Tag Archives: inequality

U.S. life span inequality

Leave a reply

We hear a lot about health and life expectancy differences between ethnic groups and income levels in the U.S. This article shows those same numbers by county. Not too surprisingly, Appalachia and the southeast have some of the lowest average life expectancies. Heart disease and drug overdoses are major reasons why. The most shocking numbers though are from heavily Native American areas.

The article prescribes more exercise, healthier food, blood pressure and cholesterol control, and lower health care costs. Sounds good. In my opinion, high cost is certainly an issue, but it is really a proxy for access. We need a health care system that provides access to everyone, at least starting with basic preventive care. This is not particularly high tech. Let’s do it.

Roubini on debt and inequality

Leave a reply

Nouriel Roubini says the world is headed for a debt crisis. This kind of makes sense. Countries that have to repay their debts in U.S. dollars are in trouble as more of their currencies are required to buy a U.S. dollar. And everybody including the U.S. will be paying more in interest on their debts and this will cut into our budgets for other things.

Income and wealth inequality have been rising within countries for many reasons. Notable factors include trade and globalization, technological innovation (which is capital-intensive, skill-biased, and labor-saving), the self-reinforcing political power of economic and financial elites, the concentration of oligopolistic power in the corporate sector, and the declining power of labor and unions. Together, these factors have triggered a backlash against liberal democracy.

Project Syndicate

I’m with his logic up to that last sentence. Logically, the solution to these problems would seem to be more democracy rather than less. But we seem to be caught in a situation where the rich and powerful are able to influence the masses through propaganda to oppose policies that would help to address these very problems. Solutions would include (1) limits on the ability of wealthy people, institutions and corporations to pay for political campaigns that elect politicians who are then beholden to their interests, (2) value added taxes designed to raise revenue from the fruits of labor-saving technological innovation, which can then be spent on services to benefit the displaced laborers, and (3) anti-monopoly action, and (4) pro-union policies. I’m always a bit shaky on #4, because unions can serve as a break on innovation and efficiency, and they often benefit some workers at the expense of others, and they have a history of corruption. But they are undeniably a political counterweight to corporate power.

Progressive policies are popular, goddamnit!

Leave a reply

You see this in the media fairly often, and it is occasionally brought up by (losing) courageous politicians like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Large majorities of voters support benefits programs, particularly Medicare and Social Security. These politicians can’t get elected though because of the anti-tax narrative that is convenient for the wealthy and powerful interests that buy and own our successful politicians. So around and around we go.

Sensible policies are obvious. Incrementally lower eligibility ages, or at least allow younger citizens to opt in at cost. The latter would be win-win for everyone except the finance and insurance industries.

Political strategies are less obvious, and nothing that has been tried has worked lately. Politicians need to reach the same working class and professional crowd that is susceptible to the anti-tax message. A somewhat disingenuous approach would be to exaggerate the reach of those who are actually trying to dismantle the popular programs. Use their words against them, even out of context,and make their political and private associates guilty by association. Give the race and gender rhetoric a rest, because it is dividing the majority of voters you need to support sensible policies that are going to benefit disadvantaged groups the most. It’s a dirty game, but it’s a game the other side is going to play like it or not. Expand the benefits first, let people see and understand what they are getting for their taxes, and the benefits will be hard for future politicians to take away.

the Nordic welfare model

Leave a reply

This article explains that the Nordic welfare model succeeds by targeting the middle class, not just the poor. They provide services of high enough quality (child care, health care, education, unemployment, disability, retirement) that the private sector can’t compete. Then the middle class voters support the politicians who support the policies, and are willing to pay the taxes necessary to receive the benefits.

Seems simple, but it’s easy for anti-tax corporate and wealthy interests in the United States to prevent this feedback loop from getting established. They just spew propaganda and buy off politicians who are anti-tax and anti-deficit spending, so the government only has resources for limited programs targeting the poor, the middle class resents paying taxes and receiving little in return while having to pay for sub-par private benefits at the same time, and they continue to vote against policies to expand benefits. Breaking this loop would require a gamble on massive deficit spending (kinda sorta being tried now, legitimately during a crisis in my view) and/or constitutional changes/reinterpretation that stop the legalized propaganda and bribery (which would have to be enacted by the politicians who are being bribed, unless judges were to take the lead which seems unlikely).

a jumbo jet crashing every hour

Leave a reply

Here are some disturbing statistics on child mortality worldwide.

Child mortality refers to the death of children before their fifth birthday. We live in a world in which 5.4 million children die every year. That’s ten dead children every minute.

Imagine what it means for a child to lose his or her life; imagine what it means for a family to see their child die. Ten families will experience that in the next minute. This will repeat every minute for the rest of the year. That is the horror of child mortality.

These daily tragedies do not receive the attention they deserve. Comparing it with those tragedies that do receive public attention makes this clear. A large jumbo jet can carry up to 600 passengers.3 The number of child deaths is equivalent to a crash of a jumbo jet with only children on board, every hour of every day of the year. 

