Why more equal societies almost always do better
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 25, 2024, 11:53:23 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Economics (Moderator: Torie)
  Why more equal societies almost always do better
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Why more equal societies almost always do better  (Read 554 times)
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,904


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 20, 2012, 09:50:01 PM »

Where in the developed world do people live the longest? Where do people born at the bottom of the economic ladder have the best shot at climbing up? In which nations do children do best in school? Which countries send the most people to prison; have the teenage pregnancies and suffer the most homicides? The answers matter and are indicative of a society’s overall health and the quality of life for its citizens.  That is the contention of eminent British epidemiologists Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, authors of The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger.

The TED talk is probably the best introduction to the book:

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

Book:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Spirit-Level-Societies-Almost/dp/1846140390

I've been reading this recently and it's quite compelling.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,689
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 21, 2012, 09:06:42 AM »

The price we pay for freedom...
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,496
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 21, 2012, 03:21:46 PM »

but teh socializm
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,779


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 21, 2012, 05:50:26 PM »

Not uncontroversial, but there is probably a lot to it. The question is of course whether equality is endogenous or not and what other costs it might entail in some societies.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,689
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 22, 2012, 12:05:40 PM »

Then again, the presentation also alluded to the notion that "socialism" might not be needed to make an egalatiarian society work.

For example, in Mormon areas and in Japan, equality is just something that has to happen in the community and it has become such a strong and prevalent value, that the welfare state may have become obsolete in these areas. Ideally, that's what we want to happen in as many places as possible and that is that people just get along in some Lockean  state of nature. However, it appears there is one hang up here. The difference between Colorado and Utah and Japan and Canada is that in the formers, everyone looks and acts a lot less different than one another. It appears that sort of a natural process of justice only works when everyone has the same values. This could be a logical impetus for Conservatives to have such inconsistent stances on the size and scope of Government. Perhaps, they argue that we wouldn't have to live off of the dole and be ungrateful to our bosses if we all had a uniform  culture that we all might of had a few generations ago. However, the last 30 years sort of shows that paying lip service to the straight-edge abortion-free lifestyle doesn't neccesarily make you less greedy though there are studies that show that when you go to a strict church, you will become more philantropic through your priest's requirement that you tithe. 


 Then there are other areas that are so sparsely populated and that grow so slow, that there is basically no way for a class of  unnaturally excessive privilege to  emerge and the economy is so simple that a person of modest birthright and ability can make a reasonable living. Wyoming is a good example of this. The only problem is that because there is neither a natural or legal community of people, the only thing keeping people together is shared circumstance and as a result, these places are very sensitive to boom or bust cycles, so people come where the gettins good and leave when things dry up. These sort of places only do well if people have a place to go and are allowed to leave when they are done. In a way, the German, English and  Scots Irish Cowboys and Oilmen of 2012 are not much different than the Shoshone, Crow, Arapahoe, Soiux, Blackfoot and Ute nomads who lived here in 1412.  Nomads don't need Government and resent it as they see it as "fencing them in".

The question then becomes, how do we obtain this egalitarianism if it is that important to our health? Or is that just something that we must give up to maintain and increase what's right or superior in America?  At that point, I guess its up to all of us to eat right, exercise, get a broad education and try to move around as much as possible and just do what you can to secure your own peice of the expanding pie whether its through being very brilliant (get an Engineering degree and start your own business), very sneaky  (get a Business degree and get a job from that Engineer and try to manage or take over his company) or just very persistent.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.029 seconds with 11 queries.