Equality

JuliusCaesar

>hello-o-o-o-o< (echo is terrible around here)

anyway, I was reading a book called 'the spirit level' on equality, which says that the more unequal societies have more social problems. Seems to make sense.

Also says there are 2 ways to have more equal societies - tax income -> greater public utilities and b. the Japanese model wh as I remember (and I don't this being late) was equality of income. (ie the top Japanese earners don't earn such vast multiples of the average wage.)

So...what do yous think? Could this be the simple answer to all social problems from mental health and drug use to everything else?

(anyone read the book? it was written by two epidemiologists - maybe some Health Science people might comment)

SineadMaria

it might solve some of the current problems, however i don't don't think there is any quick fix to all of society's issues

silverharp

One could do a study that shows that firemen are correlated with house fires , conclusion, all firemen should be arrested

I'd be highly skeptical of such a book

JuliusCaesar

Silverharp, have you any reasons for your assertions?

I'm old enough to remember a time when there was less disparity of income. And I've seen the high incomes rocket. And greed becoming normal. And communities fragmenting. I know, as a psychologist, that we can empathise more with with people in similar situations to our own, rather than those who are very different.

veritable

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Silverharp, have you any reasons for your assertions?

I'm old enough to remember a time when there was less disparity of income. And I've seen the high incomes rocket. And greed becoming normal. And communities fragmenting. I know, as a psychologist, that we can empathise more with with people in similar situations to our own, rather than those who are very different.

Of course greed is normal. Inequality is also normal and nothing will ever change that.

silverharp

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Silverharp, have you any reasons for your assertions?

I'm old enough to remember a time when there was less disparity of income. And I've seen the high incomes rocket. And greed becoming normal. And communities fragmenting. I know, as a psychologist, that we can empathise more with with people in similar situations to our own, rather than those who are very different.

Its the old corellation and causation story. Why should less inequality of income as a stand alone factor make people "on average" happier or more civil? What if it turned out to be some other magic ingredient in their culture like their conformity or their tendancy to xenophobia, would you be so quick to suggest that we should adopt a particular value.

Why could community fragmentation not be down to the welfare state, the planning system , high taxation , these factors were less obvious when my parents were growing up? Why should income inequality jump to the top of the list? Maybe we should bring back the iron rod of the catholic church, as there is a strong "corellation" between the decline of church power and the rise of the murder rate in Ireland, or maybe its TV's fault?...............

Cannibal Ox

I think it's a very good book. Richard Wilkinson is speaking tonight in Belfast as far as I know.

silverharp wrote:

I'd be highly skeptical of such a book

It's large scale quantitative study done over 30 years that has been turned into a book. One of the authors, Richard Wilkinson, had written a book previously about health and distribution of wealth and found that societies with more equally distributed wealth were healthier.

If I remember correctly, the Spirit Level examines OECD countries and argues that after reaching a certain level of wealth, countries with a more equitable distribution of wealth across society have better health, less crime, better education levels, and closer communities compared to other countries with less equal distribution of wealth.

It isn't arguing that societies should be entirely equal. It is arguing that in societies with more equal distribution of wealth then other countries people of all levels of society do better.

I can understand why you would be skeptical, but I think it's worth taking the claims of the book seriously. The best way, I think, of verifying their claims would be to do more smaller scale, comparative studies that examine aspects of the books claims (like health, crime, education) and investigate whether equal distribution of wealth is the most important variable.

There's lots of info on their website if you don't want to go through the book.

COUCH WARRIOR

more equal society Sweden
less equal society Ireland

given the choice which would you pick to be born into.

The idea is intuitively pleasing, reminds me of the all sharing hunter gatherer groupings described in born to run

thebouldwhacker

veritable wrote: »

Of course greed is normal. Inequality is also normal and nothing will ever change that.

Can you expand on these points?

Rabble Rabble

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

Can you expand on these points?

