While I agree that income inequality is rampant - I couldn't disagree more about this statement. Labor unions have done a lot of harm and are not the answer (in my uninformed and humble opinion).President Obama didn't address the underlying causes of inequality, and make the case that a more more equitable distribution of income would fuel growth in America's economy, to the benefit of all. Historically, American workers improved their living standards through building strong unions that gave them leverage.
Whatever your stance on labour unions, someone has to be looking out for workers in every sector, otherwise they are bound to be taken advantage of by corporate interests. From the 1940s to the late 1970s workers wages rose with the overall growth of the American economy. From 1978 to the present this has stopped, which has created the ridiculous and embarrassing inequality in America today. Surely the decline of organized labour unions plays a critical role in this process. If you're against unions, you are forced to propose a better way to protect the rights of workers and to ensure that improved economic growth also leads to a fair distribution of that economic growth.
I think unions should be outdated, but unfortunately, where ever there aren't unions, wages go down. It's pretty much automatic. I've worked as a white collar guy in a factory. I know what a pain in the ass the UAW is. But forgetting the particulars, and just focusing on the big picture, it seems that unions are good for people, generally. We wouldn't need them so much if people had more true representation in Congress.
Haha, didn't mean to come off as dictatorial. Of course, I am open to hearing alternative solutions to the problem of income inequality. But it's still a problem that must be solved, and soon. One of the most obvious solutions is a progressive tax system and the establishment of a representative democracy based on ideas and not economic power.
Speaking as a dues-paying, picket-walking union member: Unions exist because worker protections don't. They grow cancerous because the ecosystem of capitalism is bounded by fascism on one side and feudalism on the other. Any worker-run workers' organization will necessarily emulate that which it exists to defeat if it is subject to the same incentives. Unions are no longer powerful in France and Sweden because the governments there instituted most of the protections unions provided. The problems associated with unions have not gone away, but the money goes into the state's coffers, at least.
Inequality is intrinsic to the system. According to that article, the only way to make a dent in it at this point is through "confiscatory taxes." It's hard to imagine how to do this without having a Soviet style land redistribution or a Cultural Revolution type of chaos. Rule of law is what separates civil from uncivil nations. Hopefully some brave politicians can figure out a way to steeply tax wealth and earning above a threshold that will actually make a difference without causing civil unrest. I doubt it. I'm fearful that in another 10-15 years civil unrest is the only possible outcome.
I share your fear that civil unrest is near, perhaps nearer than 10-15 years away, as anger about inequality is rising rapidly. Fixing the tax loop holes, raising minimum wage nation-wide to between 12-15 dollars, and adopting a tax system similar to the one used by France would go a long way towards generating equality in as little as 5 years. But that won't happen under the current regime.
Sharply raising the minimum wage would address the very worst inequalities, immediately, with next-to-nothing in overhead costs. Of course, this can still be seen as a "confiscatory tax" (on people who employ minimum wagers) - but it's easy to imagine it without chaos.
It's easy to imagine it, but it's also easy to imagine a beautiful woman riding a unicorn to come give me a bj no questions asked. Look what happened during the health care debate. Maybe you weren't watching that closely from NZ, but there were angry mobs threatening Congressman who were trying to hold town halls. The monied interests exploited that to the fullest extent they could ("Keep your government hands off my Medicare", for example). That was for something that was proposed to be paid for by a modest sur-tax. What wouldn't they do if all of a sudden someone said, "We're going to tax 30% of your wealth, so if you don't have the cash, you better liquidate quick." They would pull out all the stops. Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist (I'm not), but I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the Kochs et al. already have a playbook lined up for just such a case.. They read the news. They know what economists are saying and proposing....it's easy to imagine it without chaos.
Your system is broken beyond repair if you really can't discuss returning to tax rates of (say) 30 years ago without invoking chaos. The business interests have won and it's game over. And by the way, I wasn't even talking about that, I was talking about raising the minimum wage, which is not a tax at all (but it is a gov't mandated increase in business costs, so effectively pretty similar to raising taxes - on some businesses).
only a sith deals in absolutes
It was brought to my attention today that this statement is, itself an absolute