Mikey The Union Buster, er, Champion
Michael Moore has been all over the Wisconsin union fight, giving a pointless speech a few days ago that basically repeated the ignorant interview I fisked below. And, last night on Maddow, he went completely non-linear after the Senate vote, calling it a war on the middle class. The latter is a truly a classic rant from Moore, a deranged factually-challenged diatribe ranging from the Air Traffic Controllers’ illegal strike to demands for students to strike in favor of Wisconsin. He repeats the false claim that there are trillions of unused dollars out there; he repeats various myths about wealth distribution; he incorrectly claims that the Wisconsin bill strips all unions of their rights. It ends with him holding up handcuffs and saying the people are coming for “you”, whoever “you” are.
(He also goes on about Michigan passing a bill to dissolve city governments. I’m not familiar with this bill and can’t find much on it beyond progressive websites. If the reports are accurate, I doubt it will pass constitutional muster as it does seem rather extreme.)
Moore thinks this is the beginning of a people’s revolution against the Man. Of course, he’s thought that—off and on—for the last twenty years. But if you watch the speech, it’s just standard socialist trope and “revolutionary” rhetoric. It might have been relevant 75 years ago, when unions were a large minority (as opposed to about 8% of non-government workers today). Today, it will play well with progressive crowds but the rest of the country will yawn and go back to work.
I would like to smack down a few of his lies, however.
Moore is claiming that the wealthiest 400 Americans own as much wealth as the bottom 50%. As is usual with Moore, he’s telling a half-truth. As Robert Frank points out, this has always been true for as long as we have statistics. And I would hazard that it was even more true in the so-called golden era when unions were strong (and, also, if your history comes from something thicker than a matchbook—when they were protectionist, racist and corrupt). Or maybe Mikey thinks we had a more equitable distribution of wealth when racial, sexual and ethnic discrimination were institutionalized in every level of government.
Ahem. Returning to my point—what’s really telling about the trendlines for wealth distribution is that the top 400 and the bottom 50% have both been doing well of late. The Forbes 400 have seen their wealth grown from about $500 billion to just under $1.5 trillion in the last twenty years. But the bottom 50% have seen their wealth rise as well, from about $800 billion to just over $1.5 trillion. In other words, the rising tide has lifted all boats.
The other problem with this line of hooey is that “the rich” are not some static group. The vast majority of the Forbes 400 today were not in the Forbes 400 even ten years ago. Despite Moore’s protestations that the American Dream is a lie, the overwhelming majority of the super-rich were not born that way.
You will rarely find a better illustration of Moore’s selective use of fact than that. He sites a statistic on wealth distribution with zero historical context because the historical context easily belies the socialist point he is trying to make. (You can see here for more debunking of the “dead middle class” statistics).
(Update One other point: the total wealth in the US is estimated to be some $50 trillion. That means the total share owned by the richest 400 is about 3% or so. That’s still a bit uncomfortable, even for me. But turn it around—the rest of us own 97% of the wealth in this country. The telling statistic is the low wealth of the bottom 50%. But this has actually risen over the last 40 years (from about 1% to about 3%) and is still about $10,000 per person. And, as I pointed out, people don’t stay in the bottom 50%.)
Moore also thinks we can close budget gaps by taxing the rich. This is incorrect. Tax rates would have to approach 90% before you’d get close to balancing the budget—and that’s assuming the rich did not respond by sheltering income or fleeing overseas. The bulk of tax revenue comes from the bulk of the taxpayers—the middle class. If you don’t want to cut spending, you have to raise taxes on everyone.
Moore also talks about a pilot making only $19,000 per year on a regional flight. I asked a pilot about this. That’s standard entry-level salary for small regional airlines. Once they get into larger routes (and union jobs), the salary goes up dramatically. Many jobs—doctors and lawyers, for example—have a similar salary path.
Finally, it behooves me to point out that when it comes to his own place of business, Moore’s pro-union record is, to say the least, dubious. That’s a long read, but worth it. Typical quote:
Michael Moore used some non-union crewmembers when union workers were available in the production of his latest film “Capitalism: A Love Story,” a documentary that argues the capitalist system allows for greedy corporations to exploit working-class people.
