I would argue that inequality is not a problem at all. It doesn't affect me that there are others with vastly more wealth than I have, since I have enough for myself and my family. Unless I'm simply envious, the inequality is not a problem for me.
Rather than inequality, the problem is really that the bottom end of the range is too low. There are too many people who are not able to find enough work to provide an adequate income. There's a litany of social and economic reasons for that, but that is the problem, not the inequality itself.
"The biggest problem with inequality is the floor." No it is not.
Inequality is a much bigger problem than just the people at the bottom. It is associated with a plethora of bad outcomes. This includes poor physical and mental health outcomes, happiness, and other core indicators of societal wellbeing.
It's not an 'inequality issue'. I don't have much problem with inequality of wealth or inequality of experience. It's just my experience that most people do and would rather pull down those who can afford better even if it hurts themself.
Serious question, what is the issue with inequality when low income people are overweight and have iphones?
This is obviously a simplification, but in 1 sentence I think I got my point across.
Standard of living is undisputed the best in human history, not even some 1960s era fantasy has overweight humans. This has nothing to do with 'unhealthy' food, this is abundance.
So back to the serious question, what makes inequality bad? Some ideas
>Political inequality
>multi-generational oppression(which doesnt line up with the whole "First generation makes it. 2nd generation maintains it, 3rd generation blows it")
I'm trying to understand the issue with inequality when everyone is living a fantastic by organic life standards.
But the issue is that $2.5 million of after tax income isn't bad. Even though it's unequal. Even though not everyone will make it.
I don't know how else to put this. Suppose people said "fat inequality is a huge problem - some men have lean, fit bodies with 10%-12% body fat whereas other men have 40% body fat."
In point of fact, while it is not desirable for everyone to have 40% or more body fat, there is no problem with the inequality itself: some people will always devote more of their lives to fitness, eating on strict diets and a lot of exercise; which is what it takes to achieve 10-12% bodyfat.
THE INEQUALITY IS NOT AN ISSUE. Obesity is an issue NOT because of the inequality, but because of the direct effects of obesity.
Poverty is an issue NOT because of inequality (NOT because of the fact that Brin has $39,000,000,000) but directly because of the direct effects of poverty.
In short, inequality of wealth or income is a red herring. It is like trying to make America healthier by fighting "inequality of fitness" and fighting against some people having 12% bodyfat while others have 40%.
(In this case you have to read in the opposite direction -- a 40% bodyfat is objectively worse -- but you understand what I'm saying. It's not the inequality that's bad. Not everyone will get to 8% bodyfat even if this is possible or somehow desirous.)
I hope you see, and don't misinterpret the distinction that I'm pointing out. If you have questions follow up and I will clarify what I mean.
Right, that is exactly my point. The fact that inequality exists doesn't bother most people, it's poverty (the lack of housing, food, healthcare...) that bothers people. Inequality is irrelevant to the core issue, poverty.
I agree that inequality is not a good thing, but a large part of the outrage is just the fact that it seems unfair.
We can read articles like this, but there are also interesting facts like how a huge percentage of poor Americans have a problem with obesity, something only kings and aristocracy could suffer from just a handful of generations ago. Or die from overdoses (they have free resources to spend on recreational drugs).
Our poor people have transcended the traditional problems of poor people, they are no longer dying from starvation but now obesity. They don’t die of overwork but from recreational abuse of dangerous substances. I don’t disagree with anything in the article but it is worth looking at from a historical perspective.
I think my point is that yes things are unequal, but it’s also worth remembering how much the floor has been raised as well. I would prefer to try continuing to raise the floor rather than lowering the ceiling.
The problem is, you are seeing people in completely different environments, some of which are infeasible for you to attain. Its worth noting, the issues related to income inequality are due to relative inequality, not absolute.
There are intangible costs to high relative inequality (whatever the absolute level of wealth). They don't matter as much as not starving. But I can see why people are concerned about it.
In economically more equal societies, people tend to treat each other as equals in other ways. For example, I'm fairly convinced that the wealth inequality in America is why Americans to treat their low-paid service workers so poorly, compared to most other very wealthy countries. They're beneath them in the implicit class hierarchy created by the unequal wealth distribution.
Similarly, if the yearly salary of a police officer, judge, or tax auditor, is simple pocket change to the wealthy, then they're all for sale.
Exactly. Inequality is not a problem - poverty is. I'd much rather be in a place where I'm a millionaire between trillionaires, than having little and be between millionaires.
Sadly, envy and need for the social status are very strong.
Inequality is a problem if inequality is restraining the total growth of society or limiting resources/services/goods that would potentially be available to you in a less unequal society.
Yes, in fact, any form of perceived inequality is detrimental to mental health and eventually to physical health.
This is a natural competition mechanism. It's not at all specific to modern economic systems. Pretty much all animals arrange themselves in a "pecking order". It's particularly pronounced in sexual selection.
However, let's say I work less than you and therefore I earn less. This is fair, I can rationalize it, but it's still a numeric inequality and it shows up in a statistic as such.
Therefore, you can just say "inequality does X", it's too simplistic. That's my whole point.
People are not the same, but they weigh the same.
reply