"Ask what you can do for your country."
JFK inaugural speech
Today's Guest Post tells billionaires what they can do.
For the first 35 years of the postwar era, the income of working Americans tracked the overall productivity of the nation. Everyone was getting richer. Then, in 1980, things changed. Productivity kept going up, but the workers' share of that pie flattened. What happened to the "excess value" produced by the rising productivity? It went to capital, not labor. It created people of unimaginable wealth.
Perhaps it all goes back to Ronald Reagan's breaking the air traffic controllers' demand for higher wages and better working conditions by firing the ones on strike. Or maybe it was the mass of Boomers like me entering the workforce faster than we could be absorbed. Or maybe it was increase in immigration numbers with President Reagan's blessing. Or maybe it was something as simple but profoundly important as shipping containers, which put low-wage labor in China into direct competition with American workers. Or maybe it was something else.
 |
| Michael Wallace |
Michael Wallace is a college classmate who became a Peace Corps Volunteer in Nepal, then an international career worker in social and economic development in Pakistan, Nepal, Philippines, Russia, and Macedonia. He is coiner of "numbulary" (number-vocabulary), and shares his insights at a Twitter account, @numbulary, where he posts interesting and useful observations about numbers.
Guest Post by Michael Wallace
How much is enough?
During a recent visit with college classmate Peter Sage, I commented: "America has done a great job with the production side of things. “We can create lots of stuff for Americans. But we haven’t figured out the distribution side of a prosperous economy. Amid all this plenty, so many people are destitute.” I promised to provide my perspective on distribution for Up Close.
The distribution of stuff reflects the distribution of income and wealth, and income and wealth are easier to measure and analyze than stuff such as land and houses and cars and clothes, so let's look at income and wealth:
- In 2019, the world’s billionaires (2,153 people) had more wealth than the poorest 4.6 billion people (3/5 of humanity). The richest 22 men in the world own more wealth than all the 700 million women in Africa. The world's billionaires have $9 trillion of wealth, while the poorest 60% of humanity has barely $6 trillion--less than $2,000 per person. The billionaires could double the wealth of each member of the poorest 60% and still be billionaires.
- The 400 richest US citizens have more wealth than the 150 million adults in the bottom 60% of the country's wealth distribution. The top 0.1% of the population (333,000 people) has nearly 20% of the nation’s wealth, giving them a greater slice of the American pie than the bottom 80% of the population (266 million people) combined.
These descriptions illustrate the same point: There is too much money concentrated in the hands of too few people, both globally and in the US.
Countries move extremely slowly in solving global problems, and we cannot expect individual countries or groups of countries such as the European Union or the African Union or the United Nations to solve our global wealth and income inequality problems. We must pursue other avenues to address the global wealth and income inequality problem: we must define and present this as a global philosophical and ethical problem and address it from that perspective.
If the world’s 2,000+ billionaires gave $6 trillion of their wealth to the poorest 60% (the poorest 4 billion people), doubling the wealth of the poor, would the world be a happier place? The 4 billion would certainly be happier, and the 2,000+ billionaires would still be billionaires.
The key to solving problems is to define them in ways that allow for solutions. We must define this as a problem that individuals can help solve. We must define this problem in a way that the rich themselves must see as a problem and see themselves as the problem-solvers.
 |
| Peace Corps Training Group. Wallace is front row, second from left |
We must convince the rich that the distribution of global wealth is a global problem and enlist their help in solving it. We must convince the rich that they can help solve this problem in their own best interests. Let's take a clue from Bloomberg, which publishes lists of the world's richest people. (https://bloomberg.com/billionaires/)
The Chronicle of Philanthropy publishes lists of the largest charitable donations each year. This should be expanded to highlight the people who are the largest overall donors each year, and this list should be published as front page headline news. (https://www.philanthropy.com/article/jeff-bezoss-10-billion-environmental-gift-tops-chronicle-list-of-the-biggest-charitable-donations-of-2020)
18 comments:
The wealthy won't voluntarily solve the inequality in World.
The fundamental problem is psychological. Greed is an addiction that tortures its victims with a gaping void of want that is never filled. What's really insane about it is that many of those without wealth, which is almost everyone, desperately desire to become afflicted. It's as if heroin was a religion.
