5 ms·

Is wealth inequality inherently bad? I've heard of numerous studies that point out that people's happiness and wealth don't correlate much past a certain point.

Is wealth inequality inherently bad? I've heard of numerous studies that point out that people's happiness and wealth don't correlate much past a certain point. Is that 'certain point' a moving goal post?

gotocake 8y ago
That sounds like a case against wealth inequality, since there’s no increase in happiness for the very rich.
- kartan 8y ago
  > That sounds like a case against wealth inequality, since there’s no increase in happiness for the very rich. Not necessarily. Inequality seems to bring unhappiness independently of wealth. You may have more than others. But if you get way less for your work than others, most people will be unhappy. That is why millionaires want more when they see the billionaires. This video helps to illustrate my point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg
- downrightmike 8y ago
  Past a certain point of success, it is only a numbers game. As in once you have achieved your goals and are successful, you are still driven to become successful and money is a tangible way to measure that success. Whether anyone really needs the points to survive is not the question. The question is do they equate money with success?
emit_time 8y ago
> I've heard of numerous studies that point out that people's happiness and wealth don't correlate much past a certain point That point is significantly above median person income, or a similar comparison to median household income.
anoncake 8y ago
That's one reason why wealth inequality is bad. If someone is already wealthy, additional wealth increases their happiness by less than if someone poorer would have received that wealth.
tejtm 8y ago
> Is * inequality inherently bad? Suppose it depends on where you stand (or fall) in the resulting correction event.
x3sphere 8y ago
Of course it is a moving goal post due to inflation, rising living expenses, etc.
namirez 8y ago
> people's happiness and wealth don't correlate much past a certain point! Exactly! Most people in the world are well below that "certain point". In an ideal world that everyone has enough to feel safe and secure, probably wealth inequality won't matter as much.
- blueboo 8y ago
  Except that the only 'wealth' that matters. is that which translates into power. So wealth inequality is power inequality. That is, wealth inequality is the enemy of democracy.
  - dantheman 8y ago
    If your concerned about power inequality - then we have to worry about politicians, famous people, authors, academics, managers, landlords etc... Wealth is only one form of power; it is at least achieved in ideal circumstances through voluntary interaction. Whereas many wish to exercise their power through threats of violence.
kartan 8y ago
> Is wealth inequality inherently bad? Lack of agency is. When people are not allowed to take decisions on their own they are unhappy. Once money covers your basic needs. Money becomes power. High wealth inequality is directly linked to high power inequality. http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2016/2/how-the-rich-control-policymaking.html http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2016/2/how-the-rich-co... - Of the policies listed on the chart, the only one that was passed within four years was the North American Free Trade Agreement, which was opposed by the lowest-income voters and the median voter. On the other hand, the three policies supported by the bottom and middle deciles but opposed by the richest decile — ranging from tax increases to workplace protections — never passed. Across the board, the richest are most skeptical of redistributive policies. From: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-bir... - Rising immobility and rising inequality aren’t like two pieces of driftwood that happen to have shown up on the beach at the same time, he noted. They wash up together on every shore. So, yes. Lack of wealth inequality is bad.
- BerislavLopac 8y ago
  Wealth and power inequalities are correlated in modern Western societies because they are set up that way. Every society in history has had some level of power inequality, but the source of that inequality varied with different societies, and was not always correlated with wealth. In Nazi Germany, Jews were traditionally quite wealthy, but they had practically no power; in other authoritarian and/or militaristic regimes, the source of power is usually based on politics or military structure. The power in European feudalism was originally based on land ownership (so wealth-based), but in later stages it became based purely on nobility, so a dead broke nobleman could have had more power than a wealthy merchant (which led to various revolutions). The danger of equating wealth inequality with power inequality lies in the common belief that removing the former will remove the latter, but this is not the case: it will just be replaced with a different source for the power; a different type of "wealth" if you want.
Mikeb85 8y ago
Inequality is bad because those with lots of capital leech off the rest of the economy (rentier class). Economic rents are a drag on the economy. In an automated world where there is no working class, there will be a capitalist/rentier class making income from capital, and a class of people who are essentially on welfare with nothing to do and no way to accrue the capital necessary for social and economic mobility. The end result is class warfare and probably real warfare with less than stellar results.
StanislavPetrov 8y ago
> Is that 'certain point' a moving goal post? No. That point is the place where someone has enough to pay for all the basic necessities of life(food, housing, education, healthcare) without constant economic anxiety over debt, poverty or impending poverty. Studies have pointed out that over and above this point is where wealth and happiness diverge. A 2010 study had that point pegged at about $75,000 for an individual. https://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489 https://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489 Other studies have shown very similar results, with a sudden drop off in the correlation between happiness and wealth after basic needs have been met. Several are cited here: https://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/14/money-can-buy-happiness-but-only-to-a-point.html https://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/14/money-can-buy-happiness-but-...

