How much inequality is TOO much inequality?

There should be some inequality around for incentives to innovate, research and develop and such. Thats the equilibrium. When there is social unrest, and we are on the brink of revolution, that's when inequality becomes destructive. The same goes with capitalism.

Reply 41

jape

16

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

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.

People who enjoy their work aren't the norm. And the people who don't enjoy their work are the ones working the jobs that keep this country muddling through. I'd get over it pretty quickly if Linus Torvalds moved to a hut in Dakota. I'd be more concerned a high proportion of civil servants woke up one morning and decided to quit.

Reply 42

jape

16

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

What about the mental health aspects of wealth inequality?

What the **** are you talking about?

Reply 43

JoshDawg

20

Free market capitalism doesn't care about race gender or sex, it's all about the money.

Also yes, if the bottom line of people were on 25k a year and the rest on millions+ (and a livable amount would be 16-20k across the country) then I'd have no problem. I personally would love to be a millionaire, but that doesn't mean I hate those that are and want them to have less money so that I could have it. You've got to work for stuff like that.

Reply 44

Joep95

19

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

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.

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.

If the law requires a certain outcome then people are not equal in law, as some people will be helped and others hindered that is not treating them equally.

As long as everyone has a right to education they have a way to better themselves no matter where they are educated

Reply 45

username878267

15

Original post by joecphillips

If the law requires a certain outcome then people are not equal in law, as some people will be helped and others hindered that is not treating them equally.

As long as everyone has a right to education they have a way to better themselves no matter where they are educated

Are you really suggesting that someone born into luxurious wealth has no greater opportunities in life than someone born into poverty?

Of course many wealthy people work hard, but those at the bottom have to work so much harder to reach the same level. If your parents are millionaires they can afford the best education, the best tutors. They have a huge network of connections. Your basic needs are always met.

If you are born in a council house to a single parent who struggles to pay the bills then you have none of those opportunities. If your parents cannot afford to send you to a private school and the local school is rubbish then what chance do they have?

People like you like to pretend that those born into wealth have no advantage over those born into poverty and that we live in a meritocracy where hard work is always rewarded and if people are poor then it's their own fault for being lazy and feckless.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 46

username878267

15

Original post by fleky6910

Why do we focus on the gap? Its always about the gap.

Whats wrong with the poor being better off and the rich being better off? Its not about the gap.
Only 20% of millionaires inherited their money.
At the end of the day its hard work. If your born poor its not your fault but if you die poor it is( in the UK anyway)

The problem becomes when a handful of people control the vast majority of the world's wealth and thus have a huge amount of power and influence over the political and economic processes because of that.

One only has to look at the American system where a handful of unbelievably wealthy individuals and corporations are able to pour money into the political system and effectively buy favours off them, as the pharmaceutical lobbies do with healthcare and the gun lobbies do by funding candidates who oppose gun restrictions.

Society becomes an oligarchy, dominated by big money interests. Take a look at Tony Blair for example. He banned the advertisement of cigarettes from sporting events but made an exception for Formula One because Bernie Ecclestone made a huge donation to the Labour party. Or look at the cash for peerages scandal.

If you have a more even society then you get far less domination of the political processes from a handful of wealthy individuals.

Reply 47

username878267

15

The problem with posts like this is that you fail to see the glaringly obvious link between huge levels of inequality and societal problems such as a lack of a healthy life.

Take America for example. The Pharmaceutical companies are so incredibly wealthy that they can afford to lobby politicians and fund politicians who oppose universal healthcare. This harms a great deal of people who cannot afford healthcare and prevents them from having a healthy, long and productive life.

Inequality is a problem when it means that a select few people and organisations have so much wealth and power that they influence the political process in a way detrimental to ordinary people.

Reply 48

Joep95

19

Original post by Bornblue

Are you really suggesting that someone born into luxurious wealth has no greater opportunities in life than someone born into poverty?

Of course many wealthy people work hard, but those at the bottom have to work so much harder to reach the same level. If your parents are millionaires they can afford the best education, the best tutors. They have a huge network of connections. Your basic needs are always met.

If you are born in a council house to a single parent who struggles to pay the bills then you have none of those opportunities. If your parents cannot afford to send you to a private school and the local school is rubbish then what chance do they have?

People like you like to pretend that those born into wealth have no advantage over those born into poverty and that we live in a meritocracy where hard work is always rewarded and if people are poor then it's their own fault for being lazy and feckless.

They do not have more opportunities it might be a bit easier but they don't have more opportunities.

That attitude is the problem you have started from the bottom so you have no chance don't even try, as someone who fits the description you gave should I just accept that I have no chance to make something of myself despite the fact I know people who have been successful having grown up in similar circumstances?

