
America is separating into peasants and scholar-gentry - npalli
http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.ch/2013/12/america-is-separating-into-peasants-and.html
======
AndrewKemendo
This is another example of caging the eyes to a nation when the network
effects are global.

Worldwide inequality is falling, that is well documented. So the Keynesian
prognostication about a life of desirable idleness based on re-investment of
capital into local markets and automation was slowed because the capital found
cheaper means than automation for growth.

So when you want to talk about social equality look at the impact global
capitalism had on South Korea from 1950-today (as just one example).

~~~
capisce
Where is the documentation for worldwide inequality falling? According to this
page for instance GINI (a measure of inequality) has been rising in most
countries since the 1980s: [http://geo-mexico.com/?p=5044](http://geo-
mexico.com/?p=5044)

~~~
nostrademons
The stat I've heard (in soundbite form; I don't have solid data for this) is
that inequality _within_ countries is rising across the board, but inequality
_between_ countries is falling. In other words, a rich Chinese person is now
much richer than a poor Chinese person, a rich Mexican is now much richer than
a poor Mexican, and a rich American is much richer than a poor American.
However, a rich Chinese person or Mexican is now almost as rich as a rich
American, while a poor American is now nearly as poor as a poor Mexican. And a
rich Chinese person is significantly wealthier than a poor American, while it
used to be that poor Americans were significantly wealthier than even wealthy
Chinese.

There's plenty of anecdotal evidence to support this, eg. the richest person
in the world was Mexican from 2010-2013, and it also makes a lot of sense when
you consider how globalization works.

~~~
sundaeofshock
Forgive me for asking, but are you suggesting this is a good thing?

~~~
keebz
How is it not? Or are you saying there is some sort of nationality inferiority
that should drive the attainment of non-Americans below that of all others?

Over the past half century, China has brought the most people out of poverty
in world history. These are the forces at play.

~~~
Spooky23
Depends on your worldview. Do you care about some kid in rural China, or your
unborn grandchild?

A globalized economy will eventually pull everyone towards the mean. That's
not good news for your descendants if you live in the west.

It's a dark moral place. It's also why realpolitik rules the day.

~~~
capisce
Inequality within a country is a far greater (inverse) predictor of your
unborn grandchild's standard of living than worldwide inequality. There's
enough wealth in the world to go around if evenly distributed.

------
mcantelon
>the American government was responsible for much of the social equality

The people that fought for social equality are the ones who are responsible
for making it politically desirable. After their fight came the post-war
economic boom which made US labor an economically valuable resource worth
treating well. Globalization and the rise of automation now brings us back to
considering US labor a surplus to be had cheap. Government policy will likely
claw back expenses that contribute to social equality accordingly until unrest
grows.

~~~
rodgerd
> The people that fought for social equality are the ones who are responsible
> for making it politically desirable.

Absolutely, but I'm pretty sure when writing for a US audience it's foolish to
so much as hint that good working conditions may in any way relate to the work
of union organisation.

------
jseliger
_Basically, America is separating into aristocrats and peasants._

There's one very, very important difference: aristocrats were generally in a
heritable position that couldn't be taken from them, and peasants were
generally in a heritable position from which they _couldn 't_ rise. In the
U.S., at least, relatively wealthy / successful people can fall and relatively
poor / unsuccessful people can rise. In classic feudal societies, this was
basically impossible without revolutions.

 _To be honest, I have no idea what will do the trick. There is unlikely to be
another WW2, another G.I. bill, another 50s-type broad-based economic boom._

This is really true, and it's arguably the most important part of this blog
post, of Tyler Cowen's recent book _Average is Over_ , and in many of the more
honest discussions by people who are trying to get a handle of what's going on
in the larger world.

~~~
Spooky23
You're right -- Ye olden aristocrats had land, and land produced rents and
taxes. Today's plutocrats aren't in as stable a position as a feudal lord, but
many are in effect landlords, either literally or figuratively via control of
critical businesses.

The postwar US was a totally different story. Europe and Asia's losses were
our gain. The government had billions of dollars in off book debt, (ie. social
security trust fund) and used that capital to launch the computer revolution.

