Examining The Roots of Economic Inequality

Economic Inequality occupies such a prominent place in today's political-economic discussions that even the high-powered elites (at least some of them, like the Bank of International Settlements) have actually warned of its metastasis. This suggests the problem is at once global but still far more pernicious in some nations, such as the USA.

The general measure is the Gini coefficient and for the U.S. it has dramatically increased the past 25 years and is now nearly 0.40. This is nearly on a par with the Philippines and Mexico. Not only that but inequality is increasing.

There are two ways to look at what's happening: 1) simplistic or 2) systemic. In the simplistic narrative inequality is simple because it's just reduced to income inequality. People-workers are naturally unequal in means, salary, perks etc. because they occupy different stations in life, have different training, aptitudes, education, background etc. so some will "get to the top" and have it all or most of it with humongous incomes, while others will flounder as flunkies in bottom feeder jobs like burger flippers or maybe street cleaners.

Following from this, the elites will always be able to buy more and bigger, whether cars, homes, TVs, home theaters or even vacations. By this narrative, it's the fault of the "flunkies" for accepting what are supposed to be starter jobs and keeping them instead of moving on to bigger and better things, preferably by getting more training, education etc. (No mention here at all of the fact that 95% of all wealth is inherited, as first exposed by Michael Parenti in his book 'The Dirty Truth')

As a corollary to this, the poor  - those in poverty and needing welfare or food stamps - are also to blame for not pulling themselves up and making more of their lives by getting higher paid jobs as opposed to say "settling" for a $7.50 an hour fast food McJob.

Of course, this is all a balderdash right wing fairy tale that may console the Right winger's conscience but barely touches on reality.

Thus, to really get at what's going on one needs to use a systemic approach and analysis. In doing so we learn a number of brutal truths:

1) The Job profile in the U.S. now is like a steep pyramid with only a few "great" jobs at the top, mainly techies (Google, Microsoft etc.) but the bulk are mediocre or poorly paid. Also, with few benefits. Look at the typical WalMart worker. The latter doesn't go for food stamps or Medicaid because he is endemically "poor" but rather is too poorly paid. Since his company won't provide him the health benefits he needs, of course he must go on Medicaid.

2) The pyramid took this form since the 1990s, and especially after NAFTA, when millions of manufacturing and production jobs were sent out of the country and plants - as well as steel mills and auto factories (paying truly living wages of $35/hr or more) were shut down.

3) While many econ gurus made predictions that computer -software and other better paying jobs would come to the fore this didn't materialize. Instead companies (e.g. Dell)  "outsourced" their tech help software expertise to India. (Indian schools now train their s/w students not only in the various online help techniques but also how to imitate American accents).

4) Thus, the fact of the matter is the elite jobs never came back and hence upward mobility - once a cornerstone of the U.S. work force- went into abeyance and is perhaps now extinguished permanently according to some authors (See Juliette Schorr, 'The End Of Work') .  The WSJ in one article back in August actually predicted that by 2020 fully 44 percent of the workforce would be in retail- and receiving a truly 'royal' average wage of about $9.50 an hour. When the Wall Street Journal recognizes such a huge proportion of retail jobs you know upward movement is a thing of the past.

All of which shows that claiming income disparity is at the root of economic inequality is true in one big sense, but misplaced if  massive U.S. job outsourcing via globalization is not factored into the equation - and acknowledging this interjects a systemic defect.

5) American workers have gang-busted with productivity gains since the early 1970s, but have virtually nothing to show for it. Wage increases have only marginally increased (last month to barely 2.2 percent)  and meanwhile benefits have been pared back. Worse, productivity is now almost uniformly measured not the way it once was - by how much a worker did per hour - but instead how many workers can be CUT so that those remaining can still do the work of the earlier total.

The other systemic side of economic inequality has to do with how many advantages the wealthiest have which average workers do not. For example, they have enough disposable extra income that they can afford to be in the stock market and sustain heavy losses - say in a correction or downturn - without having to eat cat food. The ordinary worker with his or her 401k of only $100,000 can't afford that luxury.

