3 ms·

"Inequality" doesn't mean that even the poorer part of a society has slid backwards. Considering the situation of Afroamericans, I think you underappreciate th

"Inequality" doesn't mean that even the poorer part of a society has slid backwards. Considering the situation of Afroamericans, I think you underappreciate the amount of lynchings, violence (not just by police) and structural discrimination that took place. All of that is at a record low, if still much too high. There is still a lot of work to be done, but undoubtedly their situation has improved, long term.

coldtea 7y ago
>"Inequality" doesn't mean that even the poorer part of a society has slid backwards. Unfortunately it does, in two ways. One is objective, the other can be argued, but is my opinion nonetheless. 1) Inequality has seen the "poorer part of a society" slid backwards in many objectively measured standards of living, from infant mortality to overall life expectancy, to home ownership, retirement savings, and so on. Those are in absolute (and inflation adjusted when needed) values, worse than in the past. 2) Humans are not mere animals, and their progress, self-respect, etc are not just absolute, but also relative to the overall resources available. We don't compare ourselves to cavemen era people or to 1928 people, but to what's available today. More people having less share of their society's wealth is a slide backwards, even if each has more toys than someone in 1970s or 3000 B.C. had. In other words, "median share of society's wealth per person" is also a metric to keep track of over time. (And the more important stuff, like homes, health care, education, are increasingly priced out of reach, even relative to 1970 or 1980, so that's a slide backwards whether seen relatively or in absolute terms).
- bayesian_horse 7y ago
  I was not talking about inequality in the specific situation of the past few decades in US history, but about inequality in general. And in general, inequality really doesn't mean that, just from a mathematical standpoint. I can directly speak for Germany, and the points you mention just don't hold true. Our whole society improved, despite rising inequality, perceived and measured. For the US you cite particular measures. I'm not sure those are necessarily comprehensive and even if so, it's only a very tiny backslide, and also only for a relatively tiny percentage of the population. Also I'm looking more at the long term trends, and those are looking up, in general, all over the world. Including infant mortality (the absolute number of children dying declined for at least 50 years straight, despite more children being born up to relatively recently, see peak child phenomenon), life expectancy and absolute poverty. Individual wealth is not about the share of the total wealth in a society. At least for me it is about suffering, and the reasons for suffering are indeed decreasing. Maybe not for any time period and any country you choose, but overall, yes.

coldtea 7y ago

>"Inequality" doesn't mean that even the poorer part of a society has slid backwards. Unfortunately it does, in two ways. One is objective, the other can be argued, but is my opinion nonetheless. 1) Inequality has seen the "poorer part of a society" slid backwards in many objectively measured standards of living, from infant mortality to overall life expectancy, to home ownership, retirement savings, and so on. Those are in absolute (and inflation adjusted when needed) values, worse than in the past. 2) Humans are not mere animals, and their progress, self-respect, etc are not just absolute, but also relative to the overall resources available. We don't compare ourselves to cavemen era people or to 1928 people, but to what's available today. More people having less share of their society's wealth is a slide backwards, even if each has more toys than someone in 1970s or 3000 B.C. had. In other words, "median share of society's wealth per person" is also a metric to keep track of over time. (And the more important stuff, like homes, health care, education, are increasingly priced out of reach, even relative to 1970 or 1980, so that's a slide backwards whether seen relatively or in absolute terms).

bayesian_horse 7y ago
I was not talking about inequality in the specific situation of the past few decades in US history, but about inequality in general. And in general, inequality really doesn't mean that, just from a mathematical standpoint. I can directly speak for Germany, and the points you mention just don't hold true. Our whole society improved, despite rising inequality, perceived and measured. For the US you cite particular measures. I'm not sure those are necessarily comprehensive and even if so, it's only a very tiny backslide, and also only for a relatively tiny percentage of the population. Also I'm looking more at the long term trends, and those are looking up, in general, all over the world. Including infant mortality (the absolute number of children dying declined for at least 50 years straight, despite more children being born up to relatively recently, see peak child phenomenon), life expectancy and absolute poverty. Individual wealth is not about the share of the total wealth in a society. At least for me it is about suffering, and the reasons for suffering are indeed decreasing. Maybe not for any time period and any country you choose, but overall, yes.