Wealth Inequality in America

Amazing. Gripping. I watched at 2.5x using Enounce MySpeed.



And then I began thinking about what the guy says and what the charts show. And I realized there's something slightly--or, actually, majorly--wrong about what we see and hear.

The charts have to do with wealth distribution: that's "stuff owned" v. "stuff [including money] owed." But most of us think in terms of money, cash, and, most importantly, income and cash flow.

Indeed, the presenter himself seems to be thinking about these last matters (even though he says he is focused on wealth) when he says (4:59), "While the richest one percent take home almost a quarter of the national income today, in 1976 they took home only nine percent, meaning their share of income has nearly tripled in the last 30 years." Or, "I'm sure many of these wealthy people have worked very hard for their money, but do you really believe that the CEO is working 380 times harder than his average employee? . . . --Not his lowest-paid employee. Not the janitor. But the average earner in his company. . . . --The average worker needs to work more than a month to earn what the CEO makes in one hour."

As soon as we get into earnings, we are in a very different realm from wealth. Very different. And, in fact, we may be--but probably aren't (though, I think, we should be)--talking about income and cash flow . . . which topics raise additional issues like the relative benefits of working for pay (i.e., actually earning one's money) or "simply" "enjoying" the "benefits" of taking government largesse. . . . --Which raises questions both about government- (i.e., taxpayer-) dependent bankster recipients of government-sponsored corporate welfare . . . as well as those who earn $60,000 a year or less . . . and for whom government-sponsored personal welfare is also highly attractive. (On this latter topic, see Tyler Durden's article, Is This Why Americans Have Lost The Drive To 'Earn' More? which is based largely on statistics and graphs from a presentation by Gary D. Alexander, Secretary of Public Welfare of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (Pay particular attention to the graph on p. 8 in this presentation about "The Welfare Cliff"; quite eye-opening.)

[Please understand, I agree with the presenter's implicit criticism of multi-hundred-times-the-average pay-scales for corporate CEOs. Such pay-scales seem absolutely crazy to me. But let us not implicitly criticize. Let's make the criticisms explicit. And let's do it thoughtfully and in a manner that makes our thinking stand out as valid.]

Beyond the confused statements above, I would want to criticize the presenter's implicit criticism and his wording here (at 5:13): "The top one percent own half the country's stocks, bonds and mutual funds. The bottom 50 percent of Americans own only half a percent of these investments, which means they aren't investing; they're just scraping by." --Really? You have to own stocks, bonds, and/or mutual funds so as not to "scrape by"? I beg to differ!

The presenter closes, "We certainly don't have to go all the way to socialism to find something that is fair for hard-working Americans. We don't even have to achieve what most of us consider might be ideal. . . ." Agreed.

But then the last sentence: "All we need to do is wake up and realize that the reality in this country is not at all what we think it is." --And I think: Really? What difference will that (i.e., "waking up and realizing the reality") make?

I wish I knew of a real solution to whatever real problem we are seeking to address.

Still. It is pretty amazing to see how little so many seem to own . . . and how much others own.

The question is, "Then what?"

What kinds of inequality are acceptable?

David Brooks offers some thought-provoking tongue-in-cheek insights in a recent New York Times essay:

Fitness inequality is acceptable. It is perfectly fine to wear tight workout sweats to show the world that pilates have given you buns of steel. These sorts of displays are welcomed as evidence of your commendable self-discipline and reproductive merit.

Moral fitness inequality is unacceptable. It is out of bounds to boast of your superior chastity, integrity, honor or honesty. Instead, one must respect the fact that we are all morally equal, though our behavior and ethical tastes may differ. . . .

Technological inequality is acceptable. If you are the sort of person who understands the latest hardware and software advances, who knows the latest apps, it is acceptable to lord your superior connoisseurship over the aged relics who do not understand these things.

Cultural inequality is unacceptable. If you are the sort of person who attends opera or enjoys Ibsen plays, it is not acceptable to believe that you have a more refined sensibility than people who like Lady Gaga, Ke$ha or graffiti. . . .

Lots more where these came from.

Class divisions in "classless" Zuccotti Park

My brother replied to my "Global Revolution"/Occupy Wall Street post from yesterday by sending me a link to a hilarious and thought-provoking video of Samantha Bee of John Stewart's Daily Show as she visits Zuccotti Park to report on class division within the Occupy Wall Street movement.

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

"We hold these truths to be self-evident . . ."

We're creeping up on America's Independence Day.

My friend Perry Marshall just got back from a trip to India. He wrote something about supposedly self-evident truths (the phrase, of course, comes from the preamble to "The unanimous Declaration of the united States of America" [yes, capitalized like that] made "In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776"):

Hinduism teaches the concept of reincarnation and that depending on the Karma of a past life, some people are born into different castes - some are destined to have lives of privilege, some to be working class, and some to be "untouchable." So untouchable, in fact, that one need not even help the poorest of the poor because, after all, they are only getting what they deserve anyway.

Babies die of starvaton. Families live in filth. Children break rocks with hammers for 25 cents a day.

I know this will offend some people but I'm going to say it anyway: This belief is nothing more than a lie that has victimized untold millions of people. Hundreds of millions of people have nothing, have no ability to do business with other people, and are cut off from the rest of the world because of this false belief.

I would like to detour for a bit of a history lesson so that I can make an important point.

The United States Declaration of Independence makes a world-shattering declaration that transformed the modern world:

"We hold these [truths] to be self-evident, that all men are created equal[, that they are] endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, [that] among [these] are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

In his book "Democracy in America" (1835) Alexis de Tocqueville traces this statement and its idea of equality backward through history and lands at Galatians 3:28, the words of St. Paul: "In Christ there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek, slave nor free. All are equal in Christ Jesus."

