MessageNot sure of what they'd gain Mike, except being on the deck that sinks
last. I believe that one has to recognize how people behave in hierarchical
systems in which power and wealth is greatest in the stratum at the top and
least or not at all in the stratum at the bottom. That seems to be the way
the world operates in its economic, political and religious institutions. That
is how the systems that comprise our world have operated regardless of the
ideologies or theologies that underpinned them. Following the Russian
Revolution all people in the Soviet Union were supposed to be equal players.
But of course they weren't. Within a short time, enormous differences in power
and prestige appeared. The founding fathers wanted America to be the ideal
democracy, but look at the huge differences in wealth and power now. And look
at the hugely stratified medieval church, supposedly based on the simple and
egalitarian words of Christ.
I don't think it really matters very much whether the Titanic is sinking or
remains afloat. What seems to matter most is to move up to the layer above
and then shut the door behind you to keep others from moving up too.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Gurstein
To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION'
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters] Ultra-richgettingricherwhile
middle class stagnates
Ed and all,
I think I understand the "how" what I don't understand is the "why"... If we
are all on the Titanic (as many are now arguing) this time there don't seem to
be any realistic lifeboats for the rich to elbow or buy their way into so what
does anyone gain by hastening the sinking?
M
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Weick
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 6:30 AM
To: [email protected]; RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME
DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION
Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters] Ultra-rich gettingricherwhile
middle class stagnates
I'd have to reread parts of Hacker and Pierson to give you a good answer,
Harry, but I believe their argument is that the rich got richer by maneuvering
things in their favour. Via legislative and other means, they moved power
toward themselves and with that power came wealth. Tax cuts for the rich, part
of trickle down economics, came into being under Ronald Reagan. Unions, once a
very powerful force, declined into being almost impotent. Lobbying played a
significant role in moving political matters to favour the rich. Under a
Supreme Court ruling corporations in which the super-rich play a major
ownership role can now virtually buy members of the House and Senate by funding
their elections.
I'd better stop before I put myself into the role of having to reread the
book. Do read it yourself, Harry. It's well worth it.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Harry Pollard
To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION' ;
[email protected]
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters] Ultra-rich getting
richerwhile middle class stagnates
Points well taken, Ed.
How exactly did they become mega-rich - or even just rich?
Just how was the wealth shifted?
Harry
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Weick
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 7:33 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters] Ultra-rich getting richer
while middle class stagnates
I posted something on the American situation re this a few weeks ago.
Here's some of what I said:
I've been reading "Winner-Take-All Politics" by Jacob
Hacker and Paul Pierson, two political scientists. Hacker and Pierson examine
the period from the 1970s to the present and find a very large shift wealth
from the bottom and middle classes of American society to the uppermost
classes. While all classes gained some income between 1979 and 2006, the
incomes of the top one percent of all recipients increased by 256%! By 2007,
the richest one percent received some 23% of all of the income earned or
accruing to Americans.
Along with this upward redistribution, the power of
unions diminished, unemployment rose and the political clout of the middle
class faded away.
We Canadians like to look upon our neighbors to the
south with a little disdain. Hey, we're not like that, we tell ourselves.
Well, perhaps we are, at least a little. Hacker and Pierson have a chart that
shows that Canada's top income recipients were not very far behind their US
counterparts between 1973 and 2000. During that period, the share of income
held by the US top one percent rose from about 7% to about 16%, whereas in
Canada it rose from over 8% to over 12%.
I'd have to take another look at Hacker and Pierson, but what they were
arguing is that the ultra-rich have spent a lot of time rigging the p0litical
process to suit their purposes. Increasingly, members of Congress have been
working in their interests and not in those of the population as a whole. It
matters little to them that the country as a whole is on a downward economic
slope. What matters is that their power and wealth increases.
Things are not quite like that in Canada yet, but we may be heading in
the same general direction. It seems that wealth and power have become the
game, and not the common good.
Ed
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
