10 ms·

Even as the gap between the rich and everyone else widens, the quality of life for the bottom 99 percent has vastly changed since 1928. This makes me wonder ho

Even as the gap between the rich and everyone else widens, the quality of life for the bottom 99 percent has vastly changed since 1928. This makes me wonder how much people care. In a global economy where the 1% are investing in markets that can reach billions of people, extreme poverty on a global scale was sliced in half in a 30 year period, and supply chains allow us to have super computers and unlimited entertainment for tiny fractions of the median wage, you can expect a lot of inequality, but life is way better for everyone in the world since 1928. Inequality is only a problem in so much that it leads to higher crime rates and (eventually) civil instability in places where its most apparent. We haven't seen much of that (yet), but don't stop looking for it.

schmichael 8y ago
> Inequality is only a problem in so much that it leads to higher crime rates and (eventually) civil instability in places where its most apparent. This is astoundingly incorrect. Ask the people of Flint, MI. Income inequality directly impacts the length and quality of a person's life. A quick glance at Wikipedia is all it takes to discover this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality
- nroach 8y ago
  Or, stated similarly: “Inequality is only a problem for the wealthy in so much that it leads to higher crime rates and (eventually) civil instability in places where its most inconvenient for the wealthy.
travistravel 8y ago
So many people I know personally, especially older ones, are very sad about the destruction of the environment, the extinction of animals, and they feel helpless, as if humanity was doomed. How rich do they have to be for this malaise to not count as a serious injury? How poor or starving would someone in... not 1928 because that's more a convenient than interesting year to compare with... maybe 1728, have to be, for them having a world to not count? By having a world I mean, we used to think of the world as a lasting thing, and human lifes as short. Now it's the oppposite, the world evaporated, and that's not just because we're less ignorant, but also because of the whole ideology of consumption, of instead of wealth being something you possess, it being the speed at which you gain and destroy newer and shinier things, the fatness of the pipe. This is and other losses simply do not exist for capitalism because they cannot be quantified. It's the wiping out of the "sapiens" part in one fell swoop, on the whole globe, forever, leaving a lot of "bodies" and "eyeballs". As for "unlimited entertainment", that's both a blessing and a curse when it swamps out the precious insights that thinkers previously had, and that were previously cherished. > Inequality is only a problem in so much that it leads to higher crime rates When strong countries wage wars of aggression, or a rich person runs someone over while drunk, rapes someone, what have you, and buys as much of the justice system that should apply the same laws to everyone (not make everyone the same, just apply rules equally), brazenly ripping the blindfold of Justititia, that is not a problem, only if it becomes "too apparent"? I doubt you mean that, you probably just didn't think of it that way. I agree that inequality in itself is not a problem. That is, that someone else is more beautiful or rich than me, or whatever, as long as they play fair in some basic sense, it is not a problem. As long as there is some recognition that everybody "could have been born as" everybody, some default solidarity and good will. You know, the kind we all had as kids, even if some don't have it anymore. Kids are selfish and cruel, but from my memories and experience they also have a great innate sense of justice, that gets subverted with rationalizations and pressure later on. My theory is that people either loose it early in youth or young adulthood, or become good at protecting it. And that's not only unfair, as I said above when it reaches too absurd proportions it undergoes a phase change and affects the thinking. The things we enjoy aren't just based on private enterprise since year X, but also more generally on the constant curiosity and ingeniuity of people everywhere, at all times, in all sorts of situations. The unchecked regression of thought into rationalizations and doublethink, the normalization of everyone by fitting them to the numbers and metrics and group relations, in one vast giant "social" "space", will pull out the rug under that, human will die before humanity. Just like when the pilot of a plane gets a heart attack, it takes a few seconds, or even minutes, before the plane actually crashes. Last, but not least: if ever increasing inequality isn't a problem, then by the same token there wouldn't be a problem with less of it, right?
Nasrudith 8y ago
Inequality has other negative implications although they are far more indirect - misallocation of resources. To reduce to the absurd logical extreme while one technically might get the best students in the world by tutoring a handful of megawealthy kids with the budget of the entire US school system exposing all children would pay off far more just by giving them opportunity to advance more alone. In addition that level of concentration has the power to corrupt systems to serve self-perpetuation of the interests of the wealth holder at the cost of everyone else. Horrifying third world corruption like lobbying against a reliable power grid because it would hurt the diesel and generator seller's profits despite it killing people and holding the country back. Technically a robust system of law and justice could keep those controlled but money comes with myraid ways to undermine that. These are extreme examples but they demonstrate why it should be watched carefully.
- brobdingnagians 8y ago
