Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger

[Vekseid]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYDzA9hKCNQ[/youtube]

Link to website in video

The slides in the video

Lest I be conferred as making unsubstantiated claims in the Health Care thread. This is a very enlightening video - not that the results will be surprising to any progressive or liberal - but having it verified and even expanded upon in terms of raw data is quite useful. The impact on crime, health, and even the creativity of a nation is directly related to its income equality.

 

[Hahvoc The Decepticon]

In my sociology class last year, we talked about inequality and why it is important to keep society together and constitute progress. Utopian ideals can never work because there have to be people that have more power, more money, more something than everyone else. Without inequality, there wouldn't be programs that we have today such as charity, fundraisers, things of that nature. There wouldn't be different fashion trends and things of that like because everyone would be "equal." Inequality keeps the social structures intact but allows room for expansion into a higher semblance of equality. But without inequality, there wouldn't be progress like there is and was.​

 

[☢☢Zombies Galore☢☢]

Hahvy, I must say I disagree.

Utopian ideals can never work because there have to be people that have more power, more money, more something than everyone else.

I don't think Utopian ideals can work either but that's not because there "need" to be haves and have-nots. I think that Utopian societies fail because of the human factor. Namely, people are greedy, weak willed and completely willing to betray one another.

Without inequality, there wouldn't be programs that we have today such as charity, fundraisers, things of that nature.

Without inequality we wouldn't need most charities or fundraisers. However, I think they would still have to be there, because there are unforeseeable times of extra duress. For instance, the BP spill. Nobody saw that one coming. Even in a perfect world--where it wouldn't happen because somehow magically the people don't suck--if it happened there would need to be extra output of effort to tackle the problem.

There wouldn't be different fashion trends and things of that like because everyone would be "equal."

I don't think everyone being equal equates total conformity, or even slight conformity. I think that if everyone was equal there would be more styles, fashions, lifestyles. Imagine all the people who have great talent with fashion but were born into poverty or an area stricken with famine 'n shit. Or those who are too preoccupied with working their shitty jobs to care for their kids to indulge that creativity.

Inequality keeps the social structures intact but allows room for expansion into a higher semblance of equality.

It seems like you're saying inequality is good because it perpetuates itself culminating in a greater level of equality. I don't really see that happening.

I think it's a little funny that the top one percent is making upwards of 20% of all the money.

But without inequality, there wouldn't be progress like there is and was.

I disagree. If you mean progress in the sense of science, then that is incorrect because of, again, all those brilliant minds deprived of the opportunity to exercise them due to worry about food, clean water and medicine. If you mean progress in a social sense then, yeah, there wouldn't be progress because we would have hit the end goal. What progress is there once you've won?

 

[Hahvoc The Decepticon]

Within a society there will always be have and have-nots because even in a "Utopian" society, someone has to be the leader which makes inequality. In communist countries, which have this same "equal-opportunity" not everyone is equal no matter what they say.

I agree with what you say about people being greedy and such of that nature.

With the fashion aspect, I don't really think so. Because people would demand they have the same things, be given those same things because everything is to be equal amongst themselves. If someone in that society suddenly had a feathered hat for example, everyone would want that feathered hat because they were entitled to it due to the equality of their stations.

Why do you think the Industrial Revolution came about? To make things easier for people and to produce more of this and that. Science shot forward because there were people who wanted to make it easier for people of lesser stations to progress and gain higher footings in society. Progress is to make things easier for everyone- and it's fueled by necessity as well as "well, this would make this easier to do!"

And there isn't such thing as equality just in human society either.

I agree on some of the points you made, but not all of them.​

 

[As Day Fades]

Within a society there will always be have and have-nots because even in a "Utopian" society, someone has to be the leader which makes inequality. In communist countries, which have this same "equal-opportunity" not everyone is equal no matter what they say.​

True, it's never going to be perfect, it's never going to be absolutely equal across the board right down to the last drop, but that's splitting hairs - the whole idea isn't aiming for that, but rather for the fact that things could be a heck of a lot fairer than they currently are. The idea that we shouldn't strive for improvement because perfection cannot be achieved is defeatist, and is what holds back change. I think people should view society from a perfectionist standpoint - an attitude not centered around being perfect, but to strive to be, to look at things and always consider if there's a way it can be done better.

