Whitewashing the Classwar

Posted on April 24th, by James in jam esc. No Comments

So a certain Mr. Kevin D. Williamson published this article in the National Review Online. Go read it, the rest of this can wait.

For those of you who can’t be bothered to click-and-read, Mr. Williamson argues—perhaps convincingly—that, since the Reagan era, the super-rich got poorer, and the poor got richer, and he gives some data that appears to back this claim up. He goes on to make the point that the richest people in the year 2000 were different people than the richest people in the year 2010, and therefore that the claim made by so many on the left, that ‘the rich are getting richer,’ is just so much hooey, and therefore the wingnut lefties are all crackpots.

First, let’s examine this statement: In 1991, “ the average income growth for actual households in the lowest income bracket was 77 percent over the course of a decade; income growth for actual households in the top group was only 5 percent during those same years.” From this, it would appear that we’re all mistaken to claim that the rich are getting much much richer than all the rest of us (likely including Mr. Williamson, unless he manages to pull in over 50-odd million dollars per year).

But consider this: I began 2010 in the lowest possible income bracket, i.e. I had no income. By July, I was bringing in roughly $1300/month (after taxes and fees), or ~$24,000/year. That’s a 24,000% increase in only 6 months! Plus, come year end, I was making $42,000/year, so we might say that, for the year ended 2010, I enjoyed a 42,000% increase in wealth.[1] Hooray for me.

Now take an imaginary character, call him David. David’s income on January 1 was $100,000,000. During the year, he made some wise investments and enjoyed a promotion such that his income on December 31 was $150,000,000. Unfortunately for David, this means that, while I, a lowly researcher, enjoyed a 42,000% increase in my income (and jumped at least two income brackets), David’s income only increased by 50%, and he saw no real socioeconomic mobility.

And how about another imaginary fellow, Charles, who, like David, started the year making $100,000,000. Charles, though, made some poor investments, was forced to take a pay cut at his hedge fund job, and ended the year with an income of merely $75,000,000. The poor bastard.

So, collectively, the super-rich class (here denoted by Charles and David), saw a net increase in their income of merely 25%, while the poor (at the beginning of the year) saw their income jump an astronomical 42,000%.[2]

And so there must not be any sort of class war going on at all! The rich aren’t getting (much) richer, and the poor are hopping classes like bunnies!

Do I need to explain why this is hogwash?

Secondly, how much difference does it make that the Charles and David of 2010 weren’t rich at all in 2000? Does it matter that Charles and David usurped the throne of Bill and Warren? Absolutely none. As I’ve discussed in previous rants, Capital is a whore: it cares not who possesses it (because it is never possessed, but only possesses). All that matters is that it has an ever-increasing pile of others with which to copulate. Whether Charles is rich today and poor tomorrow is of no interest to Capital, and has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the class of people known as ‘super-rich’ are, collectively, thoroughly enjoying ever-larger portions of the (inter)national pie.[3]

What is important, and what makes this a question of class war rather than a mere question of economics, fairness, or some other metric, is that the ever-shifting pool of super-rich persons holds an ever-larger, and ever-increasing share of world wealth, and that the 99.99% of the rest of us fight over scraps, watch television, argue about red versus blue (both of which follow the same political and social ideology that brought about the current instance of an ongoing war against the non-super-rich classes), and allow themselves to be duped into thinking that their teacher and firefighter brethren are overpaid.

To say that, since Bill lost his fortune in 2008 and David built his fortune in 2009 there is no class war, is to muddy the waters and confuse the issue, disguise the fact that we are, all of us, deeply embroiled in a class war unlike any that has come before, and with his ~~whitewash~~ article, Mr. Williamson is just as complicit in the war on the 99.99% as the freshman congressmen who want to privatize Medicare—thereby taking every last dollar from the poor and elderly who happen to find themselves in need of medical attention—and the Koch Brothers (who, amazingly, if we follow Mr. Williamson’s logic, have managed to stay in the top .01% of wage earners for their entire adult lives).

And so I call, if you’ll pardon me for the gratuitous vulgarity, BULLSHIT on Mr. Williamson’s article, and I further accuse him of working against his own class interests with his senseless drivel.

Oh, and one more thing…

Third: I’m proud to be a wingnut lefty!

[1] Note: I am neither a mathematician, nor an economist, so if I messed up some of the math in this post, please forgive me.

[2] Actually, as far as I understand it, 42,000 is infinitely more than the $0 I was earning on 1 January, and so the income jump I experienced was infinitely larger than 42,000%, but I think you get the point.

[3] Here, one should, of course, picture an infamous scene from American Pie.