Home » Money » Inequality: A Feature of the System

Inequality: A Feature of the System

In his inaugural speech, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio returned constantly to the theme of “A Tale of Two Cities”. New York is big enough to be both of them at once – one a poor city where people barely get by and another that is wealthy beyond the imagination of most people. But it isn’t just his city that de Blasio wants to fix. “This inequality problem bedevils the entire country,” he intoned. “But it is not just a moral outrage, it is a horrible constraint on economic growth and on giving people the security they need to tackle problems.”

So starts 2014, the year when inequality is certain to be the big social, political, and economic issue. That is a given because after many years of intellectual stagnation the Democrats have a popular issue that they can run with. Where did it come from? A lot of credit has to go to a short video published in November 2012 that still lights up social media. And the reaction to it shows how far we have to go in order to tackle the problems of inequality.

After all, it’s not a matter of policy – inequality is a feature of the system we have.

Everyone wants to be seen with Mayor de Blasio

Everyone wants to be seen with Mayor de Blasio

Barataria first reported on this video in March 2013, when it became clear that this was going to keep circulating in social media. To this day it shows up periodically, and the reaction breaks down along three important lines. Younger progressives blame George W Bush (and the tax cuts of the 2000s), older progressives blame Reagan, and conservatives rarely say anything at all. When pushed, many conservatives like to point to graphs showing that workforce participation is down from a high of 67% of the civilian labor force to just 63% today, crediting the problem of rising poverty to the Obama administration when people stopped looking for work.

The two seem utterly different, as if the two sides are talking past each other, as usual. But the two pieces of data are indeed closely related. And it is not a matter of policy.

We’ll start with the chart Barataria first used in May 2013 which combines both the workforce participation rate in blue and the GINI index in red. You can find more about what the GINI index is by reading the original piece or through this detailed explanation, but it is the most valid statistical way of looking at income inequality. Higher GINI means higher inequality.  Here is the original chart:


To illustrate the problem, it may be best to take a step back showing just the workforce participation rate from 1948 on, which is as far back as the data goes:


Note that we never had more than 60% of the people over 16 who were eligible (that is, not in jail or another institution) before 1968. That was the year that Baby Boomer started entering the workforce and the working adult population became very young. Women entered the workforce in numbers not seen before, and as those younger than them started working the participation rate kept climbing. It hit a high of 67% as recently as 2000 before falling to the 63% it’s at today – still much higher than from 1948-1968.

If the GINI index doesn’t work for you, here’s another way to look at workers and wages. Productivity gains have been rather constant since 1948, but until 1968 workers’ salaries increased along with that productivity. Since that time, they haven’t. You can’t blame Bush or Reagan for this as a matter of policy, given that the problem is as old as it is.


So what caused income inequality? It’s a matter of supply and demand. Baby Boomers entering the workforce in huge numbers meant there were more workers than ever before. As more kept hitting 18 years old up until 1982 the workforce kept expanding. More workers means that it’s easier to replace any given one of them – meaning that if you don’t like the lower wages where are ya gonna go? And there has been downward pressure on wages ever since.

Naturally, there could have been a positive public policy that attempted to reverse this problem. But there wasn’t. Policy has been essentially neutral, even ignorant of the problem of rising inequality for 45 years. This is not something deliberately created to keep the working class down – it seems unlikely that the wealthy have thought about working people long enough to care one way or the other.

Inequality, as we know it, was the natural result of the system we have.

Now that the workforce participation rate is falling as Baby Boomers retire, kids are staying in college longer, and some parents are staying home with their kids (in the order of importance) what can we say about the future? The St Louis Federal Reserve published a paper on this topic that shows that we are indeed returning to a time when about 60% or less of the potential working adults will be in the labor force:


Sometime in the 2020s we will again be at 60% participation rate and there will be upward pressure on wages again. The problem should largely correct itself – but there’s at least one big catch. Instead of having only one “breadwinner” per family, we will be in an economy where some families are unemployed and relying on Social Security and other retirement funds. Policy will have to play a role – and an intelligent policy can bring income inequality back to a reasonable level much more quickly.

