Social Rising inequality: A major issue of our time

LeonardoBjj

Professional Wrestler
@red
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
7,719
Reaction score
9,741
Zia Qureshi
May 16, 2023
Income and wealth inequality has risen in many countries in recent decades. Rising inequality and related disparities and anxieties have been stoking social discontent and are a major driver of the increased political polarization and populist nationalism that are so evident today. An increasingly unequal society can weaken trust in public institutions and undermine democratic governance. Mounting global disparities can imperil geopolitical stability. Rising inequality has emerged as an important topic of political debate and a major public policy concern.

SDQT_Legoland_town_council_to_hold_emergency_meeting_on_homeless_encampments_in_newly_opened_San_Diego_exhibit.jpg


High and rising inequality
Current inequality levels are high. Contemporary global inequalities are close to the peak levels observed in the early 20th century, at the end of the prewar era (variously described as the Belle Époque or the Gilded Age) that saw sharp increases in global inequality.

Over the past four decades, there has been a broad trend of rising income inequality across countries. Income inequality has risen in most advanced economies and major emerging economies, which together account for about two-thirds of the world’s population and 85 percent of global GDP (Figure 1). The increase has been particularly large in the United States, among advanced economies, and in China, India, and Russia, among major emerging economies.


Figure 1. Inequality has risen in most advanced and major emerging economies
Richest 10% income share, 1980-2020

Screen-Shot-2023-05-16-at-3.09.18-PM.png

Source: Author, using data from World Inequality Database.
Note: Pre-tax national income. Some data points are extrapolated.


Beyond these groups of countries, the trend in the developing world at large has been more mixed, but many countries have seen increases in inequality. In regions such as Latin America, the Middle East and North Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa, income inequality levels on average have been relatively more stable, but inequality was already at high levels in these regions—the highest in the world.

Wealth inequality within countries is typically much higher than income inequality. It has followed a rising trend across countries since around 1980, similar to income inequality. Higher wealth inequality feeds higher future income inequality through capital income and inheritance.

The increase in inequality has been especially marked at the top end of the income distribution, with the income share of the top 10 percent (and even more so that of the top 1 percent) rising sharply in many countries. This was so particularly up to the global financial crisis of 2008-09. Those in low- and middle-income groups have suffered a loss of income share, with those in the bottom 50 percent typically experiencing larger losses of income share. These trends in inequality have been associated with an erosion of the middle class and a decline in intergenerational mobility, especially in advanced economies experiencing larger increases in inequality and a greater polarization in income distribution.

GGkN1mXcU5CYB0tLG_5gxvL5aWimVP5F3jNx8AVi8Dg.jpg

While within-country inequality has been rising, inequality between countries (reflecting per capita income differences) has been falling in recent decades. Faster-growing emerging economies, especially the large ones such as China and India, have been narrowing the income gap with advanced economies.

Global inequality—the sum of within-country and between-country inequality—has declined somewhat since around 2000, with the fall in between-country inequality more than offsetting the rise in within-country inequality. As within-country inequality has been rising, it now accounts for a much larger part of global inequality (about two-thirds in 2020, up from less than half in 1980). Looking ahead, how within-country inequality evolves will matter even more for global inequality.

The interplay between the evolution of within-country inequality and between-country inequality, coupled with the differential growth performance of emerging and advanced economies, in recent decades presents an interesting picture of middle-class dynamics at the global level (as depicted by the well-known “elephant curve” of the incidence of global economic growth). It shows, for the period since 1980, a rising middle class in the emerging world and a squeezed middle class in rich countries. It also shows an increasing concentration of income at the very top of the income distribution globally.

Drivers of rising inequality​

Shifting economic paradigms are altering distributional dynamics. Transformative technological change, led by digital technologies, has been reshaping markets, business models, and the nature of work in ways that can increase inequality within economies. While the specifics differ across countries, this has been happening broadly through three channels: more unequal distribution of labor income with rising wage inequality as technology shifts labor demand from routine low- to middle-level skills to new, higher-level skills; shift of income from labor to capital with increasing automation and a decoupling of wages from firm profitability; and more unequal distribution of capital income with rising market power and economic rents enjoyed by dominant firms in increasingly concentrated and winner-takes-all markets.

These dynamics are more evident in advanced economies but could increasingly impact developing economies as the new technologies favoring capital and higher-level skills make deeper inroads there.