Will it happen again? I wouldn't dismiss it... No nation is more strategically
embedded in the new information economy than the US. At the end of the day,
the US is the devil the world knows and needs.

~~~
userulluipeste
"At the end of the day, the US is the devil the world knows and needs."

Probably easy to grasp and agree with this political thought when you're being
part of the US, bot otherwise... could you elaborate?

~~~
Spooky23
The US provides order. The seaways, markets, etc are largely what they are due
to US power. Sort of like the British Empire v2.

Consider 2013 vs 1913. A 21st century WW1 scenario could be set off by some
two bit nuclear power like Pakistan without US dominance.

Everything isn't all roses, but I think the net impact is positive.

------
steveplace
Remember when HN was about programming and startups, not class warfare and
income inequality?

That was nice.

~~~
fiatmoney
What does it say that HN is becoming increasingly aware of these issues?

For that matter, a hell of a lot of startups are predicated on the existence
of a large middle class as a mass consumer market.

~~~
tesseractive
Indeed. And middle-class consumer demand not only drives significant parts of
the economy directly, it has major spin-off effects that impact the health as
the economy as a whole and the potential healthy growth rate of the economy.

For anyone who depends on a healthy, growing economy for their livelihood
and/or wealth, there's a pretty good case to be made that it is in your
enlightened self-interest to do anything within reason to promote a large,
prosperous middle class with the surplus purchasing power to drive future
economic growth.

~~~
a3n
This should be on every CEO's wall when he wakes up in the morning.

------
clarkm
The book is really good and definitely worth a read, especially for the
analysis he presents in the first few chapters. The "Fishtown" vs. "Belmont"
graphs are brilliant. They do a great job illustrating just how much trends in
marriage vary between classes. The upper 20% still marry and divorce at the
same rates they did in the 60s, but the bottom 30% has changed dramatically.

Murray also does great analysis on what he calls "SuperZIPs": the zip codes in
the top 5% of combined income and education. You can see you score here:

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/local/2013/11/09/washington...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/local/2013/11/09/washington-
a-world-apart/)

It's not just neighborhoods where the elites cluster -- it's entire regions.

~~~
redthrowaway
Counterpoint from David Frum, a guy I disagree with on many issues but
nonetheless respect immensely:

[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/06/charles-
mur...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/06/charles-murray-book-
review.html)

~~~
tesseractive
Thank you for this link. I've only gotten through part 1 so far, but it's a
devastating critique of Murray's framing of the problem.

One particularly interesting bit:

> As I looked backward and forward in time, however, I had to face this
> awkward fact: America became more culturally stable between 1910 and 1960 as
> it became less economically and socially libertarian. As it became more
> economically and socially libertarian after 1970, America became culturally
> less stable:

> "The greatest generation was also the statist generation. Like them or
> loathe them, the middle decades of the twentieth century were an entirely
> anomalous period in American history. Never had the state been so strong,
> never had people submitted as uncomplainingly, never had the country been
> more economically equal, never had it been more ethnically homogeneous,
> seldom was its political consensus more overpowering."

------
benaston
People with education and good parents are at the table playing the game. The
poor and disadvantaged are playing a different game, with its own pressures
and psychological frame. Decision making is dependant on psychological frame,
and decisions made by players either game look strange to players in the
other. The OP makes the mistake of moralising when he should be empathising.

~~~
IanDrake
The problem with that thinking is the poor and uneducated make demands on the
educated and productive. If they want to live in squalor, who am I to judge.
If they want what I have, I have something to say about that.

~~~
benaston
Surely you don't begrudge them wanting/aspiring to something better. I presume
you mean that if they _expect_ to have the trappings of success without
putting in any effort then you have something to say. But even then, that is
merely an expectation that will remain unfulfilled. If a group of people
actually receives the trappings of success without effort then, I agree with
you, but this is not born out by everyday experience. The poor and
disadvantaged are comparatively, well, poor and disadvantaged when compared to
the successful. So, if my anecdotal experience matches reality then the
problem becomes, "how best to help?".

------
ams6110
_Just the other day I got my hair cut in a poor white neighborhood, and the
barber spent the whole time telling me about "that bitch" who was the mother
of his children._

Hm. My barber talks that way too, in fact that could easily be a direct quote.
And his shop is in a very liberal, progressive university town. Maybe that's
just the way guys talk when there's no women around?

