The truth about one of
history’s most enduring catchphrases
We have all heard it said many times that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. But how long ago did we first hear that? How quickly is it happening? Is it a plot by the world's richest few to make 99% of the population poor so the other 1% can be even better off than they currently are? Or is it just an often used catchphrase by those seeking political office?
To get to the truth, let's look at the origins and the history of this time-honoured saying, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
It's difficult to pinpoint an exact place in history where it began because many similar utterances have been recorded, and some meaning one thing may have been modified to mean something else. For example, in 1625 Francis Bacon is recorded as having said, "Money is muck, not good unless it be spread," which could be taken as being the opposite of, "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer," because the latter implies that the muck is not being spread around.
Then in 1821, Percy Bysshe Shelley put it thus. "To him that hath, more shall be given; and from him that hath not, the little that he hath shall be taken away." Modernise the language and Shelley sounds just like the cries we hear today. In 1832, US President Andrew Jackson may have been the first to coin the great inequality adage in words close to today's form. He said, "When the law undertakes to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society have a right to complain of the injustice." Then William Harrison spoke of, "All the measures of government are directed to the purpose of making the rich richer and the poor poorer." That was on 1 October 1840 in a campaign speech that helped launch his successful bid for the US presidency. The catchphrase was a winner for Harrison and politicians have been using it ever since as a pitch to underdog voters.
So there you have it. The rich have been getting richer and the poor have been getting poorer since 1840, and possibly for a long time before that too, if you believe the adage.
But many people making these rich/poor claims today will tell that it is all new. It wasn't like that when they were growing up. Some will even say that it is unique to the term of the current government. They will tell you that no generation in the history of mankind has been poorer than today's masses, and no generation has ever struggled to survive like today's people. But they have chosen to ignore the history of man and the evolution of modern economics. Instead of looking for light in golden pastures, they can only see an oncoming train in a dark tunnel.
The fact is that (although some dispute it) the Industrial Revolution (1760-1840) triggered an era of prosperity, economic expansion and a higher standard of living for more people. It was the most important economic step forward since the domestication of animals and the invention of the wheel.
For the first time in history ordinary people were able to enjoy a few luxuries that had previously been the reserve of the very rich. How did that happen? In simple terms, mechanisation made products cheaper to produce, mass production replaced hand-made products, competition kept prices low, and capital and labour became available for new products and new industries. People displaced from outdated industries were quickly absorbed into new enterprises and new industries.
Before the Industrial Revolution most people lived in poverty and squalor. The most common causes of death were violence and starvation. Life was hard and short. The choices were often stark - starvation or crime.
At first the benefits of the Industrial Revolution were slow to become evident to many people, even to the industrialists who started it. Their motive was profit. Even today many people believe that the revolution was a retrograde step for living standards. But industrialisation was on a roll and picked up momentum with a second revolution starting about 1870. Steam power, machine tools, electricity and increasing international trade confirmed that business was good for the masses too as more people found themselves, not just in employment, but employment that gave them discretionary spending power too.
The Industrial Revolution started in England and spread quickly to Europe and North America. For the first time in those countries the population and life expectancy started increasing at a noticeable rate. More people were able to afford medicines, better housing and better clothing. But they were still a long way behind the standards of current generations. Personal transport was still only affordable for the rich. Bicycles, available from about 1840, were beyond the reach of most people and only the rich owned horses.
While the Industrial Revolution was gaining momentum, Karl Marx (1818-1883) coined the Law of Increasing Poverty. Marx was right about the power of the ruling classes at the time, but wrong about poverty increasing. The revolution did make the rich richer and more powerful and to them the reduction of poverty must have appeared almost as an unfortunate accident. Meanwhile, Marx believed that communism alone could end the class struggle, and that capitalism was doomed to eventual failure. Numerous countries have since opted for Marxism and all have failed to end class struggle or make workers better off.
As voting rights were extended to all workers, and women, governments became a mixture of capitalism and socialism with welfare, pensions, public housing, and free or subsidised health care and education. Pure capitalism and pure communism became irrelevant as political parties found greater support for middle-of-the-road policies for an expanding middle class with a conscience.
The whole of the twentieth century was in reality the greatest ever industrial revolution with millions of new products introduced for the first time. The most notable new products were cars, radios, television, refrigerators, vacuum cleaners, washing machines, microwave ovens, mobile phones and computers. The cost of producing any of these products prior to the Industrial Revolution would have rendered them so costly that no-one would have been able to afford them. But now, thanks to efficiency and improved living standards, they are now found in almost all homes in the developed world.
As an example of the relationship between development and affordability, we could look at time pieces, which have been around in various forms for thousands of years. However, the first personal wrist watch is believed to have been worn by Elizabeth I in 1571. Robert Hook invented the pocket watch in 1675, but until the twentieth century most people had to walk to the town hall clock if they wanted to check the time. A personal watch was a status symbol that was beyond the reach of all except the very rich.
The twentieth century started as the age of the Wright Brothers and the Wright Flyer, trans-continental and trans-oceanic flight, the jet age and the space age. It became the century in which many ordinary people became regular long distance travellers. During that century, again for the first time, travel had become so fast and affordable that a few people got to visit every country on the planet.
But even in the twentieth century most people believed that they were far worse off than previous generations. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, was a popular cry in that century too. It probably will remain a popular cry, because some people just don't get it, and some don't want to get it. The mood of the twentieth century is summed up neatly with the popular 1921 song by Gus Kahn and Raymond Egan, Ain't We Got Fun:
They won't smash up our Pierce Arrow (a luxury car)
We ain't got none
They've cut my wages
But my income tax will be smaller
When I'm paid off
I'll be laid off
Ain't we got fun
It wasn't long before everyone with a phonograph was playing it, not that everyone could afford a phonograph.
Franklin D. Roosevelt (the only US president to elected for four terms) knew how to put a spin on political rhetoric. In 1933 at the height of the worst depression of the last 130 years he said, "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, and now we know that it is bad economics." Political leaders had known that for a long time, but the time had arrived when the electors would let government do something about it without throwing them out of office.
Business leaders also became aware at that time that the market for their goods and services was being limited by low wages for the masses, and there wasn't much point in investing in products that most people couldn't afford to buy. But employers couldn't act alone if they wanted to stay in business. Eventually, the answer came with the establishment of unions which, although bitterly opposed, resulted in better wages, higher production and more leisure time to enjoy their purchases. That was the trickle-down theory working. Each time the workers spent their extra pennies it went right back to the capitalists and the government and stimulated further investment and jobs and welfare for those still on the bottom rung.
The other popular catchphrase throughout the ages has been that 99% of the world's wealth will soon be owned by the richest 1%, and that that is the way business and government want it to be. But that proposition will never stand up to logical scrutiny. For that to happen society would first have to revert to the situation that existed long before the Industrial Revolution. Even then, if 1% owned 99% it would be worthless. Who would be able to buy whatever was for sale? No one. We would all be hunter-gatherers again, including the 1%.
The rich are NOT getting richer while the poor get poorer. That is the stuff of opportunist politicians and their naïve followers.
Having said the above, from one decade to another, there could be some relevance to the adage, but even then if there is a hard decade for some workers it will also be hard for some in business. Economies do operate in cycles. The adage could also have some relevance if one is to compare Wall Street with a camel route in Africa. But in the world as a whole the adage about the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer, is pessimistic nonsense, and spreading it can do more harm than good.
We have all heard it said many times that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. But how long ago did we first hear that? How quickly is it happening? Is it a plot by the world's richest few to make 99% of the population poor so the other 1% can be even better off than they currently are? Or is it just an often used catchphrase by those seeking political office?
To get to the truth, let's look at the origins and the history of this time-honoured saying, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
It's difficult to pinpoint an exact place in history where it began because many similar utterances have been recorded, and some meaning one thing may have been modified to mean something else. For example, in 1625 Francis Bacon is recorded as having said, "Money is muck, not good unless it be spread," which could be taken as being the opposite of, "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer," because the latter implies that the muck is not being spread around.
Then in 1821, Percy Bysshe Shelley put it thus. "To him that hath, more shall be given; and from him that hath not, the little that he hath shall be taken away." Modernise the language and Shelley sounds just like the cries we hear today. In 1832, US President Andrew Jackson may have been the first to coin the great inequality adage in words close to today's form. He said, "When the law undertakes to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society have a right to complain of the injustice." Then William Harrison spoke of, "All the measures of government are directed to the purpose of making the rich richer and the poor poorer." That was on 1 October 1840 in a campaign speech that helped launch his successful bid for the US presidency. The catchphrase was a winner for Harrison and politicians have been using it ever since as a pitch to underdog voters.
So there you have it. The rich have been getting richer and the poor have been getting poorer since 1840, and possibly for a long time before that too, if you believe the adage.
But many people making these rich/poor claims today will tell that it is all new. It wasn't like that when they were growing up. Some will even say that it is unique to the term of the current government. They will tell you that no generation in the history of mankind has been poorer than today's masses, and no generation has ever struggled to survive like today's people. But they have chosen to ignore the history of man and the evolution of modern economics. Instead of looking for light in golden pastures, they can only see an oncoming train in a dark tunnel.
The fact is that (although some dispute it) the Industrial Revolution (1760-1840) triggered an era of prosperity, economic expansion and a higher standard of living for more people. It was the most important economic step forward since the domestication of animals and the invention of the wheel.
For the first time in history ordinary people were able to enjoy a few luxuries that had previously been the reserve of the very rich. How did that happen? In simple terms, mechanisation made products cheaper to produce, mass production replaced hand-made products, competition kept prices low, and capital and labour became available for new products and new industries. People displaced from outdated industries were quickly absorbed into new enterprises and new industries.
 |
| Karl Marx |
Before the Industrial Revolution most people lived in poverty and squalor. The most common causes of death were violence and starvation. Life was hard and short. The choices were often stark - starvation or crime.
