[Aspiringlawstudent]

I am somewhat confused by the assertion made by those on the left that income equality is prima facie a bad thing.

Why does it matter that some people earn more money than others? Why does it make those people 'bad' for simply being more successful?

What do you think? Is income inequality inherently bad?

If yes, why?

I am of the opinion that it is no business of anyone else how much money someone earns - a private individual is free to earn whatever amount the market is prepared to pay for their services. If you own voting shares in a company, you are entitled to express an opinion of the level of remuneration those in the company earn, but you must accept the will of the majority of people so entitled to express an opinion. If you do not have a legal interest in a company, you have no legitimate right to criticise the levels of pay within it.

It seems quite clear that jealousy is a big factor amongst those that complain of people having more money than they do.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

I'm interested to see if anyone can convince me that it is a bad thing - I'm open to listening to your arguments.

[When you see it...]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
If you own voting shares in a company, you are entitled to express an opinion of the level of remuneration those in the company earn

So only people who are already rich have the power to end income inequality? What a load of ****.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by When you see it...)
So only people who are already rich have the power to end income inequality? What a load of ****.

You don't need to be rich to have shares.

Why should people be able to tell other people what they can earn when they have no proximity or connection to them?

You've also failed to explain why ending income inequality would be a good thing.

[usainlightning]

Nah, it's just a tool used by the left to hide their own jealousy. What matters is the absolute living standards of society as a whole, not the gap between the richest and poorest.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by usainlightning)
Nah, it's just a tool used by the left to hide their own jealousy. What matters is the absolute living standards of society as a whole, not the gap between the richest and poorest.

I quite agree.

I rather remember these remarks on that point in particular.

[tom177]

Read - Wilkinson and Pickett 'The spirit level' (2009) and it will change your mind.
It gives clear evidence that more unequal societies perform worse (than more equal societies) in a range of issues, I.E. health, violence, education, etc.

[HighestKungFu]

Says the aspiring law student .

I expect that this will descend into a political debate between Tories and Leftists as well, however my two cents is that whilst higher incomes for higher level jobs that require more skill/responsibility is a good thing, having the mega-rich exploiting the tax system and resources (both human and natural) is the evil underbelly of capitalism.

[tom177]

I actually wrote a bit about the book in a very recent essay. Feel free to criticize my work, I know it isn't brilliant, but I hope you get the jist of what I'm trying to explain here.
I will say that it is a must read if you want to find why equality is better for everyone. Also there are graphs in the book (on almost every page) giving official statistics and evidence. (The USA is top of income inequality and the UK is 3rd).



‘The Spirit Level’ By Wilkinson & Pickett (2009) produces a number of key findings on this topic. The spirit level analyses the relationship between the level of inequality within countries and key issues of society I.E. Violence, Imprisonment, Educational performance, Mental health and so forth. Although ‘the spirit level’ does not look at whether the capitalist system causes crime, like radical theorists, it analyses crime within a capitalist system. So there are key differences in understanding the data. However, the results are not short of interesting. In regards to Violence, the United Kingdom is one of the most violent societies. There were over 2,000 violent crimes recorded per 100,000 populations in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe. Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people. By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 populations. Judging by this evidence, America would seem to be a safer place to reside. “The USA is once again at the top of the league table of the rich countries. Its murder rate is 64 per million, more than four times higher than the UK (15 per million) and more than twelve times higher than Japan, which has a rate of only 5.2 per million.” Wilkinson & Pickett (2009:136)
Despite being a far less violent society than the UK, America is one of the most homicidal societies on the planet. However the relationship between gun ownership and homicide rates is nothing new to America. But can capitalism also be to blame for this criminality? Both operate under capitalism, but so do many other countries that do not experience anywhere near the level of violence of homicide the USA and UK display. Wilkinson and Pickett put the reason down to the high levels of inequality that is very prevalent in both the UK and US. The reason why more unequal societies are more violent is that “shame and humiliation provides a plausible explanation of why more unequal societies suffer more violence” Wilkinson & Pickett (2009:144) and with increased levels of inequality, this ups the stakes in the competition for status: status matters even more.
In terms of imprisonment, both the UK and USA, both fairly rich countries with high levels of inequality strike up a causal relationship once more. The USA prison population had 450,000 in 1978, in 2005 there were over 2m; the numbers had quadrupled. In the UK, prison population doubled from 46,000 in the 1990’s to 80,000 in 2007. Denmark rose by 8 per cent, 9 per cent in Japan. More recently rates have been falling in Ireland, Austria, France and Germany.
“Prison data shows us that more unequal societies are more punitive” Wilkinson & Pickett (2009:150)
Wilkinson and Pickett again show that it is the more unequal societies that are more punitive with the UK and USA leading the front. The above data reveals interesting statistics that both the UK and USA has experienced vast growth in prison populations that is unmatched by any other country. Rates are falling in other countries that operate under capitalism, so can capitalism be the cause of crime? (Wilkinson and Pickett 2009) Criminologists Alfred Blumstein and Allen Beck only put 12% down to an increase in offending. The other 88 per cent of increased imprisonment was due to the likelihood that convicted criminals were sent to prison rather than being given non-custodial sentences and to the increased length of prison sentences. David Garland’s book, Culture of control (2001) also gives a good analysis that a changes in penal policy over the last 30 years has led to increased punitiveness and a U turn on a focus on rehabilitation. Unsurprisingly the USA and UK again lead the race for punitive punishments. Lastly societies that imprison more people also spend less of their wealth on welfare for their citizens. In more unequal societies, money is diverted away from positive spending on welfare, education, into the criminal and judicial systems.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by HighestKungFu)
Says the aspiring law student .