Reply 49

Burridge

OP

17

Original post by fleky6910

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.

As I've already said, I'd prefer a large gap and a higher standard of living for the poor: that is the main goal of my socialism. If, for some reason, you believe I'm lying about this, then I guess that's your problem and not mine.

"The gap clearly isn't important .... the gap clearly doesn't matter" - it seems to me as though you're trying to hinge your argument on an adverb. You haven't affirmed why the gap doesn't matter. In the previous post I broke my argument down into five key points - they were pretty concise. You've failed to address a single one of them, let alone even present an argument yourself.

Cheers :smile:

Reply 50

username878267

15

Original post by joecphillips

They do not have more opportunities it might be a bit easier but they don't have more opportunities.

That attitude is the problem you have started from the bottom so you have no chance don't even try, as someone who fits the description you gave should I just accept that I have no chance to make something of myself despite the fact I know people who have been successful having grown up in similar circumstances?

They do have greater opportunities, clearly. If you are born into a wealthy family you never have to worry about where your next meal is coming from. You never have to worry about having a roof over your head. You can afford to go to the best private or public school and afford to have a tutor to help you get there. You are born into a family who will likely place a far greater emphasis on your education. You can afford to take an unpaid internship and be bankrolled by your parents.

If you are born into a poor family, you do not have those opportunities. You cannot afford to go to a private school, you cannot afford a tutor. You have no such security as to getting your basic needs met.

Of course people from the bottom can and do make it and of course they should work hard. The problem is that they have to work far, far harder than someone from a wealthy background just to reach the same level.
That's not a meritocracy where people from poorer backgrounds have to work so much harder than people from wealthier backgrounds to achieve the same level.

All I am asking for is that those from poorer backgrounds are given greater opportunities through a more redistributive economic system which provides more funding to state schools and public services which the poor rely on far more than the wealthy.

Reply 51

username878267

15

But pharmaceutical companies do exactly that. See the huge sums of money they pour into the political process. See how they fund the campaigns of politicians who support them and offer lucrative jobs to politicians who are loyal to them.

Inequality causes massive social ills.

Reply 52

username878267

15

So our health system should be entirely left to profit making corporations?

If you don't want the state involved then do you think that anyone should be allowed to practice medicine and perform operations even if they have no qualifications? After all demanding that someone is qualified to practice medicine counts as a regulation on the free market which according to you is bad.

Also should there be no regulations on the testing of medicines? Should anyone be allowed to sell a product, claiming it to be safe without any testing or regulations? After all, demanding that medication goes through a thorough testing process counts as a restriction on the free market.

Rather than this fantasy libertarian pipe dream we should strive for a more equal society in which a handful of individuals and corporations don't own the vast majority of the nations wealth and power.

Reply 53

ChaoticButterfly

20

Original post by joecphillips

If the law requires a certain outcome then people are not equal in law, as some people will be helped and others hindered that is not treating them equally.

As long as everyone has a right to education they have a way to better themselves no matter where they are educated

Everyone can use the NHS. Everyone up o a certain age gets free education. Everyone is entitled to welfare if their situation calls for it. Everyone has human rights. This is equality of outcome. Everyone is entitled to it. They don't have to earn it, unlike say buying a TV.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 54

ChaoticButterfly

20

Original post by jape

What the **** are you talking about?

Maybe go read a book or something?

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/197/6/426

http://apt.rcpsych.org/content/10/3/216

https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/sites/default/files/mental_health_resilience_inequalities_summary.pdf

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/mar/11/mental-health-inequality

Relative poverty and inequality in general can still have an effect on people's health even if materially they are better off than a Lord 500 years ago.

Reply 55

Burridge

OP

17

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

Maybe go read a book or something?

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/197/6/426

http://apt.rcpsych.org/content/10/3/216

https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/sites/default/files/mental_health_resilience_inequalities_summary.pdf

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/mar/11/mental-health-inequality

Relative poverty and inequality in general can still have an effect on people's health even if materially they are better off than a Lord 500 years ago.

This is well noted. In addition, there is a relationship between inequality and:

1. Crime rates - "The main conclusion of this paper is that an increase in income inequality has a significant and robust effect of raising crime rates. In addition, the GDP growth rate has a significant crime-reducing impact. Since the rate of growth and distribution of income jointly determine the rate of poverty reduction, the two aforementioned results imply that the rate of poverty alleviation has a crime-reducing effect."

