We're All the 1 Percent

The U.S. middle class is still incredibly wealthy by international standards.

BY CHARLES KENNY | MARCH/APRIL 2012

After 30 years of greed being good and rising tides lifting all boats, inequality -- or "class warfare," if you prefer -- is back on the political agenda.

The Occupiers who camped out in central squares from Melbourne to Oakland, denouncing the "1 percent" for its supposedly ill-gotten gains, have a point: Inequality is out of control. But these mainly middle-class complainers are an incredibly coddled bunch by any international reckoning. This is good news, because we're going to need to tax them more if we're ever going to solve the world's real inequality problem: the estimated 900 million people who live on less than $1.25 a day.

First things first: America's rich are really, really rich. U.S. Census data suggest every man, woman, and child in the top 1 percent of U.S. households gets about $1,500 to live on each day, every day. By contrast, the average U.S. household is scraping by on around $55 per person per day. But the global average is about a fifth of that.

So by global standards, America's middle class is also really, really rich. To make it into the richest 1 percent globally, all you need is an income of around $34,000, according to World Bank economist Branko Milanovic. The average family in the United States has more than three times the income of those living in poverty in America, and nearly 50 times that of the world's poorest. Many of America's 99 percenters, and the West's, are really 1 percenters on a global level.

Nor did the Western 99 percent "earn" most of their wealth, any more than the top 1 percent "earned" theirs. It's the luck of where you're born, according to the late Nobel Prize-winning economist Herbert Simon, who estimated that the benefits of living in a well-functioning economy probably account for 90 percent of individual income. "On moral grounds," he wrote, "we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners" -- i.e., everyone else in the country. That radical suggestion makes the Occupy Wall Street crowd look like a bunch of free-market libertarians.

Western middle classes actually get back a good deal more from government than they pay in. Political scientists Vincent Mahler, David Jesuit, and Piotr Paradowski examined the benefits -- from pensions to child welfare payments -- that taxpayers, rich and poor, in 12 European countries and the United States received. They found that the middle 60 percent of the population had a larger income share after taxes and transfers than before. Thanks to the good folks at the Internal Revenue Service, the broad slice of the U.S. middle class gets 3 percent more of the income pie after taxes and transfers. And that doesn't account for a range of state subsidies for public goods like colleges and universities that disproportionately benefit the middle classes.

Billionaire investor and philanthropist Warren Buffett thinks he has a plan to right the ship: tax people making $1 million a year at 30 percent and those making $10 million at 35 percent. But that's not going to cut it. A 30 percent income tax for 2008's top 1 percent would have raked in $281 billion for the U.S. government -- still not enough to plug the $400 billion-plus deficit that year. Plus, taxing the West's obscenely rich to help a Western middle class that is merely very rich doesn't seem like the highest of priorities, frankly. We need to deal with inequality all the way down to the bottom of the income pyramid, for everyone's sake.

IMF research suggests that countries with high levels of inequality are far more likely to fall into financial crisis and far less likely to sustain economic growth. But this is not just about taxing the richest 1 percent to help the middle 60. It's about taxing the middle 60 to help the bottom 20. And ensuring that rich and poor alike worldwide have access to basic health care and education, with their well-documented effects on income and productivity, will work to the benefit of the Western middle class. If Americans and Europeans want to export their way out of recession, they need rich consumers elsewhere.

So stop whining, Occupiers. It is high time for the richest 1 percent to help the rest catch up. But don't fool yourself -- if you live in the West, you probably are that 1 percent.

Shutterstock

 SUBJECTS:
 

Charles Kenny is senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, Schwartz fellow at the New America Foundation, and author, most recently, of Getting Better.

NONSENSE21

9:24 PM ET

February 27, 2012

silly article

Really?

A dollar in the US goes alot further in a poor country.

Also, I'm sure there are homeless pan handlers in the US that make more "money" then some people who are raising families in third world countries.

You cannot use the same scale to determine poverty when the cost of living and standard of living are different everywhere.

I understand the point they are trying to make, Yes we are fortunate to live in the western world, but ask someone in the rest of the world if they consider them self lucky, most of them would as long as they have food and shelter. In our country, the way we measure contribution to society those same people would be on the street. In their country they are productive members of the community.

