9 ms·

'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

52 points by aaronchall 9y ago

cmdrfred 9y ago
I'd take the calls to "fight inequality" more seriously if they didn't have such a nationalist tone. 71% of the world population lives on less than $10 a day, if inequality was ended on a global scale the majority of the people out there protesting would see a dramatic drop in income. I have a feeling that isn't what they are talking about.
- EthanHeilman 9y ago
  It depends which form of inequality you are taking about. For instance consider the argument that the criminal justice system does not provide equal justice based on race or income and that it should. If this inequality was fixed this does not imply a net reduction in justice. Instead decreases in this form of inequality would result in a net increase in justice. Based on your comment I assume you are addressing income inequality. >the majority of the people out there protesting would see a dramatic drop in income. I have a feeling that isn't what they are talking about. I do know activists that view fairness as such an important virtue that they would be overjoyed to take that bargain even if it hurt their bottom line. However, according to the BBC [0]: > the world's average salary is $1,480 (£928) a month, which is just less than $18,000 (£11,291) a year. 18,000/365 is roughly 50 dollars a day. According the the 2014 US Census [1] about 18-33% of US households make this or less (18% is single earner, 33% is two earner households). So for 18-33% of the US population nothing changes or things improve. However, no one has a magic income equality wand. Even if someone did have a magic income equality wand is not clear if the second order effects of global radical income redistribution would be positive and almost nothing would prevent the causes of income inequality from reasserting themselves. For this reason most attempts to fix such inequality focus on the root causes, e.g. differences in the quality of education, disease, malnutrition or structural power imbalances (such as unfairness in the justice system, structural racism/sexism, who gets business loans, rent-seeking, etc...). Almost all of these would likely raise the average level of income rather than just flatten it. [0]: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17512040 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17512040 [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Distribution_of_household_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...
  - cmdrfred 9y ago
    Global per capita GDP is roughly 10 thousand dollars per year. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD The median income in the US is 51 thousand dollars and even if you made minimum wage (15k yearly) you'd see a 50% drop in income in a completely equitable system.
    - EthanHeilman 9y ago
      >Global per capita GDP is roughly 10 thousand dollars per year. Global per capita GDP counts non-earners such as children and the sick. That can't directly be compared to median income because median income doesn't account for non-earners. >The median income in the US is 51 thousand dollars And that is the median household income. Which is not the same as per earner wage. For instance a household with two earners would have household income of 30,000 rather than 15,000. The BBC's analysis (linked to in my post) computes it for earners and therefore is comparable. This is also why it is higher (18,000 USD rather than 10,000 USD). I gave a range for 1-2 earners per household. >and even if you made minimum wage (15k yearly) you'd see a 50% drop in income in a completely equitable system Are you confusing median and mean here?
      - cmdrfred 9y ago
        >Global per capita GDP counts non-earners such as children and the sick. That can't directly be compared to median income because median income doesn't account for non-earners. Ahh, so this system would be rather Ayn Randian then? The elderly, sick and unemployed would be expected to starve? Or would you tax the already low wages these people have earned at a rate sufficient to give those groups a similar standard of living as those whom happen to be employed and not old or sick? If you did so with 100% efficiency you would have an after tax income at a number somewhere between yours and mine. That number would be very likely less than the federal minimum wage. And even so the government hasn't built a road or a school yet. >And that is the median household income. Which is not the same as per earner wage. For instance a household with two earners would have household income of 30,000 rather than 15,000. Children of single mothers would have it pretty rough then. Typically communist systems will give extra resources to parents of children in order to assist with the cost of raising them. I suppose this will not be the case in this brave new world? A bold choice as early childhood mortality will likely be very high as well as the numbers of parents abandoning children they can't afford. >Are you confusing median and mean here? Neither was mentioned in this context. The US federal minimum wage (FYI Walmart has a national minimum wage that exceeds that number by roughly 25% very few actually make this little) earned for 40 hours a week work, 52 weeks a year will give you a gross income of a little over 15 thousand dollars annually.
