Does income inequality really hurt societies?

[cybercoma]

Cybercoma, I have no idea what you're talking about. (IOW, income equality has nothing to do with anything.)

You need to watch the TED lecture in the OP. It's only 16 minutes. I'm not talking about revamping our system so we're more like Cuba or North Korea. That's complete non-sense. I've said twice already and this is the third time that we're not talking about absolute equality here. What the studies have found is that amongst developed industrial nations there is a relationship between health and social problems and the income gap that exists within those countries. Japan and Sweden rank much better on the indices for health and social problems than the United States. We fall almost directly in the middle.

[August1991]

And the six heirs help keep them that way by employing many of the lowest 30% with Walmart wages and crap benefits.

Six heirs? Who cares abut the lottery winners?

IMV, I think that ordinary Indians should be able to shop in a Walmart.

As John Lennon said, Imagine!

[jacee]

More unequal, less complacent

Suddenly, Canadians are listening. Last week, when the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) issued a stark report, Growing Unequal, the message hit home. The fact that Canada was singled out as one of the countries in which the rich were most rapidly increasing their share of income made headlines, filled the airwaves and got people talking.

...

The complacent majority shrugged. They weren’t hurting. They couldn’t see themselves being jobless, their savings gone, their prospects bleak.

What changed? The recession, first of all. It stripped people of certainty that they were beyond the reach of adversity. The anemic recovery, second. It didn’t bring back the solid jobs and reliable paycheques of the pre-recession era. And finally, the Occupy movement. It crystallized all the changes people were experiencing: their debts were mounting, their standard of living was slipping, their well-educated kids couldn’t find work, their friends and relatives were losing their jobs, and their political leaders were calling for more belt tightening —

I'm glad if Canadians are paying more attention.

We have issues here that may be slightly different than the US, with a government going the wrong direction.

[jacee]

The real problem, argues Prof. Cowen (and I agree), lies with the elites of the financial class who’ve grabbed a gargantuan share of the spoils by means of fancy financial engineering that creates no value, and sometimes destroys it on a massive scale. Nobody knows how to keep them from wrecking the system every so often. The financial lobby is the biggest and most powerful nterest group on Earth. Their ability to rig the system so as to enrich themselves has overwhelmed the ability of the politicians and the regulators to keep them in check. As Prof. Meyer puts it, “People don’t mind losing, but they don’t ike being cheated.” And that’s the inequality worth worrying about .

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/margaret-wente/the-poor-are-doing-better-than-you-think/article2266245/?utm_medium=Feeds%3A%20RSS%2FAtom&utm_source=Home&utm_content=2266245&service=mobile

[Archanfel]

It really depends on what you mean by hurting societies. Does food inequality really hurt a species? Probably not. Do they cause more health issues (more like death issues)? Probably do.

Take China as an example, there's no doubt their reforms over the last 30 years greatly widened income inequality among ordinary citizens (the chairman is rich even in North Korea). Is China a stronger society? Absolutely. Are lives better for the Chinese? Well, depends. Poor urban population probably do have more health and social issues.

Things are not always clearly good or bad either. For example, unemployeement causes all kinds of social issues. However, it also allows the labour force to realign with the ever changing economy.

[cybercoma]

And there are absolutely no repercussions for leaching billions out of the system. In the Savings & Loans scandals of the 80s, very few people were convicted and only a tiny fraction of the money was ever paid back. The same happened in 2008, but not a single person was held accountable for the kind of cheating that went on there (messing with the grading of loans, betting against their own loans, etc.). No money has been paid back and no one has been charged with anything. Meanwhile, protesters are being arrested in the thousands for camping out in public spaces to speak out against this kind of criminal behaviour. A black person or a Native knocks over a gasbar and takes a few hundred bucks and you can be damn sure that he/she will be spending time in jail. Our understanding of criminality has us focusing on the petty crimes of the underclass, but ignoring the white collar criminals. The state will not allow them to fail. THe state will not allow them to go to jail or be punished for their behaviour because they own the state. The financial lobby giveth and the financial lobby taketh away, when it comes to campaigns and having a seat in Office. In Canada they can't make those kinds of political contributions, but one has to wonder then why the party that is backed by the banks, merchants, and corporate elite always end up in office? When the banks backed the Liberals, no one could defeat them. Now that the CPC is fully backed by the oil industry, they've got the reigns. They corporatocracy will not punished and they will never be punished until politicians who don't rely on mllions upon millions in funding can have a legitimate shot at getting elected. Government does not speak for the average Joe, it's nothing more than an apparatus that creates laws to keep the wealth and power in the hands of the few with its own army aka the police to enforce the hiearachy.

