6 ms·

Why is wealth equality a good thing? I am a poor college student that got a scholarship that paid for most of my college education. My family is too poor to pa

• _delirium 16y ago
  The article's primarily about people being very wrong about the figures, though, not primarily about whether the figures themselves are good or bad. Someone with accurate information could still think that the current distribution of wealth is perfectly fine, but we should at least have the facts right!
  • mseebach 16y ago
    Well, it tries to hide that pretty good: > Why aren't the bottom 99 percent marching in the streets? > One possible answer is sheer ignorance. And then goes on to demonstrate said ignorance.
• maxawaytoolong 16y ago
  When wealth inequity is huge, it causes social instability and eventually, revolution. It's generally not poor people who revolt, it's the middle class. Especially if there has been an event which created a newly disenfranchised middle class. If the middle class is doing ok, there's little to worry about. If they feel they are getting shafted... that's when potential trouble starts brewing. Actual levels of wealth and disenfranchisement have little to do with social stability as it relates to wealth. It's all relative perception.
  • jacoblyles 16y ago
    Are you sure? What if the middle class is doing okay AND there is large wealth inequity? The United States doesn't exactly resemble historically tumultuous places where there is widespread abject poverty and a few wealthy nobles. I can't think of any society where most people had A/C, cable TV, two cars, and a college education that revolted because some people had a bigger house, a bigger TV, a more expensive set of cars, and a slightly better education. Interestingly, to the extent that there is social unrest in the United States today, it is a revolt against the would-be equalizers and the centralization of power.
    • maxawaytoolong 16y ago
      I don't know. I'm not making any predictions, that's just an observation of past revolutions. The USA seems to be in a unique position right now, so who knows what will happen?
  • yummyfajitas 16y ago
    Wealth inequality is not the only thing that can lead to social instability. Angry mobs have formed and engaged in violence over many issues - interracial sexual relationships in the US (historically) and conversion from Islam in Afghanistan are two such examples. If one advocates against wealth inequality on the grounds that angry mobs might engage in violence if inequality were too large, shouldn't one also advocate against X whenever there is a significant risk of violence by mobs? If policy should cater to angry mobs threatening violence on issues of wealth inequality, should policy cater to angry mobs on issues of racial hatred or religious conflict as well?
    • jtbigwoo 16y ago
      I would argue that economic instability was a strong contributor to the racial and religious violence you describe. It's easier to tune out intolerance when you're secure in your station.
      • yummyfajitas 16y ago
        Southern white men were not secure in their station during the 50's and earlier? Regardless, you are ducking the meta question. Is "a mob might become violent if we don't do X" a good argument for doing X? I.e., if angry racist mobs start rioting over a black president, should we impeach Obama? Should we engage in appeasement, paying each racist $500 to go home (perhaps levying a tax on blacks to pay for it)? Similarly, should we ban criticism of Christianity if Christians form lynch mobs of their own? Which angry violent mobs should we surrender to?
  • byrneseyeview 16y ago
    When wealth inequity is huge, it causes social instability and eventually, revolution. Interesting. That sounds like it's a problem with poor people being angry and violent, not with income inequality per se. It seems like spending money on the military and law enforcement would be a better investment than reducing income inequality under your scenario. And it makes sense, too--if people threaten violence, and you can afford to beat them, why pay tribute instead? It's not barbaric, but it does mean letting barbarians rule your society.
    • maxawaytoolong 16y ago
      You misread my post. The poor are easily dealt with. Problems occur when the middle class starts to view themselves as the victim of economic inequality. This is why perception can matter as much as economic reality.
• lutorm 16y ago
  People who are poor might think it more just that the extremely rich share some of that wealth so that everyone can have decent housing, food and school for their kids. Even if you don't have an issue with rich people being rich, on a personal level, you may have an issue with the system allocating wealth in such an unequal matter.
• eru 16y ago
  Valid question. And indeed, if wealth inequality did not have any consequences, we might not worry too much about it. Unfortunately, in the real world it's correlated with a lot of unpleased effects. See the other replies to your comment or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality#Effects_of_inequality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality#Effects_of_... for some details.
• einarvollset 16y ago
  I don't mind either, as long as the wealthy 20% don't use their (obvious) political influence to further their own ends. This can obviously happen without them being aware that they're doing that. A good example is the Chicago law prof who laments being too poor for the temporary Bush tax breaks to expire. What he's not saying explicitly is; "I don't want to pay for healthcare for poor people". Probably as he's already got a pretty nice health plan already. Now you can bet that a Law Professor has more clout than your average construction worker, so his ignorance at his own wealth is more damaging.
  • Vivtek 16y ago
    The wealthy 20% always use their influence to further their own ends. That's why income inequality is viewed as a problem in the first place. The percentage of wealthy philanthropists is never enough to make up for the lack of a prosperous middle class.
    • einarvollset 16y ago
      I'm in utter and total agreement. Guess I wasn't clear.
• deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
• ubernostrum 16y ago
  Wealth inequality (at a big enough level) is the difference between a land of opportunity and a land where the rich get richer and everybody else gets stepped on.
  • mseebach 16y ago
    In theory, yes. In practice, no. It's easier to get rich in relative terms in a country with low inequality, but it's harder to get rich in absolute terms. Rich people in Scandinavia barely pass for upper middle class in the US.
    • deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    • ubernostrum 16y ago
      Does "rich" really have a useful absolute meaning? I'd argue it doesn't.
  • Perceval 16y ago
    There seems to be a contradiction in your thinking. If 'opportunity' is seen as making something of yourself, being successful, getting richer, that seems to necessitate inequality of outcomes. If the range of socially acceptable outcomes are compressed be redistributive policy, doesn't it also follow that the opportunities open the individuals will be concomitantly restricted?
    • ubernostrum 16y ago
      You conflate two things. I'm saying that vast inequality in the distribution of wealth is a bad thing; historically, such inequality tends to lead first to oligarchy and then to entrenched aristocracy. You are interpreting this as an argument for absolute equality of wealth for all people, an argument I've not made and would not make. Some inequality of wealth distribution is a good thing; concentration of extreme percentages of total wealth into a tiny fraction of the populace is a bad thing. A good explanation of the difference this makes shows up in chapter 3 of de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America", where he discusses the impact of different inheritance laws on American and European society. The traditional European system of primogeniture created and favored hereditary aristocracy; the American system of division among multiple heirs made this impossible, and created more opportunities for social mobility since wealth could not be hoarded across generations, but instead was gradually distributed through the effects of the inheritance laws.