mrcactu5 9y ago
a lot of these protests such as "Occupy Wall Street" or "Black Lives Matter" have the right idea, but they are not sharp enough to be meaningful. Know your audience.
crystalmeph 9y ago
If you want people to fight inequality with you, you have to first prove to them it's actually a problem. It's a bit of a leap to convince somebody that just because Bill Gates is much richer than the typical person, somebody more deserving must have gone without for him to get so rich.
- zepto 9y ago
  Yeah - especially when the opposite is much more likely to be true.
- greggman 9y ago
  Random semi-related anecdote Japanese video game companies pay like 1/3rd or less what USA video game companies pay in salary. AFAIK similar things are true for other industries. Maybe not as bad as 1/3rd but that's not relevant to the point below. In Japanese school (17 years ago) my teacher brought up the topic that CEOs don't get paid as much in Japan so it's more equal. My response at the time was "why do I care that my USA CEO makes 100x my salary and my Japanese CEO only 10x, the 100x CEO is still managing to pay me 2x to 3x more than the 10x CEO." How true that is overall I have no idea. I can say that video game programmers in Japan with 15 years experience make less than interns at Google.
  - Frondo 9y ago
    What I don't get is how people can hear "the CEO makes 100x what I make" and not then think "there's a lot of money in this company, I should be paid a heck of a lot more". Cause you know it's not just the CEO that's taking a big chunk of change. Why be content with what you're given, even if it's a lot, when you could be demanding more, cause you know it's there?
    - greggman 9y ago
      Actually I thought the opposite. I thought, AFAIK this Japanese company is making similar income to USA companies, why can't they pay similar salaries. I've never found out the answer. It could be an answer like taxes are high or other costs are high. It could be the fact that you can't easily get rid of bad employees in Japan and that eats up costs. It could be that they don't pay for experience, they hire out of college with no experience, especially Japanese colleges which have a reputation for not teaching anything, that would mean maybe the company costs are years of training their inexperienced employees up to western graduate levels. I have no idea and I'd love to know. But, whatever it is I think I'd like them to fix it so they start paying similar salaries to their USA counterparts.
ikeyany 9y ago
Obama used a few phrases that not only sounded pleasing, but accurately addressed what's happening to Americans: "Everyone, including the rich, need to pay their share." "Americans from all backgrounds should have a fair shot at a quality education, not just those who happen to grow up in nice neighborhoods." He tapped into equality of opportunity, while acknowledging that some will be more successful than others. That should be the rallying cry, not the idea of ending inequality outright.
- Jabanga 9y ago
  I personally disagree that this should be the rallying cry. Why should someone who invests nothing in their own children get to see their children have equal opportunities to the children of another person who invests everything into their children? Why should a person who has 10 children get to see each one have the same amount of opportunity as each one of the children of someone who has 2 children, assuming equal total parental investment? The rallying cry should be equality before the law.
  - heartsucker 9y ago
    Because the children have no control over who their parents are, and we shouldn't punish with a lifetime of diminished opportunities because their parents aren't as "good" as others.
    - Jabanga 9y ago
      But we're not punishing them. We're simply not taking, by force, money from one person, to spend it raising the children of another. If we force people to subsidize other people's poor children, we create perverse incentives to have a maximum number of children with minimum personal investment in each. It cannot end well for society.
      - nailer 9y ago
        We force people to pay for roads, firefighters, police, healthcare and ensure all children have the same opportunity. Healthy adults can stand for themselves, children and the ill need protection.
eric_b 9y ago
