Social Rising inequality: A major issue of our time

It's worse than the gilded age, yet little cucks will still carry water for billionaires.

In the Gilded Age capitalists at least built beautiful shit. Because most firms were owned by people who wanted a "legacy" they were more inclined to spend in ways that ignored the profit motive. Now all thats gone and capitalism is in its purest form everything is austerity whether it be govt or corporate spending.
 
It's more middle America low wage workers carrying water for the ultra rich. One extra shift away from hitting it big and taking over the corporate world.
- It's a western thing. Theres why so much guys selling courses to get rich, but those guys make money selling the courses, they never got rich selling the skills they're promoting on those said courses.
 
Last edited:
Terrible democrat policies, covid, inflation, anti white racism at an all time high. What do you expect?
- It's been that way for a century now. But as other poster said, we can see this happening for mankind story!
 
It's more middle America low wage workers carrying water for the ultra rich. One extra shift away from hitting it big and taking over the corporate world.

Every time you vote to raise your own taxes, you're carrying water for billionaires.
 
In Chimpanzee colonies the alpha male is respected and allowed dominance only as long as he's a good leader. He gets dibs on everything but makes sure everyone is happy

The congregation will tolerate bad leadership to a certain point. When they get sick of it, the males attack him, castrate him and tear him apart

I just thought that was really interesting. Apes really are crazy ha ha ha
 
In the Gilded Age capitalists at least built beautiful shit. Because most firms were owned by people who wanted a "legacy" they were more inclined to spend in ways that ignored the profit motive. Now all thats gone and capitalism is in its purest form everything is austerity whether it be govt or corporate spending.
Ya gilded age wealth gave us stuff like Carnagie Hall, today the rich build compounds to hide from the pleb masses when things finally go south.
 
Inequality is now and always will be 100% inevitable. The only way to avoid it is to have full blown communism where everything is rationed, all business is controlled, and the government makes sure nobody has more than the next person (the progressive dream).

It's an admirable goal to reduce inequality, but laws and government policy can only do so much. And some people are just going to be much more more successful than others. What makes leftists so mad though, is the racial element of it all.
 
Last edited:
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?
I think this is a very real issue. If you look at the tourism numbers, the visitors to Hawaii are down. When I look around the island it seems like the goal is to cater to the very rich tourists. You don't see as many families visiting like before.

Though this is one small issue I think it is an indicator of how the system is broken right now.
 
I think this is a very real issue. If you look at the tourism numbers, the visitors to Hawaii are down. When I look around the island it seems like the goal is to cater to the very rich tourists. You don't see as many families visiting like before.

Though this is one small issue I think it is an indicator of how the system is broken right now.
- I live on a touristic insland also. And we have a football team called Avai!

The tourism was good this year, but horrible two years ago.
You're right, when things are economically bad, only rich people can travel.
 
"All Socialist utopias came to nothing on roast beef and apple pie." - Werner Sombart, Why is There No Socialism in the United States

Whether is a "chicken in every pot" or "roast beef and apple pie", the thing that allows people in a capitalist system to tollerate inequality is the belief that their basic needs are being met and exceeded. Our politicians and the donor class would do well to bear that in mind.

Because as the social contract deteriorates so does the belief in the institution of capitalism itself. Millenials and Xenials are losing faith in the system and if they don't get to the "chicken in every pot" level of security before the sieze political power then dramatic upheaval is all but guaranteed.

7r6xdclxi0osd7elcgeiow.png


That's not to say that I think the US is on a path to communism, but to say that those currently financially advantaged may find themselves treated VERY poorly in the coming years if they don't literally share the wealth.
 
In the Gilded Age capitalists at least built beautiful shit. Because most firms were owned by people who wanted a "legacy" they were more inclined to spend in ways that ignored the profit motive. Now all thats gone and capitalism is in its purest form everything is austerity whether it be govt or corporate spending.
What I think your dealing with is a lot of establishment liberal types cling to the "End of History" idea that society post war was on an irreversible path to the better when increasingly its looking like the post war era was a blip.

You were dealing with a period were the wealthy and the powerful had to accept some degree socialist politics for a number of reasons, the threat of either a genuine socialist coming to power or some kind of violent uprising due to the power of the labour movement and the presence of the USSR, the organisation needed for WW2 itself and millions of trained soliders coming home from it making said revolution more likely if they didnt feel they had a fair chance to improve their lives.

Such politics were being undermined though almost as soon as they were introduced and decades of hard work have gone into undermining and demonising the labour movement.
 
Last edited:
In Chimpanzee colonies the alpha male is respected and allowed dominance only as long as he's a good leader. He gets dibs on everything but makes sure everyone is happy

The congregation will tolerate bad leadership to a certain point. When they get sick of it, the males attack him, castrate him and tear him apart

I just thought that was really interesting. Apes really are crazy ha ha ha
The thing is, humans are by far the most successful apes. And despite being here for 200,000 years, most of the real progress in our living standards has been in the past couple hundred years, after and because we developed liberalism.
 
