Envy

I was a science major in college, so I never got much beyond the introductory courses in economics.

I did, however, have lots of courses in anthropology, and some in psychology, and I can still read.

I've been reading Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson on economics and politics.

What these authors demonstrate, to my mind convincingly, is the very fact the distribution of wealth has become so extreme is a bad thing.

Those who control wealth or those who think they may one day control wealth will say there is no harm in a small percentage of people getting control of most of the wealth in the country, just as long as the pie keeps getting bigger so the small slice left to the "bottom 80%" is actually only relatively small--it is still so big it keeps that bottom 80% happy.

If the American economy is big enough, the poorest among us are still much richer than people in Africa and South America and most of Asia. The poor still have big color TV's, computers, automobiles, if not houses, then warm and dry apartments, entertainment, vacations and, this argument runs, even our poorest would be considered rich in Africa, Brazil, Asia.

The argument is, don't envy the American rich, their wealth does not make you poorer, or hurt you in any way. In fact, the argument goes, their wealth is good for you.

In fact, what Hacker and Pierson demonstrate is neither of these things are true. As the rich have got richer, the poor have got poorer, and in fact not just the poor have got poorer but people who were not poor in the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's have become relatively poorer.

I realize there are all sorts of statistics out there, but this fits my own personal experience. When I lived in a very asymmetric society--Washington, DC, even though I made more money than I do living in New Hampshire I felt poorer, and in fact was poorer in some very measurable ways.

The presence of rich people diminished my life.

How?

I had to compete with a group of much richer people when I went to buy a house. I was barely able to afford a three bedroom house in Washington, a very small three bedroom, with few amenities, because the competition for housing in the WDC area was made intense by rich people who would buy smaller houses, crush them and build McMansions. Gentrification became mansionification.

Money for the rich was simply less valuable than it was for me.

When the small ranch house next door was bought, crushed and a huge McMansion erected, my own house looked like a carriage house, and when I tried to sell, many buyers drove up and passed us buy and many buyers told us they could simply not get around the dwarfing effect of the house next door. Our house, assessed at $850,000 sold for $650,000, in no small part, and in reasonably direct measure, because of the power of the rich guy to diminish the value of what I owned.

The rich simply have the power to bid up prices, to blow away competition.

This is the essence of what Trusts used to do in the days of the robber barons--get control of a market, and ruin their competitors.

Moving to New Hampshire, I find there are rich people here, but not as many, and so my house is much bigger, and I can compete for restaurant meals and other goods and services because there are not enough rich people to out compete me. I feel wealthier, even though I am actually making less money.

People abbreviate this as "a lower cost of living." What that means is, you don't just feel wealthier in a society where incomes are more evenly distributed and there is no heavy weight of rich people tipping the boat over, you are actually safer and more wealthy.

The rich constitute a weight which threatens to capsize the whole boat.

If we taxed the rich at rates which were more prevalent in the 1950's, it's not that we could take what we got from the rich and make individual poor people middle class--those numbers do not add up. But what we could do is make it more difficult for the rich to simply bid up life for the middle class. We could use the money to educate, train and employ the middle class and help more of them to make the leap up to the next level.

The one percent are not irrelevant to the middle class. They are keeping the other 99% down. They may live in walled off, gated communities, but their influence seeps out and contaminates the whole pie.

Money is power and when you allow 1% to have too much power, the whole body politic is poisoned.

That's not the politics of bitter envy. That's simply what happens.

It's not so obvious in rural areas, like New Hampshire, where even poor people have land which makes them feel protected from others around them. It's more obvious to city people, like New Yorkers, who seem the limousines pull up the clubs and restaurants and they see when even 1% of the population wants something, that means you are crowded out. Even more so for living space, and space to recreate. The buildings which line Central Park have no middle class people. Only rich people look out over Park vistas.

We get so accustomed to the idea that, "Well, that is not for people like me," we do not even see any more that things don't have to be that way.

Shoreline property on Lake Winnipesaukee no longer belongs to middle class people, who owned small bungalows. They have all been moved out and displaced by the one percenters. And one of the biggest compounds along the lake belongs to Mitt Romney.

There is no Jones Beach, at Lake Winnipesaukee, no major public beach. The lake has become, for the most part, the property of the rich.

Along the Seacoast, there is public ownership. Hampton has three public beaches, and although private rich homes loom above the beach at Plaice Cove, the beach is open to the hoi polloi.

This is, to put it bluntly, a good thing. But as economic power is ineluctably translated into political power, one can see the movement toward a Lake Winnipesaukee effect may yet, years hence, grip the seacoast.

James Baldwin once observed that slavery harmed not just the enslaved, but it hurt the masters as well. That was a very keen insight. Those who dominate, who have to spend the energy and the malevolent force to dominant others become meaner, unhappier people.

We ought to consider taking the benevolent action of saving the rich and powerful from themselves, by taxing them down to size.