Midway down the author mentions a study that showed most Americans object to "unfairness" rather than "inequality". I've found this to be the case for me personally. If someone tries hard, works diligently, and makes smart decisions, but are still living in poverty, I want to help them. No hardworking, disciplined, motivated person should live in poverty, or have trouble making ends meet, in my opinion. Unfortunately the lower income people I know do not fall in to this camp. I have a fair number of friends and relatives who make very little money and struggle to keep their heads above water. They make routinely bad decisions or fail to do the barest minimum to be proactive about things. They have watched every show on netflix, or played every video game possible (at $60/pop). They spend money on frivolous things and fail to plan in any way for the future. Their impulse control leaves much to be desired. But the weird thing is - they mostly realize this. They don't get too fired up about inequality. Whether it's consciously or subconsciously, they seem to realize they are not really giving it their all, and that other people work harder and are more disciplined. They appear to prefer their current situation to the stresses of "succeeding" at life. Granted, this is all anecdotal, so take with healthy dose of salt.
- JBReefer 9y ago
  Remember the speaker when it comes to inequality - sometimes, it looks to me more about upper middle class/the professional class assuaging internal guilt than a movement from the lower class. I agree honest, a bunch of my friends from home don't do shit, don't want to do shit, and are perfectly happy with life. Honestly, probably happier than my wealthy friends. Low cost of living takes a lot of stress off your back. The above only applies to people in that exact situation - there are of course huge structural problems with poverty in America w/r/t/ race, immigration status, etc. that are 100% not semi-idyllic image I'm describing.
- Rapzid 9y ago
  I don't find that very weird. But then, as a currently successful person, I believe way less in the concept of "free will" than most.
- gph 9y ago
  I think there's a bit of a squeeze area where people who work hard at jobs that pay between 30k and 50k (or even higher depending on the area) can find themselves basically paycheck to paycheck. And it's not all down to making bad decisions. On top of that it's hard to hold every to a standard of making perfect decisions all the time. For example I know a couple people who bought houses right before the bubble burst in '08. Sure you can say that was a bad decision, but it's awfully heartless to expect everyone to be supremely wise to the real estate market. There's people who probably don't have the ability to land a higher paying job yet still work hard at absolutely necessary jobs they have. And I think they deserve to have the comfort and safety, though perhaps not quite the luxury, as those who rise above them.
chrismealy 9y ago
The author has been on the payroll of the Koch brothers for most of his career.
- tnorthcutt 9y ago
  Source?
  - TSiege 9y ago
    I was skeptical as well, but it's true. Cowen is the director of the Mercatus Center, which is heavily funded by the brothers. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercatus_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercatus_Center And here's an article on that connection https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/06/gary-north/the-koch-brothers-favorite-economist/ https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/06/gary-north/the-koch-brot...
- lacker 9y ago
  Not really. The author has been a professor at George Mason for most of his career, and it's quite a stretch to refer to the whole faculty of George Mason as "on the payroll of the Koch brothers".
jeffdavis 9y ago
"Inequality" is a bad rallying cry because no two people are equal, and few would like to be equal to someone else. So what people mean by "inequality" is always something else, and varies in meaning from person to person. Even if you choose something concrete, like "equality of income", few really mean that an 18 year old should have the same income as a 45 year old. Ordinarily a meaningless word is great for a rallying cry, but things like "equal" and "fair" are just too meaningless.
- djrogers 9y ago
  > few really mean that an 18 year old should have the same income as a 45 year old. Pretty sure a lot of the 22 year olds I saw at occupy rallies thought exactly that. I am a bad person for working for 20 years to get where I am without giving most of my money to people that haven't.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- parenthephobia 9y ago
  > few really mean that an 18 year old should have the same income as a 45 year old Surely people don't believe that an 18 year-old shouldn't have the same income as a 45 year-old? A 45 year-old shouldn't have higher income just because they're older. In the UK, at least, we have laws about that sort of thing.
Avshalom 9y ago
This is why 'Eat The Rich' is my rallying cry.
- lolsal 9y ago
  What does 'eat the rich' mean?
dahart 9y ago