Max Roser, Our World in Data

It suggests a few points to me. One is that we are most scared and pay the most attention to new threats, like Covid or murder hornets. Meanwhile, old threats like car accidents, heart disease, and malaria cause suffering and death on a much larger scale. We are complacent and accepting of them either because they happen to other people far away (from the perspective of a prosperous country like the U.S.) or because they are so common we assume nothing can be done about them (traffic deaths).

Second, the enormous disparities between countries make it clear that something can be done about child mortality, and that it is a moral imperative to do so. It is not even high tech, it is just a failure of our civilization to recognize the problem, feel the responsibility, organize and act.

The plots of per capita income vs. child mortality are worth staring at. As the article drives home, there are no poor countries with low child mortality rates, suggesting that economic development is necessary in addition to direct interventions (nutrition, vaccination, sanitation, and health care are mentioned.) The U.S., of course, is in the group of richer nations with much lower child mortality rates than the poorer countries. But within its group, the U.S. is the clear laggard compared to the rest of the developed world. We are not applying our wealth and know-how effectively to keep our young children from dying.

poverty, race, and math

Leave a reply

Here’s some math on U.S. poverty.

  • from Census.gov: estimated U.S. population on July 1, 2019: 328,240,000
    • “Black or African American alone, percent”: 13.4% (this works out to 43,984,000, rounding all numbers to the nearest 1,000)
    • “White alone, percent”: 76.3% (this works out to 250,447,000)
  • from Urban Institute: U.S. poverty rate in 2021, all races: 13.7% (44,969,000)
    • Black poverty rate: 18.1% (7,961,000)
    • White poverty rate: 9.6% (24,043,000)

A few points/opinions, which I hope will not be too controversial.

  • A long history of legal and institutional racism in the U.S. is an obvious fact, a moral outrage, and needs to be corrected, particularly in housing and education.
  • A greater fraction of the black population is poor compared to the white population.
  • There are more poor white people than poor black people in the country.
  • You have to be careful comparing averages between groups of very different sizes.
  • From a moral perspective, if you want to help the most people, you would not only help black people. You would try to help people who need help in both groups, while trying to even out the disparities.
  • From a political perspective, an incessant focus on race, and rhetoric equating race and poverty, is going to turn off a lot of poor white voters. This ends up electing politicians who are not going to help poor people of either race.
  • There are other races, there are many mixes of races, and there are many confusing census questions about whether people consider themselves hispanic instead of or in addition to the other races. I am not a professional demographer, and do not know the absolute best way to handle these issues.

checking in with Noam Chomsky

Leave a reply

In this Alternet article, Noam Chomsky describes the business class as Marxists waging a class struggle. They never give up and working class is always on the defensive. So if the working class is less aggressive, which he says they have been since the “centrist Carter administration”, big business will get the upper hand as it has in the U.S. He sees some hope in the movement started by Bernie Sanders.

why inequality leads to crime and violence

Leave a reply

In a rational choice model, cheating and stealing can become rational when people have less to lose from not cheating and stealing than they risk by cheating and stealing. And if they don’t trust one another, they are even more likely to cheat and steal. The more unequal a society is, the more likely people will fall below the threshold where they judge they have nothing to lose, and the less trust there will be between and within social classes.

 If your current resources are above the threshold, then, under the assumptions we make, it is not worth stealing. Instead, you should cooperate as long as you judge that the others around you are likely to do so too, and just work alone otherwise. If your resources are around or below the threshold, however, then, under our assumptions, you should pretty much always steal. Even if it makes you worse off on average.

This is a pretty remarkable result: why would it be so? The important thing to appreciate is that with our threshold, we have introduced a sharp non-linearity in the fitness function, or utility function, that is assumed to be driving decisions. Once you fall down below that threshold, your prospects are really dramatically worse, and you need to get back up immediately. This makes stealing a worthwhile risk. If it happens to succeed, it’s the only action with a big enough quick win to leap you back over the threshold in one bound. If, as is likely, it fails, you are scarcely worse off in the long run: your prospects were dire anyway, and they can’t get much direr. So the riskiness of stealing – it sometimes you gives you a big positive outcome and sometimes a big negative one – becomes a thing you should seek rather than avoid…

So if making sentences tougher does not solve the problems of crime in high-inequality populations, according to the model, is there anything that does? Well, yes: and readers of this blog may not be surprised to hear me mention it. Redistribution. If people who are facing desperation can expect their fortunes to improve by other means, such as redistributive action, then they don’t need to employ such desperate means as stealing. They will get back up there anyway. Our model shows that a shuffling of resources so that the worst off are lifted up and the top end is brought down can dramatically reduce stealing, and hence increase trust. (In an early version of this work, we simulated the effects of a scenario we named ‘Corbyn victory’: remember then?).

