6 thoughts on “Charting Inequality”

  1. I so hate videos as a means of conveying information. Interesting, really, because I think that the world is changing and that a lot more information will be conveyed that way in the future.
    The music, the requirement that I follow the narrator’s logic, the inability to look at the numbers myself. I hate it.
    Also, I think that making a big deal of what people say about some things (i.e. income inequality or how much roses should cost before valentine’s day) often shows a mismatch between what they want and what they think they want. The video reminds me of (is it real or just a story?) poll on whether florists should be allowed to charge more for flowers before valetine’s day. The story goes something like “80% of Russians think they shouldn’t be allowed to”; the punchline is that 80% of Americans also say the same thing.
    I think the flaw in the analysis is the framing of the question, and how the framing induces individuals to place themselves into certain roles when answering the question. Most people, even those in the 20%, think of themselves as being somewhere in the middle. So, they answer the question presuming they are in the middle, and think the middle should have more of the wealth. But, most of the 20%, when they realize they are there, for example, when you talk about raising tax rates on the top 20%, oppose that transfer of wealth.
    I am personally willing to see my taxes go up, but I have to admit that I am also not just in the top 20%.

    Like

  2. The narration and the displayed statistics switch back and forth very confusingly between income and wealth. It’s difficult to think intelligently about public policy questions if one lacks analytic clarity.

    Like

  3. Because the video sounds like an advertisement and not an analysis. And I’m a flaming liberal who believes that growing income inequality is undermining the ideals of America in fundamental ways.

    Like

  4. I can’t handle videos either. I want my info written down where I can look at it and absorb it in my own time instead of relying on these goddamn ears, which seem to work fine but don’t really process info as quickly as my eyes do.

    Like

  5. I think it all goes to this problem of agency as well — Just because you WANT something doesn’t mean that you can force it to happen. I think that what we have seen with the Eurozone crisis, attempts to stabilize the American economy, quantitative easing, etc. is that there are certain things going on in the world economy (including the rise of incomes in the developing world) that are going to have affects on our economy and that we didn’t plan for. I think it’s naive to think that we could have a policy to redistribute income across the US — and I think it’s dangerous to want to have one (and also wrongheaded). When Europe raised taxes, people just started:
    a. demanding that you pay them in cash
    b. sending money abroad to other countries
    c. lying about their incomes, accepting bribes, etc.
    If you thought getting a job and getting your kid into college was corrupt these days, just wait! Under the redistribution plan, this will get much, much worse.

    Like

  6. I think the interesting question here is how the “merit society” interacts with increasing income equality. The false belief that people *can* make it to the top based only on their own merits (intelligence and hard work) leads to the conclusion that if you are at the top you deserve it, leaving out all privilege of birth and upbringing and health. And also that people who don’t make it to the top *could have* and therefore don’t deserve help.
    There’s no noblesse oblige in merit aristocrats, not even what little there was in the nobility. And we aren’t all afraid of going to hell anymore so no Andrew Carnegies.

    Like

Comments are closed.