Edit: by involuntary I mean if person can't choose. Not talking about businesses
Also, for example, I don't like some study programs and I really like some of them. Problem is - I can't choose which ones to subsidize for students. If that's the case - I wouldn't subsidize any of them, but I am forced to do so. Even if I think its harmful.
I think this problem arise/will arise in many different places: North vs South Italy, Catalonia vs Spain, young people to carry aging population and etc.
Because outside of extreme poverty that is rare in the West, relative deprivation seems to be a more significant source of experienced disutility and other social dysfunction than absolute deprivation.
Anyway, if the problem is relative deprivation we should focus on that, instead of focusing in inequality. I believe it would be more productive to improve things. Is inequality the "cause" of relative deprivation? I believe there are more important causes, like corruption, for example.
“Absolute deprivation” is having less access to material goods and services than some fixed standard.
“Relative deprivation” is having less access to material goods and services than others in one’s social milieu.
Relative deprivation is an inherent aspect of inequality; the two are inseparable.
> Is inequality the "cause" of relative deprivation?
No, it's not the cause in the same way that being a triangle isn't a cause of three-sidedness; it's more closely linked than causation.
> I believe there are more important causes, like corruption, for example.
Corruption can be a cause of (or mechanism of perpetuating) inequality, and thereby contribute to relative deprivation, but it's not a cause of relative deprivation independent of inequality.
I cannot buy a yacht, while some rich guys can. Therefore I'm relatively deprived, according to that definition. That's not a problem.
edit: I mean, the cause of poverty is not that some people are rich, because if world trends of poverty are decreasing while the rich are getting richer, there isn't a correlation.
Of course if some rich people get their riches by corruption or some other harmful activity, yes, that may cause poverty. But I would not say that the existence of rich people in general is the cause of poverty. That would imply thinking about wealth as a fixed size cake, where some have to lose for others to win. But it may be that it's rather like increasing the amount of cakes. Nobody loses if we have more cakes.
From the article: > Relative poverty, an important but often neglected policy target, is measured by the resources needed to maintain the social and economic lifestyle that is widely accepted by the society in which one lives,
Who is "the society"? This sounds like saying that people feel bad when others have something they don't have, even if they aren't poor. Should everyone have the same? Trying to achieve that never worked. That may work only when thanks to technological advancements we reach a post-scarcity economy, I believe.
From the article: > A large empirical evidence base for most countries suggests that low socio-economic status and resulting feelings of relative deprivation lower both objective and subjective well-being, as measured by indicators such as health and happiness.
Feeling envy lowers well-being, yes.
On the other side, people are suffering right now. If we agree that reducing this suffering is the correct measure, then we must ask ourselves what steps can be taken right now to lessen it.
If we were in an intellectual vacuum, then we could argue all day about the pros and cons of wealth redistribution (and whether or not it is theft to apply such a tool). But what many (including myself) feel to be true, is that now more than ever, a lot of the productive capacity of money is being needlessly accrued by relatively few people who, on average, don't possess the the knowledge or will to apply that capacity to society's problems. Under those conditions, the potential for growth and productivity in the future is needlessly limited.
It is one thing to say that the gatekeepers of society's wealth function as a storehouse of capital for future contingencies, but this largely ignores that our global monetary system is primarily a fiat one, and as such, the integrity of the society itself and peoples' trust in the system is of paramount concern.
TL;DR The productivity of today's capital is being hindered by accumulation because the long-term benefits of more equitable distribution are philosophically real, but hard to understand.
> now more than ever, a lot of the productive capacity of money is being needlessly accrued by relatively few people who, on average, don't possess the the knowledge or will to apply that capacity to society's problems. Under those conditions, the potential for growth and productivity in the future is needlessly limited.
The people who accrue a lot of money is able to do that because either they profit by selling some useful product or service that others desire and buy, or because they invest some land or form of private property they bought or inherited, or because they steal or acquire by illegal means that harm others (like corruption). I don't believe that we should consider equally the rich businessmen who became rich providing something useful to the world, and the corrupts. If the good businessman is punished with taxes or confiscatory laws he would be less able to produce something useful and demanded by society. If the corrupts are punished, everyone wins.
I mean, if the % of poverty decreases, then economy is moving in a good direction, in spite of inequality, right? Suppose you had one million, and somebody else has one thousand millions, there would be a large gap, but I wouldn't consider it as negative.
If there are arguments against what I wrote I would gladly read them and consider them.