Globalization (international trade, offshoring) also has contributed to rising inequality within economies, especially in advanced economies by negatively affecting wages and jobs of lower-skilled workers in tradable sectors. These sectors increasingly extend beyond manufacturing as digital globalization expands the range of activities, including services, deliverable across borders.

In emerging economies, technology is reshaping how international trade affects national inequality. The new technologies, born in advanced economies, are shifting manufacturing and global value chains toward higher capital and skill intensity. Leading manufacturing firms located in emerging economies and engaged in exporting are adopting these technologies in order to be able to compete, diminishing employment generation and wage growth prospects for less-skilled workers from this higher-productivity segment of industry in economies whose factor endowments would warrant less capital- and skill-intensive technologies—and thus limiting the potential of international trade to reduce inequality within these economies by boosting demand for their more abundant factor endowment (less-skilled workers). Meanwhile, smaller firms that absorb most such workers in these economies remain engaged in low-productivity activities, many in the informal economy and in petty service sectors.

images

Globalization has been a force in recent decades for reducing inequality between economies by expanding export opportunities for emerging economies and spurring their economic growth. But globalization’s role in promoting international economic convergence faces new challenges as technological change alters production processes and trade patterns (more on this below).

Other broad trends in recent decades affecting the distribution of income and wealth include changes in institutional settings such as economic deregulation, increasing financialization of economies coupled with a high concentration of financial income and wealth, and erosion of labor market institutions such as minimum wage laws and collective bargaining. Moreover, the redistributive role of the state has been weakening with declining tax progressivity and with transfer programs facing the pressure of tighter fiscal constraints.

images

Role of public policy​

Large and persistent increases in inequality within economies are not an inevitable consequence of forces such as technological change and globalization. Much depends on how public policy responds to the new dynamics that these forces generate. In the midst of these common forces of change, the rise in inequality has been uneven across countries.

The difference lies largely in countries’ institutional and policy settings and how they have responded. In general, looking across countries, public policy has been behind the curve. It has been slow to rise to the new challenges to promote more inclusive outcomes from economic change.

Public policy to reduce inequality is often viewed narrowly in terms of redistribution―taxes and transfers. This is indeed an important element, especially in view of the erosion of the state’s redistributive role in recent decades. But there is a much broader policy agenda of “predistribution” that can make the growth process itself more inclusive and produce better market outcomes—by promoting wider access to new opportunities for firms and workers and enhancing their capabilities to adjust as market dynamics shift.

This latter agenda of reforms spans competition policy and regulatory frameworks to keep markets competitive and inclusive in the digital age; innovation ecosystems and technology policies to put innovation to work for broader groups of people; digital infrastructure and literacy to reduce the digital divide; education and (re)training programs to upskill and reskill workers while addressing inequalities in access to these programs; and labor market policies and social protection systems to enable workers to obtain a fair share of economic returns and to support them in times of transition. In many of these reform areas, the new dynamics that economies are facing call for fresh thinking and significant policy overhaul.

Outlook for inequality
Absent more responsive policies to combat inequality, the current high levels of inequality are likely to persist or even rise further. Artificial intelligence and related new waves of digital technologies and automation could increase inequality further within countries. Even as new technologies increase productivity and produce greater economic affluence, and new jobs and tasks emerge to replace those displaced and so prevent large technological unemployment, inequality could reach much higher levels. The economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic has reinforced some of the inequality-increasing dynamics. Also, a high and increasing concentration of wealth can exacerbate income inequality in a mutually reinforcing cycle.

Homeless-family.jpg



Technological change also poses new challenges to global economic convergence that has reduced inequality between countries in the past couple of decades. Faster growth in emerging economies led by export of manufactures has depended greatly on their comparative advantage in labor-intensive manufacturing based on large populations of low-skill, low-wage workers. This source of comparative advantage increasingly will erode as automation of low-skill work expands. Emerging economies face the challenge of recalibrating their growth models as technology disrupts traditional pathways to growth and development.

Emerging economies’ growth prospects also face other headwinds, including the scarring effects of the pandemic and global supply chain disruptions exacerbated by the war in Ukraine and an unsettled global geopolitical environment, which would hit the more trade-dependent economies harder. If growth in emerging economies falters, the decline in between-country inequality will slow, which could stall or even reverse the modest decline in global inequality observed since about 2000 if within-country inequality continues to mount.

