4 ms·

> Inequality isn't the correct term. It's poverty, drug abuse and mental illness. Just curious where you think those last 3 things stem from. Drug abuse and m

> Inequality isn't the correct term. It's poverty, drug abuse and mental illness. Just curious where you think those last 3 things stem from. Drug abuse and mental illness are much more prevalent in those worst off economically. Poverty (in developed countries) is almost always a result of inequality due to bad policies (lack of social safety nets). > Crime is as much a cultural problem as anything else. Right, part of crime is cultural, and part is economic. But culture is also determined by lack of access to economic opportunities.

gottorf 2y ago
> Drug abuse and mental illness are much more prevalent in those worst off economically. Poverty (in developed countries) is almost always a result of inequality If the first half of your statement is true, then why do the billions of people subsisting on a few dollars a day around the world do not have society-wide problems with drug abuse and mental illness? Or are you implying that this causation only happens in developed countries? What can you do to refute the idea that instead of drug abuse and mental illness being caused poverty, the same factors that predispose one to drug abuse and mental illness also predispose one to poverty? > culture is also determined by lack of access to economic opportunities Similarly, it's rather the other way around; lack of access to economic opportunities is caused by a culture that values human capital less. Of course, the two compound over time; but history is empirically full of examples of minority cultural groups that were discriminated against (whether legally, socially, or otherwise) but nevertheless succeeded economically due to the culture placing a high value on human capital[0]. [0]: Sowell, T. Discrimination and Disparities.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  > then why do the billions of people subsisting on a few dollars a day around the world do not have society-wide problems with drug abuse and mental illness? Or are you implying that this causation only happens in developed countries? As stupid as the idea that inequality in itself causes these problems is, it doesn't have trouble explaining why this would only happen in developed countries. Historic levels of inequality, including urban "anyone can easily see that their downstairs neighbor is a hundred times richer than they are" inequality, were much greater than modern ones and involved a lot less social pathology; maybe look in that direction. > What can you do to refute the idea that instead of drug abuse and mental illness being caused poverty, the same factors that predispose one to drug abuse and mental illness also predispose one to poverty? Looking for a root cause seems unnecessary for this question; mental illness can easily just cause poverty directly.
  - marcosdumay 2y ago
    > Historic levels of inequality, including urban "anyone can easily see that their downstairs neighbor is a hundred times richer than they are" inequality, were much greater than modern ones and involved a lot less social pathology; maybe look in that direction. That one is absolutely not true.
    - thaumasiotes 2y ago
      Why do you think we no longer have servants?
    - gottorf 2y ago
      Which part's not true, that inequality was lesser in the past, or that social pathology is more today?
      - marcosdumay 2y ago
        Inequality was lesser in the past. Way less. "Social pathology" is way too undefined a term for me to argue with.
        thaumasiotes 2y ago
        You'll want to be careful about what you measure. For example, we generally take Forbes as an authority on who's rich, but really rich people tend to be excluded from consideration, because Forbes can only measure certain kinds of wealth, and even when people's wealth mostly exists in that form, it can be hard to see. Don't confuse a convenience metric with actual inequality.
        gottorf 2y ago
        > Inequality was lesser in the past. Way less. I'm struggling to understand this one. Are you talking about the times of the cavemen, when I suppose everyone was equally materially poor? And yet you had other kinds of inequality back then, such as a bigger and stronger caveman being able to kill you and take your stuff, since there wasn't such a thing as a society or rule of law to protect you. Or are you referring to the vast majority of people who for the vast majority of recorded history who lived in systems that elevated certain bloodlines above others, legally and culturally, and sometimes even to the status of gods? Certainly you cannot claim that, say, Queen Victoria and the common Englishman were more equal than King Charles is to his average subject, in every possible way.
- readyman 2y ago
  >If the first half of your statement is true, then why do the billions of people subsisting on a few dollars a day around the world do not have society-wide problems with drug abuse and mental illness? They don't live in societies with extreme inequality and precarity. Under capitalism, inequality is the problem, not merely poverty.

gottorf 2y ago

> Drug abuse and mental illness are much more prevalent in those worst off economically. Poverty (in developed countries) is almost always a result of inequality If the first half of your statement is true, then why do the billions of people subsisting on a few dollars a day around the world do not have society-wide problems with drug abuse and mental illness? Or are you implying that this causation only happens in developed countries? What can you do to refute the idea that instead of drug abuse and mental illness being caused poverty, the same factors that predispose one to drug abuse and mental illness also predispose one to poverty? > culture is also determined by lack of access to economic opportunities Similarly, it's rather the other way around; lack of access to economic opportunities is caused by a culture that values human capital less. Of course, the two compound over time; but history is empirically full of examples of minority cultural groups that were discriminated against (whether legally, socially, or otherwise) but nevertheless succeeded economically due to the culture placing a high value on human capital[0]. [0]: Sowell, T. Discrimination and Disparities.

thaumasiotes 2y ago
> then why do the billions of people subsisting on a few dollars a day around the world do not have society-wide problems with drug abuse and mental illness? Or are you implying that this causation only happens in developed countries? As stupid as the idea that inequality in itself causes these problems is, it doesn't have trouble explaining why this would only happen in developed countries. Historic levels of inequality, including urban "anyone can easily see that their downstairs neighbor is a hundred times richer than they are" inequality, were much greater than modern ones and involved a lot less social pathology; maybe look in that direction. > What can you do to refute the idea that instead of drug abuse and mental illness being caused poverty, the same factors that predispose one to drug abuse and mental illness also predispose one to poverty? Looking for a root cause seems unnecessary for this question; mental illness can easily just cause poverty directly.
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  > Historic levels of inequality, including urban "anyone can easily see that their downstairs neighbor is a hundred times richer than they are" inequality, were much greater than modern ones and involved a lot less social pathology; maybe look in that direction. That one is absolutely not true.
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    Why do you think we no longer have servants?
  - gottorf 2y ago
    Which part's not true, that inequality was lesser in the past, or that social pathology is more today?
    - marcosdumay 2y ago
      Inequality was lesser in the past. Way less. "Social pathology" is way too undefined a term for me to argue with.
      - thaumasiotes 2y ago
        You'll want to be careful about what you measure. For example, we generally take Forbes as an authority on who's rich, but really rich people tend to be excluded from consideration, because Forbes can only measure certain kinds of wealth, and even when people's wealth mostly exists in that form, it can be hard to see. Don't confuse a convenience metric with actual inequality.
      - gottorf 2y ago
        > Inequality was lesser in the past. Way less. I'm struggling to understand this one. Are you talking about the times of the cavemen, when I suppose everyone was equally materially poor? And yet you had other kinds of inequality back then, such as a bigger and stronger caveman being able to kill you and take your stuff, since there wasn't such a thing as a society or rule of law to protect you. Or are you referring to the vast majority of people who for the vast majority of recorded history who lived in systems that elevated certain bloodlines above others, legally and culturally, and sometimes even to the status of gods? Certainly you cannot claim that, say, Queen Victoria and the common Englishman were more equal than King Charles is to his average subject, in every possible way.
readyman 2y ago
>If the first half of your statement is true, then why do the billions of people subsisting on a few dollars a day around the world do not have society-wide problems with drug abuse and mental illness? They don't live in societies with extreme inequality and precarity. Under capitalism, inequality is the problem, not merely poverty.