System Defects Lead to an Increasingly Unequal American Society

Published in People's Daily
(China) on 19 June 2014
by Wu Chengliang (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Xiangyi (Apple)Jia. Edited by Gillian Palmer.
In the U.S. social inequality is deepening, the middle class is declining, and social mobility is decreasing — all of these current social crises have led to widespread unease. For many, the “American dream” has become increasingly out-of-reach. Amy Traub, senior policy analyst of New York-based think tank Demos, told this reporter that “America’s social contract — a promise to create opportunities and economic security for the hardworking and responsible — has been fundamentally shattered.”

The shrinking middle class is related to implementing the "neoliberal" economic system. The exacerbating wealth polarization in the American society is not only demonstrated through countless statistics, for this reporter often witnesses the “struggle” of the average American. Thirty-year-old Lucas is a lawyer who graduated from George Washington University 10 years ago and since then has gone through four different jobs. Last month, at an event organized by a Washington, D.C. think tank, Lucas told this reporter that that day was his unemployment anniversary, “a sad anniversary.” Nowadays he frequently attends seminars in DC in hopes of finding a new job, which not only allows him to meet new people, but also gets him a free lunch.

His words may have a trace of American humor but also reveal a hint of distress. His story is nothing special in the U.S.; not long ago this reporter went to interview at Washington, D.C.’s largest homeless shelter and discovered the place to be overflowing with people. Those who inhabited the place included the homeless and professionals such as lawyers and accountants who are employed but cannot afford rent.

During the interview, Amy Traub said that from post-World War II to the early 1970s, U.S. wages grew simultaneously with labor productivity. However, in recent decades this no longer holds true: From 1979 to 2012, labor productivity has increased 74.5 percent, but wages have only increased a mere 5 percent.

In regard to the worsening wealth inequality in the U.S., Li Xiangyang, dean of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences National Institute of International Studies, said that America’s capitalist economic system itself has made the rich-poor gap inevitable, as exemplified by centuries’ worth of developmental history; Karl Marx also made a profound analysis on the nature of capitalism in his "Das Kapital." In recent decades, the growing rich-poor gap and declining middle class in American society are correlated with the implementation of the “neoliberal” economic system since the 1980s. Beginning with Ronald Reagan and up until the outbreak of the international financial crisis in 2008, former U.S. presidents have all upheld “neoliberalism,” deeming it a significant guidance system for the development of the U.S. economy. However, “neoliberalism” overemphasized the role of the market; in the course of promoting economic development, efficiency is more valued than equality.

Li Xiangyang pointed out that after the implementation of “neoliberalism,” capitalists and laborers in the domestic U.S. saw a widening gap in shares of revenue: Capitalists’ gains increased while laborers’ gains decreased; this was evident in corporate governance. On the one hand, along with the launch of reform programs such as managerial stock ownership and business acquisition, the income disparity between management and ordinary employees continually increased. On the other hand, U.S. laborers’ bargaining power with management continually decreased. U.S. workers used to be able to go on strikes to demand better treatment, but with the implementation of “neoliberalism,” employers were able to seek out cheaper labor worldwide by outsourcing jobs. This in turn caused a steady fall in the number of U.S. unions and union members, thereby enabling increased welfare insecurity for ordinary workers.

Furthermore, Li Xiangyang said that “neoliberalism” limited government intervention such as tax regulation. It can thus be said that whether it is corporate governance at the micro level or tax regulation at the macro level, the U.S. government did not play its rightful role.

“With U.S. Politics in the Hands of the Rich and Corporations, Social Mobility Has Weakened”

Even though wealth disparity continues to grow, most U.S. political leaders either have little power to resolve, entirely evade, or are afraid to touch on social equality issues such as income redistribution. A widely reported example would have to be during the 2008 presidential campaign — Barack Obama said to voters in Ohio that he wanted to “spread the wealth around,” which quickly attracted criticism.

“State of the American Dream: Economic Policy and the Future of the Middle Class,” co-authored by Amy Traub and Demos President Heather McGhee, highlighted in particular the shortcomings of the U.S. political system. “Evidence abounds that the U.S. political system is increasingly dominated by wealthy interests.”

