Comments on: Inequality a problem in itself? http://www.sindark.com/2006/10/19/inequality-a-problem-in-itself/ Temporarily Torontonian Sun, 12 Feb 2012 08:01:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Tax wealth instead of income? http://www.sindark.com/2006/10/19/inequality-a-problem-in-itself/#comment-157694 Tax wealth instead of income? Mon, 21 Nov 2011 03:40:58 +0000 http://www.sindark.com/2006/10/19/inequality-a-problem-in-itself/#comment-157694 [...] could actually push, as opposed to just expressing a general ill-focused agenda in favour of redistribution of wealth. It might even be economically efficient, if it kept people from maintaining vast unproductive [...] [...] could actually push, as opposed to just expressing a general ill-focused agenda in favour of redistribution of wealth. It might even be economically efficient, if it kept people from maintaining vast unproductive [...]

]]> By: ‘Occupy’ protests being shut down http://www.sindark.com/2006/10/19/inequality-a-problem-in-itself/#comment-156416 ‘Occupy’ protests being shut down Tue, 15 Nov 2011 23:53:27 +0000 http://www.sindark.com/2006/10/19/inequality-a-problem-in-itself/#comment-156416 [...] those who want to reduce economic inequality in society – a project that I do not fully endorse personally – I think the task that needs to be undertaken is the rebuilding of the left within [...] [...] those who want to reduce economic inequality in society – a project that I do not fully endorse personally – I think the task that needs to be undertaken is the rebuilding of the left within [...]

]]> By: . http://www.sindark.com/2006/10/19/inequality-a-problem-in-itself/#comment-139464 . Sat, 17 Sep 2011 22:38:44 +0000 http://www.sindark.com/2006/10/19/inequality-a-problem-in-itself/#comment-139464 <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/21526422" title="Business this week | The Economist" rel="nofollow">Warren Buffett raised a few eyebrows by asserting that “a billionaire-friendly Congress” had “coddled” the wealthy for too long and should raise taxes on the rich.</a> The investor, believed to be the world’s third-richest man, said his income-tax rate amounted to 17.4% last year, whereas the average burden on others in his offices was 36%. Warren Buffett raised a few eyebrows by asserting that “a billionaire-friendly Congress” had “coddled” the wealthy for too long and should raise taxes on the rich. The investor, believed to be the world’s third-richest man, said his income-tax rate amounted to 17.4% last year, whereas the average burden on others in his offices was 36%.

]]> By: . http://www.sindark.com/2006/10/19/inequality-a-problem-in-itself/#comment-132050 . Fri, 05 Aug 2011 20:19:17 +0000 http://www.sindark.com/2006/10/19/inequality-a-problem-in-itself/#comment-132050 The way patronage and promotion work within the corporate world may count against women. <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/18988694" title="Women in business: Still lonely at the top | The Economist" rel="nofollow">Nearly all the executives who rise to the top have had a powerful backer</a>, according to Sylvia Ann Hewlett, the author of “The Sponsor Effect”, a report for the Harvard Business Review. Yet women often fail to cultivate what Ms Hewlett calls “relationship capital”. They hesitate to call in favours for fear of seeming pushy. And many are afraid of the gossip that a close relationship with a senior male colleague might provoke. The way patronage and promotion work within the corporate world may count against women. Nearly all the executives who rise to the top have had a powerful backer, according to Sylvia Ann Hewlett, the author of “The Sponsor Effect”, a report for the Harvard Business Review. Yet women often fail to cultivate what Ms Hewlett calls “relationship capital”. They hesitate to call in favours for fear of seeming pushy. And many are afraid of the gossip that a close relationship with a senior male colleague might provoke.

