Progress and Pseudoprogress

What changes to what elements of society would qualify as evidence of ‘progress?’  We sort of assume society is making ‘progress,’ but we seldom check to see what is actually happening, or ask if what is happening is really motion toward a desirable, and necessarily sustainable, goal.  So let’s look at some trends, and decide whether they are indicative of ‘progress.’

 

Let’s start with some of the good ones. 

For instance:  Is increasing inequality a sign of ‘progress?’  One could argue that it is a (necessary) price for progress, one that fortunately doesn’t have to be paid by the wealthier beneficiaries of progress.  But do those who do have to pay this price benefit from ‘progress’ at all?  Or is other people’s progress bought with their decline? 

The environment is mostly more polluted.

More people, greater stress on limited resources.

http://efergy.com/blog/world-population-2013-what-do-we-now-know/#

More forests cut down.

Fewer wild animals.

More fisheries depleted or facing depletion.

Soil depletion.

http://news.berkeley.edu/2015/05/07/soil-depletion-human-security/

Increased depletion of ground water.

http://www.wrsc.org/story/groundwater-depletion-rate-accelerating-worldwide

http://water.usgs.gov/edu/gwdepletion.html

Warmer more acidic oceans.

(US).  Fewer factories  More office space

http://www.crosscamp.us/2013/12/peak-office-space-los-angeles/

http://www.industryweek.com/expansion-management/decline-number-us-manufacturing-factories-not-due-offshoring

 Fuel efficiency

But use more energy

Increasing reliance on distant sources of oil minerals which must be extracted at increasing cost.   including mineral fertilizers.

 

Increased incarceration.

http://www.delanceyplace.com/view-archives.php?p=2563

Increased polarization of society

Increased concentration of ownership of the means of production

 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36743.htm 

  Increased concentration of ownership of media.

Increased concentration of ownership of whisky production

 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-29/drink-world-4-companies-control-global-whiskey-production 

 

And:

 https://www.google.com/search?q=mega+corporations+that+own+everything&biw=1920&bih=996&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidr5SB_6nJAhWJ8z4KHTqYAgoQsAQIHA

Increased debt burdens of government and non-wealthy

http://www.goldcore.com/us/gold-blog/global-debt-now-200-trillion/

More people:

More land planted

http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn/background.aspx

Increased spending on military.

Increased threats from terrorism

Lots more ‘data’

More money

(US)More guns in private hands.

(US) Increased costs of health services

(US) Increased costs of higher education.

(US) Increased trade deficit

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade

(click on the little ‘MAX’ button)

Reduced spending on infrastructure.

More and more expensive technology for non-poor  especially the very rich

The Internet.

(US ) Bigger houses.  More mega mansions.

https://www.aei.org/publication/todays-new-homes-are-1000-square-feet-larger-than-in-1973-and-living-space-per-person-has-doubled-over-last-41-years/

(US) More homeless.  Increased poverty.

http://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/state-homeless-2015/

More useless anti-biotics

 http://www.triplepundit.com/2015/11/antibiotic-apocalypse-economics/

The rise of neo-liberalism

(US) More militarized police force

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarization_of_police

More corrupt politics  Serving narrow constituency, vs, the people.  

Increased concern with the self. Vs public.

Increasing privatization of the commons.

More mega yachts

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/13345720/ns/business-cnbc_tv/t/worlds-fleet-private-mega-yachts-growing/#.VlPki142cSY

I'll get around to filling in most of the other references. (Or you could.)  And perhaps some other indicators. (Or you could.) I apologize that some data are merely indicative.   But I wanted to get the next post out.

Thank you.

Graphs on Inome Inequality

A graph that has been doing the rounds, lately.

