inequality-palooza (political economy)

I highlight the discussion of the political economic dynamics of inequality.

Inequality isn’t ‘the defining challenge of our time’ by Ezra Klein

Inequality, Ezra, Paul, and the Unifying Theory (and Evidence) by Jared Bernstein

Well, here’s a unifying theory: demand-side policies that that significantly lower unemployment will also reduce inequality. It’s right there in figures 2.5-2.7 of my new book with Dean Baker on getting back to full employment.

A major factor driving inequality, particularly earnings’ gaps, is the diminished bargaining power of middle and low-wage workers. In an economy like ours, with little (not-enough, IMHO) pressure from collective bargaining, low minimum wages, and a large low-wage sector relative to other advanced economies, very tight job markets are about the only friend working families have.

...

Second, my point here is that full employment enforces a more equitable distribution of growth.  That’s not saying anything about the impact of inequality on growth itself, though the theory I develop in my CAP paper does introduce what I think are potentially important feedback loops between inequality, debt bubbles, and recession, with a generous sprinkling of money-in-politics to close the loop.

Inequality As A Defining Challenge by Krugman

Third, there’s the political economy aspect, where you can argue that policy failures both before and, perhaps even more crucially, after the crisis were distorted by rising inequality, and the corresponding increase in the political power of the 1 percent. Before the crisis, there was an elite consensus in favor of deregulation and financialization that was never justified by the evidence, but aligned closely with the interests of a small but very wealthy minority. After the crisis, there was the sudden turn away from job creation to deficit obsession; polling suggests that this wasn’t at all what the average voter wanted, but that it did reflect the priorities of the wealthy. And the insistence on the importance of cutting entitlements is overwhelmingly a 1 percent thing.

...

Finally, very much tying in with this, is the question of what progressive think tanks should research. Klein suggests that “how to fight unemployment” should be a more central topic than “how to reduce inequality.” But here’s the thing: we know how to fight unemployment — not perfectly, but good old basic macroeconomics has worked very well since 2008. There’s no mystery about the economics of our slow recovery — that’s what happens when you tighten fiscal policy in the face of private deleveraging and monetary policy is constrained by the zero lower bound. The question is why our political system ignored everything macroeconomics has learned, and the answer to that question, as I’ve suggested, has a lot to do with inequality.

Inequality and Incomes, Continued by Krugman

Ezra Klein Misses the Mark: Inequality and Unemployment Are the Same Problem by Dean Baker

These are the people who are most likely to get jobs. And those with jobs will also have the opportunity to work longer hours. And, a tight labor market will create conditions in which workers at the bottom will have more bargaining power. Walmart and McDonalds will be paying workers $15 an hour if that is the only way that they can get people to work for them.

For this reason, the high unemployment policy that Congress is pursuing with its current budget policy is a key factor in the upward redistribution of income that we have seen in the last three decades. This means that people concerned about inequality should be very angry over budgets that don't spend enough to bring the economy to full employment (also an over-valued dollar). So Ezra is absolutely right that progressives should be yelling about unemployment, but inequality is a very big part of that picture.

Is the American Left Wrongheaded? And Is the WCEG Part of the Problem?: Ezra Klein vs. Ashok Rao and Brad DeLong and **UPDATE** Steve Randy Waldmann: Friday Focus (December 13, 2013) by DeLong

And then there are the political consequences of inequality. A more unequal economy is one in which the voice of the rich speak louder in the political debate, and the rich want to keep what is theirs. Before 1975 the U.S. made a uniquely large effort to educate its people, and win the race between education and technology. The result was a middle-class society for white guys (and, alas, for white guys alone). Then came what Robert Kuttner calls The Revolt of the Haves: the great pulling-up of the ladder of free public higher education. The consequence was another factor pushing for the great widening of income inequality, as America began to lose the race between education and technology. And the consequence was that 0.3%/year of American real economic growth simply vanished as we were no longer making the requisite educational effort to keep our population the best-educated in the world. Over 35 years that failure has made us another 10% poorer–and more unequal to.

Terrible by Steve Randy Waldman

"There is little tension between addressing inequality and pursuing the other goals Klein says we should focus on. Klein sets up a straw man when he argues

A world in which inequality is the top concern is a world in which raising taxes on the rich is perhaps the most important policy choice the government can make. A world in which growth and unemployment are top concerns are worlds in which very different policies — from stimulus spending to permitting more inflation — might be the top priorities."

Ten Theses on Growth, Employment, and Inequality by Matt Yglesias

The Defining Problem of Our Age by Ashok Rao