I’m unconvinced that inequality matters. A better set of questions would be one like: how much does your parents (lack of) success predict your own? How likely are you to attain some arbitrary yet desirable standard of living, etc.
Inequality is related to these things but doesn’t necessarily block them.
Outcome should still be proportional to effort and skill however.
There are many top-heavy systems where the top benefits far more than the middle even though the middle is close to as good. Consider sporting events where the second place receives 1/3 of the price of the winner, even if it was a very close finals. Yes, the winner played better, but not to the extent of warranting double the earnings.
> Outcome should still be proportional to effort and skill however.
It seems to me that this is an unsolvable or at least a very hard problem. Ask 10 people about what they think the correct and fair compensation is and you’ll get 10 opinions. It is difficult to quantify effort and skill. If a very talented person produces better results - with less effort - than someone less talented but very hard working, who gets compensated more? These are tough questions to answer.
> Yes, the winner played better, but not to the extent of warranting double the earnings.
I am curious about these sporting events. Please help me understand them better.
For instance, The French Open awards double the money to the winner it does to the runner up.
Compare this with the word chess championship, where it is often split 60-40%, or the found is often bound to performance differences. A victory by a sweep incurs a larger percentage for the winner.
The caveat with sports is that for many of the sorts of athletes that win major leagues/tournaments, prize money is not their only source of income. As an extreme example Roger Federer recently went over a year without playing a single game and still earned an estimate of $90 million during that time.
The caveat to my caveat is of course the winning a major tournament also significantly increases all those other sources of income.
>but not to the extent of warranting double the earnings
It's a close finals because of the difference in reward between 1st and 2nd. If they were the same then the finals match would not matter financially as whether you win or lose you earn the same amount.
I'm not advocating for a flat pay structure for athletes, but if you think the world class athletes only give it their all because they'll get paid more, you have a pretty distorted view of athletes.
I've watched first hand teams change their playstyle depending on how much prize money is available. It's the difference between playing to have fun and playing super sweaty.
For sporting events the ability of interest is attracting sports customers. You might argue that metaphorical Nike is mis-pricing top tier competitors, but that's Nike's fault and Nike's prerogative.
I find it hard to imagine anything that qualifies as ‘lack of success’ in the context of Europe.
Do you have a house, a car, and children going to college/university? Then you are successful as far as Europe is concerned, and that’s basically everyone.
Of course, that’s been going down the drain in the past 10-20ish years for reasons I’m not sure about. Nobody can buy a €500k home on a median salary any more.
Yes, European universities are quite cheap but the admissions bar is very high. The expectation is that university is a path for a narrow group rather than a credentialing path for everyone. The academic rigor of the incoming students is very high and there are almost no “party schools” populated 75% by idiots who skip class and get hammered.
the admissions bar is very high. The expectation is that university is a path for a narrow group rather than a credentialing path for everyone.
I feel that that varies a lot from country to country. Certainly in Sweden, if you just graduate from any program at any high school (or get a not terrible score on the university entrance exam), you will get into a university if you want. Probably not the university you want, and probably not to study you first choice subject, but you will get in somewhere.
Of course as you say, getting in is far from a guarantee that you'll actually get a degree.
I would go a step further and say it’s a feature and not a bug. There are no robust ecosystems in nature where there is equality between all members of that system. The most robust ecosystems are those where you have the greatest diversity of species which correlates with inequality between them. Personally I don’t see how a modern society at scale could ever be equal and fiction. Equality really only works locally and even then has its limitations.
Equality in opportunity and equality in outcome are two different things. Even that aside, asking for a baseline equality in living with dignity has nothing to do with diversity of species.
>The most robust ecosystems are those where you have the greatest diversity of species which correlates with inequality between them
I would love to know how you came to this conclusion. Different species occupy different niches when there is a robust ecosystem and there is nothing like inequality between them. There is symbiosis and inter-dependence, but I have not seen one species turn on other for "inequality".
I would be careful drawing analogies from nature. There is no support that shows that there is any equivalence between diversity and economic equality. On top of that if you believe it is valid draw parallels from nature, you need to explain why there should be private property, as no such concept exist in nature (as well as many of the other rules we quite happily accept).
I don't think many people are claiming that the goal should be "no inequality", and that's certainly not what one sees in Europe, so I don't think that argument is relevant.
Clearly society at large can still function in Europe with reduced inequality compared to America.
I rather see the opposite. A society cannot live long if it has too much inequality. From inequality comes pressure, that forces the society to adapt or break.
Military rule originates from the fact that the previous rulers thought they can suppress the population through so called guard labor. Once guard labor crosses a point, a huge portion of the population does guard labor which also puts them in the position to replace the ruler because the ruler is entirely dependent on this guard labor.
Economic mobility studies are interesting, but there's a fundamental issue with the way all of them look at things: they're measuring relative success, not absolute. Of course it's easier to move between deciles if the distribution of income is flat, but the net result of the movement also has less actual impact. It's also zero-sum: everyone moving up from the bottom decile has to be replaced by someone! Overall quality of life is the metric that should be optimized around, not economic mobility.
Measured by what metric, mean, median income? Work/life balance? Quality of life is such a broad and nebulous term, any two measurements can come to completely different results so it is largely useless.
Sure, you probably can't come up with a metric that quantifies the whole of human experience, but picking any of those is going to be better than picking a metric that is completely unrelated to quality of life!
The comment I replied to asked about this specific metric.
Beyond that, when I was growing up US superior economic mobility was touted as one of the key characteristics of American greatness. Its been interesting to watch the conservatives that were the biggest cheerleaders for this and other greatness indicators now make excuses when empirical data challenges these myths.
Inequality has been found to cause crime, poor health, child poverty (ie something that prevents children from developing properly and reaching the same economic productivity as their peers), etc. Some effects are felt by the rich. For example, my options for a partner are limited to those of similar income due to inequality and a desire for a certain lifestyle (amount of cooking at home, amount of holidays etc)
There is some interesting models that show that equality is essentially a phase transition. Once you go beyond a level of inequality it becomes completely unequal (concentrated in essentially one actor) unless worked against [1] . I would argue it follows that those societies become also socially immobile, because one actor controls everything.
If inequality goes beyond skill inequality then it is a sign of an inefficient market. So far every person or blog I have seen that says inequality is good has completely ignored or even wants artificial inefficiencies to maintain that inequality. But then they do a post rationalization and say that inequality is good because it reflects skill differences.
Inequality matters because 90% of it is pointless.