 

DAVEL6969

2:11 PM ET

March 8, 2012

occupy

look it not how much money we make that's the problem its the way they make it look its sad what goes on around the world but for most of that's brought on by their greedy GOV. & you folks cant change that so getting back to occupy they are mainly bitching about how the 1% keep their money by buy politician funneling money to political campaigns passing insane tax loop-hole that's the problem just like the pour of the rest of the world their being abused by paid off government a holes but you stick up for them in america just because we have it some what better why because they found out if you give folks just enough you keep the violence down & they make more money that's way & cry my a river for the rest the world u want freedom pick up a gun like we did 200 years ago we just want fairness in the markets & in politics & if folks like you want to fix the rest of the world i suggest you start here at home cause what you learn her you can use over there cause its corrupt GOV. that's the problem world wide its greed to the fullest everywhere until you solve that your just clowns typing on a computer & that's what occupy & the tea party should be joining together to change in America all the greed & corruption in big business & politics by refusing to fund it by holding their wallets back the consumer has the power of the purse just like congress hows that for truth

 

HAMID KARZAN - KING OF THE JUNGLE

3:18 PM ET

March 8, 2012

Couldn't agree more

Watched Max and Ruby this morning with my kids. It was the stupidest thing I'd seen all day until I read this abortion of an opinion piece. Really? There are poor people in other countries? No effing kidding, I guess we shouldn't discuss tax reform or deficit reduction until everyone in the entire world is above the poverty line. I don't even understand what this author is proposing.

An article like this with literally no coherent argument and no substantive conclusion should have no place at all on a forum like this. I read the Huffington post to get my share of well meaning idiots lecturing me about the irrelevance of our political discourse in the face of human suffering, thanks anyway.

 

JM979

10:50 PM ET

February 28, 2012

Entirely and purposefully misses the point about inequality

Much as the commenter above points out, this is a very inappropriate way to discuss global poverty. In absolute terms, yes, the American poor have more than the rest of the world's poor. However, that is entirely irrelevant to understanding inequality and is essentially an excuse for turning a blind eye to the growing gap between America's rich and America's poor. If the author were serious about discussing poverty in a comparative context, he'd be comparing GINI coefficients for income and wealth inequality. Higher GINI coefficients (from 0 to one or 0 to 100 depending on who's reporting) indicate the difference in the percentage of wealth and income dispersed between the wealthiest in a country and the poorest in a country. The GINI index for the U.S. is on par and in some cases above some third-world countries and is far above most other industrialized nations, meaning that, regardless of what the author would like people to think, America's poor are not at all well off and in relative terms are often worse off than the poor in other parts of the world.

 

DAVEL6969

2:25 PM ET

March 8, 2012

poor

some wold have you think that to these folks have food banks hospitals and other things the poor in other country's don't have most are just homeless without mental help or don't want the help offered name one third world country who folks are dying to get into to live and the data you suggest has it's faults as well dont get me wrong im no run to the aide of other country's type of guy im a firm believer we must fix whats wrong in America first before we go f up they country by exploiting their poor like we do here on TV for personal gain helping the poor is big business you know

SOLVE AMERICAS PROBLEMS FIRST OK

 

JLEMIEN

9:22 AM ET

February 29, 2012

Logical

This article is certainly a fairly simple look at what can be a very complex subject, but the description of a large amount of an individual's earning potential being the result of having been born in a specific society rings true. Recognizing how incredibly well off many people are in Europe, Australasia, and North America in relationship to the rest of the global population would necessitate radically changing the occupy movement. I am sure that this would not happen, and instead people will continue to focus on national or local issues, rather than global ones.

Just an illustration of global inequality, some Chinese people describe being born in China as "hard mode," since they get to play the same game as everyone else in the world, but they have many more challenges and less ease in doing so than many people born in Europe, Australasia, and North America

 

ATIMOSHENKO

12:57 PM ET

February 29, 2012

Good argument, bad conclusion

You are absolutely right that people in rich nations enjoy many more privileges than people in poor nations through nothing but luck in the genetic lottery. However, this makes the wealth, income, and power of the global elite much, much, much more difficult to justify, not less. In other words, the Occupiers are even more right about the game being rigged than they would have been if the entire world's income levels mirrored that of the US.

 

BIGDUKESIX101

5:54 PM ET

February 29, 2012

Just stupid!

Divide our GDP by our population and you will see what a pittance the average American worker gets and its falling daily!

 

DAVEL6969

2:30 PM ET

March 8, 2012

YES

i tell clowns like him fix america first then worry about the rest of the world after that & most of the world don't want us meta ling in their affairs anyway they just want our money no strings attached

 

JOHN MILTON XIV

9:18 AM ET

March 1, 2012

The Global Commonwealth

A number of the authors of the above comments seem to have missed Kenny's point.

