3 ms·

> globally increasing inequality At a global level, inequality has not been increasing. Globalization has been a huge win for developing nations in this regard

> globally increasing inequality At a global level, inequality has not been increasing. Globalization has been a huge win for developing nations in this regard (and the people who have paid the price are low-wage workers in developed nations like the US). This is not to say that we have to conclude that globalization has been a good thing overall for developing nations - there are lots of problems it has caused for them at the same time. But it's tough to criticize it on the basis of increasing inequality globally, because it's done the exact opposite.

tomp 11y ago
Right, that's true. Then let's say "nationally increasing inequality". I'm pretty sure that emerging nations will follow (some are already following) the trends of concentration of capital very soon.
ebbv 11y ago
The global decrease in inequality is barely there, and some argue is an illusion due to the wealthiest individuals being adept at hiding their wealth. What is there is only due to India and China starting to have something resembling a middle class (but even so their standard of living would be unacceptable from someone who grew up in the US.) In the rest of the developed world (US, Europe, Japan, etc.) average wages have been totally left behind by the growth in wealth for the millionaire and billionaire class. In the US especially, average incomes have actually decreased when adjusted for inflation while the billionaires see tremendous growth year after year. It's horrendous.
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > What is there is only due to India and China starting to have something resembling a middle class (but even so their standard of living would be unacceptable from someone who grew up in the US.) I don't understand what you mean when you say it's "only" due to India and China starting to have a middle class. That is literally the definition of decreasing inequality globally: people who were previously below middle class have increased their standing. > (but even so their standard of living would be unacceptable from someone who grew up in the US.) As someone who actually has a very real sense of what middle-class standard-of-living in India actually is, I'd contest this claim. But even if we ignore that, the fact that a developed country's standard of living is still below the US's standard of living doesn't contradict the statement that the inequality has decreased, because the difference between the two is much smaller than it was 50 years ago.
  - sdm 11y ago
    > I don't understand what you mean when you say it's "only" due to India and China starting to have a middle class. That is literally the definition of decreasing inequality globally: people who were previously below middle class have increased their standing. Two points: 1) Income inequality in these countries is very similar to that in the US. In the case of China, where I am, it is arguably worse than the US. So they are not producing a decrease in global income inequality -- rather they are helping accelerating inequality by dramatically increasing the inequality in the two largest nations. 2) The concept of middle class is completely orthogonal to the concept of income inequality. Whether the middle class is increasing or shrinking tells you nothing about if income inequality is increasing or shrinking. Being middle class simply means you are bought into the system, so not working class, but not wealthy enough to not work, so not upper class. You a house and your children are being well educated. You have a vested interest in maintaining the society but not the power to control it.[1] The middle class be grown and it can shrink. It has no connection to quantiles. It has no connection to the median or average income levels other than how they relate to the cost of living. You can have low income inequality with a tiny middle class (classic low development nation). You can have high income inequality with a large middle class (traditional example being the US). You can have high income inequality with a small middle class (typically middle income countries such as Chile). Of course you can have, what in my mind is the ideal, low income inequality with a large middle class (Sweden being a good example). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class
  - ebbv 11y ago
    Because that's only two countries out of the whole world AND income inequality in those countries is still terrible despite the situation improving substantially.
efaref 11y ago
According to this UN report: http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_bg_papers/bp_wess2013_svieira1.pdf http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_bg_pa... global inequality has been increasing despite convergence of inter-national mean incomes. The rich have been getting richer faster than the poor have been catching up.
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > global inequality has been increasing despite convergence of inter-national mean incomes. This is a misuse of terminology. Generally when people talk about "global inequality" they are speaking either of median (not mean) incomes or median standard of living, (which is most accurately tracked by median PPP-adjusted incomes). The latter is more common in political and non-academic circles, because standard-of-living is largely what people actually care about at the end of the day. I didn't say that inequality within individual countries hasn't been increasing - and in fact, one of the major criticisms of globalization is linked to the divergence of opportunities within developing countries. But it's undeniable that globalization has caused median standard-of-living to converge globally and median standard-of-living to increase in developing countries, and the convergence of mean incomes globally between countries provides rough evidence of this..
  - tomp 11y ago
    Meadian doesn't make sense when talking about inequality. 3 people having $1, $2 and $3 have the same "median inequality" as 3 people having $1, $2 and $300000000000. You need either mean, range or quantiles.
    - chimeracoder 11y ago
      > Meadian doesn't make sense when talking about inequality. You need either mean, range or quantiles. Uh... what? The median is the 2-quantile.
      - tomp 11y ago

tomp 11y ago

Right, that's true. Then let's say "nationally increasing inequality". I'm pretty sure that emerging nations will follow (some are already following) the trends of concentration of capital very soon.