Daniel Nettle

Well, you can redistribute, or there are other options. The highest social classes could maintain the social order through sheer force. Or they could try to achieve the same ends through ideology and propaganda that convince the lower classes the social order is natural or desirable, or they can try to use ideology and propaganda to divide the lower classes and turn them on each other. The guy on the second rung from the bottom may very well be willing to kick the guy on the bottom rung in the teeth to keep him from climbing, and thank the people higher up for the opportunity even while they are shitting on his head. Which of these options sounds good to you probably depends on which rung of the ladder you happen to be standing on, and the rung you happen to be standing on is probably within a couple rungs of the one you were born on, in most cases.

Is a modern U.S. civil war possible, and if so what could it look like?

Leave a reply

This article in The Week argues that civil wars can take a variety of forms, so we shouldn’t be overconfident that one is impossible just because we don’t have an obvious geographic basis for one.

  • The original U.S. civil war is a somewhat obvious example of a geography-based conflict. Although, I see it as less of a territorial dispute and more of an economic and class conflict, rationalized and manipulated by racial and religious ideology.
  • Yugoslavia in the 1990s was an ugly conflict between ethnic and religious groups who were interspersed geographically. Rwanda isn’t mentioned but I understand it to be similar, although I don’t fully understand either of these conflicts.
  • The English Civil War “that raged from 1642-1651, pitting the crown against parliament, cities and towns dominated by a rising commercial middle class against the aristocratic countryside, and the staid religious convictions of the ruling class against the theologically driven radicalism of more demotic religious sects.” Okay, I’m almost completely ignorant of this one, because I was only taught U.S. history in school and haven’t gone back to study this one on my own. Perhaps the Crown whipped up a crowd of supporters and said something like, “Hey, why don’t you guys go over there and storm Parliament and have a portrait painted (no cameras yet) of yourselves naked except for a pair of Viking horns”?
  • I did read A Tale of Two Cities in high school, but I always thought that book was false advertising because it was 99% about the French side. I’m not an expert on the French Revolution (not mentioned in the article) by any means, but I understand it to be mostly a class conflict – a revolt of the poor and working class against an exploitative aristocracy. The conditions that could spark something like this would seem to be ripening in the U.S. as wealth and income inequality get objectively worse, but watching Bernie Sanders (who to be clear, advocates peaceful income redistribution to avoid the heads rolling) lose last year convinced me the propaganda here has been so successful for so long among the working and middle classes that this is unlikely. Put another way, our working and middle classes misunderstand the cause of our suffering and have been convinced to support the people causing it, or at least enough of us do that we are hopelessly divided for now. Bernie tried and failed twice (and before that, Ralph Nader tried and not only failed but set the cause back by 20 years), but maybe a more charismatic or more skilled Bernie/Nader will come along in the future, and conditions will have worsened in the meantime.
  • The Troubles in Northern Ireland. I understand this as a group with an ethnic and religious identity wanting regional autonomy, and a central government fighting that, leading to a long, low-intensity insurgency and counter-insurgency conflict. This is happening all over the world (the south of Thailand is just one example I am familiar with), but I don’t see obvious parallels in the United States. The repression of the war on drugs and mass incarceration have some echoes of this perhaps, with the Black Lives Matter movement emerging as a somewhat organized, nonviolent form of resistance. Perhaps it could turn violent if something like the Black Panther movement of the 1960s were to re-emerge.
  • Not mentioned in this article is the increase in right-wing militia groups. Their rhetoric is violent, anti-government, sometimes racist although I don’t believe all these groups identify as racist or white supremacist. It’s not exactly clear to me what they want other than disorder.
  • The Spanish Civil War “that shattered the Iberian Peninsula into a multitude of factions — from anarchists, Stalinists, and anti-clerical absolutists on the left to fascists and Catholic authoritarians on the right — between 1936 and 1939.” Again, my formal education was a complete failure and I am ignorant of this one. Maybe Biden has been fooling us and he will now reveal his true colors as the new Franco/Mussolini/Catholic authoritarian/Emperor Palpatine/Voldemort clone. After all, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Now, continuing this line of thought, who could Joe Biden appoint as Grand Inquisitor? My first thought is Mike Pence. However, an Inquisition will need to be good at things like contact tracing, isolation of victims, and disposal of bodies, and Pence failed his audition as head of the coronavirus virus task force. So I’ll go with Rick Santorum, former Senator from Pennsylvania, who just might have the right combination of political skills, religious fervor and psychopathy to get the job done.

how to collect more taxes without raising taxes

Leave a reply

This Alternet article explains how the IRS has been defunded and hobbled over the last few decades. The rich are able to lobby for all kinds of loopholes and then find ways to exploit them, of course, but even if they outright cheat they are unlikely to get caught. Working people are audited at much higher rates. Audits for the rich and powerful are way down, and tax fraud prosecutions have been almost nonexistent under Trump. The article estimates $47.5 billion could be collected by auditing rich people. It’s good to keep that in perspective though of the annual federal budget of 4-5 trillion. So it would be a one-time recovery of around 1% of the budget. It would be enough to get a baby bond program going. You could give about $11,000 to each of the 4 million babies born in the U.S. in one year (but only that one year), or you could give less and spread it out over more years, or you could give it just to poor babies and spread it out.