14 ms·
>And an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets isn't in itself cause for concern, only if the members of the top income brackets are largely
by knuththetruth 9y ago
>And an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets isn't in itself cause for concern, only if the members of the top income brackets are largely static does it matter (since it means income is going to a small group of individuals, rather than a broader group of individuals who are swapped in and out of the top income groups).
So a society in which there's competition to be among a handful of feudal lords, but where everyone else suffers tenuous and desperation is unconcerning? How so?
We've been through this in American history. It was called the Gilded Age and it was a nightmare for all but a handful of robber barons, resulted in widespread social and political instability, and violence.
- rvo 9y agoI don't think you understand what feudalism was/is...
- knuththetruth 9y agoNo, I think I do. And so do a number of Silicon Valley "luminaries": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment
- rvo 9y agoI have no idea why you linked that. The two comments you have posted make absolutely no sense. Non sequitors. Why did you use feudalism first, and then some weird alt right stuff second? What's going through your mind?
- jadedhacker 9y agoThe idea is that feudal ideologies are making a comeback with the rise of an aristocratic class. These ideologies are finding support amongst the (conservative/reactionary) lower classes as they try to process why their lives are getting shittier without being provided a clear logical explanation. Thus they reach backwards for older more authoritarian models to try to restore their power. What is missing is the narrative of class struggle. From the linked wikipedia article: "It broadly rejects egalitarianism and the view that history shows inevitable progression towards greater liberty and enlightenment (thus, it is in part a reaction against "Whig historiography").[1][2] The movement favors a return to older societal constructs and forms of government, including support for monarchism or other forms of strong, centralised leadership such as a "neocameralist CEO"[3] of a joint-stock republic,[4] coupled with a right-libertarian, conservative or other approach to economics."
- icebraining 9y agoThere is an idea circulating that the political system in the US is turning into a "neo-feudalism", pushed by a mix of those alt-right "theorists" and some of the new rich. How much of this "neo-feudalism" shares with actual feudalism is not clear to me. See https://www.thedailybeast.com/californias-new-feudalism-benefits-a-few-at-the-expense-of-the-multitude https://www.thedailybeast.com/californias-new-feudalism-bene... https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/07/new-feudalism-fred-bauer/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/07/new-feudalism-fred-ba... https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/the-age-of-neofeudalism_b_2566546.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/the-age-of-n...
- rvo 9y agoNational review and Huffington Post agreeing on something. Wow.
- thaumasiotes 9y agoJust for reference, feudal lords didn't have wages. If it was discovered that you worked for money, you were basically expelled from aristocratic society.
- watwut 9y agoThat kinda depends on which version of feudalism we are talking about. They were not same. Nevertheless, feudal Lords did competed among each other and parent talked about competition not about wage.
- thaumasiotes 9y ago>> an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets
- jeffreyrogers 9y agoNo, that's not what I said. I'm arguing for the same thing you are. But income inequality isn't itself a problem if there is mobility between the income groups. They statistics in the Bloomberg article show income inequality but don't show lack of mobility, and then say we've hit "a disturbing new threshold". There may be lack of mobility along with income inequality, but the article doesn't demonstrate it.
- knuththetruth 9y ago>I'm arguing for the same thing you are. But income inequality isn't itself a problem if their is mobility between the income groups I'm not sure how you can't be arguing the same thing I am. The income inequality is what creates the immobility. This is demonstrated by other developed countries where there is less income inequality and greater social mobility, as others have pointed out. Can you elaborate?
- ameister14 9y agoAre you sure the income inequality creates the immobility and isn't just linked to the immobility in other ways? The demonstration of other countries implies the latter, but even that is really hard to prove.
- knuththetruth 9y agoYes, because history. There are no historical examples where wealth was held by the few and social mobility increased broadly. Only when resources are more evenly distributed among social classes has that ever happened.
- loeg 9y agoThe graphed figure is not wealth, but income. The (great-)grandparent poster is suggesting that as long as people bounce between income levels, i.e., they have some higher paying years and some lower paying years, it has a smoothing effect on the net income inequality.
- crusso 9y ago"to be among a handful of feudal lords" Is it helpful in a discussion like this to use exaggerated rhetoric? Wealthy people aren't in any meaningful way feudal lords. "everyone else suffers tenuous and desperation" But that doesn't describe Americans either, where absolute poverty levels are below 3%. https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/09/17/americas-real-poverty-rate-is-around-and-about-zero/#56fa096d5c6a https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/09/17/americas...