“For all of the different jobs on the movie that could have used union labor, he used union labor, except for one job, the stagehands, represented by IATSE,” said a labor source unauthorized to talk about Moore’s decision not to hire members of The International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees.
In a statement issued to ABCNews.com, Moore’s agent, Ari Emanuel, said the filmmaker wished the union included more documentary crew people—but he did not deny that IATSE members were snubbed in favor of non-union employees.
Much of the above is based on anonymous interviews and hearsay, so take it with a grain of salt. But it’s clear that Moore’s actions when it comes to unions is, at best, in conflict with his stated views.
For my part, I’m a little concerned about over-reach by Governor Walker. I was hoping a deal could be struck. Moore, of course, thinking that Wisconsin’s financial crisis is a fiction (it’s not), wanted the Democrats to hold out until the bitter end. Well, they’ve gotten their bitter end. I hope they enjoy it.
(PS - I will give Moore credit for one thing—the Favre line in his speech was good.)
Comments
Hi up4:
As I noted in my update, the percentage of wealth in the lower half has gone up as well, from about 1% to about 3%. As far as population goes, over that time the wealth of the bottom half has doubled while the population has increased about by about 25%.
Good point on the wealth distribution. THe best figures I can find are:
top 1% - 25%
top 10% - 63%
top 50% - 97%
That is skewed, as I noted, more than I’d like. However, class mobility means that the top 10% is not always the same people.
I am not a very ‘articulate’ writer. This is very wordy. But, if I am wrong it is important I know why?
I am trying to digest this all. The driving force of this article seems to be Moore is lying or incorrect.
I would like to smack down a few of his lies, however.
Moore is claiming that the wealthiest 400 Americans own as much wealth as the bottom 50%.
However, on: Thursday, March 10th, 2011 at 4:16 p.m. a report which seems reliable and factually supported seems to agree 100% with Moore’s claim which you imply is an absolute lie, “I would like to smack down a few of his lies”
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/10/michael-moore/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-weal lth-/
(This clearly demonstrates moore is not lying)
I am so disgusted by my government, republicans, democrats, independents and others. All have their own facts, own spin doctors, own “fixers” and own lobbies. They arm their supporters with the same talk points I hear over and over and over and over and over and over I have no clue who to believe. Is this how it must or ought to be?
What is clear is since 1990 a pool of people who could comfortable sit in 10 school buses control more “wealth” than the others who could comfortably fit in 3,875,000. (It is an analogy dont get caught up in nit picking - I assumed 155,000,000 [50%] and 40 per bus then did quick math)
Everything I have read, I could find some resources/references if you disagree seems to clearly state that the richest people in the world do not make money from “working"(I use that word loosely) but rather from investing(Wall Street or International Counterparts?).
It is only common sense that the wealthiest people would want to protect and GROW their wealth. I fully support this - if I were a billionaire I would do whatever it takes to shield and grow my wealth. It is only common sense they would want to throw resources at doing so. The only way they can do this, the best way, is to change/swing US policy to their favor. They do so by spending hundreds of millions to support/influence already wealthy senators, congressmen or other political officials.
I am compelled, yet pissed the hell off, to agree with Mikey. I am pissed because this is so frustrating. There are two sides with their own facts and 1 is obviously lying. This seems to be how politics have always been.
In the USA the gap of the rich and average is obvious. However, as intelligent society we must do what is best for 155,000,000 humans not the 400, right? Just like when we drop bombs in Iraq and kill innocent children. Although it is disgusting, bad PR and never intended innocent people can, do and will die in war. If we are to bring necessary change to Iraq 400 innocent people might die. Truthfully, I am not sorry such is war.
If 400 of the richest people in the usa(known world) loose 500,000,000 dollars each to better support our country, children, infrastructure and social upkeep at least they have their lives and still maintain direct control of millions-hundreds of millions… Why should I be sorry?
