Spotted at the “Economist’s Free Exchange blog”:http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2007/03/airlines_and_inequality.cfm :
bq. According to the new tax data, the income gap has widened. This has led to more speculation that we will descend into a Dickensian dystopia full of the have and have nots. I recently experienced this type of reality when I had the opportunity to fly business class on a trans-Atlantic flight.
Possibly this is an attempt at irony by La Galt; possibly the gap between first-class and regular transatlantic passengers really does make her think of _Bleak House_ or _Oliver Twist_ . Either way, there’s a kind of disconnect here that I have trouble getting my head around.
{ 93 comments }
kim 04.02.07 at 4:12 pm
I felt the same disconnect reading a travel article in Friday’s print edition of the WSJ. The headline, “Class Warfare at the Infinity Pool,” pretty much says it all: rich people who pay between $400-1000 a night for a vacation in a resort are grumbling about being treated like second class citizens because even richer people who pay an additional $40-$400 per night get fluffier towels, their own pool, etc. Favorite quote: “we have our own private plane and they are telling me to leave the pool?”
Relative deprivation, indeed.
abb1 04.02.07 at 4:19 pm
This is all below the gap; only losers fly commercial airlines these days.
ejh 04.02.07 at 4:43 pm
Reminds me of the complaints about how middle-income Britons are supposedly being squeezed by stealth taxes, which always induces me to respond that the very term “middle-income” suggests there’s a little bit of space between them and the underclass.
Richard 04.02.07 at 5:03 pm
Since we’re all computer owners, how immiserated do we have to become before it counts?
Justin 04.02.07 at 5:21 pm
Either way, there’s a kind of disconnect here that I have trouble getting my head around.
I think that is because the inequality liberal is working from some very different presuppositions. As a Bible-thumping, “Do not covet” fundie, I am not bothered by the fact that the “really rich” are leaving the “merely rich” behind.
Personally, I find the other end of the income scale far more troubling: poverty and it’s root cause. I have trouble getting my head around the fact that while the left is willing to paper over poverty with income transfers, they aren’t willing to take on the root cause, which is the breakdown of marriage.
ejh 04.02.07 at 5:28 pm
Since we’re all computer owners
No we’re not.
how immiserated do we have to become before it counts?
If you’re asking me, the answer is “to any degree you like, provided you understand that the problems are greater for people worse off than you”.
This sounds like the bleedin’ obvious – because it is – but it’s remarkable how much political noise is dedicated to the proposition that the reason middle income people are so hard up is that the poor have too much money.
ejh 04.02.07 at 5:30 pm
while the left is willing to paper over poverty with income transfers, they aren’t willing to take on the root cause, which is the breakdown of marriage.
Satirical or serious? It’s so hard to tell sometimes.
duncan 04.02.07 at 5:41 pm
If only we could return to the mores of the 19th century, when the institution of marriage was much stronger and of course poverty was simply unheard of.
engels 04.02.07 at 5:42 pm
As a Bible-thumping, “Do not covet†fundie, I am not bothered by the fact that the “really rich†are leaving the “merely rich†behind
Well, Justin, perhaps you missed this part
http://bible.cc/matthew/19-24.htm
reuben 04.02.07 at 5:42 pm
while the left is willing to paper over poverty with income transfers, they aren’t willing to take on the root cause, which is the breakdown of marriage
Which is why those silly Swedes are all living in cardboard igloos.
Justin 04.02.07 at 5:50 pm
Engels,
I certainly agree that we have a moral duty to give to the poor. But we also have a moral duty to at least acknowledge the root cause, which is the breakdown of marriage. That is the disconnect I was referring to: you’ll see millions of articles about inequality from the left. But nothing about the breakdown of marriage.
rueben,
Sweden is overwhelmingly middle class country with a very homogeneous, native born population. If our out of wedlock childbirths in America consisted largely of college educated professional women, then we would have less of a problem also.
But having said that, out of wedlock childbirths do cause poverty even in Sweden, although the extensive social welfare programs are far more comprehensive. But the biggest problem is that even liberal sociologists (ever since Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur’s book “Growing up with a Single Parent) now recognize that growing up without a father is the number one cause of most major social pathologies.
jim 04.02.07 at 5:54 pm
Actually it’s even better going the other way than “Jane Galt” got to go. Non-EU passport holders flying long-haul business class (or better) into Heathrow get fast-tracked through immigration. There’s a very discreet additional path going into the immigration hall (additional to the standard “EU Passports Only” and “All Other Passports”). A guard checks the ticket that the flight attendant gave you, lets you through and you swan past the huddled masses shuffling through “All Other Passports”.
The interesting thing about it is most of the huddled masses aren’t even aware you’re getting special treatment. Until I flew business into Heathrow, I didn’t know there was an additional lane for the privileged. There’s a very small sign, which the flight attendant tells you to look for when he/she gives you your ticket. Since business class passengers generally get off the plane first, by the time coach passengers get to the immigration hall, most of the business passengers have already gone down their special lane, so the coach passengers don’t see the sheep and goats being separated.