- ameister14 9y agoUh...the gilded age resulted in massive industrial and income expansion, the rise of the US onto the world stage financially and the lowering of maternal death rates, raising of life expectancy and a general post-industrial boom. Wages and average per capita savings doubled. It was also associated with the immigration of tens of millions of impoverished people, which is part of the reason for the massive inequality numbers - the population doubled during this period.
- metalliqaz 9y agoExcuse me but those benefits weren't result of the Guilded Age. Correlation, not causation. Both things were a result of the industrial revolution and globalization.
- ajross 9y agoExactly. As was communism for that matter. Ultimately almost all major economic change had technology at its root. And where that change has undesirable side effects it's the job of government to address them.
- ameister14 9y agoExactly. The Gilded Age was also a result of the industrial revolution and globalization. It describes a period of history - during which, these things happened.
- knuththetruth 9y agohttps://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/06/the-dark-side-of-the-gilded-age/306012/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/06/the-dar...
- pdeuchler 9y agoWet pavements do not cause rain
- ameister14 9y ago
- benmw333 9y ago"where everyone else suffers tenuous and desperation is unconcerning?" Capitalism in the US has created more wealth and lifted more people out of poverty than any other nation in the history of mankind. Your statement applies to third world countries... not the United States. Oh, we're also the most free and most prosperous nation ever. That helps.
- gameswithgo 9y ago>Capitalism in the US has created more wealth and lifted more people out of poverty than any other nation in the history of mankind citation needed >Oh, we're also the most free https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices#List_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices#List_b... >and most prosperous nation ever https://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/02/the-worlds-most-prosperous-nation-is.html https://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/02/the-worlds-most-prosperous-n...
- moate 9y agoCITATION NEEDED
- metalliqaz 9y agoNon sequitur. Capitalism requires some income inequality, but runaway income inequality will not be beneficial. Eventually, people get sick of eating rotten cabbage and the guillotines come out. Side note: "most free nation ever" is a total fiction as part of American exceptionalism. For just one example out of many, there are still religious blue laws on the books in towns across the country, and many are still enforced.
- kwhitefoot 9y agoWe have laws against trading on Sundays here in Norway too. They might well have started as religiously justified laws but they are nonetheless popular here where the vast bulk of the population is non-religious and a substantial fraction avowed atheist. We don't want our day of quiet disturbed.
- 9y ago
- microcolonel 9y ago> robber barons You mean, like, people who did productive business? How dare they!
- jandrese 9y agoHow dare they ruthlessly exploit a powerless serf class and the natural environment for their personal gain! Wait, that's exactly what we're saying.
- microcolonel 9y agoWelcome to the mid 1800s, where almost everyone is a serf almost everywhere, and the only way that'll change is through a revolution in industry, supported by uncoerced but nonetheless low-brow, hard, and nearly thankless labour.
- jandrese 9y agoWell, that and the invention of the living wage concept and a complete shakeup of the nation's economy from the great depression and two world wars.
- ribosometronome 9y ago>So a society in which there's competition to be among a handful of feudal lords, but where everyone else suffers tenuous and desperation is unconcerning? How so? To be fair, he did say it's concerning if the top income brackets are static, so as long as we shuffle out our feudal lords from time to time, we should be okay.
- gameswithgo 9y agoyes, but he just made that idea up, and it doesn't make a lot of sense, also probably never happens.
- ribosometronome 9y agoIt's almost like the haves want to try avoiding being the have-nots.
- jdoliner 9y agoHe certainly didn't just make that idea up. You can find plenty of research on it by googling "turnover in the 1%". For example: http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/07/news/economy/top-1/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/07/news/economy/top-1/index.htm...
- marnett 9y agoThe 'feudal lords' are not the 1%. They would be the .1% or the .01%. I imagine the latter two remain a much more static environment. Also, the 1% in this article is not even defined. After some digging it looks like it is Gross Adjusted Income. There are CEOs who wouldn't be considered in the 1% because they take salaries of $1 while making millions in stock options - it is such a ridiculous metric. Inequality is about wealth as much as, if not more than, wage.
- nugget 9y agoStock compensation is rolled into AGI. But I agree with you that 1%ers are not feudal lords.
- skookumchuck 9y ago> nightmare It was a time of massive improvement in the standard of living across the board. You can see this objectively in annual statistics on infant mortality, longevity, and average height. The industrialization of America was not producing luxury yachts for the overlords. It was producing consumer goods for everyone.