Nick Shultz, AEI, writing in the LATimes:
Occupy Wall Street supporters are claiming credit for at least one political accomplishment: elevating the issue of income inequality to the top of the national conversation.
The Occupiers are right about American incomes: They’ve definitely grown more unequal. But this fact presents three inconvenient truths for the Occupy Wall Street movement.
First, let’s look at the top end of the income ladder. It’s true that the rich — especially the top 1% — are getting richer, widening the gap between the top earners and everyone else.
So why are earners at the top doing so well lately? Two forces — globalization and advanced technology — have combined to heap enormous rewards on the top of the income distribution.
[…]
What makes this truth inconvenient is that the proposed remedy — tax these haves and redistribute that income to the have-nots — has an upper boundary. Indeed, blue states such as California and New York, where these superstar effects are most pronounced, are already trying to remedy inequality with some of the highest state income taxes in the country, and they have bumped up against the limits of economic reality.
It’s telling that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has been a staunch critic of new tax increases, including on the wealthy, saying recently that “you are kidding yourself if you think you can be one of the highest-taxed states in the nation, have a reputation for being anti-business — and have a rosy economic future.”
What about at the lower end of the income distribution? Here too, some hard truths complicate matters for liberal supporters of the Occupy movement.
Consider immigration. There is little doubt that adding lots of unskilled immigrants to the labor pool depresses the wages of the native born at the low end of the income distribution.
Reasonable people can disagree about how many immigrants the country should welcome (I’m in the pro-immigration camp). But liberal supporters of Occupy Wall Street, many of whom have expressed solidarity with undocumented workers, must reconcile the fact that their embrace of large-scale immigration of unskilled workers is a driver of the inequality they denounce.
A third dynamic widening income disparities is in some ways the most inconvenient of all: the collapse of intact families. The explosion of out-of-wedlock births and of children living outside of two-parent households has widened economic disparities of all kinds, including income.
The reason is straightforward. The role that human and social capital plays in helping a person generate income in an advanced economy has increased over the last half a century. And over that same time, the primary institution for inculcating human and social capital has badly weakened.
Social scientists routinely find that individuals raised in intact families are generally better equipped to thrive in the economy. Today’s 99% is teeming with tens of millions of Americans who were not raised in a stable home environment, and their earnings potential is compromised as a result.
The problem of family breakdown doesn’t lend itself to easy fixes. And its cultural roots run quite deep at this point. But it’s a safe bet that in the several months they occupied Zuccotti Park and other public spaces, not one new idea was raised by Occupiers that would help arrest this driver of increasing income inequality.
Reached for comment, GOP presidential hopeful (and icky icky social con) Rick Santorum quipped, “Are you fucking people ready to listen to me now?”
Family breakdown does however lend itself to entrenching partisan political interests, as Thomas B. Edsall reminded us.
William Galston (from the point of view of a Democrat who doesn’t desire to be taken for a complete idiot), here, and James Taranto, here, both look at another, though associated, inconvenient truth about the electorate, demographics (which evidently has something to do with the arbitrary carving up of the populace and calling it science, not to say articulation) and the improbability of Barack Obama’s reelection in 2012.
Pointing out the logical stupidity of the OWS movement is nice for the low-information types and other bystanders, but I hope Shultz knows that OWS is not interested in consistency: they’re interested in the shortest path to disruption and chaos, and class envy has historically done the trick.
I’ve been listening to a local radio show, the host is interviewing a guy who wrote a book, The Inflation Deception, and he’s giving a long string of inconvenient truths about our budget. Like…
Every two hours, we borrow more money than Thomas Jefferson paid for the Louisiana Purchase, 2/3’s of the states west of the Mississippi basin.
Our debt is greater than the GDP of the entire world.
There’s much more, I’ll try and post a pod cast when they put one up.
icky and costive
Costive? You mean like, Obsolete?
You sound like a greenie telling us fossil fuels can be discarded as an energy source.
no like constipated
I hope his religious extremism permits him a Tums.
There’s a fella on ESPN air who does that to his own voice, which is strange really, cause who wants to hear a constipated voice?