I can agree with a lot of this opinion piece; fairness is more important than equality, and it's hard to rally around anything that's abstract. Yes. People rally around things that affect them directly and have an obvious course of action. Despite the inequality in the US, the majority of Americans have a comfortable standard of living. And I've frequently heard the idea that poor people vote republican because they expect to be rich some day. But anyway the closer seems really weird to me. > I also find it striking how frequently anti-inequality messages come from academia, which in reality has a remarkably inegalitarian system of allocating rewards. For instance, consider the differences in pay, security and working conditions for tenured professors versus adjuncts; citation inequality is very high too. This seems to be suggesting that we should discount academics because they're hypocrites because their house has inequality too. Very specious. Why is it surprising that the only people asking whether we have equality and taking the time to find out are the ones reporting that we don't? There are many things wrong in academia and with tenure, but why exactly is it unfair for adjuncts to have less pay & security? Tenure is harder to get, and adjuncts are non tenure track. Citation inequality? What does this have to do with global economic inequality? I'm sure there is citation inequality but the paper cited doesn't really demonstrate it. It catalogues where citations are concentrated, which doesn't prove inequality. To show inequality you'd have to compare submissions and rejection rates, not acceptance rates alone.
cryoshon 9y ago
yeah, "fight inequality" is ineffective at rallying the benefactors of inequality-- boomers and the rich. big surprise. bernie sanders is the most popular politician in america. is it because his fundamental message of needing to reduce inequality is falling flat? no. garbage article, ignores objective realities in favor of babbling in circles...
charles-salvia 9y ago
After running a mental Principal Components Analysis over the whole liberal/conservative ideological spectrum, I'm increasingly inclined to reduce the entire divide between conservatives and liberals to whether any given individual is more irritated by the prospect of (A) poor people being lazy and abusing handouts or (B) rich people abusing poor people.
Zak 9y ago
I think most people aren't terribly concerned about income/wealth inequality. The logical inverse would be that everyone should get the same share of resources regardless of their contribution to society or wealth created. I think even most on the political left would reject that idea. Rather than inequality, I think people are more concerned about some combination of: * Poverty - that some people don't have enough resources to meet their basic needs * Lack of opportunity - that for too many people, working hard and making reasonable decisions is unlikely to result in a proportional gain in wealth * Corruption - that wealth results in undue influence over the political process and control over the lives of others * Unjust rewards - that some activities which arguably, or definitely cause a net harm to society or a reduction in total wealth are rewarded, and that some beneficial activities are not rewarded, or rewarded insufficiently
- drabiega 9y ago
  > The logical inverse would be that everyone should get the same share of resources regardless of their contribution to society or wealth created. I think even most on the political left would reject that idea. Yeah, pretty much everyone of the left would reject that extreme. The progressive viewpoint here is simply that the economic system is tilted too far in favor of money accumulating upwards and needs to be pushed back somewhat. Other than that, there is a lot of variety in how far and what the method of doing so should look like.
  - Zak 9y ago
    The author of the article makes a passing reference to "radical egalitarianism", which Wikipedia doesn't say much about, but associates with equality of outcome and communism. It's possible that something along those lines is, in fact the author's position. I'd be interested in seeing if there are a significant number of people who are fundamentally concerned with wealth inequality per se rather than poverty, lack of opportunity, corruption and unjust rewards.
Brendinooo 9y ago
It's funny what you remember from the grade school days. In hindsight, one of the most influential stories I had to read was "Harrison Bergeron"[0], which I always come back to whenever I see people talk about equality. Danilov's last lines in "Enemy at the Gates"[1] have stuck with me as well. "Equality" is a bit of a fraught term - it can mean lots of things in lots of different contexts. But "Harrison Bergeron" depicted an equal society, and it wasn't pretty. Perhaps fights against inequality that cut down tall poppies are just inherently more difficult to sell. Debates about racial inequality have arguably made better headway over time in US politics because they tend to focus on elevating an oppressed group; granting them rights they lacked to make them equals with those who already had those rights. With income inequality, however, the solutions are often perceived (rightly or wrongly) as bringing people down; beating up on those who have had success. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron [1]: "Man will always be a man. There is no new man. We tried so hard to create a society that was equal, where there'd be nothing to envy your neighbour. But there's always something to envy. A smile, a friendship, something you don't have and want to appropriate. In this world, even a Soviet one, there will always be rich and poor. Rich in gifts, poor in gifts. Rich in love, poor in love."