How else can you explain those who waste their lives in the acquisition of money and material far in excess of what they ever will need? Think for a moment about the wealthy you may know; usually pretty miserable humans, right? Anyone in particular come to mind?
It part it explains the aversion the wealthy have for government, and why they are singularly devoted to corrupting it.
You make good points, Rick. I've only know one billionaire, and can attest that no one would want to stranded with him on a desert island if he had access to a knife and fork. I do know several people with 7 figure incomes who are far more enlightened, but I think they are a very scarce minority.
All interesting stats, but...
Is this about envy? Is it about how some have not had to work hard and eventually went from poor to being rich? What about those who did work hard?
What is the "fair share" that everyone mentions?
Should we all make the same? Should we all spend the same, and have the same?
What about those who grew up poor, but then were successful and became rich?
What about those who inherited their wealth, rather thank building their wealth from nothing?
Why aren't we talking about the difference between wealth and income? Some spend everything they earn. Some save most of what they earn. Some people are successful and others are not. Some have enough but others want more.
There will always be a spectrum - from the poor with nothing, to those at the tippy top. Across that spectrum there will always be others who are resentful, or jealous, and others who share/contribute what they can.
Sorry to go on and on, but this guy, me, is thankful to have lived life starting with nothing, and being fortunate to have become wealthy thru my own hard work. Do I share that wealth? Yes, of course I do, but others may not agree with what or who I decide to share with or help.
I've never understood the claim nor seen proof to establish it that income inequality is ipso facto harmful or negative. No, I'm not relying on "a rising tide lifts all boats", because that's not so, any more than it's best to mire everyone in the mud to achieve social "justice" at the lowest common denominator.
I agree with Mr. Wallace that the philosophical or ethical approach to the question is best. If we frame it in terms of morality, it's at least viable to call out conspicuous accumulation just as we might conspicuous consumption in the face of so much want and need. That's doubly so if (if) wealth is a zero-sum game.
But back to income inequality itself. Are those on the lowest economic rung better or worse off if they average 5 and the top rung 25, versus the lowest rung averaging 10 and the top rung 100? Income inequality is twice as "bad" in the first scenario, but the lowest rung gets half as much in absolute terms.
I also agree with M2inFLA that class envy and blame-shifting animates as much of the opposition to our version of free enterprise as do valid objections thereto, UNLESS it can truly be demonstrated that wealth accumulated by one means corresponding unfair loss by another. "Poverty" in America is still pretty enviable.
There isn’t much of a correlation between hard work and wealth. If there were, it would be field hands, ditch diggers, day care workers and nursing home aids who would be buying the BMWs and McMansions.
Some claim the U.S. is the wealthiest nation in the world. Not true. We have some extremely wealthy individuals, but our nation has the highest rate of poverty among developed countries and the eighth highest GDP to debt ratio in the world. Wingnuts can blabber about “class envy” and “blame-shifting” all they want, but these are issues that need to be addressed.
Re: the now deleted comment that hard work and wealth don't necessarily correlate.
Yes, it's more than just hard work. Intelligence, smarts, critical thinking, and many other attributes contribute to success. Digging a ditch is hard work, but it may not make you rich. There are many jobs that are hard work, but may not make you rich.
Starting and building a company is also hard work, and it may make you rich. Providing opportunities to capitalize on may also help others be successful in life, and might help you get rich.
Re:"Wingnuts can blabber about “class envy” and “blame-shifting” all they want, but these are issues that need to be addressed."
Why do you assume this is a statement from a wingnut? What issues need to be addressed, and why? Are all successful people "wingnuts"?
The issues that need to be addressed are the ones I already stated: poverty and debt.
All successful people aren't wingnuts; just the ones that blabber about class envy and blame-shifting.
Unfortunately for the cause of substantive debate, Michael’s rather impoverished argumentation on this thread is comprised primarily of some all too-familiar informal fallacies: “proof” by repeated assertion, lazy ad hominem, and most of all, question-begging. Best wishes as he tries to up his game for next time.
Michael, as you stated in your Mail Tribune letter to the editor a few months ago, both parties are responsible for the rising debt. No one administration is.
As for greed, even the poor can be greedy.
Across every segment of society, there are Givers and there are takers.