~~~
icarus127
None of the guys I'm around, nor myself, think that's okay just because women
aren't present.

~~~
beachstartup
plenty of the guys i'm around do, and plenty don't.

i would posit that you're not getting as whole a picture (definitely of men,
possibly of women) as you could if nobody you know does.

~~~
icarus127
My point was not that no guys do, of course I know some do. The OP used 'guys'
to seemingly include all men. My point was that, no, not all men do, so you
don't get to play the "everyone does it so it's okay" rationalization card.

~~~
rhizome
_My point was that, no, not all men do, so you don 't get to play the
"everyone does it so it's okay" rationalization card._

Well, we aren't stupid either, and I'm sure most of us didn't take it that
way, so if you want to address the contextual nature of his comment then maybe
do that instead of scandalizing yourself in pity for the silent
nongeneralizers.

------
InclinedPlane
Some reasons why this is becoming so:

Labor laws make it difficult for people in lower income tiers to climb up the
income ladder. It's difficult for people who are working less than fulltime
jobs to work more hours because of the "40hr = benefits" laws, so instead
folks have to work multiple jobs which adds transportation costs and
scheduling complexities. The preponderance of regulations and complex taxes
has made it more difficult to start many types of companies as an individual,
putting them out of reach of folks who don't have significant savings and
existing income.

Public education is no longer as much of a guarantor of basic literacy as it
once was, so college education is increasingly becoming a necessary credential
for many office work, knowledge work, and "professional" jobs, putting those
out of the reach of many low income folks who are put off by taking on so much
student loan debt or can't afford to support themselves and put themselves
through college at the same time.

Similarly, anti-blue-collar sentiment has grown, devaluing such jobs
culturally and discouraging people from pursuing such positions, even though
many are well paying and can serve as spring boards to even higher paying jobs
(e.g. self-employment). Moreover, the reduction in vocational training, shop
classes, and so forth in public schooling has pushed a lot of those jobs even
farther away from the average American adult.

The War on Drugs: which impacts lower income, blue-collar, and non-white
people more. If you get caught with weed as a sub-urban white teen you'll face
different consequences than if you're an inner-city black teen.

Some of these trends will hopefully turn around, especially with the help of
the internet in terms of education, crowd funding, and so forth, but it's
still going to be a pretty difficult problem for some time.

------
frooxie
> scholar-gentry

We prefer to be called "Eloi-American".

~~~
jfb
Of course, we're still just the shoe-shine boys of the ruling elite.

~~~
judk
No room for false humility here.

The upper middle class are collaborators, taking part in the oppression of the
working class in exchange for being lifted above it. The mercenaries of class
warfare.

~~~
userulluipeste
This is the very essence of the Marxist-Leninist doctrine. At first I was
repulsed to get involved, but exactly ignoring things is is how they escalate.
What kind of oppression do you imply an educated person invariably is guilty
of? How about the other way around - what an uneducated "oppressed" person is
entitled to have and hasn't? What could you do if you'd be in the leading
circle for the lower class given the economic circumstances of our current
time? These are just some elementary questions that I think deserve answers
before pointing fingers and doing the hanging.

------
devilshaircut
I am no sociologist, but I think it would be rather safe to say that to it is
going to take a lot for this to change. We've clearly adapted to the divide
between the mega-rich and the "middle" class, so I am not sure it is a matter
of survival so much as a matter of principle.