52 points by aaronchall 9y ago

I'd take the calls to "fight inequality" more seriously if they didn't have such a nationalist tone. 71% of the world population lives on less than $10 a day, if inequality was ended on a global scale the majority of the people out there protesting would see a dramatic drop in income. I have a feeling that isn't what they are talking about.

EthanHeilman 9y ago
It depends which form of inequality you are taking about. For instance consider the argument that the criminal justice system does not provide equal justice based on race or income and that it should. If this inequality was fixed this does not imply a net reduction in justice. Instead decreases in this form of inequality would result in a net increase in justice. Based on your comment I assume you are addressing income inequality. >the majority of the people out there protesting would see a dramatic drop in income. I have a feeling that isn't what they are talking about. I do know activists that view fairness as such an important virtue that they would be overjoyed to take that bargain even if it hurt their bottom line. However, according to the BBC [0]: > the world's average salary is $1,480 (£928) a month, which is just less than $18,000 (£11,291) a year. 18,000/365 is roughly 50 dollars a day. According the the 2014 US Census [1] about 18-33% of US households make this or less (18% is single earner, 33% is two earner households). So for 18-33% of the US population nothing changes or things improve. However, no one has a magic income equality wand. Even if someone did have a magic income equality wand is not clear if the second order effects of global radical income redistribution would be positive and almost nothing would prevent the causes of income inequality from reasserting themselves. For this reason most attempts to fix such inequality focus on the root causes, e.g. differences in the quality of education, disease, malnutrition or structural power imbalances (such as unfairness in the justice system, structural racism/sexism, who gets business loans, rent-seeking, etc...). Almost all of these would likely raise the average level of income rather than just flatten it. [0]: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17512040 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17512040 [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Distribution_of_household_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...
- cmdrfred 9y ago
  Global per capita GDP is roughly 10 thousand dollars per year. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD The median income in the US is 51 thousand dollars and even if you made minimum wage (15k yearly) you'd see a 50% drop in income in a completely equitable system.
  - EthanHeilman 9y ago
    >Global per capita GDP is roughly 10 thousand dollars per year. Global per capita GDP counts non-earners such as children and the sick. That can't directly be compared to median income because median income doesn't account for non-earners. >The median income in the US is 51 thousand dollars And that is the median household income. Which is not the same as per earner wage. For instance a household with two earners would have household income of 30,000 rather than 15,000. The BBC's analysis (linked to in my post) computes it for earners and therefore is comparable. This is also why it is higher (18,000 USD rather than 10,000 USD). I gave a range for 1-2 earners per household. >and even if you made minimum wage (15k yearly) you'd see a 50% drop in income in a completely equitable system Are you confusing median and mean here?
    - cmdrfred 9y ago
      >Global per capita GDP counts non-earners such as children and the sick. That can't directly be compared to median income because median income doesn't account for non-earners. Ahh, so this system would be rather Ayn Randian then? The elderly, sick and unemployed would be expected to starve? Or would you tax the already low wages these people have earned at a rate sufficient to give those groups a similar standard of living as those whom happen to be employed and not old or sick? If you did so with 100% efficiency you would have an after tax income at a number somewhere between yours and mine. That number would be very likely less than the federal minimum wage. And even so the government hasn't built a road or a school yet. >And that is the median household income. Which is not the same as per earner wage. For instance a household with two earners would have household income of 30,000 rather than 15,000. Children of single mothers would have it pretty rough then. Typically communist systems will give extra resources to parents of children in order to assist with the cost of raising them. I suppose this will not be the case in this brave new world? A bold choice as early childhood mortality will likely be very high as well as the numbers of parents abandoning children they can't afford. >Are you confusing median and mean here? Neither was mentioned in this context. The US federal minimum wage (FYI Walmart has a national minimum wage that exceeds that number by roughly 25% very few actually make this little) earned for 40 hours a week work, 52 weeks a year will give you a gross income of a little over 15 thousand dollars annually.

