This whole piece is so informative. In each case there are strong parallels between the Gilded Age and the current age of anger and the vast inequalities between the ultra rich and those who have no agency. It makes me hopeful for positive change will come perhaps as a result of this violent age.
Yes -- I have something in the pipeline about the progressive era that followed the Gilded Age, and what something like that might look like for us, today...
As long as the economy is fundamentally healthy, i.e. there's no absolute poverty, for instance because of a lack of materials or fuel, actors with market power can relatively freely set prices and conditions for goods, including labor (within reasonable bounds, of course) without crippling total output. In fact tightening the thumb screws will increase total output.
Additionally, as wealth/surplus concentrates, fewer actors get to determine where economically valued activity happens, and under what conditions as per above.
This can gatekeep increasingly large parts of the population from realistically accessible opportunity and starve them of liquidity. Not everyone can participate in AI startups or otherwise shower in tech money.
Eventually market power of the elites can get so big, that it puts many into hamster wheels, maximizing surplus.
Unrest can reset this mechanism, e.g. by straight up removing the powerful actors (the work can still get done/the surplus still exists without them), by coaxing them into taking the foot off the gas pedal (worker's rights, 40h week, minimum vacation time), or by inducing large-scale public good investment.
The details are complicated just as socio-economic conditions are complicated, but the vibe seems pretty clear to me: elites at large value their lives more than anything, and they're most definitely receptive to forces that threaten them.
Isn't it weird we're even discussing this subject? Very clearly the optimistic times of the 90s and 00s have passed us by. And damage from climate change hasn't even kicked in. Clearly something's going wrong and the welfare statistics prove it.
And for the record, I'm not saying contemporary US problems are completely caused by the same mechanisms of yesteryear or the ones I describe above. It could be skill mismatches, dysfunctionally regulated industries, demographic shifts, higher prices of energy and, I'm sure, a long list of other reasons. But it does smell of overly concentrated wealth yet again.
The more things change, the more they stay the same...
Thanks for this very thoughtful and informative essay.
Thanks for checking it out!
This whole piece is so informative. In each case there are strong parallels between the Gilded Age and the current age of anger and the vast inequalities between the ultra rich and those who have no agency. It makes me hopeful for positive change will come perhaps as a result of this violent age.
Yes -- I have something in the pipeline about the progressive era that followed the Gilded Age, and what something like that might look like for us, today...
> It’s difficult to say, honestly.
Not really.
As long as the economy is fundamentally healthy, i.e. there's no absolute poverty, for instance because of a lack of materials or fuel, actors with market power can relatively freely set prices and conditions for goods, including labor (within reasonable bounds, of course) without crippling total output. In fact tightening the thumb screws will increase total output.
Additionally, as wealth/surplus concentrates, fewer actors get to determine where economically valued activity happens, and under what conditions as per above.
This can gatekeep increasingly large parts of the population from realistically accessible opportunity and starve them of liquidity. Not everyone can participate in AI startups or otherwise shower in tech money.
Eventually market power of the elites can get so big, that it puts many into hamster wheels, maximizing surplus.
Unrest can reset this mechanism, e.g. by straight up removing the powerful actors (the work can still get done/the surplus still exists without them), by coaxing them into taking the foot off the gas pedal (worker's rights, 40h week, minimum vacation time), or by inducing large-scale public good investment.
The details are complicated just as socio-economic conditions are complicated, but the vibe seems pretty clear to me: elites at large value their lives more than anything, and they're most definitely receptive to forces that threaten them.
Isn't it weird we're even discussing this subject? Very clearly the optimistic times of the 90s and 00s have passed us by. And damage from climate change hasn't even kicked in. Clearly something's going wrong and the welfare statistics prove it.
And for the record, I'm not saying contemporary US problems are completely caused by the same mechanisms of yesteryear or the ones I describe above. It could be skill mismatches, dysfunctionally regulated industries, demographic shifts, higher prices of energy and, I'm sure, a long list of other reasons. But it does smell of overly concentrated wealth yet again.