The appetite for inequality

My name is URL

I just had the new Zeitgeist movie on in the background while doing some work and one part of it jumped out at me more so than the rest.

Basically, it highlighted how the greater the gap between the best and worst paid within society; has a correlation with the degree of negative aspects of that given society.

The website the data & graphs were taken from is - http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence

For example, the more equally incentivised nations are, the less prevalent cases of violent crime*, mental illness**, drug abuse*** and so on, are.

* - http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/images/560/violence.gif
** - http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/images/560/mental-health.gif
*** - http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/images/560/drug-use.gif

I know that correlation does not equal causation, but with so much correlation wouldn't it be naive and irresponsible to brush it aside as mere coincidence?

Are we, by design of our own expectations, making life more and more difficult for ourselves and others?

Monty Burnz

The interesting thing for me is that the 'poor' we speak of in wealthy societies are poor only in relative terms. They've been getting richer just like everyone else. I imagine if a poor person in 1900 saw the lifestyle of a 'poor' person today, with their big-screen TV, warm council house, free education, Sky Sports, foreign holidays, free healthcare, free legal aid, and so on - they'd probably think they were looking at a very wealthy person.

nyarlothothep

This thread reminds me of my own thoughts on...do people have a thirst for authoritarianism. I think that due to cultural factors people believe that socio economic policies which will likely increase inequality provide the best outcomes in the national interest. To some extent this may be true, given that one is conforming to an international hegemony which promotes inequality vis a vis the third world and domestic populations. An aftereffect of colonialism/heirarchy so to speak. Culture is in certain respects ideological so its difficult to dissuade people from certain beliefs just as if they were to believe in a religion.

The question I'm curious about is which came first, is the human nature so rapacious, so ignorant and cruel that it fashioned a globally dominant culture of exploitation, or was it the case that limited resources created an historical legacy of cruelty which humans are unwittingly playing out over and over again?

ArtSmart

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The interesting thing for me is that the 'poor' we speak of in wealthy societies are poor only in relative terms. They've been getting richer just like everyone else. I imagine if a poor person in 1900 saw the lifestyle of a 'poor' person today, with their big-screen TV, warm council house, free education, Sky Sports, foreign holidays, free healthcare, free legal aid, and so on - they'd probably think they were looking at a very wealthy person.

feeling the hunger under that there bridge?

Treora

The poorer one is the less articulate one is on the balance of probabilities so the is little chance of mass individual extraction from this harmful loop. And those with means fight to keep it without realising that sharing some through shared resources (transport, basic employment...) secures their money as people fight to climb the ladder rather than fight/steal in relatiation for perceived and real inequity.

ArtSmart

nyarlothothep wrote: »

This thread reminds me of my own thoughts on...do people have a thirst for authoritarianism. I think that due to cultural factors people believe that socio economic policies which will likely increase inequality provide the best outcomes in the national interest. To some extent this may be true, given that one is conforming to an international hegemony which promotes inequality vis a vis the third world and domestic populations. An aftereffect of colonialism/heirarchy so to speak. Culture is in certain respects ideological so its difficult to dissuade people from certain beliefs just as if they were to believe in a religion.

The question I'm curious about is which came first, is the human nature so rapacious, so ignorant and cruel that it fashioned a globally dominant culture of exploitation, or was it the case that limited resources created an historical legacy of cruelty which humans are unwittingly playing out over and over again?

wow. must be that time of the epoch - what with what's the meaning of life thread elsewhere.

you're not afraid to ask the biggies huh?

anyway as to your final Q (in bold) - take the 1600-1870's period.

what drove colonisation? well, limited resources played a part, but a small part.
t'were mostly a mixture of curiosity, desire, boredom, limited home opportunities, greed, missionary zeal. the usual suspects.

why did it become exploitative and dominant? human beliefs derived from human thought - we're a superior race etc.

the hope for humanity lies in , strangely enough the same place, human thought.

hopefully, it'll get better as time goes on, although it oftentimes doesnt look that way.

ETA: as for desire for authoritarianism - yup, i'd say it's linked to the desire for others to offer solutions rather than experience the 'burden' of thinking for oneself. - the very reason Adolf and others like him did so well.

iPlop

nyarlothothep wrote: »

This thread reminds me of my own thoughts on...do people have a thirst for authoritarianism. I think that due to cultural factors people believe that socio economic policies which will likely increase inequality provide the best outcomes in the national interest.

Germany 1933..

My name is URL

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The interesting thing for me is that the 'poor' we speak of in wealthy societies are poor only in relative terms. They've been getting richer just like everyone else. I imagine if a poor person in 1900 saw the lifestyle of a 'poor' person today, with their big-screen TV, warm council house, free education, Sky Sports, foreign holidays, free healthcare, free legal aid, and so on - they'd probably think they were looking at a very wealthy person.

Yeah, and if a pauper from the Byzantine period observed the lifestyle of a modern day poor person their head would probably explode =p

You're right of course in what you say, but it's not the point. Have you seen the new Zeitgeist film? You should watch it.. they make the points sound more valid than I could. It isn't just about simple inequality anyway, it's about how people perceive that inequality, and the effect that has on society as a whole.

Monty Burnz

My name is URL wrote: »

Yeah, and if a pauper from the Byzantine period observed the lifestyle of a modern day poor person their head would probably explode =p

You're right of course in what you say, but it's not the point. Have you seen the new Zeitgeist film? You should watch it.. they make the points sound more valid than I could. It isn't just about simple inequality anyway, it's about how people perceive that inequality, and the effect that has on society as a whole.

I'll try to see it, it sounds interesting.

phantom_lord

My name is URL wrote: »

Yeah, and if a pauper from the Byzantine period observed the lifestyle of a modern day poor person their head would probably explode =p

You're right of course in what you say, but it's not the point. Have you seen the new Zeitgeist film? You should watch it.. they make the points sound more valid than I could. It isn't just about simple inequality anyway, it's about how people perceive that inequality, and the effect that has on society as a whole.

Joshua Jones

phantom_lord wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCB2caifjvk

Brown Bomber

Strangely in Egypt the gap had been narrowing considerably recently.

Reducing Poverty and Inequality

• The Government of Egypt’s reform program has paid off for all Egyptians. Between 2005 & 2008 Poverty, as defined by those living under $2/day, fell over 11%
• The reform program has not achieved growth at the expense of a growing gap between rich and poor in Egypt. In fact the Gini Index, the international measure of wealth inequality, actually fell 7% between 1999 & 2007.
• Further evidence of this, is that the share of the poorest 10% in national income rose 5% and the share of richest 10% feel 6% in the same period. The ratio of the wealth of the richest to the poorest 10% also fell 10%. All of which indicates a more just distribution of wealth.
• Nonetheless, the Government is committed enhancing the social returns of reform through improved targeting of social programs

Source: http://www.modernegypt.info/economy/economic-liberalization/