Universidad Carlos III de Madrid - UC3M


Portada del sitio > Asignaturas / Teaching > EEE página en construcción > Temas de economía española y europea > Mercado de Trabajo y el debate sobre las reformas laborales > Why Screwing Unions Screws the Entire Middle Class Plus: How much income (...)

Why Screwing Unions Screws the Entire Middle Class Plus: How much income have you given up for the top 1 percent?

By Kevin Drum, Mother Jones, March/April 2011 Issue

Lunes 10 de octubre de 2011, por Carlos San Juan


IN 2008, A LIBERAL Democrat was elected president. Landslide votes gave Democrats huge congressional majorities. Eight years of war and scandal and George W. Bush had stigmatized the Republican Party almost beyond redemption. A global financial crisis had discredited the disciples of free-market fundamentalism, and Americans were ready for serious change.

Or so it seemed. But two years later, Wall Street is back to earning record profits [4], and conservatives are triumphant [5]. To understand why this happened, it’s not enough to examine polls and tea parties and the makeup of Barack Obama’s economic team [6]. You have to understand how we fell so short, and what we rightfully should have expected from Obama’s election. And you have to understand two crucial things about American politics.

The first is this: Income inequality has grown dramatically [7] since the mid-’70s—far more in the US [8] than in most advanced countries—and the gap is only partly related to college grads outperforming high-school grads. Rather, the bulk of our growing inequality has been a product of skyrocketing incomes among the richest 1 percent and—even more dramatically—among the top 0.1 percent. It has, in other words, been CEOs and Wall Street traders at the very tippy-top who are hoovering up vast sums of money from everyone, even those who by ordinary standards are pretty well off.

Second, American politicians don’t care much about voters with moderate incomes. Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels studied [9] the voting behavior of US senators in the early ’90s and discovered that they respond far more to the desires of high-income groups than to anyone else. By itself, that’s not a surprise. He also found that Republicans don’t respond at all to the desires of voters with modest incomes. Maybe that’s not a surprise, either. But this should be: Bartels found that Democratic senators don’t respond to the desires of these voters, either. At all.

[10]It doesn’t take a multivariate correlation to conclude that these two things are tightly related: If politicians care almost exclusively about the concerns of the rich, it makes sense that over the past decades they’ve enacted policies that have ended up benefiting the rich. And if you’re not rich yourself, this is a problem. First and foremost, it’s an economic problem because it’s siphoned vast sums of money from the pockets of most Americans into those of the ultrawealthy. At the same time, relentless concentration of wealth and power among the rich is deeply corrosive in a democracy, and this makes it a profoundly political problem as well.

How did we get here? In the past, after all, liberal politicians did make it their business to advocate for the working and middle classes, and they worked that advocacy through the Democratic Party. But they largely stopped doing this in the ’70s, leaving the interests of corporations and the wealthy nearly unopposed. The story of how this happened is the key to understanding why the Obama era lasted less than two years.

Documentos adjuntos

  • Documento (PDF - 1.3 MB)
    Why Screwing Unions Screws the Entire Middle Class. Kevin Drum

Seguir la vida del sitio RSS 2.0 | Mapa del sitio | Espacio privado | SPIP | Contacto: csm@eco.uc3m.es