It matters, but only to some extent. I agree that ideally everyone should meet some basic level of subsistence, and that Africa-like Gini values are undesirable in the long term. Neither, however, are Nordic/Eastern European-like levels, either.[1] Some amount of inequality, it seems, is necessary to drive long-term economic dynamism.
Botswana's Gini is among the highest in the world <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...>, while Iraq and Egypt's are as low as the Netherlands. Botswana is probably a better near- and mid-term bet than Egypt (and perhaps a better long-term bet than the Netherlands), though, while Iraq might be better than both in the long term; such conclusions imply that Gini just doesn't say anything useful for economic potential, and that absolute figures measuring tangible things are the right way to judge a nation's growth.
The US's Gini is high among OECD countries but closer to the middle when measured worldwide. If that's the "price" we Americans pay for having Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook, Netflix (and Hollywood), Intel, Nvidia, Exxon, Boeing, Tesla, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, eBay, Amazon, Wal-Mart, Levi's, SpaceX, Disney, Pixar, General Electric, Gap, McDonald's, Coca-Cola, and Starbucks, I'm glad to pay it.
[1] Norway's per capita income adjusted by cost of living <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GNI_(PPP)...> is much higher than the US's because of its oil—it's basically a Persian Gulf petrostate relocated to northern Europe—but the US's is ~18% higher than Denmark's and Sweden's, and ~30% higher than Finland's. (And, before you ask, when measured by median net income, the gap between America and other developed nations shrinks but the US still does quite well, at #6 worldwide.) At $41,071 the US has the highest household net disposable income per capita in the OECD <http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/united-states/>, where "disposable income" <http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=46> accounts for healthcare and government benefits.
> Inequality grew in nearly all European countries, but much less than in the US. Contrary to a widespread view, we demonstrate that Europe's lower inequality levels cannot be explained by more equalizing tax and transfer systems.
> After accounting for indirect taxes and in-kind transfers, the US redistributes a greater share of national income to low-income groups than any European country. "Predistribution," not "redistribution," explains why Europe is less unequal than the United States.
(Edit: thanks boulos for the direct PDF link and vlovich123 for finding their definition of the term)
> We refer in this paper to “redistribution” as the operation of the tax-and-transfer system, mea- sured by the difference between pretax and posttax income inequality. By contrast, “predistribution” refers to all forms of government interventions (such as labor market regulations, minimum wages, educational investments, etc.) that drive pretax inequality levels (see section IV as well as Hacker and Pierson (2010) for a discussion of these concepts).
> In other words, Europe has been much more successful than the US at ensuring that its low-income groups benefit from relatively good-paying jobs.
ie By "Predistribution" they assert that most European countries pay better at the low end and thus have less need to "redistribute" from the better paid end.
Is there any industrialized, developed nation that is worse than the U.S.A. in this regard? I heard bad things about the U.K. as well.
I turns out that having next to no social security, no accessible education for the poor and the bizarre legality of “legacy scholarships” has a certain effect.
How is it possible, I ask, that U.S.A. universities openly and notoriously give favorable treatment to the children of past alumni without this being shut down by the lawmaker or the courts?
Of all the people whose received preferential treatment for college admissions due to family connections, why do you think anyone is singling out the former president?
Yale cannot do "basically whatever they want". For example, they accept students who receive federal financial assistance so must follow Title IX requirements. The government could use the same power of the purse to reduce legacy admissions.
Since you mentioned Bush and Yale. He graduated in 1968. Yale didn't accept women until 1969. Title IX was enacted in 1972. In 1980, Alexander v. Yale was the first use of Title IX in charges of sexual harassment against an educational institution, and established that sexual harassment of a student could be considered illegal sex discrimination.
In any case, some public schools use legacy admissions - it's not a private-college-only thing.
Because it is the most notorious case? I don't think anyone who has listened to George W talk could make the argument "Yeah, this guy is an shining example of Yale!"
You misinterpret my statement "whatever they want" as some sort of collegiate equivalent of a "license to kill". Presently, Yale chooses to engage with federal funding in a variety of ways. They can stop doing that if they want to, thus dropping their obligations.
But furthermore, realize that a student would need to prove that legacy admissions somehow violates Title IX if they wanted to end the process. The members of the various courts that would ultimately decide that case are the same families that benefit from legacy admissions.
Also it's really weird to bring up Alexander v. Yale. If you actually read into the decision most of the plaintiffs allegations were simply dismissed.
I've heard much more about minorities at prestigious colleges are viewed as being there as the result of affirmative action, while legacy students ... aren't.
Or how those schools offer scholarships for athletes in water polo, tennis, sailing, rowing, and other sports which more accessible to affluent white kids.
Hence the question "How is it possible, I ask, that U.S.A. universities openly and notoriously give favorable treatment to the children of past alumni without this being shut down by the lawmaker or the courts?"
> thus dropping their obligations
Except the question was, why isn't that practice illegal? Responding with something like "because it's legal" isn't that insightful.
> somehow violates Title IX
I wasn't making that argument. If it were that easy, it would be done long ago.
I was pointing out that the fed can also use the power of the purse to change things, even if the courts say separation of powers prevents a direct law.
> it's really weird to bring up Alexander v. Yale
What benefited Bush more, legacy admission or rampant sexism that prevented half the population from being able to apply?
In any case, "Although the women did not win their case, they achieved their objectives: Yale instituted a grievance procedure and a court held that sexual harassment constituted sex discrimination. ... As a result of Alexander v. Yale most U.S. universities instituted grievance procedures for sexual harassment."
> How is it possible, I ask, that U.S.A. universities openly and notoriously give favorable treatment to the children of past alumni without this being shut down by the lawmaker or the courts?
Private institutions can do as they see fit. Public universities not so much. So yes, Harvard alumni will have favorable treatment for their kids. SUNY Buffalo, not so much.
Private institutions which accept government funding, like Harvard, have many more restrictions than those like Hillsdale College which don't. The latter, for example, don't need to follow civil rights rules - https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/07/the-co... .
Most colleges - public included - have legacy admissions.
Why are you so certain SUNY Buffalo does not have legacy admissions?
Private universities in and of itself is a bizarre idea. These institutions give out degrees recognized by governments which correspond to the legal competence to practice law or to perform surgery.
As far as I know, there is no such thing as a “private university” where I live. All educational facilities receive funding from the government, and are beholden to it's standards and rules.
Even apart from that, a private company cannot legally here hire people because their parents worked there first. – That is illegal employment discrimination.
It very often seems legal to do in the U.S.A. what is illegal discrimination almost everywhere else. Except of course when it concerns their almighty “protected classes”, because then it suddenly matters, though it's of course woefully ineffective, a system where one can be fired for any reason including no reason, but not for, say, skin color. It makes it very easy to find another reason, or just no reason.
