I received the following very informative message from Ken Stokes, executive director of The Kauaian Institute, which bills itself as “the island sustainability resource.”
You might also want to check out their blog.
Howzit Ian!
I was thrilled to see your exploration of inequality in Hawai`i.
We’re seeing the results of “class warfare” waged since Reagan, as documented by Damon Silver in a recent Feller Lecture (graph attached).
Just as virtually all income has gone to owners (not to workers), so most Hawai`i income has gone to the wealthy.
From your own tabulations of the Income Patterns, note that 78% of all additional income (+$9.7B AGI) from 1995 to 2005 went to the those earning over $100,000 (+$7.6B).
Note as well (from the Income Profile, attached) that if this income to the wealthy is subtracted from the total and we recalculate, the adjusted percapita income is only $22,897 (vs. $35,804) in 2005, up from $21,041 (vs. $25,160) in 1995.
So, while the Income Profile shows per capita income growing by over 42%, while the adjusted figure (for non-wealthy) grew by only 9%. Moreover, if we adjust for inflation, this non-wealthy per capita income actually fell by 9%.
BTW, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has conducted the most robust assessment of inequality in the states, which includes this Hawai`i fact sheet. I have also attached a pdf of the Hawai`i details.
It’s also instructive to recall that 1995 was mid-recession for Hawai`i. So, income in most households has worsened since the “bad years”, and all the “benefits of growth” accrued to others…
Keep it comin’!
KenPS: I did an indicator column on Kaua`i inequality for the Kaua`i People newspaper back in ’08.
Ken attached two additional resources.
Hawaii Income Profile, 1995-2005
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It would be nice to see a comparison on how middle income government workers have been fairing versus those that benefit from the contract side of government work.
This may be too complex to analyze, but when I hear the message that the “operating budget” is the only place that can be cut, I wonder if this means some contractors on the CIP side are shielded and benefiting from the downturn.
I don’t have any particular info one way or another. I just think it is something that can be looked at. And perhaps we need to look at the budget process in general and see if it needs adjustment. Just some suggestions for “IanLindBeat”.
Im still waiting for that trickle down from all those tax cuts on the wealthy…. any day now…….
This stuff really can’t get enough play, sadly the media all but ignores it and few politicians understand it and want to do anything about it.
This IS the problem with America today, it is losing its middle class, and cutting government spending only makes that worse. Jobs and benefits are invariable the targets, while corporate welfare such as defense contracting continues.
Supply-side economics is a dismal failure, it has always been about the demand, and when the wages of the average person stagnate, so does demand.
The only way to fix this is to increase wages, which means lessening the power of corporations over the labor market, increasing unionization, fixing trade policies, etc.
Thanks to the Kauaian Institute for their work on this. And to Ian for calling attention to the problem.
I agree with Sigh that growing inequality is the MAIN problem with the country. The old “American Dream” was a sort of implicit social contract. If you learned a trade and showed up diligently for work, you were entitled to a middle-class standard of living.
That promise has been shredded. Some folks will focus on the “inevitable” nature of changing technology as if all this inequality is the inexorable working of “the Marketplace,” rather than the result of conscious policy choices.
Even Adma Smith believed the capitalist system needed to be people governed by “moral sentiments” or the heartlessness of the system would run society off the track. Today, free market rhetoric is just a cover for unabashed, unrestrained greed. Things are out of balance. Consumers cannot purchase the products they make as workers, demand falls off, businesses atrophy, leaving a few mega-monopolies controlling the market.
Political equality cannot co-exist with radical income inequality. “Libertarians” fetishize freedom from “government,” but care not a whit for the real world “freedom” required for people to live theri lives productively, with decent wages, social equality, healthcare, freedom from want, from insecurity.
Today’s breed of “Democrat” is often only a slightly more moderate Republican, detached from a commitment to the social vision which animated Democrats in the past.
Like Ed Case (or Joe Lieberman) they preen as if they are men of the future, untied to anarchonistic commitments to organized labor and social justice.
Let’s see if the Dems can find the ability to chew gum and walk at the same time. Yes, support equality for our gay and lesbian ohana, but also re-commit yourselves to economic justice. If the Dems are unable to remember the values which created the great Democratic Presidents, they deserve to lose votes in proportion to the extent they have lost their way.
The REAL alternative to the Tea Bagger movement is for REAL Democrats to step forward, unashamed.
I’m a real pessimist on this subject. The obscenely wealthy are in charge and there is no way they are going to change direction. Sorry to all my hand wringing liberal friends but check out Jared Diamond’s “Collapse” if you want to see where we are headed.