]]> By: . http://www.sindark.com/2006/10/19/inequality-a-problem-in-itself/#comment-132025 . Fri, 05 Aug 2011 19:26:59 +0000 http://www.sindark.com/2006/10/19/inequality-a-problem-in-itself/#comment-132025 Why is bashing the rich such an unpopular form of populism in America? The normal answer falls back on culture. Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution notes that Americans are repelled by the notion of inequality in worth or status. That men are created equal is, after all, “self-evident”. They are, however, far less perturbed by unequal wealth, a form of inequality that is the inevitable product of the free-market system in which most still profess an abiding faith. According to Tom Smith, director of the Centre for the Study of Politics and Society at the University of Chicago, surveys still show Americans to be more sympathetic than Europeans to the idea that unequal pay encourages people to work hard, for example, and less sympathetic to the idea that governments should try to smooth such inequalities out. That said, you might think that the normal answer would no longer do in such abnormal times—after a great recession and with 14m people still looking for work. And, sure enough, every week brings a flood of complaints in the media about the rich getting richer while the incomes of the middle class stagnate or fall. <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/18928384" title="Lexington: Fat cats and corporate jets | The Economist" rel="nofollow">A survey for the New York Times has just reported that the median pay for top executives at 200 big companies last year was little shy of $11m a year—a mouth-watering 23% rise since 2009.</a> Joseph Stiglitz, the holder of a Nobel prize in economics, claimed in Vanity Fair that the top 1% of Americans were taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income and controlled 40% of its wealth, though others dispute his numbers. Why is bashing the rich such an unpopular form of populism in America? The normal answer falls back on culture. Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution notes that Americans are repelled by the notion of inequality in worth or status. That men are created equal is, after all, “self-evident”. They are, however, far less perturbed by unequal wealth, a form of inequality that is the inevitable product of the free-market system in which most still profess an abiding faith. According to Tom Smith, director of the Centre for the Study of Politics and Society at the University of Chicago, surveys still show Americans to be more sympathetic than Europeans to the idea that unequal pay encourages people to work hard, for example, and less sympathetic to the idea that governments should try to smooth such inequalities out.

That said, you might think that the normal answer would no longer do in such abnormal times—after a great recession and with 14m people still looking for work. And, sure enough, every week brings a flood of complaints in the media about the rich getting richer while the incomes of the middle class stagnate or fall. A survey for the New York Times has just reported that the median pay for top executives at 200 big companies last year was little shy of $11m a year—a mouth-watering 23% rise since 2009. Joseph Stiglitz, the holder of a Nobel prize in economics, claimed in Vanity Fair that the top 1% of Americans were taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income and controlled 40% of its wealth, though others dispute his numbers.

]]> By: Tristan http://www.sindark.com/2006/10/19/inequality-a-problem-in-itself/#comment-113697 Tristan Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:11:16 +0000 http://www.sindark.com/2006/10/19/inequality-a-problem-in-itself/#comment-113697 Jordan Peterson on inequality, social science, and what the state is for: http://vimeo.com/10637845 Jordan Peterson on inequality, social science, and what the state is for:

http://vimeo.com/10637845

]]> By: . http://www.sindark.com/2006/10/19/inequality-a-problem-in-itself/#comment-110906 . Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:56:29 +0000 http://www.sindark.com/2006/10/19/inequality-a-problem-in-itself/#comment-110906 "Great inequality is the scourge of modern societies. We provide the evidence on each of eleven different health and social problems: physical health, mental health, drug abuse, education, imprisonment, obesity, social mobility, trust and community life, violence, teenage births, and child well-being. For all eleven of these health and social problems, outcomes are very substantially worse in more unequal societies. We have checked the relationships wherever possible in two independent test beds: internationally among the rich countries, and then again among the 50 states of the USA. In almost every case we find the same tendency for outcomes to be much worse in more unequal societies in both settings. We also present evidence on four other important issues. One is how achieving greater equality within the rich countries may contribute to tackling the inequalities between rich and poor countries. Another is a discussion of both the compatibility and relative merits of greater equality and economic growth as sources of improvements in the quality of life among rich countries. There is a page discussing how greater equality may contribute to policies designed to tackle global warming, and lastly, a page (The Remedies) pointing out that there are many different ways of increasing equality in our societies. The data we use comes from the most respected international sources including The World Bank, World Health Organisation, United Nations, UNICEF, and US Census Bureau. Much of this work has already been published in peer reviewed academic journals, and some of the relationships have been tested many times by different research groups using data for different societies." http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence “Great inequality is the scourge of modern societies. We provide the evidence on each of eleven different health and social problems: physical health, mental health, drug abuse, education, imprisonment, obesity, social mobility, trust and community life, violence, teenage births, and child well-being. For all eleven of these health and social problems, outcomes are very substantially worse in more unequal societies.

We have checked the relationships wherever possible in two independent test beds: internationally among the rich countries, and then again among the 50 states of the USA. In almost every case we find the same tendency for outcomes to be much worse in more unequal societies in both settings.

We also present evidence on four other important issues. One is how achieving greater equality within the rich countries may contribute to tackling the inequalities between rich and poor countries. Another is a discussion of both the compatibility and relative merits of greater equality and economic growth as sources of improvements in the quality of life among rich countries. There is a page discussing how greater equality may contribute to policies designed to tackle global warming, and lastly, a page (The Remedies) pointing out that there are many different ways of increasing equality in our societies.

