Let's debate wealth inequality

In this thread – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=297670 – I was surprised to find I couldn’t get a consensus on what seems to me an entirely unobjectionable proposition: The growing inequality of wealth in American society is a problem, in and of itself. What causes is is debatable; whether it can be reversed, and how, even more so. But how can anyone doubt this is a Very Bad Thing? In a democracy (or “republic,” whatever), power is supposed to be distributed more or less equally among all the people; and in our society, money is the most important form of power. If a small minority of the people have a disproportionate share of the wealth/power – and (as they have) a resultant disproportionate influence over public policymaking – then what you have is an oligarchy or plutocracy, not a democracy.

The top 1% of Americans own as much wealth as the bottom 95%. The top 60% own 500 times as much as the bottom 40%. And the bottom 40% own less than one fifth of one percent of the nation’s wealth. See http://www.worldrevolution.org/Projects/Features/Inequality/USInequality.htm; http://www.inequality.org/facts.html.

“Wealth Inequality in 21st Century Threatens Economy and Democracy” was Project Censored’s #1 unreported story for 2005. From http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/1.html:

Now, you don’t have to believe that poor people have some kind of “right” to the wealth of the rich, to acknowledge that all of this constitutes a substantive social problem, in the same sense that crime, drug addiction and illiteracy are social problems. Does anyone care to dispute that?

Well, I for one don’t see it as a major problem. What difference does it make if the gulf is wider if standards of living come up all around? And if you look at it in terms of decades standards of living HAVE increased in the US over the last 2 centuries…the poor, middle class AND the rich have gotten richer.

If the rich get richer, but everyone else does too, I don’t really see a problem. To me this smacks of the old zero sum game analogy…if the rich get richer then everyone has to get poorer. Smaller bits of a shrinking pie and all that. Thats just not so. The pie gets bigger as long as the economy continues to expand. Certainly there are ups and downs, and right now we are in a down cycle, but over all things are continueing to expand.

I’m told my posts tend to ramble so I’ll leave it here for now.

-XT

What he said.

I would like to dispute that. :slight_smile: (I posted again in the other forum because I didn’t know about this thread. Thanks for opening it up.)

Money is not “the most important form of power.” The vote and the voice are more important forms of power. Money certainly provides its own benefits, and that’s why people want to earn it. But money, even with all its benefits, is still far from the most important thing.

I guess I just don’t see why it’s inherently harmful for some people to be incredibly rich.

Well, I believe that is included in this debate. The standard of living in the US is rather quickly slipping behind other nations on more modern economic systems - countries like:

The problem is that many in America see no problem with this. As long as nothing is too bad, they don’t ask the questions about why we aren’t higher on that list. That is a lazy way of approaching the issue. We need to look at the nations that are higher than us, and the nations that are catching up to us. According to recent economics, the Irish are richer than Americans, based on population and GDP.

While it can be argued that it is easier for a smaller state to have higher standards of living than a large one, that isn’t the sole proximate cause for the rankings.

Honestly, I was pretty surprised to see Slovenia that high up. I’ll need to look into that one.

Nope. According to the Economic and Social Research Institute in Ireland:

(emphasis added) They also point out the following:

BrainGlutton, I think you have confused equal opportunity with equal outcome. Power is an outcome. I see no problem whatsoever with an income or wealth or asset distribution as you’ve described. None. If you could show a cause, then perhaps, but as it stands, I see your OP as one of emotion. Like, ”what of the children” variety. It just isn’t compelling.

As an aside, while I do see crime as a social problem, I see absolutely nothing wrong with drug addiction in and of itself, nor do I see a problem with illiteracy. With the amount of social services available in this country, both of those two things can be characterized as voluntary in nature, and as long as there are no other infringements on anyone else, I consider those lifestyle choices.

Including wildly disproportionate influence over votes and voices, Age. That’s how it is and will remain, unless and until we get some effective campaign finance reform in this country and break the hold of a handful of giant corporations over our media outlets.