I expect that this will descend into a political debate between Tories and Leftists as well, however my two cents is that whilst higher incomes for higher level jobs that require more skill/responsibility is a good thing, having the mega-rich exploiting the tax system and resources (both human and natural) is the evil underbelly of capitalism.

I'm not sure how my degree is of any particular importance to the question at hand...

[Bill_Gates]

Simple fact of the matter is people follow the joneses if somebody has an enormous pile of money and everybody else doesnt. Those individuals will feel depressed and even angry towards that individual who has it all. Only good thing about high inequality if there is anything good about it is incentive. However having a small percentage of individuals with high net worth compared to everybody else they can corrupt politics,business, even life to their favour.

[HighestKungFu]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
I'm not sure how my degree is of any particular importance to the question at hand...

Well since you're aspiring to enter a profession where if successful you will be earning vastly more than the average person I suspect somewhat that you're in favour of a disparity in incomes since you'll be on the other side of the fence, assuming all goes well.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by HighestKungFu)
Well since you're aspiring to enter a profession where if successful you will be earning vastly more than the average person I suspect somewhat that you're in favour of a disparity in incomes since you'll be on the other side of the fence, assuming all goes well.

You're sort of assuming that I want to be a lawyer.

[Classical Liberal]

Income inequality is all people go on about today. The problem with such analysis is that it looks at figures rather than people. Britain is phenomenally equal. The vast majority of people have access to hot running water, transport to take them around the country, television, ample food, the internet, toilets, clothes, education, healthcare and so on and so forth.

Sure inequality of income exists, however the extra income that the rich have is for the most part spent on just having nicer things rather than living totally different lives compared to the less well off.

The rich live in bigger houses, or drive faster cars, or have a better TVs, but they still essentially live very similar lives compared to the less well off. Particularly when you compare the conditions the poor used to live in in the past compared to the rich. It is remarkable how equal the UK is when you compare it to all of history.

[HighestKungFu]

(Original post by usainlightning)
Nah, it's just a tool used by the left to hide their own jealousy. What matters is the absolute living standards of society as a whole, not the gap between the richest and poorest.

Are the living standards of a nation as a whole not relative to the gap between its richest citizens and its poorest? Surely the measure of living standards is how wide or narrow that gap is?

That is the problem with Britain. The class system is so deeply imbedded that Disraeli's observation that Britain was 'two nations' is still as relevant today as it was then.

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by HighestKungFu)
Are the living standards of a nation as a whole not relative to the gap between its richest citizens and its poorest? Surely the measure of living standards is how wide or narrow that gap is?

That is the problem with Britain. The class system is so deeply imbedded that Disraeli's observation that Britain was 'two nations' is still as relevant today as it was then.

No, the living standards are not relative to the income inequality. This is not a matter of opinion, it is empirically provable.

Depending on the measure used, the most equal countries in the world are: Bolivia, Sierra Leone and Namibia. The least equal are Japan and Sweden.