Climate change is another factor that could worsen inequality within and between countries. Low-income groups and countries are more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and have less capacity to cope with them.


Conclusion​

Income and wealth inequality is elevated. In the absence of policies to counter recent trends, inequality could rise to still higher levels. High and rising inequality entails adverse economic, social, and political consequences. Policymakers must pay more attention to the changing distributional dynamics in the digital age and harness the forces of change for more inclusive prosperity. History tells us that large and unabated rises in inequality can end up badly.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/rising-inequality-a-major-issue-of-our-time/

@panamaican @Sinister - Can you guys turn-off the bold?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
- Had a very cool sociology class today. And learned in the last one hundred years, since prisons adquired the form whose they're know for us. There's hasnt been a huge enfort in USA or in Brazil, since both country have similars prisional system(Brazils originally copied USA stile), there's very little work being put in changing the social inequality, how prisons work and the impact on crime:

Crime remains a common problem that causes various economic, social, and political impacts in societies worldwide (Ivaschenko et al. 2012). Aside from giving rise to uncertainty, crime also makes economic activities inefficient as resources need to be reallocated from productive activities to crime reduction and prevention (Ahmad et al. 2014; Detotto and Otranto 2010). In developing countries, crime occurrences that are not properly handled can slow down the process of becoming a sovereign, developed, equitable, and prosperous country. Societies facing increasing crime rates require preventive and reactive measures, which often need more than the government’s capacity.

Studies have shown, both theoretically and empirically, the relationship between inequality and crime, which then generate rational models of criminal behavior (Becker 1968).

In the economic theory of crime postulated by Becker, crime is influenced by different incentives, pressures, and deterrent mechanisms that individuals face across environments. The rational model of criminal behavior argues that individuals commit crimes when the margin between criminal benefits and a criminal penalty is greater than benefits from legitimate employment. In other words, crime risk is higher when the inequality gap is wider (Kang 2016). Income gaps often result in an environment where low-income (often poor) people tend to gain more returns from illegal activities than legal ones. According to the strain theory postulated by Merton (1949), individuals who perceive themselves as less successful than their peers may experience frustration.

Wider income inequality exerts higher pressure on these individuals, which also translates into a greater incentive to commit crimes. In the social disorganization theory, Shaw and McKay (1942) point out that when regulations in the community weaken, social controls dwindle, and crime rises. In this situation, individuals disadvantaged by income inequality often face choices between staying in the legal domain or venturing into the illegal one (Chiu and Madden 1998) because it offers higher economic benefits (Mauladi et al. 2022).

Past empirical studies have proven that inequality is a contributing factor to crime in many countries, including Russia (Hauner et al. 2012), the United States (Brush 2007), China (Cheong and Wu 2015), and Indonesia (Sugiharti et al. 2022a; Widyastaman and Hartono 2022).

In Europe, eastern and northern regions showed how inequality resulted in higher crime rates. In contrast, western and southern Europe showed that inequality had no significant effect on crime rates (Kim et al. 2020). In China, Song et al. (2020) showed that consumption inequality is a major driver of crimes.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047235223000363

https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7099/11/2/62

https://www.anpec.org.br/encontro2004/artigos/A04A149.pdf

- So how governament that promises being tough on crime, pretend to reduce crime, if tey dont fight inequality, and several times are against social services that can boost a person chance to socialy rise?
 
- Had a very cool sociology class today. And learned in the last one hundred years, since prisons adquired the form whose they're know for us. There's hasnt been a huge enfort in USA or in Brazil, since both country have similars prisional system(Brazils originally copied USA stile), there's very little work being put in changing the social inequality, how prisons work and the impact on crime:

Crime remains a common problem that causes various economic, social, and political impacts in societies worldwide (Ivaschenko et al. 2012). Aside from giving rise to uncertainty, crime also makes economic activities inefficient as resources need to be reallocated from productive activities to crime reduction and prevention (Ahmad et al. 2014; Detotto and Otranto 2010). In developing countries, crime occurrences that are not properly handled can slow down the process of becoming a sovereign, developed, equitable, and prosperous country. Societies facing increasing crime rates require preventive and reactive measures, which often need more than the government’s capacity.

