3 ms·

What are the trends of relative deprivation? I know it's not a defined and studied concept, but if the relative deprivation is in a decreasing trend, I believe

by sdfin 7y ago

What are the trends of relative deprivation? I know it's not a defined and studied concept, but if the relative deprivation is in a decreasing trend, I believe that it would mean we are in a good direction. Anyway, if the problem is relative deprivation we should focus on that, instead of focusing in inequality. I believe it would be more productive to improve things. Is inequality the "cause" of relative deprivation? I believe there are more important causes, like corruption, for example.

defterGoose 7y ago
See my comment above, but in response to this, doesn't "relative deprivation"=="inequality"?
- sdfin 7y ago
  Not necessarily, as in the case of a guy who has 800.000 dollars being inequal to another guy with 100.000.000 dollars. edit: I mean, the cause of poverty is not that some people are rich, because if world trends of poverty are decreasing while the rich are getting richer, there isn't a correlation. Of course if some rich people get their riches by corruption or some other harmful activity, yes, that may cause poverty. But I would not say that the existence of rich people in general is the cause of poverty. That would imply thinking about wealth as a fixed size cake, where some have to lose for others to win. But it may be that it's rather like increasing the amount of cakes. Nobody loses if we have more cakes.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  Basically, yes. But, for a longer answer (and an entry to a vastly longer one...) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5638129 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5638129
  - sdfin 7y ago
    This "relative deprivation" concept, to me sounds like a more elegant way of speaking about "envy". "The grass is greener in our neighbor lawn". Perhaps I'm very minimalist in my needs and therefore I cannot empathize with people that feel that relative deprivation, and that's why I question it. From the article: > Relative poverty, an important but often neglected policy target, is measured by the resources needed to maintain the social and economic lifestyle that is widely accepted by the society in which one lives, Who is "the society"? This sounds like saying that people feel bad when others have something they don't have, even if they aren't poor. Should everyone have the same? Trying to achieve that never worked. That may work only when thanks to technological advancements we reach a post-scarcity economy, I believe. From the article: > A large empirical evidence base for most countries suggests that low socio-economic status and resulting feelings of relative deprivation lower both objective and subjective well-being, as measured by indicators such as health and happiness. Feeling envy lowers well-being, yes.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Anyway, if the problem is relative deprivation we should focus on that, instead of focusing in inequality. “Absolute deprivation” is having less access to material goods and services than some fixed standard. “Relative deprivation” is having less access to material goods and services than others in one’s social milieu. Relative deprivation is an inherent aspect of inequality; the two are inseparable. > Is inequality the "cause" of relative deprivation? No, it's not the cause in the same way that being a triangle isn't a cause of three-sidedness; it's more closely linked than causation. > I believe there are more important causes, like corruption, for example. Corruption can be a cause of (or mechanism of perpetuating) inequality, and thereby contribute to relative deprivation, but it's not a cause of relative deprivation independent of inequality.
- sdfin 7y ago
  > “Relative deprivation” is having less access to material goods and services than others in one’s social milieu. I cannot buy a yacht, while some rich guys can. Therefore I'm relatively deprived, according to that definition. That's not a problem.
  - username90 7y ago
    The problem comes when "I cannot buy a home, since all homes are prized for people richer than me", or "I cannot see a doctor, since all doctors are prized for people richer than me".
    - sdfin 7y ago
      Certainly. But that sounds more extreme than "relative deprivation", that's a real deprivation of basic needs.

by sdfin 7y ago

defterGoose 7y ago

See my comment above, but in response to this, doesn't "relative deprivation"=="inequality"?

sdfin 7y ago
Not necessarily, as in the case of a guy who has 800.000 dollars being inequal to another guy with 100.000.000 dollars. edit: I mean, the cause of poverty is not that some people are rich, because if world trends of poverty are decreasing while the rich are getting richer, there isn't a correlation. Of course if some rich people get their riches by corruption or some other harmful activity, yes, that may cause poverty. But I would not say that the existence of rich people in general is the cause of poverty. That would imply thinking about wealth as a fixed size cake, where some have to lose for others to win. But it may be that it's rather like increasing the amount of cakes. Nobody loses if we have more cakes.
dragonwriter 7y ago
Basically, yes. But, for a longer answer (and an entry to a vastly longer one...) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5638129 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5638129
- sdfin 7y ago
  This "relative deprivation" concept, to me sounds like a more elegant way of speaking about "envy". "The grass is greener in our neighbor lawn". Perhaps I'm very minimalist in my needs and therefore I cannot empathize with people that feel that relative deprivation, and that's why I question it. From the article: > Relative poverty, an important but often neglected policy target, is measured by the resources needed to maintain the social and economic lifestyle that is widely accepted by the society in which one lives, Who is "the society"? This sounds like saying that people feel bad when others have something they don't have, even if they aren't poor. Should everyone have the same? Trying to achieve that never worked. That may work only when thanks to technological advancements we reach a post-scarcity economy, I believe. From the article: > A large empirical evidence base for most countries suggests that low socio-economic status and resulting feelings of relative deprivation lower both objective and subjective well-being, as measured by indicators such as health and happiness. Feeling envy lowers well-being, yes.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> Anyway, if the problem is relative deprivation we should focus on that, instead of focusing in inequality. “Absolute deprivation” is having less access to material goods and services than some fixed standard. “Relative deprivation” is having less access to material goods and services than others in one’s social milieu. Relative deprivation is an inherent aspect of inequality; the two are inseparable. > Is inequality the "cause" of relative deprivation? No, it's not the cause in the same way that being a triangle isn't a cause of three-sidedness; it's more closely linked than causation. > I believe there are more important causes, like corruption, for example. Corruption can be a cause of (or mechanism of perpetuating) inequality, and thereby contribute to relative deprivation, but it's not a cause of relative deprivation independent of inequality.

sdfin 7y ago
> “Relative deprivation” is having less access to material goods and services than others in one’s social milieu. I cannot buy a yacht, while some rich guys can. Therefore I'm relatively deprived, according to that definition. That's not a problem.
- username90 7y ago
  The problem comes when "I cannot buy a home, since all homes are prized for people richer than me", or "I cannot see a doctor, since all doctors are prized for people richer than me".
  - sdfin 7y ago
    Certainly. But that sounds more extreme than "relative deprivation", that's a real deprivation of basic needs.