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime%26Inequality.pdf

2. Happiness - "In two different data sets covering 34 countries, economic growth was not associated with increases in happiness when it was accompanied by growing income inequality. Earlier instances of the Easterlin paradox (i.e., economic growth not being associated with increasing happiness) can thus be explained by the frequent concurrence of economic growth and growing income inequality. These findings suggest that a more even distribution of growth in national wealth may be a precondition for raising nationwide happiness."

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797615596713

Links have also been established between inequality and drug misuse, trust, life-expectancy and educational attainment, to name but a few.

Reply 56

Rakas21

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!

Define inequality.

I view income inequality as largely relevant on the basis that my nominal wage growth is far more important than whether my manager receives a larger pay increase. If my wage increases by 5% and my managers increases by 15% then i still have greater disposable income despite increased income inequality (albeit one can argue about how best to generate wage increases at the bottom - i think those who expect a sudden surge once EU immigration falls are idiots, it'll probably be worth maybe 0.5%).

Capital inequality (that is to say savings,, inheritor, property) is of far larger concern since these things can produce inter-generational effects.

..

Governments role through welfare is to reserve a minimum standard of living for its citizens (most of the right would argue survival, most of the left would argue comfort). While it may be prudent for government to generate greater wage growth at the bottom income spectrum it is not the preserve of government to tackle a problem which does not exits, ergo they should do nothing to stop income inequality existing. If capital inequality is increasing however (as we see now with housing) then yes, i do agree that they have a role to play. Unfortunately, i would argue that it is government who have intervened in the credit market and pumped the housing market.

...

Inequality per say is not an incentive nor driver of innovation but rather the self interested profit motive in tandem with solving a problem or providing a solution. Few people push themselves simply to be unequal, they focus on their own position. In a capitalist society inequality can best be seen as an acceptable side effect to the profit motive (in tandem with property rights) providing an incentive for innovation.

..

As above, inequality is a indirect side effect of capitalism. It is not the goal (theoretically a free market could produce perfect competition and see all firms in a sustainable position.. it is simply exceptionally unlikely given how dynamic competition is (one firm will always be better than another in some way).

..

As per the post above government should tackle those problems which may impact the next generation and prevent them from being as prosperous as the last. It should do very little to tackle one persons income rising faster than another in a free society.

Reply 57

username878267

15

Original post by Rakas21

Define inequality.

I view income inequality as largely relevant on the basis that my nominal wage growth is far more important than whether my manager receives a larger pay increase. If my wage increases by 5% and my managers increases by 15% then i still have greater disposable income despite increased income inequality (albeit one can argue about how best to generate wage increases at the bottom - i think those who expect a sudden surge once EU immigration falls are idiots, it'll probably be worth maybe 0.5%).

Capital inequality (that is to say savings,, inheritor, property) is of far larger concern since these things can produce inter-generational effects.

..

Governments role through welfare is to reserve a minimum standard of living for its citizens (most of the right would argue survival, most of the left would argue comfort). While it may be prudent for government to generate greater wage growth at the bottom income spectrum it is not the preserve of government to tackle a problem which does not exits, ergo they should do nothing to stop income inequality existing. If capital inequality is increasing however (as we see now with housing) then yes, i do agree that they have a role to play. Unfortunately, i would argue that it is government who have intervened in the credit market and pumped the housing market.

...

Inequality per say is not an incentive nor driver of innovation but rather the self interested profit motive in tandem with solving a problem or providing a solution. Few people push themselves simply to be unequal, they focus on their own position. In a capitalist society inequality can best be seen as an acceptable side effect to the profit motive (in tandem with property rights) providing an incentive for innovation.

..

As above, inequality is a indirect side effect of capitalism. It is not the goal (theoretically a free market could produce perfect competition and see all firms in a sustainable position.. it is simply exceptionally unlikely given how dynamic competition is (one firm will always be better than another in some way).

..

As per the post above government should tackle those problems which may impact the next generation and prevent them from being as prosperous as the last. It should do very little to tackle one persons income rising faster than another in a free society.

Absolutely no reference made to the fact that when such a high proportion of the nation's wealth is in the hands of so few, you effectively have an oligarchy where those with wealth influence the political process in their favour.

Japan is capitalist yet one of the most equal societies anywhere. We're capitalist and one of the most unequal. There are huge social issues connected to unequal societies.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 58

Jammy Duel

21

Original post by Bornblue

Another dodo.
Absolutely no reference made to the fact that when such a high proportion of the nation's wealth is in the hands of so few, you effectively have an oligarchy where those with wealth influence the political process in their favour.

Japan is capitalist yet one of the most equal societies anywhere. We're capitalist and one of the most unequal. There are huge social issues connected to unequal societies.