above the cap another dollar is paid into a common pot that supports everyone’s retirement, health, legal, etc benefits.

The principle behind the idea is this: The profit of a company is directly attributable to the management and the workers. Much profit can be traced to management decisions, but all profit comes from everyone doing their jobs. Hence, separating workers from the profit sharing and letting it all go to the top of the organization is fundamentally an inequitable distribution of gain. Workers know the risk if the company goes down or under. They share in risk and should share in profit.

Except, I don’t want the damn government dictating this to anyone. I see it as a future strength of the unions – a meaningful purpose, if they can clean up their own management to gain some integrity back.

Where government can help with the wage gap is to use the forced savings of wage earners to create the INDIVIDUAL savings accounts FDR promised. If the Feds won’t do it, then Virginia should move ahead (see my pieces on Virginia Trust Accounts). The lower 505, Have Nots, get by and will get by. But, their retirement, health and

Fast forward to 2009. The government bailing out any business and taking ownership – and dictating wages is feel good class warfare in its earliest phases. It is awful for what it does to the economy. It is worse for what it does to our Constitutional Republic.

It portends worse if it is allowed to go further.

When you read Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” you see the same language today about fairness, greed, etc. Actually, you are reading the fictionalized version of what she saw after the Bolsheviks took over in Russia. Now, you see the same signs of class warfare, dressed up in Obama’s rhetoric, in America.

Class warfare always gets worse. Consider the French Revolution and the successor Russian, Chinese Communist and Cuba revolutions, Communist takeovers in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Nicaruaga, and the Nazi takeover in Germany. Everytime the Human Secularists engage in class warfare – whether their preceding adjective is Communist, Nazi, Socialist or Liberal – it goes badly sooner or later for liberty. For individual rights.

Search the U.S. Constitution for the power of the federal government to do what it did this fall under Bush and now seeks to do under Obama. Not there.

Search the economic data for proof that government spending and taxing and regulationg wages improves the economy. Not there.

Search the history of class warfare since the French Revolution. Awful things happen.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

24 responses to “Class Warfare Always Gets Worse”

  1. Anonymous Avatar

    Whoa!

    JAB, when you get on your “Secular Humanist” horse you ride all the wrong way. You are coming off like some ill-read professor at a third rate Bible college.
    Why the alarm suddenly when Obama’s been in office for what? Three weeks?
    Where were you the last eight years? Want to talk about payscale asymmetry between average middle class and CEOs? Look at the rising gap during the Bush years when the Bushies dampened any semblance of financial regulation. Want to see some of the biggest threats to civil liberties? Check out the Patriot Act, “rendition” and Gitmo. Or, read “The Shadow Factory” about NSA telephone and e-mail eavesdropping in the Bush years. And since they are all such a religious bunch, please tell me how “secular humanists” fit in to this doosmday scenario. What’s the link between someone having an abortion or having casual sex or whatever the bugaboo is and Bush’s policies of privatizing government so we get murderous renegades like Blackwater? Does smoking pot fit in here somewhere?
    Also, you need to get a new perspective on Ayn Rand. Sure she was pissed off that the Bolshies ruined her dad’s drug store business and she turned into a pro-capitalist reactionary. But Rand is anti-religion in the extreme. If she were alive and you met her, I seriously doubt you’d get along.
    With all respect and please don’t get mad at me…
    Peter Galuszka

  2. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    PG: You took a different take than I expected. I thought you were going to wax about our being blood brothers on supporting the proles to have more.

    I know Rand was anti-God. I wrote that is the reason she didn’t sell better in the U.S. I think she was right about the totalitarians’ method of ops and Orwellian language.

    Let’s just stay on what I said – and take up your “j’accuse” when you post it yourself.

    I roll the Human Secularists in there – and set off your alarm bells for wingnuts – because the ideas are the same. I know that the intent may be much more benign, even cuddly, today.

    I’m not putting an = for Dems, Libs, B.Hussein Obama etc and the Nazis and Commies…yet. My point, however clumsily attached, is the ideas come from the same intellectual history. The words are closely the same.

    My alarm- and perhaps I should have left it at that – is that the stimulus, bailout BS and the attendant wage controls from the federal government are anti/un/contra-Constitutional, terrible for the economy and an awful step down the slippery slope of the other class warfare projects born of the politics of identity and envy.