Edited December 11, 2011 by cybercoma

[CPCFTW]

I don't think people would care too much about income inequality if the lowest income bracket was making 100k, while the wealthy were making trillions (at current price levels).

Income inequality is a red herring. Minimum income is all that we should be concerned about.

Revolutions occur when the majority are in abject poverty, not when they can't afford a second car and third tv.

[cybercoma]

It really depends on what you mean by hurting societies. Does food inequality really hurt a species? Probably not. Do they cause more health issues (more like death issues)? Probably do.

Take China as an example, there's no doubt their reforms over the last 30 years greatly widened income inequality among ordinary citizens (the chairman is rich even in North Korea). Is China a stronger society? Absolutely. Are lives better for the Chinese? Well, depends. Poor urban population probably do have more health and social issues.

Things are not always clearly good or bad either. For example, unemployeement causes all kinds of social issues. However, it also allows the labour force to realign with the ever changing economy.

I don't know how many times "developed industrial nation" needs to be said for you to get that we're not talking about developing countries.

And if you don't think that a disparity in health problems, due as you say to inequality in food, is inequality (the lower your income, the more likely it is that you'll suffer health problems, the higher your infant mortality rate, the lower your life expectancy.... oh and in the US you have more economic pressure to pay for care), I'm really not sure how to make you understand the problem any clearer.

[punked]

I don't think people would care too much about income inequality if the lowest income bracket was making 100k, while the wealthy were making trillions (at current price levels).

Income inequality is a red herring. Minimum income is all that we should be concerned about.

Revolutions occur when the majority are in abject poverty, not when they can't afford a second car and third tv.

They did in Germany when the lowest income bracket was making 100K and the wealthy was making Trillions. Mind you a loaf of bread was 10,000 dollars but you clearly don't understand the point if you think your scenario is possible in the real world.

[CPCFTW]

They did in Germany when the lowest income bracket was making 100K and the wealthy was making Trillions. Mind you a loaf of bread was 10,000 dollars but you clearly don't understand the point if you think your scenario is possible in the real world.

Are you retarded? I clearly said at "current price levels".

Of course the scenario is not possible, we all know wealth is a zero sum game in the land of hippies..

Edited December 11, 2011 by CPCFTW

[cybercoma]

Are you able to make any posts without being so insulting to people?

[Archanfel]

I don't know how many times "developed industrial nation" needs to be said for you to get that we're not talking about developing countries.

And if you don't think that a disparity in health problems, due as you say to inequality in food, is inequality (the lower your income, the more likely it is that you'll suffer health problems, the higher your infant mortality rate, the lower your life expectancy.... oh and in the US you have more economic pressure to pay for care), I'm really not sure how to make you understand the problem any clearer.

I never said disparity in health problems is not inequality. However, my point is inequality is necessarily good or bad. As long as there are competition for resources, there will be inequality. The question is whether inequality hurt societies or not. And to figure that out, you will have to define what does "hurting societies" mean. I also don't know why you want to limit discussion to "developed" nations. The very concept is not well defined and the list is constantly changing (I would say China was once developed). Is Greece a developed nation? Probably yes. Is it stronger than China? Probably no.

Unless of course it was a rhetoric question in the first place and you just want to preach something.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Are you able to make any posts without being so insulting to people?

He's just taking his cue from right wing media.

[cybercoma]

You could always watch the video in the OP before asking questions that have already been answered.

[Archanfel]

So it was a rhetoric question after all. Why do you bother posting it as a question when you already made up your mind?

[cybercoma]

So it was a rhetoric question after all. Why do you bother posting it as a question when you already made up your mind?

Feel free to argue otherwise with compelling evidence that shows Wilkinson incorrect. You wanted to know what is meant by "hurting societies" and all of that is addressed in the video: higher infant mortality, higher mental health disorders, higher homicide rates, etc. etc. etc. There are many, many things that have gone into the index that was created. If that weren't enough, they showed that the same relationship exists with the UNICEF child welfare index.