This is because he *seems* to re-running a version of Republican apologetics. In fact, his conclusions would seem to be that the Occupy Movement needs to occupy the entire globe.

Capitalism is global but isolated individuals and groups only have access to nation-state jurisdictions whose autonomy is severely delimited and also continually undermined and controlled by trans-national capital and finance.

One path out of this dilemma - at least on the conceptual level - is to revive talk of the Commons. Beyond the private/public dichotomy and limitations of present discourse is the commonwealth.

I have found Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri's "Commonwealth" to be frustratingly allusive and impressionistic - it is philosophy after all - but it might be a step in the right direction.

Apart from their work there is the vast amount of literature on the commons.
Most especially eg.

Elinor Ostrom's classic "Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action"

 

DAVEL6969

2:53 PM ET

March 8, 2012

power of the purse in america my man

the middle class need to ban together & stop spending until big gov. gets out of the back pocket of big business separate them like church & state problem solved simplicity in regulation, rules and taxes is all we need my brother not all that mumbo jumbo hog wash your spewing sounds to complicated that's the problem to many lawyers not enough common sounding folks got it we want fairness in gov. & business when you make mistakes you go out of business you dont pay your mortgage you lose your house simple huh well not for wall-street i would have rather lived in a box then see them get bailed out keep living the high life id rather starve then help them bankers save their mistakes & walk away with 100s of millions of dollars in bonuses i would of rather seen america fail then help them out you know why cause the middle class would of done what we do best wiped our selves of and started rebuilding while they were in jail where they belonged hows that for truth this is what makes me sick and sad to be an american when these fools pulled this off & folks who lost their homes killed them selves because they were lied to over some greedy scam by bankers who were fined by our gov. nothing more then jet fuel sad sad sad we as middle class should be feed up and tiered of this and refuse to join in on this on going scam

 

4NOW

2:31 AM ET

March 2, 2012

The More Interesting Question for Kenny

Being out of the country, and missing most of the Occupy Movement firsthand, I wonder when it became fashionable for intellectual leftists to start condescending to these more embodied leftists on the proverbial 'front lines'... that is, what do people like Kenny get out of lauding and circulating these kind of arguments.

I understand Kenny's argument here - Occupiers generally are naive brats and any real change is going to come from something more radical and probably Neo-Marxist. Okay great - I probably would agree with this on some level - but how interesting is that argument really? And how helpful/morally responsible is it?

The novelty in these arguments seems to be, 'oh my, these occupiers don't really understand their own wealth in comparative perspective - they are such hypocrites, perhaps I should tell them that compared to people in slums and shanty-towns (who I've met and/or written books about) they really are quite well-off...' Again, okay good for you... but does that mean that no one of comparative wealth should take embodied critical action against inequality? Or that people like Warren Buffet shouldn't suggest tax codes that fall somehow at the boundaries of pragmatism?

I suspect there is something more nefarious and primal going on here in the psyches of these critics, those people who are pitching their tents at burning man and at eco-backpackers lodges instead of at their local city-halls...

The essential element in this discussion, is that the 1% will always be whatever you want it to be. It just depends on how you run the numbers. Implicit in Kenny's article is that there is a real, objective 1%. Thats not only wrong, but it is missing the point entirely. Political movements always rely upon cohesion that comes from identities constructed via some kind of big lie - we call this strategic essentialism, right? Football fans, ethnicities, political parties, nation-states are all into it.

In this article Kenny draws a boundary between himself (and people like him) and those whiny kids in the Occupy movement. The most interesting question for me is why? What does he get out of it? Does it make him feel like a 'real' lefty? I suspect Kenny could write a much more honest, much more interesting article. This is smarmy, lazy, misleading and mystically self-serving.

 

DAVEL6969

3:07 PM ET

March 8, 2012

let the rest of the world fix it self

when were done fixing america then maybe just maybe will fix the rest of the world who don't even like or agree with half of what we do anyway they just take our money & support their own corrupt GOV. sound familiar more than once huh don't it huh don't it ill remind you ok Iran 1970 Haiti 1980 on you want more cause there aint enough screen ok you fool good money after bad my man look at mexico my car insurer wont even cover me to drive there so save your self and let the cycle of life go on as it has in other country's for years keep our noses out of there affairs k

 

EAMONKA

10:39 AM ET

March 9, 2012

"stop whining" sort of misses the point.

I wrote about this last fall, when this issue was making the rounds and twitter and stuff. http://longgonedaddy.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/americas-99-are-rich-by-global-standards-so-what/