When you’re the privileged, though, it feels wonderful: you’re physical separated from the mass of passengers, you’re freed from the obligation to stand in that interminable winding line.
My habit was not to waste my miles upgrading eastbound, since I’d only be sleeping and I can sleep in economy plus easily enough. But getting fast-tracked through UK immigration is a powerful incentive to upgrade.
franck 04.02.07 at 5:55 pm
justin,
That quote doesn’t say Christians should give to the poor. (Look elsewhere in the Bible for that.) It says something very different – rich people won’t go to heaven in appreciable numbers. Ergo, rich people aren’t good Christians.
Barry 04.02.07 at 6:06 pm
Justin:
“Sweden is overwhelmingly middle class country with a very homogeneous, native born population. If our out of wedlock childbirths in America consisted largely of college educated professional women, then we would have less of a problem also.”
Hmm – how did it get to be overwhelmingly middle class? That’d be due to government policies.
‘homogeneous, native born population’ – ahh, it’s the darkies, isn’t it?
Chris Bertram 04.02.07 at 6:08 pm
Hmm. Maybe I can get Kieran to adjust the comment filter so that people who use the word “wedlock” get automatically put in the moderation queue …..
Justin 04.02.07 at 6:09 pm
That quote doesn’t say Christians should give to the poor. (Look elsewhere in the Bible for that.) It says something very different – rich people won’t go to heaven in appreciable numbers. Ergo, rich people aren’t good Christians.
Sorry, I was anticipating that objection, so I hardly even read your response. My apologies.
There are several points to be made. The first is that we are all in a state of sin. We all fall short of the standards needed to enter heaven. Case in point, even though few of us Crooked Timber readers are rich, I’ll bet that none of us have given all that we have to the poor.
Secondly, that is the reason for the next part of that famous passage, Matthew 12-26:
This actually comes up in the faith versus works debates. The lesson is that we cannot earn our way into heaven, (although we should try our hardest!)
If you really want to get into theology (and I assume most readers do not), the lesson of Christianity is that it is our hearts that mattered. Even if we instituted a 100% tax on the rich, they would not earn their way into heaven. Unless their hearts reach the point where they would willingly give everything they own to the poor.
Justin 04.02.07 at 6:14 pm
Chris,
I hate to break it to you, but the research is in. Check out a bipartisan book on the issue, such as The New World of Welfare. It is jointly edited by a conservative and a liberal. Rebecca Blanks wrote “It Takes a Nation.” I’m sure you get the reference. The research is in. Very few liberal sociologists, William Julius Wilson not withstanding, are going to dispute this.
engels 04.02.07 at 6:17 pm
It is jointly edited by a conservative and a liberal.
Don’t tell me: Hannity and Colmes?
Sebastian Holsclaw 04.02.07 at 6:28 pm
“Possibly this is an attempt at irony by La Galt; possibly the gap between first-class and regular transatlantic passengers really does make her think of Bleak House or Oliver Twist.”
Seems like an excellent attempt at irony to me. Apparently the Dickensian dystopia alluded to by those worried about the income disparity involves lots and lots of people who can afford transatlantic travel for their vacations–the worst horror being that they have to deal with coach.
ejh 04.02.07 at 6:47 pm
Unless their hearts reach the point where they would willingly give everything they own to the poor.
But they just forget or something?
lemuel pitkin 04.02.07 at 6:49 pm
It’s possible this quote doesn’t deserve the mockery its getting.
Inequality is growing throughout the income distribution, including at the top. And the costs of relative inequality in terms of insecurity, competitiveness, anxiety over status and the rest — which are BIG factors in overall health and well-being — are still experienced by those at the 99th percentile. Personally, I have no doubt that most people at that point in the distribution would lead happeir, more fulfillign lives in a more egalitarian society, even though their incomes would be much lower.
The example of coach vs. first-class COULD be a way to try to make this argument accessible to Economist readers. After all, the addition of higher grades of service certainly makes the existing ones less satisfying, even if they’re not directly affected.
Justin 04.02.07 at 6:52 pm
ejh,
But they just forget or something?
Are you willing to sell everything you own and give the money to the poor? Your house, your car, your computer, your books and music? If not, then you are like the rich man (and me).
Justin 04.02.07 at 6:53 pm
Personally, I have no doubt that most people at that point in the distribution would lead happeir, more fulfillign lives in a more egalitarian society, even though their incomes would be much lower.
Spoken like someone who has never worried about how to make the mortgage payment.
ejh 04.02.07 at 6:57 pm
Are you willing to sell everything you own and give the money to the poor? Your house, your car, your computer, your books and music? If not, then you are like the rich man
Who was it who said something like “the rich are like you and me, except that they have more money?”
