Auros ([info]auros) wrote,
@ 2009-05-05 00:13:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Current mood: slightly Marxist

Lifted and edited from one of my own comments on a previous post...
We have had a system in place over the last three decades where the lending class -- the top 0.1% of the wealth distribution -- made sure that everybody else was underpaid (by crushing any factor that would force them to provide raises in keeping with productivity growth, or even inflation most of the time), but then given credit to allow them to consume at the same standard they'd grown accustomed to during the rise of the middle class in the '50s and '60s. This structure ensured that over time, more and more people -- initially in the lower classes, but eventually in the shrinking middle class as well -- sank into what is effectively debt peonage: their future productivity became explicitly forfeit to the lenders, foreclosing any further efforts to extract concessions via unionization or other such tactics.

The system finally collapsed because the lenders got a little too greedy. I am not eager to bail them out by promising them even more of the future productivity of workers, in the form of today's government dollars to cover immediate losses, and tomorrow's government dollars to pay off the debt that financed today's government dollars.

Note that I'm perfectly happy to pay rich folks back on government debt if they're financing actual Keynesian spending today, which would help get the economy growing again. In that scenario, growth causes the debt to shrink over time relative to the economy as a whole -- the rising tide actually lifts all boats.

But I find it absolutely ridiculous that we are allowing the ultrarich to lend money -- at interest -- in order to finance paying off themselves, to make up for stupid risks they should have known better than to take. This basically has them taking money out of one pocket, handing it to the government, then grabbing it back and stuffing it in a different pocket, and charging our posterity for the privilege of having momentarily held the money.

Anyone who complains about efforts to use progressive taxation to redistribute wealth has missed the fact that the current distribution only exists because of a fundamentally unsustainable system of policies that was intentionally designed to concentrate wealth, and which has collapsed because such concentration leads to an insufficiency of demand relative to potential output. The poor can't afford to consume, and there aren't enough rich to pick up the slack.



(19 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]richie73
2009-05-05 07:24 am UTC (link)
That's a great explanation of the financial crisis.

(Reply to this)


[info]surpheon
2009-05-05 01:57 pm UTC (link)
"Anyone who complains about efforts to use progressive taxation to redistribute wealth has missed the fact that the current distribution only exists because of a fundamentally unsustainable system of policies that was intentionally designed to concentrate wealth"

I disagree a bit that it was intentionally designed. That sounds like economic Creationism and is likely to lead down a number of ratholes looking for The One who is to blame. I don't think we need to be looking for who is to blame, but rather identifying the environmental (regulatory or lack thereof) conditions that led to the evolution of such a beast.

We're not in the age of the robber barons anymore (for comparison, Rockefeller at his peak was worth almost THREE TIMES Bill Gates at his peak), this isn't a who problem we need to solve it's a how problem. There were certainly a wide range of thieves in the bushes along the path to this point, but running them down won't solve the big, where are we going anyhow?, question.

Edited at 2009-05-05 01:58 pm UTC

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]auros
2009-05-05 07:37 pm UTC (link)
I disagree a bit that it was intentionally designed.

You don't think the work of Mellon, Scaife, and the other billionaires who established Heritage and AEI and so on, was aimed at winning back the kind of politically dominant position that wealth had held before the Depression? These folks have been campaigning to re-subjugate the country almost since the day FDR took office.

Also, I'm not sure in what terms you're thinking that Rockefeller was richer than Gates, but I think that's a bad comparison anyhow -- there are a lot more people today, therefore the top 0.1% of the wealth distribution comprises a somewhat larger group, so, sure, the wealth may be somewhat more spread out amongst that group. I think it may also be right that the top 0.1% of the wealth distribution doesn't control quite as large a portion of the total net worth and income as they did back at the gilded age peak, but we're definitely close. Here's a graph of the Piketty-Saez income data. IIRC, the multiple between median net worth and the cutoff for membership in the top 0.1% is back at gilded-age levels, partly because the median person carries a lot more debt now. But I'm not finding the wealth graph just now.

Also, I think the comparison fails because of what wealth means. The modern super-wealthy have capabilities that would have been sounded mythological to Rockefeller -- tearing down mountains, building islands, jetting around the world in mere hours.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]surpheon
2009-05-05 10:06 pm UTC (link)
You don't think the work of Mellon, Scaife, and the other billionaires who established Heritage and AEI and so on, was aimed at winning back the kind of politically dominant position that wealth had held before the Depression?
I accept that was their aim. However, I don't believe they had the degree of control required to do it. I just don't accept anything can really be called intentionally designed when it was built by several different committees who were often at bitter odds with each other and flipped a coin every two years to decide which one would be slightly more in control. That's evolution, not deliberate design.