At first the benefits of the Industrial Revolution were slow to become evident to many people, even to the industrialists who started it. Their motive was profit. Even today many people believe that the revolution was a retrograde step for living standards. But industrialisation was on a roll and picked up momentum with a second revolution starting about 1870. Steam power, machine tools, electricity and increasing international trade confirmed that business was good for the masses too as more people found themselves, not just in employment, but employment that gave them discretionary spending power too.
The Industrial Revolution started in England and spread quickly to Europe and North America. For the first time in those countries the population and life expectancy started increasing at a noticeable rate. More people were able to afford medicines, better housing and better clothing. But they were still a long way behind the standards of current generations. Personal transport was still only affordable for the rich. Bicycles, available from about 1840, were beyond the reach of most people and only the rich owned horses.
While the Industrial Revolution was gaining momentum, Karl Marx (1818-1883) coined the Law of Increasing Poverty. Marx was right about the power of the ruling classes at the time, but wrong about poverty increasing. The revolution did make the rich richer and more powerful and to them the reduction of poverty must have appeared almost as an unfortunate accident. Meanwhile, Marx believed that communism alone could end the class struggle, and that capitalism was doomed to eventual failure. Numerous countries have since opted for Marxism and all have failed to end class struggle or make workers better off.
As voting rights were extended to all workers, and women, governments became a mixture of capitalism and socialism with welfare, pensions, public housing, and free or subsidised health care and education. Pure capitalism and pure communism became irrelevant as political parties found greater support for middle-of-the-road policies for an expanding middle class with a conscience.
The whole of the twentieth century was in reality the greatest ever industrial revolution with millions of new products introduced for the first time. The most notable new products were cars, radios, television, refrigerators, vacuum cleaners, washing machines, microwave ovens, mobile phones and computers. The cost of producing any of these products prior to the Industrial Revolution would have rendered them so costly that no-one would have been able to afford them. But now, thanks to efficiency and improved living standards, they are now found in almost all homes in the developed world.
As an example of the relationship between development and affordability, we could look at time pieces, which have been around in various forms for thousands of years. However, the first personal wrist watch is believed to have been worn by Elizabeth I in 1571. Robert Hook invented the pocket watch in 1675, but until the twentieth century most people had to walk to the town hall clock if they wanted to check the time. A personal watch was a status symbol that was beyond the reach of all except the very rich.
The twentieth century started as the age of the Wright Brothers and the Wright Flyer, trans-continental and trans-oceanic flight, the jet age and the space age. It became the century in which many ordinary people became regular long distance travellers. During that century, again for the first time, travel had become so fast and affordable that a few people got to visit every country on the planet.
But even in the twentieth century most people believed that they were far worse off than previous generations. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, was a popular cry in that century too. It probably will remain a popular cry, because some people just don't get it, and some don't want to get it. The mood of the twentieth century is summed up neatly with the popular 1921 song by Gus Kahn and Raymond Egan, Ain't We Got Fun:
They won't smash up our Pierce Arrow (a luxury car)
We ain't got none
They've cut my wages
But my income tax will be smaller
When I'm paid off
I'll be laid off
Ain't we got fun
It wasn't long before everyone with a phonograph was playing it, not that everyone could afford a phonograph.
Franklin D. Roosevelt (the only US president to elected for four terms) knew how to put a spin on political rhetoric. In 1933 at the height of the worst depression of the last 130 years he said, "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, and now we know that it is bad economics." Political leaders had known that for a long time, but the time had arrived when the electors would let government do something about it without throwing them out of office.
Business leaders also became aware at that time that the market for their goods and services was being limited by low wages for the masses, and there wasn't much point in investing in products that most people couldn't afford to buy. But employers couldn't act alone if they wanted to stay in business. Eventually, the answer came with the establishment of unions which, although bitterly opposed, resulted in better wages, higher production and more leisure time to enjoy their purchases. That was the trickle-down theory working. Each time the workers spent their extra pennies it went right back to the capitalists and the government and stimulated further investment and jobs and welfare for those still on the bottom rung.
The other popular catchphrase throughout the ages has been that 99% of the world's wealth will soon be owned by the richest 1%, and that that is the way business and government want it to be. But that proposition will never stand up to logical scrutiny. For that to happen society would first have to revert to the situation that existed long before the Industrial Revolution. Even then, if 1% owned 99% it would be worthless. Who would be able to buy whatever was for sale? No one. We would all be hunter-gatherers again, including the 1%.
The rich are NOT getting richer while the poor get poorer. That is the stuff of opportunist politicians and their naïve followers.
Having said the above, from one decade to another, there could be some relevance to the adage, but even then if there is a hard decade for some workers it will also be hard for some in business. Economies do operate in cycles. The adage could also have some relevance if one is to compare Wall Street with a camel route in Africa. But in the world as a whole the adage about the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer, is pessimistic nonsense, and spreading it can do more harm than good.
No comments:
Post a Comment