  I think the really important point you make is the issue with corruption. If someone simply provides value and gets rewarded for it, that is great and they deserve the wealth; but it is the sad reality that most people with lots of money/power eventually seem to seek more power through any available means, which eventually becomes through by force of law and corrupting governments. The thirst for power and the hubris of seeing yourself as a kingmaker is a powerful temptation for a lot of people. I don't believe in forced redistribution or any of that (that usually just ends up making the problem worse). I think actually having a just system of laws which are enforced fairly and a culture that promotes virtue are the best guards against corruption.
  - whalerider 8y ago
    Just for a point of clarification can you site a case where forced redistribution made the problem worse?
    - anbende 8y ago
      The Cultural Revolution and the rise of Soviet Russia resulted in widespread famine leading to the deaths of tens of millions of people in each country. It turns out that just handing the reins of power to an untrained and inexpert proletariat is not a good strategy.
arethuza 8y ago
I would also suggest that inequality is also a problem in that it can distort the political process - this seems to be a particular problem in the US although we are hardly immune from it here in the UK.
- stvswn 8y ago
  Many who argue this point are usually the ones who would be doing the distortion when the time comes -- for example, when Yanis Varoufakis argues that there needs to be more income redistribution across Europe or else the pitchforks and torcehs are coming, I wonder what the difference is between predicting instablity and vaguely threatening political violence.
  - arethuza 8y ago
    My understanding is that Varoufakis is a pretty decent guy who tried to do the right thing but was hammered into the ground because he refused to play political games. Edit: If nothing else I thank him for pointing out the irony of German politicians insisting that a "debt is a debt" to Greeks...
  - frockington 8y ago
    We've seen it turn to threatening in America with Maxine Waters publicly calling for the harassment of congress members so Europe is likely not far behind from that stage. I personally would've thought it'd happen in Europe first with youth unemployment so low for so long
    - sctb 8y ago
      This site isn't for political or ideological battle, because that's repetitive and we don't learn anything. We've asked you to improve this in your commenting twice already, but we'll ask again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - frockington 8y ago
noelwelsh 8y ago
I think many people feel something is wrong with society, but don't necessarily know where to pin the blame. The Brexit vote here in the UK, and Trump's campaign in the US, successfully played to these feelings (but pinned the blame on immigrants, the EU, the Democrats, liberal elites, etc.)
- tajen 8y ago
  They were also the only time where citizen were asked their opinion. If they had been given separate votes for each thing the EU does bad, maybe they would have chosen to only get rid of one dysfunctional system at a time. But they were not given the choice, for like 30 years, and one day we asked them if they wanted it altogether or nothing... guess what.
- zip1234 8y ago
  I find it quite scary how easily people are influence/manipulated, especially in the age of the internet. It has never been easier to make sensationalist, misleading headlines without anything to back them up. Many people will only read the headline. The human mind is so easily manipulated and over time, makes up information and remembers it as fact (see confabulation-https://youarenotsosmart.com/2012/05/30/yanss-podcast-episode-three/ https://youarenotsosmart.com/2012/05/30/yanss-podcast-episod...). Who knows how much Brexit, Trump, etc are due to such manipulation?
fulafel 8y ago
Inequality in itself causes unhappiness. Or jealousy, if you want to call it that.
- jahaja 8y ago
  "Serfdom in itself causes unhappiness. Or jealousy, if you want to call it that." Interestingly, it seems to me that the current iteration of the oppression business can somehow always dismiss calls for justice as envy/jealousy, but never the previous ones.
  - fulafel 8y ago
    I favour income distribution and the nordic model, and even calling it envy should not be a dismissal, but a recognition of a basic human emotion that should be socially engineered against.
    - jahaja 8y ago
      I didn't assume you agreed with the envy part. I do however find it absurd that envy is used in this context - since the word would never even be thought about in the serfdom case. Words do carry meanings after all. In this case we have the mortal sin of the individual instead of the righteous condemnation of societal injustice.
- ggm 8y ago
  I always used to mis-use Jealousy, when I meant Envy. you mean Envy. The lord God is a Jealous God. He's not envious. That snark aside (sorry) I actually agree with you. relativism is all here, the mass inequality fuels dissent in unhelpful ways and the marginal freedoms of Moar Moar is actually low: if they paid more tax, the increment on society would be huge, and the decrement to their disposable income unimportant. Envy!
  - LyndsySimon 8y ago
    The misuse of "jealousy" in place of "envy" bothers me as well, but I'm not sure it was misused in this case. I would assume that if income inequality inspires envy in those on the lower end of the economic scale, it would also inspire jealousy at the upper end.
CompelTechnic 8y ago
If you want to understand wage stagnation in the US, look up the "elephant curve." In a nutshell: middle income of rich countries has stagnated because of the new need to compete with rapidly industrializing poor countries. Everyone's income around the globe tends to increase during this process (a very good thing!), except for middle wage earners in rich countries. Meanwhile, in local politics, both sides of the aisle blame eachother for this effect, which is totally outside of either of their control.
- yardie 8y ago
  Cutting taxes and then cutting government services is totally within their control. Providing assistance to big corporations while denying it to citizens is also under their control. Saying both sides do it when clearly only one side is doing it does not help.
  - WillPostForFood 8y ago