Also, the wealthy can make use of  computer flash trading to cash in shares before the ordinary Joe can reach for his smart phone. The rich also know how to use fractional trading to benefit as well as get tax write-offs the ordinary bloke can only dream of and can use trusts to protect his estate that the ordinary Joes and Janes can't.

From a systemic viewpoint then we see the plight of the U.S. worker can be laid at several forces which are causing available jobs of any quality to plummet: 1) globalization, including the oncoming TPP trade deal, and 2) automation - which is enabling companies to jettison even more workers and thereby save on salaries and benefits. These factors,  in tandem with the wealthy stacking  market transactions in their favor, means it will always be a rigged game. Worse, the wealthy will make extra money off the backs of the workers via the stock and mutual fund losses of the latter.

The solution to the problem then must be systemic but not as the 'simplistic' folks portray it. First, the market and stock market in particular must be held to account for the little guy. No more flash trades or fractional share buying, selling. No more carry trade. Plus each transaction carries a tax hit, no more unlimited exchanges.

At the same time,  the  rich alone can't be taxed to sustain an economically equitable society. Everyone of middle means must be taxed more highly but also understand they will get it back in higher benefits (like the Europeans do), including: lower health care costs, lower drug costs, and lower thresholds for Medicaid and even food stamps. Also, low cost or free child care to enable parents to work or even have the chance to get better jobs (if such become available0.

In Europe, citizens accept much higher taxation but this is balanced by much more government support they can depend on, whether for pensions, healthcare or childcare. In the U.S. model, Americans are taught to be rabid individualists and "go it alone" without any support,  but if they stumble (say by getting a fatal cancer or being in a bad accident), too bad. However, if they hit life's lottery - yeah, they will live like kings, or at least Trump.

Trouble is 99 percent will not make life's lottery, so will end up scrabbling for a life line at some point. (Which is also why you see so many hard working Americans throwing their money at lottery tickets the only chance they have- in their mind.)

Donald Trump in all his economic bloviations, has gotten one thing correct - and it is driving the anti-tax fanatics of the GOP nuts: higher taxes have to be paid, especially by the super rich. But if economic inequality is ever to be conquered and real productivity returned - higher taxes must be borne by everyone of decent means - which is also why the Bush middle class tax cuts were one of the worst things ever for this country. Especially as they were implemented when Bushie boy was starting $ 4 trillion wars. Sadly, the Dems contributed to that malaise by voting for them in the first place then extending them past their sunset date (which even the Bushies knew was needed to prevent a deficit blowout.)

Now all those war debt coppers got to be paid back, and the rich alone - rich as they are - can't do it. The burden falls on us all. But it's surely a cautionary point against starting any future conflicts we can't pay for and which will only increase inequality!

The truth for my bible -believing friends is that the "parable of talents" would end up a poor joke in today's rigged financial world. I don't believe Yeshua, if he was alive now, would even be daft enough to propose it. He'd know in advance, given he's God, whoever received a talent to invest would lose it - in about the time taken to be fleeced in a flash trade.

See also:

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/08/dear_middle_class_welcome_to_poverty_partner/

http://www.salon.com/2015/09/09/robert_reich_americas_economy_is_immoral_partner/

Atheism With A "White Male" Problem? Yes!

Yes, Atheism does have a "white male" problem - meaning far too many white males to African-Americans, and especially females.  I noticed the dearth of females over all the years I attended Atheist conventions and conferences dating from the early 1990s. Generally, one would see about three white males to every female, and even the primary presenters would be white males.

Why does this imbalance exist? A piece in salon.com ('5 Reasons there aren't more women in atheism',  July 29) lists the following - and I will respond to each:

1) Women are more devout because they have to be. Women’s religiosity is directly related to economic security. The lack of a social safety net means that women, who are still responsible for the bulk of elder and child care, often need to rely on religious organizations to support themselves and their families

This is basically true, and one reason the preponderance of female atheists seen is from higher socio-economic levels, many in the $75,000 - $100,000 income range or higher. Thus, these women needn't worry about projecting a "halo" effect wherever they go since the probability is low they will ever have to rely on church-based charities or religious organizations for a safety net. The same is not  true for low-wage workers, who may not only require food stamps for their families but also supplies from food pantries  - many operated by religious charities.

