Inequality is good says Business Week, if only workers could grasp that.

Chart source












A new study by two psychologists, one from Duke and the other from Harvard, concludes that Americans think that the US has far more income equality than it actually does, according to a report in the October 25th issue of Business Week.

Those surveyed estimated on average that the wealthiest 20% of Americans own 59% of the wealth. But respondents also thought that this was too unequal and suggested America would be better if the wealthiest quintile owned less, a mere 32% of the wealth. “People dramatically underestimated the extent of wealth inequality in the US and they want it to be even more equal.” Says Dan Ariely the psychologist from Duke University.

It seems like we are a nation of communists Sarah Palin might say.

Not only are we a bunch of do gooders according to these results ,but we are ignorant do gooders. The actual figures are far more unequal with the top 20% of richest Americans owning 80% of the wealth while the poorest 20% own .01%. A smaller follow up survey of economists found that although their responses were closer to the reality, they were still off the mark.

Business Week attributes this to a “proud tradition of social science research demonstrating the basic ignorance of the average American.” “If more people understood how deeply unequal American society has become, they would support measures to combat it” it concludes.

Given that the US mass media is probably the most heavily censored in the so-called “free” world, it should come as no surprise that a huge section of the US population is unaware of basic truths. After, all, they convinced close to 50% of the population that Iraq had something to do with 911. The deafening silence of the Labor hierarchy in such matters adds to the confusion.

The main way that wealth can be distributed more equally is through taxation Business Week argues. Taxes are much lower today for the wealthy than they were during the 50’s and 60’s. The top marginal rate back then was 90% for those with income over $400,000, today it is about 35%.. BW then draws two incorrect conclusions about human society. To raise taxes to that level today this theoretical journal of capitalism concludes, “Would lead to a flight of wealth and talent from the US.” Well this is what would occur if conditions stay the same.

Union leaders always tell us that we can’t strike or that we have to take concessions because the boss will fire us. The boss will try to fire us for sure; our task is to prevent them from carrying out their wishes, to strike and win. So their response to increased taxation, capital flight or moving production to Union free environments where labor power is cheaper, raises an important issue---the need for a mass workers party. Democrats or Republicans as representatives of capital will not prevent wealth and capital from fleeing, will not deny capital its most important freedom, the right to go where it wants, when it wants.

With a mass workers political alternative to the two parities of capital, we can take steps to prevent this. Is it a restriction of the rights of capital? Of course it is. They restrict our rights all the time, we can restrict theirs just like organization does which is why they oppose it. One reason their percentage of the national pie has increased relative to ours and their tax rates gave declined has been the decline in numbers and power of organized labor.  For issues like taxation we need a political party of our own.

The “ideal” wealth distribution that respondents suggest in the survey (the wealthiest 20% with 32% of wealth and the poorest 20% 10%+) would be “disastrous” most economist say because it would “seriously retard growth” by “sapping incentives to work and innovate, perhaps even requiring coercive measures mandating that the poor save rather than spend their money on necessary consumption.”

This is how capitalists see workers; they think we’re like them. They are motivated by profit; we are not. Pete Peterson the billionaire coupon clipper from Blackstone corp. opposes extending unemployment benefits for a similar reason; workers won’t go get a job if we live it up on unemployment insurance. In all my working life on two continents it is my experience that working people are motivated by a desire to pull our own weight and to go home at the end of the day feeling we have been productive; this does not mean that we don't need to work and earn wages in order to buy the necessities of life.  But we don’t respect the minority of co-workers that don’t do their share or kiss the bosses ass; these are qualities the boss looks for at promotion time; when they need workers to “manage” the work of others for them.

So wealth inequality is good for us for two reasons the capitalists argue.. The first being that it makes us creative and fights laziness which is inherent in workers. Second, it is good for us because more equality would mean that the state would be forced to make us save money that we would normally spend on necessities like food and shelter. and we surely don't want that.  Although BW doesn’t state it, I assume this is because the saved money can then be used by investors to grow the economy.

After all this we should be grateful for these hard working economists who keep society running. “It’s probably a good thing that the public underestimates how much wealth inequality there is” says one academic, as “they tend not to understand the ways that wealth inequality is good.”

I wish I had went to college, it would have learned me more. But I can be grateful that I can read at least and grateful for Business Week educating me on these important points: Inequality is good, workers are lazy, and that the average American is ignorant.