Tobold's Blog
Sunday, August 29, 2021
 
Class warfare

I recently wrote about the board game Descent, saying that I wouldn't buy it, because it is too expensive for me. But I predicted that the game is important, because it tests the market acceptability of a $175 board game outside of crowdfunding. Since then, I have seen several videos on YouTube from board game channels discussing the high price of Descent and some Kickstarter games. And in one of them, Alex of BoardGameCo mentions that 78% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck (and that was from data before the pandemic).

In the context of my work, and with me being part of the Boomer generation, I have also been reading up and watching videos on generational conflict. Millenials think that they have it much worse than Boomers, and they believe that the Boomer generation deliberately went out of their way to screw them. Looking at various economic data, it is obvious that in many respects Millenials *do* have it economically much worse than Boomers. But while Boomers might occasionally give well-meant but not very relevant comments to Millenials about success being a consequence of life choices and values, the idea of a generational conspiracy against the younger generation is pretty absurd. If you study human behavior, one recurring psychological trait of humans is that they go out of their way to make life better for their children. Not that they always do a very good job, see for example climate change. But it is extremely unlikely to the point of ridicule that a whole generation joined in a conspiracy to make life for their children economically worse.

On an individual level, I believe that your economic success comes from a mixture of luck, economic circumstances, and life choices. If you take a whole population, the influence of luck and life choices becomes statistical noise, and only the economic circumstances remain. If 78% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, it basically means that the whole economic system is rigged against what Marx would have called the proletariat, the social class of wage-earners. A large part of the inequality comes from the different tax treatment of wages and capital gains, heavily favoring people living from capital income. Thus the famous story that Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. Or, as he says: "There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.".

Now obviously there is some correlation between age and wealth, older people are richer than younger people, and increasingly so. But there are a lot of older people that are poor. And as easy it is to make fun of the hippy generation 50 years later, at least they would have correctly identified the problem as one of class warfare. The identity politics, including generational identity politics, of the last decades are mostly a distraction from that. Basically the economic circumstances that were kicked off in the 80's by the Reagan/Thatcher power couple, with less regulation and more globalisation, created winners and losers. And the so-called "knowledge workers" ended up on the side of the winners. Which was a bit of a moral problem for them, because they were leftist intellectuals. So the left abandoned class warfare, and replaced the struggle for better economic conditions for wage-earners by identity politics. You don't protest to "tax the rich" if you *are* comparatively rich.

I think that the old school left politics are superior: If we taxed capital gains as much as wages, and gave workers a fairer share of the wealth they help create, a lot of of the identity-based social problems would be solved at the same time. Better economic conditions for low-income wage-earners would help black families far more than some well-off white intellectual carrying a "Black Lives Matter" placard. That isn't communism (which obviously didn't work). Nobody should want to turn the USA into communist Russia. But we should want to turn the USA (and everywhere else) into a Scandinavian country. Because it has been shown that their economic system works, and makes people much happier.


Comments:
US identity politics are a whole lot different than global ones. They are spreading mind you, but still quite different.

Agree in the concepts here. The challenge is that the system favors the rich through investments and deferrals. Once you are rich, it is very hard to lose that status if you got it through non luck based means. Why lottery winners are broke after a few years... a few new rules on a systems with thousands is not going to impact much.
 
"Not that they always do a very good job, see for example climate change."
Climate change is unfortunately a negative side effect of things being better. Life is build upon exploitation and we humans are exceptionally good at optimising, so we optimised exploitation. I'm sure that nature will correct it someday though and reign us back in. Or those that are left.

"You don't protest to "tax the rich" if you *are* comparatively rich."
Nah silly, it's those lazy millennials again. It's 'tax the richER' and only applies to those with more than you! https://dailycaller.com/2021/06/02/ok-boomer-socialist-e-girl-neekolul-apartment-nicole-sanchez/
 
I get that over the whole population luck becomes statistical noise, but I'm not sure you can make the same assumption for life choices, unless you're claiming that life choices are all random?
One issue faced by young people, for example, is graduate unemployment combined with student debt, resulting from the life choice of going to university to do a non-vocational degree rather than starting straight into paid work after school. That's definitely not random, there's been a steady increase in the numbers opting for higher education over the years. And that has only made the problem worse, because part of the value of a degree was having that level of education was rare and could be taken as a signal that this was an exceptional candidate. When the majority of young people have degrees, the simple fact of having a degree isn't enough to appeal to an employer, and the supply exceeds the actual demand for people with the skills learned at university.
Note that's mostly a problem for 'general' degrees. Studying law, or medicine, or engineering, is still a ticket to a decent job. History, literature or media studies not so much.
 
> I think that the old school left politics are superior ... Better economic conditions for low-income wage-earners ...

Isn't that the platform of Bernie Sanders / Elisabeth Warrens / Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other progressives in the Democratic party?
They are pushing for things like $15/h minimum wage - for everyone, not only for blacks, and for taxing the rich, and for addressing climate change, and for affordable education and healthcare.

The problem is that such policies encounter very stiff resistance from the right-wing propaganda and loud accusations that they are trying to bring socialism/communism.


 
In the US (I'm sure elsewhere in the world too), we have a lot of people that like to live beyond their means. They buy relatively expensive cars, multiple televisions, take expensive vacations - and then they complain about living pay check to pay check. I wish there was an easy way to tell what part of that 78% are people like that vs people that are struggling because of health related, abuse related, or other non-self inflicted issues. I'm all for helping those people truly in need, however I find it hard to really know who that is when I see the way a lot of my compatriots spend their money.
 
@Janous I work in a state that's toward the sad end of the wealth bell curve (NM) and I don't know of anyone who can afford multiple TVs, frivolous car purchases and so forth. If you make $15.00 an hour (in my state an average household income is $44K annual....for two wage earners!) then you are making $31,200 per year, which is at best enough to pay for rent, gas, food and clothing. Phones are a necessity as is internet; don't have those and you severely limit your job selection. Medical costs don't even factor in.....and the majority of those who live in my state are closer to $10/hour anyway. So....while there are people out there with disposable income and poor savings habits, I think there's a much larger population out there that dreams of what it would be like to have enough disposable income to just buy a second card or TV.
 
Not sure what left you are referring to but the left in the US, especially the younger leftists, definitely want the class changes you describe.

Also these viewpoints are not mutually exclusive and I'm not sure why you are talking about them as if they are. You can both want more social parity and support class parity. In fact I'd argue those seeking social parity are also more inclined to tackle class warfare issues as many reasons for the former are because of the latter.

Lastly I doubt there are any serious number of millenials who actually think there is some generational conspiracy to reduce wealth of later generations by Boomers. That's not an argument I've ever heard anyone make. The argument is that Boomers as a whole, because of the natural tendency of capitalism to consolidate wealth combined with Reaganomics, the rise of austerity driven State Budgets, massive drives to depower unions, and deregulation have created a situation where the Milienial and Zoomer generations have less wealth then their predecessors.
 
Behind a paywall/registration screen unfortunately.
 
Sorry, Bigeye. It is getting harder and harder to follow links on news aggregator sites, with lots of paywalls and other obstacles on the way of following a story. And everybody has access to different sites, depending on his subscriptions and/or "free articles left".
 
Post a Comment

<< Home
Newer›  ‹Older

  Powered by Blogger   Free Page Rank Tool