The growth of the inequality in the Western world

[Linkey]

https://kimgriest.medium.com/real-reason-the-american-middle-class-is-disappearing-901cb78ababf

 

The authors say that the inequality has been growing in the West in recent decades - the middle class is disappearing. This can be measured as the growth of the share of the world's money owned by the richest 1%. The authors attribute this to the fact that Reagan lowered taxes for the rich in the 80s.

The authors also write that the mainstream Western mass media are silent about this problem or lie. This is evident with both CNN and Fox News (especially CNN). And this can be explained simply - these 1% of the richest are interested in this state of affairs, and control these media.

I will add that other problems in the West have the same cause. Americans have chosen an old freak, and it is clear that in the US there would be millions of people who are younger, smarter ,etc. than Trump. But they are not given the opportunity to become candidates for presidency, because a smart president could become a threat to these 1% of the richest, so this is not in their interests.

[dimreepr]

The biggest problem is, very few people understand money and it's value...

[Phi for All]

This isn't a phenomenon found only in "the West". Russia is having the same problem, as is any country that favors authoritarians that undermine the social fabric of their countries. Costs of living increase, wages don't, and the super wealthy are allowed to use their money in ways they shouldn't be able to. 

The media in the US has no obligation to inform, and instead appreciates when we all have to spend more time deciphering the news. This problem is worldwide, atm.

[swansont]

On 12/1/2024 at 12:39 AM, Linkey said:

https://kimgriest.medium.com/real-reason-the-american-middle-class-is-disappearing-901cb78ababf

 

The authors say that the inequality has been growing in the West in recent decades - the middle class is disappearing. This can be measured as the growth of the share of the world's money owned by the richest 1%. The authors attribute this to the fact that Reagan lowered taxes for the rich in the 80s.

While I agree Reagan is responsible for certain problems in the US, I’m not sure how he’s responsible for inequality elsewhere in “the west”

On 12/1/2024 at 12:39 AM, Linkey said:

The authors also write that the mainstream Western mass media are silent about this problem or lie. This is evident with both CNN and Fox News (especially CNN). And this can be explained simply - these 1% of the richest are interested in this state of affairs, and control these media.

How can CNN be more silent than Fox news?

On 12/1/2024 at 12:39 AM, Linkey said:

I will add that other problems in the West have the same cause. Americans have chosen an old freak, and it is clear that in the US there would be millions of people who are younger, smarter ,etc. than Trump. But they are not given the opportunity to become candidates for presidency, because a smart president could become a threat to these 1% of the richest, so this is not in their interests.

At least 10 people ran in the GOP primary. How were they not given the opportunity to become a candidate? 

RFK Jr, Jill Stein, Cornell West and Chase Oliver were all on the ballot (though not all in all states). 

But if you’re going to claim that the problems of the west have been caused by Trump’s election, you’re going to do a better job of laying out your argument. Especially for problems that existed before 2016.

[Phi for All]

On 11/30/2024 at 10:39 PM, Linkey said:

The authors also write that the mainstream Western mass media are silent about this problem or lie.

It may be a focus for this article about a book, but the fact is people all over the world don't trust their media. Russia, China, Japan, the US, the EU, you name the country and the young people there (and many of the older people too) don't trust what their media is telling them. Perhaps we could broaden the focus of this topic, seeing as it's NOT a problem only "the West" is having. 

It's hard to trust people posting on social media as well, considering many are openly pushing their own agendas. Maybe even paid to do so.

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

While I agree Reagan is responsible for certain problems in the US, I’m not sure how he’s responsible for inequality elsewhere in “the west”

I think this particular view of small government and reducing social systems as part of trickle down economic has entered the arena in quite a few European countries (and Canada). Thatcher was a poster child of basically similar ideas regarding free markets coupled with reduced government spending, for example.