2) Sexism is real and has an effect on women’s participation and leadership within the atheist community. Rape jokes and sexual harassment, as penalties and tools to silence women, exist in atheist and secular groups as well as religious ones

Yes, sexism exists everywhere - even among rationalists, of which atheists are perhaps among the strongest manifestations. However, in all my years attending atheist conferences, parties, etc. I've not seen or heard "rape jokes" or sexual harassment. Generally, male atheists at all these gatherings were well behaved and the female atheists of such powerful identities-personalities that  they likely wouldn't have tolerated any such nonsense. So I believe this reason doesn't apply to the same degree as (1)

3) Men of all ideological persuasions are overrepresented in media — why should atheists be any different?  .....We see more male atheists because we see more males. Prominent atheist and secular men benefit from media that grossly prefers the speech of men.

Well, true - but that is a problem of the media, as noted by Robert McChesney (The Problem of the Media) and many others. For whatever reason, the corpora-media emphasize and exalt the male voice over others, probably because of a misplaced belief it is more authoritative and the male has more credibility.  I confess to being guilty of this viewing bias as well. For example, when I see the smiling, winsome female physician who often reports on CBS News, her continuous smile for me detracts from her creds. Meanwhile a seldom smiling or non-smiling doctor - like Michael Agus - is taken much more seriously. Why? I don't know - but perhaps this is a reflection of the media bias, but also the tendency of females to smile too much when on the air. (I tend not to trust over-smiling individuals in general)

4) Atheism and secularism are part of a movement, with leaders, on Earth. This social movement is no less subject to norms than anything else and we live on a thoroughly patriarchal planet. Have you seen pictures of any of the major economic summits in the world

True, but again this ties in to (3). If the patriarchal emphasis wasn't present then it is logical to expect the media emphasis on male voices wouldn't be either. One feeds into the other. Perhaps also the fact that females doing the same jobs are paid only 79 cents to every dollar the male earns is also part of this. What we need is an entire transformation but where must it begin? With the society or the individual? The classic paradox of what comes first, the chicken or the egg

5) It’s no exaggeration to say that managing sexism is exhausting, depressing and distracts from work women could be doing as visible spokespeople of fighting for higher and equal pay, or immigration policies that include uneducated women, or ending sexual predation, or advocating for the right to control our own reproduction. All of which, by the way, would probably contribute to the growth of secular and non-religious culture.

True, but again, this is not genuinely independent but links in to (3) and (4). If the patriarchal paradigm wasn't predominant women would be paid equally to men, and also sexism would recede and we'd see greater female representation, not only in the secular sphere but also in business, economics and scientific conferences.

Now, I will list my own reason:

Women are more sensitive to moral issues and are likely cognizant that - by a large majority-  Americans view Atheism as an amoral or immoral philosophy (see, for example, the most recent Pew Forum on Religion survey). They are thus wary of taking on such baggage, given many are already caught in the crossfire of our politically polarized society. This is distinct from (1) because it cuts across all economic levels and one finds higher income women as sensitive to how they are perceived morally by the society as lower income women. (As an example, my wife - an atheist in every way one could be defined - yet refuses to call herself one.)

In other words Atheism, to reach these women - must show it can rise beyond the negation of deity and is also a positive moral force for good. The optimal way, as I wrote in my book, Beyond Atheism, Beyond God, is to support social justice causes.  What do I mean by this?

According to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz:  “the upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year and control 40 percent of the nation’s total wealth”.