The data we use comes from the most respected international sources including The World Bank, World Health Organisation, United Nations, UNICEF, and US Census Bureau. Much of this work has already been published in peer reviewed academic journals, and some of the relationships have been tested many times by different research groups using data for different societies.”

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence

]]> By: Milan http://www.sindark.com/2006/10/19/inequality-a-problem-in-itself/#comment-110611 Milan Tue, 15 Feb 2011 23:01:27 +0000 http://www.sindark.com/2006/10/19/inequality-a-problem-in-itself/#comment-110611 Also, <a href="http://www.sindark.com/2011/02/04/outliers-the-story-of-success/" rel="nofollow">the Gladwell book I reviewed recently</a> is full of examples of circumstances in which inequality has emerged for ethically problematic reasons. Also, the Gladwell book I reviewed recently is full of examples of circumstances in which inequality has emerged for ethically problematic reasons.

]]> By: Milan http://www.sindark.com/2006/10/19/inequality-a-problem-in-itself/#comment-110610 Milan Tue, 15 Feb 2011 23:00:46 +0000 http://www.sindark.com/2006/10/19/inequality-a-problem-in-itself/#comment-110610 It is possible that even inequality that arises for ethical reasons (like some people preferring to spend all their time working, while others prefer more leisure) could still be problematic from a utilitarian perspective, if it creates problematic circumstances within society. It is possible that even inequality that arises for ethical reasons (like some people preferring to spend all their time working, while others prefer more leisure) could still be problematic from a utilitarian perspective, if it creates problematic circumstances within society.

]]> By: Tristan http://www.sindark.com/2006/10/19/inequality-a-problem-in-itself/#comment-110585 Tristan Tue, 15 Feb 2011 15:18:06 +0000 http://www.sindark.com/2006/10/19/inequality-a-problem-in-itself/#comment-110585 I don't have a reference for you right now, but Peterson claims that inequality, rather than poverty, is highly correlated with violence both in the contemporary United States, and as a general rule in cultures throughout history. The basic explanation is this: in cultures with a steep dominance curve those on the bottom end don't have enough to lose, and thus at a higher rate become pathological and murderous. This is his explanation for why most successful cultures have some form of marriage, or "pair-bonding" - because without restricting coupling to 2, dominant males get access to many female mates, and less dominant males get none (reverse for non-patriarchal societies). Lack of access to a mate or economic stability means one has less to lose by joining an organization whose good comes at the expense of societal order. I don’t have a reference for you right now, but Peterson claims that inequality, rather than poverty, is highly correlated with violence both in the contemporary United States, and as a general rule in cultures throughout history. The basic explanation is this: in cultures with a steep dominance curve those on the bottom end don’t have enough to lose, and thus at a higher rate become pathological and murderous. This is his explanation for why most successful cultures have some form of marriage, or “pair-bonding” – because without restricting coupling to 2, dominant males get access to many female mates, and less dominant males get none (reverse for non-patriarchal societies). Lack of access to a mate or economic stability means one has less to lose by joining an organization whose good comes at the expense of societal order.

]]> By: . http://www.sindark.com/2006/10/19/inequality-a-problem-in-itself/#comment-110551 . Tue, 15 Feb 2011 02:14:34 +0000 http://www.sindark.com/2006/10/19/inequality-a-problem-in-itself/#comment-110551 <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/18061479?story_id=18061479" title="Letters: On oil sands, inequality, rape, food prices, company morality, Iraq, democracy, the yuan, last week's cover | The Economist" rel="nofollow">The elements of inequality</a> SIR – You were incorrect in asserting that there is a weak link between inequality and the variety of problems we attribute to it in our book, “The Spirit Level” (“Unbottled Gini”, January 22nd). The relationships between national levels of income inequality and mental illness, children’s well-being, low social mobility, teenage births, prison rates and trust are all extraordinarily close, with correlations of between 0.7 and 0.9. Although the connections we show of inequality to life expectancy, infant mortality and homicide are slightly weaker (though still statistically significant with correlations of between 0.4 to 0.6), there are an additional 200 independent analyses that chart the link between health and inequality and another 50 between violence and inequality. Your point about homicide and gun ownership was also wide of the mark: control statistically for gun ownership and the relationship between homicide and inequality becomes slightly stronger. The issue of outliers is a red herring. Raised as a criticism of some of our studies, it is irrelevant to these other analyses. The politically motivated attacks on our work have been rebutted, not only in a new chapter of ours, but also by others. Richard Wilkinson Emeritus professor of social epidemiology University of Nottingham medical school Kate Pickett Professor of epidemiology University of York SIR – Your leader on inequality was a total cop-out (“The rich and the rest”, January 22nd). Is that because you don’t want to antagonise a large part of your wealthy readership? The rise in inequality in America and Europe is clearly the result of the ruinous banking system. Huge amounts of wealth have been sucked out of the economy and into the hands of a few. Graham Simon London SIR – In an article on California’s budget woes you stated that the advantage of proposed spending cuts is the “symmetry of pain and incentives” (“Modocians and Alamedans”, January 15th). Another way of putting this is to say that government is unable to evaluate the weight of competing claims on the purse strings and merely resorts to splitting the difference under the guise of fairness. This is no way to govern. Dan Opdyke Austin, Texas The elements of inequality

