General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDo you agree with this? (updated)
Last edited Fri Feb 14, 2014, 04:31 PM - Edit history (1)
Think Progress announces that it's going to focus on three "really good" pieces written by conservatives. Here is one of the first three:
2) Why Is Janet Yellen So Concerned And Disturbed About Income Inequality? Jim Pethokoukis, AEI Ideas
Switching gears from reporting to wonkery, the American Enterprise Institutes economics blogger took a data-driven swing at our new Fed Chair Friday morning. Like President Obama and almost all progressives, Janet Yellen believes inequality is one of the most disturbing trends facing the nation at the present time. Pethokoukis thinks thats rubbish, and assembles a list of studies that aim to demonstrate why.
His post is a short, easy-to-read listicle, but each bullet point neatly summarizes a more sophisticated economic argument against conclusions that most progressives take for granted. Take the first point:
1.) If you buy the thesis that a big jump in high-end inequality has been mostly driven by technology and globalization, then the alternative is more equality, perhaps, but less innovation here and more extreme poverty abroad. Now thats a disturbing scenario.
The link takes you to another Pethokoukis post breaking down a study by Stanford and UChicago economists arguing that inequality is buoyed by the same forces that have massively improved the lives of the worlds poorest in the last 50 years. This sort of argument is useful not only because it forces progressives to confront potential conflicts inside their worldviews (reducing inequality and poverty may be goals at odds with each other), but also because it points out that progressives dont have a lock on wonky academic research. What science says about public policy is more complicated than we sometimes like to admit, and challenges like Pethokoukis force us to reckon with that reality.
- more -
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2014/02/14/3287091/conservative-posts-week/
My first reaction was WTF? After reading the AEI piece at that link, I have to say: WTF?
Updated to expand on objection.
This is from the AEI piece:
<...>
In other words, the core thesis of Obamanomics the rich have immorally gaffed all the income gains of the past 30 years and its time to redistribute doesnt seem to hold up. Rather than attacking the 1% or 0.1% or 0.01%, Washington should be focusing on boosting growth and economic mobility through education reform and improving innovation-driven productivity.
The author is basically using a study to justify Reaganomics. Think about life since Reagan, rising inequality. Think about this stat:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/07/1275771/-Obama-v-Reagan-Fun-comparison-I-did-to-piss-off-a-wingnut-on-Reagan-s-B-day
Reagan fooled people with his bullshit tax increases. Yeah, he increased revenue, but it was on the backs of low-income Americans and seniors, including taxing unemployment benefits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986
More: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024465391#post30
OK, here are a few more statistics on growing income disparity from EPI:
- The significant income growth at the very top of the income distribution over the last few decades was largely driven by households headed by someone who was either an executive or was employed in the financial sector. Executives, and workers in finance, accounted for 58 percent of the expansion of income for the top 1 percent and 67 percent of the increase in income for the top 0.1 percent from 1979 to 2005. These estimates understate the role of executive compensation and the financial sector in fueling income growth at the top because the increasing presence of working spouses who are executives or in finance is not included.
- From 1978 to 2011, CEO compensation increased more than 725 percent, a rise substantially greater than stock market growth and the painfully slow 5.7 percent growth in worker compensation over the same period.
- Using a measure of CEO compensation that includes the value of stock options granted to an executive, the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was 18.3-to-1 in 1965, peaked at 411.3-to-1 in 2000, and sits at 209.4-to-1 in 2011.
- Using an alternative measure of CEO compensation that includes the value of stock options exercised in a given year, CEOs earned 20.1 times more than typical workers in 1965, 383.4 times more in 2000, and 231.0 times more in 2011.
Now, on to the larger point, which the TP author highlights and apparently agrees with.
This is particularly lame. That's like saying that if you address poverty, more people are likely to become poor. It simply doesn't follow.
TP:
(emphasis added, WTF?)
This reminds me of recent RW claims that you should be happy being a poor American because you'd be rich if you lived in Somalia.
Where on earth, within any given society, has income disparity and inequality helped to allieviate poverty? Where has poverty been reduced simply by making the rich richer in any country?
I posted this piece a few years back, noting that the best place to start was raising the minimum wage.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x584336
By MARK THOMA, The Fiscal Times
<...>
There is an equivalent of a Laffer curve for inequality, but the variable of interest is economic growth rather than tax revenue. We know that a society with perfect equality does not grow at the fastest possible rate. When everyone gets an equal share of income, people lose the incentive to try and get ahead of others. We also know that a society where one person has almost everything while everyone else struggles to survive the most unequal distribution of income imaginable will not grow at the fastest possible rate either. Thus, the growth-maximizing level of inequality must lie somewhere between these two extremes.
We may be near or even past the level of inequality where growth begins falling. The evidence on this is highly uncertain, so its difficult to say. But a few more decades like the last few could make the difference, so why take a chance? Id prefer to see policies implemented to reduce inequality given the present, elevated level of inequality, a reduction is unlikely to have much of an impact on incentives. But at a minimum we should resist further increases. This will reduce the chance of crossing over the point where growth starts to diminish rapidly, and it also reduces the chance that we will surpass the point where inequality causes cracks in the social structure.
Ive never favored redistributive policies, except to correct distortions in the distribution of income resulting from market failure, political power, bequests and other impediments to fair competition and equal opportunity. Ive always believed that the best approach is to level the playing field so that everyone has an equal chance. If we can do that an ideal we are far from presently then we should accept the outcome as fair. Furthermore, under this approach, people are rewarded according to their contributions, and economic growth is likely to be highest.