gotocake 8y ago

That sounds like a case against wealth inequality, since there’s no increase in happiness for the very rich.

kartan 8y ago
> That sounds like a case against wealth inequality, since there’s no increase in happiness for the very rich. Not necessarily. Inequality seems to bring unhappiness independently of wealth. You may have more than others. But if you get way less for your work than others, most people will be unhappy. That is why millionaires want more when they see the billionaires. This video helps to illustrate my point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg
downrightmike 8y ago
Past a certain point of success, it is only a numbers game. As in once you have achieved your goals and are successful, you are still driven to become successful and money is a tangible way to measure that success. Whether anyone really needs the points to survive is not the question. The question is do they equate money with success?

emit_time 8y ago

> I've heard of numerous studies that point out that people's happiness and wealth don't correlate much past a certain point That point is significantly above median person income, or a similar comparison to median household income.

anoncake 8y ago

That's one reason why wealth inequality is bad. If someone is already wealthy, additional wealth increases their happiness by less than if someone poorer would have received that wealth.

tejtm 8y ago

> Is * inequality inherently bad? Suppose it depends on where you stand (or fall) in the resulting correction event.

x3sphere 8y ago

Of course it is a moving goal post due to inflation, rising living expenses, etc.

namirez 8y ago

> people's happiness and wealth don't correlate much past a certain point! Exactly! Most people in the world are well below that "certain point". In an ideal world that everyone has enough to feel safe and secure, probably wealth inequality won't matter as much.

blueboo 8y ago
Except that the only 'wealth' that matters. is that which translates into power. So wealth inequality is power inequality. That is, wealth inequality is the enemy of democracy.
- dantheman 8y ago
  If your concerned about power inequality - then we have to worry about politicians, famous people, authors, academics, managers, landlords etc... Wealth is only one form of power; it is at least achieved in ideal circumstances through voluntary interaction. Whereas many wish to exercise their power through threats of violence.

kartan 8y ago

> Is wealth inequality inherently bad? Lack of agency is. When people are not allowed to take decisions on their own they are unhappy. Once money covers your basic needs. Money becomes power. High wealth inequality is directly linked to high power inequality. http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2016/2/how-the-rich-control-policymaking.html http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2016/2/how-the-rich-co... - Of the policies listed on the chart, the only one that was passed within four years was the North American Free Trade Agreement, which was opposed by the lowest-income voters and the median voter. On the other hand, the three policies supported by the bottom and middle deciles but opposed by the richest decile — ranging from tax increases to workplace protections — never passed. Across the board, the richest are most skeptical of redistributive policies. From: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-bir... - Rising immobility and rising inequality aren’t like two pieces of driftwood that happen to have shown up on the beach at the same time, he noted. They wash up together on every shore. So, yes. Lack of wealth inequality is bad.

BerislavLopac 8y ago
Wealth and power inequalities are correlated in modern Western societies because they are set up that way. Every society in history has had some level of power inequality, but the source of that inequality varied with different societies, and was not always correlated with wealth. In Nazi Germany, Jews were traditionally quite wealthy, but they had practically no power; in other authoritarian and/or militaristic regimes, the source of power is usually based on politics or military structure. The power in European feudalism was originally based on land ownership (so wealth-based), but in later stages it became based purely on nobility, so a dead broke nobleman could have had more power than a wealthy merchant (which led to various revolutions). The danger of equating wealth inequality with power inequality lies in the common belief that removing the former will remove the latter, but this is not the case: it will just be replaced with a different source for the power; a different type of "wealth" if you want.

Mikeb85 8y ago

Inequality is bad because those with lots of capital leech off the rest of the economy (rentier class). Economic rents are a drag on the economy. In an automated world where there is no working class, there will be a capitalist/rentier class making income from capital, and a class of people who are essentially on welfare with nothing to do and no way to accrue the capital necessary for social and economic mobility. The end result is class warfare and probably real warfare with less than stellar results.

StanislavPetrov 8y ago

> Is that 'certain point' a moving goal post? No. That point is the place where someone has enough to pay for all the basic necessities of life(food, housing, education, healthcare) without constant economic anxiety over debt, poverty or impending poverty. Studies have pointed out that over and above this point is where wealth and happiness diverge. A 2010 study had that point pegged at about $75,000 for an individual. https://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489 https://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489 Other studies have shown very similar results, with a sudden drop off in the correlation between happiness and wealth after basic needs have been met. Several are cited here: https://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/14/money-can-buy-happiness-but-only-to-a-point.html https://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/14/money-can-buy-happiness-but-...