Oh, Brookings. Some day I want to travel to the happy, warm, comfortable planet that your institute headquarters sit upon.
Yesterday Ron Haskins, Co-Director of Center on Children and Families (not "for," but "on") and a senior fellow of economic studies in Brookingsland, dropped some wisdom about income inequality ("about," not "on"). You will never guess whose fault it is.
Okay, it's Brookings so you probably will. The income gap is the fault of the poor. Honest to goodness, the Onion could not write this stuff.
First, Haskins notes that while, yes, the figures about how the top 1% saw their share of the wealth pie jump from 10.5% in 1979 to 21.3% in 2007 (Why he stops in 2007 I don't know? Has anything significant happened since then? Like, I don't know, an economic crash that wrecked the poor but from which the wealthy bounced back stronger than ever? Anybody? I'm sure there must be something I could find with a two-second google.)
But-- not so fast, young whipper-snappers. Those figures fail to account for the effects of wealth distribution by Uncle Sugar, which made the poor practically wealthy and serious cut into the wealth of the actually wealthy. So, you know, income gap so not wide, really. Great news for everyone in the bottom 90%.
But Haskins is just warming up. He correctly notes that A) nobody really knows what an optimal wealth redistribution would be and B) the Republicans are in charge so talking about how to redistribute wealth is like talking about the best way to shine unicorn horns. He mentions that the GOP will use current high tax rates on the rich to justify their stance. Hmm. If only there were some way to add some context to that claim, just in case it's, you know, bogus.
So, Haskins says, since DC won't be doing anything about the gap, there are only two things to fix it.
Education
Education has always been a major key to economic mobility for individuals and demographic groups, but despite almost permanent reform since publication of the Nation at Risk report in 1983, schools are doing little to equalize opportunity across income groups. Recent research shows that children from poor and minority families come to school already behind their classmates from more affluent homes, and the schools actually increase these differences in achievement.
I had to emphasize that last part. Yes, schools cause students to fall behind and not learn stuff. Also, having firemen come to your house increases the likelihood that your house will be on fire, so if you want your house to never catch on fire, make sure that firemen never, ever come there.
Poor People Should Make Better Choices
Do you know how I found this article in the first place? Because Brookings put the following quote in a graphic on twitter, because apparently they are actually proud they said this!!
Inequality and poverty could both be substantially reduced if more adults were married and had two incomes, but the trends in declining marriage rates and growing rates of nonmarital births have been progressing for four decades with no reversal in sight.
Yes, you lazy fornicating poor people! You would have more money if you were properly married. From this one can only assume that every single member of the 1% is currently married-- and not just married, but married to somebody who also works, because that is the road to prosperity! Haskins does not comment on whether the rise of gay marriage might offset some of this; now that The Gays can all get married, I can only assume they will also get rich. Good for you, The Gays!
Nothing Else?
That's it. Haskins figures that unless education can suddenly propel lower-wealth people up into (not "onto") the non-existent middle class, or "unless individuals and families can make better choices about their own education, work, and marriage," this massive income inequality will continue and the government won't be able to do a damn thing about it. Sorry, irresponsible fornicating poor people.
As God is my witness, he actually said this stuff.
Somehow this economist, this senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, seems to have overlooked the possibility that other factors could influence the distribution of wealth in this country. I mean, I'm just an English teacher, but isn't the whole corporate-business-employment-wages thing supposed to be a natural engine for moving money around? I feel like we're overlooking some obvious ideas, like if Glut-Mart paid its workers enough to shop at Glut-Mart, Glut-Mart would sell more stuff and have to hire more people and then more wages would be paid etc etc etc.
I don't expect a Brookings economist to suggest things like getting the government involved in business matters, but couldn't he even muster a simple, "If corporate leaders would start pumping some of their huge profits back into the economy instead of jamming coin into their already stuffed pockets, that might help."
Instead we've got to go with the Magic of Education! Yes, if we just got poor kids to do better on standardized tests, they could go to college, rack up some massive debt, and find out that nobody is hiring in their field. If I just teach harder, companies will just start hiring more people and paying them more? Try as I might, I just can't figure out the cause and effect on this one.
I mean, I believe in education. I believe in it big time. Kind of why I went ahead and became a teacher and, like some kind of sucker, stuck with it for decades instead of quitting after two years to go work in a brokerage firm. But how can an actual economist for a living look at the vast complex engine that is our economy and conclude that the only thing wrong here is Not Enough Education and Too Many Poor Fornicators. I'm beyond amazed (that's "beyond," not "beneath.")
