Forum Post: wealth inequality
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 19, 2011, 10:31 a.m. EST by profrgs
(5)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
They say a picture tells a thousand words, but here are some graphs that say millions of words: http://inequality.org/wealth-inequality/ So if anyone criticizes those who are part of this movement tell them to check out these graphs. These and other data strongly support what the occupy movement is about.
I fail to see how wealth inequity is a problem. Most of the middle class have chosen to buy homes through the only means open to us, a mortgage. That alone gives us a negative net worth, car loans, credit card debt increases our negative wealth. We've chosen to have a negative net worth.
If you do have more assets then liabilities, those assets are going to grow on their own once invested, pushing your net worth higher. So it's also natural for wealth to grow if you have a positive net worth to start with. Natural too for those that have a positive net worth to be over represented in the stock market.
Net worth or wealth inequity are red herrings. It detracts from the real problems of corporate influence and corruption in politics. Vote for people that are committed to fixing the tax codes and regulating lobbies. We have to stop complaining about a natural consequence that comes from a choice we make and work on the real problems
You are spot on here .
Wealth inequity divides and causes prejudice.
What's Trust Got To Do With It?
But does inequality erode trust and divide people -- government from citizens, rich from poor, minority from majority? This chapter shows that the quality of social relations deteriorates in less equal societies.
Inequality, not surprisingly, is a powerful social divider, perhaps because we all tend to use differences in living standards as markers of status differences. We tend to choose our friends from among our near equals and have little to do with those much richer or poorer. And when we have less to do with other kinds of people, it's harder for us to trust them. Our position in the social hierarchy affects who we see as part of the in-group and who as out-group -- us and them -- so affecting our ability to identify with and empathize with other people. Later in the book, we'll show that inequality not only has an impact on how much we look down on others because they have less than we do, but also affects other kinds of discrimination, such as racism and sexism, with attitudes sometimes...justified....by statements like, 'they just don't live like us'.
De Tocqueville understood this point. A lifelong opponent of slavery, he wrote about the exclusion of African-Americans and Native Americans from the liberty and equality enjoyed by other Americans. Slavery, he thought, could only be maintained because African-Americans were viewed as 'other', so much so that 'the European is to other races what man himself is to the animals'.
Empathy is only felt for those we view as equals, 'the same feeling for one another does not exist between the different classes'. Prejudice, thought de Tocqueville, was 'an imaginary inequality' which followed the 'real inequality produced by wealth and the law'.
Excerpts from the Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger
It's more divisive when used as a sound bite to convince someone he's been abused somehow. People are not equal and never will be. Although there are a few exceptions, we tend to marry within our own age group, and often associate within that group, or with people of a similar occupation. We are a tribal social animal.
You may have a strong desire to see wealth distributed evenly to all. Even if that were done, it would be like a magic weight loss pill. Change your weight to whatever you like, you'll be back to your present weight in time because of what you are. If you don't change people, the way they think and feel , they way we are as a species, we'll be right back to inequity in a generation or two.
It's only my opinion, but concentrating on changing the nature of man seems more difficult, if not impossible, then weeding out the corrupting influence of money and corporations from government.
A very different vision of America is offered by one of its earliest observers. Alexis de Tocqueville traveled throughout the United States in 1831. He met presidents and ex-presidents, mayors, senators and judges, as well as ordinary citizens, and everywhere he went he was impressed by the 'equality of conditions'. 'the blending of social ranks and the abolition of privileges' -- the way society was one 'single mass' (at least for whites). He wrote that 'Americans of all ages, conditions, and all dispositions constantly unite together', that 'strangers readily congregate in the same places and find neither danger nor advantage in telling each other freely what they think', their manner being 'natural, open, and unreserved. And de Tocqueville points out the ways in which Americans support one another in times of trouble.
Should some unforeseen accident occur on the public highway, people run from all sides to help the victim; should some family fall foul of an unexpected danger, a thousand strangers willingly open their purses.
Isn't this what America is about?
In many cases it still is what America is all about. There is still opportunity and there is a mechanism for fixing our republic if Americans would give as much effort and thought to national affairs as they give to reality shows. The masses have become united in their knowledge of trivia rather then things like corruption and taxation.
What was his measure of equality at the time? It certainly wasn't wealth, even then there was inequity, but everyone believed they could obtain property and wealth through hard work. Depending on the history you read you could also say you could acquire the land through theft, as long as the victim was a Native American.
