Update on Occupy Austin

In my last post I talked about the presence of the Austin Police Chief at an Occupy Austin General Assembly. That was Thursday night. On early Sunday morning 38 Austin Occupiers were arrested. The arrest was peaceful. I think the arrests have given this movement a sense of credibility and purpose. I am also starting to become more involved. We'll see how things go....

In this post I want to explore the idea of different types of inequality. I read this article in the NYT. Basically, the author says that the economic inequality is spouted by those that live in large cities and see the rich around them becoming even richer. He calls this 'Blue Inequality'. He then goes on to talk about the differences between those that have college degrees and those that have only a High School Diploma (or less). This inequality he calls 'Red Inequality'. This inequality is about the differences among the 99%. Those with a college degree earn, on average, 75% more than someone who does not have a college degree. Those with a college degree are more likely to get married and to not get divorced. Those with a college degree are much more likely to send their children to college, continuing this cycle. While those with only a high school diploma are more likely to have children out of wedlock and be obese. This author posits that we need to address these 'Red Inequalities' because they are more pressing than the 'Blue Inequality'.

I first read this article and was almost convinced. The difference in staggering. Yet, I felt that something was missing. It seemed too like misdirection. I posted the link on my Facebook page. A friend of mine put this response up:

I disagree - the distinction is not false, but..
1) the blue inequality is beyond individual - it needs to include the power of corporations-as-people.
2) the blue inequality (when corporations are accounted for) can be named as a substantial cause of red inequality: labor market is shaped by the 1%
3) there is a third problem Brooks ignores: half of US is flat out broke - the median wage is $11 an hour / $28k a year - and this problem can also (conveniently) be traced to the blue inequality: US has a revenue problem. Most of us are too poor to pay enough taxes to run this joint, and those who have the money (the 1%) pay too little.
Finally, 4) Fixing the blue inequality is the easiest fix, and likely the most effective. Fixing Red inequality is what has occupied us for so long, and that one is a b!tch to tame; especially with no public funds to tap, and no good jobs to channel these folks to.
So no, focus on "blue inequality" is not wrong, it is absolutely correct, even though it makes centrists and conservatives uneasy. (He wanted me to quote his tumblr since his FB page is only for friends).

I appreciate his sense. The article made it seem like these two inequalities are completely separate. Is it a coincidence that the top 1% have increased their share of the wealth disproportionately while creating people that pass poverty down from generation to generation. The rich need the impoverished to maintain their power. Talking about how important it is to address unequal education opportunities while cutting funding for public schools because of a lack of revenue is outrageous! Those that do not see how structural inequalities lead to individual inequality are blinded by the ideologies they hear that are supported by what they see around them. Structural inequality is very hard to see - and very hard to change - but if we address the 'Blue Inequality' I believe that we will be creating the possibility for changing the 'Red Inequality'. Addressing one does not mean foregoing the other.