EQ 12: Ecological Strain + Wealth Inequality = Civilization Collapse

Dear Friends,

A cross-disciplinary group led by applied mathematician Safa Motesharrei of the US National Science Foundation using the new Human And Nature DYnamical (HANDY) model according The Guardian (here) has reached the following conclusions:

It finds that according to the historical record even advanced, complex civilisations are susceptible to collapse, raising questions about the sustainability of modern civilisation:
"The fall of the Roman Empire, and the equally (if not more) advanced Han, Mauryan, and Gupta Empires, as well as so many advanced Mesopotamian Empires, are all testimony to the fact that advanced, sophisticated, complex, and creative civilizations can be both fragile and impermanent."
By investigating the human-nature dynamics of these past cases of collapse, the project identifies the most salient interrelated factors which explain civilisational decline, and which may help determine the risk of collapse today: namely, Population, Climate, Water, Agriculture, and Energy.
These factors can lead to collapse when they converge to generate two crucial social features: "the stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity"; and "the economic stratification of society into Elites [rich] and Masses (or "Commoners") [poor]" These social phenomena have played "a central role in the character or in the process of the collapse," in all such cases over "the last five thousand years."

 Except for the science deniers in the Republican Party, there is almost universal agreement that climate change brought on by human activity will destroy our planet if we do not act quickly to reverse human's impact on the environment.  Yesterday it became clear that there is at least one Republican that is not a science denier perhaps his courage will give other Republicans the courage to face an existential issue for our planet.  You can read his op-ed in The New York Times here.

With respect to the wealth disparity, the United States is clearly off the charts.  It has been widely reported that the Walton Family (Walmart) has more wealth than the bottom 40% of Americans.  See here and here.  That analysis uses 2010 data.  In 2007 the Walton Family's wealth was estimated at $73.3 billion.  In 2010, it was estimated at $89.5 billion.  During those same three years the median wealth of American families dropped by 38.8%.  The Walton Family wealth is now estimated to be $111.5 billion.

Huff Post Business recently published an analysis of which billionaires could purchase all the houses in which cities (here).  It is a fun article even if extremely frightening.  The top four billionaires have a combined wealth of over $322 billion.  Here they are along with the cities in which they could buy every home:
Walton              $111.5 billion     Seattle
Koch                  $78.1 billion     Atlanta
Gates                 $76.6 billion     Boston
Buffett               $56.1 billion     Charlotte

That concentration of wealth in four families is astounding and certainly speaks to the haves and the have nots.  I do not know if the HANDY model works or if our civilization will actually collapse but I do know:
The disparity between the really rich and the rest is immoral and not sustainable.
The fact that the really rich can buy our elections will destroy our democracy.
The science deniers will continue to block action to reverse climate change and other environmental disasters so long as they are backed by super rich like the Koch brothers.
That all means that we will destroy our country and our planet.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

EQ7: America ≠ Equality or Justice or Opportunity

Dear Friends,

While reading The New York Times this morning, I was struck by what different worlds people live in within the United States.  In the business section there was an article about executive pay which focused on how hard it was for women to become CEOs, but once they did they were paid the same as men.  There was also a table of the 200 highest paid chief executives in America (here) for 2013.  The high was just under $142 million, the low was $12.4 million, the median was $17.3 and the average was $20.7.  Just for a quick comparison if we were to miraculously raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour as Seattle did, a person working full time (8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks per year or 2,080 hours a year) would earn $31,200.  At the current minimum wage of $7.25, a full time worker earns $15,080 a year.

There was also an ad for penthouses at the Puck Building in SOHO that are listed between $21 million and $60 million.  Here is a link to a story about the Puck Building from last September (here).

There was also an article about President Obama's plan to ease student debt (here).

All of this made me think about the incredible disparities in wealth, income, opportunity and justice in America.  According to the Census Bureau (here) in 2012, there were 46.5 million Americans living in poverty, and almost 22% of children under the age of 18 were living in poverty.

According to a study by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development on any given night there are over 600,000 Americans who are homeless and almost 25% of those are children under the age of 18.

Last December the Huffington Post ran an article entitled "United States Is Now the Most Unequal of All Advance Economies" (here).  Think about this paragraph from that article:

The most authoritative source comparing wealth-concentration in the various countries is the successor to the reports that used to be done for the United Nations, now performed as the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook. The latest (2013) edition of it finds (p. 146) that in the U.S., 75.4% of all wealth is owned by the richest 10% of the people. The comparable figures for the other developed countries are: Australia 50.3%, Canada 57.4%, Denmark 72.2%, Finland 44.9%, France 51.8%, Germany 61.7%, Ireland 58.4%, Israel 68.9%, Italy 49.8%, Japan 49.1%, Netherlands 54.6%, New Zealand 57.6%, Norway 65.9%, Singapore 61.1%, Spain 54.0%, Sweden 71.1%, Switzerland 71.5%, and U.K. 53.3%. Those are the top 20 developed nations, and the U.S. has the most extreme wealth-concentration of them all. However, there are some other countries that have wealth-concentrations that are about as extreme as the U.S. For examples: Chile 72.5%, India 73.8%, Indonesia 75.0%, and South Africa 74.8%. The U.S. is in their league; not in the league of developed economies. In the U.S., the bottom 90% of the population own only 24.6% of all the privately held wealth, whereas in most of the developed world, the bottom 90% own around 40%; so, the degree of wealth-concentration in the U.S. is extraordinary (except for underdeveloped countries).

With disparities like these, there can be no justice nor equal opportunity.

In 1956 when I was just a boy, the maximum federal income tax rate was 91% and it applied to income over $200,000.  In 1966, when I had just stopped being a teenager, the maximum federal income tax rate was 70% and it applied to income over $200,000. In 1976, when I turned 30, the maximum federal income tax rate was 50% and it applied to income over $203,200.  The maximum rate has essentially dropped ever since until now when it is 39.6% on income over $400,000 or so depending on filing status.  During that same period the wealth disparity in the United States has climbed dramatically.  In 1956 the wealthiest 0.1% owned about 10% of the wealth.  Now the wealthiest 0.1% own about 22%.  (See).

The wealthiest among us, those who have received the most economic benefits from this great country need to pay their fair share, and they are not doing so.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal