A Modest Trickle-Down Economic Proposal

The people who claim they are adversely affected by the economic consequences of policies that perpetuate the US distribution of wealth upwards have, in fact, no alternative economic option to choose. While some politicians try to create the illusion of a wide spectrum of viable approaches to alleviating poverty, we know that they serve up these schemes only to burnish their liberal brand.

When the rubber hits the road, all politicians, Republicans and Democrats, support “trickle-down economics” – whether they eagerly endorse it or begrudgingly acquiesce to its implementation. No alternative “bubble-up” policy disturbs the calm waters of public discourse, no matter how furiously a small band of discontents tries to stir the pond.

A term attributed to Depression Era humorist Will Rogers, and meant as a joke, “trickle-down” today has the weight of economic doctrine. It is as close to dogma as a secular belief can be. As such, it seems only fitting that trickle-down economics be implemented immediately and directly. The repeated assurances by its champions that in due time relief will be visited upon the poor borders on equivocation. Corporate and individual tax breaks, outright government subsidies, business-friendly regulations and financial wizardry of stupendous ingenuity, together have worked, as expected, to amass great wealth at the top levels of the moneyed elite. Their wealth, as research fully demonstrates, has not had the beneficial economic effect the promoters of trickle-down economics promised. The “job-creators” did create jobs – millions of them overseas. In the US, however, the unemployment rate remains in the double-digits, using Reagan-era methods of tabulation, and no economist expects joblessness to decline for a decade, if then.

Depression level unemployment courts social unrest on a massive scale. There must be a response – not a centralized, bureaucratic and wasteful one from the federal government, but a clear, simple program instituted by the rich, who, after all, have the means to address this issue. The only way to effectively implement trickle-down economics immediately and directly is to resuscitate a servant class. The rich must hire servants on a massive scale for permanent employment, at good wages with health-care benefits and including on-site estate housing. Servants living on the premises addresses housing and transportation issues and will lead the way towards creating a sustainable economy

At first this seems an outrageous proposal blatantly in contradiction to America’s long heritage of egalitarianism. But let’s face reality and recognize that American egalitarianism has always been more puff than substance. The country’s origins as a land populated by yeomen and crafts persons cannot be denied, however their numbers were superseded by indentured servants, the nascent urban proletariat and the largest disenfranchised population – women and slaves. During the Revolutionary period, the merchants and professional elite wisely did not confront this myth, ignoring it instead to methodically construct prosperity, not on the unpredictable doctrine of laissez faire, but on the sound principles of mercantilism.

The remnants of this popular myth of American egalitarianism may hinder the adoption of servant-hood by those who would benefit most from it, but deeply embedded Christian notions of service will, with proper media amplitude, revive servant-hood as the noble calling that endured for centuries. Convincing the elite, however, to accept the necessary obligations of its rank will be far more difficult. Their most immediate Victorian predecessors, it should be recalled, understood their responsibility of rank intimately and universally; even the family of Karl Marx, generally living a life of penury, maintained a life-long servant in their household.

Today however, the practice of out-sourcing all services is pervasive. For the near rich this is a parsimonious decision; for the super-wealthy it is simply the shortsighted lifestyle they choose. They travel through life lightly, compared to previous elites, flittering from penthouse to ranch to yacht to resort to whatever and back again, leaving in their wake a retinue of on-call staff. Their lives as rootless glitterati of the global economy, sadly reflects – admittedly on a grand scale – the social isolation that plagues us all. And, let’s face it; those who serve them become alienated, bitter souls seething with bitter envy and harboring revenge.

The land-based gentry of previous centuries, who held in fine balance a society of rights and responsibilities, depended upon extensive human labor, thereby reinforcing localism and community throughout Europe. This system of enlightened feudalism differed markedly from Eastern European serfdom or the plantation system imposed throughout the New World. These organizations of society never achieved resilience because they lacked complexity, relying solely on the rule of violent force; a neo-feudalism of the sort advocated here, on the contrary, would contain traditions of law and land tenure balanced by modern technology and consumption, coupled with the enlightened governance the practice of corporate managerialism teaches.

The silver lining of the current mass foreclosures is precisely the collapse of land prices – land that, in many cases, was previously productive agricultural acreage. An opportunity presents itself for new-landed gentry to accumulate these parcels, raze the tacky houses and build new posh estates to employ and board a full complement of servants.

A large estate is not an insignificant employment sector. The old estates in England had on average a dozen servants tending the Master’s family. To maintain the domicile alone required a housekeeper in charge of a cook, and a bevy of maids including: a housemaid, a parlor maid, a lady’s maid, a kitchen maid, a scullery maid and a between maid, who, as the name implies, shifted from one duty to another depending on the work to be done. This was just the female staff. A butler, assisted by a hall boy in the house, headed the male staff. Outside the house, the butler directed the footman, who in turn had a stable boy to assist him, and the gardener, who similarly had a helper.

A fully automated modern estate wouldn’t need six maids of course. The roles of the servants would need to be adjusted to accommodate a contemporary lifestyle. The central role of the butler very likely would remain, though today he would more likely be called the “agendizer” and have at least one techie assistant to maintain the electronic communications necessary for today’s networked world. Yesterday’s footman obviously is today’s chauffeur, but increasingly this role, now fully weaponized, morphs into the head of security with several assistants to protect a large estate and provide peace of mind in an ever-volatile environment. Include personal trainers, a fully-licensed cosmetic attendant, the house pets’ person and the ground-keepers (a well-designed and maintained landscape marks an estate as sophisticated) and party planners – doubling as the pastry chef and the cook – and we already have achieved a staff that rivals the size of an equivalent household of the 18th Century. These calculations assume no children. Children would need another complement of support staff – nannies, tutors, psychologists and personal trainers. And given the risks of kidnapping, an increase in the security staff. The super rich, who currently have large permanent staffs numbering more than a dozen, should be encouraged to double, or triple, their entourage.

A very conservative reckoning based on just 1% of US households that control 35% of the wealth, yields an employment sector of 4 million jobs. * To be clear, this does not include the many millions of families who currently have live-in au pairs, maids, or personal assistants.

A revival of country living – high country living – offers opportunities for boutique farming and ranching, which could increase employment further. These proposals will be addressed in a future proposal.

To conclude, the voters, as the recent election results prove, have endorsed trickle-down economics, and all that is needed, to free the job-creators to do their magic, is to speedily implement this economic program._ _ _ _* 1% of 60,000,000 US households = 600,000½ of that yields 300,000 w/a modest estimate of 3 servants = 900,000200,000 rich enough to hire 5 = 1,000,000100,000 super rich to hire 20 = 2,000,000For a grand total = 3,900,000- – - – -As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one’s home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7% – http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/we...

=-=-=This essay was channeled while meditating on the relevancy of Paul Lafargue

http://righttobelazy.com/blog/essays-2/