Regarding the difference between pre-WWI and Post-WWII income inequality it seems pretty disingenuous to claim (if you were) that the times (then and now) are similar in economic terms, not to mention quality of life. Between the 50s and 80s or so there was still great growth (for Americans at least) but much less income inequality. Some may argue that constituted a 'sweet spot' in terms of balancing growth with income inequality.
There is some interesting information at the below link regarding the time period following WWII
To boil down a lot of interesting reading (on a subject, which it is fair to say, generates a lot of controversy): income inequality produces social instability, primarily as a result of a lot of economically (and, by extension, sexually) disenfranchised young men.
I'm not touching the sexual part with a 10 foot pole cause it bears no relevance in my opinion either. But I do think that many young men are economically disenfranchised in The States.
Edit: In my comment any mention of 'men' should read "and women". I don't mean just males which is another reason I don't think it is important to address the sexual disenfranchisement part.
A quick google search suggests black men are less sexually disenfranchized than non-blacks.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/07/20/sex-statist...
It also isn't necessarily true that the change in the level of disenfranchisement is due to growth, or change in anything having to do with the economy, so much as due to changes brought on by the civil rights movements. Things can change on a societal level without being impacted by or impacting directly things at an economic level.
The social instability mentioned in the parent is still going on even with these advances. Just saying 'its better than it was' doesn't make it not a thing.
We are. That's a centerpiece to modern intersectional feminism: everyone's hurt to some degree by the structure of society. Men have it better in a lot of situations, but things are still rough.
Who is driving the Tea Party? I would contend economically disenfranchised (though, granted, not particularly young in a lot of cases) voters reacting to increasing economic polarization.
Do Tea Party rank-and-file see their grievances in those terms? Not when they're talking about guns rights and Obamacare perhaps. But get them talking about Wall Street and bank bailouts and it's a different story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#Contemporary_Klan:...
Regarding the debt ceiling, congress cannot threaten or cause default, since the executive branch has the power to prioritize debt payments. In any case, similar things happened in 1995, so no, I wouldn't categorize more of the same as an increase in instability.
The parent didn't say that instability had increased, rather economic polarization had, but by what metric are you implying instability has decreased considering your above examples?
Klenwell said inequality is bad because it causes instability. That doesn't seem to be happening, so his theory seems to be wrong.
And to quote your prior post:
in any case, similar things happened in 1995, so no, I wouldn't categorize more of the same as an increase in instability.
So by your example, things that happened in 1995 are 'more of the same' but when presented with a counter example in the same time span (and even more recently) it shows that things have changed (reduced instability) because it has been a significant period of time? Check. That makes sense.
I'm checking out of this conversation. The contortions in your logic are just a bit too much for me. Carry on.
The amount of resources it takes to make someone happier is non linear, so maximizing total wealth is a poor way to measure the health of a society. Realistically Log(income) is probably a much better measure.
Granted, the economy is not a zero sum game. However, at a practical level simply accumulating wealth is often a zero or even negative sum game. EX: Spam, Pollution, etc.
Also, Log(consumption) is a much better measure than Log(income) - a 1000 dollar bill doesn't make you happy, it's the hookers and cocaine you buy with it that does.
Also, unspent wealth buys piece of mind which is can make you happy. AKA, I would much rather have 100,000$ in my bank account than 100$. Really log(income) still understates things as lifestyle changes more going from 20,000$ to 40,000$ income vs 20,000,000 income to 40,000,000 income.
PS: I think the amount of money entertainers can make is probably inherently detrimental to society. But, that's another debate entirely.
It's up to you what you care about. Some people find the arguments in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equ... persuasive.
> The post WW2 area had less income inequality because the world economy had been torn apart.
If that was true, then as the economy recovered, income inequality would have increased. But it didn't, it continued to decrease in the USA and UK until about 1980, when it started rising again.
I feel that it is unlikely to be a coincidence that the trend changed around the same time Thatcher and Reagan were elected.
> We are now just going back to pre WW1 rates - ie basically reaching the point where we were before 2 world wars destroyed so much wealth.
There was a vast net increase in wealth between 1914 and 1945.
But that angry failed artist came to power by blaming the disastrous economic conditions on a) the victorious powers of WWI for imposing crippling penalties upon Germany, b) the existing government and their predecessors for accepting and adhering to these conditions, and c) certain groups within Germany for "exploiting" the situation.
And this does not alarm you?
We destroyed wealth because of the world wars, which then caused "rising equality".
I do not believe the world wars happened due to inequality - so no, I'm not worried.
If the economic suppression of Germany by the rest of Europe and the Great Depression hadn't happened (global income inequality, after a fashion), would WW2 have happened?
Regardless of how the Reich was built, or oriented politically, economic inequality (and nationalism) were a primary tool used to gain momentum.
You are totally correct that German leaders of business and holders of wealth were courted into the Reich. Many of them from Bayer to IG Farben benefited directly from the concentration camps.
Do you not believe the earth is more than 4,000 years old and that we evolved from other forms of life eons ago as well?
Some things are already established as fact; not everything is an opinion, not all opinions are valid, and the ones you've stated are just flat-out contradictory with actual real data.
Quality-of-life here is not defined by the ability buy iThings, flat-screens, and XBoxes, but affording decent education, health care, and a fair chance at upward social and economic mobility, regardless of where you come from.
http://obs.rc.fas.harvard.edu/chetty/mobility_trends.pdf
Does this mean inequality is not a problem?
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/25/the-complex-sto...
The authors of the study you cite actually provided some input for that article.
Regarding education, the total "quantity" of education people are consuming seems like a meaningless metric. It says nothing about the distribution of high-quality educational opportunities to people on different ends of the income spectrum. The disparities in access to quality education in many cases are strongly correlated to the income distribution.
Measuring health outcomes is similarly more complex than the broad brush of "total health consumed" that you paint it with: http://www.nber.org/reporter/spring03/health.html http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1088996/
https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&...
What data (if any) would be sufficient to convince you that inequality is not a problem?
Other measures of the social ills correlated with being very poor? In cities, if you are also black or hispanic , a high chance of death by violence. A relatedly high rate of incarceration, often for nonviolent crimes. High rates of children in the foster system.
Just because the averages nationwide are slowly ticking up over time, does not mean that there are not significant populations slipping backwards.
In cities, if you are also black or hispanic , a high chance of death by violence.
Do you believe that if the 1% had less money, poor blacks/hispanics would be less likely to kill other poor blacks/hispanics? If not, this is irrelevant.
I haven't double checked this, but I strongly suspect that even as inequality has risen in the US, the rate of poor blacks being murdered has gone down. (Reason: poor blacks being murdered is a big chunk of the murder rate, and murders and other crime have generally gone down.)
In general, poor populations have reduced access to high-quality care. While people with low incomes are more likely to be uninsured, income-related differences in quality of care that are independent of health insurance coverage have also been demonstrated (Brown, et al., 2003).
Also this metric has increased over the years:
People without a usual source of care who indicated a financial or insurance reason for not having a source of care.
What data (if any) would convince you that inequality is not a problem?
(Of course you are driving at something else, but the way you have phrased it completely ignores this little piece of reality)
The post WW2 area had less income inequality because the world economy had been torn apart.
We are now just going back to pre WW1 rates - ie basically reaching the point where we were before 2 world wars destroyed so much wealth.