    You say assistance is being denied, but look at the graph of transfer payments by the government, it has been growing fast since the early 70s, and up every year since 1950 except during the financial crisis in 2008/9. You’d almost think that the increased social spending could be contributing to the increased inequality because it tracks closely. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/B087RC1Q027SBEA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/B087RC1Q027SBEA
    - grasshopperpurp 8y ago
      Perhaps more people are qualifying for government assistance, because they're making less money.
      - freeflight 8y ago
        Exactly, it's the government subsidizing the labor costs for huge, profitable, companies not paying their workers living wages. [0] [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#3df9b0f2720b https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-...
rjkennedy98 8y ago
Its actually correlated with much more than crime and civil instability. Its correlated with health, happiness, and a bunch of things that affect well being.
- LyndsySimon 8y ago
  Is income inequality also correlated with a lower median income? If so, then any correlation between income inequality and all of those other things are likely a correlation between them and median income. Do places with with high income inequality and high median income compare favorably or unfavorably with places with high income inequality and low median income?
tjr225 8y ago
I think tech workers are vastly out of touch with how the majority of Americans are living in this country, but- it is only a suspicion. Indeed, we are fortunate.
- LarryDarrell 8y ago
  By and large, you are correct. I think it's just a human condition that if you make 10x what the poverty line is you are also 10x unable to sympathize or empathize with those making less. It's very easy to feel like a rational human when you have everything you need and more. It's too easy to blame the poor for making bad decisions. They are operating under an entirely different logic system and reality is bent in ways the upper 20% cannot fathom unless they've been there. It's especially galling when success in this country is increasingly tied to a birth lottery that the winners justify the system with such disregard to the unfortunate.
  - tjr225 8y ago
    Having been someone who has definitely been there, I think you're right. I am far, far more comfortable than I ever could've imagined 10 years ago but I'm not under some delusion that I didn't get at least somewhat lucky.
OldSchoolJohnny 8y ago
Inequality is a pretty big problem when you're one of the majority stuck on the bad side of it. Most people here seem to exhibit a deeply held ignorance on the plight of the vast majority of their fellow citizenry.
pastor_elm 8y ago
Your conclusion sounds like the premise of Ready Player One (and countless other dystopian future scenarios). Hooking poor people up to cheap, advanced entertainment is no better than stuffing them which cheap over-processed calories.
- zip1234 8y ago
  So only rich people can afford to make good choices in regards to food? Rice, beans, whole grain bread, and frozen vegetables are all fairly cheap. It doesn't have to be Whole Foods Organic to be healthy.
  - tinbucket 8y ago
    I see this argument a lot on here, and while I agree with it logically and factually, it totally dismisses the human element. Rice, beans, and vegetables are very nutritious and cheap but they're generally boring in comparison to a bag of Cheetos or a doughnut. When you're dirt poor, you don't have many avenues to get a quick pick-me-up feeling -- so often that comes from junk food. A $1 burger is not as good for you as $1 of veg and rice, but it gives you more momentary pleasure and activates the reward centres in your brain. Even as you eat it, you know you could be eating something more nutritious which would be better for you in the long-run, but you still eat it. Once you do it the first time, the subsequent times become easier, especially if it's loaded with sugar and you get yourself in a high/low blood sugar cycle. I'm not defending it, and I'm not saying people have no control over themselves, but I just wish people would have a little more compassion and understanding when they go for the "beans and veg are cheap" argument.
    - megaman22 8y ago
      People like to lambaste the McDonald's dollar menu cheeseburger, but it's a remarkably cost-effective and more-healthy-than-you'd-think method of sustenance. Skip the empty calories in the french fries and soda, and you're really not doing that badly.
    - LarryDarrell 8y ago
jimbofisher1 8y ago
This argument is just gross. "How dare those peasants complain about Jeff Bezos having $150 Billion. They just tweeted on their Iphones, look how well they live!" Just blatant Ayn Rand level horseshit.
- anbende 8y ago
  But if we doubled the absolute income of the bottom 90%, that’s good regardless of what happens to Bezos yes?
- Rescis 8y ago
  Ayn Rand is both a well respected and an intelligent (albeit certainly controversial) writer. Instead of simply trash talking his arguement on the basis that she supported it, why dont you make substantiative points against what he said?
  - jimbofisher1 8y ago
    Respected by who, the Heritage Foundation? Why don't you make a pro-inequality argument? That seems to be the bold claim that requires evidence.
  - krageon 8y ago
    If you cut out the Ayn Rand qualifier from that statement, you're left with "just blatant horseshit". While that is an emotional statement, the core of the absurdity is already revealed in the preceding paragraph. In essence he's already made a substantive argument, is your complaint that you're not following? You find the situation described normal? Perhaps you are not convinced that is what was originally described, and instead it needs to be read with more nuance?
    - jimbofisher1 8y ago
      Substantive argument? Care to point that out? Because to me it looks like he is claiming that inequality is unimportant because the poor now have cell phones and color TVs. Which is... hardly compelling. It seems like an extraordinary claim backed by an empty argument. Hence bullshit. I also spend about as much effort refuting flat earth claims, that is to say almost none.