One of your most amusing! I think my favorite phrase is the shining the unicorn horns. Yeah, can't make this stuff up - oh, wait, that's what Haskins did.
ReplyDeletethanks, I like the little subtle reminder: " in 2007 (Why he stops in 2007 I don't know? Has anything significant happened since then?" I liked Studs Terkel's words: "more women and children on the street since the Great Depression"…. that is when my family grew up -- I was born at the tail end of the Depression and I remember!!!!
ReplyDeleteYour posts on education are strong, but on pretty much every other subject you decide to spout off on, you're pretty much a nitwit. Brookings has it exactly right: The breakdown of the family is the primary cause of poverty in this country. Among people who finish high school, get married, stay married, and only have kids after they are married, poverty is pretty much non-existent.
ReplyDeleteAs for the whole tax rate issue, you commit the common fallacy of believing that as tax rates changed over the years, the rest of the tax code remained static. It didn't. While marginal income tax rates used to be much higher than today, less income was subject to taxation, and there were many more ways to protect income from being taxed. Also, as the economy became more globalized, additional ways for the wealthy to hide assets overseas became viable. The bottom line is that the amount the wealthy are taxed has not changed much. Need proof? At the link you provided, take a look at what has happened to total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP over the years. Even as marginal tax rates plummeted and then went up and down over the years, tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has remained fairly constant during that time.
The bashing of Wal-Mart for not paying enough or the rich for not spending enough is easy but incredibly simplistic. Everyone responds to the economic incentives presented to them, and most of those choices are rational. Yelling at the powers that be for refusing to be economically stupid is not helpful. Neither is it helpful to infantilize the poor by pretending that their dumb life choices do not greatly impact how their lives turn out. Are all rich people married? No, but being rich means that you have the cushion to more easily recover from your mistakes. For everyone else, being dumb and/or irresponsible is much costlier.
I may well be a nitwit, but I know the difference between correlation and causation. " Among people who finish high school, get married, stay married, and only have kids after they are married, poverty is pretty much non-existent." That may be true, but it isn't even on the same planet as "proving" that shacking up causes poverty. It could as easily prove that being reasonably wealthy causes marriage.
DeleteThe tax rate issue is hugely complicated. I would expect a professional economist to at least acknowledge that, and at most provide some of the same sort of context and explanation given by the article I linked. Not just toss off a baseless quick judgment.
The economic engine is broken. The system that used to take the generated productivity and distribute its benefits across all workers is not working. Again, I didn't propose that Wal-Mart et al fix it singlehandedly, but to pretend that the engine is working just the way it's supposed to (and always has) is either disingenuous or stupid. The myth of rational choices in the marketplace is just a fairy tale. Something else is going on, and it's not good, and it's rotting away the guts of this country, and yelling at poor people for shacking up doesn't even begin to address it.
"I know the difference between correlation and causation."
DeleteMaybe, but applying it would be a good thing. It is a provable fact that paying to run two households costs more than running one. People married and living together is economically efficient, and you don't need to be a professional economist to know that.
"The tax rate issue is hugely complicated."
Yes, it is. And yet, you treated it as though it were cartoonishly simple. Physician, heal thyself.
"The economic engine is broken... to pretend that the engine is working just the way it's supposed to (and always has) is either disingenuous or stupid."
Well, I never said such a thing, but if it makes you feel better to assert otherwise, feel free. I certainly agree that there are economic problems today, but unfortunately, your post does not actually address or identify any of them. Rather than saying the system is broken, one could just as easily argue that a confluence of many economic factors led to a mid-20th century "holiday from history" for American workers that was simply unsustainable, and that today's situation is a reversion to the norm.
But out of all this complexity, one thing that can be said almost without any qualification whatsoever is that if Americans would get married and stay married, there would be far less poverty. Those who claim otherwise are simply reacting viscerally to what they perceive as moralizing or "blaming the victim," rather than considering objective facts. "Victim" or not, if someone is making life choices that make his situation worse, it is willfully obtuse to refuse to acknowledge it.
Jack, Peter is anything but a nitwit and name calling is a trollish thing to do in any event.