Studies have shown, both theoretically and empirically, the relationship between inequality and crime, which then generate rational models of criminal behavior (Becker 1968).

In the economic theory of crime postulated by Becker, crime is influenced by different incentives, pressures, and deterrent mechanisms that individuals face across environments. The rational model of criminal behavior argues that individuals commit crimes when the margin between criminal benefits and a criminal penalty is greater than benefits from legitimate employment. In other words, crime risk is higher when the inequality gap is wider (Kang 2016). Income gaps often result in an environment where low-income (often poor) people tend to gain more returns from illegal activities than legal ones. According to the strain theory postulated by Merton (1949), individuals who perceive themselves as less successful than their peers may experience frustration.

Wider income inequality exerts higher pressure on these individuals, which also translates into a greater incentive to commit crimes. In the social disorganization theory, Shaw and McKay (1942) point out that when regulations in the community weaken, social controls dwindle, and crime rises. In this situation, individuals disadvantaged by income inequality often face choices between staying in the legal domain or venturing into the illegal one (Chiu and Madden 1998) because it offers higher economic benefits (Mauladi et al. 2022).

Past empirical studies have proven that inequality is a contributing factor to crime in many countries, including Russia (Hauner et al. 2012), the United States (Brush 2007), China (Cheong and Wu 2015), and Indonesia (Sugiharti et al. 2022a; Widyastaman and Hartono 2022).

In Europe, eastern and northern regions showed how inequality resulted in higher crime rates. In contrast, western and southern Europe showed that inequality had no significant effect on crime rates (Kim et al. 2020). In China, Song et al. (2020) showed that consumption inequality is a major driver of crimes.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047235223000363

https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7099/11/2/62

https://www.anpec.org.br/encontro2004/artigos/A04A149.pdf

- So how governament that promises being tough on crime, pretend to reduce crime, if tey dont fight inequality, and several times are against social services that can boost a person chance to socialy rise?
<WellThere>
 
This is why they promote infighting and division. Race wars prevent Class Wars. Your you disdain for :eek::eek::eek::eek:s scares them.
- You're right. As long as people are fighting, the status quo prevail. In 100 years, there's very lkittle changes. Leftists governaments let crime roam more free(just a example), and they elect a right governament that doesnt do nothing to change that. The ones in power, stay in power.
 
Last edited:
Simply the reality of the human race. Doesn't matter if you have a democratic capitalist society, full on soviet communism or some dictator in a third world shithole. Happens across all societies.
- In socialist places, they usually use prisons to punish political dissidents. In capitalists is to keep a poverty class, that has to work low paying jobs in the hope of rising socially.

@Sinister @Madmick - Plase fix the bold part?

1200px-Carnival_of_S%C3%A3o_Paulo_-_Ellen_Roche_%2816326981051%29.jpg
 
Simply the reality of the human race. Doesn't matter if you have a democratic capitalist society, full on soviet communism or some dictator in a third world shithole. Happens across all societies.
The haves and the have nots, as a balanced system, must be maintained as far as the "elites" go.

It sounds like a conspiracy theory, until things like the Bilderberg Conference are realized.
 

The stark relationship between income inequality and crime


Both theory and data suggest that if you’ve got it, don’t flaunt it

FIFTY years ago Gary Becker, a Nobel prize-winning economist, advanced an argument that all crime is economic and all criminals are rational. Becker’s seminal paper, “Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach” posited that would-be criminals make a cost-benefit assessment of the likely rewards from breaking the law against the probability of being caught and punished. In Becker’s world of utility-maximising miscreants, places that have larger gaps between the poor (the would-be criminals) and the rich (the victims) will, all other things being equal, have higher crime.


20180609_WOC986.png

A new survey by Gallup, a polling organisation, appears to go some way to verifying Becker’s theory.

It asked 148,000 people in 142 countries about their perceptions of crime and how safe they feel across four measures: whether they trust the local police; whether they feel safe walking home alone; if they have had property or money stolen; and whether they have been assaulted over the past year.

Testing the correlation between these questions and the amount of income inequality (as measured by the Gini coefficient) in any given country shows a strong and positive relationship (see chart above).