danans 8y ago
> Even as the gap between the rich and everyone else widens, the quality of life for the bottom 99 percent has vastly changed since 1928. >> This makes me wonder how much people care. People do care, because their year of comparison isn't 1928, because most weren't alive at that time. Rather they compare it with the long post-WWII period of growth that they or their parents grew up in, when basic goods and services like housing, education, and health care became affordable for the working class. People don't feel grateful that polio isn't prevalent today because they don't see anyone with it anymore - it's baked (justifiably, IMO) into the expectations-cake in the developed world. However, they do see that it's harder to afford the basics, and also some of the luxuries of life (i.e. the boat and cabin by the lake). Cheaply available entertainment and computing power is cold comfort when you are struggling to pay your mortgage/rent, your out-of-pocket medical costs, or for your childrens' education. EDIT: I would add that I also recognize that the post WWII social contract wasn't (and still isn't) available to large sections of the population.
- nojvek 8y ago
  To be honest, a nice gap between rich and poor is probably a good thing for the economy. If people aspire to become rich by producing value/wealth, that's a great thing for everyone. The problem is when people become rich by not producing any value or hampering future value. You either become rich by producing more wealth than your peers, suppressing wealth of your peers or force acquiring from your peers. The 0.1% start engaging in suppressing and the dictators start engage in force acquiring. I believe a healthy tax system and a healthy income gradient makes up for a long term prosperous country. The problem with US and more pronounced by Trump administration is the big tax benefits to the 0.1%-ers, pulling out ACA, net neutrality e.t.c is going into the "suppressing your peers" area. America may have a strong economy now, but its not sustainable for long term.
11thEarlOfMar 8y ago
The top 1% of earners pay more than 40% of the total federal taxes. Moreover: "the top 1 per cent paid more tax than the total paid by the bottom 90 per cent combined."[1] Those taxes fund defense, social security, national parks, interstate highways and many other services that benefit everyone. [1] https://www.ft.com/content/d17e9240-c61e-11e7-b2bb-322b2cb39656 https://www.ft.com/content/d17e9240-c61e-11e7-b2bb-322b2cb39...
- cmiles74 8y ago
  I think it's important to remember that the top 1% can only claim credit for funding over 40% of the total federal taxes because they have managed to suppress the growth of wages for the bottom 99%. Since they have captured so much of the wealth, they have robbed the bottom 99% of the ability to sustain their own the country. This isn't a function of generosity or humanitarian sentiment and to imply otherwise would be, in my opinion, dishonest. As we see the top 1% decide to pay less and less of the tax burden (a burden they have placed on themselves), we'll see more crime and unrest and roads rot and the social safety net touted in this article begins to disappear.
- soundwave106 8y ago
  A couple of qualifiers: A) This only refers to income tax, and does not count more regressive federal taxes (FICA) or state taxes (sales tax). It's interesting that I can easily find sites with aggregate tax distribution by income level for income tax pretty easily (https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2016-update/ https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-...), but finding sites with aggregate tax distribution by income level for FICA seems difficult... B) It's worth keeping in mind that the top 3.65% do earn 17.5% of aggregate income (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...) Obviously the United States is progressive taxation overall, but I feel that this oft-quoted bullet point way over-simplifies the American tax landscape.
cmiles74 8y ago
Try looking outside the US for the crime rates and civil instability. There were riots in the Haitian capital a couple of weeks ago as their government tried to raise the cost of fuel.[0] While we talk about the "global economy" a lot here in the US, I believe that we only benefit because we have so much control over that global economy. As US control erodes it seems reasonable to assume that we'll start to be hit much harder and the top 1% will be well positioned to be insulated from that hit. [0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/large-protests-erupt-in-haiti-over-sharp-rise-in-fuel-prices/2018/07/06/793d3518-817c-11e8-b3b5-b61896f90919_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/large-prot...
tryitnow 8y ago
This is an overly simplistic interpretation of human beings. Our life satisfaction is partially dependent on our perceived social status, so increased inequality can indeed weaken quality of life. Comparing quality of life today to quality of life in 1928 (or any other time) is not a simple exercise, there are a lot of variables to take into consideration. Philosophy is really subject you need to study to understand this. On quality of life, economics is very superficial and unsophisticated (and honest economists have always admitted as much). If you'd like to know more take a course in philosophy (or listen to the Philosophize This podcast)
jaredklewis 8y ago
> but life is way better for everyone in the world since 1928. I agree with most of your comment, but everyone? For sure, the mean and median purchasing power of people is way up, but the floor of human experience is as low as ever. Being poor today in North Korea, Iraq, or Syria is surely as miserable as human life has ever been. > Inequality is only a problem in so much that it leads to higher crime rates and (eventually) civil instability in places where its most apparent. We haven't seen much of that (yet), but don't stop looking for it. Our crime rates in the US are higher than most places in the world. For example, more than half the countries in the world have lower homicide rates than the US. I agree with your hypothesis that crime is linked with inequality and I think we are already seeing that.

