Inequality

[andrewducker]

Just for the record, I really don't care about inequality.

I care about absolute poverty - about people who don't have food to eat, or a place to live.
And that's why I support the benefits system.

I care about lack of education - and people who are left with nothing after 12 years of sitting in a classroom being derided rather than helped.
And that's why I support free education, and why I think it needs to be constantly researched and improved.

I care about the impossibility of improvement - that some people are stuck in a situation which they cannot get out of, and that their children will be stuck there too.
And that's why I support life-long learning initiatives, training and government initiatives to help deprived areas.

I care about stratification - that people can have potential, but not be able to and encouraged to improve themselves, because success isn't for the likes of them.
And that's why I support equal opportunities, progressive taxation and inheritance tax.

But once people have 'the basics', can improve both themselves and their situation, and aren't locked out by virtue of the colour of their skin, their accent, their gender, sexuality or place of birth - I really, really don't care about inequality.  More stuff for me would always be nice, but I don't care that some people have a thousand times what I do - I turned down various opportunities to do things that would have earned me more money, because I found something that I enjoyed that paid well enough. 

Inequality tells you what is valued by society - whether it's that doctors are hard to come by or that people love football.  It's what happens when you give people the freedom to spend their money any way they like - not everyone spends wisely, but that's our choice.  You can't take that choice away from us without taking away (for most of us) our reason for working in the first place.  I deplore unnecessary suffering - and that's why I believe in a measure of redistribution, to allow the poorest to improve themselves, and help the helpless. And I see no reason why the richest can't help more than the poorest - and that's why I'm happy with the current situation in the UK, where around 50% of money that the rich earn goes to that end.  But I wouldn't go any further than that, because some people feel that the world is unfair - fairness isn't built into the universe, and they can deal with their jealousy on their own time.

Comments

[robhu.livejournal.com]

I suspect game theory could have something very clever and insightful to add to all of this.

[andrewducker]

Probably :->

[code-delphi.livejournal.com]

As well expressed as ever, sir. And I (for one) agree with you wholeheartedly.

We live at a time where finally our civilisation has reached a point where it has the technological capability to support the dream that you describe: there is enough automation and mass production that society grants its citizens the freedom to have education for all, food and shelter for all, and a chance (at least in theory) for anyone to become what they choose to be.

Of course, the downside is that this situation only exists in the West, and our planet appears to be incapable (in terms of sheer resources) to grant the same kind of society to every human. Who can blame those in the "third world" for wanting what we have? How can you tell them they can't have it, because in the process we'd wreck the planet (or finish wrecking it)? Given the resource limitations (which nicely constrains the possibilities), the only chance to grant the kind of world you describe for all would be for (a) those in the West to accept less materialism, (b) everyone else to realise they can't have what we have now (assuming we give it up too) and (c) there to be a lot fewer humans.

Well, human selfishness makes (a) unlikely, especially in its extreme incarnation in the US; it's so much a part of their culture, that letting go of "extreme consumerism" would be a real stretch. I suppose (b) is more hopeful, especially if the West is willing to throttle back on its materialism (yeah, right). Perhaps (c) will take care of itself, as a society that grants the kinds of freedom you describe seems to naturally limit itself, probably coming down to granting women the same chances as men to be what they want to be, which often doesn't involve churning out kids until they die in childbirth.

I know, no easy answers, and the situation is immeasurably complicated. The only way to even start is to believe what we believe, share it with as many as possible, and eventually hope that enough individuals can see past their own desire for self-gratification (and that means actively resisting the efforts of advertising and all the rest of the propaganda which inculcates consumerism).

If nothing else, the "long emergency" of running out of oil and the effects of global warming will force humanity as a whole to pull its finger out. In reality, perhaps nothing else could.

[andrewducker]

My major hope, at this point, is actually globalisation. Poorer countries engaging in free trade are increasing their internal wealth - we're paying them to do the jobs we dont want to, and their standard of living is rising. Eventually this will lead to a certain level of equilibrium - and our standard of living will eventually fail to rise any further, as their labour becomes more expensive, and possibly even fall.

[code-delphi.livejournal.com]

You're right. I'd question whether we have enough time, given the very real looming crisis in terms of oil, and the ever-increasing effects of climate change.

Bizarrely enough, perhaps Bush et al are right, in an arse-about kind of way, by hoping (and no doubt praying) that technological innovation will keep our heads above water long enough for the equilibrium you describe to be achieved. The system will correct iself, while there's still a system to correct... and no matter what, humanity will survive. The really negative outcome would be collapse, vast loss of life, and the survivors left in a world in the ruins of a civilisation that sucked all the easy-to-get resources away, leaving nothing to build upon.

In a way, this is our one chance: keep on building, 'cause if we fall, it'll be a *long* time before we reach this high again.

[andrewducker]

Well, hopefully technology will cushion the blow. Rising oil prices will give people a damn good reason to look elsewhere, and hopefully we will end up with a system that's a lot less polluting and destructive.

Or maybe mankind will get wiped out. In which case good luck to the cockroaches, long may their empire last :->

[azalemeth.livejournal.com]

I pretty much agree with you. I think that all people are equivalent, not equal. Because they aren't - the only thing common to all of us is that we're all different. Forcing people into situations they have no control over is wrong. And, all in all, I think that the only real things we have control over are ourselves, and, by changing that, you can more or less do anything ^_^.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

I largely agree with you - my primary difference is likely to be the level of aid I prefer (which I'm guessing is slightly higher than your preference, but not vastly so).

How do you feel about what's known in the US as Affirmative Action (ie incentives and requirements to hire, admit into college, and otherwise aid members of groups that are still targets of social and economic discrimination.

I very much support such programs, but here in the economically Calvinist US they are widely decried as "unfair".