  3. Anonymous Avatar

    JAB,
    Please allow me to retort:

    First off, just about every economy is a mix of private and public. Always has been. Always will be. The stimulus is classic pump priming, which should be a temporary fix. What will launch us into a great depresion is if everybody props up trade restrictions, too.
    As for wage limits, if you notice the fine print it only applies to bank executives getting federal bailout money in “exceptional” circumstances. This woul dbe if the bank is going belly up tomorrow. It would not apply to Bank of America or even Citigroup. And it hardly applies to any healthy bank that’s doing OK, They can still pay their CEO whatever their board wants him or her to get away with.
    Governments always turn to some type of pump priming or restriction in tough times. Nixon did so in 1972 with his wage price freezes (which were a disaster). FDR tried the NRA which was shot down by the Supreme Court. Ford had his “Whip Inflation NOw” buttons.
    A bigger issue with the bailouts, stimulus, etc. is what we do a year or two from now when they have worked just fine and we are stuck with really, truly big inflation.
    Back to your original post, yeah, the history is right but I just don’t smell revolution in the wind just yet. When I do, you’ll be the first to know.

    Peter Galuszka

  4. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    PG:One of the best grad school courses I took was “Government and Business in a Mixed Economy”, taught by the late Dick Darman and Roger Porter.

    1. The bailouts are bad for the economy. They will slow recovery and rob future generations.

    2. The bogus stimulus principles are wrong. The fact that power has been abused since the 1930s (and 1860s) doesn’t make it right.

    We can agree to disagree.

    So, whaddya think about my idea of ‘greed cap’ as an issue for unions and shareholders? Gotta get a more R name for it.

  5. Anonymous Avatar

    JAB,
    I think “greed cap” is brilliant. May I blog on it, giving you credit, of course?

    PG

  6. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    PG: Glad you like it.

    If I ever run again for public office, it will be one of my issues. I’m more a Populist R than a Country Club R.

    My personal problem is that I don’t want the government to mandate it – and I think Dems and Unions might run with that legislation. I think it is an issue for unions and shareholders to make happen. It’s a good issue for public discourse and moral suasion.

    Government could cut corporate taxes for companies employing it – with the rationale that there is less burden on public finances for medical, senior care etc.

  7. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    PG: Forgot to add, “Sure go ahead.”

  8. Groveton Avatar

    You guys crack me up.

    A greed cap. Maybe. But why do you only focus on corporate executives? Should Obama be subject to a greed cap for writing what were actually pretty awful books? Should George Clooney be subject to a greed cap for acting in what are usually pretty awful films? Should the players on the Detroit Lions be subject to a greed cap for delivering an awful season? If so, I am all for it.

  9. Groveton Avatar

    A couple of good articles by the guys at The Street.Com. Their weekly “5 Dumbest Things on Wall Street” is a must read in my opinion.

    http://www.thestreet.com/story/10462326/2/five-dumbest-things-on-wall-street-feb-6.html

    And one need only turn the electronic page to see the next dumbest thing this week:

    http://www.thestreet.com/story/10462326/3/five-dumbest-things-on-wall-street-feb-6.html

  10. Anonymous Avatar

    1. The bailouts are bad for the economy. They will slow recovery and rob future generations.

    I’ll agree that future generations are going to pay for this, but theywill also benefit from the infrasructure we build or replace. Whether “bailouts” are bad for the economy remains to be seen, we are in uncharted territory here. In any case, it’s hard to see how balouts can slow the recoovery naymore than NOT HAVING A JOB.

    ————————–

    “The bogus stimulus principles are wrong.”

    There has been a steady parade of Republicans in front of the Senate saying that the stimulus is not correctly targeted, but none of them so far as I have heard have offered any alternatives other than cutting the stimulus.

    As of now it has been cut $150 billion and it is almost 50% tax cuts, and yet only two Republicans are on board yet. As for whether tax cuts are a stimulus or not, it is a matter of opinion. The multiplier ratiosa re all over the map, but tax cuts seem to have the lowest ratios uniformly – something the Republicans don’t seem to mention. Tax cuts MAY be better in the long run, but the long run is not so important IF YOU DON’T HAVE A JOB.

    —————————-

    If anyone is more out of touch than the Republicans right now, it is the unions.

    —————————–

    I beleive your chart is household income, not individual income.

    Your chart mixes income with wages. If I’m not mistaken the median number of household wage earners for the bottom line on your cart is zero.

    For the next two lines the median number of wage earners is around one, while for the third and fourth lines it is two wage earners per household, or maybe more.

    In order to increase the income for those on the bottom line we would need to increase welfare subsidies which we have been beating down for the past sixteen years. One reason being that it would put welfare recipients (on the bottom line) in competition with the working poor (ont he second line).

    The other thing that the chart does not show is income mobility. Those people who wer on the secon and third line back in 1970 are now on the third and fourth lines.

    And income Mobility cuts both ways. Of those 400 people with the highest incomes over the past 20 years only a very few have made the list more than twice. You cannot talk about the very poor and the ultra rich as though they were always the same people.

    RH

  11. Anonymous Avatar

    “The first million is hard work, the second is inevitable.”

    unknown

    RH

  12. Anonymous Avatar

    ” There are three very common failurs in free markets. Because of them, the government always will have to be the “referee”, keeping things fair and on track.