schmichael 8y ago

> Inequality is only a problem in so much that it leads to higher crime rates and (eventually) civil instability in places where its most apparent. This is astoundingly incorrect. Ask the people of Flint, MI. Income inequality directly impacts the length and quality of a person's life. A quick glance at Wikipedia is all it takes to discover this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality

nroach 8y ago
Or, stated similarly: “Inequality is only a problem for the wealthy in so much that it leads to higher crime rates and (eventually) civil instability in places where its most inconvenient for the wealthy.

travistravel 8y ago

So many people I know personally, especially older ones, are very sad about the destruction of the environment, the extinction of animals, and they feel helpless, as if humanity was doomed. How rich do they have to be for this malaise to not count as a serious injury? How poor or starving would someone in... not 1928 because that's more a convenient than interesting year to compare with... maybe 1728, have to be, for them having a world to not count? By having a world I mean, we used to think of the world as a lasting thing, and human lifes as short. Now it's the oppposite, the world evaporated, and that's not just because we're less ignorant, but also because of the whole ideology of consumption, of instead of wealth being something you possess, it being the speed at which you gain and destroy newer and shinier things, the fatness of the pipe. This is and other losses simply do not exist for capitalism because they cannot be quantified. It's the wiping out of the "sapiens" part in one fell swoop, on the whole globe, forever, leaving a lot of "bodies" and "eyeballs". As for "unlimited entertainment", that's both a blessing and a curse when it swamps out the precious insights that thinkers previously had, and that were previously cherished. > Inequality is only a problem in so much that it leads to higher crime rates When strong countries wage wars of aggression, or a rich person runs someone over while drunk, rapes someone, what have you, and buys as much of the justice system that should apply the same laws to everyone (not make everyone the same, just apply rules equally), brazenly ripping the blindfold of Justititia, that is not a problem, only if it becomes "too apparent"? I doubt you mean that, you probably just didn't think of it that way. I agree that inequality in itself is not a problem. That is, that someone else is more beautiful or rich than me, or whatever, as long as they play fair in some basic sense, it is not a problem. As long as there is some recognition that everybody "could have been born as" everybody, some default solidarity and good will. You know, the kind we all had as kids, even if some don't have it anymore. Kids are selfish and cruel, but from my memories and experience they also have a great innate sense of justice, that gets subverted with rationalizations and pressure later on. My theory is that people either loose it early in youth or young adulthood, or become good at protecting it. And that's not only unfair, as I said above when it reaches too absurd proportions it undergoes a phase change and affects the thinking. The things we enjoy aren't just based on private enterprise since year X, but also more generally on the constant curiosity and ingeniuity of people everywhere, at all times, in all sorts of situations. The unchecked regression of thought into rationalizations and doublethink, the normalization of everyone by fitting them to the numbers and metrics and group relations, in one vast giant "social" "space", will pull out the rug under that, human will die before humanity. Just like when the pilot of a plane gets a heart attack, it takes a few seconds, or even minutes, before the plane actually crashes. Last, but not least: if ever increasing inequality isn't a problem, then by the same token there wouldn't be a problem with less of it, right?

Nasrudith 8y ago

Inequality has other negative implications although they are far more indirect - misallocation of resources. To reduce to the absurd logical extreme while one technically might get the best students in the world by tutoring a handful of megawealthy kids with the budget of the entire US school system exposing all children would pay off far more just by giving them opportunity to advance more alone. In addition that level of concentration has the power to corrupt systems to serve self-perpetuation of the interests of the wealth holder at the cost of everyone else. Horrifying third world corruption like lobbying against a reliable power grid because it would hurt the diesel and generator seller's profits despite it killing people and holding the country back. Technically a robust system of law and justice could keep those controlled but money comes with myraid ways to undermine that. These are extreme examples but they demonstrate why it should be watched carefully.

brobdingnagians 8y ago
I think the really important point you make is the issue with corruption. If someone simply provides value and gets rewarded for it, that is great and they deserve the wealth; but it is the sad reality that most people with lots of money/power eventually seem to seek more power through any available means, which eventually becomes through by force of law and corrupting governments. The thirst for power and the hubris of seeing yourself as a kingmaker is a powerful temptation for a lot of people. I don't believe in forced redistribution or any of that (that usually just ends up making the problem worse). I think actually having a just system of laws which are enforced fairly and a culture that promotes virtue are the best guards against corruption.
- whalerider 8y ago
  Just for a point of clarification can you site a case where forced redistribution made the problem worse?
  - anbende 8y ago
    The Cultural Revolution and the rise of Soviet Russia resulted in widespread famine leading to the deaths of tens of millions of people in each country. It turns out that just handing the reins of power to an untrained and inexpert proletariat is not a good strategy.