More apologists, too.
radek 04.02.07 at 6:58 pm
I don’t get the snarkiness about the quote either. I thought RELATIVE income (or poverty) and inequality is what we’re supposed to worry about.
bi 04.02.07 at 7:00 pm
Justin:
“As a Bible-thumping, ‘Do not covet’ fundie, I am not bothered by the fact that the ‘really rich’ are leaving the ‘merely rich’ behind.”
I can imagine. It’s not a problem for the “really rich” to leave the “merely rich” behind. But if the “really poor” even try to take a single cent from the “merely rich”, it’s time to scream high treason.
= = =
Justin again:
“Sorry, I was anticipating that objection, so I hardly even read your response. My apologies.”
This makes me want to raise some questions on how Justin “reads” his research sources.
= = =
duncan:
“If only we could return to the mores of the 19th century, when the institution of marriage was much stronger and of course poverty was simply unheard of.”
Nah nah nah! Nyah nyah nyah! Nyaaaaaaaaaaaah!
No, there’s no problem. Nothing to see here. The institution of marriage is strong. The rich are, well, rich; and the poor deserve to be poor anyway.
fred lapides 04.02.07 at 7:05 pm
How funny! the root cause is the breakdown of marriage and of course the have-nots are the ones responsible for this. Why not make divorce illegal? That will take care of the poor and the problems they create for the rest of us. When it comes to poor divorced women, perhaps one ought not get one’s head around them.
Matt Austern 04.02.07 at 7:10 pm
Who was it who said something like “the rich are like you and me, except that they have more money?†Well, you just said it, but I think you’re combining two different quotes from a famous conversation.
F. Scott Fitzgerald: “Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me.” Hemmingway: “Yes, they have more money.” (There are other slightly different versions. This was probably a conversation, recreated in stories by both writers.)
nick s 04.02.07 at 7:11 pm
“The poor, indeed, are insensible of many little vexations, which sometimes imbitter the possessions, and pollute the enjoyments, of the rich. They are not pained by casual incivility, or mortified by the mutilation of a compliment; but this happiness is like that of a malefactor, who ceases to feel the cords that bind him, when the pincers are tearing his flesh.” — Samuel Johnson
ejh 04.02.07 at 7:14 pm
Matt – that’s the one, thank you.
nick s 04.02.07 at 7:18 pm
Still, Megan managed to create a nice little Randian fable out of it all: I bet she felt every inch the Jane Galt with her ‘elite traveller’ status.
The example of coach vs. first-class COULD be a way to try to make this argument accessible to Economist readers.
Not really. The business traveller who pays out of pocket for his/her fare is a rare bird indeed. And as such, it’s a de facto subsidy to the corporate classes, as those who’ve been busily totting up the deductions for tax season know all too well.
engels 04.02.07 at 7:20 pm
Labour not to be rich: cease from thine own wisdom. Wilt thou set thine eyes upon that which is not? for riches certainly make themselves wings; they fly away as an eagle toward heaven. Proverbs 23:4-5
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Matthew 16:26
But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.Timothy 6:11
abb1 04.02.07 at 7:25 pm
Sweden is overwhelmingly middle class country with a very homogeneous, native born population.
I betcha percentage of foreign-born population in Sweden in higher than the US.
fardels bear 04.02.07 at 7:34 pm
Anybody else notice how quickly that Justin quickly reverts to tautology? After positing that the breakdown of marriage is the “root cause” of poverty folks point out that Sweden doesn’t have a problem with poverty even though the institution of marriage isn’t strong there. Justin quickly counters by pointing out “Sweden is overwhelmingly middle class country.” In other words, Justin just says, “Sweden doesn’t have a problem with poor people because there aren’t any poor people there.”
Well, yeah, dude, that is the point.
radek 04.02.07 at 7:55 pm
Just wonderin’, why do people think that a) poverty in Sweden is soooo much lower then in US (it is, but only a bit – 8.7% in US, 7.5% in Sweden, contrast this with 12.4% in UK) and b) that the institution of marriage is so weak in Sweden? I mean I think it depends on how you measure it (divorce as % of marriages or as % of population) but US is definetly up there. So again, I doubt the difference between Sweden and US in these stats is that big.
You folks really need to look at some numbers before making sweeping generalizations.
radek 04.02.07 at 8:01 pm
Addendum: If you measure poverty by the EU poverty line rather than a US one (or maybe the other way around don’t have the relevant paper handy, just the #s from it), then poverty is higher in Sweden then in US (13.9 in US vs. 15.4 in Sweden).
radek 04.02.07 at 8:10 pm
Found it. The reference is “Poor People in Rich Nations: The United States in Comparative Perspective” by Timothy Seeding in Winter ’06 JEP (I’m using absolute poverty figures since these are the ones which determine whether someone lives in a cardboard igloo or not). The higher number for Sweden is if you use 125% of the US poverty line as benchmark for poverty, the lower if you use 100% (funny how sensitive the poverty rate is too changes in the benchmark. Opens up the door for all kinds of statistical tom-foolery). More generally Sweden does good on child poverty rates vis-a-vis US, but pretty bad on elderly poverty rates (Social Security is working?).