    Western Europe, Scandinavia, Canada, etc. seem to have figured this out better than the US. I think we get stuck because of cultural and historical myths that associate “free market” with the iconic word “freedom”, or maybe we are just paranoid of government.

    ……

    I don’t think anyone wants a society where our economic foundation is subject to the swings of the market as it currently exists. Don’t we all want a stable economic footing so we can promote a stable, sustainable society? Does it really matter so much that we make the “pie” as big as possible if it also means that we have economic swings and a very uneven distribution of income?”

    David Garen, quoted from another blog.

    RH

  13. Anonymous Avatar

    Groveton,
    I thought Clooney was pretty good in Perfect Storm. If you study the bar scenes closely, you’ll see “Stringray” brand Bloody Mary mix made on Virginia’s Eastern Shore!

    Peter Galuszka

  14. re: what is the role of government is business and the economy?

    that’s the question that I feel JAB chose to not address and instead went to talking about class warfare.

    Prior to this economic meltdown, the conventional wisdom of our friends on the right is that the Bush Tax cuts and keeping the government out of regulation was the correct role for government.

    My question.

    How many folks still believe this?

    Should we:

    1. – continue the Bush/Reagan tax cuts

    2. – continue the Bush/Reagan mantra of limited government involvement via regulation?

    I’d like to hear from the folks who think that business would do just fine if it were not for the government.

  15. Anonymous Avatar

    LG,
    David Ignatius has aninteresting column in today’s post noting that one of the reasons why so many economists did not see the present financial disaster coming was that they kept on expecting the magic of the market to work its usual miracles. By acting in self-interest,rationality would prevail. If someone speculated badly, the market would crunch him. Therefore, regulation was not needed, or so the theory went. Unfortunately, the market did not right itself (or actually is righting itself but is making one hell of a correction).
    Look at financial regulation. The feds have had a “hands off” attitude about hedge funds and you got Bernie Madoff. Under the Bushies, the SEC couldn’t enter into tough settlement deals with firms without the permission of commissioners. Credit default swaps were completely unregulated and trading them was anything but transparent. I don’t blame Bush entirely. Clinton and all the rest did plenty.

    Peter Galuszka
    PS: JA Bowden. Here’s an Ayn Rand story you might like. Back when Congress was red-baiting and witch hunting thorugh the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, Ayn Rand, who knew Hollywood well, was called to testify. After she left the committee, a snarky reporter asked her, “Mis Rand, do you have any regrets about testifying before the HUAC?”

    Her reply: “Yes, they didn’t give me enough time.”

  16. re: “Bernie Madoff” and the “Greed Gap”.

    Bonus question:

    Should the government be responsible for Bernie Madoff types?

    or.. should the Government stay away and let the buyer beware?

    It’s easy to talk about “class warfare”… let’s talk about what Government’s role should be with regard to the “market”?

    I would like JAB to tell us what the Constitution says about the Government’s role in the market.

    thanks!

  17. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Groveton: Yes include entertainers and athletes, if workers and shareholders can, and hedge fund operators like George Soros.

    RH: Yes, I want an economy that can have bubbles. I don’t want a government directed economy. It will suck too badly – and its not the purpose of this republic.

    My next post will likely be about a Historian -not an economist – who saw this bubble coming and described in his book, The Ascent of Money – Niall Ferguson. Plenty of folks knew a bubble was about to burst.

    If you dump all the spending from BHOs bill and keep the tax cuts and credits (although they tend to be weak) – you will get folks new jobs faster, better, etc and not screw tne economy for a generation or more.

    Larry G and PG: My chart and comments are about earnings shifts – wage gaps, not the bubble. If you want to return to it, fine. Not a partisan issue since pols in both parties have dirty hands.

    The policy issue isn’t between no regulation and perfect regulation. Its about better, more effective, least destructive, least costly – those are independent variables with different utility curves that have no perfect or simple solution but a lot of serious trades if you understand the math – regulation.

  18. Anonymous Avatar

    Limited regulation. I would disagree that this country has limited regulation. Take a look at the Code of Federal Regulations and the Federal Register. The number of new regulations grows much faster than the number of “deregulations” — if you will.

    I would agree that we might not be regulating the right things and that, as with most efforts of the government, regulation is often not up to par.

    This is NOT an argument against regulation. There are legitimate areas of public health, welfare and safety that should be subject to some form of government regulation and the government needs to police the market against cheating, misrepresentation and fraud. I think the feds need to do more and not less in the financial services markets.

    There are also situations where it is difficult, if not impossible, to pick the “right decision” in regulating things. There may not be a “right decision,” but rather, only one of picking winners and losers.