Conversely, the bottom 80 percent of Americans own just 7 percent of the nation’s wealth. Stiglitz notes that “while the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall”

 By any measure this economic inequality is a corrosive, long term evil, given it reduces people’s choices and indeed can incept criminal acts for economic self-preservation. This also dovetails with the salon.com quote of Walter Bristol, an atheist interfaith activist, who wrote last year,

“Economic inequality is one of the most imminent issues facing Western society today. Any progressive movement that chooses to dismiss it is and will be rightfully dismissed themselves.”

This has become the warp and woof of today's white -male heavy atheism as it has become enamored of free market Neoliberal capitalism and libertarianism.  (Both of which eschew the "entitlement" state )

To me, this is the core of the issue and problem for modern atheism which has become too enmeshed with capitalist economics and libertarian BS especially.

To quote the 2013 salon.com article again:

"It’s time for the atheist movement to get off the political sidelines. It’s time to truly help this country become a better place to live for all its citizens"
 

And when it does "get off the sidelines" look for a dramatic increase in female atheists!

See also:

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/04/atheisms_white_male_problem_a_movement_needs_a_moral_cause_beyond_glamorizing_disbelief/

Can We All Agree on Political Basics?

This is a question I've been contemplating since my contretemps with a self-proclaimed tea bagger relative less than ten days ago. The heart of the matter is whether or not we can agree on the same facts, because if not, then it must be admitted that any concordance is impossible and we must be in perpetual hostility. (People are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.) This could also be taken as a sign that the nation is perpetually polarized and there will always be two nations - one  'Red',  one 'Blue',   at least to a first approximation.

Another factor one must consider is the level of insight, critical thinking ability and education. Though people may not like to admit it, these all bear on the person's access to and grasp of facts without which common ground is impossible. Does this mean everyone must have gone to college? No, only that they have open and inquiring minds and are prepared to have their pet beliefs challenged and defend them via their own logic and argumentation as opposed to taking the easy path of telling your opponent to "read the book."  Of whomever.

It also presumes the person is prepared to educate himself beyond high school, and not restrict himself to one avenue of information - say FOX News, or right wing news channels.  (Left wing sources should obviously be checked too - as I showed with numerous posts in February and March on how MSNBC was not getting its facts straight to do with the Ukraine crisis. I also showed in other posts the conspiracy phobia infecting many on the Left and why they need to surmount it - because it diminishes their argumentation capacity.)

One sign that a person is on the right track is that s/he welcomes new knowledge - especially emanating from opponents and doesn't regard it as the signature of a "know it all" - which is a derogatory, anti-intellectual term. The use of such a detraction shows that those who use it are neither critical  thinkers or that they welcome new knowledge, facts etc. It instead shows a fear of knowledge - perhaps born of a lack of enough exposure during their elementary or high school years.

So what political basic facts should we all be able to agree upon? (Noting these will also impinge on areas of economics, history and science).  I set them out as follows:

1) We no longer inhabit a democracy or Republic but a corporatocracy which is run by and for the benefit of corporations.

2) The two primary political parties are themselves corporate parties - running off the dime of Big Business. The Dem version we call Neoliberal, the Republican is more Neocon - twisting the economy to serve the war state.

3) Our history is told as a form of propaganda - especially regarding the wars we've fought - most of which were based on pretexts.

4) Global warming science is valid and 97% of actual climate scientists - not "liberals". - ACCEPT it. Also, the effects are going on all around us and are supported by quality science.

5) Our nation is beset by fundamental economic inequality which at root can be traced to a too small tax base and tax rates -given what the nation seeks to support.

6) Too much of the tax commons goes to military spending and is wasted.

7) Our health system suffers from too uneven a quality and not enough health professionals where needed.

8) Presidential elections are virtually meaningless and are merely portrayed as a 'horse race' between two top contenders. Very little real information is brought out for citizens.

9) The political system itself is corrupted by money and won't be fixed until we cease saying money is "speech" and allowing it to sway our elections.

10) Religion is far too involved in our politics and needs to be exposed more to Jefferson's "wall of separation".  Having a religion also should not be a determinant of whether a person is qualified to run for public office.

