The Bartels result may be just showing that in an economy when
average incomes are are rising rapidly, the low income groups benefit
more than the higher income groups. Since WWII, with the exception of
Eisenhower, no Republican was president when the average income was
rising rapidly.
Here is the link for a relevant graph. Here is a graph of the Bartels result. And here is Greg Mankiw on inequality and unions, in case you missed it, perhaps Greg’s best post so far.
I do not generally follow Mankiw’s blog too closely, but
if this is his best post so far, then he is not so great.
What is good about this post?
He claims that the correlation between rising inequality
and declining unionism is explained by the sectoral shifts
away from manufacturing. This may be true in the US, but
then in substantial parts of Western Europe, including some
countries that do not have high unemployment, such as the
Netherlands and Scandinavia, these same sectoral shifts have
occurred, but unionism has held up and inequality has not
increased, or increased nearly as much as in the US.
Then he argues that unionism has declined in the US because
people do not want to join unions and have elected politicians
who are anti-union, partly as a result. This is probably
correct. There are also plenty of studies that Americans
are more tolerant of inequality because we see greater mobility
in society with it. So, while this does not say declining
unionism caused higher inequality, it does agree that the
two are linked via socio-political-economic attitudes.
I also think many voters believed that Republicans would get spending under control, along with those tax cuts. However, spending (mainly military) is out of control, with no end in sight.
For my thoughts (on taxes, especially) see
http://www.rasmusen.org/x/2006/08/24/sources-of-rising-income-inequality/
The nature of the “evolving economy” since the end of WWII is the reason
for growing economic inequality. After WWII, America was “king”. Slowly
however, advances in technology and diversification of the economy, made
people less accountability for anyone but themselves. Nowadays, the whole
U.S. economy is based upon “acquirism”. Like squirrels, people spend their
lives competing for the best housing, the best schools, the best car, etc.
This “acquirism” has sped up the economy and has led to the abandonment of
respect for laws and moral responsibility for others. Since WWII, the unions
have gone the exact opposite direction that Eugene Debs, the famous union
leader, had anticipated. As the unions became more of a protection for
middle-class workers, to protect their interest and welfare, the “low wage”
workers were abandoned by unions. You see many low wage workers today, who
make up a substantial portion of the workers, who essentially have few if
any rights to protect themselves from the mercy of arbitrary and unfair
actions of the employer. This is driven by the “acquiristic” competition
amongst people today. Some are winners (and are protected), while others
are losers (having virtually no rights to protect them).
Comments on this entry are closed.