    We are clearly moving to a time of more regulation, but will we see it aimed at a proper exercise of the police power or picking winners and losers?

    With respect to taxes, I would submit that the present tax code is more progressive from $0 to $500,000 than it is from $500,000 to the top and there is no desire on the part of the Obama administration and the Democrats to address that situation. Rather, they will try to dig into people who make $150-$300 K (not exactly poverty) much harder relative to those at the very top. It’s similar to Clinton who put the $1 M cap on deductibility for the top few executives in corporation, but did extend that cap to anyone else (e.g., actors, singers, athletes, etc.). I’m not arguing on the merits, just pointing out that there are progressives and there are progressives.

    The same thing holds true for estate/gift taxes. The left wants to tax a business owner/investor who has an estate of $10 million, while letting Warren Buffett and Bill Gates pass along billions tax free to their favorite foundations. There are progressives and there are progressives.

    TMT

  19. Anonymous Avatar

    “Should we:

    1. – continue the Bush/Reagan tax cuts

    2. – continue the Bush/Reagan mantra of limited government involvement via regulation?”

    I think we should understand where Reagan was coming from. As a highly paid actor during the war he was subject to tax rates north of 90%.

    From that perspective reducing tax rates was the correct idea, but most of us are nowhere near that kind of extraction today. My understnding of the Laffer curve is that it peaks around 50 to 60% not 10 or 20%. As long as we are on the left side of the curve, then it seems to me that JAB’s argument is incorrect.

    What we really have is not an argument that tax decreases CAN increase government revenue in some situations, but an argument over the shape of the Laffer curve.

    But, the problem with the Republican position on this is that, supposing this argument is correct, then increased government revenues would result in another round of calls for let lower taxes.

    This line of reasoning is exactly as stupid as the one that says if a trillion dollars is good stimulus, then why not spend 5 trillion?

    Finally, even if tax cuts work as claimed, there is no ability to direct HOW they will be spent. A major complaint of the spending part of th eplan is that it is not disciplined enough to truly stimulate the economy “properly”, yet their alternative has even less discipline imposed.

    There is no telling if or when the tax cut money will be spent. True, if it isn’t spent it has to go somewhere, soit will be invested, but investments take time to turn into businesses that generate business and new cash flow, so you cannot calim that this part of the tax cuts will turn into instant spending and economic stimulus.

    How does a tax cut keep the next bridge from falling in the water or the next water main from breaking?

    Finally, there is a real question as to how much stuff we NEED to rush out and buy. How many of us really need yet another television? How many of us could stay out of the clothing store for a year or more before we use up what we have?

    It is possible that the spending binge we have been on is really a savings plan in disguise: we have been hoarding goods rather than cash. This would mean that some of the slump is unavoidable, short of encouraging still more conspicuous consumption.

    RH

  20. Anonymous Avatar

    “It will suck too badly – and its not the purpose of this republic.”

    We talked about this before. I believe the preamble says something about the welfare of the people, and I take that to mean what it says. Bubbles are not helpful in that regard.

    RH

  21. Anonymous Avatar

    Here is a tip on “spreding the wealth.

    If you have a home that might be inherited by your heirs, now might be a good time to set up a trust. You get to continue to live in the home, and the value of the “gift” is locked in at today’s low values.

    RH

  22. Anonymous Avatar

    “From 1998 to about 2007, the gap between the two groups ranged between -5% to -6%, meaning that the jobless rate for college grads was 5 to 6% below the rate for workers without a high school degree. Over the last year or so, the gap has widened, to the point now (Jan. 2009) where the jobless rates for college grads (3.8%) is MORE than 8% below the rate for workers without a high school degree (12%). That gap is the largest since the early 1990s in the aftermath of the 1990-1991 recession. “

    From Carpe Diem

    Maybe some of the wage gap is justified. or maybe this is a picture of trickle down at work. A small increase in unemployment of the golden boys translates to a larger one for those dependent on the golden boys for economic sustenance.

    That would imply it takes a whol lot of spending and consumption att he top end to support a few at the bottom end of the Ziggurat.

    RH

  23. Anonymous Avatar

    Peter:

    Here is a good quote for you:

    “These tax credits make for good sound-bites, and are music to the ears of politically active car salesment and real estate brokers.”

    What does Mr. Borden do now that he is not in the Army and not an elected official?

  24. E M Risse Avatar

    Peter G:

    EMR saw the same quote that Anon 7:00 did and also thought of you.

    It was in a very good column by Steven Pearlstein that Linda called to my attention this morning. It was in Friday’s WaPo “Congress Needs Crash Course in Econ Policy.” You will like his idea for a stimulus package.

    Also see today’s Op Ed by David Ignatius. I think he says that at Davos all of James Atticus’ heros were declared dead.

    EMR

Leave a Reply