# French economist Thomas Piketty is raising a ruckus **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 22, 2014, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-economist-thomas-piketty-is-raising-a-ruckus/686690 "2014-04-22T15:37:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-economist-thomas-piketty-is-raising-a-ruckus/686690/221 "2014-05-01T15:06:49Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#): > > Like this is so complicated it needs 700 pages. > > [Economic Wargames](http://www.spectacle.org/1199/wargame.html) > > Double-entry accounting is 700 years old and grade school kids have smartphones in their pockets more powerful than 1970s mainframes and economists can’t suggest something as simple as mandatory accounting in our high schools. > > It is nothing but game theory where most people are not told how to play. > > :smack: > > psik What on Earth are you talking about? ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-economist-thomas-piketty-is-raising-a-ruckus/686690/222 "2014-05-01T15:22:01Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > First of all, that’s not the type of prediction I was talking about. I was talking about things like forecasts of GDP for the next 10 years (or even the next year), models of the effects of macroeconomic policies like Christina Romer’s stimulus estimates, etc. > > Suggesting that a bubble will pop ‘within the next 10 years’ is not exactly an earth-shattering prediction. If you want a better test than that, how about you look at all the data, read as many economic analyses as you want, and then tell me which year the bubble will pop in the next ten. Then I’ll simply roll a 10-sided die, and use that number for my prediction of the year. Then we’ll see who’s closer. > > Of course, one trial won’t mean much. Either of us could simply get lucky. We’d have to repeat the bet dozens of times to separate out the signal from the noise. But Nate did a pretty extensive analysis of predictions from economists for historical events in the past, and found almost zero accuracy. Even a few months before the crash of 2008 there was no consensus that a crash was coming soon. And after the crash, estimates for the depth of the recession and the speed of the recovery were wildly off the mark. This has been the pattern throughout modern economic history. > > Economists and political pundits are really good at coming up with post-hoc explanations for why their predictions were wrong. It doesn’t change the fact that they’re usually wrong - so wrong that they are nearly indistinguishable from chance if the prediction is more than a few months into the future. And in the case of fiscal crises, not even that long. I would suggest the best economists incorporate unpredictability into their economic forecasts. In fact, economics courses emphasize that the greatest factor in forecasting is unpredictable forces in the economy. That’s why the Federal Reserve and other entities tend to offer a spread of possibilities (we predict GDP will grow by 2-4% Q3) to account for their lack of psychic powers. It is an inexact, dismal science, but not entirely one of guesswork. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2014, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-economist-thomas-piketty-is-raising-a-ruckus/686690/223 "2014-05-11T18:09:47Z")
According to a rising Libertarian intellectual named Bryan Caplan, [plutocracy is the only thing that makes democracy tolerable.](http://www.salon.com/2014/05/10/libertarians_scary_new_star_meet_bryan_caplan_the_rights_next_great_philosopher/) > [@](#): > > In the last few years, social science has provided documentation for what has long been obvious to informed observers: the degeneration of American and Western democracy into a species of plutocracy. In his bestselling “Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” Thomas Piketty has documented the decline and rise of inequality and the prospect of a return to “patrimonial capitalism,” or political and social domination by possessors of great wealth. At the same time, scholars like Martin Gilens, Benjamin Page, Larry Bartels and Jason Seawright have demonstrated that U.S. public policy tends to reflect the preferences of the rich, even when these contradict the preferences of most Americans. > > Some on the libertarian right have responded to this research by welcoming our new plutocratic overlords. Among these is Bryan Caplan, professor of economics at George Mason University and blogger for EconLog. Even though I disagree with him, Caplan may turn out to be one of the most significant thinkers of our time. > > \ > > My evidence for this bold claim is a 2012 review by Caplan of a book by Martin Gilens entitled “Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America.” In a follow-up paper, Gilens and co-author Benjamin Page recently provided further evidence that American politicians respond more to the preferences of the rich than to those of most voters when the two sets of preferences conflict. > > In his original review of “Affluence and Influence,” entitled “Why Is Democracy Tolerable?” Caplan greeted the