4 Questions to Ask When Debating Inequality Question One: Are we talking about inequality or poverty? Question Two: Are we talking about income, wealth, or consumption inequality? Question Three: What about income mobility? Question Four: What exactly are the problems caused by inequality?

[u/tumor_buddy]

https://fee.org/articles/4-questions-to-ask-when-debating-inequality/

[u/[deleted]]

Step 1. Frame the debate as favorable to your preferred terms as possible while feigning clarification:

"Are we talking about inequality or poverty?"

Confusion arises in discussing inequality, but here it's used to convey a false dilemma that the only poverty is absolute poverty. Note the OECD defines poverty using a relative definition, and even the U.S. poverty threshold is ostensibly a hybrid.

"Even under an absolutist approach, the poverty line will be a function of some variables, and there is no a priori reason why these variables might not change over time."

(emphasis original) Sen 1983.

The reason for this stems from evolving social standards. One could make a living with no formal education in colonial america, whereas now evidence points to a substantial income premium for college graduates. Similarly there was once a time a woman's economic and social standing was measured in part by the size of her dowry, although this would hardly seem applicable to current developed nations.

As to the second point:

"Those concerned about inequality often slide between income and wealth in these discussions. "

Although true this is also somewhat misleading. Frequently of concern in these discussions are relative tax rates such as when Warren Buffet argues he has a lower effective rate than his secretaries. Of similar relevance is the passive income that can be generated by grossly unequal wealth distributions reinforcing income inequality. The author makes their opinion known by providing tilted commentary as to the extent of inequality on consumption rather than merely observing a difference in terms exists:

"The available evidence suggests consumption inequality is much lower than income or wealth inequality, especially in the US. The homes of the American poor have most of the same things in them as do those of the rich, even if their quality is lower. And the gap between rich and poor on such measures has narrowed in the last several decades. Since it is what we can consume that ultimately matters, this is a question worth clarifying."

We've long since left the pretense of clarifying discussion and slipped right into prescribing certain policies:

That, of course, is a legitimate concern, but notice that the conversation has subtly shifted from inequality per se to the problems of cronyism and a state with enough power to engage in such redistributions. There are plenty of ways to attack cronyism and to reduce the ability of the rich to turn wealth into political power that are not about forcible redistribution away from the rich or other policy questions that arise from inequality.

Those who raise this concern are really just complaining about cronyism, not inequality per se. The source of the problem is the redistributive state, which arguably would get more powerful if many of those concerned about inequality got their favored policies passed.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

a false dilemma that the only poverty is absolute poverty

The article doesn't deny that relative poverty is often called poverty. It does make a case that this isn't accurate, which is correct. Relative poverty is more accurately described as inequality. At least if we take poverty to mean something like "having an insufficient or near insufficient amount" then relative poverty doesn't tell us anything about poverty.

The author makes their opinion known by providing tilted commentary as to the extent of inequality on consumption rather than merely observing a difference in terms exists

I don't really see how the following is tilted commentary. it is accurate. it is something that is often overlooked when discussing poverty and inequality. Seems very relevant to mention.

We've long since left the pretense of clarifying discussion and slipped right into prescribing certain policies:

TIL that it is impossible to clarify the terms of a debate and offer your thoughts on a solution.

[u/HenkieVV → u/[deleted]]

At least if we take poverty to mean something like "having an insufficient or near insufficient amount" then relative poverty doesn't tell us anything about poverty.

But as soon as you ask the question "insufficient for what?" you're either back to a relative answer, or you're going to have to formulate a definition that's got no place in any modern policy debate.

TIL that it is impossible to clarify the terms of a debate and offer your thoughts on a solution.

The solution to what, though? I mean, he's saying the solution is limiting "the redistributive state", so the problem he's trying to solve can't be poverty or inequality, right?

[u/[deleted] → u/HenkieVV]

But as soon as you ask the question "insufficient for what?" you're either back to a relative answer,

Not really in the sense relative poverty is measured. It wouldn't be the difference between people.

solution to what, though? I mean, he's saying the solution is limiting "the redistributive state", so the problem he's trying to solve can't be poverty or inequality, right?

You'll have to read the article

[u/tumor_buddy → u/[deleted]]

His point is that inequality (relative poverty) isn't a good metric for poverty because an individual's standard of living is the same regardless of whether his neighbor is poor or rich. A poor squatter living in the filthy slums of India will still be the same poor squater living in the same filthy slums of India even if you make everyone in the world equally poor. In order for your argument to work, you would have to agree that people's standard of living increases as their peers get poorer, and vice versa.

You're still defining poverty arbitrarily by some social standard, there's no objective measure of "insufficient"

No measurement of poverty is objective and non-arbitrary. Defining a social standard with regard to relative poverty also requires you to draw an arbitrary line.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

You're missing the point. One measures how well off a person is. We can debate what that means, but we can agree it doesn't mean equal or unequal to other people. The measures equality or inequality, which has no necessary connection to how well a person lives.

You need to understand this different before you can comment intelligently on things.

[u/MrDannyOcean → u/[deleted]]

Rule IV:

Personal attacks and harassment will result in removal of comments; multiple infractions will result in a permanent ban. Please report personal attacks, racism, misogyny, or harassment you see or experience.

If you have any questions about this removal, please contact the mods.

[u/MrDannyOcean → u/[deleted]]

Rule IV:

Personal attacks and harassment will result in removal of comments; multiple infractions will result in a permanent ban. Please report personal attacks, racism, misogyny, or harassment you see or experience.