The country that comes out looking really bad no matter what stat you look at (including relative poverty) is by far the UK. I think divorce rates for UK, US and Sweden are pretty similar. Numbers on out of wedlock births by country are pretty hard to come by. And like the fellah said, of that which we don’t know we should keep silent.
Justin 04.02.07 at 8:13 pm
Anybody else notice how quickly that Justin quickly reverts to tautology? After positing that the breakdown of marriage is the “root cause†of poverty folks point out that Sweden doesn’t have a problem with poverty even though the institution of marriage isn’t strong there. Justin quickly counters by pointing out “Sweden is overwhelmingly middle class country.†In other words, Justin just says, “Sweden doesn’t have a problem with poor people because there aren’t any poor people there.â€
Sweden does have a problem with poverty. However, the out of wedlock childbirths form a different pattern than the United States. For example, Teenage fertility is low in Sweden, accounting for only 2% of all births in 1996. Delaying childbirths, particularly out of wedlock childbirths, mitigates against the poverty such childbirths create.
And no matter how long you wait, out of wedlock childbirths lead to increase rates of social pathologies including substance abuse, and low achievement in education.
Justin 04.02.07 at 8:16 pm
Engles,
I completely agree. Your quotes are well chosen and the wisdom is well taken. I hope that people who are rich take heed. I further agree that we have a moral duty to help the poor. I would even go so far as to support progressive taxation, simply because the rich do have a greater ability to fund relief to the poor.
However, I disagree with the proposition that a gap between the rich and the middle class provides a Biblical justification for taxation. Do not covet is pretty clear.
This should not be an obstacle for many progressives, who would instead base the decision on utilitarian principles, such as declining marginal utility.
Steve LaBonne 04.02.07 at 8:21 pm
Radek, does the US come off looking good even if it has about the same poverty rate as a country, Sweden, whose per capita GDP is quite a bit smaller?
novakant 04.02.07 at 8:30 pm
Seinfeld exhausted the subject ages ago, go watch it, it’s hilarious
Justin 04.02.07 at 8:33 pm
Radek, does the US come off looking good even if it has about the same poverty rate as a country, Sweden, whose per capita GDP is quite a bit smaller?
You have to consider the demographics. Poverty in both the United States and Sweden is disproportionately concentrated among ethnic minorities and recent immigrants. But the United States has a much larger concentrated of each.
link
By contrast, the United States has about 13% black, 14% Hispanic, and 4% Asian.
That explains most of the difference in poverty between the two nations. Furthermore, the United States probably does a better job assimilating immigrants. Unless you are going to claim that Muslim immigrants to Sweden are assimilating nicely.
lemuel pitkin 04.02.07 at 8:42 pm
about 7 percent of the population [of Sweden] comes from outside Europe, most of them nonwhite. By contrast, the United States has about 13% black, 14% Hispanic, and 4% Asian. That explains most of the difference in poverty between the two nations.
Is there any reason to engage in discussion with someone like Justin?
radek 04.02.07 at 8:43 pm
Steve, that’s a fair point, but the counter would be that one can reduce poverty either through more redistribution or through more income growth. US does it the latter way, Sweden more of the former. End result is less poor people either way.
It is true though that the US spends the least on antipoverty programs out of most developed countries (except for old people).
Also, as far as Justin’s argument goes – absolute poverty in US (again, except old people who’ve become less poor) has remained fairly constant over the last 30, 40 years even as sexual mores got looser. It is quite probable that whatever correlation there is in a data reflects reverse causation or the role of third factors.
In the same issue of JEP there’s a paper on poverty in US. In the 60’s and 70’s most of the variation in poverty rate was due to the business cycle, income growth (or lack off) and to some extent inequality. In the 80’s and 90’s it was still the business cycle, income growth and then women working (more women working lowered poverty rates) and inequality didn’t play a role. Basically in US the poverty rate is driven by the business cycle and income growth. The following variables were found to have little if any effect on poverty rates: level of TANF spending (though EITC could have had an effect), immigration, changes in family structure (specifically the increase in number of unmarried women).
Steve LaBonne 04.02.07 at 8:45 pm
But another way to look at it is that the US, negligently, has reduced poverty far less than it could afford to. I guess it’s a question of what one values.
Justin 04.02.07 at 8:47 pm
Lemuel,
It is a hard fact of reality that poverty in both the United States and Sweden are concentrated among minorities. If you want to inhabit the reality based community you need to grapple with the fact. Here is a hint: genetic inferiority is *not* the reason.
But this fact *does* have a real bearing on the poverty statistics when you compare the two nations.
engels 04.02.07 at 8:53 pm
Do not covet is pretty clear.
“Do not covert” is not an injunction against demands for equality. It is an injunction against envy. You can only equate the two if you make the false assumption that demands for equality must be motivated by envy.