With the fashion aspect, I don't really think so. Because people would demand they have the same things, be given those same things because everything is to be equal amongst themselves. If someone in that society suddenly had a feathered hat for example, everyone would want that feathered hat because they were entitled to it due to the equality of their stations.​

Erm... what? No. Equality is not conformity, equality is simply taking care of the little guy, it's about improving the quality of life and giving more options. The idea that balancing the scale a bit better than it currently is then leading us to all being inspirationless beings like something out of Equilibrium is more than a little ridiculous. Do you dress the exact same as millions of other people? Why not, you're in the same tax bracket, aren't you? There's always going to be trends, brand names, gotta-have-it electronics, that has little to do with equality. There's also always going to be artists designing new things, and the simple human nature of wanting to express ourselves individually. What you've written suggests that leveling the playing field some will have an effect on personal style and opinion. Sure, maybe someone who couldn't afford a Gucci handbag before will be able to afford one then, but with more people being able to spend money like that would come more artists with more styles. That we should keep things the way they are now because your feathered hat is unique and special, and would lose its uniqueness if I had one too, is a greedy, defensive approach. Honestly, if I had the money, I wouldn't even want one of your feathered hats. I'm not a hat guy, myself. I'd probably spend it on something I like better, something you may not necessarily be into.

Why do you think the Industrial Revolution came about? To make things easier for people and to produce more of this and that. Science shot forward because there were people who wanted to make it easier for people of lesser stations to progress and gain higher footings in society. Progress is to make things easier for everyone- and it's fueled by necessity as well as "well, this would make this easier to do!"​

Well the industrial revolution came about because that's the point science had progressed to, not because we needed it. You could point to any spot in time and say it would have been a great boon for a huge scientific advancement. 'To make things easier' is a result of it, not a reason for it.

 

[dramamine213]

I don't think constantly striving for perfection would be healthy for any society. A constant "That's not good enough!" would really destroy anyone's morale after a while.

 

[Kawamura]

Huh.

That class sounds amazingly awesome if I'd like not to feel guilty about being part of the haves. Man, that is a deceptively beautiful answer. It gets rid of all the guilt and, not only that, makes you part of the solution/improvement of the human race.

Damn. Whoever thought of that is bloody clever.

 

[missedstations]

Equality is about all human beings having the same opportunities available to them, not about everyone being the same.

Inequality keeps the social structures intact but allows room for expansion into a higher semblance of equality. But without inequality, there wouldn't be progress like there is and was.​

That almost made me cry. Inequality is a driving force behind social tensions, not progress. Events like the Russian Revolution, rise of Nazism, communism in China... All came to pass because the problems in those societies made the previous social structure unstable - and inequality was part of it. Frustration that people did not have the same opportunities, frustration at the moneyed leisure classes, at the military elites that drove social policy that was not for the good of the people. So yes, inequality is a driving force. If you like your progress bloody.

On the other had, let us consider Finland, one of the countries with the lowest inequality score in the world. It's rarely in the news, but that does not mean nothing happens there. You can't accuse it of not being progressive, because it has given us a company like Nokia. Finland also ranks very highly on the human development index, and has one of the highest standards of living in the world.

The social problem that inequality causes is discotent from a large proportion of the population. This can never be ranked as a social good, however you put it.

 

[Hahvoc The Decepticon]

Equality is about all human beings having the same opportunities available to them, not about everyone being the same.

Yes, I understand that. But when you make a society into a "Utopian ideal" then everyone is the same as everyone else in very much that way.​

Inequality keeps the social structures intact but allows room for expansion into a higher semblance of equality. But without inequality, there wouldn't be progress like there is and was.​

Inequality is a driving force behind social tensions, not progress. Events like the Russian Revolution, rise of Nazism, communism in China... All came to pass because the problems in those societies made the previous social structure unstable - and inequality was part of it. Frustration that people did not have the same opportunities, frustration at the moneyed leisure classes, at the military elites that drove social policy that was not for the good of the people. So yes, inequality is a driving force. If you like your progress bloody.

In cases such as that, the inequality amongst the social classes expanded way beyond normal limits and allowed instability and an uprising- which I get. I'm not saying that inequality to such a degree is good, but in societies that expand and grow in a healthy manner is.

So let me put it this way:

Would you be a janitor? No, right? Because of social inequalities we have jobs for people who would be what some would consider a lowly janitor because it's a job they can do and still get paid decently because otherwise they would be SOL due to limited education, mental ability, and so on. Most kids nowadays think they have a right to any job they want simply because of their stations in life. Wrong. Self-entitlement is bullshit.

