How much inequality is TOO much inequality?

OP

Not your typical socialist then! Still the gap doesn't matter, I don't see why it does. As long as the poor are earning more and living to a better standard standard , that is all that matters.

I took a quote from Bill Gates there , lol and to a degree I agree with it. I attend a grammar school , I know poor people and know that hard work does lead to better grades. This is why Chinese working class people's children outperform the British ( not try to make a stereotype , just stating the facts). The point is we can catch up with them. There are plenty of people who have worked up fro the bottom and got into banking, finance , politics ( Ill spare you the names as you won't care , lol) .

With all due respect, perhaps you haven't had much interaction with socialists then. The priority, for most moderate socialists, is to increase the standard of living of the working classes - tightening the gap is an aspiration, not the priority.

The gap is important for a few reasons:
- It undermines equality of opportunity. A wide disparity between rich and poor creates an uneven wedge between children - inevitably, some children will be far better equipped than others. It strengthens social mobility to tighten that wedge.
- Currently, the gap is not a fair reflection of contribution. Whilst it may be too utopian to ask that workers should receive the fruits of their labour, a pay scheme that more accurately reflects contribution isn't such a big ask. The disconnection between the input and output has been exacerbated in recent years; just today study has been released on the issue - https://www.cfauk.org/media-centre/cfa-uk-executive-remuneration-report-2016
- It undermines social cohesion as society becomes bitterly divided. Social cohesion was one reason why conservatism argues for paternalism - a divided society is more likely to become revolutionary.
- A basic sense of fairness and social justice. As a socialist, I can't sit by and be happy to accept a society in which the richest 85 individuals hold as much wealth as the bottom half of the worlds population. With billions across the globe being totally neglected and exploited, I believe this state of affairs to be morally and ethically unacceptable.
- The Spirit Level: if you haven't read the book, I suggest you do so. The book demonstrates how 'the gap' adversely impacts almost every aspect of society: happiness, crime rates, health, infant mortality etc.
- It undermines our political institutions. Bankrolling of campaigns and lobbying, for example, demonstrate how rich elites have the ability manipulate our political system in their own favour. The Murdoch media empire is a good example of this. Tightening the gap would reduce the impact, thereby creating a stronger democratic relationship between those at the bottom and our leaders.

I attended one of the worst performing comprehensive schools in the country between 2005-2010 (5 A*-C attainment rate of 24% if I remember correctly). I managed to break somewhat of a glass ceiling, and went on to study at one of the best Grammar Sixth Forms in the area between 2010-2012. The differences between the two was stark. I can honestly, singly-handedly say that there was a vast cultural difference between both sets of students.

The Grammar students were largely middle class and were from a background that stressed the importance of education; paying for extra-tuition, school trips and overall from a less-stressful and more comfortable family background. The comprehensive school was dominated by kids that some would classify as 'the underclass': they had grown up in poverty; parents on benefits, surrounded by crime and drug use. It's no surprise that one a handful of my comprehensive school friends went on to study at university.

I'm not saying that those born into privilege don't work hard. They do. But equally, you must recognise that a poverty cycle exists. Poor kids simply don't have the same opportunity or support network to fulfil their potential. It's no coincidence that people whose parents have highly paid jobs are more likely to end up with highly paid jobs themselves.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 21

username2808800

6

Original post by Burridge

With all due respect, perhaps you haven't had much interaction with socialists then. The priority, for most moderate socialists, is to increase the standard of living of the working classes - tightening the gap is an aspiration, not the priority.

The gap is important for a few reasons:
- It undermines equality of opportunity. A wide disparity between rich and poor creates an uneven wedge between children - inevitably, some children will be far better equipped than others. It strengthens social mobility to tighten that wedge.
- Currently, the gap is not a fair reflection of contribution. Whilst it may be too utopian to ask that workers should receive the fruits of their labour, a pay scheme that more accurately reflects contribution isn't such a big ask. The disconnection between the input and output has been exacerbated in recent years; just today study has been released on the issue - https://www.cfauk.org/media-centre/cfa-uk-executive-remuneration-report-2016
- It undermines social cohesion as society becomes bitterly divided. Social cohesion was one reason why conservatism argues for paternalism - a divided society is more likely to become revolutionary.
- A basic sense of fairness and social justice. As a socialist, I can't sit by and be happy to accept a society in which the richest 85 individuals hold as much wealth as the bottom half of the worlds population. With billions across the globe being totally neglected and exploited, I believe this state of affairs to be morally and ethically unacceptable.
- The Spirit Level: if you haven't read the book, I suggest you do so. The book demonstrates how 'the gap' adversely impacts almost every aspect of society: happiness, crime rates, health, infant mortality etc.
- It undermines our political institutions. Bankrolling of campaigns and lobbying, for example, demonstrate how rich elites have the ability manipulate our political system in their own favour. The Murdoch media empire is a good example of this. Tightening the gap would reduce the impact, thereby creating a stronger democratic relationship between those at the bottom and our leaders.