findings by Gilens with a sigh of relief. Caplan wrote: > > > [@](#): > > > > Before I studied public opinion, I often wondered, “Why are democracies’ policies so bad?” After I studied public opinion, I started asking myself the opposite question: “Why aren’t democracies’ policies even worse?” The median American is no Nazi, but he is a moderate national socialist–statist to the core on both economic and social policy. > > According to Caplan, Gilens had unwittingly provided the answer to the question of why democracies like the U.S. were more libertarian than one would expect, given the “national socialist” leanings of the American people: > > > [@](#): > > > > Gilens compiles a massive data set of public opinion surveys and subsequent policy outcomes, and reaches a shocking conclusion: Democracy has a strong tendency to simply supply the policies favored by the rich. When the poor, the middle class, and the rich disagree, American democracy largely ignores the poor and the middle class. > > Caplan thinks this is a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-economist-thomas-piketty-is-raising-a-ruckus/686690/224 "2014-05-12T02:33:05Z")
I’d say that research is mistaken for many reasons. I think the middle class dominates, as proven by the fact that the vast majority of federal spending is earmarked for the middle class, despite the fact that the tax burden on the middle class is shrinking more and more. The rich and the poor, by contrast, are paying more. The tax code is designed so that middle class families can take advantage of tons of tax breaks, many of which are means tested, and many of which the poor cannot take advantage of. A poor single person will almost always have tax liability. A married couple with a home and kids in college can make quite a bit of money by contrast, and pay no income taxes whatsoever. The criminal laws are overwhelmingly designed to disadvantage the poor, few dispute this. And it’s not the rich who are the main beneficiary. It’s the middle class. The rich have security and tend to live far away from the poor people. Then there’s occupational licensing laws, which the rich could care less about since they don’t want those jobs anyway(except for doctors and lawyers, who no one doubts the need for licensing for). Those laws keep the poor out while preserving a cartel in various occupations for middle class individuals. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-economist-thomas-piketty-is-raising-a-ruckus/686690/225 "2014-05-12T04:05:35Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I’d say that research is mistaken for many reasons. I think the middle class dominates, as proven by the fact that the vast majority of federal spending is earmarked for the middle class, despite the fact that the tax burden on the middle class is shrinking more and more. That means nothing here unless you can be sure the ruling class doesn’t want it. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-economist-thomas-piketty-is-raising-a-ruckus/686690/226 "2014-05-12T04:15:31Z")
The wealthy class and the middle class are in agreement on a lot of issues. As for the ruling class, that’s the government and its bureaucracy. They just want whatever will perpetuate their power. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-economist-thomas-piketty-is-raising-a-ruckus/686690/227 "2014-05-12T10:38:36Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Wealth disparity is not a problem, poverty is. Taking money away from rich people does little to help with that problem. I’ll quote Piketty from my Kindle copy of the book. > [@](#): > > When the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth of output and income, as it did in the nineteenth century and seems quite likely to do again in the twenty-first, capitlism automatically generates arbitrary and unsustainable equalities **that radically undermine the meritocratic values on which democratic societies are based**. (The bolding is mine.) It’s not just a matter of resentment, as you keep saying, and it’s not so obviously true that wealth disparity is not a problem in and of itself. Some wealth disparity, even relatively large disparities, may be necessary or even inevitable but there’s a limit to how much disparity is acceptable. As a larger and larger portion of the world’s capital becomes controlled by a small percentage of people, those people gain more and more power over the rest of the population. This is true even if overall wealth increases. As time goes on, an imbalance between the rate of return on capital and the rate of growth of output and income also means that a larger and larger percentage of the extremely wealthy will have inherited that wealth rather than having earned it through hard work and innovation. This then leads to the situation where the majority of these wealthy and powerful people are heirs rather than innovators. So we could end up with what is essentially a monarchy of Paris Hilton’s and Donald Trump’s, where the most a hard worker and innovator can hope to achieve is a bonus check for his efforts and the possibilty of joining the elite is non-existent for the majority of the population. Maybe you find that acceptable. I don’t. Mankind has been fighting to move away from such societies, not towards them. I don’t think that the real argument to be had over Piketty’s book is whether or not such inequality is a threat. It seems self-evident, at least to me, that it is, The real argument is whether or not he’s correct that inequalities in the control of capital will inevitably continue to grow without some kind of government intervention and, if so, what that intervention should be, if it’s even possible, ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-economist-thomas-piketty-is-raising-a-ruckus/686690/228 "2014-05-12T11:57:44Z")
