TED talk: How economic inequality harms societies

I thought this was very interesting. The talk is given by Richard Wilkinson, who is the founder of The Equality Trust (http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/), which has a lot of good information and interesting visuals/graphs on their site.

He makes the case that countries with more economic inequality perform more poorly than more egalitarian countries in pretty much any indicator of how well a society is functioning. They have higher infant mortality rates, higher high school drop-out rates, worse health, lower levels of social mobility, higher homicide rates... well, you get the picture.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw"]Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies - YouTube

What do you guys think? Does he make a reasonable case for policies aimed at reducing income inequality in countries where is it high?

 

Hi egg

Yes I’ve often recommended the book he co wrote with Kate Pickett -
The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do better by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spirit-Level-Equality-Better-Everyone/dp/0241954290"]The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone: Amazon.co.uk: Richard Wilkinson, Kate Pickett: Books

As a review distinctly put it –

“Income inequality, they show beyond any doubt, is not just bad for those at the bottom but for everyone. More unequal societies are socially dysfunctional across the board. There is more teenage pregnancy, mental illness, higher prison populations, more murders, higher obesity and less numeracy and literacy in more unequal societies. Even the rich report more mental ill health and have lower life expectancies than their peers in less unequal societies.” Will Hutton

Now while I think absolute equality is impossible I do think it is possible to bring about more equality than say in the US or UK societies of today.

But what I’d also recommend is – A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey (other books cover the same ground but this I found very accessible)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273"]A Brief History of Neoliberalism: Amazon.co.uk: David Harvey: Books


Which shows how ‘free market’ thinking and policies have brought about greater inequality in the places it has been adopted such as the US and UK (and less so in the places it wasn’t embraced so enthusiastically like many of the Scandinavian countries).

 

I was already aware of Wilkinson's book, but I'll add the other one to my reading list, thanks.

I would also say that, along with absolute inequality being impossible, it is undesirable. I do believe that we need to allow people to have an incentive to make more money if they choose to put in the time to get educated or to take risks on a small business, otherwise I fear that innovation will suffer. But, there are definite benefits to societies with reasonable levels of inequality as opposed to those like the US and UK.

 

he says he didnt pick and choose but he did. i also would have liked to see russia on this list being such a major country.
but anyway it all makes common sense if someone just sat down and thought about it. actually i was just thinking today that even if the minimum wage was higher then more people would have more money meaning less welfare which means less tax needed. so if minimum wage was higher (and the country was run correctly) then those rich people paying minimum wage jobs would have lower costs to offset the money they are loosing in higher wages.

BUT...it wouldnt completely offset it, and thats where greed for the almighty dollar comes in. who cares if i might die a couple years sooner if i can guarantee i get more money now?
i can understand that greed. i used to have it a bit when i was just starting off in this world. i guess i evolved a little bit but clearly the people that really matter have not evolved enough to realize that the extra millions they are making isnt buying them shit if they keep it locked up in oversees accounts like greedy versions of scrooge mcduck

 

Sorta, I guess. As with everything, though, the devil is in the details. How do we go about it? Should we go about it? Is income inequality the sole cause of those differences?

There have been numerous critiques of Wilkinson and his major work The Spirit Level. The chief problem many seem to have with it isn't so much the idea, but whether or not the numbers and estimations Wilkinson uses/makes really show what he claims they do. He has been very loose with his numbers and, in many cases, doesn't provide much of the data he claims to be basing his equations and estimations off of. There have attempts to duplicate his findings with UN and OECD data and, according to the people who carried it out, no correlation between income disparity and poverty, mortality rates, and so on.

 

And therein lies the rub: what is reasonable?

 

I like the idea that is going to referendum in Switzerland soon: limiting CEO pay so that the CEO cannot earn more in one month than the lowest paid worker in the company makes in a year. Basically, the CEO pay is limited to 12 times that of the lowest paid worker. Interesting concept. I don't know if 12 is the right number, but tying CEO pay to something like that seems to be a fairly reasonable way to keep inequality under control, while still allowing people to earn significant amounts of money.

The number could be raised from 12 to 20, and it seems reasonable. If you pay your lowest paid worker $30,000/year, that means that the executive officers can't take home more than $600,000/year. A lot of money for sure, but not ridiculous like some of these multi-million dollar bonuses.

 

See, I am not sure I could get behind the masses dictating company pay scales. It starts down a dangerous road.

 

Maybe instead of making it mandatory, they could offer incentives for compliance? Compliance to a system like this could at least be enforced on companies that received federal funds to keep them afloat, like all of the banks and auto-makers. I don't know the right way to make it work, haven't thought enough about it.

 

i dont see it as the masses dictating the pay scale its the government and the actual amount decided is by the bosses/owner of the company. if your thinking what i am, that this leaves top executives no desire to stay in the country when there are better jobs for millions elsewhere then you must agree that businesses might fail if they are run by people that arent qualified to do the job...just the most qualified available. which is the only reason i think a better solution is out there.

 

But the final say is with the people, hence the referendum.

 

That may be one way to go about it, sure.

 

thanks for posting this Eggs... it'sa good one.

George Carlin The Best 3 Minutes of His Career "The American Dream"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsL6mKxtOlQ

 

I love that Carlin clip. It should be shown to every student at the beginning of high school, and again right before they graduate.

 

He knows the truth that so many deny. I'd vote for him in a minute if he wasn't quite so --uh--dead. Man---do we need some politicians like George.

 

you've probably heard it already ..

 

what fuckin world do you live in, Man? they wouldn't dare to do that. not even in Canada, eh.

 

Voyage


As Wilkinson jokes in the OP clip – ‘if Americans want to live the American dream they should move to Denmark’

 

Russell Brand did an interview on BBC Newsnight recently, and he seems to have the right idea:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YR4CseY9pk"]NEWSNIGHT - Paxman vs Brand. Full Interview. - YouTube

 

i dont like russel and i dont agree with most of what i have heard from him....that being said i cant see a single word i disagree with him on in this interview.