DeleteHaskins' article provides absolutely no sources for anything he says and neither does your post. What is your source for your contention that "The breakdown of the family is the primary cause of poverty in this country. Among people who finish high school, get married, stay married, and only have kids after they are married, poverty is pretty much non-existent." I find it pretty hard to believe that many married couples with only a high school education and three kids, even if both of them are working, might not easily be below poverty level. Nothing you say refutes the fact that Warren Buffet is taxed at a lower rate than his secretary, or Business Insider's statements that "Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy" or that "Super-low tax rates on rich people also appear to be correlated with unsustainable sugar highs in the economy--brief, enjoyable booms followed by protracted busts. They also appear to be correlated with very high inequality." So saying "the rich don't spend enough" is "yelling at the powers that be for refusing to be economically stupid"? "Economically stupid" for whom or what, their own greedy selves or the economy in general? Obviously, having kids without two incomes or one extremely good one is not a good idea financially, but what's your brilliant idea help people remedy that besides yelling at the poor for making economically stupid choices? Besides, as Peter says, your contention could just as easily (and more easily if you have any knowledge or understanding of sociology) prove that being reasonably wealthy causes marriage.
"Peter is anything but a nitwit and name calling is a trollish thing to do in any event."
DeleteMy statement was very qualified, but at any rate, I was responding to him in the same tone he tends to use when addressing others. I assumed he could handle it. If you think I'm being trollish, then I'm not sure how you can enjoy reading this blog. Peter rarely pulls punches with his withering contempt.
"What is your source for your contention that 'The breakdown of the family is the primary cause of poverty in this country...'"
This has been studied extensively, and the studies are numerous. It also has the benefit of correlating nicely with common sense. The last I checked, the poverty rate among married couples was less than 7%, but was closer to 40% among single parents. Among married couples with high school diplomas, the poverty rate is minimal.
"Nothing you say refutes the fact that Warren Buffet is taxed at a lower rate than his secretary..."
Where did I try to refute that? Please re-read my comment. My point was not to say what the tax rates should be, but rather to point out that you can't really say that raising rates has no negative impact on the economy, because looking at rates alone doesn't tell you much about how much people are actually paying.
"So saying 'the rich don't spend enough' is 'yelling at the powers that be for refusing to be economically stupid'?"
Yes, it is. What, do you think the wealthy are hoarding their cash right now just to spite everyone else? Or are they doing it because of the uncertainty in the economy right now? These people did not get rich by being economically foolish.
"Obviously, having kids without two incomes or one extremely good one is not a good idea financially..."
Yes, which is exactly what the guy from Brookings and I are saying. So why are you getting bent out of shape about it? Is it just one of those "rude" facts that we aren't supposed to mention, despite its being "obvious?"
"...but what's your brilliant idea help people remedy that besides yelling at the poor for making economically stupid choices?"
Who's yelling? The guy writes a blog post, and suddenly you and Peter are complaining about "yelling?" But even if someone is yelling, what is the difference between "yelling" at the rich or "yelling" at the poor? Have we infantilized the poor to the point that they are beyond criticism? As for "helping" them, I think pointing out the economic, social, and emotional benefits of marriage is probably a pretty good place to start.
"Besides, as Peter says, your contention could just as easily (and more easily if you have any knowledge or understanding of sociology) prove that being reasonably wealthy causes marriage."
Poppycock. The steep reduction in marriage rates among the American poor is a very recent phenomenon. The idea that being "wealthy" (I suppose this includes the upper-middle class, as well) "causes" marriage is absurd on its face.
You definitely need to study some sociology. And to get over your empathy deficit disorder. And if you don't see the difference between Peter berating the powers that be and you name calling, you definitely have a problem. Some people want to improve the situation for all, and other people don't.
Delete"You definitely need to study some sociology."
DeleteI have, but your condescension is noted.
"And to get over your empathy deficit disorder."
Feeling a little self-righteous, eh? Libs are really something else. If I were to suggest that perhaps it would be a good idea for a poor person to go back and get that GED, you would probably agree that was good advice. But suggest that perhaps marriage is a better life choice than single-parenting -- even when you admit this is "obvious" -- and suddenly I have crossed into territory that Shall Not Be Mentioned.
As for Peter, I hardly think his snide remarks about other bloggers (of which I generally whole-heartedly approve, by the way) constitute "berating the powers that be." Your selective outrage is pretty glaring.
I do agree with you, though, that some people want to improve the situation for all, and other people don't. Some people see the ongoing destruction of the family among the working class in this country and are greatly distressed about the implications of this for the kids growing up in that situation. Others would rather stick their heads in the sand and pretend that it's just too rude to mention "obvious" truths that could actually help those people. Talk about an empathy deficit.