arethuza 8y ago

I would also suggest that inequality is also a problem in that it can distort the political process - this seems to be a particular problem in the US although we are hardly immune from it here in the UK.

stvswn 8y ago
Many who argue this point are usually the ones who would be doing the distortion when the time comes -- for example, when Yanis Varoufakis argues that there needs to be more income redistribution across Europe or else the pitchforks and torcehs are coming, I wonder what the difference is between predicting instablity and vaguely threatening political violence.
- arethuza 8y ago
  My understanding is that Varoufakis is a pretty decent guy who tried to do the right thing but was hammered into the ground because he refused to play political games. Edit: If nothing else I thank him for pointing out the irony of German politicians insisting that a "debt is a debt" to Greeks...
- frockington 8y ago
  We've seen it turn to threatening in America with Maxine Waters publicly calling for the harassment of congress members so Europe is likely not far behind from that stage. I personally would've thought it'd happen in Europe first with youth unemployment so low for so long
  - sctb 8y ago
    This site isn't for political or ideological battle, because that's repetitive and we don't learn anything. We've asked you to improve this in your commenting twice already, but we'll ask again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - frockington 8y ago

noelwelsh 8y ago

I think many people feel something is wrong with society, but don't necessarily know where to pin the blame. The Brexit vote here in the UK, and Trump's campaign in the US, successfully played to these feelings (but pinned the blame on immigrants, the EU, the Democrats, liberal elites, etc.)

tajen 8y ago
They were also the only time where citizen were asked their opinion. If they had been given separate votes for each thing the EU does bad, maybe they would have chosen to only get rid of one dysfunctional system at a time. But they were not given the choice, for like 30 years, and one day we asked them if they wanted it altogether or nothing... guess what.
zip1234 8y ago
I find it quite scary how easily people are influence/manipulated, especially in the age of the internet. It has never been easier to make sensationalist, misleading headlines without anything to back them up. Many people will only read the headline. The human mind is so easily manipulated and over time, makes up information and remembers it as fact (see confabulation-https://youarenotsosmart.com/2012/05/30/yanss-podcast-episode-three/ https://youarenotsosmart.com/2012/05/30/yanss-podcast-episod...). Who knows how much Brexit, Trump, etc are due to such manipulation?

fulafel 8y ago

Inequality in itself causes unhappiness. Or jealousy, if you want to call it that.

jahaja 8y ago
"Serfdom in itself causes unhappiness. Or jealousy, if you want to call it that." Interestingly, it seems to me that the current iteration of the oppression business can somehow always dismiss calls for justice as envy/jealousy, but never the previous ones.
- fulafel 8y ago
  I favour income distribution and the nordic model, and even calling it envy should not be a dismissal, but a recognition of a basic human emotion that should be socially engineered against.
  - jahaja 8y ago
    I didn't assume you agreed with the envy part. I do however find it absurd that envy is used in this context - since the word would never even be thought about in the serfdom case. Words do carry meanings after all. In this case we have the mortal sin of the individual instead of the righteous condemnation of societal injustice.
ggm 8y ago
I always used to mis-use Jealousy, when I meant Envy. you mean Envy. The lord God is a Jealous God. He's not envious. That snark aside (sorry) I actually agree with you. relativism is all here, the mass inequality fuels dissent in unhelpful ways and the marginal freedoms of Moar Moar is actually low: if they paid more tax, the increment on society would be huge, and the decrement to their disposable income unimportant. Envy!
- LyndsySimon 8y ago
  The misuse of "jealousy" in place of "envy" bothers me as well, but I'm not sure it was misused in this case. I would assume that if income inequality inspires envy in those on the lower end of the economic scale, it would also inspire jealousy at the upper end.

CompelTechnic 8y ago

If you want to understand wage stagnation in the US, look up the "elephant curve." In a nutshell: middle income of rich countries has stagnated because of the new need to compete with rapidly industrializing poor countries. Everyone's income around the globe tends to increase during this process (a very good thing!), except for middle wage earners in rich countries. Meanwhile, in local politics, both sides of the aisle blame eachother for this effect, which is totally outside of either of their control.

yardie 8y ago
Cutting taxes and then cutting government services is totally within their control. Providing assistance to big corporations while denying it to citizens is also under their control. Saying both sides do it when clearly only one side is doing it does not help.
- WillPostForFood 8y ago
  You say assistance is being denied, but look at the graph of transfer payments by the government, it has been growing fast since the early 70s, and up every year since 1950 except during the financial crisis in 2008/9. You’d almost think that the increased social spending could be contributing to the increased inequality because it tracks closely. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/B087RC1Q027SBEA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/B087RC1Q027SBEA
  - grasshopperpurp 8y ago
    Perhaps more people are qualifying for government assistance, because they're making less money.
    - freeflight 8y ago
      Exactly, it's the government subsidizing the labor costs for huge, profitable, companies not paying their workers living wages. [0] [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#3df9b0f2720b https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-...

rjkennedy98 8y ago

Its actually correlated with much more than crime and civil instability. Its correlated with health, happiness, and a bunch of things that affect well being.