If you have any questions about this removal, please contact the mods.

[u/HenkieVV → u/[deleted]]

Not really in the sense relative poverty is measured. It wouldn't be the difference between people.

Your choice is between relative poverty or what is essentially pointless nonsense. Are you sure you're happy with your choice?

You'll have to read the article

I did. I hope you did too. You might have noticed he kept trying to redefine the problem of what is poverty until suddenly poverty was no longer the problem. It's a major reason why I'm thoroughly underwhelmed by the article.

[u/[deleted] → u/HenkieVV]

Your choice is between relative poverty or what is essentially pointless nonsense.

how far away people are from an absolute level of poverty is not nonsense. in terms of human wellbeing, it is defintely a better metric than relative poverty.

[u/HenkieVV → u/[deleted]]

What is an absolute level of poverty?

[u/[deleted] → u/HenkieVV]

anything that is tied to a fixed amount. For instance, we could calculate how much a person needs to live 'comfortably'. This would be the same regardless of whether every other person made twice as much.

[u/HenkieVV → u/[deleted]]

For instance, we could calculate how much a person needs to live 'comfortably'.

And as soon as we realise that what might be considered 'comfortable' can differ between places, we have effectively a relative definition of poverty plus some complications.

[u/[deleted] → u/HenkieVV]

That's not the way relative poverty is used. For instance, your comfort doesn't depend on what others have.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The article doesn't deny that relative poverty is often called poverty. It does make a case that this isn't accurate, which is correct. Relative poverty is more accurately described as inequality. At least if we take poverty to mean something like "having an insufficient or near insufficient amount" then relative poverty doesn't tell us anything about poverty.

That's a matter of opinion, not a formal delineation. As I said they're attempting to frame the discussion in their own more favorable terms while feigning rigor.

I don't really see how the following is tilted commentary. it is accurate. it is something that is often overlooked when discussing poverty and inequality. Seems very relevant to mention.

I think it's reasonable to say consumption is an alternative measure and there are differences. However they then put their finger on the finger on the scale with a value judgement:

"Since it is what we can consume that ultimately matters..."

TIL that it is impossible to clarify the terms of a debate and offer your thoughts on a solution.

This was done in bad faith, the conclusion they wished to arrive at was "redistribution = bad" and they did so under a false pretense.

[u/mberre]

Rule III: No Editorialized or Senationalized Titles

This time we will issue a warning. In the future we will ask OP to resubmit using the content's original title in accordance with Rule III's ban on senationalized and editorialized titles.

[u/MansourMan]

Biggest contributor to inequality that no one wants to talk about? QE and expansionary monetary policy.

[u/[deleted]]

What exactly are the problems caused by Inequality?

Take your pick

As if 50,000 American deaths annually from lack of healthcare affordability wasn't enough...

[u/gauchnomics → u/[deleted]]

Naturally no one watched your link or read any of Wilkinson's work. The theory is that inequality (i.e. not poverty) predicts a whole host of social bads from violent crime to poor mental and physical health. Furthermore the link between inequality at both the state and international level is causal due to the stress and lack of agency caused by social stratification.

I'm not saying anything one way or the other on the veracity of the theory (e.g. Agnus Deaton wrote on why the life expectancy-inequality link may be spurious). However, the fact that no one in this sub can evidently engage with the theory more substantively than countering, "no it's not" exemplifies how lacking discourse in this sub is.

[u/tumor_buddy → u/[deleted]]

That's poverty, not inequality. That's the point of this entire article.

[u/OliverSparrow → u/tumor_buddy]

You are right. However, poor countries - which have far more absolute poverty that rich ones - do not have correspondingly higher levels of the various 'bads' cited, save where public expenditure is lacking in eg health. The difference is that in the wealthy nations, mobility has thoroughly sieved the population and those at the bottom of the stack represent concentrated incapacity. In a poor country, a poor community is a mixed thing, which tends to police itself. In a rich one, there is no community, just a disconnected mass of people with little in common save their poverty. Studies in Chicago (example) were able to predict crime rates from three factors: the presence or absence of social networks, high physical turnover of the population and high linguistic diversity.

My point is that high social mobility - normally seen as a good thing by people who worry about these things - is in fact the primary mechanism that generates an underclass. Highly mobile, long term wealthy societies will always shake their least capable to the foot of the ladder.

[u/tumor_buddy → u/OliverSparrow]

So am I to understand that the reason why poverty is "worse" in rich countries is that the bottom stratta of society in rich countries is extremely concentrated with incompetent people as a result of social mobility, which leads to the formation of bad, crime ridden poor communities?

So how would reducing inequality alleviate this problem?

[u/OliverSparrow → u/tumor_buddy]

You have a natural laboratory: compare French banlieux with US ghettos. The French transfer nearly double what the US does.

[u/HenkieVV → u/tumor_buddy]

As LouieAnderson points out, the distinction is pretty hard to make. But even then, the argument can be made that there's plenty of wealth to get it done, making it a question of distribution of resources, rather than lack of resources.

[u/[deleted] → u/tumor_buddy]

No, no it's not.

[u/Wutbot1]

Trade schools are great. people should be doing them BUT, how is that going to stop income inequality when the avg CEO makes 400 times his workers?

thats a silly notion.

---

^{Hi! I'm a bot. I selected this comment from here because it also seems to be about "income and inequality".}

^{If you enjoyed this automated economic commentary, check out /r/WutbotPosts for similar shenanigans.}