I attended one of the worst performing comprehensive schools in the country between 2005-2010 (5 A*-C attainment rate of 24% if I remember correctly). I managed to break somewhat of a glass ceiling, and went on to study at one of the best Grammar Sixth Forms in the area between 2010-2012. The differences between the two was stark. I can honestly, singly-handedly say that there was a vast cultural difference between both sets of students.

The Grammar students were largely middle class and were from a background that stressed the importance of education; paying for extra-tuition, school trips and overall from a less-stressful and more comfortable family background. The comprehensive school was dominated by kids that some would classify as 'the underclass': they had grown up in poverty; parents on benefits, surrounded by crime and drug use. It's no surprise that one a handful of my comprehensive school friends went on to study at university.

I'm not saying that those born into privilege don't work hard. They do. But equally, you must recognise that a poverty cycle exists. Poor kids simply don't have the same opportunity or support network to fulfil their potential. It's no coincidence that people whose parents have highly paid jobs are more likely to end up with highly paid jobs themselves.

The gap clearly isn't important , I would rather the poorest be able to live comfortably and the rich even more. You would rather the poor be poorer if the rich were less rich , your response proves this and I have no further contributions to this discussion. Your only concerned of where the wealth is held and the percentage of it held by people. Id rather have a small piece of a big pie than a big piece of a small pie! You've just waffled on about the gap when the gap clearly doesn't matter.

Reply 22

Abdukazam

2

Original post by Burridge

Hi, I've got a few questions about inequality - let's get a discussion going!

- In your opinion, how much inequality is too much inequality?
- Should it be a responsibility of the government to kerb growing inequality?
- How much do you value inequality as an incentive and driver of innovation?
- How important is inequality to market capitalism?
- What - if anything - should be done to tackle inequality?

I'll leave it up to you to you to determine what is meant by 'inequality' - it'll be interesting to see the different responses!

- When the inequality is being forced from above.
- No, people must be responsible themselves.
- Highly, inequality is a huge driver of innovation.
- Highly, as above.
- Nothing*

* There is a difference between inequality and basic need, I support minimal sustenance, but no more.

Reply 23

rustyldner

2

There's a minimum wage, state subsidised housing, state funded healthcare, an enormous inefficient public sector which pays people like MPs and tube drivers far too much. What more do socialists want when complaining about inequality?
The only people who should be complaining are those in the healthcare sector who are paid far too little, due to the government. Public spending should be at most 10% of GDP instead of nearly 45% as in the UK.

Reply 24

ChaoticButterfly

20

Original post by Cato the Elder

Do you think this world would at all be an interesting and not intolerable place if everyone was at exactly the same position in life?

Part of what makes the human experience more enjoyable is when one is faced with the vicissitudes of fate and all the dynamism that is present in life. Without rivals to compete against or obstacles to overcome, you take away the best and most efficacious means of producing higher men.

I wish I could send people like you right down to the utter bottom existence and depravity of human existence and then try to sell your spiel to you. I imagine I would get the same schadenfreude you describe by taking from those that have everything and giving to those that have nothing.

All you are doing is the standard thing often found in religion an d other human vices and ways of coping. Justifying and worshipping misery of human existence.

Inequity is only to be tolerated if it is the least worse outcome. It isn't something to be celebrated.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 25

Cato the Elder

3

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

I wish I could send people like you right down to the utter bottom existence and depravity of human existence and then try to sell your spiel to you. I imagine I would get the same schadenfreude you describe by taking from those that have everything and giving to those that have nothing.

All you are doing is the standard thing often found in religion an d other human vices and ways of coping. Justifying and worshipping misery of human existence.

Inequity is only to be tolerated if it is the least worse outcome. It isn't something to be celebrated.

What you are doing is no different to what the most vulgar pessimists, life-haters and slave moralisers have been doing for centuries. You portray life as being about nothing but suffering and misery, and identify the cause of said suffering and misery as those who enjoy and seek to overcome life.