Also, I'm not sure in what terms you're thinking that Rockefeller was richer than Gates
Lazy man, current day dollars, terms</i>, although it holds up to casual verification.

there are a lot more people today, therefore the top 0.1% of the wealth distribution comprises a somewhat larger group, so, sure, the wealth may be somewhat more spread out amongst that group.
I have a different view in that there is A LOT more wealth today than in that era. More people and FAR greater productivity (the same thing that might make Social Security sustainable with minimal cuts) has resulted in a greater increase in wealth than population in the first world. (Yeah, that was a weasel, I think it's a legit distinction though.)

The modern super-wealthy have capabilities that would have been sounded mythological to Rockefeller
Again, it's a matter of perspective. The man power resources Rockefeller could command with his money in that era are simply awesome. And actually, he tore down many a mountain with them. But this is getting into 'pointless without a beer and a flight delay' territory :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]auros
2009-05-06 12:46 am UTC (link)
Individual policies clearly were designed, and then campaigned for relentlessly. You can look, for instance, at how the GOP reflexively offers "cut the capital gains tax!" as a solution for every problem that comes along. Similarly, they spent decades crafting their message against inheritance taxes.

Malefactors of great wealth have managed to exercise almost total control over GOP economic policy positions for quite a while. Up until the Clinton administration, their influence on Dem policies was much weaker, and some Dems actively worked against them. Not that I'd necessarily say every Dem economic policy before that was a great idea, or that every idea under Clinton was bad, but I think pretty clearly Larry Summers and Robert Rubin were (and are) under the influence of a worldview that says what's good for Wall Street is good for the USA.

I'm only interested in identifying "who's to blame" for policies insofar as it may help to make those policies unpopular -- many of the advocates are, themselves, so transparently avaricious that, once you have connected a policy to them, people are naturally suspicious of the motives behind it. I'm definitely also interested in, as you put it, "identifying the environmental (regulatory or lack thereof) conditions that led to the evolution of such a beast," and trying to ensure that after we re-engineer the Great Compression, it is harder for the top segment of the distribution to re-concentrate, again. But I think it's a mistake to simply ignore the quite real right-wing machine that was built up over decades with the goal of enabling the wealthy to expand their wealth.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]surpheon
2009-05-06 01:30 pm UTC (link)
I'm only interested in identifying "who's to blame" for policies insofar as it may help to make those policies unpopular

This is critical and I did not quite catch it in your post. But going against the American delusion of social mobility, that anyone can become rich through hard work and, therefore, the rich worked hard and earned it, is unlikely to be successful. I believe wealth concentration will be fixed the same way it occurred - a generation of small tweaks whose impact will accelerate over time. Anything that smacks of demonizing the rich will likely ignite a spectacular backlash; the majority of Americans honestly believe themselves to be just a few hardworking years away from being rich themselves*.

*An yes, this is as realistic as I being just a few hardworking years away from being Batman.

(And apologies for my past open-tag HTML sins.)

Edited at 2009-05-06 01:30 pm UTC

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]auros
2009-05-06 06:31 pm UTC (link)
I generally think the approach we want to take is to focus on things like "making work pay," and the Clintonite refrain of rewarding those who "work hard and play by the rules." But there's a corollary to that focus, which is making sure that breaking the rules (even in spirit) doesn't pay. Obama's current focus on cracking down on corporations that offshore their "headquarters" to a PO Box in the Caymans is an archetypal example of this other side, and I think it's smart politics. Every Republican who stands on the floor of the House or Senate to defend this sort of thing is offering up footage for the campaign ads against him- or herself.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]ala_too
2009-05-05 11:13 pm UTC (link)
what would you sugest as an alternative to get us out of the current fiscal crisis?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]auros
2009-05-06 12:22 am UTC (link)
Take the banks into receivership, just like we did with the S&L crisis, and like Sweden did in the '90s.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]polkamadness
2009-05-06 02:45 am UTC (link)
We have had a system in place over the last three decades where the lending class -- the top 0.1% of the wealth distribution -- made sure that everybody else was underpaid (by crushing any factor that would force them to provide raises in keeping with productivity growth, or even inflation most of the time),


What is the evidence for this? It is my understanding at the percentage of corporate profits going to labor has been roughly constant for decades.I don't see how to reconcile that with what you have written above.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]auros
2009-05-06 06:04 pm UTC (link)
No, what you're saying is clearly incorrect. Wages as a share of GDP are way down, while profits as a share of GDP are up -- therefore wages as a fraction of profits has to be down. (Not that this would be a particularly useful ratio, since wages are deducted from revenues as part of getting to profits.)

