Excerpts from http://www.boingboing.net/2010/02/05...stitute-e.html

the wealth inequality created by strict market economics creates inefficiencies because society has to devote so much effort to stopping the poor from expropriating the rich. He calls this "guard labor" and says that one in four Americans is employed to in the sector -- labor that could otherwise be used to increase the nation's wealth and progress.

The greater the inequalities in a society, the more guard labor it requires, Bowles finds. This holds true among US states, with relatively unequal states like New Mexico employing a greater share of guard labor than relatively egalitarian states like Wisconsin.



All of the people in guard labor jobs could be doing something more productive with their time

Guard labor supports what one might call the beat-down economy.

What makes Wisconsin an 'egalitarian' state?

Guard labor?

Well, relatively egalitarian compared to the other states anyway... see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

...but from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ncome_equality - .39 Gini is a whole lot less equal than Denmark (24.7), Japan (24.9), Sweden (.25), the Czech Republic (25.4), and Norway (25.8)

...if you're asking what policies or attributes resulted in more equality in Wisconsin, my guess is that many rich capitalists wouldn't be caught dead there, and prefer to live in places like New York City where they can hobnob with the other bigwigs.

Perhaps beating people into submission and/or killing them is more efficient than seeking to improve their lives - I have not done the calculations.

That's so true! -- the hobnobbing sucks in Wisconsin, and the hobnobbing in Iowa makes Wisconsin look like New York City...!

/8 p


x D

Illinoise - hobnobbing capital of the world? Your former governor seemed to think so

Yeah, that's 'cause he kinda *fell into* politics.... If one isn't already established around the important circles then one *has* to make the rounds in order to become known. That's if you *want* to be bourgeois, of course....


Chris



--

--

--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/
tinypic.com/ckaihatsu

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Coming soon through a local area network near you --

The graph is all to unclear but it seems to be only 2,5% guard labor not 1/4 or 25% which is just way to much. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I've found their paper if someones interested; http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/...1-100/WP90.pdf

From http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...dent/note.html

It is conventional political wisdom that you can't make a serious run for the Presidency unless you know the names of at least twenty wealthy people who can raise big money for your campaign. Political pros say this is a very elite group -- numbering no more than a few hundred around the country.

This guard labor is a very interesting label, I already find it useful. I would gather that guard labor is high in slavery - such as in the modern sex slave industry.
How would one best account guard labor? In persons working as part of guard labor? In hours of guard labor worked? In intensity and skill?

When does it suit the ruling class to switch over to slavery as the dominant work-system?

From http://sfreporter.com/stories/born_poor/5339/all/

"The job descriptions of guard labor range from “imposing work discipline”—think of the corporate IT spies who keep desk jockeys from slacking off online—to enforcing laws, like the officers in the Santa Fe Police Department paddy wagon parked outside of Walmart."

Also from http://sfreporter.com/stories/born_poor/5339/all/

"The greater the inequalities in a society, the more guard labor it requires"

This isn't to say it actually "suits them" though. Sometimes it's just an example of the old saying "Never attribute to malice what can be perfectly well explained by stupidity." Excerpts from http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...ritish-society

they argue that almost every social problem common in developed societies - reduced life expectancy, child mortality, drugs, crime, homicide rates, mental illness and obesity - has a single root cause: inequality.

it's not just the deprived underclass that loses out in an unequal society: everyone does, even the better off. Because it's not absolute levels of poverty that create the social problems, but the differentials in income between rich and poor. Just as someone from the lowest-earning 20% of a more equal society is more likely to live longer than their counterpart from a less equal society, so too someone from the highest-earning 20% has a longer life expectancy than their alter ego in a less equal society.

The US is wealthier and spends more on health care than any other country, yet a baby born in Greece, where average income levels are about half that of the US, has a lower risk of infant mortality and longer life expectancy than an American baby. Obesity is twice as common in the UK as the more equal societies of Sweden and Norway, and six times more common in the US than in Japan... murder rates are three times higher in more unequal countries.

"It became clear," Wilkinson says, "that countries such as the US, the UK and Portugal, where the top 20% earn seven, eight or nine times more than the lowest 20%, scored noticeably higher on all social problems at every level of society than in countries such as Sweden and Japan, where the differential is only two or three times higher at the top."

The statistics came from the World Bank's list of 50 richest countries, but Wilkinson suggests their conclusions apply more broadly. To ensure their findings weren't explainable by cultural differences, they analysed the data from all 50 US states and found the same pattern. In states where income differentials were greatest, so were the social problems and lack of cohesion.

Wilkinson believes the answer lies in the psycho-social areas of hierarchy and status. The greater the differential between the haves and have-nots, the greater importance everyone places on the material aspects of consumption; what brand of car you drive carries far more meaning in a more hierarchical society than in a flatter one. It's the knock-on effects of this status anxiety that finds socially corrosive expression in crime, ill-health and mistrust.

Wilkinson draws on some eclectic illustrations. When monkeys are kept in a hierarchical environment, those at the bottom self-medicate with more cocaine; a caste gap opens in the performance of Hindu children when they have to announce their caste before exams; the stress hormone, cortisol, rises most when people face the evaluation of others; and so on. The result is always the same: fear of falling foul of the wealth gap gets under everyone's skin by making them anxious about their status.