by Gary Berg-Cross (WASH Board Member)
The
super wealthy are meeting in Davos again and as one context Oxfam
notes that the wealth gap widening. This is not a new topic for Oxfam
but this year they observe that
around the world wealth
inequality
is what they call "out of control." They observe that it is
doing particular harm to women and provide a report
with these stats:
“billionaire
fortunes increased by 12 percent last year—the equivalent of $2.5
billion a day—while the 3.8 billion people who make up the world's
poorest half saw their wealth decline by 11 percent. “
So
while we live in what seems a productive time all
around us there is also failure (like students learning less), along
with but expensive new things like American medicine and its drugs
that more people are being shut out from. Sure there has been a
tremendous amount of innovation over the last 40 years but still
there are stats that show that half
of Americans, the bottom half of Americans, 117 million Americans,
literally have no more money in their weekly paycheck after this 40
years of innovation. Why?
It
doesn seem to be an innovation shortage. Heard about the latest AI
renovation? What we have may be a progress shortage.
Meaning that in this wealthy era the wealth is not trickling down in
a progressive fashion to help the common need.
As
Oxfam's report suggests the
poorest
half of the global population is actually seeing its net worth
dwindle so
it is also a gap era like the 1920s & the Gilded Age. It's an
argument that economist
Thomas Piketty, author of Capital
in the Twenty-First Century, makes
and explains why is simple terms. It's about the growing inherited
wealth via return on investment.
The
ratio of wealth to income is rising in all developed countries and
absent extraordinary interventions, we should expect that trend to
continue. But if it continues, the future will look like the 19th
century, where economic elites have
predominantly inherited their wealth rather than working for it.
Since this
wealth does not rely on work, or work's values it may not even care
about the quality of life of those who do the work. And that is a
problem.
This
point is also made by Nobel
Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. Both warn of the
socio-economic impacts of a widening gap. Among those problems are
changes
in the lives of working-class Americans, rooted in policy choices
and shifts in technology as well as the world situation. Shifts
include outsourcing to poor parts of the world without union
protection, stagnant wages, erratic hours, defanged unions,
deindustrialization, ballooning debt, nonexistent
sick leave, dismal schools, predatory lending, and dynamic
scheduling. All problems.
But
wait. There is mitigating charity and philanthropy. Can the
super-rich and their companies may save us through enlightened
charity? Take Microsoft for example. Microsoft
has unveiled plans to
commit $500 million to advance affordable
housing solutions
across the city of Seattle, Washington.
The money, to be distributed as loans and grants, will kick-start new
solutions to the city’s housing crisis, where income increases have
lagged behind rising housing
costs for professions like teachers. Good.
But
is it good enough and the right stuff?
Some
think not. Philanthropy
of the super-rich may not be an inadequate substitute for a fairer
world – it may actually be intentionally and unintentionally part
of the system that perpetuates the gross unfairness of mass
inequality.
That is the argument
made in Anand
Giridharadas
“Winners take all.” He argues that you
can inspire the rich to do more good but never tell them to do
less harm (such as moderating the wealth gap by imposing inheritance
taxes). And he goes to argue that you
can inspire the super-rich to give back in a personal charity say,
but not to take
less by such things as providing a living wage or keeping jobs in the
US.
And
you can inspire them to join a benign, light solution, but never
accuse them of being part of the problem (how come you let foreign
sources run free on your web site?)
As
Stiglitz
insists we need to ask more of the wealthy and have them understand
the larger non-economic picture. A humanist picture if you will.
It
starts with us all understanding that inequality is not just the
result of bottom line economic forces. It is soceo-political and
always has been. With current Citizens United type rulings and
policies that give wealth political influence we are stuck with the
problem. It isn’t inevitable that return on large capital will also
be greater than overall economic growth. It is targeted political
policies, processes and laws themselves currently make this so. And
these policies are affected by the historical level and nature of
built in status, political and economic inequality. Greater
inequality entrenches greater power in the wealthy, who will
reflexively use that greater power
to double-down on policies (low capital-gains rates, low inheritance
taxes, low barriers to campaign finance itself) that ensure greater
inequality, and so on, in a vicious cycle.
So
sure, economic charity may patch things up here and there, but in a
wider view only an enlightened
politics can correct for the depredations that the super-rich's
gobbling wealth growth promises.
As
a Humanist these
problems trouble me. And these things are part of a rationally
compassionate future that we envision (as discussed in a September –
Is
this a Humanist Century). They are important for all Free
Thinkers to consider. Humanists need to concentrate on improving the
things of this world rather than simply combating the illusions of
supernaturalism. As
secular humanists we may applaud some charitable efforts, but
question them from a deeper look at a deeper constellation or system
based on humanist values and principles. These including promoting
fairness, truth and justice.
Who
can we partner with us and how can be shape philanthropy to take on
some of these issues we value
like the separation of church and state? This would include the
continued
problem of the massing
of wealth
and power by religious and ethically religious groups.
We
can also ask, “Does a notable amount of philanthropy support value
free inquiry & truth, as a norm?” or
“Does
a notable amount of philanthropy support ethics based on critical
intelligence and critical thinking to establish truth?”
And
what about supporting a moral education, that the value of a person
is not entirely based on their group identify?
These
and other issues such as how hard a sell is it to promote action that
will mitigate likely problems and advance the common good will be
discussed at the January 26th
meeting
of the WASH Maryland-DC chapter at the Maryland Chevy Chase library
(1:30 -3:30).
All
are welcome.