Before Paul said this, NO ONE had ever made such a bold and sweeping statement. No one. Not the Jews, not the Babylonians, not the Egyptians, not the Greeks, not the Chinese. The concept of equality came first from Paul.

This idea got planted in western civilization and began to grow and develop, little by little dismantling slave trade, sowing the seeds for democracy and spurring technological and political progress.

If you live in a democracy and you're thankful for the ability to vote, if you're thankful that people generally consider you and themselves to be just as good as anybody else, then thank Paul.

Because despite what the Declaration says, equality really is NOT self evident. At least it wasn't to any of the ancient world prior to 2000 years ago. On the surface, we're all different. Some are stronger. Some are smarter. Some have more money. Some are politically connected. Some are more savvy.

And some people get the scraps.

But when Paul said this, he was declaring that there is an underlying *spiritual* reality, that yours and my true identity doesn't come from accomplishments or money or power but from our Heavenly Father. That once we know that true identity we're no longer slaves to money and power and accomplishments and the 'natural' order of things.

I would like to note concerning Untouchables that, according to my understanding, it is untrue "that one need not even help the poorest of the poor"; under Hinduism one must not help the poorest of the poor, because they are not merely "getting what they deserve"; they are, if you will, "working out their own . . . [ahem] . . . 'salvation'" through myriad reincarnations. And if one "helps" the low-caste person too much, s/he will be condemned, potentially, to have to come back in even worse condition than s/he finds him- or herself today: perhaps as a bug or a cow. . . .

In a subsequent post, Perry (who writes to a broad range of business people) noted,

Some people told me that this class system allows very poor people to be content with their lot in life and that this is a good thing. A number of people sharply criticized me for saying the caste system is bad - that it's not OK for me to judge peoples' religious beliefs.

Well, I don't know how you can have any system of human rights at all without making those very kinds of judgments. A person who criticizes me for speaking up is, after all, judging my beliefs, are they not? There is a large segement of Western society in which it's politically incorrect to speak up about such things, to make negative comparisons between various belief systems, but I think that political incorrectness is hypocritical and really just chooses to arbitrarily judge some people and not judge others. Truth is, it's not possible to have a conscience and not make judgments about such things.

I am reminded of Mark Steyn's comment in America Alone:

In a culturally confident age, the British in India were faced with the practice of 'suttee"--the tradition of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands. General Sir Charles Napier was impeccably multicultural: "You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very Well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

India today is better off without suttee. If you don't agree with that, . . . if you think you genuinely believe that suttee is just an example of the rich, vibrant tapestry of indigenous cultures, you ought to consider what your pleasant suburb would be like if 25, 30, 48 percent of the people around you really believed in it too.

--America Alone, 193-194

Making tough decisions

I'm inspired by the content of my last post, combined with some of the content of Ron Blue's Splitting Heirs.

Blue says we need to "love [our] children equally and, as such, treat them uniquely."

Now, that's tough! (Tougher for some than for others.)

I was talking with my dad a week or so ago and he said he found the idea of even attempting to differentiate among his six children overwhelming. I mean, he knows we are different. He knows I have absolutely no need for any portion of his estate, whereas others of my five brothers and sisters are not so well off. He knows that some of us are quite capable of taking care of ourselves, whereas others . . . aren't.

But trying to figure these things out--or even talking about them with his children--seems "just" too difficult.

Blue offers a scenario. I'm not going to get the details all right. But the general picture is what matters:

Suppose you have three children, Blue suggests.

• The oldest, a daughter, is married, professes faith in Christ, lives in the "right" neighborhood, goes to the "right" church, wears--and makes sure her husband and children all wear--the "right" clothes. She and her husband are members of all the "right" clubs and organizations. . . .
• Number two, a son, is married and has children. Their family, members of a "faith" mission in which financial support is spotty, bumps along just above the poverty line. But they are joyful in their service in the inner city. . . .
• Number three child is also a son. At this time, he shows no inclination to serve Jesus. In fact, he's been to prison on a drugs charge. He has had several unbelievable business opportunities which, somehow, in every case, he has squandered. At this point in his life, he spends most of his time watching TV and playing video games. . . .

Question: Are you going to treat them all the same in your will? You know: being fair and all. . . .

Blue suggests--and I absolutely agree: no, you ought not to treat them all the equally! Love them all equally? Yes. Treat them all equally? No way!

But this is hard work.

I have determined that, God helping me, I will do that hard work in behalf of my children.

Well. And then there is this matter of a living will.

Our attorney, knowing of our Christian commitment, urged Sarita and me to sign some kind of--I'm not sure if it was a DNR/Do Not Resuscitate order, but--some kind of Living Will document that provided for less strenuous efforts than might otherwise be made. "After all," he said, "you know where you are going, and it is a Better Place."

I believe that. I don't believe This World is All There Is. So I have no strong motivation for clinging to this life beyond reason. Yet there is a purpose to life! There is a reason to keep living. At least, to some degree.

My brother, Pete, who was dead and yet is now alive: Pete says that, while he was dead, he [I'm not sure if he has said he met Jesus; but . . . ] . . . he saw that he has a strong hope for a much better/more beautiful "tomorrow"--after death. Yet he is glad he is alive. And I am glad he is alive. He has a reason for living on this earth today. He has things to do, promises to keep.

So how shall I write my living will?

I have some tough decisions ahead of me!