U.S. elections may be limited to one vote per person, but this does not hide an unequal political voice. Traub and McGhee said that “the affluent are over-represented among both donors and voters (not to mention lobbyists, media influencers and other categories with outsized influence in [the U.S.] political system.” The voter turnout in the 2008 U.S. presidential election is a noteworthy phenomenon; the higher the income, the higher the voter turnout rate. “Significant differences between the wealthy and the general public exist in such areas as tax and budget, trade and globalization, regulation of business, labor, the social safety net, and the overall role of government. The general public is more open than the wealthy to a variety of policies designed to reduce inequality and strengthen economic opportunity, including: raising the minimum wage ... providing generous unemployment benefits.” The affluent, however, are against these stances.

Associate Dean of the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations Yuan Peng pointed out during this interview that the American society’s wealth polarization is largely correlated to its political system, as reflected in two main aspects: First, conflict between the two parties has caused the “polarization” of U.S. politics; stances are taken based on parties. The U.S. political system calls for a rotation of power between the two parties, which originally intended to achieve complementary policy making. However, it has now evolved into a struggle between the two, especially when it involves major issues — the two parties are never able to reach a conclusion, causing many beneficial policies to be dead on arrival. The most typical example is the health care reform pursued by President Obama and the Democrats. When the bill was passed by Congress, not one Republican Congressman voted in favor, which is extremely rare throughout the world.

Yuan Peng said that second, there is the polarization of federal and local governments, making it impossible to implement many federal policies at the state level. As the result of long-term confrontation between the two parties, 40 out of the 50 states can be grouped based on party stance and only the remaining 10 are neutral. Therefore, it can be said that the presidential election is just a competition for these 10 states. This phenomenon of federal and local government polarization has led to the strengthening of many interest groups, but also a society that lacks vigor.


在美国,社会不平等加深、中产阶层减少、社会阶层流动性下降,这些正在发生的社会危机,引起了普遍不安。“美国梦”对很多人愈发遥不可及。位于纽约的“民主智库”高级政策分析师艾米·特劳布对本报记者说:“美国的社会契约——为那些勤奋努力、负责任的人创造机遇和经济安全的承诺,从根本上已经破碎。”  

 中产阶层不断减少,与实施“新自由主义”经济制度有关
  美国社会贫富分化加剧,不仅体现在无数统计数据上,记者身边也时时可以看到普通美国人的“挣扎”。30多岁的卢卡斯是一名律师,10年前从乔治·华盛顿大学毕业后换过4份工作。上个月,在华盛顿一家智库举办的活动上,卢卡斯告诉记者,当天是他的失业周年纪念日,“一个悲伤的纪念日”。如今,他经常混迹于华盛顿的一些研讨会,除了希望结交一些人找份新工作,还可以蹭一顿免费的午餐。

 他的话,或许带着一丝美式幽默,但也透着心酸。他的故事,在美国绝非特例。记者不久前到华盛顿最大的收容所采访,发现那里人满为患,入住的不仅有流浪汉,还有像律师、会计师这类有工作但付不起房租的专业人士。

 艾米·特劳布在接受本报记者采访时说,从二战结束到上世纪70年代早期,美国的工资水平和劳动生产率同步增长。但在最近几十年,这种状况已经不复存在:从1979年到2012年,美国劳动生产率提升了74.5%,但工资仅增长5%。

对于美国贫富分化日益严重,中国社科院亚太与全球战略研究院院长李向阳对本报记者表示,美国资本主义经济制度本身就注定了必然出现贫富分化,这已经被上百年的资本主义发展史所证明,马克思所著的《资本论》已对资本主义的本质进行了深刻分析。近几十年来,美国社会贫富分化更趋严重,中产阶层不断减少,则与美国从上世纪80年代开始实施“新自由主义”的经济制度有关。从美国前总统里根以来的历任美国总统均坚持“新自由主义”,到2008年国际金融危机爆发前,“新自由主义”一直是指导美国经济发展的重要制度。然而,“新自由主义”过分强调了市场的作用,这一制度在推动经济发展过程中,比起公平,更注重效率。

