The Only Thing, Historically, That's Curbed Inequality: Catastrophe (theatlantic.com)

ColdWetDog writes: The Atlantic has an interesting article on how societies have decreased economic equality. From the report: "Calls to make America great again hark back to a time when income inequality receded even as the economy boomed and the middle class expanded. Yet it is all too easy to forget just how deeply this newfound equality was rooted in the cataclysm of the world wars. The pressures of total war became a uniquely powerful catalyst of equalizing reform, spurring unionization, extensions of voting rights, and the creation of the welfare state. During and after wartime, aggressive government intervention in the private sector and disruptions to capital holdings wiped out upper-class wealth and funneled resources to workers; even in countries that escaped physical devastation and crippling inflation, marginal tax rates surged upward. Concentrated for the most part between 1914 and 1945, this 'Great Compression' (as economists call it) of inequality took several more decades to fully run its course across the developed world until the 1970s and 1980s, when it stalled and began to go into reverse. This equalizing was a rare outcome in modern times but by no means unique over the long run of history. Inequality has been written into the DNA of civilization ever since humans first settled down to farm the land. Throughout history, only massive, violent shocks that upended the established order proved powerful enough to flatten disparities in income and wealth. They appeared in four different guises: mass-mobilization warfare, violent and transformative revolutions, state collapse, and catastrophic epidemics. Hundreds of millions perished in their wake, and by the time these crises had passed, the gap between rich and poor had shrunk."

Slashdot reader ColdWetDog notes: "Yep, the intro is a bit of a swipe at Trump. But this should get the preppers and paranoids in the group all wound up. Grab your foil! Run for the hills!"

Comments

Re: Rose tinted glasses

[thinkwaitfast]

I have internet in the stix. It's the only utility that goes as far as my house (not a trailer).

No electricity (solar works well for me), water (well) or sewer (septic tank). I live in a custom semi luxury house with every amenity of someone living in San Francisco would have. I have AC (thee of them actually, two window and a heat pump), a double refigerator and a Bosch dishwasher (hot water provided by popane). I have 30A/120v AC full sinewave power. If I didn't tell you that I was not connected to the grid, you would not know it. And it was done for less than $30,000 and 7 years of work. I have no debt and if need be, I could survive very well on minimum wage, as could many around me (I live near a hippie commune).

USSR from parallel universe

[mi]

Luxury goods firms were in private hands up until the death of Stalin.

Maybe, I grew up in a different USSR. What "luxury goods"? Name one private label, that existed in USSR in 1952...

Cooperative farms were de-facto private, up until 72-76 when they were all finally nationalised

They were called "collective farms" and weren't "private" at all. Though ostensibly the farm's chairman was elected, in reality the sole candidate was introduced by the Communist Party's representative for the members of the collective to rubber-stamp. Whatever they collectively farmed could only be sold to the government as well.

better known were Cocacola

Neither Coca-Cola nor Pepsi owned anything — USSR-owned factories were producing the drinks under license.

and Fiat

Nope. Some Soviet models tried to emulate foreign cars, but Fiat didn't own any stake in the factories.

Re:Rose tinted glasses

[meglon]

There is another factor from which America gained huge benefit: German and Japanese industry had been decimated. Without funding from the US they likely could not have recovered at all - but for many decades US manufacturing had effectively no competition. Toyota and BMW were slowly rebuilding from nothing - a process that took decades. It's easy for your factories to get rich, and pay people well, when the only competition is from other companies in your own country with the exact same legal and economic situation as you have.

No. WW2 ended in 1945. In the 1950's, Germany was already the second largest economy. A decimated, war torn country with no industry doesn't give you the second largest economy in the world. Germany's rebuilding took very little time considering the impact of the war, and the drain of intellectual value foisted on them by the US and UK governments, and it didn't take decades.

Japan took that second spot in 1968. That's 23 years to rebuild everything they lost, and become the second largest economy in the world. Between 1955 and 1973, they averaged 9% growth per year. That would be phenomenal for any country, much less one recovering from the impact of the war.

This notion that US industries simply had no competition for decades is simply very wrong.

Coming out of WW2, we gave veterans the GI Bill. Hundreds of thousands of people could now go to college who would never have been able to without that assistance. In 1956 the US would start the interstate highway system, which would be critical to moving goods around. And in 1961, Kennedy would give the country a direction with a decree to go to the moon.

We had the newly educated masses, the means for transportation, and a path forward. The innovation to come from that in electronics, material science, and miniaturization is what propelled the advances that most people today take for granted, everything from telecommunications to food preservation.

Now, unfortunately, we have people who revel in their stupidity, and no longer understand that we are better as a nation, instead of a mass of stupid idiots with no rhyme or reason.

Re:Rose tinted glasses

[ranton]

My very first post was specifically discussing quality of life, especially arguing that making everybody equally poor doesn't make for a better society. And that is in fact what GP was arguing against, though admittedly my second post did go on a tangent, but that was because of the few points the article makes about civil equality (i.e. mention of voting rights.)

I understand what your point was, but it was refuting a strawman argument no one made. The article does not state the world is better off because wars reduced income inequality. It merely states the wars reduced income inequality. It then goes on to say it will be much harder to reduce inequality in peaceful times than it was in the middle of the last century. It does not make any claims that we are worst off because of this, only that we will need to work harder to reduce inequality without outside factors which made it easier in the past.