Social inequality was there though. Whites were united by a common government and a feeling of common destiny. That could easily over come social differences. We'd come through two wars with England, as well as several Indian Wars. Giving whites common ground. There was more hope to achieve and that united people too.
Why do you hang on so hard to defend the status quo? It is like you have no ability to judge anything on actual merits, you duck and dodge, but never really listen. The case he's making is about not having class warfare due to gross income inequity. Not once did you mention class in your reply. Did his whole point escape you?
Empathy is only felt for those we view as equals, 'the same feeling for one another does not exist between the different classes'. There was less class warfare, when there was greater wealth equality.
He's pointing out that greater wealth equality brings us together and blends social ranks and abolishes privileges. That was his measure of equality at the time. Be a good sponge and absorb it. It's true.
In the case of de Tocqueville, from your comments I would say at that time there was a white class, the black slave class, and the class composed of Native Americans. The white group he found so free from class distinction had a common origin, had shared a common struggle for freedom, and had a common goal at that time. Great care was taken by the framers of the constitution to avoid class. Although they set up the senate and house as comparable to the House of Lords and Commons, titles and nobility were banned by law. Easy for a small population with a common background, not much history as Americans, unlimited opportunity to move west, simply take land and make a good life through your own efforts, to ignore different economic status. I'm not surprised at what de Tocqueville saw.
Jump to the great waves of immigrants and we can see the beginnings of class warfare. Each wave bringing a new and different "under class". I don't see this as just the result of differences in wealth, although each wave of immigrants was composed of very poor people. It was also due to different cultures, languages, religions.
He may very well be right the greater economic equality would bring us closer together, but there are many more factors then wealth dividing us today. I feel a sense of brotherhood with anyone that shares my profession or occupation, without regard to race or religion. It's what we share, goals, history, experience, that brings us together and help that feeling of empathy. I enjoy learning about other cultures, but there are people that look on differences with suspicion. It's not economic class, it's a prejudice due to culture.
Even if equal wealth were the ultimate fix to all our problems, how would you make it happen and prevent inequality from returning? Move to a more socialized government? What can really be done to make all people feel as though they are the same?
You're slopping Tocqueville's words into a muddy soup.
Not once was there claim it solved racial prejudices. Not once was there mention of equal wealth, rather more equal wealth. Not once was there mention of socialism during the time Tocqueville viewed America, so which magic hat you pulled all that out from, I don't have a clue.
You said wealth inequity is a red herring, I begged to differ. Not once was there a mention of a cure all (who said anything about a utopia), rather that there is a direct correlation to empathy and greater income equality.
Wealth inequity is not a red herring. Again, I say listen, my man. Stop ducking and dodging, and listen. You do not have to agree with Tocqueville, but do please stop inferring meanings that we're never suggested by his words.
I'm sorry I think economics because the original post was on that topic. From the start that's where my thoughts have run, not simply class.
As far as class distinction and de Tocqueville are concerned, he was here in America at a time when all the people were pretty much the same. It was a wonderful and unique time, but de Tocqueville's observations can't help us today, we have a much more diverse population and with that has come differences that lead to division. I find his word's, as you presented them, irrelevant in helping a society so large and diverse.
As far as this post is concerned, simple economic inequality is, in my opinion, not the place to start.
How can you divide class from economics in your thoughts and not sound preposterous? Economics creates class. We divide the classes by their socioeconomic status; Rich, Middle, & Poor Income.
Now, the mixing of cultures is not indisputably irrelevant to the case he's making, and I do not agree with you, but I can see how you came to your assumption.
Finally, please explain to me what is simple about about economic inequality. Tocqueville made relevant observations on the correlation between greater equality and empathy (one might say, Newt Gingrich's attack on the poor and child laws showed a certain lack of empathy for the plight of the poor), yet you dismiss his case as simple, because in your mind society and economics are so distinctly separate, one has nothing to do with the other.
I shall immediately go scratch the word socioeconomics from my dictionary, as such a thing must not exist.
My reading of your description of de Tocqueville's comments doesn't mention economics at all. In his time, in Europe, the upper class was defined as much by birth as money. He seemed to note an equality of sprit in America, a belief that no one was better then anyone else. You didn't give a quote that says anything about economics. Although I do agree it's often a divider.
Unfortunately that changed as the population grew and became more diverse. For example Cornelius Vanderbilt, for all his accumulation of wealth he was looked down on by the high society of the day as not being the equal of those with deeper family roots here in America.