 李向阳指出,“新自由主义”实施后,美国国内资本和劳动者在收益上所占份额的差距日益扩大。资本收益不断上升,劳动者收益不断下降,这一点明显体现在公司治理方面。一方面,随着经营者收购、经营者持股等公司改革方案的推出,经营者与普通员工的收入差距不断扩大;另一方面,美国劳方与资方讨价还价的能力不断降低。以前,美国工人可以通过罢工来要求提高待遇,但随着“新自由主义”的实施,美国资方可以通过劳务外包在全世界范围内寻找更为低廉的劳动力,这就导致美国工会和工会会员的数量不断减少,进而使普通劳动者的待遇更加没有保障。

 另外,李向阳说,“新自由主义”限制了政府的干预,例如政府的税收调节作用。可以说,无论是在微观层面的公司治理,还是在宏观层面的税收调节,美国政府均没有发挥应有的作用。

 “富人和企业控制下的美国政治,削弱了社会流动性”
  虽然贫富分化不断加深,但过去几十年来,在收入再分配等攸关社会公平的问题上,美国许多政治领袖要么无力推动、极力回避,要么不敢触碰。一个被广泛报道的事例是,2008年总统大选时,奥巴马曾在俄亥俄州对选民说,他想“散播财富”,很快引来抨击。

 特劳布和“民主智库”总裁希瑟·麦吉联合撰写的《美国梦的状态:经济政策与中产阶级的未来》一书特别指出了美国政治体制的弊端。“大量证据表明,美国的政治体系日益被富有的利益集团掌控。”
  她们表示,“富人和企业控制下的美国政治,削弱了美国的社会流动性。”随着一小撮利益集团掌握更大的公共政策话语权,越来越多的金钱左右选举和公共政策制定过程,美国的政治体系对于穷人的诉求愈发冷漠。

 形式上,美国的选举是一人一票,但这无法掩盖政治话语权的不平等。特劳布和麦吉说,无论从竞选捐款者还是投票者的角度看,美国的富人都有更大的政治代表性,更不用说通过游说组织、媒体以及其他途径对政治体系施加的强大影响力。一个值得注意的现象是,从图表分析可以看出,在2008年总统大选中,收入越高的人群,投票率越高。富裕阶层和普通百姓在许多政策立场上泾渭分明,包括税收和预算、贸易、商业监管、劳工、社会福利、政府的角色等多方面。平民百姓广泛支持减少不平等和提升中产阶层经济机遇的政策,比如提高最低工资标准、提供更慷慨的失业保险金,但富人反对这样的立场。

中国现代国际关系研究院副院长袁鹏接受本报记者采访时指出,美国社会贫富分化与其政治制度有很大关系,这主要体现在两个方面。一方面,两党斗争使美国政治出现“极化”,任何问题都按党派划线。美国政治制度是两党轮流执政,这种制度的初衷是实现政策上的互补,但现在已经演变成两党斗争,尤其是在重大议题上,两党总是无法达成一致,致使很多惠民政策无法出台。最典型的例子就是,美国总统奥巴马和民主党推行的医保改革,该法案在国会通过时,居然没有一名共和党议员投赞成票,这在世界上都是非常罕见的。

袁鹏说,另一方面,美国联邦和地方出现两极分化,导致联邦政府的很多政策无法在州一级推行。由于两党长期对立,美国50个州中有40个州可以完全按照党派来划分,而只有10个州处于中立,可以说,美国总统选举只是对这10个州的争夺。这种联邦和地方两极分化的现象导致很多利益集团长期固化,社会缺乏活力。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Mexico: From Star Wars to Golden Domes

Germany: Trump’s Tariff Policy: ‘Dealmaker’ under Pressure

Spain: Trump to Students — ‘Don’t Come’

Poland: Donald Trump’s Delusions about South Africa

Topics

Germany: Horror Show in Oval Office at Meeting of Merz and Trump

Hong Kong: From Harvard to West Point — The Underlying Logic of Trump’s Regulation of University Education

Spain: Trump to Students — ‘Don’t Come’

Japan: Will the Pressure on Harvard University Affect Overseas Students?

Mexico: From Star Wars to Golden Domes

Germany: US Sanctions against the EU

Austria: Whether or Not the Tariffs Are Here to Stay, the Damage Has Already Been Done*

Germany: Trump’s Tariff Policy: ‘Dealmaker’ under Pressure

Related Articles

Hong Kong: The Lessons of World War II: The Real World Importance of Resisting Hegemony

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Venezuela: Vietnam: An Outlet for China

Germany: US Companies in Tariff Crisis: Planning Impossible, Price Increases Necessary