If I were to be terminated, they have to give me the reason and be transparent with the books so that I can easily show in court that though they claimed I was fired for performance, others who performed worse, were strangely not. — Such is how matters are done in normal, civilized, industrialized countries.
This paper is also saying that the US concentrates high income more (ie. fewer people are a lot richer) and thus there is more "back pressure" of money flowing from a few very wealthy to many not so wealthy .. and despite that European countries have a "better off" class of "poor" - as they tend to be better paid to begin with than their equivilents in the USofA.
> U.S.A. universities openly and notoriously give favorable treatment to the children of past alumni
Are these public colleges, paid for by tax money?
I suppose that private institutions have more leeway.
To my mind, the problem of the US higher education is that it was made "too" accessible by offering tuition loans, which result in young people taking on a large debt which they cannot even shake off by a personal bankruptcy. These "easy" money made tuition prices grow, while also producing some degrees that don't help to pay them off.
This is not the most helpful kind of higher education.
What that "yes" an answer to the question of whether or not they're public institutions? Because I was unable to find anything in the link that pointed one way or the other. Though it did not that it may be illegal for public institutions to do so (which slightly implies that at least some are).
Note that I'm not saying that public institutions don't do it; I was just curious about your answer and link.
Quoting it: "Public universities that do consider alumni relations in their admissions process include Auburn University in Alabama, University of Michigan at Ann Arbor and University of Virginia"
Only recently has it been made illegal in some states. Colorado was the first: https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2021/06/01/legacy-ad... . The article mentions how Colorado School of Mines (a public school) had legacy admissions, and "found the legacy preference useful because the children of alums are the most likely to decide to attend once they are accepted."
My understanding appears to be out-of-date. That is, I could have sworn that my alma mater had legacy admissions, but that does not appear to be the case. It may have changed since I went to college.
The US Federal budge is something like 5 trillion dollars. 15% or 20% is spent on the military and another 10% is spent on debt servicing. The rest is pretty much Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Add to that what the US States spend which is again mostly social programs and education for the poor.
There's an idea out there that the U.S. is some sort 'red in tooth and claw' Nation that's one step off anarchy. That may or may not be the case but it's not for lack of spending; whether that spending is being done wisely is another question but it's hard to say it's not being done at all.
Amusingly, I'd add that the paper mostly dodges the causal question (other than to say it's more equal with income), so it's title is kinda clickbait :).
It's very easy to make (almost) everyone equally poor; Communist regimes tried that, mostly with disastrous results.
I don't care about income inequality too much. I care about the two extremes:
* How bad is the situation of the poorest, can they still live with any decency if they honestly choose to. A society should care about that, if not due to its member being kind and humane, then just due to reasons of self-preservation.
* How powerful the richest become. It's hard to talk about anything like democracy or preserving liberties if extremely well-moneyed interests can seriously affect government and especially law.
If these two extremes are kept within reason, I don't mind if anyone makes 1000x than I do.
I cannot imagine any worthwhile society where someone would be entitled to earn 1000 times the average. 10 times is certainly a common-sense maximum. If his only motivation for contributing to the society is to be in the 10-1000 range, I'm pretty sure the society will not miss much his contribution.
An honest question: why do you care? What's your business? What downsides you see?
If somebody makes enough to allow founding a new SpaceX, or a new Intel, or a new network of public libraries [1], or a new medical research center [2], I don't see why that would be bad.
While it's true that 'wealth' isn't directly correlated with claims on our world's natural resources (e.g. 'intellectual property' is included), largely it is.
I would prefer not to live in a society where control of our natural resources (which nobody 'created') is concentrated in proportionally fewer and fewer hands. That to me is what economic inequality means.
Nobody is going to propose that income should be capped 1000x minimum wage even though that is rational because wealthy people now have an interest in paying poor people more if they want to get richer themselves.
That's a weird challenge. What do you want a citation for?
What he did was a political analysis. So while he could provide citations to political scientists who said similar things that wouldn't make the true necessarily.
The "citation needed" only works if you want to assess the premises, so do you want a citation for racism being/having been more widespread or for Europe having had a antisemitism problem?
Why is "judge a man not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character" misleading? It sounds pretty clear to me.
He also said "Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." and "Be The Peace You Wish To See In The World!" and "I am convinced that men hate each other because they fear each other. They fear each other because they don’t know each other, and they don’t know each other because they don’t communicate with each other, and they don’t communicate with each other because they are separated from each other"
The race debate (You're either with us or against us!) as it stands in the USA today would have MLK rolling in his grave.
> Why is "judge a man not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character" misleading? It sounds pretty clear to me.
It's 100% clear in the sense that it's the one quote that people who don't want to hear about racism love.
And isn't it perfect that it comes from the most admired anti-racist in US history?
It's perfect for that and that's why it's super widespread.
It's also a complete travesty of Martin Luther King's thoughts to laser focus on this one quote.
Martin Luther King was describing an ideal society in the far future that looks nothing like our messy present.
Do you think Martin Luther King purpose in life is fairly summarized by "Hey we have talked too much about racism already" ?
Why then did he bother to be so hated, to go in prison, march so many miles, ...?
If that makes no sense it's because it does.
Here is another Martin Luther King's quote
> Our nation was born in genocide when it embraced the doctrine that the original American, the Indian, was an inferior race. Even before there were large numbers of Negroes on our shores, the scar of racial hatred had already disfigured colonial society. From the sixteenth century forward, blood flowed in battles over racial supremacy. We are perhaps the only nation which tried as a matter of national policy to wipe out its indigenous population. Moreover, we elevated that tragic experience into a noble crusade. Indeed, even today we have not permitted ourselves to reject or to feel remorse for this shameful episode. Our literature, our films, our drama, our folklore all exalt it
> It's also a complete travesty of Martin Luther King's thoughts to laser focus on this one quote.
I didn't laser focus on this one quote, my previous reply includes several other quotes of his. Perhaps it is a complete travesty of his thoughts to ignore something he said in what is his most famous speech?
> Martin Luther King was describing an ideal society in the far future that looks nothing like our messy present.
Indeed, a future where his children "will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." But as I said in my previous reply, the race debate as it stands in our "messy present" does the opposite of this.
> Do you think Martin Luther King purpose in life is fairly summarized by "Hey we have talked too much about racism already" ?
Where did I say that? I'm talking to you about racism now.
> "even today we have not permitted ourselves to reject or to feel remorse for this shameful episode"
Unfortunately MLK didn't live to see Obama become president, Michael Jordan dominate the NBA, or Lizzo playing James Madison's crystal flute.