LyndsySimon 8y ago
Is income inequality also correlated with a lower median income? If so, then any correlation between income inequality and all of those other things are likely a correlation between them and median income. Do places with with high income inequality and high median income compare favorably or unfavorably with places with high income inequality and low median income?

tjr225 8y ago

I think tech workers are vastly out of touch with how the majority of Americans are living in this country, but- it is only a suspicion. Indeed, we are fortunate.

LarryDarrell 8y ago
By and large, you are correct. I think it's just a human condition that if you make 10x what the poverty line is you are also 10x unable to sympathize or empathize with those making less. It's very easy to feel like a rational human when you have everything you need and more. It's too easy to blame the poor for making bad decisions. They are operating under an entirely different logic system and reality is bent in ways the upper 20% cannot fathom unless they've been there. It's especially galling when success in this country is increasingly tied to a birth lottery that the winners justify the system with such disregard to the unfortunate.
- tjr225 8y ago
  Having been someone who has definitely been there, I think you're right. I am far, far more comfortable than I ever could've imagined 10 years ago but I'm not under some delusion that I didn't get at least somewhat lucky.

OldSchoolJohnny 8y ago

Inequality is a pretty big problem when you're one of the majority stuck on the bad side of it. Most people here seem to exhibit a deeply held ignorance on the plight of the vast majority of their fellow citizenry.

pastor_elm 8y ago

Your conclusion sounds like the premise of Ready Player One (and countless other dystopian future scenarios). Hooking poor people up to cheap, advanced entertainment is no better than stuffing them which cheap over-processed calories.

zip1234 8y ago
So only rich people can afford to make good choices in regards to food? Rice, beans, whole grain bread, and frozen vegetables are all fairly cheap. It doesn't have to be Whole Foods Organic to be healthy.
- tinbucket 8y ago
  I see this argument a lot on here, and while I agree with it logically and factually, it totally dismisses the human element. Rice, beans, and vegetables are very nutritious and cheap but they're generally boring in comparison to a bag of Cheetos or a doughnut. When you're dirt poor, you don't have many avenues to get a quick pick-me-up feeling -- so often that comes from junk food. A $1 burger is not as good for you as $1 of veg and rice, but it gives you more momentary pleasure and activates the reward centres in your brain. Even as you eat it, you know you could be eating something more nutritious which would be better for you in the long-run, but you still eat it. Once you do it the first time, the subsequent times become easier, especially if it's loaded with sugar and you get yourself in a high/low blood sugar cycle. I'm not defending it, and I'm not saying people have no control over themselves, but I just wish people would have a little more compassion and understanding when they go for the "beans and veg are cheap" argument.
  - megaman22 8y ago
    People like to lambaste the McDonald's dollar menu cheeseburger, but it's a remarkably cost-effective and more-healthy-than-you'd-think method of sustenance. Skip the empty calories in the french fries and soda, and you're really not doing that badly.
  - LarryDarrell 8y ago

jimbofisher1 8y ago

This argument is just gross. "How dare those peasants complain about Jeff Bezos having $150 Billion. They just tweeted on their Iphones, look how well they live!" Just blatant Ayn Rand level horseshit.

anbende 8y ago
But if we doubled the absolute income of the bottom 90%, that’s good regardless of what happens to Bezos yes?
Rescis 8y ago
Ayn Rand is both a well respected and an intelligent (albeit certainly controversial) writer. Instead of simply trash talking his arguement on the basis that she supported it, why dont you make substantiative points against what he said?
- jimbofisher1 8y ago
  Respected by who, the Heritage Foundation? Why don't you make a pro-inequality argument? That seems to be the bold claim that requires evidence.
- krageon 8y ago
  If you cut out the Ayn Rand qualifier from that statement, you're left with "just blatant horseshit". While that is an emotional statement, the core of the absurdity is already revealed in the preceding paragraph. In essence he's already made a substantive argument, is your complaint that you're not following? You find the situation described normal? Perhaps you are not convinced that is what was originally described, and instead it needs to be read with more nuance?
  - jimbofisher1 8y ago
    Substantive argument? Care to point that out? Because to me it looks like he is claiming that inequality is unimportant because the poor now have cell phones and color TVs. Which is... hardly compelling. It seems like an extraordinary claim backed by an empty argument. Hence bullshit. I also spend about as much effort refuting flat earth claims, that is to say almost none.