[andrewducker]

I _do_ support them - but I also think they have negative consequences. If you promote people with three arms over people with the normal amount, because they are otherwise discriminated against, then you cause discord amongst people who have now been discriminated against.

I think that this causes less trouble than not doing it, at the moment. But the tide is slowly changing (in the UK, at least) where there's less discrimination in large companies. The US has a way to go yet before it hits that level.

[missedith01.livejournal.com]

If you promote people with three arms over people with the normal amount, because they are otherwise discriminated against, then you cause discord amongst people who have now been discriminated against.

Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. Everyone objects to the discrimination that affects them, but fewer people object to the discrimination that affects the other guy. It always amuses me that the upper echelons of western societies react so vehemently against "positive discminiation" and argue passionately for meritocracy, but they don't complain about the unmerititious (is that a word?) way their world works.

[andrewducker]

Oh, I agree entirely. People completely ignore the fact that people born in the West are automatically born with vast advantages. Which is why I'm in favour of free trade, fair trade, dropping the debt and giving large chunks of cash to those in need. And, indeed, give a chunk of my money away, which will go up when I get my own debts paid off.

[cx650.livejournal.com]

Take 100 school leavers and give them £10,000 each. Within 6 months many will be skint, a small few will have more, and a cautious few will have near as makes no difference the same. George Orwell was right, 'some are more equal than others'.

[andrewducker]

The important thing, in my view, is to not let the ones who are skint starve.

But if you make everyone's outcome equal you take away any reason to take personal responsibility.

[cx650.livejournal.com]

Social responsibility works both ways. I agree completely that we need to care for others, but such a system of care is inevitably vulnerable to abuse by the unscrupulous.

The unwillingness to take personal responsibility seems to be endemic these days whether reason to do so exists or not.

Sorry if I'm being too cynical.

[andrewducker]

I agree completely that we need to care for others, but such a system of care is inevitably vulnerable to abuse by the unscrupulous.

Which means, as with all social decisions, we need to make a trade-off. A certain amount of trust, with a certain amount of oversight, constantly adjusting to make sure that there aren't too many loopholes.

[missedith01.livejournal.com]

I don't think that was the point Orwell was trying to make.

[cx650.livejournal.com]

Indeed so, but it fits this instance also.

[missedith01.livejournal.com]

And I see no reason why the richest can't help more than the poorest - and that's why I'm happy with the current situation in the UK, where around 50% of money that the rich earn goes to that end.

It does?

[andrewducker]

Yes. There are these things called taxes. My father, being a Doctor, is rather well paid, and approximately half his money goes in taxes - 40% straight income tax, and then some NI and a few other bits and pieces. Oh, plus employers contributiosn as well, of course.

[missedith01.livejournal.com]

I don't doubt that 50% is a reasonable estimate of how much of the earned income of the well-paid goes by direct taxation to the government.

My quibble was that I wonder how much of it goes towards eliminating unnecessary suffering, allowing the poorest to improve themselves, and helping the helpless. As opposed to debt interest repayments, defence and the Chancellor's pension. :-)

[pavlos.livejournal.com]

I care about inequality.

People have value to one another. Very closely after basic survival needs are met, there is a large band of human motives that essentially amount to "other people": a social circle, a circle of potential sexual partners, a caring community, a community of solidarity and identification, intersting people, unusual people, insiring people, etc. Only at the very top of the pyramid do material luxuries regain a visible role.

Inequality, or to be precise inequality together with a commercialisation of social activities, stratifies people into narrow layers of soccial contact. It thus rarefies and makes volatile the set of others that might fulfil these social needs, and thus reduces the absolute welfare of many. I'm just saying in fancy words that inequality makes people lonely.

A secondary effect is that inequality causes those in the weaker groups to lose contact with energetic, succesful, and altogether inspiring people, who move to higher groups leaving behind a sense of collective decay and desperation.

[andrewducker]

But would the inspiring people be doing anything, if there weren't higher groups to move onto?

I earn more than most of the people I know - but I don't hang out with them because of what they earn - I hang out with them because of their interests.

Inequality and self-help

[debt2wealth.livejournal.com]

You cannot achieve true success until you accept 100% responsibility for your life, including who you are, where you are and the conditions of your life. If we fail to do this we fall into “victim” mentality and the problem with being a victim is that a victim has no control. This mentality is completely self-defeating and disempowering.

If someone lives in a bad neighbourhood, I realize how difficult it can be to get out of that neighbourhood, but they still have to tell themselves that they are responsible for being stuck there (not for being born there, but stuck there). They have to think "If anyone has ever got out of this neighbourhood, then I can get out of this neighbourhood." Nobody stands at the doors of our community colleges and adult education centres telling citizens that they cannot come in and learn the skills that would propel them to better opportunities. The doors are open. In fact in many cases there are government incentives and financial help available. But people have to take the initiative.

I know this may sound like cultural heresy and may not be politically correct, but helping people maintain their excuses usually diminishes their ability to succeed. You need the attitude of “If it is to be, it’s up to me” and that’s what you have to do. Taking responsibility gives you response-ability, the ability to respond positively to your situation.

The opposite is also true, however. If you have it in your mind that your difficult situation is someone else’s fault, then you’re going to have to wait for someone else to change before your life gets better. I know people who blame the government, where they grew up, their parents, their spouse, all kind of external things for the bad situation they think they are in. I feel sorry for them because the way they see it, the government has to change, or their neighbourhood has to change, or their family or their spouse have to change before their lives can get any better. If they were to take responsibility then they are the only one that has to change. Isn’t that a much better mental attitude? Taking 100% responsibility for your life gives you the ability to change it.
http://www.debt2wealth.co.uk/debt2wealth_textonly.htm