But with the inequality amongst classes, it allows for jobs for people who were born into a lower station to gain enough money to live and do jobs that most people wouldn't do. So how is that a bad thing? I don't see it as one.

And if I recall correctly, inequality amongst the classes brought about public schools, scholarships, after school programs, day-care services, and things of that nature to help lessen the load on the little guy and make things more...what's the word? Equal. So yes, I think inequality has it's place in society but not to outlandish degrees.

There will always be inequality and that's how it is. If there weren't programs focusing on helping care for the mentally unstable and all those other poor sods, they would be dead. But it also allows people to be more equal in society even with those mental disabilities.​

 

[Cassia]

I believe that like with anything else, moderation is of prime importance. Striving for greater equality is a good concept and a good goal, but it's possible to take it too far and turn it into the enemy of progress. When it reaches the point of intentionally handicapping those at the top simply for the sake of equality, we've crossed a line that shouldn't be crossed. The goal should always be to improve the lot of those without, not to knock down those with.

A few examples include: schools that refuse to accelerate the best students because it would make students of less ability feel bad about themselves; forbidding competitive activities because it hurts not to win; setting aside tax-based scholarship funds for those with characteristics other than need and merit (such as gender, race, etc.) and creating laws for mandatory disabled access that are so extreme that they make it difficult for small companies to stay profitable.

In those instances, we would be better served by working to improve classroom quality for the struggling students and give them more options for assistance while letting the best rise as high as they can; creating different kinds of activities so that those who are less athletically or academically inclined can find something they excel at; making payouts blind to any characteristic other than need and merit (if those of certain races are genuinely disadvantaged and women need more help, which is often the case, then they will qualify for this assistance in higher percentages but it will be fair), and allowing more temporary exceptions and modifications to ADA laws for start-up and small businesses while leaving them in place for those making enough money that adding extra bathroom stalls and parking spaces etc. won't make them go under.

Equality is only good as far as it serves society. When it becomes a god in and of itself, the greater good be damned, we're in trouble.

 

[dramamine213]

Cassia, those are awesome ideas, but there's only one thing from keeping all of that coming true.

Effort.

Most Americans seem like they're allergic to it.

 

[☢☢Zombies Galore☢☢]

Yes, I understand that. But when you make a society into a "Utopian ideal" then everyone is the same as everyone else in very much that way.

I'm not trying to be a nit picky dick, I just don't really understand what you're saying. I would like for you to define "Utopian ideal," since I thought it was a discussion about equality and for me everyone being equal does not equate creepy homogeneity or even Utopia. When I look at people I know who have a similar background--white heteronormative male, single parent, same level of access to education, same level of general health--we also have wildly dissimilar tastes in music, food, books, style, whatever. I think that if everyone started out with equal access then that would not mean everyone was exactly the same, it would mean that we would just start with the same same available resources. Everyone's going to use those resources differently. Some people will be interested in carpentry and some people in nuclear physics.

Would you be a janitor? No, right? Because of social inequalities we have jobs for people who would be what some would consider a lowly janitor because it's a job they can do and still get paid decently because otherwise they would be SOL due to limited education, mental ability, and so on.

That doesn't really have anything to do with equality. Being equal doesn't mean everyone makes exactly the same amount of money or gets the good jobs. Being equal means starting on an even playing field with the same level of access that everybody else has. Being equal isn't about nobody having to do a bad job. Being equal means that when you get the same quality of education, you get the same quality of healthcare, you get the same treatment by the court whether your name is Jamal or James. The part of equality people do not often consider is that what equality really comes down to is equal accountability and equal responsibility for your actions as the next guy. Honestly, do you think right now that if I shot somebody I would get the same kind of treatment Bill Gates would get in court? Do you think your random mid-40s Joe Blow low level manager would get the same treatment that Bill Gates would?

Also, janitor jobs pay for shit. Show me a world in which I can reasonably take care of potential injuries, pay to raise children, pay for food, pay for reasonably priced rent for a space for myself, my potential wife, and my potential children off minimum wage (maybe $13/hr. if you're the most well paid janitor in America) and I will fucking go there. I know people who make $25/hr. and struggle to make sure their kids have everything they need. However, there will always be janitor jobs, and there will always be someone who didn't take advantage of their resources or just aren't smart enough or don't care enough. There are intrinsic characteristics like these that equality would not change. Equality attempts to change the environment, not the individual.