I'd like to believe reasonable citizens can agree on even half of these - but that remains to be seen!

A Church Rolling in Wealth - But Out of Touch With the Faithful?

It was during one of my Religion classes at Monsignor Pace High that I once more made Brother Stephen squirm with a question he wasn't expecting.  This had been in the context of the role of the laity in the Church and the economic problems often experienced, and reconciling this with the evident wealth at the Vatican. Anyway, my question to Bro. Stephen was: "How much do you estimate the net worth of the Catholic Church to be?"

Dumbfounded, he had to reflect for several moments as he placed a hand on his chin and you could almost see his computer-like brain doing the math. Then he replied:

"I would venture a guess at maybe several trillion dollars in today's currency but it could be more."

He was perhaps more than a little accurate, especially when - nearly 20 years later- all the scandals erupted at the Vatican Bank and many further details became known. (This was around the time "God's Banker" - Roberto Calvi - was found hanging under Blackfriar's  Bridge, London.)

The point here is that like a rotting fungus, the Church's immense wealth always lurks in the background of whatever other actions it takes, or doctrines it proclaims - especially via its Bishops. To the cynic, which I make no bones about being, there is the natural suspicion that the Church's legions of sexual mores are constantly pushed in order to protect its wealth. If the minds of the faithful can be kept focused on their shortcomings,  mainly sexual "sins" and failures - they won't be so preoccupied with the Church's enormous riches and what it's doing with them.

Consider as 'Exhibit A' the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops annual meeting in Baltimore. Now
look at the agenda items addressed to see where its priorities lay.  In this venue the bishops of the richest, most powerful (and increasingly unequal)  nation in the world, convened in a city wracked by generational poverty, and talked about pornography, contraception and gay marriage-   while incidentally addressing questions of minor liturgical importance. Poverty was not on the agenda. Why not?

Did they not pay attention to Francis earlier condemnation of economic inequality? See e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/bravo-to-pope-francis-for-warning-of.html

Did they not hear or process his warnings concerning trickle down nonsense integrated into modern Neoliberal capitalism? Or, could it be that once more they are confirming my suspicions of distracting attention from wealth-poverty-inequality  issues to belabor the faithful with pseudo-moral nonsense (compared to the major moral transgressions inherent in economic inequality)?

But a bit of history is useful. As brilliant and timely as Francis' message, it wasn't really original. In fact, this November marked the 27th anniversary of Economic Justice for All, a groundbreaking pastoral letter that condemned American poverty as a national moral scandal. Seen as a refutation of Reaganomics, the document received substantial media attention - along with severe conservative criticism-  when it was released in 1986.  The construction of the letter was remarkably democratic; economists and theologians were enlisted, drafts were released to the public.


A month later, the bishops of Maryland, the cradle of the Catholic Church in America, met at a soup kitchen in Baltimore to release a statewide plan intended to put its recommendations into effect. Tragically, Economic Justice for All proved one of the last pieces of social justice teaching of its kind.  At that time the Gini coefficient, a measure of economic inequality, was at about 0.37, compared to 0.49 now.

Concerned by its influence, and worried that “national churches,” or conflicting pieces of teaching, might develop if other conferences were left unchecked, the Vatican clamped down and clipped the conferences’ wings. By the 1990s, they could no longer publish pastoral letters that held “teaching authority” without near unanimity. From then on, things started to change around the bishop’s conference. More and more doctrinally conservative bishops were being appointed. The culture wars were raging. Then the sexual abuse crisis hit, and hit again, and the wagons circled.

By 1996, meanwhile, genuine liberals had embraced the message implicit in Charles Reich's Opposing the System, regarding the unfettered reign of coercive markets. As Reich put it. p. 22:

---

A free market produces results that favor the health of society as a whole, because an essential balance is maintained. But in a coercive market, the balance is destroyed, the earning power of work and the standard of living of workers declines, and society as a whole is devastated while those with economic power gain an ever more unbalanced share of the nation's economic wealth.

