• Inequality and its discontents


    Oklahoma has two major state universities that you may well have heard about if you’re an American: OSU and OU. Each of these, in turn, is surrounded by a college town large enough to support an independent atheist group. The Stillwater based group is relatively new and growing, while the Norman group is more well-established and benefits from a certain amount of membership and activity overlap with the AOK based in OKC.

    Last weekend, I was invited down to speak at the Norman group on the topic of inequality in our society, evidently because I’m the most economically conservative person they could find. That is sort of weird, really, since I’m the used to being the token (moderate) progressive around family, friends, and co-workers — it’s only when completely surrounded by freethinkers that I’m ever considered even right of center. At any rate, I’ve been known to speak up for the efficacy of free markets at creating wealth, if not necessarily spreading it around.

    The event was originally billed as a debate, but the other speaker and I could not come up with a general proposition upon which we could firmly disagree without getting rather narrow or overly nuanced, and that wasn’t exactly the point of the event. Instead, we agreed to keep it at the level of informal discussion, and spend a good deal of time interacting with the audience. We also spent a good deal of time pulling up charts and data on the fly, which proved to be a stimulating approach. I’d like to share just a few of the most insightful graphics that were presented on the night.

    The first one is from Edward N. Wolff’s Working Paper No. 589: “Recent Trends in Household Wealth in the United States: Rising Debt and the Middle-Class Squeeze—an Update to 2007” and is a simple but striking pie chart:

    It helps to bear in mind that household wealth is an aggregate of the value of homes, automobiles, businesses, savings, and investments and the like, minus the debt owed by the householders. Notice that the top 20% holds just over 85% of the wealth, at present.

    The second chart comes from “Building a Better America–One Wealth Quintile at a Time” by Michael I. Norton and Dan Ariely (available online at http://pps.sagepub.com/content/6/1/9):

    This chart shows that Americans are fairly idealistic about how they would like to see wealth distributed (bottom bar) and overly optimistic about how it is actually distributed at present (middle bar) when compared to the actual distribution (top bar). We spent most of the evening discussing possible policy changes which would make the actual distribution look more like the ideal distribution favored by the respondents here. The solutions most heavily discussed were a reformed estate tax so as to prevent massive intergenerational transfers of wealth, more progressive income taxes (moving towards top marginal rates last seen under Eisenhower), and enhancing the school systems and social safety nets so as to allow the bottom quintile a better shot at competing in the labor markets.

    We also had a bit of a look at inequality around the world, using the Gini coefficient:

    As you may have already guessed, the blue/indigo end of the color spectrum indicates higher levels of income equality. I have to belatedly call bullshit on this map (at least in part) because it mixes in pre-tax and post-tax data. If the U.S. was colored according to it’s Gini coefficient after taxes and transfers, it would be colored the same as Japan and New Zealand. Still, the map does give on a fairly good sense of the ability of wealthy OECD countries to provide more of a level playing field.Probably the most challenging question from the audience was why inequality should be considered a bad thing, in and of itself. My answer to the question, which I did not adaquately formulate at the time, is that inequality is a bad thing inasmuch as it perpetuates an unsustainable national deficit and prevents the fair allocation of public goods such as education and health care. If unemployment were low, and the working poor could acheive a reasonable standard of living to include health coverage and quality public education, and the national fisc weren’t generating record levels of debt, I’d have no serious compunctions about the fact of inequality in any of itself.

    Your thoughts?

    Category: Uncategorized

    Article by: Damion Reinhardt

    Former fundie finds freethought fairly fab.

    3 Pingbacks/Trackbacks

    • Another reason why inequality is bad: economic power is political power and leads
      to unequal treatment under the law. Imagine for a moment a poor O.J. Simpson
      trial, or recall the legal dealings of Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan.

      For Americans the “money equals speech” ruling is another good reason.(Campaign finance, Lobbyists.,Etc.).

      • We talked about the money/speech thing for a bit and managed to have a genuine disagreement. I’m on the side of the ACLU and free speech: http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/scotus/citizensunited_v_fec_acluamicus.pdf

        Oddly enough, in this case, my support of the ACLU puts me at odds with most self-identified liberals. Weird, right?

      • Dhoelscher

        As a far leftist I don’t often agree with liberals, but in this case I’d respectfully suggest they are in the right. There is a big difference between free speech near-absolutism (the position I apparently share with the liberals) and free speech fanaticism (the position the ACLU has long held). Considering campaign spending to be a type of speech should be seen in the same category of practices such as yelling fire in a crowded theater or attempting to bribe the cop who has pulled you over for speeding. A small fraction of certain types of expression are just too destructive of the common good, while at the same time being so lacking in anything to recommend them viz-a-viz the commonweal, that they need to be forbidden. I love the ACLU, but as I’ve told several of it’s staff people (in three different states) I’ll never support them financially until they stop siding with the right-wing on this issue. Interestingly, every staffer with whom I have discussed this matter agreed with my position and blamed the problem on ACLU’s national leadership.

      • For the sake of full disclosure and nuance, though, I came out against lobbyists and in favor of the most stringent open meetings laws. TL;DR – it’s complicated.

    • Dhoelscher

      For those of you who may be interested, my recently published article on atheism and class:


    • Dhoelscher

      Thank you for writing about this hugely important topic. There is definitely something wrong with the world map. India, which I’ve been studying for some months now, and from which I just returned home after a five day visit (to Chennai) is definitely more unequal than the U.S. And Sri Lanka, where I’ve been living for the past 16+ months, is, contrary to the map, definitely more equal than India.

    • Nice article Damion. Here’s another reason to be concerned with inequality or relative poverty measures. I believe it was Schumpeter that opined that entrepreneurship requires a middle class only as a means of motivation and necessary tools. If you have a society that’s very split between very rich and very poor, you will have a problem of entrepreneurial motivation from the top class (their children) and a problem with the lack of quality education from the poor class. Both classes will be lacking something. A large middle class will produce more entrepreneurs because they will have the necessary tools (education) and motivation to produce and take risks. Need to have both of those elements. High inequality can bad for business. I figured since you were somewhat ‘conservative’ you might appreciate this perspective when looking at inequality.

    • Pingback: Atheism and the Class Problem Revisited, by David Hoelscher | Debunking Christianity()

    • Pingback: Atheism and the Class Problem, Revisited()

    • Pingback: Heads and Assholes • Background Probability()