People have the right to be rich and profit. I just do not know what to do/how to feel. I see so much obvious corruption(illegal actions) making the rich richer. I see so much corporate welfare. I am just so confused.
The other problem is you can’t eat, wear, or do much with capital goods (no, that copier does not look great next to the couch). ‘The rich’ might ‘control’ x% of wealth on paper but do they really? They get to put their finger in the air and make some choices about where to deploy their wealth and to what ends (which usually revolve around supply and demand and/or giving the public what it wants).. past that they employ a bunch of managers and workers who use the things the rich own to make products.
Any profits they realize in order to buy themselves things get taxed..
On paper they own a lot… reality is they just manage the money.
Confused, the idea of wealth re-distribution may sound good to you, but in reality it only results in a society where everyone is worse off. There are plenty of countries in the world where the wealth is more evenly distributed . . . . people are more “equal” of course - they’re all equally poor and miserable.
You can’t pull up the people at the bottom by tearing down the people at the top. It doesn’t work. You pull up the people at the bottom by allowing people to be free, to invent new things and come up with new ideas, creating economic growth and more and better paying jobs for the people in the bottom, with opportunities to climb up the ladder of success. And in the process, yes, billionaires are created like Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, and others.
Michael Moore has no idea what he’s talking about. The liberal economic policies which he supports is the very reason why there’s not more widespread prosperity in this country than there is.
If you’re interested in opening up your mind to ideas other than what you already believe, do a Youtube search for Milton Friedman and Phil Donahue. Mr. Friedman appeared on the Phil Donahue show twice, once in 1979 and again in 1980. The full shows are on Youtube broken up into 10 minute segments. These two hours of programming are extremely informative, educational, eye opening, and enlightening for anyone who agrees with Moore.
Confused, calling it a “lie” may have been exaggeration but if you read further, you’ll find that I tear apart Moore’s general point. He has a habit of stating what is literally true (400 wealthiest = lowest 50%) and using to imply something that is false (this is a new phenomenon brought on by evil corporatist policies). As I showed above, the concentration of wealth has been with us for quite some time. But both rich and poor are getting richer. And, if anything, the disparity has decreased slightly.
Here is an article that lays waste to Moore’s argument as well:
http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/11/hammertime-moores-national-resources/
Posted by MikeS on 03/12/2011 at 01:01 PM
“He has a habit of stating what is literally true (400 wealthiest = lowest 50%) and using to imply something that is false (this is a new phenomenon brought on by evil corporatist policies).”
True, and the subject of ‘wealth’ or even income distribution also both leave out spending power and/or do not consider the general economic level of country.
Poor today, you have food, can afford ok clothes, shelter, electricity, a car, TV, air conditioning, a phone, et cetera.
Poor 1910, umm, not so much.
Even though, the ‘wealth distribution’ is the same by percentages…
But yeah, the new deal, the war on poverty, Obama… not a dent in wealth distribution since the numbers started to be kept.
Actually, now they’re screwing the economy so badly that we can expected slower economic growth (a lot like Europe has had for the last 40+ years) so the poor will get screwed out of the benefits of expanding productivity / economic growth that they have benefited from so much in the US over the last 80+ years…
I happen to be in steep medical debt because Obama didn’t deliver free health care when I needed it. Over at his site, www.michaelmoore.com, Michael says we are not broke, and the rich have the money, so I asked Michael, who is worth some $20-50 mil, if he would gift me with $7000 to help me until its all finally free for all. Just like he gave Jim Kenefick $12,000 and never felt it. So far, nothing.
RSS (Subscribe)
Im not disagreeing with you, but I think there is something you should make a little more clear.
When you say…
Im not sure its right to compare hard numbers to %s. With population growth, the bottom 50% has increased by approx 25m people (all things being equal). But that number of actual people is still being compared on an equal level to the 400 you speak of.
It might be a little misleading to lump the 401st richest person in with ‘the rest of us’. Not that big of a deal, I still get what you are saying, but I wonder where that 3% number goes to if you extend it to say top 1000, or even 10,000 richest, none of whom are most likely living like ‘the rest of us’.