4 ms·

Focusing on the richest can be more gratifying than focusing on the poorest. Everyone likes to hear stories about people with lots of money. It's aspirational i

by hooande 13y ago

Focusing on the richest can be more gratifying than focusing on the poorest. Everyone likes to hear stories about people with lots of money. It's aspirational in the "some day, that will be me" or "can you imagine?" forms. But it's not the most productive way to understand income inequality. The real metrics we should be looking at are how poor are the poorest people. How many gallons of milk or loaves of bread can someone buy with minimum wages? Does the current level of social mobility allow someone to escape from poverty within their life time? The issue isn't about how much more money the super rich have than the rest of us. It's about how we can help the poor to have enough to survive. Counting other peoples' money is a vulgar pursuit. It's sad that typing a celebrity's name into google often leads to a "how much is ________ worth" autocomplete suggestion. Being fascinated with the rich is understandable, but just a little more focus on the poor would benefit us all. Our startups and apps need paying customers, and there's only so much that rich people will buy. If we can configure our economy in such a way that the middle class is larger, more people will have money to spend on all kinds of things. Then maybe more of us can move into the top 2% or 3%, while leaving the megarich alone to focus on their own funds.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- sp332 13y ago
  "Google Bus" (after Gilbert and Sullivan) http://catandgirl.com/?p=4435#comments http://catandgirl.com/?p=4435#comments
jal278 13y ago
When talking about income inequality it may be too narrow to only look at "how poor are the poorest people," because what's important in an inequality is the increasingly vast disparity between the poorest and the richest. Focusing on the disparity is important because it highlights that there is systematic concentration of wealth, i.e. that the economic game seems to be stacked for the wealthiest: the rich really do get richer, while the poor really do get poorer. Otherwise, when you look at the poorest of the poor, the knee-jerk rebuttal of some is just that, sure, some people are really poor, but they deserve it -- e.g. they are the deadbeats of society, or they should work harder, or they should get better educated. In constrast, the increasing disparity between the rich and poor gives evidence that something larger is going on. I do agree that social mobility is important, as is expanding the middle class. But more than expanding the middle class, the income of the middle class should increase with the overall increase of wealth, which has not been occurring as of late. Also, the concept of "more of us can move into the top 2% or 3%" is tautologically impossible :)
- ebfe 13y ago
  The poor don't get poorer, though. The poor today are the richest they've been at any point in recorded history- they live longer, are more likely to own a home and cars, and are more likely to go to college than the kings of 100 years ago. Inequality is, in and of itself, a meaningless metric- what we really care about is the absolute quality of people's lives. If the social structures that result in the highest absolute quality of people's lives (by driving economic and technological progress) require inequality, then it's absurd to suggest we abandon them for a more equal society with a lower absolute quality of life.
  - jal278 13y ago
    I agree that overall the modern poor are likely doing better than they have historically -- although I disagree that they "never get poorer"; the trend in the last few decades as minimum wage has remained the same is would seem to indicate a decrease in their wealth due to inflation. But in any case it is a non sequitur to say that because the poor are doing as well as they ever have, that we no longer need to worry about them: If we have a surplus of planetary resources such that no one need starve, and people still starve, it is remains a moral situation we should want to remedy. Just about any indirect metric is meaningless by itself, yet we still use them, e.g. GDP, literacy rate, etc. And in the case of income inequality, it is likely only indicative of something nefarious when it becomes extreme. I'm not suggesting that we should aim for absolute equality in income. But, when income becomes extraordinarily concentrated in the hands of a few, it spells problems for society -- money often equals influence, and incredible concentration of wealth becomes equated with incredible concentration of influence, which is worrisome for a functional democracy. Finally, I agree, if somehow the perfect social structure that most raised the average overall quality of people's lives required incredibly inequal distribution of income, then we should not simply discard that system on principle. While I could imagine a certain level of income inequality being necessary for a functional capitalistic society -- I do not see why extreme inequality would be necessary, or how that extreme inequality in itself would increase the average citizen's quality of life.
    - ebfe 13y ago
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
pron 13y ago
Well, I only partly agree. In a developed country, that the poor should have enough to survive is a given. But once survival is assured (and I'm not saying it is, but it's not far from it), there are other important issues to consider. Money isn't just glitz, glamour, mansions and fast cars. Money is also power. And when money is distributed unequally, so is power. Now, this is a price we have to pay, because completely egalitarian approaches seem to have failed so far, and in order to incentivize people to create, some inequality is actually good. But the question is how much. When is inequality so blatant that feudalism is near? When is inequality so atrocious that the basic values of democracy are threatened? I don't think there are clear answers, but this is a continuous struggle in any capitalistic society. Capitalism has to be maintained, but curbed so that it doesn't run rampant.
- collyw 13y ago
  Why does capitalism have to be maintained? We are capable of sending a man to the moon, but this is the best we can come up with for wealth distribution? Actually on second thoughts, its not really capitalism our current system. Capitalism should have failed, but the banks got bailed out by the tax payers, and we have been on emergency low interest rates for years now. This ain't capitalism or free markets.
netcan 13y ago
I partially agree with you but I don't think you can categorically state that the issue is any one thing. Some people see income inequality as a problem in itself, a fundamental (literally) moral one. From that perspective, increased wealth at the top is bad for its own sake. My concerns are mostly about money and power. I think the two are inevitably intertwined. I think both socialist & liberal (in the economic sense) ideologies put a lot of emphasis on decoupling them. Neither were successful. I don't think it's possible. Concentration of wealth and concentration of power are related problems. It's a potential threat to democracy. There are also positive feedback effects which are dangerous. One way this manifests is closely related to the title (but not really the content) of this article. Talk about class is very coloured by the last century's political battles but one thing that is worth keeping in our lexicon is the marxist concept of "class," though without a lot of its extensions. The Marxist definition of class is more or less a group with shared economic and therefore political interest. The modern underclasses, middle classes, millionaire and billionaire classes can have potentially divergent economic and political interest. An economic interest which represents a large part of the economy can translate into economic policy. In the case of the 0.1% it just takes a handful of individuals to create that kind of an influence. Historically, countries have been openly run for the benefit of the upper classes.

