Distribution - Economics and Ecology: United for a Sustainable World - page 97

abject poverty, while a very few exist in a level of wealth rivaling that of the
richest people in the world. We in the United States scornfully reject such
systems, but data on the distribution of income reveal that we are rapidly
approaching just such a structure. The top 1 percent of our national popula-
tion earns about 18 percent of the income (and rising), which is more than
the combined earnings of the bottom 50 percent of the American citizenry.
In terms of accumulated wealth, the top 1 percent of our population owns
34 percent, which is more than is owned by the bottom 90 percent of the
citizenry.
In fact, recent figures show that the top 1 percent own 84 percent of all
stock in the publicly held stock markets. With each upward tick of the Dow
Jones average, even though we are all conditioned to rejoice, the real effect
is that inequality gets worse. However, the most bothersome point may well
be that the only other time in the nation's history that inequality approached
these levels was 1929.
The second point to be made is political. When each participant has 50
percent of the income, the influence each person might perceive they have
in any government action is necessarily similar. One person/one vote would
be reasonable, and the political system would tend toward democracy. But,
as the income disparity increases, wealthy people and poorer people per-
ceive the benefits of government actions differently. Consequently, politics
becomes more contentious.
In fact, as we are actually observing, wealthier people rightly perceive they
can afford to purchase for themselves many of the traditional government
services, such as education, health care, and even protection from exposure
to environmental damage. Therefore, they may favor a minimalist approach
to government, even while less affluent citizens would like to see a broader
social safety net available for everyone.
In short, uneven income distribution leads to strident political conflict.
Despite the fact that the wealthy are few in number, they assert control of
the political process because they have the money and power to do so. One
person/one vote is thus a threat to their continued control, a threat that leads
not only away from democracy but also toward a plutocracy or even fascism
or a dictatorship. Sound familiar?
If the problem of economic disparity is so obvious, why have we not done
more about it? A strong notion of a middle-class embodies a cultural image
of the American Dream—that everyone can become well-to-do. The overly
simplistic, hypothetical example assumes, in effect, a zero-sum game. It is
clear that wealth for the rich impoverishes the poor. Our devotion to contin-
ual growth has clouded that vision. If the pie can be made bigger, there is less
of a case for resenting, or politically reacting against, anyone who currently
has a disproportionately large piece of that pie. Given the complicity of mass
media, we are even encouraged to admire, honor, and obey such people. The
likes of Fortune magazine, with its annual chronicling of the “horse race of
the rich,” see to that.