In Chimpanzee colonies the alpha male is respected and allowed dominance only as long as he's a good leader. He gets dibs on everything but makes sure everyone is happy

The congregation will tolerate bad leadership to a certain point. When they get sick of it, the males attack him, castrate him and tear him apart

I just thought that was really interesting. Apes really are crazy ha ha ha
This is the shortened video, the longer one he mentions that stress levels went down (I believe they took blood samples) so they were actually not only more socially cohesive when the "alphas" died, but healthier too and more equitable, everyone treated better

 
The differences in IQ is too vast in multicultural countries.
- The diference in I.Q is related to nutrition:

Nutrition is one of the crucial factors affecting cognitivedevelopment of children. The huge and rapid changes inlife style during the last 30 years and the rapid increasein fast food availability led to the reduction in the qualityof food and its nutrients. Children nowadays consumedfoods high in calories and carbohydrate and low invitamins and minerals which are needed to build theircognition.In majority countries, children and adolescentsconstitute a group at risk for nutritional deficiencies.

Thisis due to increased micronutrient needs for growth, aswell as changes in eating and lifestyle habits arisingfrom increasing independence from the family.

Duringthis time, nutritional requirement is high, yet vitamin andmineral intakes tend to be reduced as there is a greaterconsumption of fast food, frequent meal skipping,adoption of inappropriate weight control behaviors anddecreased vegetable and fruit intake (Serra-Majem,2001; Hercberg et al., 1991; Gregory and Lowe, 2000).

This contributes on the one hand to a greaterpercentage of nutritional risk in this population and, onthe other hand, to an increase in the prevalence ofobesity (Tomkins, 2001).


Livingstone and Robson(2000) stated that the accurate assessment of foodintake in children and adolescents is of concernbecause dietary habits formed early in life in responseto physiological requirements and psycho-socialpressures may have considerable impact on long-termhealth status.

Body Mass Index (BMI) is a number calculated from achild's weight and height. It is a reliable indicator of bodyfatness for most children and teens. BMI does notmeasure body fat directly but research has shown thatBMI correlates to direct measures of body fat, such asunderwater weighing and Dual Energy X-rayAbsorptiometry (DEXA). BMI can be considered as analternative for direct measures of body fat.


Additionally,BMI is an inexpensive and easy-to-perform method ofscreening for weight categories that may lead to healthproblems. For children and teens, BMI is age and sexspecific and is often referred to as BMI-for-age (Center of Disease control, 2011).Iodine deficiency is the single greatest cause ofpreventable mental retardation in the world today.

Due tolack of iodine in the diet, 1.6 billion people worldwide areat risk of diminished mental and physical capacities.Iodine deficiency disorders also caused poor eye handco-ordination, deaf mutism, dwarfism, facial andphysical deformity, partial paralysis, cretinism,neurological damage, goiter and lassitude.

https://collections.unu.edu/eserv/UNU:1750/fin2574.pdf

Bridging Nutrition and Cognitive Capabilities
As an esteemed psychologist and seasoned author, I embark on an exploration into the pivotal role that diet and nutrition play in shaping our cognitive capabilities, particularly in relation to Intelligence Quotient (IQ). This journey is not merely academic; it’s a profound investigation into the essence of cognitive nourishment. This article aims to dissect the multifaceted relationship between dietary habits and cognitive performance, providing a nuanced understanding of how the sustenance we consume directly impacts our intellectual faculties.

1. The Brain’s Nutritional Requirements: A Closer Look

The human brain, a marvel of complexity, demands a significant portion of our dietary intake to maintain its operational excellence. This section delves into the specific nutrients that are indispensable for cognitive health and their mechanisms of action. For instance, omega-3 fatty acids, particularly docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), are not just beneficial; they are foundational for the development and maintenance of neuronal structures. Similarly, antioxidants combat oxidative stress, a known factor in cognitive decline, thereby safeguarding neuronal integrity.

2. Early Development and Lifelong Impact: Nutrition’s Role

The significance of nutrition extends from the womb into late adulthood, marking critical periods of cognitive development with lasting impacts on IQ and mental acuity. This part of the article explores how nutritional deficiencies or abundances during these formative stages can set the trajectory for cognitive abilities later in life. It underscores the importance of balanced nutrition during pregnancy, infancy, and childhood as a cornerstone for optimal brain development and function.

3. Dietary Patterns and Cognitive Function: Establishing the Link

Emerging research suggests that not just individual nutrients but overall dietary patterns play a crucial role in cognitive performance. This section examines various diets — Mediterranean, DASH, and plant-based — and their associations with cognitive health. It also addresses the detrimental effects of diets high in processed foods and sugars on cognitive functions, drawing connections to IQ scores and overall mental performance.



@Sano
 
Last edited:
"All Socialist utopias came to nothing on roast beef and apple pie." - Werner Sombart, Why is There No Socialism in the United States

Whether is a "chicken in every pot" or "roast beef and apple pie", the thing that allows people in a capitalist system to tollerate inequality is the belief that their basic needs are being met and exceeded. Our politicians and the donor class would do well to bear that in mind.

Because as the social contract deteriorates so does the belief in the institution of capitalism itself. Millenials and Xenials are losing faith in the system and if they don't get to the "chicken in every pot" level of security before the sieze political power then dramatic upheaval is all but guaranteed.

7r6xdclxi0osd7elcgeiow.png


That's not to say that I think the US is on a path to communism, but to say that those currently financially advantaged may find themselves treated VERY poorly in the coming years if they don't literally share the wealth.

Communism is dead and it’s never coming back. There might be a fascist system that distributes wealth though.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,246,779
Messages
56,149,820
Members
175,089
Latest member
Krakn
Back
Top