See eg: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/02/stay-classy-greg-mankiw-rich-deserve-deserve.html

And here:

http://www.correntewire.com/for_whoever_has_will_be_given_more_especially_the_top_001

And here:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/02/money-hasnt-gone-1-gone-01.html

 The source is:

The World Top Incomes Database:

http://topincomes.g-mond.parisschoolofeconomics.eu/#Home:

This is my own version, taken from an EXCEL download of the relevant data, the graph drawn using the EXCEL graphics wizard, (since I couldn’t figure how to copy the graph itself directly to my website.)  All data includes capital gains, which for the bottom 90% isn’t much.  All data is for the United States.

Note that the .01% are doing really well. Their average income is currently at almost $22 Million.  So well, in fact, that we have to redraw the graph with out the top two brackets get some sort of perspective:

With this graph, we can see that the top 10 - 5% bracket have made some progress since oh, say 1985, say,  and the top 5 - 1% a little more.  And the other two brackets have done quite nicely, though, as Washington says, peanuts and chump change respectively compared to the .01%.  If we look at the bottom 90% however, it seems as if their glory days are in the past.  From 1941 or so to 1975 their income more than tripled.  It has remained largely static since then, however, and since the 2007 recession has declined about 15% from its peak. 

Of course, looking at the graph of the top percentages, we could say: “Hey, that’s the income of just a few.  There’s still plenty to go around for the rest of us.”  

But let’s look at that.  Here’s the Share of Total Income for the top percentiles, starting at the top 10%., which we see now take home about 50% of the country’s personal income. (To recover the brackets in the above graphs, take the difference between two adjacent curves.  Thus, the top 10 – 5 % bracket is the difference between the top line and the magenta line, about 12% in 2012, the 5 – 1% bracket the difference between the next two lines, in 2012 about 15%, etc.)   

As is clearer in the next graph, the top 1%  pull in about 23% of the nation’s total personal income.  This is up from a low of about 9% in the late 1970’s. The top .01%, that is the richest 30,000 people or so, in 2012 took down over 5% of the nation’s personal income, up from less than 2% in 1980.

Looking at it share-wise, one person’s share is a share denied another. So where in 1979 the bottom 99% of the population shared 91% of the nation’s production, in 2012 they shared only 77%.  If we consider just the bottom 90% of the population, in 1979 they shared 67% of the nation’s production.  In 2012  the bottom 90%  shared less than 50%. That's a 17% decrease in their share of the nation's production.     But to them, it's a 30% decrease in their income.  That is, instead of $30,000 per year, the bottom 90% would be averaging over $40,000 per year.  

The question for the second 9% is are they doing better than they would it the top 1% had not absconded with so many of the gains.  The answer may be no, and even if it is yes, they have to realize that much of those gains were at the expense of the 90%.

Links for 10-29-10

Well, now that I've acquired a following, I feel obligated to keep you entertained and informed. Since I'm too much of a klutzy writer to do it all myself, at least at a regular and reasonably rapid rate, I will instead provide you, pretty regularly, with pointers to what I consider informative and formative.

Some will be for fun. It won't be a complete record of where I've been, but it will feature a few of the highlights. I hope you enjoy.

"The Stealth Coup D'Etat: U.S.A. 2008-2010"
http://www.oftwominds.com/blogoct10/stealth-coup10-10.html

"Capitalism Uber Alles: How the American Working Class Got Brainwashed"
http://xrl.in/6kv6


"What Does Greece Mean to You? - John Mauldin's Weekly E-Letter"
http://stocktrendsreporter.blogspot.com/
This article is really about complexity and catastrophe, especially as it has to do with economics. One important sentence: "In this simplified setting of the sandpile, the power law also points to something else: the surprising conclusion that even the greatest of events have no special or exceptional causes."


"The Normalization of Sociopathology in America"
http://www.oftwominds.com/blogoct10/normalized-pathologies10-10.html: Yeah, This guy is really good. His blog isn't that easy to navigate, but it's worth the time.

So, I hope you keep coming back for more. Also, feel free to provide links of your own, in the comments. If you can't make the link active, I'll copy it to the blog.