But increasingly I am of the view that even if we could level the domestic playing field, it still wont solve our wage stagnation and inequality problems. Redistribution of income appears to be the only answer.
The rest of the world has a huge supply of excess labor, and it is developing rapidly. So long as developing countries can continue to draw upon excess labor to expand economic activity, there will be little pressure for wages to rise and workers in the U.S. will continue to struggle. Until the rest of the world is more developed, or stops growing in a way that substantially alters the global pattern of production, a time that looks to be far, far away, unskilled workers in the U.S. will not get their share of economic growth.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/01/04/Redistribute-Income-to-Grow-Economy
The point about the "extremes" is key. The right likes to distort progressive goals to address income inequality by equating them with attempts to destroy the free market, redistribute wealth or worse in their eyes, Communism.
They get away with using this BS to cloud a debate about equity and fairness vs. greed and oppression. The United States is not going to cease to exist if employers pay their workers a living wage, even if it means the top CEOs have to earn less than 100 times the average worker. The world isn't going to be worse off if Americans don't live in poverty.
unblock
(52,317 posts)yawn.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)They've done and are doing everything in their power to destroy the safety net. They simply don't give a shit about people. The only point of this "study" is to justify their greed and growing income inequality.
cali
(114,904 posts)the story about sex. It is not insightful. It is not well written.
That's as far as I got.
idendoit
(505 posts)The well written analysis, which I agree with, of what the conservatives were saying or what the conservatives themselves were saying?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"The well written analysis, which I agree with, of what the conservatives were saying or what the conservatives themselves were saying? "
...what is it that you "agree" with?
idendoit
(505 posts)"Its very easy for progressives, especially who ones who read sites like ours, to fall into a trap of assuming that the most anti-intellectual conservatives speak for the movement in one voice. Thats both false and harmful: false, because theres a lot of interesting conservative thought out there challenging progressive shibboleths; harmful, because progressives who reduce conservatism to Steve Stockman-ism live in an intellectually impoverished world."
From the only hyperlink supplied by you before your update. May I assume that your disagreement is with the subjects of that same article? Or with Mr. Beauchamps conclusion?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Its very easy for progressives, especially who ones who read sites like ours, to fall into a trap of assuming that the most anti-intellectual conservatives speak for the movement in one voice. Thats both false and harmful: false, because theres a lot of interesting conservative thought out there challenging progressive shibboleths; harmful, because progressives who reduce conservatism to Steve Stockman-ism live in an intellectually impoverished world."
...with his lecture about progressives. What about the argument being made about inequality?
BTW, I think this "but also because it points out that progressives dont have a lock on wonky academic research"
...is condescending nonsense, especially when it's being used to push a flawed strawman theory wrapped in lame spin.
"From the only hyperlink supplied by you before your update. May I assume that your disagreement is with the subjects of that same article? Or with Mr. Beauchamps conclusion?"
No, the update states clearly why I disagree.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)"1.) If you buy the thesis that a big jump in high-end inequality has been mostly driven by technology and globalization"
I don't buy anything of the sort, I think that's a ridiculous idea, contrary to simple observation. It's driven by tax policy, graft, and government subsidies and it always has been.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)unblock
(52,317 posts)a (very) different government might have decided that a technical advance that displaces an entire profession might belong to that profession, or at least, that the owners of the technology, or society at large, have to compensate the displaced workers who certainly should not be punished for the discovery of something that makes their job easier.
or our government could have decided that intellectual property isn't property at all and bill gates would be a nobody and we'd all be using open source unix machines that actually made sense.
or we could have had a ceo-to-worker band and we'd have quite a lot more comfortable people and quite a lot fewer people with more loot than they could spend in several generations.
or we could have a government that didn't subsidize keeping cash offshore or firing workers here to open a plant in india.
or....
ProSense
(116,464 posts)it doesn't explain why Republicans work to destroy public sector jobs or stifle job creation. There are any number of solutions that would improve the situation in every industry, including service-related.
Why are they set against growth in renewable energy where millions of jobs can be created to move the country into the future, but for a dirty pipeline that only creates 50 jobs?
It's about greed and profits.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)of open mindedness and fairness of liberals but actually being all about making conservative philosophy universally available and promoted at minimum as valid arguments worthy of inclusion in our debates at the same time liberal thought is driven from other outlets in favor of corporate propaganda and/or more regressive wingery.
This is possibly the start of the 2nd act in the DLC/Turd Way agenda. Step one completed, absolute control of the Democratic party levers and most higher offices both elected and appointed.
Next stop, to focus the left remnants conversation towards the Andrew Sullivan/David Brooks/George Will mold or at least heavily weighted that way on average as to constrict the political spectrum and aims of the party.
With a very radical opposition cover is provided to move in this fashion, after all "who are you going to vote for, [insert boogieman here]?".
This in turn makes any level of accountability nearly impossible because the automatic defense of "you think [insert boogieman here] would help [insert concern here]?".
This creates a dynamic which substantially makes us governed by how insane the radical right is willing to go and by the avarice of the great "stakeholders" who call the shots for both parties, virtually unopposed though divided in some critical ways for a number of reasons including purely jockeying for position in the power game to be later dismissed when no longer needed as a prop and pure self interest.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)due to mainstream Democrats following the compromised leaders and refugee converts fleeing the TeaPubliKlans but who haven't changed their worldview but have been run over by the radical regressives and had to move to a less embarrassing and more functional host to pursue their long held aims.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)The comments over there read like a RW hi-five fest.