And nailing the consequences some pages later (p. 103):

When society itself comes to be modeled on economic and organizational principles, all of the forces that bind people together are torn apart in the struggle for survival.

Community is destroyed because we are no longer 'in this together' because everyone is a threat to everyone else

Indeed, an atmosphere of pervasive conflict encourages every form of racial, religious and class hatred as group is pitted against group; it encourages violence and crime and strips people of kindness and compassion as these qualities become disadvantageous in an ever more warlike atmosphere.

Reich went on to show that it is economics upon which much of modern morality pivots. When people therefore must fight over a few scraps to keep their family together, they often are also more likely to turn to crime, prostitution, drugs, the whole nine yards. Economic health begets moral health, in other words. (Not the other way around, as proto-Calvinist capitalists like Charles Murray, Bill O'Reilly and others claim).


Meanwhile, the Catholic Bishops grew more and more out of touch with the economic woes which have now reached a crisis point with 48 million people on food stamps, nearly 27 million under-employed or unemployed and a minimum wage that is nearly THREE whole dollars LESS than it was in 1968, in terms of 1968 dollars.  Imagine then if the bishops had flexed just half as much muscle for certain “liberal” causes, equally deserving of Catholic concern, as they did for pet “conservative” ones. Imagine if they spent one tenth the time on economic inequality and the toxins of Neoliberal market worship - as they have on porn, or contraception.

It is not difficult to see if they had, a powerful moral voice for systemic economic change might have arisen. A voice of ecclesiastical authority supporting the Occupy Wall Street movement, for example, which might have protected that movement from being literally under the guns of the national security state. But the Bishops, flustered at the  sex abuse charges - were too preoccupied shuttling priestly pedophiles back and forth between parishes at the behest of Ratzinger and John Paul II.

More recently, the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops has gone 'over the top' to display a disgusting economic conservative agenda in league with a backward morality on other issues. In 2010 they opposed the Affordable Healthcare Act, arguing that it might conceivably lead to federal funds for abortions. The year after that, in 2011, Paul Ryan’s budget came out, cutting $3 trillion from programs for the poor. Then-Chair of the Conference of Bishops, Timothy Dolan, sent a public letter to Ryan that many of us thought gave him cover for his budget. In other words, Dolan was aiding and abetting the further destruction of the poor.


Some might quarrel and believe this take is offensive and unjust, but they have pitifully short memories.  In the 2012 election cycle, Dolan went further, referring to Ryan as “a great public servant.” Prior to the election year, the Council of Catholic Bishops unanimously voted to declare religious freedom its 2012 strategic priority. In June of 2012 and 2013, periods of prayer dubbed the “Fortnight for Freedom” were held in response to perceived threats to religious liberty. Ah yes, "freedom and religious liberty" - perfect buzzwords for an agenda which, when translated, comes out: "FUCK the poor!"

Of course, the Neoliberal political atmosphere in this country didn't help matters, with so much media attention paid to the Obama "Deficit Committee" starring Alan Simpson and Ernest Bowles. Both were insistent on cutting Social Security and Medicare. While this committee may be moribund, its awful recommendations remain including a "chained CPI".  At the same time, the market worshippers have insisted there can be no increase in the minimum wage, and the Repukes have proposed $40 b in cuts to food stamps over ten years, while the Dems (who always choose the less offensive tactic) want $4b in cuts.  All this after the SNAP program was already cut by the sequester.

Can the Bishops still become changelings? Maybe, and perhaps also space aliens will finally land in D.C. and reveal their existence once and for all. What we do know, is that in June, a report was released detailing the emergence of a “small, but well-funded network” of conservative, Tea-party-like Catholic organizations pressuring bishops to gut the funds of community and anti-poverty organizations with any remote involvement to groups supporting same-sex marriage. Last year, meanwhile, a document entitled Work, Poverty and a Broken Economy, was scuttled when 85 bishops voted against it. 

Do these Bishops care more about the 16 million kids now going to bed hungry each night because of food stamp cuts, or more about the "evils of pornography"?

You be the judge!