At Thursday’s weekly debate hosted by the circa-1830 Philodemic Society of Georgetown, members and non-members alike debated the proposition: Resolved: Wall Street, and not its occupiers, better represents American values. Keynoters on the affirmation side argued capitalism fosters innovation and the benefits and efficiencies from Wall Street ensure American values of freedom and individualism. One speaker also said Wall Street helps maintain meritocracy and social mobility.
Needless to say, the negation side disagreed. One student believed that the 99% better exude democracy, diversity, and demographics of America today. Others responded that America is based on the idea of a republic and that Wall Street, while it is cutthroat, is “bloody and gory” for a reason: it has provided a risk-free return on investment. Appeals to mythos were evoked with images of “rags to riches” and the quintessential American dream realized by certain Wall Street investors. Others simply emphasized that the Occupy movement has indeed become a legitimate movement. Despite its lack of a central cause, Occupy is creating public discourse.
The movement is gaining press by the day, thanks to increased journalism on income inequality in the United States. Just released two weeks ago, the CBO report showed rapid growth (275%) in average real household market income for the 1 percent of the population with the highest income. The share of total market income received by the top 1 percent of the population more than doubled between 1979 and 2007, growing from about 10 percent to more than 20 percent.
David Brooks spun the CBO findings into his Tuesday column into an argument claiming the phenomenon of inequality isn’t really about the wealthy few verses the rest, it’s the educated verses the non educated. Brooks argues that another crucial inequality in America is between those with a college degree and those without. He points out that “In 1979, the average college graduate made 38 percent more than the average high school graduate, according to the Fed chairman, Ben Bernanke. Now the average college graduate makes more than 75 percent more.” Income differentials aren’t the only thing that differs between those with higher education and those without. College grads are much more likely to get married, less likely to get divorced, and much less likely to have a child out of wedlock. Brooks also says “college grads are much less likely to smoke than high school grads, they are less likely to be obese, they are more likely to be active in their communities, they have much more social trust, they speak many more words to their children at home. Some research suggests that college grads have much bigger friendship networks than high school grads".
Just a few days later, Krugman responded to the column, admitting that while workers with college degrees “have indeed, on average, done better than workers without…highly educated Americans have by no means been immune to income stagnation and growing economic insecurity. Wage gains for most college-educated workers have been unimpressive (and nonexistent since 2000), while even the well-educated can no longer count on getting jobs with good benefits.”
Krugman would have been on the negation side of the Philodemic debate. In his words, protesters who portray themselves as representing the interests of the 99 percent have it basically right, and the pundits solemnly assuring them that it’s really about education, not the gains of a small elite, have it completely wrong. In fact, he feels those Occupying can go even deeper within the 1%. “Almost two-thirds of the rising share of the top percentile in income actually went to the top 0.1 percent — the richest thousandth of Americans, who saw their real incomes rise more than 400 percent over the period from 1979 to 2005.”
The debate will certainly continue as Occupy gains momentum and attention by the news media. Attendees of the Georgetown Philodemic negated the resolution on Thursday night. Will it matter if Occupy protesters better represent American values than Wall Street does? Or are we so entrenched in our status quo that Wall Street values engulf American values? As Krugman believes, the current “extreme concentration of income is incompatible with real democracy.” Will values of equality opportunity for all and life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness be enough to create real change in the American system?
The movement is gaining press by the day, thanks to increased journalism on income inequality in the United States. Just released two weeks ago, the CBO report showed rapid growth (275%) in average real household market income for the 1 percent of the population with the highest income. The share of total market income received by the top 1 percent of the population more than doubled between 1979 and 2007, growing from about 10 percent to more than 20 percent.
David Brooks spun the CBO findings into his Tuesday column into an argument claiming the phenomenon of inequality isn’t really about the wealthy few verses the rest, it’s the educated verses the non educated. Brooks argues that another crucial inequality in America is between those with a college degree and those without. He points out that “In 1979, the average college graduate made 38 percent more than the average high school graduate, according to the Fed chairman, Ben Bernanke. Now the average college graduate makes more than 75 percent more.” Income differentials aren’t the only thing that differs between those with higher education and those without. College grads are much more likely to get married, less likely to get divorced, and much less likely to have a child out of wedlock. Brooks also says “college grads are much less likely to smoke than high school grads, they are less likely to be obese, they are more likely to be active in their communities, they have much more social trust, they speak many more words to their children at home. Some research suggests that college grads have much bigger friendship networks than high school grads".
Just a few days later, Krugman responded to the column, admitting that while workers with college degrees “have indeed, on average, done better than workers without…highly educated Americans have by no means been immune to income stagnation and growing economic insecurity. Wage gains for most college-educated workers have been unimpressive (and nonexistent since 2000), while even the well-educated can no longer count on getting jobs with good benefits.”
Krugman would have been on the negation side of the Philodemic debate. In his words, protesters who portray themselves as representing the interests of the 99 percent have it basically right, and the pundits solemnly assuring them that it’s really about education, not the gains of a small elite, have it completely wrong. In fact, he feels those Occupying can go even deeper within the 1%. “Almost two-thirds of the rising share of the top percentile in income actually went to the top 0.1 percent — the richest thousandth of Americans, who saw their real incomes rise more than 400 percent over the period from 1979 to 2005.”
The debate will certainly continue as Occupy gains momentum and attention by the news media. Attendees of the Georgetown Philodemic negated the resolution on Thursday night. Will it matter if Occupy protesters better represent American values than Wall Street does? Or are we so entrenched in our status quo that Wall Street values engulf American values? As Krugman believes, the current “extreme concentration of income is incompatible with real democracy.” Will values of equality opportunity for all and life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness be enough to create real change in the American system?
About the Author
Opens in a new window