Justin 04.02.07 at 8:54 pm
But another way to look at it is that the US, negligently, has reduced poverty far less than it could afford to. I guess it’s a question of what one values.
Give a man a fish he eats for a day. Give a man a fish every day of his life, and he is no longer poor?
That is one way of looking at it. Alternately, we can realize that you haven’t *truly* cured poverty until people are fully self-sufficient. And the lesson the United States has learned the hard way that welfare spending increase the root cause of poverty, out of wedlock childbirths. The good news is that teen first out of wedlock childbirths have decreased by about 30% since the early to mid 1990s.
Culture matters, and social welfare spending can potentially create negative incentives. The left will have to honestly grapple with those two facts if they want to advance the case for inequality progressivism.
Kevin 04.02.07 at 8:59 pm
As a Bible-thumping, “Do not covet†fundie,[…]
As this thread wears on it becomes more and more apparent that you’ve been thumping that bible with your head.
Justin 04.02.07 at 9:01 pm
Engles,
“Do not covert†is not an injunction against demands for equality. It is an injunction against envy. You can only equate the two if you make the false assumption that demands for equality must be motivated by envy.
That is actually a very good point. However, I don’t typically see that form of justification from inequality liberals. I tend to see comments more like #21 in this thread.
Uncle Kvetch 04.02.07 at 9:05 pm
The good news is that teen first out of wedlock childbirths have decreased by about 30% since the early to mid 1990s.
Leading, predictably, to a dramatic plunge in the US poverty rate…right?
Just kidding.
radek 04.02.07 at 9:06 pm
Steve, that could be one side of it – the demand for poverty reduction side. There’s also the supply side – direct poverty reduction via transfer programs is likely to run into dimnishing returns after which the only way to reduce poverty is through general economic growth. So there may be a constraint in regards to poverty reduction. Except for old folks, poverty reduction programs have not worked very well in US (also EITC aside, which is why it’s the favorite anti-poverty tool of economists). Even as total spending on antipoverty programs has increased the poverty rate has remained constant. Maybe there’s a trade off between transfers and growth and in the end you just got to choose how you gonna go about reducing poverty.
jayann 04.02.07 at 9:30 pm
So, Justin, the relative impoverishment of UK Muslims is to be explained by their disdain for the family? (Hint: “no”.)
Culture matters, and social welfare spending can potentially create negative incentives
I wouldn’t disagree with that but I think you need to look more closely at the data and the issues
FYI
welfare spending increase the root cause of poverty, out of wedlock childbirths.
it’s unclear to me that welfare provisions explain the “out of wedlock” birth rate in the US as compared to other advanced industrial nations (I accept it’s difficult to know the true rate)
Barry 04.02.07 at 9:36 pm
“It is a hard fact of reality that poverty in both the United States and Sweden are concentrated among minorities. If you want to inhabit the reality based community you need to grapple with the fact. Here is a hint: genetic inferiority is not the reason.”
Posted by Justin
Minorities, recent immigrants – it’s all the same.
abb1 04.02.07 at 9:37 pm
The ‘income gap’ issue is not the same as the ‘poverty’ issue. The ‘income gap’ issue is about powerful stealing from the powerless. Poverty is a part of it, but not the main part.
I’m not impoverished, but I hate being robbed to support some billionaire’s lifestyle. And I’ll covet the loot as soon as I get a chance. And you should too.
abb1 04.02.07 at 9:45 pm
Expropriate expropriators, dammit.
Matt Weiner 04.02.07 at 9:47 pm
La Galt does get at something important, I think, which is that part of the appeal of high-end service is the feeling of exalted status; and that other people resent it just as much. Which means that inequality at the top of the spectrum still makes life worse for the people on the next-to-top rung, since the people on the top rung are buying the right to piss you off. But I believe there was an interminable go-round about that a couple of months ago.
OTOH economy class isn’t exactly steerage, and “However, isn’t it morally objectionable that some should have so much while others have so little? Should we do more to equate business and coach?” doesn’t exactly show an awareness of the irony.
marcel 04.02.07 at 10:05 pm
If only we could return to the mores of the 18th century, when the institution of marriage was much stronger and of course poverty was simply unheard of.
Dan Karreman 04.02.07 at 10:43 pm
One should perhaps note that poor Swedes have access to subsidized and universal healthcare and child care, and free education at all levels. This is not captured by the focus on disposable income in the JEP article and might have some consequence on standards of living.
Martin Bento 04.02.07 at 10:43 pm
ejh, Matt,
Well, I suspect that Fitzgerald was more correct than Hemmingway, at least for the self-made rich, and excluding those who just hit the lottery or have a hit record. The process of becoming very rich is both a filter and transformer of personality types. There are thousands of poor Paris Hiltons in the trailer parks and ghettos, but the arrogance required to shoot someone in the face on a hunting trip and somehow pressure him into publicly apologizing to you seems quite rare.