ebbv 11y ago

The global decrease in inequality is barely there, and some argue is an illusion due to the wealthiest individuals being adept at hiding their wealth. What is there is only due to India and China starting to have something resembling a middle class (but even so their standard of living would be unacceptable from someone who grew up in the US.) In the rest of the developed world (US, Europe, Japan, etc.) average wages have been totally left behind by the growth in wealth for the millionaire and billionaire class. In the US especially, average incomes have actually decreased when adjusted for inflation while the billionaires see tremendous growth year after year. It's horrendous.

chimeracoder 11y ago
> What is there is only due to India and China starting to have something resembling a middle class (but even so their standard of living would be unacceptable from someone who grew up in the US.) I don't understand what you mean when you say it's "only" due to India and China starting to have a middle class. That is literally the definition of decreasing inequality globally: people who were previously below middle class have increased their standing. > (but even so their standard of living would be unacceptable from someone who grew up in the US.) As someone who actually has a very real sense of what middle-class standard-of-living in India actually is, I'd contest this claim. But even if we ignore that, the fact that a developed country's standard of living is still below the US's standard of living doesn't contradict the statement that the inequality has decreased, because the difference between the two is much smaller than it was 50 years ago.
- sdm 11y ago
  > I don't understand what you mean when you say it's "only" due to India and China starting to have a middle class. That is literally the definition of decreasing inequality globally: people who were previously below middle class have increased their standing. Two points: 1) Income inequality in these countries is very similar to that in the US. In the case of China, where I am, it is arguably worse than the US. So they are not producing a decrease in global income inequality -- rather they are helping accelerating inequality by dramatically increasing the inequality in the two largest nations. 2) The concept of middle class is completely orthogonal to the concept of income inequality. Whether the middle class is increasing or shrinking tells you nothing about if income inequality is increasing or shrinking. Being middle class simply means you are bought into the system, so not working class, but not wealthy enough to not work, so not upper class. You a house and your children are being well educated. You have a vested interest in maintaining the society but not the power to control it.[1] The middle class be grown and it can shrink. It has no connection to quantiles. It has no connection to the median or average income levels other than how they relate to the cost of living. You can have low income inequality with a tiny middle class (classic low development nation). You can have high income inequality with a large middle class (traditional example being the US). You can have high income inequality with a small middle class (typically middle income countries such as Chile). Of course you can have, what in my mind is the ideal, low income inequality with a large middle class (Sweden being a good example). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class
- ebbv 11y ago
  Because that's only two countries out of the whole world AND income inequality in those countries is still terrible despite the situation improving substantially.

efaref 11y ago

According to this UN report: http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_bg_papers/bp_wess2013_svieira1.pdf http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_bg_pa... global inequality has been increasing despite convergence of inter-national mean incomes. The rich have been getting richer faster than the poor have been catching up.

chimeracoder 11y ago
> global inequality has been increasing despite convergence of inter-national mean incomes. This is a misuse of terminology. Generally when people talk about "global inequality" they are speaking either of median (not mean) incomes or median standard of living, (which is most accurately tracked by median PPP-adjusted incomes). The latter is more common in political and non-academic circles, because standard-of-living is largely what people actually care about at the end of the day. I didn't say that inequality within individual countries hasn't been increasing - and in fact, one of the major criticisms of globalization is linked to the divergence of opportunities within developing countries. But it's undeniable that globalization has caused median standard-of-living to converge globally and median standard-of-living to increase in developing countries, and the convergence of mean incomes globally between countries provides rough evidence of this..
- tomp 11y ago
  Meadian doesn't make sense when talking about inequality. 3 people having $1, $2 and $3 have the same "median inequality" as 3 people having $1, $2 and $300000000000. You need either mean, range or quantiles.
  - chimeracoder 11y ago
    > Meadian doesn't make sense when talking about inequality. You need either mean, range or quantiles. Uh... what? The median is the 2-quantile.
    - tomp 11y ago