Another MLK quote from his book "Why We Can't Wait":
> "Lamentably, it is a historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals."
Note he says nothing about race here. This quote has more to do with "pretax and posttax income inequality" than race does. Reducing inequality to racism is naive at best.
And thank you. It's a pleasure to have an actual dialog rather than just being accused of being a nazi when asking a question or putting forward an opinion (The with us or against us war cry of BLM I referred to earlier)
> Martin Luther King didn't talk all his life about race because he wanted to but because he had to : it's the structural problem #1 of the USA.
I would argue racism is a symptom of a deeper issue. If I would have to name "structural problem #1" in the western world I would say access to a quality education. I referenced an appropriate MLK quote in a previous reply: "I am convinced that men hate each other because they fear each other. They fear each other because they don’t know each other, and they don’t know each other because they don’t communicate with each other." A quality education should fix people not knowing each other and give them the ability to communicate to one another, and racism might be a solved issue in a single generation.
> Obviously things are better than in his days, and in his days there were better than before the civil war. That doesn't mean there are right today.
100% - there is lots of room for improvement.
> Again why the powerful hatred against Obamacare? It makes zero sense on economic grounds.
I agree with you, it makes no sense on economic grounds. Nor in my opinion on humanitarian grounds, or any grounds for that matter. I am very much in favour of public healthcare and wouldn't stop there but include education, transport, essential services etc etc etc but there are issues there too. (Just ask anyone who works in the NHS in the UK or a public health service in Australia)
It's not a racial issue tho. MLK again: "Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in healthcare is the most shocking and inhumane." - once again no mention of race, but a mention of inequality - the topic of this original post.
Republicans tend to be opposed to public services and it was primarily republicans who reduced Obamacare to the shadow of its former self. But being a republican or believing in privatisation doesn't make somebody a racist. Believe it or not, there are people who genuinely believe privatisation is in the best interest of the public. As I mentioned above, spend some time talking to workers in public health in Australia and England. It won't take you long to find one who believes they should privitise everything, even if they're life-long left-leaning party voters.
> Just before he was assassinated, Martin Luther King was leading the "Poor People's Campaign" As you can imagine it was not focused on race but on poverty.
MLK was a true hero.
> And people who love the skin of color quote usually don't want to talk about poverty.
This doesn't follow logically for me. If someone is quoting MLK and talking about being judged not by the colour of their skin but the content of their character, surely they'd much prefer to talk about poverty rather than race? Certainly it is that way for me.
Reducing every difference to race and every issue to racism is not productive. If it's productive and useful I could talk about solving poverty all day, but the minute someone suggests their opinion holds more weight because of the colour of their skin I turn off and immediately lose all respect for them. Why? Because I'd prefer to be judged by the content of my character (and my life experiences) and not the colour of my skin. If we all did that there would be no race debate.
--
Anyway I'm turning off for the day but thank you for the chat. People always have more in common than they think, if only they'd take the time to listen (reminds me of that MLK quote!) You've helped renew my faith in people.
Well I wouldn't call it a myth because it's actually true.
Plus the Asian Americans grouping actually consists of dozen of different origins, so viewing them as just one model minority is quite deceiving when we're actually talking about a very diverse group.
And perhaps it's not an argument against racism, but I don't see why it's not an argument against your claim that racism is the root cause of inequality when you have multiple racial groups achieving financial success.
And aren't non-hispanic whites becoming a minority fairly soon anyway?
And just to clarify, I'm believe racism exists and is a problem, but I'm not sure that's the main cause of inequality.
I don't see how it's relevant if they want to be displayed that way or not. Also, as I already mentioned I think it's wrong to group such a diverse population into a single grouping, so I'm not sure who is the "they" you are referring to? Chinese immigrants? Indian immigrants? Maybe Iranian immigrants?
Ǹo, RACISM is not the answer to this question, nor to many other questions. What RACISM there is in the US is found in Europe as well, there is plenty of antisemitism in the USA (up to and including in the highest levels of the administration) so even in that respect the difference is marginal at best. The demand for RACISM far outstrips the supply of it which is made visible by the multitude of fake RACISM cries by those who wish to profit from it, very often at venues which can be assumed to harbour the least racism - universities, sports teams, the entertainment world, etc. This is being fuelled by a media which is intent on driving a narrative of increasing RACISM [1,2], part of the political establishment who grift on RACISM to gain voters, activist teachers who drive the same rhetoric as the media and use fake or lopsided sources - 1619 project, Howard Zinn, etc - and academia.
Also, writing RACISM in all capitals is quite annoying, almost as if you're writing agitprop [3].
> After accounting for indirect taxes and in-kind transfers, the US redistributes a greater share of national income to low-income groups than any European country. "Predistribution," not "redistribution," explains why Europe is less unequal than the United States.
But that's good, right?... Economists tend to say that if you want to solve a social problem, the least disruptive way of doing it is just giving them money. It usually has better outcomes and much less side effects than trying to contort the society into a complicated shape that fixes the same problem, and breaks a dozen invisible things in the process.
You can pay 200€ to every citizen per month for one year but it can only be spent on natural gas or it can be spent on anything.
Which one is better for gas prices?
Which one encourages people to consume less gas?
Which one is better for society?
Which one is less of a pain to administrate?
Which one was already written in the coalition contract?
There is this co2 dividend that the greens and FDP and SPD promised but they delayed it to 2024. I suspect that it is too close to a UBI and they don't want to open that can of worms.
But they are happy to spend more and more money on fossil fuel subsidies to enrich fossil fuel companies. That's where those 200€ per month go. Anyone who doesn't want to spend his money on burning gas gets screwed.
I can't access anything other than the abstract so apologies if this is in the paper, but personally I think there's a few obvious factors. One is Christian social teaching as a foundation for a lot of the national corporatist models (Christsoziale Demokratie here in Germany for example), which has always underpinned both the major left and right wings of European politics.
Another factor is a somewhat greater level of homogeneity (i.e 'no Denmark without the Danes') although this seems overplayed usually for political reasons from the more extreme factions given that Europe's social model also seems to hold in recent times despite changing demographics.
Another factor, a little bit contradictory to the last one maybe, is I think also the diversity between individual European nations. There's lots of natural and linguistic borders that have prevented the sort of concentration you see in say, the US or China both politically as well as economically. A lot of the drivers of inequality in the US are incredibly concentrated corporate giants, which domestically in the EU wouldn't have much success.
A fourth factor I think is also the focus on white collar academic work in the US as well as Britain. In particular here in the German-speaking/adjacent sphere (Germany, Swiss, Northern Italy, also Benelux and parts of the East) there's a focus on grey-collar work and industry which provides what Daron Acemoglu labeled 'good jobs'. Middle class vocational professions that support a broad base of workers. The European South has traditionally lacked this and is markedly more unequal.
