richer than what we now call the emerging markets, but the lives of ordinary people around the world were mutually recognizable. Milanovic, the World Bank economist, surveyed the economic history literature on international earnings in the nineteenth century. He found that between 1800 and 1849 the wage of an unskilled daily laborer in India, one of the poorest countries at the time, was 30 percent that of the wage of an equivalent worker in England, one of the richest. Here’s another data point: in the 1820s, real wages in the Netherlands were just 70 percent higher than those in China’s Yangtze Valley. Those differences may seem large, but they are trivial compared to today’s. UBS, the Swiss bank, compiles a widely cited global prices and earnings report. In 2009 (the most recent year in which UBS did the full report), the nominal after-tax wage for a building laborer in New York was $16.60 an hour, compared to $0.80 in Beijing, $0.50 in Delhi, and $0.60 in Nairobi, a gap orders of magnitude greater than the one in the nineteenth century. The industrial revolution created a plutocracy—but it also enriched the Western middle class and opened up a wide gap between Western workers and those in the rest of the world. That gap is closing as the developing world embraces free market economics and is experiencing its own gilded age.
Professor Lindert worked closely with Angus Maddison and is a fellow leader of the “deep history” school, a movement devoted to thinking about the world economy over the long term—that is to say, in the context of the entire sweep of human civilization. He believes that the global economic change we are living through today is unprecedented in its scale and impact. “Britain’s classic industrial revolution is far less impressive than what has been going on in the past thirty years,” he told me. The current productivity gains are larger, he explained, and the waves of disruptive innovation much, much faster.
Joel Mokyr, an economist at Northwestern University and an expert on the history of technological innovation and on the industrial revolution, agrees.
“The rate of technological change is faster than it has ever been and it is moving from sector to sector,” Mokyr told me. “It is likely that it will keep on expanding at an exponential rate. As individuals, we aren’t getting smarter, but society as a whole is accumulating more and more knowledge. Our access to information and technological assistance in going through the mountains of chaff to get to the wheat—no society has ever had that. That is huge.”
This double-barreled economic shift has coincided with an equally consequential social and political one. MIT researchers Frank Levy and Peter Temin describe the transformation as a move from “The Treaty of Detroit” to the “Washington Consensus.” The Treaty of Detroit was the five-year contract agreed to in 1950 by the United Auto Workers and the big three manufacturers. That deal protected the carmakers from annual strikes; in exchange, it gave the workers generous health care coverage and pensions. Levy and Temin use “The Treaty of Detroit” as a shorthand to describe the broader set of political, social, and economic institutions that were established in the United States during the postwar era: strong unions, high taxes, and a high minimum wage. The Treaty of Detroit era was a golden age for the middle class, and a time when the gap between the 1 percent and everyone else shrank.
But in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Treaty of Detroit began to break down. This was the decade of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. They both sharply cut taxes at the top—Reagan slashed the highest marginal tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent and reduced the maximum capital gains tax to 20 percent—reined in trade unions, cut social welfare spending, and deregulated the economy.
This Washington Consensus was exported abroad, too. Its greatest impact, and its greatest validation, was in communist regimes. The collapse of communism in the Soviet bloc and the adoption of market economics in communist China ended that ideology’s seventy-year-long intellectual and political challenge to capitalism, leaving the market economy as the only system anyone has come up with that works. That red threat was one reason the plutocrats accepted the Treaty of Detroit, and its even more generous European equivalents. The red surrender emboldened the advocates of the Washington Consensus and helped them to create the international institutions needed to underpin a globalized economy.
These three transformations—the technology revolution, globalization, and the rise of the Washington Consensus—have coincided with an age of strong global economic growth, and also with the reemergence of the plutocrats, this time on a global scale. Among students of income inequality, there is a fierce debate about which of the three is the most important driver of the rise of the 1 percent. Ideology helps to shape the argument. If you are a true-faith believer in the Washington Consensus, you tend to believe rising income inequality is the product of impersonal—and largely benign—economic forces, like the technology revolution and globalization. If you are a liberal and regret the passing of the Treaty of Detroit, you tend to attribute the changed income distribution chiefly to politics—a process Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson have powerfully described in
This is an important argument, with real political implications. But, viewed from the summit of the plutocracy, both sides are right. Globalization and the technology revolution have allowed the 1 percent to prosper; but as the plutocrats have been getting richer and more powerful, the collapse of the Treaty of Detroit has meant we have taxed and regulated them less. It is a return to the first gilded age not only because we are living through an economic revolution, but also because the rules of the game again favor those who are winning it.
“The bottom line: we may not be able to reverse the trend, but don’t make it worse,” Peter Orszag, President Barack Obama’s former budget chief, told me. “Most of this is coming from globalization and technological change, not from government policy. But instead of leaning against the wind, we have been putting a little more wind in the sails of rising inequality.”
THE TWIN GILDED AGES—ENTER THE BRICS
On a bitter evening in mid-January 2012, a group of bankers and book publishers gathered on the forty- second floor of Goldman Sachs’s global headquarters at the southern tip of Manhattan. The setting could not have been more American—the most eye-catching view was of the skyscrapers of midtown twinkling to the north, and a jazz ensemble played softly in one corner.
But the appetizers were an international mishmash—thumb-sized potato pancakes with sour cream and caviar, steaming Chinese dumplings, Indian samosas, Turkish kebabs. That’s because the party was in honor of the Goldman thinker who served notice to the Western investment community a decade ago that the Internet revolution wasn’t the only economic game in town. The world was also being dramatically transformed by the rise of the emerging markets, in particular the four behemoths that Jim O’Neill, then chief economist at Goldman Sachs, dubbed the BRICs: Brazil, Russia, India, China.
In the book Mr. O’Neill launched at his January party,
The group of Goldman executives who toasted Mr. O’Neill in New York are in the vanguard of one of the consequences of the powerful economic forces he describes—the rise, in the developed Western economies, of the 1 percent and the creation of what many are now calling a new gilded age. In the nineteenth century, the industrial revolution and the opening of the American frontier created the Gilded Age and the robber barons who ruled it; today, as the world economy is being reshaped by the technology revolution and globalization, the resulting economic transformation is creating a new gilded age and a new plutocracy.
But this time around, it really is different: we aren’t just living through a replay of the Gilded Age—we are living through two, slightly different gilded ages that are unfolding simultaneously. The industrialized West is experiencing a second gilded age; as Mr. O’Neill has documented, the emerging markets are experiencing their first gilded age.
The resulting economic transformation is even more dramatic than the first gilded age in the West—this time billions of people are taking part, not just the inhabitants of western Europe and North America. Together, these twin gilded ages are transforming the world economy at a speed and a scale we have never experienced before.
“It is structurally much more extreme now in multiple dimensions,” said Michael Spence, a Nobel Prize–
