4 ms·
> What strikes me the most when looking at many of the comments here is the blatant disregard for human suffering that extreme inequality and the resulting pove
by Sniffnoy 9y ago
> What strikes me the most when looking at many of the comments here is the blatant disregard for human suffering that extreme inequality and the resulting poverty cause.
Apologies to pick on you without addressing your main point, but this sentence is an example of an error I see a lot yet I rarely see addressed.
Specifically, you're claiming a chain of causation where by inequality causes poverty. But in fact the relation between these two isn't causal at all, but rather logical.
(Well, not actually. Inequality is independent of poverty -- you could have no poverty but lots of inequality, or no inequality but lots of poverty. The assumption that inequality and poverty are so closely linked seems to me to be be basically assuming that we live in a zero-sum world. But let's just continue with that assumption right now, because that's not the point I want to address.)
Point is, why put the arrow of causation that way? Why not the other way around? Of course either way you put it's still not actually a causal relation -- but I think putting it the other way around is a much more useful way of thinking (mathematicians still think in terms of things causing things, because it's a useful way of thinking, even though mathematics doesn't actually have causation). I think there's something wrong with the assumption that inequality is somehow primary, and poverty just an effect.
You see this a lot in other contexts too -- people claiming "A causes B" when in fact the correct relation is "B is an example of A". (OK, that's not exactly the same error as here, but it's closely related -- mistaking a logical relation for a causal one, and putting the arrow of "virtual causation" in the wrong direction. As if someone said "all-cause mortality causes accidental deaths"; how silly would that be?) Watch out for this!
- esarbe 9y agoThanks for you thoughtful reply. >Apologies to pick on you without addressing your main point, but this sentence is an example of an error I see a lot yet I rarely see addressed. You're not picking on me - you're picking on something I wrote. This is perfectly fine! Would you think it more appropriate to talk of poverty and inequality being elements in a feedback loop?
- barrkel 9y agoIf poverty is a relative measure - and as a child who grew up poor, I can assure you that the lived perception of poverty is relative, not absolute - then large inequality implies substantial poverty, for usual income distributions. This is relating to your parenthetical, not your quibble with causation, of course. But inequality of income is different to inequality of wealth, and there can be a causal link there.
- stale2002 9y agoThe point is that solving "inequality" is easy. Just find all the houses of rich people and burn them all down. That doesn't mean that this would make the world a better place. The world should absolutely try and help the poor and solve their problems, but this has nothing at all to do with inequality".
- chii 9y agoNo, removing wealth to create equality is definitely not what anyone would propose as a solution. But equality of opportunity seems a good idea.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- sokoloff 9y agoI think we experience it as a relative measure, because for most of us, it generally is. However, take Monaco. There appears to be significant wealth and income disparity among residents of Monaco and yet nothing that we would reasonably identify as poverty.
- mikeash 9y agoMonaco is such a tiny country that I imagine its residents' perception of poverty is relative to a big chunk of France.
- closeparen 9y agoI highly recommend this talk [0] by Kevin Murphy. Rising inequality can be explained by the rising wage premium for higher-skilled workers. In the 60s, a college graduate made only 40% more than a high school graduate; this number climbed and is now more than 80%. The demand for, and productivity of, high-skilled workers is increasing rapidly, while the supply is not increasing very much. The masses have responded to these price signals by going to college more, but aren't actually coming out the other side with higher skills, or even diplomas, probably due to deficits in K12. Notably, this is not a story about the top and bottom 1%. The premium has widened enormously across the board, i.e. between the 25th and 75th percentiles. [0] https://www.youtube.com/embed/KevV_A6N-6o https://www.youtube.com/embed/KevV_A6N-6o