If we start from zero, in any society, there will be no equal outcome because people are not equal. However, the desirability of this is open to question.

veritable

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

Can you expand on these points?

Greed is the inbuilt mechanism that drives us to get out of bed in the morning and go out and earn a living.

Inequality exists because some individuals have more strengths than weaknesses. They therefore have more valuable skills/talents and earn more as a result. In other words, not everyone is equal and life simply reflect this.

JuliusCaesar

veritable wrote: »

Greed is the inbuilt mechanism that drives us to get out of bed in the morning and go out and earn a living.

Inequality exists because some individuals have more strengths than weaknesses. They therefore have more valuable skills/talents and earn more as a result. In other words, not everyone is equal and life simply reflect this.

However, any human society can have mechanisms to regulate the behaviour of individuals. What keeps us generally polite to each other (total strangers in a city) and not living in a society where might is right (apart from some sink estates)?

As a psychologist, it's amazing the force of social norms.

veritable

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

However, any human society can have mechanisms to regulate the behaviour of individuals. What keeps us generally polite to each other (total strangers in a city) and not living in a society where might is right (apart from some sink estates)?

As a psychologist, it's amazing the force of social norms.

Yes but the "mechanisms to regulate" must be completely voluntary. Imposing restrictions on the freedoms of one group of individuals in order to compensate for so-called past discrimination of another group is morally wrong.

nyarlothothep

There are inbuilt drives in humans, violence, peacefulness, greed, solidarity. When someone starts saying that anyone of these qualities should justify an existing state of affairs which has negative reprecussions in order to stymie debate, extreme skepticism should be exercised imo. Essentially the greed is human nature argument just doesn't cut it for me, one being that greed is a component of human nature, it doesn't define it, second, greediness shouldn't justify huge differences in income, if those differences have been shown to be generative of social problems. Its amazing how many times I see this argument of human nature = x, its almost if not ideological or a product of indoctrination.

Overature

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

>hello-o-o-o-o< (echo is terrible around here)

anyway, I was reading a book called 'the spirit level' on equality, which says that the more unequal societies have more social problems. Seems to make sense.

Also says there are 2 ways to have more equal societies - tax income -> greater public utilities and b. the Japanese model wh as I remember (and I don't this being late) was equality of income. (ie the top Japanese earners don't earn such vast multiples of the average wage.)

So...what do yous think? Could this be the simple answer to all social problems from mental health and drug use to everything else?

(anyone read the book? it was written by two epidemiologists - maybe some Health Science people might comment)

thats just the problem, there are people in ireland who are earning 200K plus and then there are homeless people all over Dublin, its simply not fair. you could enjoy the same amount of luxury at 100K and then a good amount of homeless people could be brought into counsling and put back on there feet

Cannibal Ox

veritable wrote:

Greed is the inbuilt mechanism that drives us to get out of bed in the morning and go out and earn a living.

I would say that the problem with greed is that it's a human concept. What I mean is that greed isn't prior to you or your societies existence. The meaning of greed, and greed itself, isn't an eternal truth or a natural inbuilt mechanism. The idea of greed is located within your society, your culture and your political and economic circumstances. So greed can't possibly be natural, or inbuilt, in the sense that greed and the meaning of greed is dependent on you and the society you live in.

It maybe sounds like empty rhetoric but it's important within the context of the Spirit Level. The Spirit Level isn't arguing that human beings aren't motivated by greed or affluence or consumerism, it's arguing that more equal affluent societies do better in almost all measures. Greed could be an issue in how the meaning of greed is produced within societies but it doesn't prevent more equal societies doing better. Societies can be wealthy, as can individuals, but a more equitable distribution of wealth tends to result in 'better' societies for everyone.

JuliusCaesar

veritable wrote: »

Yes but the "mechanisms to regulate" must be completely voluntary. Imposing restrictions on the freedoms of one group of individuals in order to compensate for so-called past discrimination of another group is morally wrong.

by "mechanisms to regulate", I meant social and cultural norms.