New York Times Preaches “Inequality is Good” to Wealthy Readers

by Randy Shaw, 2007-06-13

The June 10 Sunday New York Times magazine features a story by Roger Lowenstein (“The Inequality Conundrum”) that attributes rising economic inequality in the United States to the “genie of American prosperity.” In other words, the rich are getting richer not due to political decisions, but because of “the market,” and, according to Lowenstein, there is not much that politicians can do about this. On the page immediately following this article telling the super-wealthy that they should not feel guilty over their skyrocketing gains, is a full-page ad for luxury condos on Fifth Avenue in New York City. Described as “The Finest on Fifth,” the starting price for the cheapest of these condos is $10.25 million.” This is what those in the advertising business call “synergy” between a publication’s news and advertising; those who do not see rising inequality as a product of an “invisible hand” would use a different term.

The June 10 Sunday New York Times Magazine was a special issue titled “Inside the Income Gap.” Presidential candidate John Edwards appeared on the cover, and Edwards was subject to a lengthy, condescending and unfavorable story from Times Magazine political writer Matt Bai.

Bai and Lowenstein’s articles set the tone for the issue, which was one of skepticism that there are political solutions to rising income inequality in the United States. Bai concludes that Edwards “doesn’t seem to have yet thought through how one really builds a mandate” for getting Americans committed to a war on poverty; apparently, his proposals for universal health care, new education grants, a living wage, and new union election procedures do not meet Bai’s test.

Lowenstein is even more flippant about government’s role in enhancing or reducing inequality. He states “hamburger flippers simply don’t command a high wage. We can pass laws to change that---a minimum wage for cheeseburgers, maybe---or we can, finally, invest in teaching the flippers to do something else.”

Think for a moment how a smart guy like Lowenstein could make such a foolish statement, and why he would do so.

First, a true living wage would lift “hamburger flippers” out of poverty, and universal health care would increase their disposal income. We could also offer free college tuition to lower income people, so that some could afford to be fulltime college students rather than working in the fast-food industry.

Second, if workers could join unions through card check rather than NLRB elections, America’s fast-food industry would not be almost entirely non-unionized and low-paid.

Third, Lowenstein knows full well that the fast food industry is not going away. We will always need millions of workers to “flip hamburgers,” so teaching them to “do something else” does not address the problem of keeping such workers in poverty.

Lowenstein knows exactly how the Bush Administration has given hundreds of billions of tax breaks to the super-rich, made record profits for oil companies, keeps the domestic sugar industry “protected” from the market, and otherwise assisted the growth of income inequality. He also knows that Bill Clinton’s passage of NAFTA and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 had a similar result.

But raising these issues would lead the wealthy Times Magazine readers to conclude that maybe not all of their wealth was fairly earned. That much of it came at the expense of others, and could be considered “ill-gotten” gains.

That certainly wouldn’t be good for the advertisers seeking to use the Times Magazine to sell condos starting at $10.5 million. Nor for the other advertisers of luxury condos that dominate the Magazine section.

These advertisers need wealthy people to feel good about spending lavish sums, and they can’t have potential buyers feeling guilty.

So Lowenstein’s piece, and the entire issue, serves the important purpose of making rich people feel they deserve to buy another $12 million condo. After all, the market has spoken, and they are the winners in this best of all possible worlds.

Send feedback to rshaw@beyondchron.org