You have it backwards, Bone. Power is an opportunity. Money, as such, is an outcome. The rich get richer for a lot of reasons – and one reason is that they use their money to buy political influence (see above, and the Project Censored excerpt in the OP).

http://www.finfacts.com/comment/unhumandevelopmentreportirelandcomment18.htm

Oh, and Bone – illiteracy is a social problem. It is not a “lifestyle choice.” I can’t believe even a Libertarian would say that.

Yea, I’m sure the letter I sent to the State Department regarding the situation in Sudan has just as much influence as the $5 million donation by some lobbiest. :rolleyes:

Nitpick: I think you mean the UN Human Development Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Human_Development_Index). The Physical Quality-of-Life Index is a different measure, developed in 1979 by Morris Davis Morris for the Overseas Development Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_quality-of-life_index. These measures, and the Genuine Progress Indicator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genuine_Progress_Indicator), were developed as alternatives to GDP, which many regard as an unsatisfactory way to measure how well a national economy is doing. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product:

I love Libertarians. They’re so cute with their little self-defined world and all.

Thanks for the updated figures, Demorian. What about the rest of my post, which appears to point out a serious problem with using GDP to measure Ireland’s per capita wealth?

Maybe not. But 5 million votes are worth more than $5 million.

Your first mistake is thinking that a condition of democracy is also a condition of republicanism. Democracies are based on political equality. Republics can have powerful patrician classes, & may in fact be oligarchies.

Soviet Russia was a republic, but not a democracy. The United Kingdom is a (partial) democracy, but not a republic.

Well, getting people to “acknowledge” others’ economic reality makes pulling teeth look easy. Many people aren’t even aware of the state of other regions & classes, or don’t comprehend the inequity, but they’ll dispute it, from their ignorance.

BrainGlutton
First you state that in a democracy, power is supposed to be distributed more or less equally. You then say that money is the most important form of power. If that is the case, then could I infer that you believe that money is supposed to be distributed more or less equally? Is that a fair conclusion to draw from your statements?

But then you go on to say: “You have it backwards, Bone. Power is an opportunity. Money, as such, is an outcome.”

I disagree with your assessment. No one starts with power, it is acquired in one way or another. That is an outcome. If you believe that everyone should start with equal money/power more or less, I can accept that. I would strongly disagree with you, but alas, no big deal. However, your statements don’t seem to reconcile.


Illiteracy. “It is!” “It isn’t!” “It is!”

In this country [USA], education is free. There are free programs available that teaches adults to read and write as well. Unless there is some thing forcing these people to remain illiterate and not take advantage of the means available to them, anyone who is illiterate beyond any significant time period, is illiterate by choice. I personally think that’s a dumb choice, but alas. If you can show non-anecdotally that this is not the case, that people who want to learn to read and write, are barred from doing so, I’ll listen.


Demoiran, appreciate all of your contributions.

Sure. But when ten people, or one Great Man, can put together $5 million, that makes it about $500,000 a vote. Is your vote worth that much? So what makes you think the poor can get enough voice to beat it?

I’d debate that point. We can start calculating how much money the Bush and Kerry campaigns spent in their run for office, and try to figure out how many people were actually influenced by any of it rather than voting along party lines or special interest issues.

$5 million buying a senator’s seat is worth more than 5 million votes that put him/her there, though.

:rolleyes: Oh, please, let’s not get into that one!

Just for fun, what is your case that everyone shouldn’t start with equal money/power?

Well, technically it isn’t free, it is tax payer supported.

And even more technically, the quality of public education varies greatly based on the local economy, meaning that poorer neighborhoods get less funding, worse teachers, less oversight, lower scores, and in general lower standards, allowing students to graduate just because they don’t have enough room to fail them (LA Unified School District let something like 10,000 kids graduate with failing grades because they couldn’t fit them in the next year. And that isn’t uncommon).

Thanks. Nice to know that you make a difference, y’know?