by hooande 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

sp332 13y ago
"Google Bus" (after Gilbert and Sullivan) http://catandgirl.com/?p=4435#comments http://catandgirl.com/?p=4435#comments

jal278 13y ago

When talking about income inequality it may be too narrow to only look at "how poor are the poorest people," because what's important in an inequality is the increasingly vast disparity between the poorest and the richest. Focusing on the disparity is important because it highlights that there is systematic concentration of wealth, i.e. that the economic game seems to be stacked for the wealthiest: the rich really do get richer, while the poor really do get poorer. Otherwise, when you look at the poorest of the poor, the knee-jerk rebuttal of some is just that, sure, some people are really poor, but they deserve it -- e.g. they are the deadbeats of society, or they should work harder, or they should get better educated. In constrast, the increasing disparity between the rich and poor gives evidence that something larger is going on. I do agree that social mobility is important, as is expanding the middle class. But more than expanding the middle class, the income of the middle class should increase with the overall increase of wealth, which has not been occurring as of late. Also, the concept of "more of us can move into the top 2% or 3%" is tautologically impossible :)

ebfe 13y ago
The poor don't get poorer, though. The poor today are the richest they've been at any point in recorded history- they live longer, are more likely to own a home and cars, and are more likely to go to college than the kings of 100 years ago. Inequality is, in and of itself, a meaningless metric- what we really care about is the absolute quality of people's lives. If the social structures that result in the highest absolute quality of people's lives (by driving economic and technological progress) require inequality, then it's absurd to suggest we abandon them for a more equal society with a lower absolute quality of life.
- jal278 13y ago
  I agree that overall the modern poor are likely doing better than they have historically -- although I disagree that they "never get poorer"; the trend in the last few decades as minimum wage has remained the same is would seem to indicate a decrease in their wealth due to inflation. But in any case it is a non sequitur to say that because the poor are doing as well as they ever have, that we no longer need to worry about them: If we have a surplus of planetary resources such that no one need starve, and people still starve, it is remains a moral situation we should want to remedy. Just about any indirect metric is meaningless by itself, yet we still use them, e.g. GDP, literacy rate, etc. And in the case of income inequality, it is likely only indicative of something nefarious when it becomes extreme. I'm not suggesting that we should aim for absolute equality in income. But, when income becomes extraordinarily concentrated in the hands of a few, it spells problems for society -- money often equals influence, and incredible concentration of wealth becomes equated with incredible concentration of influence, which is worrisome for a functional democracy. Finally, I agree, if somehow the perfect social structure that most raised the average overall quality of people's lives required incredibly inequal distribution of income, then we should not simply discard that system on principle. While I could imagine a certain level of income inequality being necessary for a functional capitalistic society -- I do not see why extreme inequality would be necessary, or how that extreme inequality in itself would increase the average citizen's quality of life.
  - ebfe 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

pron 13y ago

Well, I only partly agree. In a developed country, that the poor should have enough to survive is a given. But once survival is assured (and I'm not saying it is, but it's not far from it), there are other important issues to consider. Money isn't just glitz, glamour, mansions and fast cars. Money is also power. And when money is distributed unequally, so is power. Now, this is a price we have to pay, because completely egalitarian approaches seem to have failed so far, and in order to incentivize people to create, some inequality is actually good. But the question is how much. When is inequality so blatant that feudalism is near? When is inequality so atrocious that the basic values of democracy are threatened? I don't think there are clear answers, but this is a continuous struggle in any capitalistic society. Capitalism has to be maintained, but curbed so that it doesn't run rampant.

collyw 13y ago
Why does capitalism have to be maintained? We are capable of sending a man to the moon, but this is the best we can come up with for wealth distribution? Actually on second thoughts, its not really capitalism our current system. Capitalism should have failed, but the banks got bailed out by the tax payers, and we have been on emergency low interest rates for years now. This ain't capitalism or free markets.

netcan 13y ago

I partially agree with you but I don't think you can categorically state that the issue is any one thing. Some people see income inequality as a problem in itself, a fundamental (literally) moral one. From that perspective, increased wealth at the top is bad for its own sake. My concerns are mostly about money and power. I think the two are inevitably intertwined. I think both socialist & liberal (in the economic sense) ideologies put a lot of emphasis on decoupling them. Neither were successful. I don't think it's possible. Concentration of wealth and concentration of power are related problems. It's a potential threat to democracy. There are also positive feedback effects which are dangerous. One way this manifests is closely related to the title (but not really the content) of this article. Talk about class is very coloured by the last century's political battles but one thing that is worth keeping in our lexicon is the marxist concept of "class," though without a lot of its extensions. The Marxist definition of class is more or less a group with shared economic and therefore political interest. The modern underclasses, middle classes, millionaire and billionaire classes can have potentially divergent economic and political interest. An economic interest which represents a large part of the economy can translate into economic policy. In the case of the 0.1% it just takes a handful of individuals to create that kind of an influence. Historically, countries have been openly run for the benefit of the upper classes.