Archive for April, 2014

Because the wealthy have been in power since the beginning of civilization, they have been very keen to stigmatize poverty as an evil to be cured, but never wealth.

In the Enlightenment, people began to realize that wealth, like poverty, was an evil to be cured; Marx and Engels took over this banner, and unfortunately all talk of being against extreme wealth ended up being powerfully associated with Marxism/Communism/Socialism.

But, now, we’re finally moving into a post-Marxist society, where we can once again, after 100 years or more of Marxism/Communism, begin to talk about extreme wealth, or more specifically extreme disparities of wealth, as a social evil which should ideally be cured.

Note there is also a distinction between theory and practice:  de facto, democracies tolerate extreme wealth only because we have not yet come up with a social system which can create wealth for the many which does not also have the (unfortunate) side effect of creating extreme wealth for a few.  Really, if we could create a society with more equality, democracies would do that, because the many will inherently be jealous of the few, if they realized that there was no good reason to have wealth.  As it is, even the most learned economists realize that we need extreme wealth in order to have entrepreneurialism, innovation, incentives, etc, and that our economy can’t do well without these things.  So there is no push, at the pundit and elite level, to do away with extreme wealth, even in France, which is one of the more anti-wealth societies yet created.  (more…)


Read Full Post »

The new precariat

Here’s a book review:


The book suggests that there are now 5 classes:

1. Plutocrats (those with capital)
2. Salariat (those which have some permanent decent salary)
3. Free-ranging ‘Proficians’ (a few who can get work by having very in-demand skills, and get paid above average)
4. Old Working Classes (a few left over)
5. Precariat: People who bounce in and out of benefits (welfare) schemes.

And it doesn’t mention in the guardian write-up, but also there are structurally unemployed; people who are on benefits permanently, so these should be 6.

But what’s so sad about the precariat, is that it’s the creation of the new system which parcels up jobs into pieces, and makes it very difficult to get a permanent job (i.e., to become part of the salariat) in any field, whether teaching, lawyering, doctoring, professoring, librarianing, officeing, all of the jobs that used to be normal middle-class jobs, have been broken up (by managers who saw that this saved costs – benefits aren’t necessary, or can be lower, and salaries can be lower: if you get 3 people to do the work of one former full-time person, the full-time person would have merited a higher salary after some years, than 3 part-time people whose wages never increase and/or who aren’t ever around long enough for this to happen).

The precariat has happened to us, while we have allowed managers everywhere to adopt the new strategy, based on supply-side logic. That’s what too much supply-side gets you. What about demand side? People have to have money to spend in the economy? So far the logic is, that as long as a few plutocrats and salariatarians(?) have it to spend, this will be good enough; I suggest that indeed we need to think about demand side, or else we’ll never fully recover from 2007; but that is another story.


Read Full Post »