> One is Christian social teaching as a foundation for a lot of the national corporatist models (Christsoziale Demokratie here in Germany for example), which has always underpinned both the major left and right wings of European politics.
Counterpoint, France. Laïcité, separation of church and state, is one of the principles of the republic. None of the parties today are religious-inspired, and i don't think any major ones have been since the beginning of the 20th century.
Also, I'm not an expert but I don't think the SPD in Germany or the PSOE in Spain have any religious foundations.
> Another factor is a somewhat greater level of homogeneity (i.e 'no Denmark without the Danes') although this seems overplayed usually for political reasons from the more extreme factions given that Europe's social model also seems to hold in recent times despite changing demographics.
Few counterpoints: Belgium (Flemish and Walloons, former colonies), France, Spain, Portugal (former colonies). "Homogeneous" is little more than a racist dog whistle with little substance.
France isn't a counterpoint in my opinion. It's a very stratified country, on several dimensions. Racially with huge disparities and unemployment among minorities but also culturally with a largely privileged, academic and almost aristocratic political class. France resembles the US and Britain more than Germany or Scandinavia with its almost exclusive recruitment of elites out of the Grande école system and the accompanying social ills. The dominance and centrality of Paris, and so on.
As for the homogeneity, I don't think it's a dogwhistle. You don't need to interpret it normatively, but it is worth accepting the reality that very diverse populations often have issues with social trust. And high social trust is a requirement for equality, because it is necessary if people are supposed to share resources and make sacrifices for strangers. Some very high trust and egalitarian countries like Israel or Finland are tight knit because they share an identity, or sometimes which is ugly to admit, an enemy. You don't need to turn this into a guideline for some racist political program, but it's important to not ignore it. That's a huge problem of Laïcité, it's intentionally blind.
I don't think you can dismiss religion in France on the right wing. The 'humanist right' on the west side of France used to be a major driver of right wing politics. They used to support Veil (right wing supporting abortion), and created a Christian workers union.
If compared to the US, isn't Europe spending significantly less on defense? I guess that Europe will spend more now. I think a big defense budget is a factor, the money spent on military hardware doesn't trickle down through the economy, as far as I know.
yes, investment in any other area benefits the whole economy - like infrastructure or education. Military hardware is very specialized, for example you can't use the armor of a tank for any other purpose. Also the price of military equipment tends to be very high, some say it's artificially high. It generates huge profits, but only to the benefit of few people. This in turn is pushing inequality.
However if you don't invest enough in these thing, then you stand the chance of running into real problem. However it is hard to tell what the right balance is...
Money spent on military hardware you build yourself 'trickle down', especially if the company (like Safran) have its profits regulated by the state (since our ministers are their best salesmen, i think it's fait tbh).
But money never really trickle down if you don't produce necessary goods. Maybe it was a valid theory when half the economy was agricultural and 80% of the industrial output was useful for everyone (aka directed towards food, medicine and construction), but nowadays nobody really believe it works.
I’m not sure how a group of countries that continue to have actual monarchies, where a certain subset of people enjoy special privileges by birth right is somehow more egalitarian than united states.
People are just focusing on the equality of wrong things.
102 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 167 ms ] thread> Contrary to a widespread view, we demonstrate that Europe's lower inequality levels cannot be explained by more equalizing tax and transfer systems.
Inequality is related to these things but doesn’t necessarily block them.
There are many top-heavy systems where the top benefits far more than the middle even though the middle is close to as good. Consider sporting events where the second place receives 1/3 of the price of the winner, even if it was a very close finals. Yes, the winner played better, but not to the extent of warranting double the earnings.
It seems to me that this is an unsolvable or at least a very hard problem. Ask 10 people about what they think the correct and fair compensation is and you’ll get 10 opinions. It is difficult to quantify effort and skill. If a very talented person produces better results - with less effort - than someone less talented but very hard working, who gets compensated more? These are tough questions to answer.
> Yes, the winner played better, but not to the extent of warranting double the earnings.
I am curious about these sporting events. Please help me understand them better.
Compare this with the word chess championship, where it is often split 60-40%, or the found is often bound to performance differences. A victory by a sweep incurs a larger percentage for the winner.
The caveat to my caveat is of course the winning a major tournament also significantly increases all those other sources of income.
It's a close finals because of the difference in reward between 1st and 2nd. If they were the same then the finals match would not matter financially as whether you win or lose you earn the same amount.
Do you have a house, a car, and children going to college/university? Then you are successful as far as Europe is concerned, and that’s basically everyone.
Of course, that’s been going down the drain in the past 10-20ish years for reasons I’m not sure about. Nobody can buy a €500k home on a median salary any more.
Not everyone needs a three-to-five-year academic education, but nobody should be blocked because of who their parents were.
I feel that that varies a lot from country to country. Certainly in Sweden, if you just graduate from any program at any high school (or get a not terrible score on the university entrance exam), you will get into a university if you want. Probably not the university you want, and probably not to study you first choice subject, but you will get in somewhere.
Of course as you say, getting in is far from a guarantee that you'll actually get a degree.
>The most robust ecosystems are those where you have the greatest diversity of species which correlates with inequality between them
I would love to know how you came to this conclusion. Different species occupy different niches when there is a robust ecosystem and there is nothing like inequality between them. There is symbiosis and inter-dependence, but I have not seen one species turn on other for "inequality".
Clearly society at large can still function in Europe with reduced inequality compared to America.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/02_econ...
Beyond that, when I was growing up US superior economic mobility was touted as one of the key characteristics of American greatness. Its been interesting to watch the conservatives that were the biggest cheerleaders for this and other greatness indicators now make excuses when empirical data challenges these myths.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_economic_inequali...
Inequality is also correlated to children having the same income level as their parents.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Gatsby_curve
[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-inequality-ine...
Inequality matters because 90% of it is pointless.
It matters, but only to some extent. I agree that ideally everyone should meet some basic level of subsistence, and that Africa-like Gini values are undesirable in the long term. Neither, however, are Nordic/Eastern European-like levels, either.[1] Some amount of inequality, it seems, is necessary to drive long-term economic dynamism.
Botswana's Gini is among the highest in the world <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...>, while Iraq and Egypt's are as low as the Netherlands. Botswana is probably a better near- and mid-term bet than Egypt (and perhaps a better long-term bet than the Netherlands), though, while Iraq might be better than both in the long term; such conclusions imply that Gini just doesn't say anything useful for economic potential, and that absolute figures measuring tangible things are the right way to judge a nation's growth.