It’s self evident just so long as you don’t have to produce any real world examples of a wealthy democracy being undermined by inequality. It’s a hypothesis, nothing more. As for the idea that most people will inherit their money rather than earn it, the business world is still creating new millionaires and billionaires at a pretty rapid pace. People are still earning their way into the elite. When that stops, then we can get concerned. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-economist-thomas-piketty-is-raising-a-ruckus/686690/229 "2014-05-12T13:14:23Z")
So, without a real world example proving otherwise, you contend that ANY level of inequality is not a threat? 95%? 100%? Do you contend that there’s no amount, no line whatsoever, that we should be wary of crossing? I haven’t read very far into the book, but from what I can see, Piketty’s contention is that, WHEREVER that line is, unchecked capitalism will eventually cross it. I’m not convinced that he’s right about that, but I don’t need a real world example to understand that there is some level that’s a threat. The question here is whether or not unchecked capitalism will lead to that level. It may not. I don’t know. It may not even be possible to reach that level by any means. I just don’t know. But the question of whether or not such a level even exists seems, more than anything else, like a smokescreen from the right meant to deflect conversation away from the real question. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-economist-thomas-piketty-is-raising-a-ruckus/686690/230 "2014-05-12T13:22:52Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > As for the ruling class, that’s the government and its bureaucracy. No, you are confusing a social class with an institutional elite. And both the social class in question and the institutional elite in question do **not** include the vast majority of civil servants. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-economist-thomas-piketty-is-raising-a-ruckus/686690/231 "2014-05-12T13:55:33Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > So, without a real world example proving otherwise, you contend that ANY level of inequality is not a threat? 95%? 100%? Do you contend that there’s no amount, no line whatsoever, that we should be wary of crossing? > > I haven’t read very far into the book, but from what I can see, Piketty’s contention is that, WHEREVER that line is, unchecked capitalism will eventually cross it. I’m not convinced that he’s right about that, but I don’t need a real world example to understand that there is some level that’s a threat. The question here is whether or not unchecked capitalism will lead to that level. It may not. I don’t know. It may not even be possible to reach that level by any means. I just don’t know. But the question of whether or not such a level even exists seems, more than anything else, like a smokescreen from the right meant to deflect conversation away from the real question. I agree that there is a line. Countries with mass poverty and a few rich people are not stable. Obviously if we hit that Third World level of inequality, we’re going to have a big problem. Thing is, I don’t think capitalism leads that way. Sure, the inequality will lead there, but the ranks of the poor will remain stable and the standard of living of the middle class will continue to rise. So maybe by 2100 we’ll have a few trillionaires, a 12% poverty rate, and the median income will be $500,000/yr in today’s dollars. While on paper that’s a historically high rate of inequality, it’s not the kind of thing that will produce discontent. A comedian once made a joke that we’ll never have a revolution because Americans can’t agree on a time for it. “Thursday, no that’s bad, my kid’s got soccer practice. Saturday, hell no, that’s when I hang out with my buds. Monday, that’s fine. Oh wait, I can’t, I promised the wife I’d take her to that nice restaurant.” See, even with great amounts of inequality, as long as the median American enjoys a comfortable life he’s not going to risk it by supporting major changes to the status quo. And even if he does, his lifestyle gives him little incentive to bother. There’s always something more interesting to do. The West is incredibly affluent by historical standards and in 100 years will only be more affluent. Even if the super rich get even super richer, that widespread affluence is going to keep people pretty fat and happy for the most part. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-economist-thomas-piketty-is-raising-a-ruckus/686690/232 "2014-05-12T14:04:05Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > A comedian once made a joke that we’ll never have a revolution because Americans can’t agree on a time for it. “Thursday, no that’s bad, my kid’s got soccer practice. Saturday, hell no, that’s when I hang out with my buds. Monday, that’s fine. Oh wait, I can’t, I promised the wife I’d take her to that nice restaurant.” > > See, even with great amounts of inequality, as long as the median American enjoys a comfortable life he’s not going to risk it by supporting major changes to the status quo. And even if he does, his lifestyle gives him little incentive to bother. There’s always something more interesting to do. > > The West is incredibly affluent by historical standards and in 100 years will only be more affluent. Even if the super rich get even super richer, that widespread affluence is going to keep people pretty fat and happy for the most part. I’ve made this argument as well WRT revolutions… Let’s just hope that you’re right that that’s not where we’re going. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-economist-thomas-piketty-is-raising-a-ruckus/686690/233 "2014-05-12T14:59:32Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It’s self evident just so long as you don’t have to produce any real world examples of a wealthy democracy being undermined by inequality. It’s a hypothesis, nothing more. > > As for the idea that most people will inherit their money rather than earn it, the business world is still creating new millionaires and billionaires at a pretty rapid pace. People are still earning their way into the elite. When that stops, then we can get concerned. You sound just like one of those global warning deniers. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-economist-thomas-piketty-is-raising-a-ruckus/686690/234 "2014-05-12T15:10:06Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I agree that there is a line. Countries with mass poverty and a few rich people are not stable. Obviously if we hit that Third World level of inequality, we’re going to have a big problem. Thing is, I don’t think capitalism leads that way. Sure, the inequality will lead there, but the ranks of the poor will remain stable and the standard of living of the middle class will continue to rise. So maybe by 2100 we’ll have a few trillionaires, a 12% poverty rate, and the median income will be $500,000/yr in today’s dollars. While on paper that’s a historically high rate of inequality, it’s not the kind of thing that will produce discontent. > > A comedian once made a joke that we’ll never have a revolution because Americans can’t agree on a time for it. “Thursday, no that’s bad, my kid’s got soccer practice. Saturday, hell no, that’s when I hang out with my buds. Monday, that’s fine. Oh wait, I can’t, I promised the wife I’d take her to that nice restaurant.” > > See, even with great amounts of inequality, as long as the median American enjoys a comfortable life he’s not going to risk it by supporting major changes to the status quo. And even if he does, his lifestyle gives him little incentive to bother. There’s always something more interesting to do. > > The West is incredibly affluent by historical standards and in 100 years will only be more affluent. Even if the super rich get even super richer, that widespread affluence is going to keep people pretty fat and happy for the most part. It won’t be the middle class leading the revolution. It will be the poor. Their lives are getting nothing but worse as the safety net continues to get shredded and the minimum wages stays low and increasingly pervasive media continue to pour in maddening images of how much better other people’s lives are than theirs. Meanwhile, the lower middle class, which is always one paycheck away from joining the poor, will be a LOT more sympathetic towards the poor than you seem to think they are, because most of them have gone through periods of being poor. The upper middle class will of course take sides with the oligarchy, as will the bulk of the middle middle class, but by no means all of them. Gonna be nasty, my friend, because with drones and a [militarized police force,](http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas-ebook/dp/B00B3M3UFQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1399907326&sr=8-1&keywords=Radley+Balko) a lot of poor people will die. With any luck they’ll take down a few rich people with them, though I hardly expect that. Just hoping, if it comes to that. I’d really rather it didn’t but with so many people sharing your attitude, I rather think it will. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-economist-thomas-piketty-is-raising-a-ruckus/686690/235 "2014-05-12T15:41:36Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The West is incredibly affluent by historical standards and in 100 years will only be more affluent. Even if the super rich get even super richer, that widespread affluence is going to keep people pretty fat and happy for the most part. “Widespread affluence” is no guarantee of that; it is not at all hard to find large numbers of Americans who are **not** fat or happy. As Robert Reich put it, “Shaquille O’Neil and I have an average height of six feet.” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-economist-thomas-piketty-is-raising-a-ruckus/686690/236 "2014-05-12T15:43:10Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It’s self evident just so long as you don’t have to produce any real world examples of a wealthy democracy being undermined by inequality. It’s a hypothesis, nothing more. No, it is a diagnosis – of **this** democracy, which **has** been undermined by inequality in the sense that when the poor, middle and rich disagree, the rich almost always get their way despite their limited numbers, which is not a democratic outcome. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-economist-thomas-piketty-is-raising-a-ruckus/686690/237 "2014-05-12T16:41:23Z")
There really was a 1929. Bad things happened. Wealth concentration then wasn’t even as high as it is today. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-economist-thomas-piketty-is-raising-a-ruckus/686690/238 "2014-05-12T18:02:33Z")
[Now here’s an interesting criticism:](http://www.salon.com/2014/05/11/the_problem_with_thomas_piketty_capital_destroys_right_wing_lies_but_theres_one_solution_it_forgets/) > [@](#): > > Turning to the problem of income inequality here in the United States, there is an even simpler solution, by which I mean a more realistic solution, a solution that builds on familiar American traditions,that works by empowering average people, that requires few economists or experts, that would involve a minimum of government interference, and that proceeds by expanding democracy and participation rather than by building some kind of distant and unapproachable global tax authority: _Allow workers to organize._ Let people have a say on the basic issues affecting their lives. > > Piketty’s biggest blind spot is that he has virtually nothing to say about labor unions. He starts Chapter 1 of “Capital” with an anecdote about a bloody strike in South Africa and he returns to that same tragic episode at the very end of the book, but in between he addresses the matter almost not at all. Piketty talks a good game about democracy, but like other economists who have made inequality their subject, he prefers solutions that are handed down from the lofty heights of expertise. > > The best remedy for inequality, however, is the one that comes up from below. Economists may not think very highly of those hardened people in SEIU t-shirts—some of them smoke too much, some are suspicious of “free trade,” some of them (gasp!) didn’t go to college—but the fact remains that in nearly every particular they represent the obvious and just about the only social force on the ground in America that might bend the inequality curve the other way. > > It is not a coincidence that labor’s rise in the 1930s happened at the same time as the One Percent’s fall from grace, nor is it a coincidence that labor’s long decline has been almost a mirror image of the One Percent’s recovery of its nineteenth-century heaven. These things happened the way they did because labor’s most basic function is to turn the bright light of democratic scrutiny on economic power. When labor is strong, our composers write things like “Fanfare for the Common Man” and blue-collar workers buy cars and boats and snowmobiles. When labor is weak, we bow down before “job creators” and McMansions sprout like mushrooms after a rainstorm. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-economist-thomas-piketty-is-raising-a-ruckus/686690/239 "2014-05-12T20:56:52Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > It won’t be the middle class leading the revolution. It will be the poor. Their lives are getting nothing but worse as the safety net continues to get shredded and the minimum wages stays low and increasingly pervasive media continue to pour in maddening images of how much better other people’s lives are than theirs. You know what happens when a 12% minority rises up? A massacre. Not that it will happen. Historically, the poor don’t organize unless there’s a guilty spoiled rich kid to organize them. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-economist-thomas-piketty-is-raising-a-ruckus/686690/240 "2014-05-12T20:58:46Z")
BrainGlutton, that argument has been made before, and it’s absolutely correct. The problem for making that work today is that the union brand pretty much destroyed itself because of corruption, bad choices, and failure to adapt to the realities of a global marketplace. When it was unions fighting against the robber barons, it was one thing, but the unions became robber barons in their own right, and were far more likely to just murder people they didn’t like. People don’t like aristocrats, but what people really hate are thugs. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-economist-thomas-piketty-is-raising-a-ruckus/686690.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-economist-thomas-piketty-is-raising-a-ruckus/686690.md?page=13)