Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Abstract
Disagreements about the optimal level of wealth inequality underlie policy debates ranging from taxation to welfare. We attempt to insert the desires of ‘‘regular’’ Americans into these debates, by asking a nationally representative online panel to estimate the current distribution of wealth in the United States and to ‘‘build a better America’’ by constructing distributions with their ideal level of inequality. First, respondents dramatically underestimated the current level of wealth inequality. Second, respondents constructed ideal wealth distributions that were far more equitable than even their erroneously low estimates of the actual distribution. Most important from a policy perspective, we observed a surprising level of consensus: All demographic groups—even those not usually associated with wealth redistribution such as Republicans and the wealthy—desired a more equal distribution of wealth than the status quo.
Fairlaker presented the most compelling support available for the video, and it lines up with everything I've learned in my professional studies in social work and sociology.
I don't think these are data that require critical thinking. They are measurable realities and the video is simply breaking them down for the audience. Thanks for posting this here. I'm going to forward the link to everyone I know.
And then I need a stiff drink and a feel-good movie, pronto.
If a person has made a fortune from invented something(s) that other people find useful, I have no problem with them being wealthy.
If a person has made a fortune by starting a company which provides products/services which other people find useful, I have no problem with them being wealthy.
If a person has made a fortune because they were hired as a CEO and has made a substantial contribution to the growth of that company, I have no problem with them being wealthy.
If a person has made a fortune from playing the stock market (all ethically), I have no problem with that. Our economic system depends on this exchange of funds.
On the other hand:
If a person has made a fortune because they were hired as a CEO and didn't contribute to the company, or even worse, ran the company to the ground, but still left with a golden parachute, I have a huge problem with that.
If a person has made a fortune by unethically deceiving investors (even though "legal"), I have a huge problem with that.
And then we have:
If a person has made a fortune as an entertainment or athletic celebrity, I have a problem with that, but hey, if people (i.e. the 99%) are stupid enough to give them their hard-earned money, so be it.
If a person has a fortune from inheritance or winning the PowerBall, you can't really hate them for it. Maybe raise taxes on large inheritances or lotteries?
So, it's not as simple as "Hey, look at those people with all that money. That's not fair." That is as ignorant as saying that all poor people are poor because they sit at home all day and do nothing.
Lost in this and in all similar debates are two crucial "mindblowing facts":
1. Wealth means financial assets with which to wield power. It's doesn't mean cash or credit with which to buy stuff. Consumption - the buying of stuff - is far more "equitable" than wealth, because poorer people use nearly all (and sometimes more than all) of their income for purchases, leaving nothing aside for accumulation to amass wealth.
2. In nearly all societies in all epochs, after humans coalesced into aggregates larger than their immediate kin group, a small elite ruled over the remainder, enjoying the great preponderance of wealth. Actually, I am surprised that it is not the case that 0.01% of Americans has 99.9% of the wealth. This isn't a statement about justice, morality or a "better society". It's not a normative judgment. It's a statement of what is historically realizable and what is stable.
2. In nearly all societies in all epochs, after humans coalesced into aggregates larger than their immediate kin group, a small elite ruled over the remainder, enjoying the great preponderance of wealth...
That's a good point. In the wealthy, capitalistic, democracies of today, the wealthiest people are almost never in the government. However, in the poor, government-dominated, dictatorships of today, the wealthiest people are almost always in the government. That says a lot about the power that governments should be given. (a little hint to all the socialists out there )
Lost in this and in all similar debates are two crucial "mindblowing facts":
1. Wealth means financial assets with which to wield power. It's doesn't mean cash or credit with which to buy stuff. Consumption - the buying of stuff - is far more "equitable" than wealth, because poorer people use nearly all (and sometimes more than all) of their income for purchases, leaving nothing aside for accumulation to amass wealth.
2. In nearly all societies in all epochs, after humans coalesced into aggregates larger than their immediate kin group, a small elite ruled over the remainder, enjoying the great preponderance of wealth. Actually, I am surprised that it is not the case that 0.01% of Americans has 99.9% of the wealth. This isn't a statement about justice, morality or a "better society". It's not a normative judgment. It's a statement of what is historically realizable and what is stable.
I disagree that consumption is significantly more equitable than wealth, myself. The vast majority of poorer people in this country...particularly those who didn't register on the "Reality" scale presented in the video, aren't using her incomes for general consumerism nearly as much as those in the higher or even middle ranges. Their incomes are almost entirely dedicated to basic necessities like housing, food, and utilities. There are a few studies that show that consumption is more equitable, but there are plenty more that don't.
I also disagree that wealthy inequality in the U.S. should be dismissed as "What is historically realizable and what is stable." According to the GINI index, the U.S. has just about the highest degree of wealth inequality of all developed countries. Our rating puts us much more on par with developing countries than with our peers. For such an extraordinally wealthy nation, we are way out of balance.
Last edited by Slithytoves; 10-19-2013 at 01:03 PM..
The vast majority of poorer people in this country...particularly those who didn't register on the "Reality" scale presented in the video, aren't using her incomes for general consumerism nearly as much as those in the higher or even middle ranges. Their incomes are almost entirely dedicated to basic necessities like housing, food, and utilities. ...
Our rating puts us much more on par with developing countries than with our peers. For such an extraordinally wealthy nation, we are way out of balance.
The central point is that the modern developed nation is a historical anomaly. A plurality middle class is a historical anomaly. It remains to be seen if it was a mere blip, a fluke of the 20the century. It is entirely possible - nay, likely - that the world of the 21st century will come to resemble the 19th, more than the 20th.
As for the question of poverty and consumer behavior, well, "consumption" includes rice, toilet paper, aspirin and potatoes - and not merely designer handbags, air conditioners, new cars and silk scarves. Of course more affluent people consume more, but the point is that it is exceedingly rare for Americans to die from dysentery or cholera, to have no access to clean potable water, to watch their children die from tapeworm infections and to literally expire from lack of calories. This is the reality of poverty in much of the world today. American poverty is very real, as a contrast with the vaunted "American Dream". But it can't be compared to try plutocracies where millions toil on the edge of starvation, while a tiny aristocracy owns essentially everything.
Western European society has much that is pleasant and admirable. I wonder, however, whether the combination of egalitarianism and affluence is genuinely stable.
Who cares? Accurate or wildly wrong... It is IRRELEVANT.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