The US's Gini is high among OECD countries but closer to the middle when measured worldwide. If that's the "price" we Americans pay for having Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook, Netflix (and Hollywood), Intel, Nvidia, Exxon, Boeing, Tesla, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, eBay, Amazon, Wal-Mart, Levi's, SpaceX, Disney, Pixar, General Electric, Gap, McDonald's, Coca-Cola, and Starbucks, I'm glad to pay it.
[1] Norway's per capita income adjusted by cost of living <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GNI_(PPP)...> is much higher than the US's because of its oil—it's basically a Persian Gulf petrostate relocated to northern Europe—but the US's is ~18% higher than Denmark's and Sweden's, and ~30% higher than Finland's. (And, before you ask, when measured by median net income, the gap between America and other developed nations shrinks but the US still does quite well, at #6 worldwide.) At $41,071 the US has the highest household net disposable income per capita in the OECD <http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/united-states/>, where "disposable income" <http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=46> accounts for healthcare and government benefits.
> Inequality grew in nearly all European countries, but much less than in the US. Contrary to a widespread view, we demonstrate that Europe's lower inequality levels cannot be explained by more equalizing tax and transfer systems.
> After accounting for indirect taxes and in-kind transfers, the US redistributes a greater share of national income to low-income groups than any European country. "Predistribution," not "redistribution," explains why Europe is less unequal than the United States.
(Edit: thanks boulos for the direct PDF link and vlovich123 for finding their definition of the term)
ie By "Predistribution" they assert that most European countries pay better at the low end and thus have less need to "redistribute" from the better paid end.
I turns out that having next to no social security, no accessible education for the poor and the bizarre legality of “legacy scholarships” has a certain effect.
How is it possible, I ask, that U.S.A. universities openly and notoriously give favorable treatment to the children of past alumni without this being shut down by the lawmaker or the courts?
Yale cannot do "basically whatever they want". For example, they accept students who receive federal financial assistance so must follow Title IX requirements. The government could use the same power of the purse to reduce legacy admissions.
Since you mentioned Bush and Yale. He graduated in 1968. Yale didn't accept women until 1969. Title IX was enacted in 1972. In 1980, Alexander v. Yale was the first use of Title IX in charges of sexual harassment against an educational institution, and established that sexual harassment of a student could be considered illegal sex discrimination.
In any case, some public schools use legacy admissions - it's not a private-college-only thing.
You misinterpret my statement "whatever they want" as some sort of collegiate equivalent of a "license to kill". Presently, Yale chooses to engage with federal funding in a variety of ways. They can stop doing that if they want to, thus dropping their obligations.
But furthermore, realize that a student would need to prove that legacy admissions somehow violates Title IX if they wanted to end the process. The members of the various courts that would ultimately decide that case are the same families that benefit from legacy admissions.
Also it's really weird to bring up Alexander v. Yale. If you actually read into the decision most of the plaintiffs allegations were simply dismissed.
Do a search for "legacy admissions", like https://hn.algolia.com/?q=legacy+admissions and see how rarely people mention Bush.
I've heard much more about minorities at prestigious colleges are viewed as being there as the result of affirmative action, while legacy students ... aren't.
Or how those schools offer scholarships for athletes in water polo, tennis, sailing, rowing, and other sports which more accessible to affluent white kids.
Hence the question "How is it possible, I ask, that U.S.A. universities openly and notoriously give favorable treatment to the children of past alumni without this being shut down by the lawmaker or the courts?"
> thus dropping their obligations
Except the question was, why isn't that practice illegal? Responding with something like "because it's legal" isn't that insightful.
> somehow violates Title IX
I wasn't making that argument. If it were that easy, it would be done long ago.
I was pointing out that the fed can also use the power of the purse to change things, even if the courts say separation of powers prevents a direct law.
> it's really weird to bring up Alexander v. Yale
What benefited Bush more, legacy admission or rampant sexism that prevented half the population from being able to apply?
In any case, "Although the women did not win their case, they achieved their objectives: Yale instituted a grievance procedure and a court held that sexual harassment constituted sex discrimination. ... As a result of Alexander v. Yale most U.S. universities instituted grievance procedures for sexual harassment."
Lost the battle and won the war.
Private institutions can do as they see fit. Public universities not so much. So yes, Harvard alumni will have favorable treatment for their kids. SUNY Buffalo, not so much.
Most colleges - public included - have legacy admissions.
Why are you so certain SUNY Buffalo does not have legacy admissions?
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/colleges-that-c... says SUNY at Albany, SUNY College at Geneseo, SUNY College at Oswego, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, and SUNY Cortland consider legacy status.
It says SUNY at Purchase College, SUNY College at Potsdam, and SUNY Oneonta do not.
It doesn't mention SUNY Buffalo.
As far as I know, there is no such thing as a “private university” where I live. All educational facilities receive funding from the government, and are beholden to it's standards and rules.
Even apart from that, a private company cannot legally here hire people because their parents worked there first. – That is illegal employment discrimination.
It very often seems legal to do in the U.S.A. what is illegal discrimination almost everywhere else. Except of course when it concerns their almighty “protected classes”, because then it suddenly matters, though it's of course woefully ineffective, a system where one can be fired for any reason including no reason, but not for, say, skin color. It makes it very easy to find another reason, or just no reason.
If I were to be terminated, they have to give me the reason and be transparent with the books so that I can easily show in court that though they claimed I was fired for performance, others who performed worse, were strangely not. — Such is how matters are done in normal, civilized, industrialized countries.
Yes I understand, Europe is perfect.
Are these public colleges, paid for by tax money?
I suppose that private institutions have more leeway.
To my mind, the problem of the US higher education is that it was made "too" accessible by offering tuition loans, which result in young people taking on a large debt which they cannot even shake off by a personal bankruptcy. These "easy" money made tuition prices grow, while also producing some degrees that don't help to pay them off.
This is not the most helpful kind of higher education.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_preferences
"almost three-quarters of research universities and nearly all liberal arts colleges grant legacy preferences in admissions"
> by offering tuition loans
I think you missed a qualifier. Tuition loans have always existed in the US.
What happened a few decades ago was they became much harder to discharge through bankruptcy, thus shifting risk to the student.
Note that I'm not saying that public institutions don't do it; I was just curious about your answer and link.
Quoting it: "Public universities that do consider alumni relations in their admissions process include Auburn University in Alabama, University of Michigan at Ann Arbor and University of Virginia"
Only recently has it been made illegal in some states. Colorado was the first: https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2021/06/01/legacy-ad... . The article mentions how Colorado School of Mines (a public school) had legacy admissions, and "found the legacy preference useful because the children of alums are the most likely to decide to attend once they are accepted."