SIR – You were incorrect in asserting that there is a weak link between inequality and the variety of problems we attribute to it in our book, “The Spirit Level” (“Unbottled Gini”, January 22nd). The relationships between national levels of income inequality and mental illness, children’s well-being, low social mobility, teenage births, prison rates and trust are all extraordinarily close, with correlations of between 0.7 and 0.9.

Although the connections we show of inequality to life expectancy, infant mortality and homicide are slightly weaker (though still statistically significant with correlations of between 0.4 to 0.6), there are an additional 200 independent analyses that chart the link between health and inequality and another 50 between violence and inequality. Your point about homicide and gun ownership was also wide of the mark: control statistically for gun ownership and the relationship between homicide and inequality becomes slightly stronger. The issue of outliers is a red herring. Raised as a criticism of some of our studies, it is irrelevant to these other analyses.

The politically motivated attacks on our work have been rebutted, not only in a new chapter of ours, but also by others.

Richard Wilkinson
Emeritus professor of social epidemiology
University of Nottingham medical school
Kate Pickett
Professor of epidemiology
University of York

SIR – Your leader on inequality was a total cop-out (“The rich and the rest”, January 22nd). Is that because you don’t want to antagonise a large part of your wealthy readership? The rise in inequality in America and Europe is clearly the result of the ruinous banking system. Huge amounts of wealth have been sucked out of the economy and into the hands of a few.

Graham Simon
London

SIR – In an article on California’s budget woes you stated that the advantage of proposed spending cuts is the “symmetry of pain and incentives” (“Modocians and Alamedans”, January 15th). Another way of putting this is to say that government is unable to evaluate the weight of competing claims on the purse strings and merely resorts to splitting the difference under the guise of fairness. This is no way to govern.

Dan Opdyke
Austin, Texas

]]> By: . http://www.sindark.com/2006/10/19/inequality-a-problem-in-itself/#comment-109703 . Thu, 03 Feb 2011 02:22:07 +0000 http://www.sindark.com/2006/10/19/inequality-a-problem-in-itself/#comment-109703 <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/17957381?story_id=17957381" title="Inequality: Unbottled Gini | The Economist" rel="nofollow">Unbottled Gini</a> Inequality is rising. Does it matter—and if so why? FOR the head of the IMF to quote Adam Smith may seem unremarkable. But here is Dominique Strauss-Kahn citing the great man in November 2010: “The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful and…neglect persons of poor and mean condition…is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.” Mr Strauss-Kahn then bemoaned “a large and growing chasm between rich and poor—especially within countries”. He argued that inequitable distribution of wealth could “wear down the social fabric”. He added: “More unequal countries have worse social indicators, a poorer human-development record, and higher degrees of economic insecurity and anxiety.” That marks a huge shift. Just before the financial crisis America’s Congress was gaily cutting taxes for the highest earners, and Tony Blair, Britain’s prime minister, said he did not care how much soccer players earned so long as he could reduce child poverty. So why has fear of inequality stormed back into fashion? Does it matter in some new way? Does it have previously unknown effects? Unbottled Gini
Inequality is rising. Does it matter—and if so why?

FOR the head of the IMF to quote Adam Smith may seem unremarkable. But here is Dominique Strauss-Kahn citing the great man in November 2010: “The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful and…neglect persons of poor and mean condition…is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.”

Mr Strauss-Kahn then bemoaned “a large and growing chasm between rich and poor—especially within countries”. He argued that inequitable distribution of wealth could “wear down the social fabric”. He added: “More unequal countries have worse social indicators, a poorer human-development record, and higher degrees of economic insecurity and anxiety.”

That marks a huge shift. Just before the financial crisis America’s Congress was gaily cutting taxes for the highest earners, and Tony Blair, Britain’s prime minister, said he did not care how much soccer players earned so long as he could reduce child poverty. So why has fear of inequality stormed back into fashion? Does it matter in some new way? Does it have previously unknown effects?

]]>