However, as already mentioned, this is not an issue of the Western world alone. There are different ways to measure wealth inequality, but using e.g. the Gini index, countries with the highest wealth inequality are found in Africa and South America, whereas the lowest include European countries such as the Netherlands, Czech Republic and Iceland. Also, the trends are not universally trending towards disparity. Looking at trends, it might seem that crises (including the pandemic) have resulted in upwards jump in inequality (suggesting that the economic system allows small groups to benefit greatly from crises). But we do not see that trend in Western Europe (quite the opposite). You can see below the Gini index (0=total equality; 1=total inequality) from US, China, Russia, Canada and some Western European countries (from ourworldindata.org). The details are more complicated, of course, but I am not sure whether a simple narrative is sufficient to explain these differences. And certainly it does not point to a singular issue exclusively to the West.

 

[swansont]

7 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think this particular view of small government and reducing social systems as part of trickle down economic has entered the arena in quite a few European countries (and Canada). Thatcher was a poster child of basically similar ideas regarding free markets coupled with reduced government spending, for example.

Thatcher was PM starting in 1979, while Reagan was inaugurated in 1981, so there’s a causality issue here. And other countries had to elect leaders who enacted those policies. Reagan didn’t force that to happen. Reagan is responsible for some awful US policies, but other sovereign nations have agency. If they chose awful policies they are responsible for them.

[CharonY]

44 minutes ago, swansont said:

Thatcher was PM starting in 1979, while Reagan was inaugurated in 1981, so there’s a causality issue here.

You are right, my apologies. I should have said that they were ideological aligned (i..e in the aspects of neoliberal economics) and not suggested that Reaganomics was to blame. My thinking fell prey to an (unfounded) assumption of US ideological dominance. This is especially bad due to European origins of the underpinning schools of thoughts.

[Linkey]

13 hours ago, Phi for All said:

This isn't a phenomenon found only in "the West". Russia is having the same problem, as is any country that favors authoritarians that undermine the social fabric of their countries.

Of course. When I argue with pro-Putin Russians, I try to tell them that the problems of the Western world (which are emphasized by the Russian propaganda) are caused not by an abundance of democracy (as the Russian propaganda shows), but rather by by a lack of democracy.

I believe that the [] which is happening in Russia now, is also happening in the Western world, though in a more soft and hidden form. For Russians, this information is important since the Putin's propaganda tells them that the problems in the West are caused by the democracy, while in reality it is vice versa. For you, studding how the authoritarism works in Russia can be helpful for understanding the causes of your problems.

[Linkey]

[iNow]

You should include something which looks at the last 20 years. George Bush was just starting his second term in 2005

[DeepBlueSouth]

39 minutes ago, iNow said:

You should include something which looks at the last 20 years. George Bush was just starting his second term in 2005

excellent point. best data I could find carries this on to 2014. I found some info solely on Australia's numbers [going into the later part of that decade], but I have yet to see more recent data than that on any similar graph.

sources: The Economic Policy Institute

[CharonY]

The US Bureau of labor statistics has those data available, but I think the gap is widely recognized.

Edit, some figures also from the EPI, slightly updated

 

[Peterkin]

Nothing new or western about this phenomenon. The rule of vertical societies was recognized in the bible

Quote

Matthew 13:12 Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him.

It's the same cycle repeated over and over in all eras, all cultures, all societies that are stratified in classes and controlled by an established elite. The privileged are always in a position to enrich and empower themselves through the effort and privation of the underclasses. Wealth and power keep being funelled upward - and the process accelerates in periods when the balance is precarious (during a crisis situation, especially when disparity is already high) and then the economy, or the whole society collapses. These cycles used to be local, affecting one ancient civilization or one modern nation at a time, so that recovery was hard - now the economy and social organization are global. When this cycle comes to its natural conclusion, the world order falls apart all at once.     

[MigL]

By the 1500s, the 'Black Death' had wiped out over 30 % of Europe's population. 
The very unequal feudal system of baron landowners with large numbers of serfs working the lands for barely subsistence came to an end, as the fewer remaining workers began to demand actual wages to work the land.

Covid-19 had started to have the same effect as many people refused to return to minimally paying jobs after the pandemic. Quite a few restaurants and coffee shops had to close for lack of hired help, and governments are having to raise minimum wage to assist small businesses finding help.