See Bloomberg, if you want a relatively conservative / business-friendly source on this fact. Also, Political Affairs Magazine. Also, a NYT graph, which notes, "Wages are at their lowest share of G.D.P. on record," and "Corporate profits are at their highest share since the 1960's."

Additionally, you have to remember that all payments to labor are counted in these figures -- so the explosive growth of executive paychecks means that you can have the total "labor" share of GDP stay the same, but have all the growth in payouts to labor actually going to people at the top. Adjusted for inflation, the median wage-earner ended up no better off at the end of the "Bush boom" than he or she had been before the Bush recession. Peak-to-peak, there was no improvement in the median wage, even though the productivity of labor was increasing rapidly. And the risk held by the median worker (instead of by their employer or society as a whole) increased drastically, as benefits such as low-deductible health-insurance, defined-benefit retirement plans, and gov't safety-net features like unemployment insurance were all cut back.

Edited at 2009-05-06 06:11 pm UTC

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]polkamadness
2009-05-10 10:16 pm UTC (link)
A quick Google search tells me I misspoke slightly; I meant to say labor's share of national income not corporate profits:

The allocation of national income between workers and the
owners of capital is considered one of the more remarkably
stable relationships in the U.S. economy. As a general rule of
thumb, economists often cite labor’s share of income to be
about two-thirds of national income—although the exact
figure is sensitive to the specific data used to calculate the ratio.
Over time, this ratio has shown no clear tendency to rise or fall.

above (with a graph) from here. I've seen similar things elsewhere; this was just the first hit on Google.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]polkamadness
2009-05-10 10:30 pm UTC (link)
I infer from the previous graph that overall labor compensation has been rising proportional to productivity for the last three decades. As wages are known to be a decreasing fraction of overall labor compensation, talking about changes in wages is not particularly interesting unless the shift in compensation type is controlled for.

That said, you're absolutely correct that inequality has been increasing so it is possible (probable?) that overall compensation to the middle class has been rising slower than productivity. Is there any evidence for this? In particular, by how much?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]juniorbird
2009-05-11 05:36 pm UTC (link)
Here's some good analysis:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2789

This is also interesting data, although less-analyzed; skim through it to be reminded of how certain jobs that used to be good are no longer good:
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/eci.ecconst.txt

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]polkamadness
2009-05-12 04:18 am UTC (link)
Thanks for the link. I can't tell from the graphs what the magnitude of the difference is.

That link shows the middle fifth after-tax income rising 21% in 27 years in real $$. US productivity gains appear to be greater than that; I found one source that claimed 1.37% average per year from 1980 to 1995 (16 years)= 21.92%; let's call it 37% for 1.37% x 27 years since I don't have any better numbers handy. However, we are interested in pre-tax numbers because we know there's been a great change in benefits and other non-wage income. So we are really comparing 21% + X to 37%. What's X? I'm guessing it's less than 16% (and hence Auros point is supported), but I don't have any data.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]juniorbird
2009-05-12 05:45 am UTC (link)
The graphs are labeled, and are in constant dollars. So, for instance, the difference between the % increase in income for the bottom quintile and the top 1% is 245%. Since we're looking at % increase we've eliminated the issue that the magnitude of the base salaries is so different.

The link is interesting, but it's important to know that people move in and out of the various tiers through time. The most useful data in that link can be gained by looking at the data by SIC code one-by-one, which at least to me isn't as dull as it sounds. Not all of the data shows an increase in income from the start year to the end year.

I'm not sure that I buy your assertion that "there's been a great change in benefits and non-wage income." I'll agree that there's been a great increase in the cost of providing those benefits to employers, but I'm not convinced that the benefit quality has improved. I'm also not sure how we'd measure the quality of the benefit, given changes in healthcare over the time period. Other benefits, such as 401(k) matching, are similarly ambiguous in value, since we saw defined-benefit plans being replaced by defined-contribution plans.

I'm also not sure that I buy that the "fair" rate of salary change for labor is rate of change of productivity. Productivity measures a lot of things, and some productivity gains are the result of capital investments, and capital may legitimately hope to gain a higher percentage of the producer surplus realized thus. Productivity also ignores hours worked, so the productivity gain may actually come from working longer hours, in which case labor would legitimately feel entitled to keep most of that gain for itself. There may even be times at which we, societally, would prefer that productivity goes down -- for instance, if we learned that if parents spent more time with their kids, the crime rate would go down, then we may want parents to work fewer hours. Should we then allocate the loss of producer surplus to the salaries of the people we just told to stay home so their kids don't go committing various violent acts?

