Back in 2002, David Brooks reported that during the 2000 presidential election, “a Time magazine-CNN poll asked voters whether they were in the top 1 percent of income earners. Nineteen percent reported that they were, and another 20 percent said that they expected to be there one day.” Forty percent of people were all thinking that they were in that tiny, tiny space reserved for one percent of the population. When I talk about this with my introduction to sociology students, they get it. They can do the math.
But this bit of bad math is part of being American. It is essentially American to identify up the social ladder (over at the NYT, Jennifer Steinhauer has explained this wonderfully). We’ve had the lending policy and credit cards encourage us to do so. Just like we buy Gucci bags or cars we can’t afford, we have, for the past 25 years, voted for leaders that don’t line up with what we need or can afford.
Joe the Plumber is like the disoriented 39 percent from back in 2000. JTP identifies with the economic interests above his pay grade. Even though he doesn’t make 250K and doesn’t have prospects of doing so any time soon, he’s kind of “saving for a rainy day” by voting for the candidate who will have good tax policy for the life he wishes he had, instead of voting for the candidate who has tax policies that can help him now and can help him reach his goal.
JTP requires another twist of logic, much like the bad math of the 40% above: JTP doesn’t imagine that he could afford the extra taxes (perhaps $900 more under Obama than McCain) if he is making 250K per year (Dean Baker explains the numbers and the NYT offers a handy illustration). Still, he feels like he can forego the $$ from an an Obama tax cut that he will get now at his current income level. Not as good as a Gucci bag, but the same idea.
I know it is tasteless these days to mention socialism or anything like that. Obama used humor to remind us that sharing your peanut butter and jelly sandwich isn’t the same thing as socialism. Even so, this has been a great week for my social theory students to study Marxism. They are learning about how consciousness of your real position in the economy really can help you decide how to make your life better. And they think that Joe the Plumber’s class consciousness is out of order. Maybe he needs to call “Karl the Marxist” as Hendrik Hertzberg suggests in the New Yorker this week. (Thanks Ira.)
PS: What does this have to do with feminism? Economic justice and sound financial reasoning are feminist issues full stop. But over at the Joint Economic Committee, where GWP favorite Heather Boushey works, they have just put out a report about how bad things are in our economy–especially for the household sector, where women are especially hard hit.
Comments
bnwlsn — October 30, 2008
People like Joe the Plumber do not "save" up for the future. People like JTP congregate throughout the United States of America to spoil our future. People like Joe the Plumber use lame excuses like saving up to be part of the high class citizens who will benefit from McCain/Palin..to masque their prejudice and discrimination.
Virginia Rutter — October 30, 2008
I hear you. But here's the good news: I think this time around, there are fewer and fewer people who have lost the plot, done bad math like Joe the Plumber, and who simply do not "get it" about what it means for themselves and the rest of the fellow citizens to vote for McCain or Bush or the same. I'm angry about the past, but I'm pretty optimistic about what is up ahead. Still, you are also suggesting that (irrational) arguments about $$ and taxes that JtP makes are a smokescreen for discrimination. And I agree with you. That feels like a piece of it.
Sandy B — October 30, 2008
Here's another irony.
The more money the lower 99% have, the more they can afford to buy services both from each other and from the top 1%. So if JTP ever did actually make it into the hallowed ground he's aiming for, he would still be better off if all his customers could actually afford his services. The additional money he could make if his customers could afford him would more than make up for the extra tax liability (which is relatively minor, as others have noted).
In fact, without customers to afford his services, he'd never have a chance of making it into that 1%. (Not that I think he ever will make it there, not while he has the government and tax structure to blame for his "failure".)
When the top 1% gets extra money, they lock it up in investments and generally do things with it that don't stimulate the economy. In effect, they sequester all that wealth out of the general economic exchange system. OK, they invest it in businesses, and that's important, but it's far more important that the business have a large base of customers ready to buy.
The rising tide can't lift all boats if a large part of it is dammed up behind a seawall where only the yachts are floating.
Urbanartiste — October 31, 2008
People have been voting against their self-interest for a long time, particularly in electing G.W. Bush. But let's be real about Marx. He said true communism would arise out of capitalism and gave specific reasons how. As we saw with the USSR, it can not be forced by government.
Tom — October 31, 2008
19% of readers of a certain magazine may indeed be in the top 1% of earners. First, at least half of the population does not read (English). That brings it down to about 9% gap. Quite a few other people have something better to do that fill out those silly polls. And the rest could be liars rather than optimists.
Then as William James said, "I call a man rich if he can meet the demands of his imagination., which seems to be accomplished these days by getting an iphone.