My understanding appears to be out-of-date. That is, I could have sworn that my alma mater had legacy admissions, but that does not appear to be the case. It may have changed since I went to college.
There's an idea out there that the U.S. is some sort 'red in tooth and claw' Nation that's one step off anarchy. That may or may not be the case but it's not for lack of spending; whether that spending is being done wisely is another question but it's hard to say it's not being done at all.
I don't care about income inequality too much. I care about the two extremes:
* How bad is the situation of the poorest, can they still live with any decency if they honestly choose to. A society should care about that, if not due to its member being kind and humane, then just due to reasons of self-preservation.
* How powerful the richest become. It's hard to talk about anything like democracy or preserving liberties if extremely well-moneyed interests can seriously affect government and especially law.
If these two extremes are kept within reason, I don't mind if anyone makes 1000x than I do.
I cannot imagine any worthwhile society where someone would be entitled to earn 1000 times the average. 10 times is certainly a common-sense maximum. If his only motivation for contributing to the society is to be in the 10-1000 range, I'm pretty sure the society will not miss much his contribution.
If somebody makes enough to allow founding a new SpaceX, or a new Intel, or a new network of public libraries [1], or a new medical research center [2], I don't see why that would be bad.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_library
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Hughes_Medical_Institut...
I would prefer not to live in a society where control of our natural resources (which nobody 'created') is concentrated in proportionally fewer and fewer hands. That to me is what economic inequality means.
What he did was a political analysis. So while he could provide citations to political scientists who said similar things that wouldn't make the true necessarily.
The "citation needed" only works if you want to assess the premises, so do you want a citation for racism being/having been more widespread or for Europe having had a antisemitism problem?
It's fine to not know everything, there are lots of thing I know nothing about.
When I don't know anything about a topic, I have found Wikipedia to become a great starting point to become less ignorant.
How France after having been a "laissez-faire" country (the fucking word is in French!) became the country it is today
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_du_Conseil_national_...
How Clement Atlee transformed the UK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Attlee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attlee_ministry
Why the US has for foreigners terribly obvious blind spots
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_religion
Labor history of the United States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_history_of_the_United_St...
History of antisemitism in Europe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism
History of racism in the United States of America
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States
Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Hemings
Yes I'm pretty sure you are incomfortable with the topic at hand if you see absolutely no point in my "incoherent rambling"
History of racism in the United States of America
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States
There are plenty of good books. You can start with the writings from Martin Luther King.
He wrote ton of words in his life, not only the epic misleading "judge a man not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character"
https://crossculturalsolidarity.com/mlk-speeches-sermons-ess...
He also said "Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." and "Be The Peace You Wish To See In The World!" and "I am convinced that men hate each other because they fear each other. They fear each other because they don’t know each other, and they don’t know each other because they don’t communicate with each other, and they don’t communicate with each other because they are separated from each other"
The race debate (You're either with us or against us!) as it stands in the USA today would have MLK rolling in his grave.
It's 100% clear in the sense that it's the one quote that people who don't want to hear about racism love. And isn't it perfect that it comes from the most admired anti-racist in US history? It's perfect for that and that's why it's super widespread.
It's also a complete travesty of Martin Luther King's thoughts to laser focus on this one quote.
Martin Luther King was describing an ideal society in the far future that looks nothing like our messy present.
Do you think Martin Luther King purpose in life is fairly summarized by "Hey we have talked too much about racism already" ?
Why then did he bother to be so hated, to go in prison, march so many miles, ...?
If that makes no sense it's because it does.
Here is another Martin Luther King's quote
> Our nation was born in genocide when it embraced the doctrine that the original American, the Indian, was an inferior race. Even before there were large numbers of Negroes on our shores, the scar of racial hatred had already disfigured colonial society. From the sixteenth century forward, blood flowed in battles over racial supremacy. We are perhaps the only nation which tried as a matter of national policy to wipe out its indigenous population. Moreover, we elevated that tragic experience into a noble crusade. Indeed, even today we have not permitted ourselves to reject or to feel remorse for this shameful episode. Our literature, our films, our drama, our folklore all exalt it
https://nativenewsonline.net/opinion/dr-martin-luther-king-j...
I didn't laser focus on this one quote, my previous reply includes several other quotes of his. Perhaps it is a complete travesty of his thoughts to ignore something he said in what is his most famous speech?
> Martin Luther King was describing an ideal society in the far future that looks nothing like our messy present.
Indeed, a future where his children "will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." But as I said in my previous reply, the race debate as it stands in our "messy present" does the opposite of this.
> Do you think Martin Luther King purpose in life is fairly summarized by "Hey we have talked too much about racism already" ?
Where did I say that? I'm talking to you about racism now.
> "even today we have not permitted ourselves to reject or to feel remorse for this shameful episode"
Unfortunately MLK didn't live to see Obama become president, Michael Jordan dominate the NBA, or Lizzo playing James Madison's crystal flute.
Another MLK quote from his book "Why We Can't Wait":
> "Lamentably, it is a historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals."
Note he says nothing about race here. This quote has more to do with "pretax and posttax income inequality" than race does. Reducing inequality to racism is naive at best.
Martin Luther King didn't talk all his life about race because he wanted to but because he had to : it's the structural problem #1 of the USA.
Obviously things are better than in his days, and in his days there were better than before the civil war. That doesn't mean there are right today.
Again why the powerful hatred against Obamacare? It makes zero sense on economic grounds.
Just before he was assassinated, Martin Luther King was leading the "Poor People's Campaign"
As you can imagine it was not focused on race but on poverty. And people who love the skin of color quote usually don't want to talk about poverty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_People%27s_Campaign
And thank you. It's a pleasure to have an actual dialog rather than just being accused of being a nazi when asking a question or putting forward an opinion (The with us or against us war cry of BLM I referred to earlier)
> Martin Luther King didn't talk all his life about race because he wanted to but because he had to : it's the structural problem #1 of the USA.
I would argue racism is a symptom of a deeper issue. If I would have to name "structural problem #1" in the western world I would say access to a quality education. I referenced an appropriate MLK quote in a previous reply: "I am convinced that men hate each other because they fear each other. They fear each other because they don’t know each other, and they don’t know each other because they don’t communicate with each other." A quality education should fix people not knowing each other and give them the ability to communicate to one another, and racism might be a solved issue in a single generation.
> Obviously things are better than in his days, and in his days there were better than before the civil war. That doesn't mean there are right today.
100% - there is lots of room for improvement.