And if I recall correctly, inequality amongst the classes brought about public schools, scholarships, after school programs, day-care services, and things of that nature to help lessen the load on the little guy and make things more...what's the word? Equal. So yes, I think inequality has it's place in society but not to outlandish degrees.

That's like saying polio is good because we made a polio vaccine. We wouldn't have had to make a polio vaccine if there was never any polio. See what I'm getting at?

 

[Hahvoc The Decepticon]

No, that's not even what I was saying. Obviously, polio isn't good. But fact is there is inequality. Without conflict there can't be progress. Considering how large a scale inequality was 50-60 years ago, we've come pretty far. I want people to have fresh water, food, and shelter. But the world doesn't work the way I want it and there is only so much that can be made equal amongst society. If I could find my sociology book, I would put in quotes and cite it, but it's somewhere in the recesses of my car.

With "Utopian ideals" there isn't conflict because everyone is the same. It slows down progress and comes to a stand still because there wouldn't be "need" for improvement since everyone would be content with whatever they would be given. Which is false because of human nature. It would fall apart and drop into chaos and be completely unstable.

And what you said is like saying if people could keep it in their pants until marriage, there wouldn't be a need for condoms and there wouldn't be teen pregnancy.

Inequality is good in moderation as it breeds need for improvement. If everyone had the same as everyone else, why would there be need for improvement? There wouldn't be. It can't be maintained and that is how inequality is good. It also brings about compassion for people who are less fortunate because why would you have compassion for someone in the same situation as yourself?​

 

[Kawamura]

No, that's not even what I was saying. Obviously, polio isn't good. But fact is there is inequality. Without conflict there can't be progress. Considering how large a scale inequality was 50-60 years ago, we've come pretty far.

>.> Actually, in this country, we're reaching a gap between the rich and the poor we haven't had for about a hundred years. So, fifty, sixty years ago, we were actually doing better. Curious, though, that progress seems to be based on having the numbers and complexity to have a specialist class that doesn't have to make it's own food. But that's the same thing as inequality, rite? Rite?

I want people to have fresh water, food, and shelter. But the world doesn't work the way I want it and there is only so much that can be made equal amongst society. If I could find my sociology book, I would put in quotes and cite it, but it's somewhere in the recesses of my car.

You could try being poor. I mean, since we need a certain number of poor folks, give your stuff away and try from the beginning. See how well that works for you.

With "Utopian ideals" there isn't conflict because everyone is the same. It slows down progress and comes to a stand still because there wouldn't be "need" for improvement since everyone would be content with whatever they would be given. Which is false because of human nature. It would fall apart and drop into chaos and be completely unstable.

Hrmmm. This sounds a lot like a slippery slope. Why can't "utopia" simply mean that more people are free from constantly worrying about their basic needs so they can work on, say, science or art?

Inequality is good in moderation as it breeds need for improvement. If everyone had the same as everyone else, why would there be need for improvement? There wouldn't be. It can't be maintained and that is how inequality is good. It also brings about compassion for people who are less fortunate because why would you have compassion for someone in the same situation as yourself?

It also helps you feel really, really good about yourself because, c'mon, your life doesn't suck balls like theirs, amirite? Because of all the work you did improving yourself, like being born to good parents.

 

[Mr Master]

I haven't had a chance to look at Vek's video, but can someone tell me: did it mention Utopian ideals? I'm just curious who brought it up first.

A certain amount of inequality is most likely the human condition. But there's a difference between accepting the presence of certain inequalities and allowing them to get as severe as they currently are. The rich are richer than they've been since the robber barons and the labor riots of the early 20th century. Which is about right, considering we've been suffering a Depression not entirely unlike that earlier one.

Seriously, Hahvy... what the hell kind of school did you go to? There's yet to be one thing you've told us about what they taught you that I agree with in any scientific or philosophical sense. If that's what they've put into your brain, it's no wonder we don't see eye to eye politically.

 

[Nihilistic_Impact]

This isn't even a matter of politics, it's a matter of basic human decency.

 

[Mr Master]

This isn't even a matter of politics, it's a matter of basic human decency.

I agree.

But I also have to admit that it's politics (specifically business/rich favoritism) that led to this current development, however.

 

[Nihilistic_Impact]

I know, it's also why America has never actually had a liberal party. It's conservative and very fucking conservative.

 

[Kawamura]

This isn't even a matter of politics, it's a matter of basic human decency.

Yeah.

.___.

