It’s a fact that many rich countries – rich in terms of total GDP – have a substantially unequal distribution of income; or, to put it in other words, these countries accept that there is huge inequality of wealth between people. It’s also a fact that, in many countries and particularly the U.S., these inequalities in income or wealth have become wider over the last decades.
What’s the problem, you may ask. Well, according to me this inequality poses some problems. But these problems are of relative importance. More important to me is the problem of absolute poverty. Absolute poverty is a lack of certain resources that are necessary to meet certain basic needs. This is not a problem of inequality. People may live in a very unequal society and at the wrong end of inequality, but they may nevertheless have no problem whatsoever meeting their basic needs.
More important as well, in some aspects at least, are the problems posed by other types of inequality. Gender inequality in some countries may be much more of a problem than income inequality (although these different types of inequality are probably connected).
Nevertheless, income inequality engenders some important problems. One is self-esteem. People suffering from relative poverty – i.e. finding themselves on the wrong end of an unequal income distribution – may suffer psychologically and emotionally. It’s also likely that their relative disadvantage isn’t very fair. In other words, it’s probably not solely based on questions of merit and desert. We don’t live in a world of equality of opportunity and level starting conditions. There’s also a correlation between relative and absolute poverty, so we may have to worry about relative poverty as a cause of absolute poverty.
Income inequality can also cause a problem for democracy. The rich can use their financial means to pervert the democratic procedures and to distort the equal influence on which democracy is based. Another way in which income inequality may pervert democracy is its divisiveness. It polarizes societies and it can antagonize regions within countries. None of this is helpful for the adequate functioning of democracy.
Ya, I get by ok on 17 grand here in the States. It certainly though was not my first choice to end up getting a check. But I could be dead without it. But you can bet I am working as hard as I can to fix what broke me. I call what broke me stone throwing from a MEDIA-RIGHT-STORM…
LikeLike
First of all, I want to say that this is quite an amazing website. All the information and resources are great. I also appreciate your incorporation of so many different areas of thought, from statistics to philosophy.
In terms of this post, two thoughts come to mind. First, discussions of inequality always seem to talk about income inequality. Why? Isnt inequality of wealth a much greater determinate of inequality of opportunity and well-being?
Also, you mention other types of inequality, including gender inequality. In the US today, the average net worth of the average white family is TEN TIMES, the average net worth of the average black family ($81,000 to $8,000). Moreover, this inequality has important historical roots, including FHA redlining.
These issues are discussed in more detail here:
http://talktostambrose.wordpress.com/2009/10/12/aint-so-simple-housing-privilege-and-wealth-inequality/
LikeLike
Will, I guess that’s because the data on income inequality are better than the data on wealth. One could also argue that consumption inequality is what really counts, but that’s not my opinion. See here: http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/07/14/thinking-clearly-about-economic-inequality/
LikeLike
[…] argued against income inequality on this blog and pointed out the problems it creates. Standard economic theory suggests that these problems are a necessary price to pay for […]
LikeLike
[…] cheap housing) in an effort to convince them to vote in a certain way. Worries about the effect of income inequality on democracy are partly based on this type of argument, as are efforts to regulate […]
LikeLike
[…] is only one thing that’s wrong with income inequality. More on what’s wrong with it is here, here, here and […]
LikeLike
[…] matter as much. I think this argument is wrong because the extra dollars of the rich matter for democratic politics, but that’s a different […]
LikeLike
[…] we have some good reasons to do something about this type of inequality. However, when we try to reduce – not eliminate […]
LikeLike
[…] a human rights issue, while income inequality is clearly not, at least not directly (it can have an impact on some human rights). Income inequality is a relative indicator, not an absolute one, and is, for this reason, claimed […]
LikeLike
[…] as I stated here, income inequality IS a problem. It can destroy the cohesiveness of a society when it surpasses […]
LikeLike
[…] are people who believe income inequality is a major problem – and I’m one of them – and there are others who say that the real problem isn’t a relational one but rather […]
LikeLike
[…] society is what I want, notwithstanding my concerns about the problems created by inequality (see here for example). What I certainly don’t want is the worst egalitarian society, which combines […]
LikeLike
[…] the third view, I do believe that it is essentially correct, but it obfuscates many of the problems caused by income inequality. Hence, even if economic efficiency doesn’t justify efforts to limit income inequality, other […]
LikeLike
[…] Obviously, income or wealth inequality isn’t a human rights violation as such, but it does engender some violations. See here. […]
LikeLike
[…] (If you want to know more about my views on income inequality, before I tackle Wilkinson’s views, you can read this old post). […]
LikeLike