mrcactu5 9y ago

a lot of these protests such as "Occupy Wall Street" or "Black Lives Matter" have the right idea, but they are not sharp enough to be meaningful. Know your audience.

crystalmeph 9y ago

If you want people to fight inequality with you, you have to first prove to them it's actually a problem. It's a bit of a leap to convince somebody that just because Bill Gates is much richer than the typical person, somebody more deserving must have gone without for him to get so rich.

zepto 9y ago
Yeah - especially when the opposite is much more likely to be true.
greggman 9y ago
Random semi-related anecdote Japanese video game companies pay like 1/3rd or less what USA video game companies pay in salary. AFAIK similar things are true for other industries. Maybe not as bad as 1/3rd but that's not relevant to the point below. In Japanese school (17 years ago) my teacher brought up the topic that CEOs don't get paid as much in Japan so it's more equal. My response at the time was "why do I care that my USA CEO makes 100x my salary and my Japanese CEO only 10x, the 100x CEO is still managing to pay me 2x to 3x more than the 10x CEO." How true that is overall I have no idea. I can say that video game programmers in Japan with 15 years experience make less than interns at Google.
- Frondo 9y ago
  What I don't get is how people can hear "the CEO makes 100x what I make" and not then think "there's a lot of money in this company, I should be paid a heck of a lot more". Cause you know it's not just the CEO that's taking a big chunk of change. Why be content with what you're given, even if it's a lot, when you could be demanding more, cause you know it's there?
  - greggman 9y ago
    Actually I thought the opposite. I thought, AFAIK this Japanese company is making similar income to USA companies, why can't they pay similar salaries. I've never found out the answer. It could be an answer like taxes are high or other costs are high. It could be the fact that you can't easily get rid of bad employees in Japan and that eats up costs. It could be that they don't pay for experience, they hire out of college with no experience, especially Japanese colleges which have a reputation for not teaching anything, that would mean maybe the company costs are years of training their inexperienced employees up to western graduate levels. I have no idea and I'd love to know. But, whatever it is I think I'd like them to fix it so they start paying similar salaries to their USA counterparts.

ikeyany 9y ago

Obama used a few phrases that not only sounded pleasing, but accurately addressed what's happening to Americans: "Everyone, including the rich, need to pay their share." "Americans from all backgrounds should have a fair shot at a quality education, not just those who happen to grow up in nice neighborhoods." He tapped into equality of opportunity, while acknowledging that some will be more successful than others. That should be the rallying cry, not the idea of ending inequality outright.

Jabanga 9y ago
I personally disagree that this should be the rallying cry. Why should someone who invests nothing in their own children get to see their children have equal opportunities to the children of another person who invests everything into their children? Why should a person who has 10 children get to see each one have the same amount of opportunity as each one of the children of someone who has 2 children, assuming equal total parental investment? The rallying cry should be equality before the law.
- heartsucker 9y ago
  Because the children have no control over who their parents are, and we shouldn't punish with a lifetime of diminished opportunities because their parents aren't as "good" as others.
  - Jabanga 9y ago
    But we're not punishing them. We're simply not taking, by force, money from one person, to spend it raising the children of another. If we force people to subsidize other people's poor children, we create perverse incentives to have a maximum number of children with minimum personal investment in each. It cannot end well for society.
    - nailer 9y ago
      We force people to pay for roads, firefighters, police, healthcare and ensure all children have the same opportunity. Healthy adults can stand for themselves, children and the ill need protection.

eric_b 9y ago

Midway down the author mentions a study that showed most Americans object to "unfairness" rather than "inequality". I've found this to be the case for me personally. If someone tries hard, works diligently, and makes smart decisions, but are still living in poverty, I want to help them. No hardworking, disciplined, motivated person should live in poverty, or have trouble making ends meet, in my opinion. Unfortunately the lower income people I know do not fall in to this camp. I have a fair number of friends and relatives who make very little money and struggle to keep their heads above water. They make routinely bad decisions or fail to do the barest minimum to be proactive about things. They have watched every show on netflix, or played every video game possible (at $60/pop). They spend money on frivolous things and fail to plan in any way for the future. Their impulse control leaves much to be desired. But the weird thing is - they mostly realize this. They don't get too fired up about inequality. Whether it's consciously or subconsciously, they seem to realize they are not really giving it their all, and that other people work harder and are more disciplined. They appear to prefer their current situation to the stresses of "succeeding" at life. Granted, this is all anecdotal, so take with healthy dose of salt.

