[Mb-civic] A Rising Tide? - Washington Post Editorial

[William Swiggard]

A Rising Tide?
Sunday, March 12, 2006; B06
Editorial
The Washington Post

THIS NATION prefers not to discuss inequality. Lacking a unifying 
religion, ethnicity or even language, it is held together by an 
appealing faith: that anyone who works hard and plays by the rules can 
attain the American dream, sharing the fruits of economic progress. But 
the trends of the past quarter-century compel a reexamination of this 
creed. When President Kennedy promised that "a rising tide lifts all 
boats," he was correct. Today that claim could be disputed.

A few numbers show why. In the 25 years from 1980 to 2004, a period 
during which U.S. gross domestic product per person grew by almost 
two-thirds, the wages of the typical worker actually fell slightly after 
accounting for inflation. So, too, did wages for the 50 percent of the 
work force that earned less than the typical, or median, employee. The 
rising tide helped only workers at the top. Wages for workers in the 
90th percentile -- that is, workers who earned more than 90 percent of 
their peers -- jumped by more than a quarter.

Other measures tell variants on this story. More women are working, so 
household income, as distinct from individual wages, has risen. The 
value of health benefits has increased, so counting these plus other 
non-wage income from investments also paints a brighter picture. Between 
1980 and 2003, total after-tax income for the bottom fifth of households 
rose 8 percent, and the second-bottom fifth gained 17 percent; in other 
words, all boats did rise, albeit by less than 1 percent per year. But 
it's hard to celebrate such modest gains when the top fifth advanced 59 
percent over the 24-year period.

Depending on which statistics you choose, the tide is either not lifting 
most boats or lifting many of them modestly. At times over the past 
quarter-century, commentators have hoped that this disappointing 
performance was temporary. Perhaps it was caused by a one-time shock 
from the arrival of the personal computer, which made junior clerical 
workers less valuable? Perhaps it reflected a one-time jump in 
competition from foreign workers following the creation of the World 
Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement? Or maybe 
it reflected social pathologies among the poor that could be changed by 
welfare reform? All these theories had their day; but after a 
quarter-century of disappointment, the struggles of Americans in the 
bottom half of the income distribution cannot be viewed as temporary.

Many argue that, as long as most households are not retreating, 
inequality shouldn't be a worry. The rich are entitled to the fruits of 
their labor: These reflect talent, hard work, risk-taking and 
innovation, and only an economy that rewards such things can be dynamic. 
This is true up to a point. But when big rewards for high achievers 
don't produce an economy that helps ordinary folk, the case for big 
rewards loses some of its appeal.

Moreover, Americans have tolerated divisions between rich and poor 
because they believed that anyone could get ahead, given enough talent 
and determination. But the truth is that rags-to-riches stories have 
never been the norm: One study of people reaching adulthood between 1968 
and 1998 found that 42 percent of those born into the poorest fifth 
ended up there also. As the distance between the top and bottom grows 
wider, it becomes harder to traverse the gulf. Family background has a 
larger impact on people's prospects. The talent of people born into poor 
families goes wasted.

The idea that everyone should start life with decent opportunities 
helped to inspire the American Revolution and the civil rights movement; 
it is an idea that this nation forsakes at its peril. But there are 
other reasons to worry about inequality. Surveys find that if you ask 
people whether they'd prefer to earn $100,000 in a society in which the 
average pay is $80,000, or $110,000 in a society in which average pay is 
$130,000, respondents pick the lower salary in order to feel rich in 
relative terms.

This isn't just irrational. Riches and poverty are partly relative 
concepts. The more unequal a society, the more citizens in the bottom 
half will experience hardship. When people at the top gain more 
disposable income, they bid up the prices of goods in limited supply -- 
homes in top school districts, or places at top colleges. Tuitions at 
four-year colleges have more than doubled since 1980, with the result 
that gaps in enrollment by class and race, which declined in the 1960s 
and 1970s, are as wide now as 30 years ago. The wealth of people in the 
top half also bids up the common understanding of what a middle-class 
lifestyle entails. People feel obliged to spend more on birthday gifts, 
children's sneakers or a suit for the next job interview. Since 1980, 
the median size of a newly built house has increased by a third -- even 
while the household savings rate has fallen to about zero.

So it's not quite true that the rich can enjoy their riches without 
harming anyone; their money changes life for people lower down. This 
might not matter if inequality brought compensating gains: if the growth 
of relative disadvantage were offset by absolute wage rises or by social 
mobility. But increases in wages have been small or negative, and the 
United States has become less socially mobile than nations such as 
Sweden and Germany.

This editorial marks the start of an occasional series about inequality. 
We do not believe that reducing it should become the sole priority for 
economic policy, as the next installment will explain, and we recognize 
that trends in the global economy may make some rise in inequality 
inevitable. But the quest for a more equal society should not be 
smothered by protests of "class warfare." Yes, some popular remedies for 
inequality would backfire, stifling growth or wasting money. But there 
are promising policies out there, too: policies that would reduce 
inequality without damaging growth; in fact, policies that might boost it.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/11/AR2006031101051.html?nav=hcmodule
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060312/dfb71ffc/attachment-0001.htm