Sounds and Fury

許多人（如宣稱地球是平的之作者Friedman）說，在這個全球化和知識經濟的時代，只要自我投資，提升教育和技術能力，就能成為全球化浪潮中的獲益者。


另一個美國自由派經濟學者/紐約時報專欄作家Paul Krugman，最近寫了一篇犀利的文章，戳破這個迷思。她說，從美國的統計數字看來，真正獲勝者不是百分之二十的高技術者，而是百分之一的新寡頭。例如過去五年，大學畢業生的實質收入事實上是降低了。更驚人的是這個數字：
Between 1972 and 2001 the wage and salary income of Americans at the 90th percentile of the income distribution rose only 34 percent, or about 1 percent per year. So being in the top 10 percent of the income distribution, like being a college graduate, wasn't a ticket to big income gains.
But income at the 99th percentile rose 87 percent; income at the 99.9th percentile rose 181 percent; and income at the 99.99th percentile rose 497 percent.


當然，原因在哪裡，可能比較複雜。Krugman說是權力關係，而非市場力量，意思是包括政治腐敗、經濟特權的力量。但這亦可能是資本主義的本質，尤其是美式放任資本主義的本質。

恰巧，台灣的天下雜誌也製作了中產階級下流化（向下流動）的專題。


有趣的是，馬克斯早就告訴我們中間階級會往上下兩邊拉扯而逐漸消失；但是二十世紀上半頁社會學的一大課題，就是中產階級的出現，導致馬克斯理論的失敗。但如果最近關於這些中產階級下流化的分析是對的話，那麼馬克斯是不是果然是真理？


不過，我更關心的問題是，更重要的問題應該是，到底為何會出現這樣的現象，和如何解決吧？
天下的限制，一如他永恆的缺陷，是沒能指出真正的問題和提出真正的答案。
譬如在主文，明明提到全球化和產業外移到中國讓學歷不再是好工作的入場卷，但結論卻是年輕人要勇於迎向挑戰。或者在另外的報導中，對於解決出路還有這樣的看法：「當中產階級向下流動，貧富差距擴大的M型社會成型，年輕世代更應承擔責任，才有機會跳脫階層的束縛。 在這個最好，也是最壞的時代裡，我們看到這些特立獨行的人，如何與夢想相遇。」
這不免有點滑稽。


克魯曼則認為問題在於是權力關係，而非市場力量，意思是包括政治腐敗、經濟特權扭曲的市場運作，才造成嚴重的不平等。但事實上，答案可能也在於資本主義的本質，尤其是美式放任資本主義，會造成嚴重的社會不平等。


至於我的答案，會整理成一篇想法比較清楚的文章，近日登出。


延伸悅讀：
革命中途的討論
異鄉人的討論

我的
地球不是平的
團結對抗禿鷹


Graduates Versus Oligarchs
By Paul Krugman
The New York Times
February 27, 2006 Monday


Ben Bernanke's maiden Congressional testimony as chairman of the Federal Reserve was, everyone agrees, superb. He didn't put a foot wrong on monetary or fiscal policy.
But Mr. Bernanke did stumble at one point. Responding to a question from Representative Barney Frank about income inequality, he declared that ''the most important factor'' in rising inequality ''is the rising skill premium, the increased return to education.''

That's a fundamental misreading of what's happening to American society. What we're seeing isn't the rise of a fairly broad class of knowledge workers. Instead, we're seeing the rise of a narrow oligarchy: income and wealth are becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of a small, privileged elite.

I think of Mr. Bernanke's position, which one hears all the time, as the 80-20 fallacy. It's the notion that the winners in our increasingly unequal society are a fairly large group -- that the 20 percent or so of American workers who have the skills to take advantage of new technology and globalization are pulling away from the 80 percent who don't have these skills.

The truth is quite different. Highly educated workers have done better than those with less education, but a college degree has hardly been a ticket to big income gains. The 2006 Economic Report of the President tells us that the real earnings of college graduates actually fell more than 5 percent between 2000 and 2004. Over the longer stretch from 1975 to 2004 the average earnings of college graduates rose, but by less than 1 percent per year.

So who are the winners from rising inequality? It's not the top 20 percent, or even the top 10 percent. The big gains have gone to a much smaller, much richer group than that.

A new research paper by Ian Dew-Becker and Robert Gordon of Northwestern University, ''Where Did the Productivity Growth Go?,'' gives the details. Between 1972 and 2001 the wage and salary income of Americans at the 90th percentile of the income distribution rose only 34 percent, or about 1 percent per year. So being in the top 10 percent of the income distribution, like being a college graduate, wasn't a ticket to big income gains.

But income at the 99th percentile rose 87 percent; income at the 99.9th percentile rose 181 percent; and income at the 99.99th percentile rose 497 percent. No, that's not a misprint.

Just to give you a sense of who we're talking about: the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that this year the 99th percentile will correspond to an income of $402,306, and the 99.9th percentile to an income of $1,672,726. The center doesn't give a number for the 99.99th percentile, but it's probably well over $6 million a year.

Why would someone as smart and well informed as Mr. Bernanke get the nature of growing inequality wrong? Because the fallacy he fell into tends to dominate polite discussion about income trends, not because it's true, but because it's comforting. The notion that it's all about returns to education suggests that nobody is to blame for rising inequality, that it's just a case of supply and demand at work. And it also suggests that the way to mitigate inequality is to improve our educational system -- and better education is a value to which just about every politician in America pays at least lip service.

The idea that we have a rising oligarchy is much more disturbing. It suggests that the growth of inequality may have as much to do with power relations as it does with market forces. Unfortunately, that's the real story.

Should we be worried about the increasingly oligarchic nature of American society? Yes, and not just because a rising economic tide has failed to lift most boats. Both history and modern experience tell us that highly unequal societies also tend to be highly corrupt. There's an arrow of causation that runs from diverging income trends to Jack Abramoff and the K Street project.

And I'm with Alan Greenspan, who -- surprisingly, given his libertarian roots -- has repeatedly warned that growing inequality poses a threat to ''democratic society.''

It may take some time before we muster the political will to counter that threat. But the first step toward doing something about inequality is to abandon the 80-20 fallacy. It's time to face up to the fact that rising inequality is driven by the giant income gains of a tiny elite, not the modest gains of college graduates.