Steve LaBonne 04.02.07 at 10:49 pm
Radek, Dan Karreman just gave one part of the needed reply. The other part is to point out that your argument is msising a step- namely, a showing that there really is likely to be a tradeoff between maximization per capita GDP and creating a more equal income distribution. Where’s your evidence? AFAIK (and I will say upfront that I’m anything but an expert) the current mainstream consensus in the economics profession is that income inequality in the amount that now prevails in the US probably is actually detrimental to economic efficiency.
nick s 04.02.07 at 11:17 pm
matt w @57: I’d like to know what the take-up on all-bizclass airlines has been (there was a feature in Monocle comparing two) because I do wonder if travellers feel as if they’re missing out on one essential of the bizclass experience, i.e. having people flying in economy behind them.
radek 04.02.07 at 11:52 pm
Because I think it’s somewhat of a separate subject (which doesn’t mean unrelated) I’m willing to agree on the universal health care thing – and that’s why I was talking about direct poverty reduction programs rather then universal programs (on the other hand at least for US there’s much less inequality in consumption then in disposable income, as Cato folks are happy to point out).
As far as the inequality/growth thing goes – even though US has more inequality compared to Northern Europe, it is probably still in the ‘neutral’ range, or what this paper:
http://www.wider.unu.edu/research/1998-1999-3.1.publications.htm
calls the “efficiency range” although towards the upper tail (see for example pg. 28, Chart 3). Basically if there’s a structural relationship between growth and inequality it looks something like the reverse-U Kuznets shape. Both high levels of equality and high levels of inequality are bad for growth. Both Europe and US are in the middle part though. To get detrimental effects on growth you basically have to get into the Latin American range of inequality.
In fact I don’t really think there’s that much difference between US and Western/Northern European countries and most relevant trade-offs between growth and inequality or this and that program are pretty marginal. This is in basic disagreement both with “America’s the best and France’s a 3rd world country” folks as well as “In America there’s people dying in ditches” folks. Let’s face it, these are all filthy rich countries we’re talking about it when one thinks of the world as a whole.
Tyrone Slothrop 04.03.07 at 1:40 am
At this hour, there are six comments to the original post and 63 here.
ejh 04.03.07 at 10:30 am
the arrogance required to shoot someone in the face on a hunting trip and somehow pressure him into publicly apologizing to you seems quite rare.
I’ve never understood why people didn’t immediately start using the nickname “Deadeye Dick”.
rea 04.03.07 at 11:58 am
“I disagree with the proposition that a gap between the rich and the middle class provides a Biblical justification for taxation. Do not covet is pretty clear.”
This is pretty clear on the subject of taxation as well:
Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.
When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.
SG 04.03.07 at 1:00 pm
as someone who escaped from the poverty of his family only through the help of state poverty alleviation assistance, I piss on people like Justin who speak of “self-sufficiency” and “teach a man to fish”. My parents were working poor, they slaved to earn enough money to stay ahead of the poverty line and they were kicked down and denied their rights at every turn by their “betters” who wanted them to be “self-sufficient”. Spare me the hypocritical cant, Justin, I don’t care if it comes from the bible or from Rand, the real justification is always the same. You want the poor to be encouraged to be “self sufficient” so you can pocket the tax savings and flip us the bird. Come flip it to me some time, and you’ll see the politics of “envy”.
Sebastian Holsclaw 04.03.07 at 4:27 pm
The people who are paying higher fares for business class are making my ticket cheaper.
Thank You!!!!
James 04.03.07 at 6:20 pm
As someone who escaped poverty through doing without, lots of manual labor, and getting an education, I dont see why I need to pay for sg or people like him.
Jrod 04.03.07 at 8:16 pm
Yeah James, I’m really sure you pulled yourself up by your bootstraps with absolutely no help from anyone or anything.
Speaking as someone who does lots of manual labor, goes without, but still doesn’t make enough to pay for school, I invite you to take your oh-so-superior smug self down to the poor part of town and lecture those parasites on how they’d be doing great if only they were willing to work hard. Alas, those scum could never be as good as you.
W. Kiernan 04.03.07 at 11:01 pm
Justin: Give a man a fish he eats for a day. Give a man a fish every day of his life, and he is no longer poor?
That is one way of looking at it. Alternately, we can realize that you haven’t truly cured poverty until people are fully self-sufficient.
No one in the Western world is self-sufficient, though Ted Kaczynski in his shack came pretty close for a while. No one makes it on his own. No one I know personally, anyway. Well, I suppose that at some time prior to posting this slew of messages from his computer justin there hand-fabricated his own microprocessor out of beach sand all by his own heroic Randite self, but he’s special.
SG 04.04.07 at 12:01 am
James you offensive oik, I was a child when I was receiving this assistance. If you think that children should work for their parents’ crimes you really are in the wrong century. And maybe you didn’t read my post properly – my parents were “doing without, doing lots of manual labour, and getting me an education”. They were kicked back in their place while they did it. So spare me the crap about “I did it through my own virtue, so should you.” It is the same lying cant as Justin’s, only your wellspring of virtue is your hard work rather than the bible.
And if you really want to try being polite – try not to assume that just because someone got some welfare assistance on the way he didn’t do any hard work. Shows you up as ignorant and rude.
Lester Hunt 04.04.07 at 1:37 am
I can’t get my brain around what Chris Bertram is talking about. If it is supposed to be so wrong to worry about how much richer the rich are, as opposed to how poor the poor are, then why the Hell do you call the problem “inequality”? Or “the gap between the rich and the poor”? Why not just talk about the poor, like we used to?
cm 04.04.07 at 2:52 am
abb1 (#2): It’s been a while since I’ve been riding the bus, but I figure the major difference between flying commercial and using the bus is that with the bus you don’t have to print your own boarding pass, and take off your shoes. But who knows with today’s automation, maybe you DO have to print your own ticket!
abb1 04.04.07 at 7:59 am
74 – exactly. Really, it’s sad that people don’t understand what the ‘income gap’ is all about. Like new cadets overwhelmed by corporal’s awesome power.
Valuethinker 04.04.07 at 10:28 am
radek
I don’t know if you’ve lived in North America, but being poor there is a very different thing than in most of Europe.
By and large, the poor in western Europe, at least northwestern Europe, have access to:
– housing provided by the state or social bodies
– indoor plumbing
– free medical care
– free education for their children of a moderate standard
– public transport
– live in neighbourhoods which may not be desirable, but one can walk around in the day, at least
This is even true of the UK, although less so perhaps than any other northern European society.
I can tell you that even in Canada, not all of the above apply, and certainly not in the United States.
The very poor in America don’t have *cars*. And the working poor, do have cars, and mortgage their lives to keep them (so they can drive to work). Many of the working poor do not have healthcare– they wait until they or their children are sick enough to go to an emergency room (hospitals are closing ERs, because that fiscal burden is killing them). Living in America without a car, anywhere outside of a few parts of New York, is tantamount to complete social isolation.
If you are disabled or otherwise unable to work in most of Europe, you at least have a life. You can get on the bus, go places, use free public services.
By and large, in much of the USA, that infrastructure doesn’t exist.
You see far more homeless in America and Canada than almost anywhere in Europe (even the UK).
America is a rich country, but it’s not a country where you want to be poor.
Justin of course thinks its all family break down. But the majority of kids in Sweden are born out of wedlock, and Sweden is a pretty bourgeois place.
The problem is *teenage* pregnancy in particular. Which is worst in the US and UK, where the welfare systems are the *weakest*.
howard 04.04.07 at 12:12 pm
I teach a course about world food supply and demand, and worldwide undernutrition, and I struggle with the question of how to address a related issue: Everyone (?) agrees that it is kind of silly to be concerned with income differentials among the really really rich (“OOOh, the Bill Gates’s income is so much higher than the Bill Clinton’s income — that is so unfair.”) It is accepted commonly and without remark that we should be concerned with income differentials between the rich and poor within the United States. But in the context of worldwide income distribution, the “poor” in the US (or Sweden, I suppose) are “rich” (they are in the coach class seats, but they are travelling transoceanically at high speed). They are rich, not just in terms of where they fall in the worldwide income distribution (a person at the US poverty line has higher income than about 85-90% of the world’s population), but in tangible ways: they have internet service and cable TV; they have electricity and air conditioning; they are not undernourished (rather they are obese); etc. So why is it silly to be concerned about Gates/Clinton inequality; but legitimate to be concerned about upper middle class/ lower middle class inequality in the US?
Peter H 04.04.07 at 3:15 pm
Given that Chris’ post focused on income inequality, I’m surprised that the discussion of poverty has focused entirely on absolute poverty, without any discussion of relative poverty (which defines poverty on the the basis of the country’s median income). On the latter measure, the United States does substantially worse (see here, for example).
Obviously, one’s view of the signifigance of relative poverty is going to be influenced by ideological beliefs. If you’re a libertarian or a conservative, absolute poverty is the only measurement that matters; if you’re a liberal/ social democrat/egalitarian, relative poverty is also important. Personally, I think relative poverty is important not only because I believe that individual deprivation is defined by social needs, but also because economic growth creates new necessities. For example,in a growing economy, having a car becomes a necessity, not a luxury.
soru 04.04.07 at 3:24 pm
I supect any kind of argument over:
1. how much the lives of different people suck.
2. how much they could be improved
3. how that can happen
is not something that is usefully progressed in any way by abstract measures of income distribution. Too much information is lost, and that which remains is not correlated with the kind of things you originally wanted to change.
You can’t usefully talk about weather by simply measuring things without first identifying qualitative concepts like ‘rain’, ‘sunshine’, ‘day’, ‘night’, ‘snow’.