Who's to say what is acceptable actions by everyone. People who are generous think they might be doing good; others viewing from the outside may disagree.
The "rich" already pay the most income taxes. The majority screaming the loudest and asking the rich to pay even more, lack critical thinking skills, or are very ignorant of basic math concepts.
Which segment of taxpayers pay 80% of the taxes these days?
To Ms. Dungeon:
I repeated the assertion because I was asked. Nor was it "question-begging" - it was stating the obvious. I'm sorry it went over your head.
Ms. Steely—
Sigh. You don’t know what question-begging means, do you? It means assuming as self-evident and proven part or all of what you’re supposedly undertaking to establish. Nor is an assertion proof except in true believer land, even—especially—when simply repeated.
But you do rather tellingly display the continued need to engage on these merits, so I’ll give you another, specific opportunity. Is income inequality bad or unfair upon arrival? Why or why not? Do you have a take on the simple arithmetic illustration I offered?
M2inFLA:
My point is there’s a lot of wealth in the U.S., but it’s in the hands of very few people. That’s a fact, based on data at your fingertips. In spite of all the wealth, we have a serious problem with poverty and debt. These issues need to be addressed (I’m repeating that for Dungeon’s sake).
I said nothing about political parties or who is greedier, but it sounds like I struck a nerve.
Michael, it's "dudgeon"
Also, are the wealthy responsible for the debt? Are they responsible for the poverty?
If so, don't the non-wealthy also have some responsibility?
Do any living a poverty life also share some responsibility?
Yes, I agree there is poverty, as rising debt. It also seems like the current administration is repeating past mistakes by wanting to increase the debt even more.
I'm doing my part to pay taxes owed. Nothing more than I legally have to. I give to charities I deem worthwhile. I do not donate to any political campaigns.
The same unsupported playground chants and rejoinders, instead of grown-up, substantive engagement. Disappointed, yet not altogether surprised. But hope springs temporal!
Thanks for all of the comments.
I do not think that income/wealth inequality is per se bad, but I do think that the range that separates rich and poor is too vast. Unfortunately in the US that range is growing.
Question - is all of this wealth creation (and some might say "hoarding") really about personal wealth or is it some people's innate need for power and domination that this wealth provides and feeds? Some people observe that capitalists are the real "rulers" or power brokers of world. In ancient times it was armies, then religion, then Industrial power and now technology and the wealth it creates.
Since many argue that private wealth buys elections, why would say, the head of Blackrock, or Charles Koch ever want to be in the messy business of governance when they can simply underwrite characters to play those parts at their command? Trump was a useful fool for them.
People like Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie built empires, then dumped their fortunes into perpetual untaxed Philanthropic organizations that invested in universities and social science research to provide living legacies to supposedly make the world a better place. The rationale was that private capital was more efficient at serving the public good than taxing and letting the Government do it. So laws were passed (surprise) to protect these foundations. How has that worked out?
But mortality does not respect the person no matter how wealthy and the trustees of those organizations(called Philanthrocrats) eventually wrested control from the families. My guess is Andrew Carnegie with his oppressive labor practices would not recognize the foundation whose motto is "Investing in knowledge that inspires informed action in democracy, education, and international peace"
Bill Gates has amassed over 270,000 acres of farmland because he knows control of food production is a powerful lever. But he's in his mid 60's and in a few decades will be gone. what will his heirs or trustees do with that power?
Most people I know just want to be able to pay their bills and not worry about money all the time. The rich might want to move to Mars but seem to live on another planet already. They don't live in the same neighborhoods, send their kids to the same schools, eat the same food, or receive the same health care as the rest of us. What my hard-working, non-rich friends feel about them is not envy so much as disgust.
Extreme wealth is not a sign of well-being, either in an individual or a society. Money is a fluid. If it does not flow and instead collects in a stagnant pool, it goes funky like any other fluid. Look at the recent amusement park games in space by some billionaires and the delusional response to criticism of their platforms by others. These examples indicate that extremely rich people are not the flower of humanity, but more like a boil on its ass, signs of illness and corruption.
Make sure jobs pay a living wage and billionaires pay their fair share of taxes, and then we can discuss philanthropy. Just one question: if the problem is poverty, can we really expect to solve it through people who don't understand the first thing about being poor?
Post a Comment