We all know that the most
wealthy Americans who live among us have a far different life than we have and
it is becoming increasingly apparent that they have far more control over the
political agenda and politicians in particular than the "sweaty
masses". A new study of the one percent looks at how different they
are from "us" and what drives their political agenda.
Let's open this posting
by looking at how the Gini coefficient, a measure of income
distribution, has risen for the United States since 1967:
With a value of zero
showing perfectly even income distribution and a value of 1 showing perfectly
uneven income distraction (i.e. one person has all of the income), we can see
that income distribution in the United States has become increasingly uneven
over the past five decades.
The unprecedented study by Benjamin Page, Larry Bartels and
Jason Seawright through Northwestern University and the University of Chicago
looked at a sample of wealthy Americans living in the Chicago area.
They conducted 45 minute interviews with Americans would would be
considered "one percenters"; their mean wealth was $14,006,338 and
their median wealth was $7.5 million. Their average income was $1,040,140
and one-third of them reported annual incomes in excess of $1 million.
Here is a table showing
the wealth distribution of the 83 participants:
The respondents to the
survey had the option to either have a face-to-face meeting or be interviewed
by telephone. The questionnaire was designed to include many policy
preference questions that had also been conducted with members of the general
public, enabling the researchers to compare the responses of wealthy Americans
to the rest of us.
Let's look at several key
aspects of the survey:
1.) Political activity
among the wealthy: The study found that wealthy Americans tended to
be very active in politics as shown here:
Pay attention to politics
most of the time - 84 percent
Talked politics - 5 days
per week (median)
Voted in 2008 - 99
percent
Attended political
meetings, speeches or dinners - 41 percent
Contributed money to
politicians - 68 percent
Helped solicit or bundle
contributions - 21 percent
The average political
contribution made by the sample group was $4,633. It is interesting to
note that over two-thirds of these wealthy Americans contributed money to
politicians; this compares to only 14 percent in the general population.
Not only are the one
percent involved with the political process, they are much more likely to
initiate contact with federal government officials or their staff as we can see
on this graphic:
In total, 47 percent of
those surveyed made at least one contact with a congressional office and 41
percent made two or more contacts of the above types.
2.) Government
priorities: Here is a table showing the percentage of America's most
wealthy that feel that eleven potential problems facing the United States are
"very important":
When asked an open-ended
question about which issue facing the United States was of most concern,
one-third of respondents listed either budget deficits or excessive government
spending as the most critical issues, by far the most of any other issue. Surprisingly,
unemployment came in second place; as you will see below, the wealthy have a
far different idea of how this problem should be solved and who should solve
the problem. Only 16 percent of the wealthy see climate change as a very
important issue with 53 percent feeling that it was somewhat important.
When looking at the public as a whole, a survey taken in March 2011 noted
that only 7 percent of respondents felt that either deficits or the national debt were
the most important problems facing the nation. It is interesting to note
that wealthy Americans prefer to deal with the debt and deficit problem by
cutting spending rather than through tax increases.
3.) Job and Income
Programs: Here is a table showing the differences between wealthy
Americans and the general public when it comes to government intervention in
both job programs and income support:
Nearly half of the
wealthy Americans surveyed believe that the government must see that no
American is without food, clothing or shelter, however, only one-in-five (19
percent) believe that the government should ensure that everyone who wants to
work can find a job compared to 68 percent of the general public. This is
surprising given that 84 percent of the wealthy feel that unemployment is a very
important problem facing the United States. Overwhelmingly, however, the
wealthy do not want to see the federal government intervene in the jobs market
with only 8 percent stating that the federal government should provide a job
for those who are able and willing to work but cannot find a job in private
employment. Over half (53 percent) of the general public would disagree
with this attitude.