You're just as condescending. I haven't seen him berate other bloggers, just explain where he agrees or disagrees. Other bloggers are not the powers that be. And it's not that I don't think it shouldn't be mentioned. I just don't think simply "pointing out the economic, social, and emotional benefits of marriage" is a productive way of trying to remedy the situation. Starting out in poverty tends to lead people to make bad choices. It's hard for them to believe in the good ones. A more practical way to start might be to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. Of course it wouldn't solve everything, but it would be a practical way to start.
Delete"Starting out in poverty tends to lead people to make bad choices."
DeleteSo helping them make fewer bad choices would seem to be a good way to help them, no?
"A more practical way to start might be to raise the minimum wage to a living wage."
Well, if your goal is to reduce employment, accelerate the automation of retail jobs, and speed up the outsourcing and automation of manufacturing jobs, then yes, that is a fine plan. But even if one stipulates for the sake of argument that "living wage" laws are an unmitigated positive, encouraging marriage is still a win for everyone and for society as a whole. I mean, I get the feeling that if we discovered that poor people regularly chop off their own fingers as a way of venting frustration, you would consider it "mean" and "moralizing" to point out that this probably isn't a very healthy practice and counterproductive to getting ahead economically. I, on the other hand, have no problem saying, "Hey, stop cutting off your damn fingers!" I guess I'm just mean that way.
I guess so.
Delete"The economic engine is broken... to pretend that the engine is working just the way it's supposed to (and always has) is either disingenuous or stupid."
ReplyDeleteYes, Jack, you certainly implied such a thing. And you know what? Yes, living together is more economically feasible than running two households, but you don't have to be married to do that. Sure, you'll save a little more if you can file married filing jointly, but it's still better economically than running two households. So yes, what you're saying is more simplistic moralizing than objective fact.
"Yes, Jack, you certainly implied such a thing."
ReplyDeleteWell, no, I actually didn't.
"Yes, living together is more economically feasible than running two households, but you don't have to be married to do that."
Technically true, except that the breakup rate among non-married cohabitants makes the divorce rate look like a rounding error. So yes, the fact remains that if you want kids, marriage is the way to go.
YES. I do want to speed up the automation of menial jobs. I don't see why anyone should be required to work at all in this stage of technology. This is the part that is really hard for people to wrap their minds around: We gotta stop thinking that someone has to give something up for someone else to gain something. We can all have our cake. The rich people already have their cake, and don't want to share it. They don't want to wait in line like normal people. They don't want to have to do a lot of the things most people do on the regular. Their piece of cake doesn't get any smaller, just less private. And exclusivity is a big thing for most rich people.
ReplyDeleteSomeone will tell you that the economy will collapse and no one will do the jobs that no one wants to do because there's no need to work. Everyone has what they need. Believe it or not, there is someone for every job, and someone will enjoy doing it. If i had the choice of doing nothing all day and contributing to the world, i would sit on my ass the entire weekend. Then on monday, i would sit on my ass. And after a few weeks went by, I would crack open a book on mechanical repair, and then set it down after 3 minutes and take a nap. I'd probably go out and visit my neighbors, see what they were having for dinner, and i'd have some too. Then i'd go to the store and by groceries for my neighbors, so that i could feel like i was being productive even though i wasn't working. I might even drive somewhere far away, and go see something. But eventually, after i've had my fill (glimpse) of the life of the modestly rich, i'd settle down in my heated, in-ground pool that i dug a hole for personally and built out of parts from my 3d printer, and i would work on programming the jets in my pool to be controlled more like a dimmer switch than a ceiling fan, and i would post it online to share with everyone who built there own do it yourself pool off a torrent they downloaded from piratebay, and together we will prosper. Not because we are better than anyone else, but because we can see the fruits of our labor. Because for the first time ever, we are truly only limited by our own efforts. Hell, i would even work every now and then just for the hell of it. And if i fucked up, they could just move me down the chain a little. If i can't program a machine or put it together, then let me test it. If i can't do that, don't let me near it. And make that my punishment. Cuz telling someone they have to work hard or lose their job only makes them work hard enough to not get fired. Tell someone they can't work at all because they don't know what they're doing, but still give them the benefits everyone else gets, and they will try harder to move up the ladder. And if they don't want to move up the ladder, let them sit at home and rot. It's not on your dime anymore, so you don't need to tell them what to do or get upset by it.
Last note to leave on: If Mcdonalds automated their entire process, there would be no one left to spit in your food :o