So your question may be: if we can't look at income vs. productivity, what value does this whole discussion have? The useful part comes in comparative political economy here. Historically, increasing income inequality has been a strong predictor of a decrease in individual freedoms and political participation, and, over time, of the wealth of the country, regardless of culture or political system. That is, income inequality turns out to be incompatible with what we think of as freedom, wealth, and democracy. That's why the GINI index was created and why it's such an important measure.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]auros
2009-05-11 06:51 pm UTC (link)
No, you cannot infer that from this graph.

I'd note that first of all, the increase in the costs of the insurance and healthcare industries are important to consider. To some degree, health can be expected to consume a larger portion of total compensation because healthcare has become more valuable (can deliver better care). If we'd had a single-payer system since Truman tried to enact one in the '50s, I would've expected healthcare to consume a growing portion of the government budget, for precisely this reason, and I'd be OK with that.

However, a lot of the increase in benefits in this graph actually represents rising premiums for insurance that is at best no better, and in many cases much worse (higher deductibles, copays, etc -- all of which means you ought to adjust wages so they decline even faster than they do in the graph -- not to mention the amazing amount of money that is spent on analysts and lawyers who help insurers find ways to drop people when they actually need care).

In any case, I am not all that surprised that if you divide the pool of employed persons into "labor" and "management" by some rule, the split in all income received as direct payment for work has not varied all that much. The way that the rich have boosted their income relative to labor is by cramming down the total pool of this type of income, transferring productivity value into the pool of corporate profits, virtually all of which accrues to the very wealthy, in the form of dividends, stock options (the vast majority of which are given to executives, boardmembers, etc -- at a typical large company your incentive stock option package as a middle-class worker, while nice, will likely be something like 0.01% of what the CEO is getting), and so on.

As I mentioned, executive base salaries, although they have risen disproportionately, are not the main driver of income inequality. The main driver is the rise in corporate profits relative to payments to workers, for which I already handed you three citations. I don't have time right now to dig up more, though I'll note that Emmanuel Saez just received the John Bates Clark medal for having assembled (in collaboration with Thomas Piketty) the comprehensive case on this topic. No sane economist seriously argues that income inequality has not vastly increased over the last five decades, nor that median income (even including benefits) has had better than slow (sub-productivity) growth since the late '80s. (There are a fair number who argue either that income inequality is nothing to worry about -- i.e. trying to flatten the income or wealth distribution is not a legitimate policy goal -- or that there's no gov't policy that could reverse this that would not have unacceptable side effects; Greg Mankiw is one of those, IIRC.)

Edited at 2009-05-11 06:52 pm UTC

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]polkamadness
2009-05-12 04:38 am UTC (link)
I'd note that first of all, the increase in the costs of the insurance and healthcare industries are important to consider.


Disagree. We are talking about what people earn, not what they spend it on. If a rich guy doubles your health insurance costs (holding the shares of national income constant), it doesn't make him any better off.


The way that the rich have boosted their income relative to labor is by cramming down the total pool of this type of income, transferring productivity value into the pool of corporate profits, virtually all of which accrues to the very wealthy, in the form of dividends, stock options (the vast majority of which are given to executives, boardmembers, etc -- at a typical large company your incentive stock option package as a middle-class worker, while nice, will likely be something like 0.01% of what the CEO is getting), and so on.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that national income was an accounting item that included *all* income from US sources.


So to summarize what I think we've established so far:

* labor's share of overall income fluctuates over time with no clear trend so the super wealthy are not exploiting the rest of us by diverting national income into capital from labor.

* increased inequality has caused the middle class's total compensation to grow slower than productivity and that of the working rich to grow faster than overall productivity growth. I have personally heard a number of theories why this is, many of which don't involve exploitation by the rich.

* a number of important categories of middle-class spending have been growing much faster than inflation (e.g., health care, college tuition, housing), which is really squeezing the middle class.


(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]juniorbird
2009-05-12 06:02 am UTC (link)
"* labor's share of overall income fluctuates over time with no clear trend so the super wealthy are not exploiting the rest of us by diverting national income into capital from labor."

Certainly the stated goal of the tax cuts over the last 8 years has been to divert national income into capital from labor. There are two questions that I think should really be asked about this: one that you ask, that is, "is it exploitative?"; and another, which is "is this likely to actually accomplish any useful goal?"

If concentrating wealth in fewer hands worked to drive economic growth, then we should find that developed countries, comparable to the US, with higher rates of wealth concentration, would have experienced economic growth outstripping the US. In fact, the opposite has happened -- growth in countries like France and Italy has lagged the US.

Fair? Hard to measure. Works? Doesn't appear to.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(19 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…