As to economic inequity. It's more involved then subtracting liabilities from assets. In an old article by Robert Higgs, he casts doubt on the metrics we use because they rely on self reporting to the government. Also who is counted makes a difference, more nonworking children or housewives means greater inequity, as they don't bring in paycheck. Perhaps Gingrich was taking from Higgs thoughts and misapplying them, if we forced everyone of any age to work there would be greater income equality (Higgs offered it as one example of an immoral way to get more income equality). I don't recall Gingrich being brought up at all prior to your mention of him above. Higgs thoughts on economic equality is that in and of itself, it is not necessarily a good thing. A moral society with an unequal distribution of income is preferable to an immoral one where incomes are close to parity.
When I said "simple economic inequality is not the place to start" I was referring back to my initial post at the beginning. Using some single number as measure of how well off you are without understanding what it is or where it comes from is misleading and divisive. Trying to make everyone more the same, economically or any other way is not necessarily the primary goal for society. Equal opportunities, yes work toward that, equal outcomes aren't likely to ever happen.
What a mortgage represents is an investment of labor; those with a mortgage are far more poor than the poor themselves. But it is a means to capitalize on labor; thereby provide some future security and therefore the "correct" path.
This is not Asia or Latin America; in the welfare state wealth inequality does equate to life deprivation unless we choose to make it so.
I think we're in agreement, I don't find fault with trading a positive net worth for a mortgage. The debt is something I accept for what you call security or I simple think of as contentment with my life.
Fight inequality, Occupy the border. If inequality is such a problem, if it means that our society is unjust and wrong, then let's stop importing more. When we import drop outs from places like Mexico, they're obviously joining the ranks of our poor. Let's stop that and give liberals one less thing to bitch about.
I'm not sure where you are going with your statement. I personally don't think the economic inequality in this country is the source of our problems at the moment.
Me neither, but it can become a problem when the have nots gang up on us. Liberals too never look at reasons for inequality. They just see the fact and then want redistribution, witness OWS. But if one doesn't like inequality, closing the border is a damn good start.
My opinion doesn't have anything to do really with haves and have nots. I was thinking of just the way net worth is calculated. It gives the impression that there are more poor then there really are. The current financial state of the country is what I happen to be most concerned with.
Agreed, it does exaggerate things.
I personally don't want any more. If the top 1% began to pay the tax rate they paid back in the 1980s or even 1990s billions of dollars in revenue would be generated. Some corporations are paying no taxes and some are even getting huge tax refunds. If these injustices were corrected millions of jobs would be created, millions of people might not lose their homes and millions more would have homes, not to mention being lifted out of poverty. Of course our political leaders would have to step up their efforts - a tall order since so many of them benefit from the present economic arrangements.
I am very gratified to see that my post has generated so much discussion!! I am currently on vacation for the holidays but could not resist the temptation to get on this web site to see the responses. I will eventually make another post but for now let me say just one thing: William Domhoff wrote one of the best books on the subject called "Who Rules America? (I believe it is in its 3rd or 4th edition). He also has his own web site which is a great resourse.
Basically what he says is that there is a very small group of individuals and families (the 1%) that rule the country (i.e., make all the truly important decisions) and they do this by virtue of their wealth and positions withing Fortune 500 corporations. The politicians for the most part just take orders from this group (see Michael Parenti's "Democracy for the Few"). With wealth that concentrated it automatically translates into "power" which in turn translates into getting their way despite opposition. (You might want to consult some of Noam Chomsky's books for further reinforcement of these ideas.) Much (if not most) of the wealth has been either inherited or accumulated via taxpayers (corporate welfare), rather than just plain "hard work." As to the issue of wealth inequity not being a problem (as the latest post argues) quite the contrary is the truth as several studies have noted that in countries with the least amount of wealth inequality you find the highest scores on various well being indicies (health, etc.). The US ranks dead last among democratic societies in most measures of social well-being (our gini coefficient is the highest). That's enough for now. Thanks for listening.
Problem is there is a growing number of people who cant work hard enough to climb the ladder.
Ive noticed a very definite downward slope in workers who actually work
How much more do you want? Are you looking to benefit by the rich personally? When we take more from the rich, where will the money go?
[Removed]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewGMBOB4Gg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
Outstanding video. I recall reading an article that said something like "It's more profitable to treat the disease than to prevent it." This was referring to our health care system. I have applied this to crime since it is much more profitable to respond than to prevent crime.