> Again why the powerful hatred against Obamacare? It makes zero sense on economic grounds.
I agree with you, it makes no sense on economic grounds. Nor in my opinion on humanitarian grounds, or any grounds for that matter. I am very much in favour of public healthcare and wouldn't stop there but include education, transport, essential services etc etc etc but there are issues there too. (Just ask anyone who works in the NHS in the UK or a public health service in Australia)
It's not a racial issue tho. MLK again: "Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in healthcare is the most shocking and inhumane." - once again no mention of race, but a mention of inequality - the topic of this original post.
Republicans tend to be opposed to public services and it was primarily republicans who reduced Obamacare to the shadow of its former self. But being a republican or believing in privatisation doesn't make somebody a racist. Believe it or not, there are people who genuinely believe privatisation is in the best interest of the public. As I mentioned above, spend some time talking to workers in public health in Australia and England. It won't take you long to find one who believes they should privitise everything, even if they're life-long left-leaning party voters.
> Just before he was assassinated, Martin Luther King was leading the "Poor People's Campaign" As you can imagine it was not focused on race but on poverty.
MLK was a true hero.
> And people who love the skin of color quote usually don't want to talk about poverty.
This doesn't follow logically for me. If someone is quoting MLK and talking about being judged not by the colour of their skin but the content of their character, surely they'd much prefer to talk about poverty rather than race? Certainly it is that way for me.
Reducing every difference to race and every issue to racism is not productive. If it's productive and useful I could talk about solving poverty all day, but the minute someone suggests their opinion holds more weight because of the colour of their skin I turn off and immediately lose all respect for them. Why? Because I'd prefer to be judged by the content of my character (and my life experiences) and not the colour of my skin. If we all did that there would be no race debate.
--
Anyway I'm turning off for the day but thank you for the chat. People always have more in common than they think, if only they'd take the time to listen (reminds me of that MLK quote!) You've helped renew my faith in people.
As a free speech extremist, posts like this makes me empathize with Chinese censorship.
It's a divide-and-conquer strategy used by racists to fend off the critics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_minority
Plus the Asian Americans grouping actually consists of dozen of different origins, so viewing them as just one model minority is quite deceiving when we're actually talking about a very diverse group.
And perhaps it's not an argument against racism, but I don't see why it's not an argument against your claim that racism is the root cause of inequality when you have multiple racial groups achieving financial success.
And aren't non-hispanic whites becoming a minority fairly soon anyway?
And just to clarify, I'm believe racism exists and is a problem, but I'm not sure that's the main cause of inequality.
I mean in Europe jews are the model minority, it's obviously true now, it was not the case before as we all know.
That's why they can unleash their true potential in the first place.
So is that a good argument for treating other people badly?
That should be especially clear in a country like the US where the original inhabitants have been wiped out and everyone is an immigrant.
Also, writing RACISM in all capitals is quite annoying, almost as if you're writing agitprop [3].
[1] https://www.newsweek.com/media-creating-false-perception-ris...
[2] https://nypost.com/2021/04/15/media-pushes-false-narrative-o...
[3] https://www.britannica.com/topic/agitprop
Why is the United States so unique in having a health care system that
- costs more money than anywhere else - deliver worse outcome than many countries - cover less people
Seems to me than in such a situation, the reational response is "well maybe let's change the status quo?"
But that's good, right?... Economists tend to say that if you want to solve a social problem, the least disruptive way of doing it is just giving them money. It usually has better outcomes and much less side effects than trying to contort the society into a complicated shape that fixes the same problem, and breaks a dozen invisible things in the process.
Which one is better for gas prices? Which one encourages people to consume less gas? Which one is better for society? Which one is less of a pain to administrate? Which one was already written in the coalition contract?
There is this co2 dividend that the greens and FDP and SPD promised but they delayed it to 2024. I suspect that it is too close to a UBI and they don't want to open that can of worms.
But they are happy to spend more and more money on fossil fuel subsidies to enrich fossil fuel companies. That's where those 200€ per month go. Anyone who doesn't want to spend his money on burning gas gets screwed.
It's an ever going band-aid, so no.
Another factor is a somewhat greater level of homogeneity (i.e 'no Denmark without the Danes') although this seems overplayed usually for political reasons from the more extreme factions given that Europe's social model also seems to hold in recent times despite changing demographics.
Another factor, a little bit contradictory to the last one maybe, is I think also the diversity between individual European nations. There's lots of natural and linguistic borders that have prevented the sort of concentration you see in say, the US or China both politically as well as economically. A lot of the drivers of inequality in the US are incredibly concentrated corporate giants, which domestically in the EU wouldn't have much success.
A fourth factor I think is also the focus on white collar academic work in the US as well as Britain. In particular here in the German-speaking/adjacent sphere (Germany, Swiss, Northern Italy, also Benelux and parts of the East) there's a focus on grey-collar work and industry which provides what Daron Acemoglu labeled 'good jobs'. Middle class vocational professions that support a broad base of workers. The European South has traditionally lacked this and is markedly more unequal.
Counterpoint, France. Laïcité, separation of church and state, is one of the principles of the republic. None of the parties today are religious-inspired, and i don't think any major ones have been since the beginning of the 20th century.
Also, I'm not an expert but I don't think the SPD in Germany or the PSOE in Spain have any religious foundations.
> Another factor is a somewhat greater level of homogeneity (i.e 'no Denmark without the Danes') although this seems overplayed usually for political reasons from the more extreme factions given that Europe's social model also seems to hold in recent times despite changing demographics.
Few counterpoints: Belgium (Flemish and Walloons, former colonies), France, Spain, Portugal (former colonies). "Homogeneous" is little more than a racist dog whistle with little substance.
As for the homogeneity, I don't think it's a dogwhistle. You don't need to interpret it normatively, but it is worth accepting the reality that very diverse populations often have issues with social trust. And high social trust is a requirement for equality, because it is necessary if people are supposed to share resources and make sacrifices for strangers. Some very high trust and egalitarian countries like Israel or Finland are tight knit because they share an identity, or sometimes which is ugly to admit, an enemy. You don't need to turn this into a guideline for some racist political program, but it's important to not ignore it. That's a huge problem of Laïcité, it's intentionally blind.
It's dying sadly, but it existed.
However if you don't invest enough in these thing, then you stand the chance of running into real problem. However it is hard to tell what the right balance is...
But money never really trickle down if you don't produce necessary goods. Maybe it was a valid theory when half the economy was agricultural and 80% of the industrial output was useful for everyone (aka directed towards food, medicine and construction), but nowadays nobody really believe it works.
People are just focusing on the equality of wrong things.