How the Other One Percent Lives

From the New York Times:

“'I got a little bit of income from my book, but I gave that all away,' Mr. Romney told reporters after an event here. 'And then I get speakers’ fees from time to time, but not very much.'"  (Emphasis added.)

The article continues:

"Financial disclosure forms that candidates are required to file annually shows that Mr. Romney earned $374,327.62 in speakers’ fees from February of 2010 to February of 2011, at an average of $41,592 per speech." (Emphasis added, queasiness suffered.)

Must be nice to be able to consider almost $400,000 "not very much."

99% and Counting

Economists have suggested that an economic system can maximize either equity or efficiency, not both.  The free market, for example, is hailed (at least in its theoretical ideal) as a model of efficiency. But with its inevitable winners and losers--losers who may through no fault of their own find themselves homeless or starving--the market leaves much to be desired in terms of basic fairness.

Now, another economic dichotomy has become apparent: a split between equality and inclusivity.  As the United States has become ever-more inclusive--reducing or eliminating economic barriers to women, ethnic minorities, and gays--the country has at the same time become ever more unequal ("The Paradox of the New Elite").  Makes sense: As barriers to entry based on outmoded prejudices fall, the pool of prospective economic successes grows.  At the same time, there are only so many spaces at the top of the financial food chain, and more spaces don't appear simply because there are more and more qualified people to fill them.  Thus, those not in the top spots, comprising, let's say, 99% of the population, are an ever-more diverse lot.

Welcome news in its own way to be sure.  If the various "Occupy" movements around the country succeed in bringing about a bit more economic equality, though, we must make sure that such wealth-sharing does not come at the expense of this hard-won social inclusivity.

What the Chinese Can Teach Us about Capitalism

In China, in 2007, the richest 10% of the population earned, on average, 23 times as much as the poorest 10%. In the United States, in 2008, the richest 0.01% of the population earned, on average, 875 times as much as the poorest 90%.

Chinese officials are worried about this trend. They fear that such income disparity could anger the poor and lead to social unrest. Thus, they have taken steps to forestall resentment--steps like imposing restrictions on ostentatious displays of wealth at funerals and in burial arrangements.

The official American response to income inequality includes such steps as ensuring that tax breaks for the richest citizens remain in place, vilifying unions that represent middle-class workers, and doing everything possible to shred whatever social safety nets have been put in place to protect the poorest.

Now, China has an authoritarian political structure and a popular tradition of respect for authority. But even they are worried enough about popular resentment that they have taken steps (albeit modest) to remedy at least the appearance of flagrant inequality. Americans have considerably less respect for governmental authority (see, for better or worse, the Tea Party). How long will it be before their far-more legitimate grievances boil over?

Solipsistography
"China Curbs Fancy Tombs That Irk Poor"
"It's the Inequality, Stupid"