Start by splitting people up into socio-economic classes, and only then compare numbers within and between those classes, and you might get somewhere.
Tyler Cowen 04.04.07 at 4:27 pm
I doubt if “La Galt” even wrote the post; in any case it is important to be careful with such attributions. Admittedly there is a “perhaps” in your post, but it seems to refer to the irony, not to the identity of the author. The text then refers to “her.” Clearly the readers in the comments think she wrote the post when in fact the evidence does not support this view. Perhaps a correction should be issued.
Chris Bertram 04.04.07 at 5:42 pm
Well she advertises herself as the principal blogger at that blog. She can always email me or post here to tell me it was someone else – if she does, I’ll post an update to that effect.
Barry 04.04.07 at 9:06 pm
Tyler, she wants to play games with the attribution; she (and her friends) don’t have the right to complain about the inevitable errors. The Economist is probably using ‘New York’ as her byline, rather than ‘Jane Galt’ or ‘Megan McArdle’, to gain credibility.
Jane Galt 04.04.07 at 9:20 pm
I’m afraid I’m not allowed to comment on the authorship of the posts; that would defeat the purpose of anonymity. But there are at least four regular posters to the economics blog all bylined from New York.
And Chris, I haven’t advertised myself as anything of the sort. I run the blog, in the sense that I make sure contributors don’t screw up their html and that there are enough posts up every day, but I haven’t commented anywhere on who authors how much, and won’t, either. The Economist didn’t think up this anonymity thing to gain credibility for the blog; we’ve been doing it for 162 years now.
But I will go so far as to admit that incorrect speculations on my authorship of various posts–both attributing to me posts that the blogger/commenter dislikes, and failing to attribute posts they like to me–is the source of some hilarity for me.
Jane Galt 04.04.07 at 9:23 pm
As, obviously, are my poor proofreading skills. Like a good economist, please assume some subject verb agreement in the comment above.
Chris Bertram 04.04.07 at 10:21 pm
Well all very interesting. Is Tyler, who rushed to defend Megan, a contributor? Is Arnold Kling, whom Megan was so quick to defend from my (justified) accusations of hackery? It will remain a mystery forever, no doubt. Meanwhile, I’m uncertain whether to post an update or not, in the light of Megan’s denial non-denial.
Chris Bertram 04.04.07 at 10:22 pm
we’ve been doing it for 162 years now.
Not quite the world’s oldest profession then!
engels 04.04.07 at 10:44 pm
It’s starting to get very murky indeed. In the light of Tyler Cowen and “Jane Galts”‘s comments perhaps Chris Bertram ought to post—well “clarification” clearly wouldn’t be the right word—an obfuscation?
Jane Galt 04.04.07 at 11:04 pm
No, all the contributors are employees of the magazine, or interns of whose names you have almost certainly never heard.
As for Arnold Kling . . . this may be the first time I’ve seen someone seek to cover up embarassment over one (possible) error by bringing up another of his *own* embarassing past errors. Your privilege, of course.
nick s 04.05.07 at 1:38 am
And here we have an example of the distinction between anonymity and consistent pseudonymity: like biz-class, the former (or at least the style that the ‘mist deploys) engenders large amounts of misplaced smugness.
Chris Bertram 04.05.07 at 6:36 am
Ah well Jane, as for that little exchange about AK, I think an impartial reader will have seen that I was correct that AK misrepresented Stern and indeed wrongly accused him of dishonesty. You were right that I misunderstood one of Stern’s arguments in the course of that, but then, as John Q ably pointed out at the time, so did you. (And you were the one claiming professional expertise, as opposed to me the lay observer.)
Tyler Cowen 04.05.07 at 8:13 am
*I* don’t post over at Free Exchange, but I would be willing to bet Chris money. He can then find someone who knows Jane’s daily whereabouts better than I do, and ask about the transatlantic flight. $100? Or would you like odds? Some writers have an strong and unmistakeable voice, and Jane/Megan is one of them. I’m surprised anyone could have been confused in the first place.
Suvi 04.05.07 at 6:19 pm
“I doubt the difference between Sweden and US in these stats is that big”
Depends what you’re reading. If you look at this table concerning child poverty, you’ll see how dramatically the situation changes, once tax & benefits are taken into account (in Swedish, but you’ll understand what counts).
http://www.scb.se/Grupp/allmant/BE0801_2005K03_TI_02_A05ST0503.pdf
This is in English, from UNICEF: Child poverty in Sweden 4.2%, child poverty in the US 21.9%.
http://www.unicef.org/brazil/repcard6e.pdf
Good social stats from the US are always welcome, but sometimes it’s best to check before one believes and re-quotes them
Barry 04.08.07 at 12:00 am
Megan McArdle: “The Economist didn’t think up this anonymity thing to gain credibility for the blog; we’ve been doing it for 162 years now.”
And you’ve got the Oxfordian ‘we’ down quite nicely.
Comments on this entry are closed.