McCracken Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 I wanted to talk about this in the inquality thread but decided it would be better to creat a new topic.Two epidemiologists have collected evidence that income inequality within societies create several negative outcomes including worse health, worse mental health and higher murder rates. There theory is fully explained in their book "the spirit level" here is a link to their website.http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/whyThey believe that income inequality deteriates social cohesivness which increased psycho-social stress that amongst other things makes us dies younger. Their evidence includes comparing high income countries on these sociale outcomes. In these comparisons their was no link found between average income and outcomes such as physical health. But found are very strong link between social outcomes and income inequality with those being more equal doing better.What particularly interesting is that they claim that the benifits can be found throught the socio-economic spectram so even those in the top 20% are better off in a more equal society!I better mention that their findings have been contested by those on the far right.But i'd be interested in anyone views on this? Has anyone heard of this theory before? As i believe the book is fairly well known. Do you believe that their findings are correct? If so does it change your opinion on how sociey will operate? Or do you believe thatits all a load of crap made up by leftist commies to try and steal more money from the rich? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohmahgaw Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 As far as the theory goes, I'm not exactly impressed. I mean, a society with a vast poor population and very small rich population with no middle class is obviously going to have issues with infrastructure, which affects pretty much every aspect of the country, including health/environment etc. This is really not that ground breaking of a concept. Societies with a large middle class are always better off, it's like a no brainer. It's just common sense that people do better when they're not living in an impoverished country, even if they are among the elite, because even those elite people often can't escape the pollution, crime, limited resources etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thelonious Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 This is not new information, not really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCracken Posted March 9, 2011 Author Share Posted March 9, 2011 The theory is not talking about impoverished coutries it's talking about rich countries.It saying countries like Sweden and Japan have better health, a lower prison population, less violence amongst a host of other things than countries like the UK and the USA because they have more income equality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ants Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 This is old news.There are plenty of studies showing that societies with less divergence in incomes have higher happiness and social outcomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCracken Posted March 9, 2011 Author Share Posted March 9, 2011 I know this but there seems little discourse about these studies when people discuss redistribution of rescources in society. So im not so sure this is widley known or accepted. If this research is really well known then why is the political climate so against socialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohmahgaw Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 The theory is not talking about impoverished coutries it's talking about rich countries.It saying countries like Sweden and Japan have better health, a lower prison population, less violence amongst a host of other things than countries like the UK and the USA because they have more income equality.*GASP* wait, you're saying that people do better in rich countries?! That countries with better infrastructure, resources, wealth have better health and lower crime rates? The larger the middle class, the better off a country and its citizens are. That's like economics for dummies. It's the standard by which people measure a society. In the US and Uk, the middle class is shrinking rapidly and crime is going up. It's not a real shocker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iskaral Pust Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 I know this but there seems little discourse about these studies when people discuss redistribution of rescources in society. So im not so sure this is widley known or accepted. If this research is really well known then why is the political climate so against socialism.Funny question. You're wondering why populist sentiment does not support a more socialist tilt on redistribution when academic studies have shown that long term, intangible, delayed gratification benefits would be realized by most.I wonder why populist sentiment does not support a more socialist tilt on redistribution when simple arithmetic dictates that immediate, tangible, monetary benefits would be realized by most.If you can't sell them idea of receiving money today, then I don't know why you're worried about selling them the idea of receiving intangible benefits many years from now.Can you see why most people skip right over your conundrum when the time comes to scratch our heads about populist resistance to more steeply progressive taxes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCracken Posted March 9, 2011 Author Share Posted March 9, 2011 No i'm not! Quit the oppersite im say that after a certain point of development how wealthy a country is does not matter. What does matter is the income distribution.For example people live longer in Greece than they do in the USA despite the USA being much richer and spending far more in health care! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 In the US and Uk, the middle class is shrinking rapidly and crime is going up. Except, of course, that in the UK it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCracken Posted March 9, 2011 Author Share Posted March 9, 2011 Fair enough Iskaral, you have a good point. But this evidence does clearly the highly held belief that the market left to its self will creat a healthiest society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Except, of course, that in the UK it isn't.The US either. Crime is pretty much down across the board worldwide actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Except, of course, that in the UK it isn't.Additionally, crime in general has been going down in the US for years.Source.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thelonious Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 If this research is really well known then why is the political climate so against socialism.I assume you're talking about the US. The reasons are complex and go back a century or so. The grassroots leftist movement in the US was ruthlessly and effectively suppressed in the 1920s and 30s, and Cold War paranoia kept it on the down low for decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sophelia Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 But i'd be interested in anyone views on this? Has anyone heard of this theory before? As i believe the book is fairly well known. Do you believe that their findings are correct? If so does it change your opinion on how sociey will operate? Or do you believe thatits all a load of crap made up by leftist commies to try and steal more money from the rich?I've read the book and do believe they are onto something important here. They gather together a lot of convincing statistics. Of course, I was predisposed to be favourable to this view since I am left-wing and have always felt that income inquality is undesirable, so the book just gave me some empirical evidence to back me up ;) Makes it easier to argue with people, who, unlike most of those in this thread, don't find obvious what should be ;)I did find it a very moving read and would recommend the book (indeed I'm always trying to press copies onto people!).I keep meaning to look into more research on whether the same effect occurs on the smaller scale of neighbourhoods and workplaces - I think that corresponds, with physical proximity becoming even more important. I can see workplace dissatisfaction growing when people find out that they are getting less pay than the person two desks away doing the same job (but less bothered by what people in the office two streets away are getting).P.S. The equality trust has done some smaller scale studies e.g. I read one comparing the boroughs of London. But I'm interested in much smaller scales than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime L Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 I assume you're talking about the US. The reasons are complex and go back a century or so. The grassroots leftist movement in the US was ruthlessly and effectively suppressed in the 1920s and 30s, and Cold War paranoia kept it on the down low for decades.I'm not sure I agree with this. The 30s, under FDR, were probably the most socialist time in our history. Capitalism had brutally collapsed with the '29 stock market crash, and the only way anyone could think to provide work was some of the largest public work programs in our history. Was probably the low water mark in our country's love affair with pure, unadulterated capitalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sophelia Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Can you see why most people skip right over your conundrum when the time comes to scratch our heads about populist resistance to more steeply progressive taxes?Heh. Yeah.My colleagues I'm sure would tend to agree with the principles, but it appears that when I suggest that no, we should not be fighting for a larger payrise, we should be trying to persuade the government to pay us less (on the grounds that university lecturers have a much higher income than the average person so we should be asking that some of our pay be transferred to the cleaners and janitors instead), funnily enough none of them agree with me, and indeed think I have taken leave of my senses... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Additionally, crime in general has been going down in the US for years.Source....This is actually really interesting and amazing info. Between 1990 and 2009, there were nearly 60 million more people in this country, yet there were 8000 fewer murders, and 500,000 fewer violent crimes altogether. We imported the entire population of the UK, but cut our crime rate nearly in half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime L Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 This is actually really interesting and amazing info. Between 1990 and 2009, there were nearly 60 million more people in this country, yet there were 8000 fewer murders, and 500,000 fewer violent crimes altogether. We imported the entire population of the UK, but cut our crime rate nearly in half.Think I created a thread on this back in the day. It remains astounding how much our crime rate has declined, continuing even through a bitter and disastrous recession and basically no-one is commenting on it. Our national discourse only seems to focus on things getting worse, never what's actually getting better. Infact, the paradox is, people are more afraid than ever. Even as our world gets safer every year. Though that should probably be another thread - it just drives me nuts how irrational we are about these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sophelia Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 We imported the entire population of the UK, but cut our crime rate nearly in half.We were a good influence, obviously, making people queue up peacefully (without guns), not walk on the grass, and obey all sorts of archaic laws to do with whitsunday pig-rolling contests.Oh, you didn't mean that literally :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.