4 ms·

The problem, as The Spirit Level by Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson states, is that the larger the inequality in a society, the worse off everyone is, even t

The problem, as The Spirit Level by Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson states, is that the larger the inequality in a society, the worse off everyone is, even the rich. The future is more global, which means it's more and more of Taleb's Extremistan. I don't think we should be working to try to change such effects; it's natural and comes with technological progress. What I would like to see is compassion and epathy for those increasing numbers who are left behind by it. We have to figure out this or it will be detrimental to us all.

billswift 16y ago
I have seen quite a few discussions of that recently, but I have seen no evidence that "income inequality" itself has any negative impacts. Now as a symptom of other possible problems, yes, it can be worrisome, think of the historical divisions, lords/rajahs/mandarins versus serfs/untouchables/peasants for a real example. Today's divisions in the Western world are neither that extreme nor have I seen evidence that they are the result of some underlying pathology like in those examples.
- maigret 16y ago
  The basic problem with inequality is that it kills the middle class, which is one of the prime engine of growth. Riches only consume a small part of their money, and invest the rest, which produces easily investment bubbles, but not much growth in terms of industry and wealth production. That's (also) why the banking sector is getting so big. At the contrary, a strong middle class also maintains well democracy, and produces continuing growth over decades. Also, take it upside down - why isn't the US currently clearly richer that Europe? Germany, Sweden provide good examples that a bit higher taxing isn't killing the economy, much more the opposite. Also India and China have such a growth because they also produce a middle class, and not only super riches. But well, it's the old discussion libertarians vs utilitarians... ;)
barry-cotter 16y ago
http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/02/spirit-level-is-junk-science.html http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/02/spirit-level-is-ju... 'Blogger Danne Nordling pointed out a strange fact about the book. Its measure of inequality, the most important factor in the book, is not gini, the standard inequality result. They seem to use 20/20 richest and poorest ratio. Why make this strange choice, when their source (UN Human Development Index) has gini? I smell data mining. First for fun I did a simple regression of life expectancy on income inequality and per capita GDP for all countries the UN has data for. The correlation between inequality and health is not statistically significant. '

billswift 16y ago

I have seen quite a few discussions of that recently, but I have seen no evidence that "income inequality" itself has any negative impacts. Now as a symptom of other possible problems, yes, it can be worrisome, think of the historical divisions, lords/rajahs/mandarins versus serfs/untouchables/peasants for a real example. Today's divisions in the Western world are neither that extreme nor have I seen evidence that they are the result of some underlying pathology like in those examples.

maigret 16y ago
The basic problem with inequality is that it kills the middle class, which is one of the prime engine of growth. Riches only consume a small part of their money, and invest the rest, which produces easily investment bubbles, but not much growth in terms of industry and wealth production. That's (also) why the banking sector is getting so big. At the contrary, a strong middle class also maintains well democracy, and produces continuing growth over decades. Also, take it upside down - why isn't the US currently clearly richer that Europe? Germany, Sweden provide good examples that a bit higher taxing isn't killing the economy, much more the opposite. Also India and China have such a growth because they also produce a middle class, and not only super riches. But well, it's the old discussion libertarians vs utilitarians... ;)

barry-cotter 16y ago

http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/02/spirit-level-is-junk-science.html http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/02/spirit-level-is-ju... 'Blogger Danne Nordling pointed out a strange fact about the book. Its measure of inequality, the most important factor in the book, is not gini, the standard inequality result. They seem to use 20/20 richest and poorest ratio. Why make this strange choice, when their source (UN Human Development Index) has gini? I smell data mining. First for fun I did a simple regression of life expectancy on income inequality and per capita GDP for all countries the UN has data for. The correlation between inequality and health is not statistically significant. '