Why it's limited to developed nations is also obvious. The argument begins by showing that there comes a certain level where GNI between nations has no relationship to the welfare of people within that nation. Below the point of being a developed, industrialized nation, GNI does have a relationship with well being. Thus, it is more important to increase the GNI of a nation in the developing world, regardless of income disparities within that nation. This is because increasing the GNI means building infrastructure and creating an educated and healthy workforce. Income disparity doesn't matter at this point in the game because everyone is benefitting from the creating of a society conducive to increasing its GNI. This is what happened with the massive urban/rural shift in China, which is still occurring to this day. Once you get to a particular point, however, that GNI makes no difference whatsoever. Instead, the income gaps within the nations is what determiens their "well-being."

So you're asking questions that have been discussed in the video in the OP. If you really wanted to know what metric is being used to define "well-being" and you wanted to know why it's limited to the major industrial nations, you just had to watch the video.

It's not that I've made up my mind already, it's that you're asking questions that have already been answered. Moreover, asking a question is not an answer to the question in the title. Presenting contradictory evidence and making an argument that the income gap is either beneficial or not as harmful as Wilkinson indicates... that would be a reasonable response to the question.

[Archanfel]

Feel free to argue otherwise with compelling evidence that shows Wilkinson incorrect. You wanted to know what is meant by "hurting societies" and all of that is addressed in the video: higher infant mortality, higher mental health disorders, higher homicide rates, etc. etc. etc. There are many, many things that have gone into the index that was created. If that weren't enough, they showed that the same relationship exists with the UNICEF child welfare index.

Why it's limited to developed nations is also obvious. The argument begins by showing that there comes a certain level where GNI between nations has no relationship to the welfare of people within that nation. Below the point of being a developed, industrialized nation, GNI does have a relationship with well being. Thus, it is more important to increase the GNI of a nation in the developing world, regardless of income disparities within that nation. This is because increasing the GNI means building infrastructure and creating an educated and healthy workforce. Income disparity doesn't matter at this point in the game because everyone is benefitting from the creating of a society conducive to increasing its GNI. This is what happened with the massive urban/rural shift in China, which is still occurring to this day. Once you get to a particular point, however, that GNI makes no difference whatsoever. Instead, the income gaps within the nations is what determiens their "well-being."

So you're asking questions that have been discussed in the video in the OP. If you really wanted to know what metric is being used to define "well-being" and you wanted to know why it's limited to the major industrial nations, you just had to watch the video.

It's not that I've made up my mind already, it's that you're asking questions that have already been answered. Moreover, asking a question is not an answer to the question in the title. Presenting contradictory evidence and making an argument that the income gap is either beneficial or not as harmful as Wilkinson indicates... that would be a reasonable response to the question.

And what makes you think the "well-being" of the citizens equals the well-being of the society as a whole? Yes, inequality will increase all those thing in the short term. However, if inequality encourages competition, innovation and productivity (not a given depends on the inequality), society's chance of survival will ultimate improve. And I don't believe the GNI has hit some sort of ceilings that our lives would not improve anymore. In fact, life for people with higher education (rather than just 1%) has improved a lot over the 70s due to globalization despite income inequality worsening.

[cybercoma]

And what makes you think the "well-being" of the citizens equals the well-being of the society as a whole?

You're right. Society would be just swell with higher crime rates, more mental illnesses, higher infant mortality rates, and lower life expectancies. As long as people keep inventing stuff things will be just lovely.

[Archanfel]

You're right. Society would be just swell with higher crime rates, more mental illnesses, higher infant mortality rates, and lower life expectancies. As long as people keep inventing stuff things will be just lovely.

Things will not be lovely. Nature didn't select the "lovely" species to survive. Nature selected the most adaptive species. We do not live in a "lovely" world. That only exists in the children's books. No, the beautiful princess and the handsome prince will not live happily ever after. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Also, you conveniently omitted my assertion that things might get worse "in the short term". Changes are always painful, but they are necessary. Instead of generalize all inequality to be bad, we need to see which ones are good for changes and which ones are bad. Yes, it's good to have lower crime rates, longer life expectancies and all those things (I don't think mental illness is easily comparable). The question is whether you are really making the society more adaptive to achieve those things in the long term or you are just relocating resources for a temporary fix and jeopardize the competitiveness of the society. For example, making sure higher educations are accessible to everybody, that's important. Subsidizing failing industries, probably does more damage than good.