4.) Education:
Here is a table showing the differences between wealthy American and the
general public when it comes to government intervention in America's education
system:
Nearly 80 percent of the
wealthy respondents in the survey feel that problems facing the education
system are very important and 58 percent are willing to pay more taxes for
early childhood education. That said, only 35 percent of the wealthy
respondents felt that the federal government should spend whatever is required
to ensure that all children have access to a good public school system; among
the general public, 87 percent were in favour of this policy. Another of
the larger differences can be found in the wealthy attitude toward the federal
government providing universal access to college; only 28 percent of the
wealthy are in favour of this policy compared to 78 percent of the general
public. I would suggest that this is because the wealthy can afford to send their offspring to any college of their choice. One of the more interesting aspects was the attitude toward the
federal government ensuring that minorities have access to schools that are
equal in quality to those attended by white students even if it means that
taxes will rise; only 53 percent of the wealthy were in favour of this policy
compared to 71 percent of the general public.
5.) Income Inequality:
Here is a table showing the differences between wealthy Americans and the
general public when it comes to income inequality and redistribution of incomes
and wealth:
It is interesting to
observe that, for many of the factors including "differences in income in
America are too large", the wealthy among us have basically the same
attitude toward income and wealth inequality as the remainder of the general
public. Where the biggest difference lies is in the involvement of
government in income and wealth redistribution; only 17 percent of wealthy
Americans feel that the government should redistribute wealth by imposing heavy
taxes on the rich compared to 52 percent of the general public. Only 13
percent of the wealthy feel that it is the government's responsibility to
reduce the polarity in incomes between the rich and those with low incomes
compared to 46 percent of the general public.
The authors of the study
noted that the political persuasions of the wealthy respondents followed a
typical pattern which shows that wealthier Americans tending to be Republicans.
Of the respondents in the study, 58 percent were Republicans and 27
percent were Democrats, however, when it came to economic issues, the wealthy
Democrats tended to be more conservative in their attitudes than Democrats in
the general population.
Over the past decade,
particularly since the Citizens United decision, it has become increasingly
apparent that moneyed interests have become most important to the political
process in the United States. Unfortunately, the wealthy that live among
us have very little firsthand experience with the issues that ordinary citizens
face; unemployment, low wages, paying for an education, bankruptcy and home
foreclosures. As intelligent as they may be, their lack of intimate
knowledge with the issues that the rest of us may face during our lifetimes
colours their perspective and their political leaning. With their
political donations buying them access to policymakers that ordinary Americans
can never hope for, we can easily see how government policies can be slanted to
protect the interests of the wealthy while ignoring the plight of the many.
As Spock said "the
needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". I would add,
"except in the case of wealth distribution in America" or "when the government involves itself in the process of wealth distribution".
The Gini Chart was an eye opener. Eye-ball regression says the line took a big shift upwards in Clinton's time in office and then continued on at the same rate of increase. The line from the 90's onward is parallel to but higher than the one from the 70's to the 90's.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to see how it took off just after the 1990 - 1991 recession. Perhaps the next commenter is correct and that so-called freer trade benefitted one sector of society over the other. This is around the time that unions started to lose their power.
DeleteResearch Nafta and repeal of Glass Steagall act most of the big increase can be attributed(in my opinion) to those two things that occurred during Clintons presidency. The very basic short reason is Nafta screw over the blue collar working driving down his wages, and the other created a way for the rich to get ever richer.
ReplyDeleteThe Gini graph above is before taxes and transfers. It's irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteThe main benefit of unions has been to better distribute labor the rewards of labor. This gives more people a path to finding real and fulfilling work. Today the cost of inequality is taking a toll on our culture. Robots and new technology have streamlined and increased productivity and at the same time eliminated many jobs. The value and role of labor is changing throughout the world.
ReplyDeleteMany other issues exist such as the role of big business. What is good for big business is not necessarily good for the masses. Consolidation often means a gain in efficiency, but this often comes at the cost of losing diversity and a "robustness" to both society and the economy. The benefits of efficiency sometimes have a huge hidden cost.
How the fruits of labor are divided is important, this includes not just the wage deserved by a common laborer, but how much those in management, top CEO's, and those that can't, or choose not to work, should receive. We don't live in Utopia, but still it would be nice if a fair, logical, and just system did exist, such a system cannot be "mandated." The article below delves into this important and complex world wide issue.
http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2013/04/society-must-better-divide-labor.html