Whether people feel safe walking home alone or not shows the strongest relationship with inequality. In Venezuela, for example, four-fifths of respondents said they do not feel safe walking home alone—kidnappings and extortion are a common occurrence in the country. Its income distribution is the 19th-most unequal in the study. In contrast, fully 95% of people in Norway said they feel safe walking home alone. Sure enough, it is 12th most equal country of the 142.

These simple relationships do not account for all of the differences in people’s perceptions of crime levels.

Others have since expanded upon Becker’s theory to take into account how much the rich show off their wealth. In a study published in 2014, Daniel Hicks at the University of Oklahoma and Joan Hamory Hicks at the University of California in Berkeley demonstrated that over a 20-year period, the American states that had the greatest inequality in visible expenditure—spending on items such as clothing, jewellery, cars, and eating out—also suffered the most from violent crime. So if you’ve got it, don’t flaunt it—especially if your neighbours don’t have it as well.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-d...ationship-between-income-inequality-and-crime
 
The haves and the have nots, as a balanced system, must be maintained as far as the "elites" go.

It sounds like a conspiracy theory, until things like the Bilderberg Conference are realized.
- As i posted before. It's been like this for quite sometime. To someone feel rich, several have to be poor.

In my class, was posted as recent as 1830(dont know the exact data), when prisons started to have the actual format we know now, they've kept that way till now. Brazialian prisons a the american counter-parts rarelly reform a criminal. Intentionally they're keep this way, because regular no criminal citzens start to feel a revanchism sentiment, and they elect a right-wing governament, after that they bring a leftist one, to fix the damage made by the right-wing power, the thing they been alternating power, but rarelly present any result!
 
- As i posted before. It's been like this for quite sometime. To someone feel rich, several have to be poor.

In my class, was posted as recent as 1830(dont know the exact data), when prisons started to have the actual format we know now, they've kept that way till now. Brazialian prisons a the american counter-parts rarelly reform a criminal. Intentionally they're keep this way, because regular no criminal citzens start to feel a revanchism sentiment, and they elect a right-wing governament, after that they bring a leftist one, to fix the damage made by the right-wing power, the thing they been alternating power, but rarelly present any result!
As far as criminal reformation goes, that's something with too many variables ie humans and personalities. Some can be reformed and actually feel guilt for what they've done, and won't do it again. Some feel guilty, but will do it again anyways. And some simply don't care. These are the categories of the non-insane.

I believe the British, French and others have dealt with this quandary for centuries leading up to now. We still can't solve it because people are too unpredictable.
 
As far as criminal reformation goes, that's something with too many variables ie humans and personalities. Some can be reformed and actually feel guilt for what they've done, and won't do it again. Some feel guilty, but will do it again anyways. And some simply don't care. These are the categories of the non-insane.

I believe the British, French and others have dealt with this quandary for centuries leading up to now. We still can't solve it because people are too unpredictable.
- Yeh. But powerty increases criminal behavior. Theres something made wrong. Not that i think a soft crime aproach will fix something. But if given a chance to choose another path. Maybe a bigger number of people will reform?
 
- Yeh. But powerty increases criminal behavior. Theres something made wrong. Not that i think a soft crime aproach will fix something. But if given a chance to choose another path. Maybe a bigger number of people will reform?
I think being harsh on crime, but also harsh on the technical ability to prove the crime, works. We don't want people jailed unnecessarily, but we also don't want to let someone go who clearly needs to stay.

Another angle of that human problem is the officers who may have biases or are just not capable of doing their job in an efficient way. Then you have different judges, DAs, attorneys, etc.

It's a complex system, which is inherently complex. But I still feel like there is a better way to do it before our dumbass govs decide to let AI take a crack at it.
 
Well, here goes the most unpopular post of the year!

Income inequality is irrelevant for policy, and anyone who pursues it is badly misguided. The focus should always be upon increasing standards of living.

Sounds crazy to many at first, but consider two policy options:

1. Everyone, everywhere, gets $20,000 per year in goods/services. No exceptions.

2. One guy gets a Trillion, while everybody else gets $30,000.


Which is the preferred outcome? Which makes people "better off"?
(Aside from a hyperinflated "sense of justice" value that equals or exceeds 50% of total income, lol. Always going to be a few of those floating around, or at least, people claiming it to be true.)

The point is "being equal" doesn't actually mean any benefit is received. One path to equality is "less for everyone", and in many cases, this is true of policy outcomes.
 
Back
Top