3 ms·

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, i

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.

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.