I don't think I could ever turn to someone and say "you should be poor for the good of society". I also probably wouldn't be able to tell them that they have an aversion to hard work or effort, and that's why they're poor, because I know too many people who are homeless or near homeless who do a hell of a lot more than me. I just lucked out being born where I was.

 

[Mr Master]

I'll say this from personal experience: I've lived in a variety of neighborhoods, but pretty much all of them have been in the lower half of the scale. Nothing too horrible or dangerous, thank goodness, but still. And I've never seen any of my neighbors particularly lazy. Working shit jobs, yes, or unable to find work, maybe (we know people on the board like that, as well). Never had a chance to learn things to get themselves out of their rut, yes. Exhausted after work, so just sitting around in their off time, sure. But lazy? Not so's you'd notice.

 

[Alvis Alendran]

I think the divide between the rich and poor is getting pretty damned rediculous, but at the same time, I don't think everyone should have millions of dollars to throw around. The rich may not deserve to be rich, and th poor may not deserve to be poor.

Conflict and need have been the two main things that have driven human development. Remove need, and you will largely remove conflict. Remove them both, and what's left for us? It is a sad fact of humanity that when you removethe need to advance, people tend to stop trying to do so. There are a few exception in hisoyry, sure, but these are just that. Exceptions.

The idea of a level playing field sounds great, but really, it's a pipe dream. You can't do it. Where would the funding come from. And when you do find the lazy bastards who don't care, how many resources and how much money was pissed away so they can screw around?

Life is what you make of it largely. Yes, there are some people who really do just have the worst circumstances and luck, and get jerked around, and are denied what they need to get ahead. At the same time, I know just as many people who were handed no dvantages, and they busted their asses for years to make it. And you know? They managed it.

Will I look someone in the eye and tell them to be poor for the good of society? No. But show me someone who is in a poor situation, and I'll ask them what they are doing right then to help themselves out of it. If they answer they're just trying to get by, my hat is off to them for doing just that. But if they want change, then the change has to come from their end as well.

 

[Mr Master]

I don't think anyone's saying we all need to be enforceably equal. No, I'm a believer in a meritocracy to a degree (it would certainly eliminate a great deal of trust fund babies, that's for sure).

But I think it's more of the fact that the divide is so great, so insurmountable. The rich can get literally everything, and the poor are finding it harder and harder to get anything whatsoever.

A certain level of difference is good. It's good to have something to strive for, and it's good to earn what you get. However, the point is that the divide is deep, and that's weakening us as a society. We're in the "they have no bread" "then let them eat cake" territory, and that's not healthy for us as a culture.

We can have socioeconomic differences without letting the least of us (and most numerous of us) fend for themselves.

There was an article about "The Wire" that had a very telling point. In the introduction, it spoke about the American Dream. Part of what we're told is that if you work hard, if you have the idea, if you can be just a little faster or better or more skilled, you have the ability to come out on top in America. Which, with corporations and the rich exerting interference and nepotism and so forth, is more difficult, but still true. But the other part is, if you play by the rules, if you support the society and do your best, there's a place at the table for you, too. You, too, can partake in the success of America, not to the same degree, but by playing your role and doing your best, you could do all right, you would be supported by America just as you support America. And that second part is a total lie these days. As a society, we don't support anyfuckingbody, no matter of they deserve it. And that's to our detriment.

 

[Alvis Alendran]

I will honestly say that I'm not 100% on how easy/hard it would be to make things work in the US, as I've been a Canadian all my life, and most of my friends are the same.

Earlier posts made it sound as though the idea of everyone having the same opportunity/advantages does very much sound like a forced equality, but I've already weighed in on that, so I'll drop it now.

I've reviewed the post above several times, and I cannot find a single thing you've said that I can really disagree with with very much enthusiasm.

 

[Mr Master]

Not everybody posting previously in the thread was talking about the same things.

I think most folks were saying there ought to be an equality of opportunity; what is done with that opportunity is up to the individuals involved. However, in our current USA (Canada is demonstrably different), the less-advantaged get far, far fewer opportunities. There are programs and such that try and help, but even with all that, it's a drop in the bucket, just on sheer numbers. And the wealthy don't really understand that, which is why I think we're sailing into a danger zone.

 

[Alvis Alendran]

With that in mind, I will agree more completely that something, somehow, should be done to adress the divide. But with all of this in mind, now that the problem is more adequately identified, what would you recommend be done to adress the problem?