The New Gilded Age

For the past two weeks on Tuesday night I've watched the new edition of Beverly Hills 90210. I only vaguely remember the original incarnation; I remember it being wildly popular and I remember that it did not officially end until 2000 although it's cultural cache had evaporated long before that. I watched the new version for several reasons, the most important being that it premiered on my birthday and I thought it would be a delightful treat to have so much fun laughing at a self-important teen drama. Other reasons include wanting to see Tristan Wilds from the Wire succeed in his introduction to a much larger audience, and finally, because watching the conspicuous consumption of rich people makes me feel righteously indignant, which is one of the best feelings in the world.
As a show, it's much better than I thought it would be. The acting isn't terrible, it certainly has style, although not nearly as much as the vapidly interesting Gossip Girl. Mostly though, it moves at a breakneck pace, even for an hour long show- we're only three episodes in and there is already a seasons worth of material to mull over. My interest in this show, however, and my reason for writing about it (besides my ever present ability to navel gaze) is that the proliferation of these kind of shows, the teen dramas which focus on the life and times of the obscenely wealthy really says a lot about this time in American history I think and our collective reaction to the ever increasing inequality in income___
I'm not sure who coined the term "The New Gilded Age," but I do remember reading an article in the New York Times last year by Louis Uchitelle, which documented the thoughts of the insanely wealthy CEO's of major US companies on growing income inequality and their own roles in our economy. When history writes our _____
It's too much to totally take the comparison on face value, but there are many characteristics from the first Gilded Age which are present today. Obviously, growing income inequality is the most obvious- our incomes have not been this skewed towards the top since probably 1915-1916, towards the end of the Gilded Age. There is an intermingling of industry and politics, which while always present, is much more brazen and blatant than in recent history (check out Glenn Greenwald's archives for superb documentation). Election contest between the two major parties are bitter and close, immigration (from Latin America) is as major an issue as it has been since the massive influx of European immigrants around the beginning of the 20th century.

It's not simply income inequality that marks our age as gilded, however- it is the "opulent self-indulgence" (Wikipedia's words not mine) with which said consumption is taking place. The ability of the super-rich to weather any the current economic storm without any kind of budget tightening- their jet-setting, their meetings at Davos. Overall, it is their separation from the middle-income universe. Not to say that rich people were not always separated from the world of those with less money/wealth. But until the deregulation, low tax rates, and complete repudiation of the New Deal framework in the 1980's, and the consolidation, repeal of the Glass-Steagell Act, and tech boom of the 1990's, there were not many opportunities for such wealth to be amassed.

What is different now, however, is how we react to the growing income gap. During the first Gilded Age, the working class response was the growing labor movement and a growing militancy within the population. Business and government, having learned from the mistakes of the past, have done a superb job at re-framing the argument. Instead of calling it an argument over growing inequality, it is described as one of class warfare. Instead of seeing the burden of the poor as a problem to be solved by the masses, their plight is described as the consequences of their individual choices. In the same way, the good fortune of the rich is a consequence of their good judgment, entrepreneurial spirit, and exemplary merit. Basically the elite say that only a "hater" would begrudge of them of their money with redistributive policies. Only a "hater" would decry the greediness with which they persue the accumulation of money. Today, we gawk at the happiness that money can buy. We have magazines and reporters devoted solely to telling us about the clothes and lifestyles of our socioeconomic superiors. The teen dramas like 90210 and Gossip Girl (along with a host of reality shows about celebrities or spoiled 16 year olds) are our eye candy- it's amazing in an escapist sort of way to live vicariously through these enormously wealthy characters. For an instant we get to fly in personal jets, buy Mercedes jeeps on a whim, go to stylish, exclusive cocktail parties, hobnobbing (what a word) with people whose attire cost more than 6 months salary.
At the same time, not only do we get to see how great their lives are (answer, as great as we could possibly imagine), but we also get to revel in their problems. While the former makes us feel awed, the latter makes us feel better about ourselves. Although, the degree to which the rich are demonized and cariactured has been lessening (see this) the fact that rich people are stereotyped as greedy, spoiled, and out of touch gives the viewers an out so to speak, a way to not be too drawn in, lest we question too much why they are rich and we are not.
Which leads to my final point- the change in how we approach the subject of income inequality is based on a a key assumption and one that I think is very wrong. The assumption is that talking about income inequality is really just a case of jealousy by the poor, working, and middle classes. That's unfortunate, because it takes the focus off the real detriments of inequality (crime, substandard schools, etc.) that cannot be discussed in a true sociological sense without tackling the subject head on. There'll be more on this in the near future.