This is what Nietzsche identified as slave morality. People like you, with pompous, self-righteous regard, see strength, wealth, vitality, ambition and self-esteem as being evidence of wickedness and malice, and elevate pity and poverty as virtues.

You must take both the good and the bad if you truly value life. As Nietzsche said, "All good things have come out of bad things." If you see life as worth living, then you should be able to not only endure, but embrace tragedy and misfortune with prosperity and comfort.

As someone who has just lost a father in my final year before university, I am not in the best of circumstances at all, and I do not pretend not to be grief-stricken, but I accept that as part of life, and know that one day I might well look back and say that it helped, rather than hindered, my destiny. Misfortune is precisely what propels greatness and ambition and achievement. To rid the world of all misery, inequality, setbacks and dissatisfaction is to make the world a bland, striveless place inhabited by the Last Man.

Reply 26

Len Goodman

3

Inequality is fantastic and is sorely needed in a capitalist society like ours. What incentive is there to work hard if you'll always be on the same level as the scroungers and the unemployed? What incentive is there to work hard if there's no fear of falling into poverty?

Reply 27

ChaoticButterfly

20

Original post by Cato the Elder

You portray life as being about nothing but suffering and misery, and identify the cause of said suffering and misery as those who enjoy and seek to overcome life.

Nope. I want to reduce suffering and increase freedom for humans in general whilst also accepting I have all the human characteristics myself. I just seek to overcome life by fighting against the crappy aspects of it. I don't see why my way of seeking to overcome life is any less valid. I don't see the difference between the entrepreneur and the unionised workers.

Although I do think life is pretty bleak for most living things and this stuff you are saying about good things coming from bad things is just a human coping mechanism imo. No one gave us a choice in the matter of life and the suffering and happiness that involves. I don't have to be grateful or like all the aspects of existence. Although what do I know :dontknow:

Also sorry about your dad.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 28

jape

16

Original post by Burridge

Hi, I've got a few questions about inequality - let's get a discussion going!

- In your opinion, how much inequality is too much inequality?
- Should it be a responsibility of the government to kerb growing inequality?
- How much do you value inequality as an incentive and driver of innovation?
- How important is inequality to market capitalism?
- What - if anything - should be done to tackle inequality?

I'll leave it up to you to you to determine what is meant by 'inequality' - it'll be interesting to see the different responses!

- Inequality isn't inherently bad. I think the main thing is whether the inequality is arrived at justly, which in a free market meritocratic economy is certainly would be. The other point is the status of those at the bottom of the pile. I'm not concerned at all by a gap between the bottom and top, but I am interested in the gap between the bottom and the bottom of 20 years ago.

- I don't see it as the government's role to interfere in the economy one way or another. I do support a very basic safety net (£12,000 UBI with certain multipliers for disability) but apart from that the economy should do as the economy does. The two major recessions of the last hundred years were both made exponentially worse by government meddling.

- Inequality is absolutely an incentive to strive, but only if the economy is free enough to allow that striving to be worthwhile. The Tories and Labour have been complicit in making our economy stilted and prohibitively difficult to engage with. So even though I think inequality can create an incentive to achieve, that clearly isn't the case right now.

- Crucial beyond exaggeration. Market capitalism thrives on innovation. Why innovate and do the work if you aren't going to see any significant material reward?

- Nothing really. Just loosen government restrictions on the market and make the inequality an inequality of merit.

Reply 29

sleepysnooze

3

Original post by Burridge

Hi, I've got a few questions about inequality - let's get a discussion going!

- In your opinion, how much inequality is too much inequality?
- Should it be a responsibility of the government to kerb growing inequality?
- How much do you value inequality as an incentive and driver of innovation?
- How important is inequality to market capitalism?
- What - if anything - should be done to tackle inequality?

I'll leave it up to you to you to determine what is meant by 'inequality' - it'll be interesting to see the different responses!

1) "economic inequality"? pretty much none. we don't live in a country whereby wealth inequality threatens our lives any more like in the victorian age. in this age, even if the gap between the richest and the poorest was something like 1:99, the poor would still at least be able to live somewhat comfortably. and if they are able to live comfortable even in that circumstance, that is a *success* of inequality, because it would have been that inequality that was actually to their benefit. that's why "modern" liberal theorists like rawls in political philosophy can't even say that inequality is bad because it often is "to the benefit of the least well off in society"

2) what do you mean "growing" inequality? the only way they would ever do that would be if they made it a law that the poor had to pay more taxes than the rich, and by that, I don't mean ensuring that the rich pay less de facto, I mean a situation whereby the rich were to pay an objective rate of income that was x and the poor had to pay an income rate of x+1.