I think it would take a lot of people collectively thinking and acting
differently than we do now. I am just one person, but it is my goal to live my
life with the intent of turning this situation around. I believe the spirit of
entrepreneurship, which is generally well-supported on HN, is a piece of this
- designing and building the next generation of companies who choose to
conduct business in ways that support (rather than exploit) the middle class.
Hence, I am an entrepreneur.

~~~
bmelton
The progressive left would solve this problem with increased taxation on the
rich, which would ostensibly be used to fund more social programs for the
poor. Take from the Belmonts, give to the Fishtowners. Raise the minimum wage,
increase regulation, enforce stricter laws that encourage equity for all.
Perhaps some form of guaranteed income.

The libertarians would solve this problem by eliminating barriers to success.
Lessen business owner regulatory burdens, eliminate federal income taxes,
eliminate the minimum wage, and impose as few hurdles as possible to whomever
wants to hang their own shingle and provide a service.

I'm not sure what the Republicans would want, really, or at least not
specifically enough to enunciate it here on their behalf, but let's say it's
somewhere in the middle.

If you're able to succeed as an entrepreneur enough to be able to have some
degree of influence on the problem, then you'd be a spokesperson for either
the democrats or the libertarians. By your success, you'll be advocating the
possibility of one to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, hang their own
shingle, and become financially stable in the process, but by having attained
that success, you would similarly be the target of progressive taxation, and
would now be a sympathetic Belmont, from whom riches will be collected and
distributed to Fishtown.

~~~
tikhonj
Basic income or a negative income tax actually generally seem to be
_libertarian_ ideas, suggested as a way to radically simplify the welfare
system and limit how much discretion the government had over whom and how much
to pay. They are also usually coupled with eliminating the minimum wage since
everyone is already guaranteed an income.

My understanding is that liberals prefer welfare programs with significantly
more oversight and targeting. They want fine control over who gets the money
and how they can spend it, promoting specific causes like education or
environmentalism.

~~~
stefan_kendall
NIT and basic income are "libertarian" ideas only in that they could eliminate
other welfare instruments. This would not happen in practice.

Pure libertarianism not considered with pandering to socialists would not
propose a nit or basic income.

------
morenoh149
I like this post. How do we solve this as a society? Sometimes I wonder when
the earth will reach it's maximum number of human inhabitants. Will there me a
meritocratic system for reproduction? What factors will/can be taken into
account?

~~~
nly
When the Earth reaches peak human occupancy, it's likely nobody will feel the
need to do _anything_ about it. Whatever reproduction rate we're at at
equilibrium will then be perceived as completely normal.

------
busterarm
Interesting post. I pretty much agree on all points and don't see solutions
either.

It's not always so easy to peg down where we're at though. I grew up with a
Fishtown income and family life but got the Belmont education. I've been
wedged in between both groups my whole life and don't really feel a belonging
to either. I know very well how both live.

There are a lot of problems; class divide is rapidly getting worse. It looks
like this is something that a lot of people are worried about too, so some
large change in either direction might be on the horizon. I'd like to hope
that change is the right one, but I can't.

------
alexeisadeski3
If he thinks the split is bad now, he'd have loved the 1830's!

~~~
coldtea
Or ancient Rome or Persia.

Which is beside the point -- the point being that modern society was supposed
(for most of the 20th century) to be moving AWAY from all that, not back to
Dickensian times or worse.

~~~
alexeisadeski3
Given that worldwide equality is falling each year, I'd say that all is well.

Also I'd note that the "educated sophisticates" are a far higher proportion of
population today than before.

------
thenerdfiles
OP's picture of our economic reality is overly simplistic.

The Urban Archipaelogo[0] is the new era of politics, not this false
stratification/dichotomy of proletariat, bourgeoise, and archetypes in
between, which cannot explain network effects.

    
    
        Class is a spectrum condition/disorder of society.
    

Or to put it another way:

    
    
        Poverty is a disease of economies.
    

[0]:
[http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=19813](http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=19813)

~~~
zw123456
I saw that article as well and almost posted it. Very interesting cross
thoughts between the Stranger article and the Noah Smith article. Everyone
agrees that there is this is happening but no one seems to know what to do
about it.

------
amerika_blog
The scholar-gentry are false elites who have no idea how disconnected from
reality they are.

Source: former one, fall from grace, mostly by choice.

