History of Income Inequality & The Great Leveler (WW2, ancient, war)

[Potential_Landlord]

Recently, I read "The Great Leveler" by Stanford ancient history professor Scheidler. His thesis is that only extreme violence or a pandemic like the Black Plague can temporarily diminish income and wealth inequality for maybe a couple generations but then it reasserts itself inexorably. In essence we are still in an exceptional circumstance following WW1 + WW2, but we also see that inequality is ramping up again massively.
The only events ("The four Horsemen") leveling inequality are:
- mass mobilbization warfare (WW2)
- state collapse (Somalia)
- transformative revolutions (October Revolution)
- pandemics (Black Plague)

Obviously, none of these are desirable. They are also much less likely in our time: there will be no more mass mobilization wars, no pandemics and states have become much more stable in our time. Also interesting that areas of the world less involved in WW2 like Latin America have greater inequality.
What does that mean going forward (take this only as rules of thumbs from my own number crunching):
- ~% ofreal income growths will go to top 1%
- ~ lower 70% of incomes will not see real growths - ever again.
- vestiges of "middle class" like home ownership etc. will probably not be available for lower 70% going forward
I find this both disturbing but also convincing. It seems that peaceful human society always evolve to this kind of distribution, regardless of times, cultures or circumstances. There are many examples in the book. What do you guys think?

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by Potential_Landlord

I find this both disturbing but also convincing. It seems that peaceful human society always evolve to this kind of distribution, regardless of times, cultures or circumstances. There are many examples in the book. What do you guys think?

If the choices are dealing with some global calamity, or dealing with inequality in income distribution, the latter seems preferable.

I would question the idea that we are forever more pandemic free.

[Potential_Landlord]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

If the choices are dealing with some global calamity, or dealing with inequality in income distribution, the latter seems preferable.

I would question the idea that we are forever more pandemic free.

I agree on the preference. While we cannot exclude a severe pandemic the chances seem much lower. We seem to be getting better at prevention and control of infectious diseases despite the many scary attention-seeking media reports and scary movies. For example, we naturally still get potent flu virus strains every 30-40 years they do not cause the massive outbreaks like the Spanish flu and before.

[LilyMae521]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

If the choices are dealing with some global calamity, or dealing with inequality in income distribution, the latter seems preferable.

I am thinking that it is actually very difficult to be objective as to the preference for either global calamity or income inequality.


I think it depends what side of the fence you're on.

[kettlepot]

Another interesting perspective on the main thesis is that at least in the cases sited by the OP:

- Transformative Revolutions and State Collapse made the Rich poorer
- Pandemic and Mass Mobilization Warfare made the Poor wealthier

[ukrkoz]

Originally Posted by kettlepot

Another interesting perspective on the main thesis is that at least in the cases sited by the OP:

- Transformative Revolutions and State Collapse made the Rich poorer
- Pandemic and Mass Mobilization Warfare made the Poor wealthier

It is incorrect on both counts.
On both counts those who induced both events only became richer. Qui bono. Who profited.



All this is dandy but there is another great leveler. One that has real power and absolutely is not concerned with humanity.
Good read on this may be:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_the_World_Screamed

Nature does not care about humans to slightest extent. It can erase humanity any moment.

[Potential_Landlord]

Was anyone else shocked by this thesis / analysis? - I sure was and still am. I mean we can all observe the trend towards inequality on a global scale (except for between developed and emerging countries). But I thought we went too far and will revert again. Well, think again. It will get much more unequal from here, everywhere.

[Potential_Landlord]

Originally Posted by kettlepot

Another interesting perspective on the main thesis is that at least in the cases sited by the OP:

- Transformative Revolutions and State Collapse made the Rich poorer
- Pandemic and Mass Mobilization Warfare made the Poor wealthier

That is for the poor who survive the war or pandemic The poor who ended up as cannon fodder or petri dish for germs... not so much. They would have probably preferred to stay alive and poor.

[Potential_Landlord]

Originally Posted by ukrkoz

It is incorrect on both counts.
On both counts those who induced both events only became richer. Qui bono. Who profited.



All this is dandy but there is another great leveler. One that has real power and absolutely is not concerned with humanity.
Good read on this may be:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_the_World_Screamed

Nature does not care about humans to slightest extent. It can erase humanity any moment.

State collapse impoverishes everyone. The Germanic invaders lived worse than peaceful migrants who entered the Roman Empire before and not cause its collapse. In fact,Europeans lived worse than during the Roman Empire into the Industrial Revolution, for a cool 1400+ years.

[LilyMae521]

Global inequality has been horrific for a long time, think first world vs third world.


Not to be blunt, but what is new here?