danans 8y ago

> Even as the gap between the rich and everyone else widens, the quality of life for the bottom 99 percent has vastly changed since 1928. >> This makes me wonder how much people care. People do care, because their year of comparison isn't 1928, because most weren't alive at that time. Rather they compare it with the long post-WWII period of growth that they or their parents grew up in, when basic goods and services like housing, education, and health care became affordable for the working class. People don't feel grateful that polio isn't prevalent today because they don't see anyone with it anymore - it's baked (justifiably, IMO) into the expectations-cake in the developed world. However, they do see that it's harder to afford the basics, and also some of the luxuries of life (i.e. the boat and cabin by the lake). Cheaply available entertainment and computing power is cold comfort when you are struggling to pay your mortgage/rent, your out-of-pocket medical costs, or for your childrens' education. EDIT: I would add that I also recognize that the post WWII social contract wasn't (and still isn't) available to large sections of the population.

nojvek 8y ago
To be honest, a nice gap between rich and poor is probably a good thing for the economy. If people aspire to become rich by producing value/wealth, that's a great thing for everyone. The problem is when people become rich by not producing any value or hampering future value. You either become rich by producing more wealth than your peers, suppressing wealth of your peers or force acquiring from your peers. The 0.1% start engaging in suppressing and the dictators start engage in force acquiring. I believe a healthy tax system and a healthy income gradient makes up for a long term prosperous country. The problem with US and more pronounced by Trump administration is the big tax benefits to the 0.1%-ers, pulling out ACA, net neutrality e.t.c is going into the "suppressing your peers" area. America may have a strong economy now, but its not sustainable for long term.

11thEarlOfMar 8y ago

The top 1% of earners pay more than 40% of the total federal taxes. Moreover: "the top 1 per cent paid more tax than the total paid by the bottom 90 per cent combined."[1] Those taxes fund defense, social security, national parks, interstate highways and many other services that benefit everyone. [1] https://www.ft.com/content/d17e9240-c61e-11e7-b2bb-322b2cb39656 https://www.ft.com/content/d17e9240-c61e-11e7-b2bb-322b2cb39...

cmiles74 8y ago
I think it's important to remember that the top 1% can only claim credit for funding over 40% of the total federal taxes because they have managed to suppress the growth of wages for the bottom 99%. Since they have captured so much of the wealth, they have robbed the bottom 99% of the ability to sustain their own the country. This isn't a function of generosity or humanitarian sentiment and to imply otherwise would be, in my opinion, dishonest. As we see the top 1% decide to pay less and less of the tax burden (a burden they have placed on themselves), we'll see more crime and unrest and roads rot and the social safety net touted in this article begins to disappear.
soundwave106 8y ago
A couple of qualifiers: A) This only refers to income tax, and does not count more regressive federal taxes (FICA) or state taxes (sales tax). It's interesting that I can easily find sites with aggregate tax distribution by income level for income tax pretty easily (https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2016-update/ https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-...), but finding sites with aggregate tax distribution by income level for FICA seems difficult... B) It's worth keeping in mind that the top 3.65% do earn 17.5% of aggregate income (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...) Obviously the United States is progressive taxation overall, but I feel that this oft-quoted bullet point way over-simplifies the American tax landscape.

cmiles74 8y ago

Try looking outside the US for the crime rates and civil instability. There were riots in the Haitian capital a couple of weeks ago as their government tried to raise the cost of fuel.[0] While we talk about the "global economy" a lot here in the US, I believe that we only benefit because we have so much control over that global economy. As US control erodes it seems reasonable to assume that we'll start to be hit much harder and the top 1% will be well positioned to be insulated from that hit. [0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/large-protests-erupt-in-haiti-over-sharp-rise-in-fuel-prices/2018/07/06/793d3518-817c-11e8-b3b5-b61896f90919_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/large-prot...

tryitnow 8y ago

This is an overly simplistic interpretation of human beings. Our life satisfaction is partially dependent on our perceived social status, so increased inequality can indeed weaken quality of life. Comparing quality of life today to quality of life in 1928 (or any other time) is not a simple exercise, there are a lot of variables to take into consideration. Philosophy is really subject you need to study to understand this. On quality of life, economics is very superficial and unsophisticated (and honest economists have always admitted as much). If you'd like to know more take a course in philosophy (or listen to the Philosophize This podcast)

jaredklewis 8y ago

> but life is way better for everyone in the world since 1928. I agree with most of your comment, but everyone? For sure, the mean and median purchasing power of people is way up, but the floor of human experience is as low as ever. Being poor today in North Korea, Iraq, or Syria is surely as miserable as human life has ever been. > Inequality is only a problem in so much that it leads to higher crime rates and (eventually) civil instability in places where its most apparent. We haven't seen much of that (yet), but don't stop looking for it. Our crime rates in the US are higher than most places in the world. For example, more than half the countries in the world have lower homicide rates than the US. I agree with your hypothesis that crime is linked with inequality and I think we are already seeing that.