How important is it to be under 60% workforce participation? Given that the Civilian Labor Force is about 155M people, 67% participation (the peak) is about 10.9M more people working. That’s almost exactly the number of officially unemployed by the headline rate of 7% today. 3% of that workforce, or the difference between today’s 63% and the postwar levels, is about 4.6M people – meaning that the official “unemployment rate” would be at 4% today. It makes a big difference.

That’s why Barataria calls 2017, the year Baby Boomers start retiring in droves, “The Year Everything Changes”.

Yet income inequality has been growing for a long time and it won’t turn around without some serious action. It’s worth tackling as a matter of policy even if demographics are on our side. But to really solve it we have to start by being honest with ourselves about the cause of it.

There is no one to blame, except everybody. Income inequality is a feature of our system. Changing it is going to require a lot more attention to details and quite a bit more honesty than we’ve had in our political system in 45 years. Progressives, you want to change the situation? Let’s do it, but don’t look for a quick fix.  This is a very big problem we’ve been ignoring for a very long time.

If you want to know more on a particular topic, follow the links.  Thanks!

19 thoughts on “Inequality: A Feature of the System

  1. “Naturally, there could have been a positive public policy that attempted to reverse this problem. But there wasn’t. Policy has been essentially neutral, even ignorant of the problem of rising inequality for 45 years. This is not something deliberately created to keep the working class down – it seems unlikely that the wealthy have thought about working people long enough to care one way or the other.”

    Oh, the wealthy have thought quite a lot about working people and how to keep them down for the last 40 years. Destruction of unions, off-shoring, importation of tens of millions of foreign scab laborers, have not been accidental.

  2. You are right, that was bad wording on my part. I meant that the wealthy have probably never thought about the lives and welfare of working people, or the dangers of inequality. They certainly have thought a lot about workers as nothing more than a cost on a ledger and have developed prejudices against the tools that workers have to improve their own livelihood
    This mistake is bad enough that I will think about how I can easily change it with strikethrough.

  3. The problem I have with this is that there has been a lot of tax breaks, corporate welfare, ect that has come in this time that has benefitted the rich. So you can’t say that there has been not policy decisions at all that go into it. The government is there for big banks and oil companies but not for workers. Maybe they didn’t have anything that was targeted at inequality but so what? They certainly could have closed the gap if they wanted to.

    • A good point. There has been essentially no one looking out for working people on a rather consistent basis. That does include the Democrats, yes. I expect that to change, however.

  4. Pingback: At a Minimum | Barataria - The work of Erik Hare

  5. You raise a good point but it still needs to be addressed. If its this much harder then there should be more solutions proposed. I am not comfortable saying it will simply fix itself and the idea that there are only so many jobs to go around seems wrong to me. In a service economy people can pay for things they would otherwise do themselves and that would make jobs. I don’t think its a zero-sum game and that is what you have said more or less.
    Totally unrelated but I hope you are staying warm!

    • You are right, it seems strange to have a “cap” on the number of jobs the economy can support – and to have that cap fixed over many generations. It seems to be true, but I can’t answer why it would be. I will think about this some more.

      I am managing and staying warm – hope you are, too! Keeping a car battery inside was a pretty good move on my part, it turns out. 🙂

  6. Pingback: A Persistent Lie | Barataria - The work of Erik Hare

  7. I would fine tune your statement and say that the extreme income inequality is a result of public policy and market manipulations. Income inequality is a feature but at these crazy levels it is more about political choices.

    • Policy can help and it can hurt, yes. I can’t possibly tease out the effects as we’re seeing them now given how strong the market forces appear to be.

  8. Pingback: Golden Years? | Barataria - The work of Erik Hare

  9. Pingback: Enough Work? | Barataria - The work of Erik Hare

  10. Pingback: Changing Attitudes About Work | Barataria - The work of Erik Hare

  11. Pingback: One Last Bubble? | Barataria - The work of Erik Hare

  12. Pingback: Job Loss Hits a Milestone | Barataria - The work of Erik Hare

  13. Pingback: 2014, ex Machina | Barataria - The work of Erik Hare

  14. Pingback: Forward! 2015 & Beyond | Barataria - The work of Erik Hare

Like this Post? Hate it? Tell us!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s