Using the Human development index and Quality of life index as a living standards measure the global rankings are:

Bolivia: HDI- 108th -medium human development. QOL- 82nd.
Sierra Leone: HDI- 180th (out of 187)- Low human Development QOL- not ranked.
Namibia: HDI- 120th medium human development QOL- not ranked.

And the big gap countries?

Japan: HDI- 12th Very high human development. QOL- 5th.
Sweden: HDI- 10th Very high human development. QOL- 17th.

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
You're sort of assuming that I want to be a lawyer.

Wonder what gave him that idea

[Logi]

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
No, the living standards are not relative to the income inequality. This is not a matter of opinion, it is empirically provable.

Depending on the measure used, the most equal countries in the world are: Bolivia, Sierra Leone and Namibia. The least equal are Japan and Sweden.

Using the Human development index and Quality of life index as a living standards measure the global rankings are:

Bolivia: HDI- 108th -medium human development. QOL- 82nd.
Sierra Leone: HDI- 180th (out of 187)- Low human Development QOL- not ranked.
Namibia: HDI- 120th medium human development QOL- not ranked.

And the big gap countries?

Japan: HDI- 12th Very high human development. QOL- 5th.
Sweden: HDI- 10th Very high human development. QOL- 17th.

Um, I thought Japan and Sweden were well known for being very egalitarian countries? Can I see some proof that the converse is true? As far as I'm aware the gap between the richest and poorest, though rising, is still comparatively small in Japan and the increase is largely the result of the ageing population. In addition they have a tiny underclass compared to the UK or USA. Sweden does indeed have large differences in income but it is redistributed through high taxes and a generous welfare state.

So yeah, could I get some sources that support your point please?

[Mr Dangermouse]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
I am somewhat confused by the assertion made by those on the left that income equality is prima facie a bad thing.

Why does it matter that some people earn more money than others? Why does it make those people 'bad' for simply being more successful?

What do you think? Is income inequality inherently bad?

If yes, why?

I am of the opinion that it is no business of anyone else how much money someone earns - a private individual is free to earn whatever amount the market is prepared to pay for their services. If you own voting shares in a company, you are entitled to express an opinion of the level of remuneration those in the company earn, but you must accept the will of the majority of people so entitled to express an opinion. If you do not have a legal interest in a company, you have no legitimate right to criticise the levels of pay within it.

It seems quite clear that jealousy is a big factor amongst those that complain of people having more money than they do.

Of course it isn't. It's an inherintly good thing that people are free to go out and make money for themselves. Of course, if by some freak of nature the market managed to settle at some form of equilibrium level where everyone ended up earning the same, that wouldn't be a bad thing, but that's not going to happen.


Having said that, the government does have to intervene to help those in poverty, especially children.

[HighestKungFu]

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
No, the living standards are not relative to the income inequality. This is not a matter of opinion, it is empirically provable.

Depending on the measure used, the most equal countries in the world are: Bolivia, Sierra Leone and Namibia. The least equal are Japan and Sweden.

Using the Human development index and Quality of life index as a living standards measure the global rankings are:

Bolivia: HDI- 108th -medium human development. QOL- 82nd.
Sierra Leone: HDI- 180th (out of 187)- Low human Development QOL- not ranked.
Namibia: HDI- 120th medium human development QOL- not ranked.

And the big gap countries?

Japan: HDI- 12th Very high human development. QOL- 5th.
Sweden: HDI- 10th Very high human development. QOL- 17th.

Thanks for backing up your argument with empirical evidence. I suppose what you're saying here is in line with Winston Churchill's quote that "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." You have picked three poor countries (two very poor) to highlight places where misery is shared and there is little room for mobility, which is a fair point. However, Whilst those at the top in wealthier countries can help to pull others up, and yes sometimes wealth does 'trickle down', I think that in the U.S. and UK the power and position of those at the very top (the 1% in America, most of the Tories here+others) is being exploited at the expensive of others in society (usually the most vulnerable). This is clearly the case now with the current government, who continually batter the most vulnerable in society (the poor, the old, the sick) to better enhance the position of those who are already extremely privilaged.

This I think is an inherent evil of capitalism, and regardless of what societies look like on paper with numbers and statistics, I think this is a true measure of civilisation. I'd rather our country have less money if it meant that more people were brought above the poverty line and the greed of the rich was circumvented.