JBReefer 9y ago
Remember the speaker when it comes to inequality - sometimes, it looks to me more about upper middle class/the professional class assuaging internal guilt than a movement from the lower class. I agree honest, a bunch of my friends from home don't do shit, don't want to do shit, and are perfectly happy with life. Honestly, probably happier than my wealthy friends. Low cost of living takes a lot of stress off your back. The above only applies to people in that exact situation - there are of course huge structural problems with poverty in America w/r/t/ race, immigration status, etc. that are 100% not semi-idyllic image I'm describing.
Rapzid 9y ago
I don't find that very weird. But then, as a currently successful person, I believe way less in the concept of "free will" than most.
gph 9y ago
I think there's a bit of a squeeze area where people who work hard at jobs that pay between 30k and 50k (or even higher depending on the area) can find themselves basically paycheck to paycheck. And it's not all down to making bad decisions. On top of that it's hard to hold every to a standard of making perfect decisions all the time. For example I know a couple people who bought houses right before the bubble burst in '08. Sure you can say that was a bad decision, but it's awfully heartless to expect everyone to be supremely wise to the real estate market. There's people who probably don't have the ability to land a higher paying job yet still work hard at absolutely necessary jobs they have. And I think they deserve to have the comfort and safety, though perhaps not quite the luxury, as those who rise above them.

chrismealy 9y ago

The author has been on the payroll of the Koch brothers for most of his career.

tnorthcutt 9y ago
Source?
- TSiege 9y ago
  I was skeptical as well, but it's true. Cowen is the director of the Mercatus Center, which is heavily funded by the brothers. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercatus_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercatus_Center And here's an article on that connection https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/06/gary-north/the-koch-brothers-favorite-economist/ https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/06/gary-north/the-koch-brot...
lacker 9y ago
Not really. The author has been a professor at George Mason for most of his career, and it's quite a stretch to refer to the whole faculty of George Mason as "on the payroll of the Koch brothers".

jeffdavis 9y ago

"Inequality" is a bad rallying cry because no two people are equal, and few would like to be equal to someone else. So what people mean by "inequality" is always something else, and varies in meaning from person to person. Even if you choose something concrete, like "equality of income", few really mean that an 18 year old should have the same income as a 45 year old. Ordinarily a meaningless word is great for a rallying cry, but things like "equal" and "fair" are just too meaningless.

djrogers 9y ago
> few really mean that an 18 year old should have the same income as a 45 year old. Pretty sure a lot of the 22 year olds I saw at occupy rallies thought exactly that. I am a bad person for working for 20 years to get where I am without giving most of my money to people that haven't.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
parenthephobia 9y ago
> few really mean that an 18 year old should have the same income as a 45 year old Surely people don't believe that an 18 year-old shouldn't have the same income as a 45 year-old? A 45 year-old shouldn't have higher income just because they're older. In the UK, at least, we have laws about that sort of thing.

Avshalom 9y ago

This is why 'Eat The Rich' is my rallying cry.

lolsal 9y ago
What does 'eat the rich' mean?