3) it's not purely the fact that it is an incentivisation of innovation. that is simply the fact that means that socialism doesn't work. capitalism doesn't just work, it's also moral. it is moral that those that typically work harder and make others happy are rewarded more by their capitalist environment. by "make people happy", that is what I mean generally by "work harder" - we emight think that useless people like justin bieber or kayne west don't actually "work hard", but they're making people's lives better because they wouldn't be rich unless they were generating money through the music and products that they sell. if nobody was better off by buying their art, then they wouldn't be buying those products in the first place. and if they made a mistake by buying them, then they learn a lesson from it and it doesn't define the system. it's also objectively (or as objective as it gets) moral that you get to keep what you earn - a system whereby the government has a higher claim to your wealth or property than you yourself as the earner of it is just a malicious principle in my opinion, because literally anybody with an army of goons could be saying the same thing about what they'll be doing with the money that they steal from you. it's theft. we don't "give to the government" - the government "takes from us". the fact that they're elected changes nothing. a rapist organisation might be "elected" but that wouldn't make their rape "acts of love making" simply via that fact of being elected.

4) the principle of the free market kind of relies on inequality - for example, an investment in a company or a business proposal would be reliant on the fact that such a commitment is risky because if you fail, you become poor. hence, the risk pays off well if it is a success, and you become unequal in a good way. also, if you have less inequality, the market will simply adjust to that and make products more expensive if more people are able to buy them. so if there was no risk of bad inequality for each individual via their actions, there'd be no reason for people to make good products or invest in things. I could compare this to going to uni - you go to uni because you're investing your value (time and money) into the prospect of not being as poor in the future.

5) nothing

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 30

Recont

16

Think about difference between equality and equity. I think equality can be achieved trough equity.

Reply 31

ChaoticButterfly

20

What about the mental health aspects of wealth inequality?

Reply 32

ChaoticButterfly

20

Original post by jape

-
- Crucial beyond exaggeration. Market capitalism thrives on innovation. Why innovate and do the work if you aren't going to see any significant material reward?

Maybe go outside your economics textbook and talk to some research scientists or something?

Reply 33

Jammy Duel

21

Original post by Burridge

Hi, I've got a few questions about inequality - let's get a discussion going!

- In your opinion, how much inequality is too much inequality?
- Should it be a responsibility of the government to kerb growing inequality?
- How much do you value inequality as an incentive and driver of innovation?
- How important is inequality to market capitalism?
- What - if anything - should be done to tackle inequality?

I'll leave it up to you to you to determine what is meant by 'inequality' - it'll be interesting to see the different responses!

Under what metrics is inequality growing, by pretty much all relevant metrics I've seen it is, at most, remaining at the same level it has done since at least the Thatcher era, minor fluctuations aside.

Reply 34

Joep95

19

Everybody should be equal in law, have the same rights and have the opportunity to learn and then it is down to the individual to make the best of their lives

Reply 35

jape

16

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

Maybe go outside your economics textbook and talk to some research scientists or something?

Research scientists are exceptions to the rule, likewise doctors. I was thinking more of people starting businesses.

Reply 36

ChaoticButterfly

20

Original post by jape

Research scientists are exceptions to the rule, likewise doctors. I was thinking more of people starting businesses.

So research scientists and doctors are exceptions? Lets add Free Software to that list as well. Where do you think the Linux OS comes from? Microsoft?

There must come a point where there are so many exceptions they become the norm.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 37

ChaoticButterfly

20

Original post by joecphillips

Everybody should be equal in law, have the same rights and have the opportunity to learn and then it is down to the individual to make the best of their lives

What if the law states there should be a certain level of equality of outcome? What if we are all equal before the law but education is a private good one must pay for oneself? Equal in law can mean almost anything.

Original post by Recont

Think about difference between equality and equity. I think equality can be achieved trough equity.

What about where the tall guy gets the biggest box? That is what we have now in many ways.

Inequality isn't just about money either. It is also about power. Take China for example. There is a growing middle class that is well of compared to previous generations yet they have less political power than an equivalently poorer working class person in Britain. Inequality is also about who has control over their life, both working and non working.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 38

BasicMistake

18

When the marginal social cost of inequality is greater than the marginal social benefit of inequality.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 39

fefssdf

20

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

This would be too much inequality

How much inequality is TOO much inequality?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you