That seems to pale in comparison to a jackass like E Musk, who is currently worth approx. 440 Billion, demanding a yearly compensation of 56 Billion. He spent over 250 Million propping up D Trump's election campaign, such that he now controls the direction of the American Government ( finally lobbyists aren't the biggest problem anymore ), and yet, all the 'little' people ( non-affluent, uneducated ) voted for this Government thinking they'd get a better deal.
P T Barnum underestimated the number of suckers born per minute.

( sorry, current American politics always gets me angry, so much so that I tend not to post too often as it ruins the rest of my day )

[CharonY]

31 minutes ago, MigL said:

By the 1500s, the 'Black Death' had wiped out over 30 % of Europe's population. 
The very unequal feudal system of baron landowners with large numbers of serfs working the lands for barely subsistence came to an end, as the fewer remaining workers began to demand actual wages to work the land.

Covid-19 had started to have the same effect as many people refused to return to minimally paying jobs after the pandemic. Quite a few restaurants and coffee shops had to close for lack of hired help, and governments are having to raise minimum wage to assist small businesses finding help.

That seems to pale in comparison to a jackass like E Musk, who is currently worth approx. 440 Billion, demanding a yearly compensation of 56 Billion. He spent over 250 Million propping up D Trump's election campaign, such that he now controls the direction of the American Government ( finally lobbyists aren't the biggest problem anymore ), and yet, all the 'little' people ( non-affluent, uneducated ) voted for this Government thinking they'd get a better deal.
P T Barnum underestimated the number of suckers born per minute.

( sorry, current American politics always gets me angry, so much so that I tend not to post too often as it ruins the rest of my day )

Among the many explanation why we have a capital-based economy which promotes an upward movement of wealth (Marx, anyone?), I also found an interesting observation regarding non-essential consumption. There was an argument that folks have more things than ever before (e.g. comparing to our parents and grand-parents) as many goods (especially electronics) are now mass consumed. To produce these goods, cost cutting and efficiency has spread through all levels of the support chain, leaving essentially labor cost as a non-reducible unit. There are therefore strong incentives to keep salaries low and companies successful in cutting costs this way are getting incentivized by shareholders as well as consumers.

[Sensei]

On 12/1/2024 at 6:39 AM, Linkey said:

The authors say that the inequality has been growing in the West in recent decades - the middle class is disappearing.

If you spend all your money on luxury items, exceeding the income limits, it is inevitable. A new iPhone for the whole family (2+2) every year? Each for about $1,000? That's $4,000 of wasted money on an items you don't need (unless you're an Apple app developer)..

People have become accustomed to living luxuriously beyond their means and are becoming poorer in the long run because of it.

 

On 12/1/2024 at 6:39 AM, Linkey said:

The authors also write that the mainstream Western mass media are silent about this problem or lie. This is evident with both CNN and Fox News (especially CNN). And this can be explained simply - these 1% of the richest are interested in this state of affairs, and control these media.

Nonsense. Here you have a few counter examples:

CNN 2018:

https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/18/pf/lack-of-savings-cover-unexpected-expense/index.html

CNN 2021:

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/11/success/1000-emergency-expense/index.html

Fox 2024:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/most-americans-cannot-afford-1000-emergency-expense

CNBC 2024:

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/24/many-americans-cannot-pay-for-an-unexpected-1000-expense-heres-why.html

The problem with such articles is that they are read mainly by intellectuals, financiers, businessmen, not the people referred to in the article. Article can't reach the target it is aimed.

This year I had an unusual frequent contact with a young person aged 23-24. He has no clue about the whole world. He doesn't even know what went on in the city during the day. He doesn't watch television. He doesn't read online newspapers. He doesn't read business media, etc. etc. Basically, he doesn't read anything except Google and FB snippets, which must first be translated from English into his native language (which introduces a lot of problems). His English is abnormally unexpectedly weak.

 

ps. In the spring, he spent $1,200 on one of the world's best smartphones (surpassing any iPhone in terms of features and performance). His salary is the national minimum.