which information traveled in the nineteenth century was very different. Today eight hundred million Indians are connected through mobile phones.”
The two gilded ages can also get in each other’s way. As good an explanation as any for the 2008 financial crisis is that it is the result of the collision between China’s gilded age and the West’s—the financial imbalances that are an essential part of China’s export-driven growth model also played a crucial role in inflating the credit bubble that burst with such devastating consequences in 2008.
The two gilded ages have a lot in common, and they are reinforcing each other. But both transformations are creating intense political and social pressures, partly because change is always hard, and partly because the rewards of this sort of convulsive shift are so unequal.
Moreover, this time around, the whole world no longer has the escape valve that, at least for a time, released some of the pressures of the original industrial revolution—the frontiers of North and South America. When the strain of urbanization became too tough, or too unfair, Europe’s huddled masses could emigrate. Even with that option, it is worth remembering, the conflicts and inequities created by industrialization and urbanization were ultimately resolved in the West only after a half century of revolution and war.
“In the long run, we are in good shape,” said Professor Van Reenen. “It depends on your time horizon. After all, the Great Depression and World War II were a massive cost to humanity. Eventually, humanity will prosper. Capitalism does work, but over the medium term, thirty or forty years, there could be incredible dislocations. I am very worried about what happens over the next year or so.”
Looked at from the international, Olympian perspective of the super-elite, the cost of these short-term “dislocations” pales in comparison with the transformative power of the twin gilded ages.
Mr. O’Neill concludes his book with a heartfelt rebuttal of the gloomsters, with their emphasis on rising national income inequality and the hollowing out of the Western middle class:
This is an exciting story. It goes far beyond business and economics. We are in the early years of what is probably one of the biggest shifts of wealth and income disparity ever in history. It irritates me when I hear and read endless distorted stories of how only a few benefit and increase their wealth from the fruits of globalization, to the detriment of the marginalized masses. Globalization may widen inequality within certain national borders, but on a global basis it has been a huge force for good, narrowing inequality among people on an unprecedented scale. Tens of millions of people from the BRICs and beyond are being taken out of poverty by the growth of their economies. While it is easy to focus on the fact that China has created so many billionaires, it should not be forgotten that in the past fifteen or so years, 300 million or more Chinese have been lifted out of poverty…. We at Goldman Sachs estimate that 2 billion people are going to be brought into the global middle class between now and 2030 as the BRIC and N-11 economies develop…. Rather than be worried by such developments, we should be both encouraged and hopeful. Vast swaths of mankind are having their chance to enjoy some of the fruits of wealth creation. This is the big story.
Mr. O’Neill’s empathy for the prospering people of China and India isn’t the only reason to be optimistic about the twin gilded ages. Another is that the experience of the past two centuries has taught us that, with time, the creative destruction of capitalism inevitably brings an overall improvement in everyone’s standard of living.
That was what John Baranowski, the general manager of accounting and operations at Greyhound Lines, the bus company based in Dallas, Texas, argued in reply to an essay by W. Brian Arthur, a professor at the Santa Fe Institute, about the computer revolution and the rise of a second economy in which most of the work is done by machines talking to other machines, with little intervention by humans. “Wealth will be created but also spent in some form we cannot imagine,” Mr. Baranowski wrote. “Past productivity eliminated millions of jobs and created millions more—and while it is highly disruptive, there is no precedent for a long-term negative impact on total jobs and no reason to expect that the future (and the second economy’s impact) will be different.”
Professor Arthur’s counterpoint was to hope that Mr. Baranowski is right, but to caution that we have no proof that today’s technology revolution really will eventually make all of us richer.
“I only hope you are right that the new prosperity will create new jobs,” Professor Arthur wrote. “The idea that this always happens is called Say’s law in economics, and it’s now held by economists to be a tenet of faith, not true in reality. Since the second economy began, in the early and mid-1990s, we’ve had wave after wave of downsizing and layoffs, and now we have ongoing structural joblessness. I hope jobs will be created, and maybe they will. More likely, the system, as so many times before in history, will have to readjust radically. It needs to find new ways to distribute the new wealth.”
HAPPY PEASANTS AND MISERABLE MILLIONAIRES
Both the Western critics and the Western fans of globalization tend to agree about one thing: the emerging markets, particularly their rising middle classes, are among the big winners. As far as GDP goes, that is certainly true. But, just as the West’s first gilded age was not perfectly benign for everyone living through it, the developing world’s age of creative destruction is bumpy.
For one thing, international studies of the correlation between income and happiness have recently uncovered a counterintuitive connection. Until a few years ago, the reigning theory about money and happiness was the Easterlin paradox, the 1974 finding by Richard Easterlin that, beyond a relatively low threshold, more money didn’t make you happier. But as better international data became available, economists discovered that the Easterlin paradox applies only across generations within a single country—you are probably not happier than your parents were, even though you are probably richer. But across countries, what millions of immigrants have always known to be true really is: the people of rich countries are generally happier than the people of poor countries.
The latest contrarian finding, however, is that moving to that state of greater wealth and greater happiness is decidedly unpleasant. As Angus Deaton, in a review of the 2006 Gallup World Poll, concluded, “Surprisingly, at any given level of income, economic growth is associated with lower reported levels of life satisfaction.” Eduardo Lora and Carol Graham call this the “paradox of unhappy growth.” Two separate studies of China, for example, have found that peasants who move to the city are richer but more frustrated with their income than they had been back on the farm. Palagummi Sainath, an award-winning Indian journalist who made his name when he switched from covering the business titans of “India Shining” to the underclasses who were left behind, tells the same story: Indians who move from impoverished villages to urban slums have a better chance of finding work, but little social security comes with it. And Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers have found that the paradox of unhappy growth is particularly true in the first stages of growth in “miracle” economies, such as South Korea or Ireland—the moment when the tigers take their first leap is also the time when their people are unhappiest.
No one has come up with a definitive explanation of the unhappy growth paradox, but the economists who study it speculate that the uncertainty and inequality of these periods of rapid economic change may be to blame. Even if our country’s economy overall is growing strongly and we are doing well ourselves, we know that we are living through a period of what Joseph Schumpeter called “creative destruction.” That volatility, and the painful consequences it has for the losers, makes even the winners anxious.
The tension in emerging markets isn’t only psychological. As in the West, a big part of the story of the developing world’s first gilded age is the “friction… between capital and labor, between rich and poor” that Carnegie identified more than a century earlier.
I caught a glimpse of it at a World Bank panel I moderated in Washington, D.C., in September 2011. Manish Sabharwal, the CEO of TeamLease, India’s leading supplier of temporary workers, said one of India’s big challenges was increasing the number of people in the formal economy (as opposed to the black-market economy) working in manufacturing. At just 12 percent of the labor force, low-wage India, astonishingly, has the same percentage of workers in manufacturing as the United States does.
Stella Li, the vice president of automaker BYD, one of China’s manufacturing stars, jumped into the discussion. “I have the answer,” she told Sabharwal. BYD, she said, had gone into India with high hopes. “We think India is a great place for our second-biggest manufacturing,” she explained, and BYD liked the quality of the Indian labor force: “The employee labor is good—they are working hard, very smart, and quite good.” The problem was