dahart 9y ago

I can agree with a lot of this opinion piece; fairness is more important than equality, and it's hard to rally around anything that's abstract. Yes. People rally around things that affect them directly and have an obvious course of action. Despite the inequality in the US, the majority of Americans have a comfortable standard of living. And I've frequently heard the idea that poor people vote republican because they expect to be rich some day. But anyway the closer seems really weird to me. > I also find it striking how frequently anti-inequality messages come from academia, which in reality has a remarkably inegalitarian system of allocating rewards. For instance, consider the differences in pay, security and working conditions for tenured professors versus adjuncts; citation inequality is very high too. This seems to be suggesting that we should discount academics because they're hypocrites because their house has inequality too. Very specious. Why is it surprising that the only people asking whether we have equality and taking the time to find out are the ones reporting that we don't? There are many things wrong in academia and with tenure, but why exactly is it unfair for adjuncts to have less pay & security? Tenure is harder to get, and adjuncts are non tenure track. Citation inequality? What does this have to do with global economic inequality? I'm sure there is citation inequality but the paper cited doesn't really demonstrate it. It catalogues where citations are concentrated, which doesn't prove inequality. To show inequality you'd have to compare submissions and rejection rates, not acceptance rates alone.

cryoshon 9y ago

yeah, "fight inequality" is ineffective at rallying the benefactors of inequality-- boomers and the rich. big surprise. bernie sanders is the most popular politician in america. is it because his fundamental message of needing to reduce inequality is falling flat? no. garbage article, ignores objective realities in favor of babbling in circles...

charles-salvia 9y ago

After running a mental Principal Components Analysis over the whole liberal/conservative ideological spectrum, I'm increasingly inclined to reduce the entire divide between conservatives and liberals to whether any given individual is more irritated by the prospect of (A) poor people being lazy and abusing handouts or (B) rich people abusing poor people.

Zak 9y ago

I think most people aren't terribly concerned about income/wealth inequality. The logical inverse would be that everyone should get the same share of resources regardless of their contribution to society or wealth created. I think even most on the political left would reject that idea. Rather than inequality, I think people are more concerned about some combination of: * Poverty - that some people don't have enough resources to meet their basic needs * Lack of opportunity - that for too many people, working hard and making reasonable decisions is unlikely to result in a proportional gain in wealth * Corruption - that wealth results in undue influence over the political process and control over the lives of others * Unjust rewards - that some activities which arguably, or definitely cause a net harm to society or a reduction in total wealth are rewarded, and that some beneficial activities are not rewarded, or rewarded insufficiently

drabiega 9y ago
> The logical inverse would be that everyone should get the same share of resources regardless of their contribution to society or wealth created. I think even most on the political left would reject that idea. Yeah, pretty much everyone of the left would reject that extreme. The progressive viewpoint here is simply that the economic system is tilted too far in favor of money accumulating upwards and needs to be pushed back somewhat. Other than that, there is a lot of variety in how far and what the method of doing so should look like.
- Zak 9y ago
  The author of the article makes a passing reference to "radical egalitarianism", which Wikipedia doesn't say much about, but associates with equality of outcome and communism. It's possible that something along those lines is, in fact the author's position. I'd be interested in seeing if there are a significant number of people who are fundamentally concerned with wealth inequality per se rather than poverty, lack of opportunity, corruption and unjust rewards.

Brendinooo 9y ago

It's funny what you remember from the grade school days. In hindsight, one of the most influential stories I had to read was "Harrison Bergeron"[0], which I always come back to whenever I see people talk about equality. Danilov's last lines in "Enemy at the Gates"[1] have stuck with me as well. "Equality" is a bit of a fraught term - it can mean lots of things in lots of different contexts. But "Harrison Bergeron" depicted an equal society, and it wasn't pretty. Perhaps fights against inequality that cut down tall poppies are just inherently more difficult to sell. Debates about racial inequality have arguably made better headway over time in US politics because they tend to focus on elevating an oppressed group; granting them rights they lacked to make them equals with those who already had those rights. With income inequality, however, the solutions are often perceived (rightly or wrongly) as bringing people down; beating up on those who have had success. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron [1]: "Man will always be a man. There is no new man. We tried so hard to create a society that was equal, where there'd be nothing to envy your neighbour. But there's always something to envy. A smile, a friendship, something you don't have and want to appropriate. In this world, even a Soviet one, there will always be rich and poor. Rich in gifts, poor in gifts. Rich in love, poor in love."